Mutação na mobilidade urbana

477 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
477
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mutação na mobilidade urbana

  1. 1. Máster en Desarrollo Urbano y TerritorialMutation in Urban Mobility César Trapote Barreira 14.04.2011
  2. 2. Introduction CENIT Center for Innovation in Transport (CENIT) . 2001 - 2011: 10 years of innovation Consortium Technical University of Catalonia (Barcelona Tech) + regional govmnt. 2
  3. 3. IntroductionTransportation projects 3
  4. 4. Towards Smart Urban Mobility Guidelines to see a clear picture and to find our way… towards smart urban mobility 4 www.eltis.org
  5. 5. Economic corridors Sustainable, safe and intelligent urban mobility – Seamless door-to-door mobility (regardless of mode) – “City” is a generic concept: common mobility principles for European citiesX – Mayors will likely welcome EU policy on pricing and regulation – Best cases: eltis.orgSustainable development is son of Economy + EcologyLove or interested marriage ?Technology may take leaps (non-continuous improvement of quality)XXIst century will likely be characterized by urban mobility 5
  6. 6. Change of paradigm  From designing and constructing infrastructures to service inception and management (dynamic processes vs. Static objects) System analysis including the foreseeable Infrastructures to satisfy the stakeholder’s behavior mobility of people (+goods) Rational planning with global perspective Global Local but with local implementation (subsidiarity) Think Act Critical mass and catalyzer effects  Functional legislation (continuous variables, administrations, multimodality, surveillance, etc.) Supply Ley 20/1991  Economic logicUnit cost Accesibilidad Universal Demand en el TP, Cataluña Critical Size 6 size
  7. 7. Urban transportation microeconomics Marginal CAverage$/km Unit Demand cost (social) cost Demand PV Average PT cost (users) Cmarginal Tasa p’ p” Deficit p* Social Current Flow Trips R’ R* equilibrium equilibrium (veh/h) flow flow PV must be taxed to internalize the generated externalities $/q(TP) $/q(VP) PT (transit) should have subsidies to CMe TP benefit the maximum number of users CMe VP We all worsen off by improving the PV PT is an inferior good and needs Q Conjoint / coupled layout, operations 7 q(TP) q(VP) and pricing
  8. 8. Mutation in urban mobilityOld concepts New conceptsFunctionalism SustainabilityDiffuse city (urban sprawl) Compact citySpecialization of land uses Multifunctional city European cities as aDirect costs of operation Ecological accounting social project ofPendulous mobility (commuting) Cloud-shaped mobilityRequired (household-based) mobility Daily mobility integrationTransport policy Mobility policy and right to accessibilityLong distance ProximityLongitudinal use of the street Cross-street use – Democratization of the street – Human cities – Diversity – Integration – Systems approach 8
  9. 9. European cities for the people Smart, livable and efficient cities WALK TRANSIT CAR 9
  10. 10. The role of ICT in mobilityWe move atoms with energy, electrons and photons“The end of distance”. 10 millionteleworks in 2000 StrategicTelematics in all TERN in 2000 and Tacticalin 30 metropolitan areas Operational Bangemann Report “Europe and the global information society” (Corfu, 1994):
  11. 11. Oops! Forgot the stakeholder behavior Administration, operators, users, citizens New demand models, game theory, etc. Multidisciplinary cross-fertilization HOV N-VI CBA? Madrid 11
  12. 12. Re-engineering & systems approach No epic/bold changes? Re-engineering is radiKal!• Innovation is doing things “right”• Intelligence ITS = R+D+i = ?• Known concepts (functional laws) with “new chemistry” (reactives + catalyzers) & boosted with ICT and intelligence 12
  13. 13. We need basic research Sound behavioral models = basic research• False planning:• Tracking obsession• A simple bottleneck: – Mobility demand models need to be reformulated – Dynamic real time micro-simulations reproduce the same (outdated) philosophy of 60’s 13
  14. 14. The transportation system ETC. STAKEHOLDERS SOCIETY MOTOR CONTAINER CONTROL WAYBUSINESS TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT ENERGY CULTURE 14
  15. 15. City as a complex service network Local Car (P&P) Accessibility Tram-train P Bus lane-BRT-HOV P&R P P Car Car (P&R) Microbus/shared Global taxicabs (DRS) Accessibility 15
  16. 16. Mode promiscuity & convergence (1)   Eco- mobility PV Transit The extreme converge Railpedes- bicycle car motor- taxi bus BRTtrian cycle shared / public HOV LRT metro commuter “BiCiNg” carsharing rail 16
  17. 17. Promiscuity and convergence (2) 17
  18. 18. Promiscuity and convergence (3) 18
  19. 19. Mode adequacy (1) Non-continuous technological supply (but continuous demand) 1, 2, 3 lanes… Play with time (traffic signals), multi-purpose lanes, pricing…Demand pedestrian bus car plane Functional parameters to describe mobility d, t, v Gabriel Bouladon (1967) “The transportation gaps” 19
  20. 20. Mode adequacy (2)Temporal coverage (When do you want to travel)Spatial coverage (Where do you want to travel)Speed (Fast and reliable) Temporal coverage Private car Spatial coverage Bus Metro Speed 20
  21. 21. Mode adequacy (3)Status Quo• Individual transportation (car, motorcycle): – When do you want to travel?: Yes – Where do you want to travel?: Yes View: – Is it fast?: Yes• Public transportation (metro): • Public transportation (netbus): – When do you want to travel?: Yes – When do you want to travel: Yes – Where do you want to travel?: No – Where do you want to travel: Yes – Fast?: Yes – Is it fast?: Yes• Public transportation (bus): – When do you want to travel?: No – Where do you want to travel: Yes Cheaper, easier and – Is it fast?: No more convenient 21
  22. 22. Mode adequacy (4) What is the “optimal” transport mode for a given corridor? 14 12 10Milions deuros 8 6 4 2 0 1 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 Viatgers/dia Autobús Ferrocarril Vehicle Privat 22
  23. 23. Mode adequacy (5) Competitiveness of urban transportation modes C inf: Infraestructure cost Cop: Operation cost Cu : Users cost Cext: Cost of externalities Lines of Z=ct. for each pair of modes Optimal region of operation Passengers per dayPassengers per day Tr Ba Bc Headway (min) Headway (min) Bc: standard bus (80 people), Ba: articulated bus (140 people), Tr: Tramway (220 people) 23
  24. 24. The power of density and occupancy In the beginning of Universe, it was gravity…. (Stephen Hawking)“In the beginning of mobility, it was density”…. (Francesc Robusté) 24
  25. 25. BRTs “we take you fast… to nowhere” ? Think as a 2D network! 25
  26. 26. NB Netbus (1)Reinvention and promotion of efficient urban bus services,competitive with tramways and cars • Strategic vs. operational decisions • Flexibility of buses vs. rigidity of railways M R T NB B b 26
  27. 27. NB Netbus (2)Grid (Holroyd, 1965) Radial or hub & spoke (Air tr. 1980’s) Hybrid (Daganzo, 2009) 27
  28. 28. NB Netbus (3) • INFRASTRUCTURAL • TRAVEL TIME:NB • OPERATIONAL – Bus lane (single, double) – Bus lane in the median of road • VEHICLE-ORIENTED – Fluctuations smoothing (L/U, works, garbage containers, cleaning vehicles, etc.) Capacity is interaction supply- demand and depends on • STOP TIME: behavior and management – Multiple platform – Platform on sidewalk – Ticketing • JOINT OPTIMIZATION: – Stop spacing – Pairing control – Reliability – Entries coordination in corridors – TSP, transit signal priority 28
  29. 29. Fare integration, ticketing and MTA Smartcard 29
  30. 30. CSI in transit 30
  31. 31. L9 metro lineL9: 44 km, 46 stations, 15 interchanges, automatic, €8,5 billion 31
  32. 32. Traffic (1) MFD of traffic in quarters (regardless of O/D !!!) 1500000 1500000 1200000 Outflow 1200000 Travel Production Travel Production 900000 900000 Yokohama 600000Network Flow 600000 300000 300000 00 SFO 00 2000 2000 4000 4000 Vehicle Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation 6000 6000 8000 8000 10000 10000 Nairobi “Cities can regulate congestion with traffic lights Network Vehicle Density of the XXI century” Managed lanes Congestion pricing Speed has a Integration price (economic, with parking. social, Pareto environmental) optimum 32
  33. 33. Traffic (2) São Paulo, 2007Barcelona, 2008 33
  34. 34. Traffic (3) Radars & sensors 34
  35. 35. Taxicabs (1) Understanding the taxi business and its role in UM 8000 Costes sociales Supply of the proposed 7000 measure Current supply 6000 Optimal supply 5000 +Emisiones Number of taxis +Congestión 4000 - Nivel de vida 3000 2000 Número óptimo Número de taxis 1000 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 hourly zones of a day₋ Fleet management₋ Radio-taxi₋ Intelligent taxi stops₋ Licenses (vehicles) vs. drivers (turns)₋ Scheduling and supply/demand matching 35
  36. 36. Taxicabs (2)Distribution of taxicab demand, revenues and supply according to hours INGRESSOS SEGONS FRANJA HORÀRIA FEINER 35 DISSABTE € 30 DIUMENGE 25 20 15 10 5 0 HORA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Profitability: taxi business? Return On Equity adapted to taxi owners (“reasonable business profit”) The asset is the taxi license (market value?) Indicator 2007 2009 Income per hour 19.42 € 17.65 € Number of services per hour 2.19 services 1.88 services CSI = 5.9 Average service time 13.65 min 12.56 min 36
  37. 37. Urban freight distribution (DUMB) (1) Multi-purpose lanes and VMS 8-10 am traffic 10 am – 5 pm L/U 5-9 pm traffic 9 pm-8 am parkingSMILE project under ELTIS(www.eltis.org): reversible Lightsmultiuse street lanes Zone Access Control system in center 37
  38. 38. Urban freight distribution (DUMB) (2) Timing L/U operations – sticker “clock” W orkdays 9 to 20 h Except authorised Un/loading 30 min max. 38
  39. 39. Customer informationReal time customer information means efficiency, modernity and transparency 39
  40. 40. City planning Multipolar and “self-containing” City PlanningMobility Law, 2003Decree of Generated Mobility, 2006 Integration: a social project -Chamfered corners Ildefons Cerdà -5-6 stories high (Pral) -Garden inside “Network -Shops at street level “The city of the future…” Urbanism” -Sidewalks to enjoy city Is the Mediterranean city! “General Theory of Urbanization”, 1867 Barcelona “broadening” Eixample, 1859 40
  41. 41. Supply (pull) vs demand (push) models City planning perspective : OK but link toland value “Tiro por la culata” “Do the homework” Pitis Chemical reaction: catalyzers, criticalmasses, humidity, temperature, reactivequality, etc. 41
  42. 42. Urban street safety DriverStreet Vehicle Urban safety audits 42
  43. 43. TSM – ITS – Sustainable mobility TSM: Transportation System TSM Management TDM: Travel Demand Management MM: Mobility Management TSupplyM Economically competitive TDM Eco- mobility ICT Sustainable Mobility Sustainable Environmentally ITS Mobility Socially fair responsibleSustainable transportation : permanent regime 43
  44. 44. Sustainability Diffuse emissions and health problems Energy consumption, energy type and emissions Energy policy Energy pricing Fleet renewal (RENOVE plan): de pre-Euro a Euro-V Eco-mobility Electric and hybrid vehicles Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (PMUS - IDAE) CORINAIR, European Environmental agency 44
  45. 45. Sustainable Urban Mobility PlansPMUS: more than recipes, just an enthusiastic description of casesPublic transport interchangesParking regulation and pricingRoad pricingTraffic restricted areasBoosting bicycles and walkingMore quality in public transportFlexible supply to fit demandLogistic platforms for loading and unloadingTele-workingCarsharing centersEtc. 45
  46. 46. Towards a KPI of Urban Mobility Objective: give a city a “grade” about mobility and follow itAttributes (some measured): • Unit social cost of overcoming a distance ($/pax-km) − Mobility behavior patterns − Land use patterns and city planning issues • Space distribution Policy objectives? • Time distribution Measure attributes • Modal split Decide some weights • Safety • Reliability Aggregate Mobility Indicator • Sustainability (similar to CSI in transit) • (Energy) • (Emissions) • (ICT technology) • Social equity: income, gender, MRP (universal accessibility) • Perception (weights from local surveys) 46
  47. 47. Future of Urban Transport (Europe) European Parliament, 2010 (under publication)Most of the innovation in urban mobility will comefrom the re-engineering of old concepts with thehelp of ICT: success or failure of implementationwill depend on a package of „soft‟ managementmeasures that involve understanding stakeholderbehavior and managing the system in anintegrated, efficient and dynamic (real-time) way,rather than on „hard‟ physical infrastructure ornew vehicles. New energy sources for vehicles aretactical changes; however, the physical or functionalaspects of overcoming a certain distance at acertain speed will remain. 47
  48. 48. 2050 scenario in Europe• IN • OUT− Pedestrians − Segways− Bicycles, eBicycles, eBikes − Kickbicycles, tricycles− Buses, netbus, proximity bus − Motorcycles with 3 wheels− Metros and commuter rails − Lean cars− eCars, eFreight distribution − PRT, AGT, monorails− Carpool and shared vehicles − Trolley buses− Managed lanes, VVI, IVI − Paratransit with microbuses− Pricing and fare integration − AMW moving walkways− Planning, land price, legislation, − Freight in tramways / metros governance… − Speed− Elderly, handicapped & MRP− Urban safety 48
  49. 49. Barcelona model (1)“Barcelona model” of mobility (2006): Safety Sustainability Social equity Efficiency Agreement (deal) and social consensus Metropolitan mobility perspective 49
  50. 50. Barcelona model (2)•Social integration: “Gaixample” (Gay Eixample)•Network thinking: use the grid and kill the diagonals•Recuperate public space taking it from cars: broadeningof sidewalks, reduce number of lanes (after public works), etc.•More squares, boulevards & meeting points for people•Each decade a “mission” or huge project: Olympics1992, Forum of cultures 2004, 22@ 2010, Sagrera 2020 50
  51. 51. Barcelona model (3)• Promote PT: metro (L9+L10, expansions of the others),tramways, buses (RetBus, conventional, microbuses)• Promote bicycles (BiCiNg) and walking• Quality city planning elements• Public logistics platforms• Innovation: multi-purpose lanes, carsharing, etc.• Parking (on-street & off-street) regulation and pricing• Do not segregate but integrate: down with viaducts(Ronda del Mig), infra-dimensioned arterials (Ronda Litoral)• Surface and air space of the street belongs to people• Mixed land uses (down with zoning like Brasilia) Good building designers do not necessarily make good cities 51
  52. 52. Int’l: Bicycle-sharing City Area Population Stations Bicycles Performance (Km2) (million)Barcelona 101 1.6 401 6,000 Good serviceLondon 1,572 7.6 315 5,000 Low coverage To beSan Francisco 121 0.8 50 1000 implemented It’s just theWashington 177 5.2 10 120 beginning Good coverage.Montreal 365 1.6 400 5,000 Weather? 52
  53. 53. Int’l: Segregated lanes BLIP or IBL BLIPBLIP BUS BLIP BUS 53
  54. 54. Int’l: Combo Smartcard iBUS - mBUSCongestion Charge in London 54
  55. 55. Vision and leadership R+D+i PROPHET POET COACH THERAPISTSource: Mikel Murga, MIT, who adapted it from a presentation by Marc J. Roberts TimeHarvard School of Public Health 55
  56. 56. CENIT books on Urban MobilityURBAN MOB ILITY 56
  57. 57. Conclusions• “Package of soft management measures” in urban transportation (enhanced by ITS) as opposed to single hard physical infrastructures of “technology driven innovations”• Re-engineering of current mobility services• Think in 2D networks instead of corridors or 1D services• Focus on the people and stakeholders behavior• Promiscuity and convergence of urban mobility modes• Emissions will improve but urban safety and congestion will remain• Need “functional” laws and governance in mobility• Democratize street public space 57
  58. 58. Gracias por su atención

×