ANALYSIS OF NEW SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN KAVALA’S HISTORICAL CENTRE .

INTERREG PAGUS PROJECT

KAVALA OCTOBER 2007

Study : TYROLOGOS KYRIAKOS Civil Engineer – Transport Engineer PETAMIDΙS CHARALAMΒOS Urban Planner – Transport Engineer

REGION OF EAST MACEDONIA AND THRACE

PREFECTURE OF DRAMA KAVALA AND XANTHI

Member regions:LEAD PARTNER N. 1 - REGIONE UMBRIA - ITALY PARTNER N. 2 - XUNTA DE GALICIA - SPAIN PARTNER N. 3 - JUNTA DE ANDALUCIA - SPAIN PARTNER N. 4 - AMAVE (Associaçao Municipios Ave) - PORTUGAL PARTNER N. 5 - EAST MAKEDONIA / THRACE - GREECE PARTNER N. 6 - VALLETTA - MALTA

PAGUS main objectives :

to develop strategies and common instruments for the sustainable rehabilitation and development of historical cities, through different and integrated types of actions:

●Facilitate the permanence of residents

●High quality training of all the involved actors in the main sectors of the urban development

●Identify new professional skills and expertise in urban integrated development policies

Main orientations of project activities

• Improvement and implementation of professional skills of the different actors and experts involved in the urban development process and transference of know-how between partner regions.

• Analysis, research and experimentation of new sustainable systems for urban mobility and goods distribution in historical town centres, identification of innovative control and monitoring technologies.

• Definition and experimentation of the best integrated systems of urban information and citizens participation in the planning and management of the historical centres.

Alternative non polluting transportation systems in Panagia and Kastro region Kavala

Transportation systems cost benefit analysis. Tariff policies in Panagia and Kastro region Kavala.

KAVALA HISTORICAL CENTRE - PANAGIA STUDIES

Alternative non polluting transportation systems

in Panagia and Kastro region Kavala

1.Defining the area.

2. Urban analysis. (Historical data, Land use, Infrastructure, Population)

2.Transportation analysis (Road network, Urban transportation systems, Safety, Parking, Signing, Area approaches, Points of conflict).

3.Existing urban transportation systems in the area (Passenger volumes recording and analysis, car volumes recording and analysis).

4.Informing the public.

5.Presentation of alternative – non polluting transportation systems available

6.Evaluation criteria implementation – Weights

7.Evaluation results

8.Preliminary technical data for the top 3 systems

9.Second public information meeting

10.Reevaluation with public participation

Kavala plan and Panagia region

Panagia region land use Population density

Road infrastructure

Small train passenger volumes recording

Statistical analysis

Private car volumes recording

Informing the public

Informing the publicInvited local authorities

Municipality of Kavala city

Prefecture of Kavala

Kavala Port authority

Kavala traffic police

Kavala Fire department

Panagia residents association

Archaeological agency

Urban mass transit company

Long distance transit company

Taxi company

Technical Chamber of Greece – Kavala dept

Commercial Chamber of Kavala

Public Land Company

Imaret Hotel and Restaurant

Kavala members of Parliament

Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace

Region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace

Questionnaire

Questionnaire

1. Which is the biggest problem in Panagia region?

2. What is your opinion about traffic conditions in the region?

3. What is the best measure for the improvement of traffic conditions in Panagia?

Mass Transit Systems, pedestrianization of main streets, segmental restriction of

private car access, mass restriction of private car access, traffic and parking

control by traffic and municipality police.

4. What is your opinion about the small train?

5. What is needed for the improvement of the small train? Routes, timetables,

vehicles, new lines, measures for the priority of small train to private cars

6. What is your opinion about the commercial land use in Panagia region?

7. Rate the proposed alternative urban transit systems ?

The most proper, Small buses, Tram, aerial cableway, Elevator, combination of

elevator and tunnel, combination of elevator and bridge, none.

Results.

1.Which is the biggest problem in Panagia region?

Traffic 70 %, cleaning 7,5 %, retaining traditional character 7,5 %.

2. What is your opinion about traffic conditions in the region?

44,5 % Little satisfactory - 40,5 % Not satisfactory – 15 % Very satisfactory

3. What is the best measure for the improvement of traffic conditions in Panagia?

Mass Transit Systems 44,44 %, pedestrianization of main streets 7,5 %,

segmental restriction of private car access 51,85 %, mass restriction of private car

access 7,5 %, traffic and parking control by traffic and municipality police 33,33 %.

4. What is your opinion

about the small train?

Timetable 55,55 %

Vehicles 26,00 %

Route 7,50 %

Running hours 40,75 %

New lines 15,00 %

Traffic priority measures 11,10 %

Exclusive traffic measures 11,10 %

5. What is needed for the improvement of the small train?

Commercial land use support aiming to touristic development 32 %

All land uses are necessary 24 %

Commercial land use restriction and control 16 %

Need for urban land use study 16 %

No to Commercial land use in Panagia region 4 %

Don’t care 8 %

6. What is your opinion about the commercial land use in Panagia region?

Traffic system RATINGaverage

Number of answers

Total rating Number of answers

‘very good’

Number of answers

‘not good’

The most proper 9,2 6 55 5 0

Small buses 6,8 22 150 8 3

Tram 3,7 18 66 3 10

Aerial cableway 5,3 18 96 4 5

Elevator 8,0 19 152 10 0

Elevator and tunnel 6,0 20 119 8 5

Elevator and bridge 4,6 18 83 2 5

None 0 6 0 0 6

7. Rate the proposed alternative urban transit

systems ?

Α) Elevators (inclined or vertical)Β) Funicular C) Aerial cablewayD) Escalators Ε) TramF) Bio diesel and electrical vehicles

Presentation of alternative – non polluting transportation systems available

Factors examined :

usual and max travel length, speed, transportation capacity, elevation, inclination, implementation cost, operation cost, need for terminals, need for vehicle service facilities, operating personnel, pollution, noise, implementation examples.

Graz

Lyon

Barcelona

Hong Kong

Tenerife

Utrecht

7.1. Criteria implementation - Weight

1.Social1. Transportation capacity – covering transportation needs 72. Accessibility improvement 153. Mobility improvement 84. Inflictions 10

B. Economic1. Implementation cost 7 2. Operation cost 43. Service cost 44. Profit 55. Indirect profit 10

C. Spatial1. Adaptation to area topography 102. Adaptation to infrastructure network 103. Adaptation to public space condition 10

TOTAL 100

835100702100716100770100695100852100TOTAL(max 1000)

320270300330270380C(max 300)

90109601069010970107601061001010C3

80108601068010880108601061001010C2

80108601067010780108601061001010C1

18595143165125185Β(max 300)

70107901096010610010109010980108Β5

355735573557455935573557Β4

40410164424463248244640410Β3

40410164428473248244640410Β2

70710287456785678427670710Β1

330337273275300287Α (max 400)

90109601067010780108601061001010Α4

648872895687488664884085Α3

120158135159105157105157120158105157Α2

5678707104276427656784276Α1

ΣΒΑΣΒΑΣΒΑΣΒΑΣΒΑΣΒΑCriteria

Alternative fuelTramEscalatorsAerial Cableway

FunicularElevatorSYSTEM

Transportation system Final Rating (max 1000)

1. Elevator 852

2. Alternative fuel 835

3. Aerial cableway 770

4. Escalators 716

5. Tram 702

6. Funicular 695

Second public information meeting

Presentation of :

●Public consultation results

●Evaluation results

●Top three rated - transportation systems with data and examples

●Reevaluation questionnaire

Reevaluation with public participation

rating Number of answers

Total Number of “highest grating”

Number of “not good”

Elevator8,48 20 169,5 10 0

Alternative fuel

6,38 20 127,5 8 4

Aerial cableway 5,42 18 97,5 3 3

Reevaluation First evaluation Difference

Elevator 848 852 - 4

Alternative fuel 638 835 -197

Aerial cableway 542 770 -228

580.000,00 €Total cost

250.000,00 €01 / 1006 / 096 months6. Construction

06 / 0909 / 086 months5. Services approvals

50.000,00 €09 / 0803 / 086 months4. Elevator implementation study (architectural, statics, electromechanical, lighting)

03 / 0803 /071 year3. Various public services approvals.

30.000,00 €03 / 0701 / 072 months2. Preliminary study

250.000,00 €01 / 0901 / 07 2 years1. Acquisition of the land (military property)

Cost estimation

End dateStart date

Time needed

Action

Timetable and cost estimation

Transportation systems cost benefit analysis – Tariff policies

in Panagia and Kastro region Kavala

Contents

1.Study objectives

2. Urban and transportation planning analysis of the area

Public transportation networks in the area

3. Consultation, public participation and information

4. Cost – Benefit analysis of the existing public transportation system

5. Study for the rationalization of the existing public transportation

system (Planning principals, Objectives, Proposed actions, Expected

results, Evaluation indicators)

6. Tariff policies (Policies objectives, User categorization, Incentives and

subsidies ,Proposed actions.

7. Informing the public about urban transportation systems

Study objectives

●To promote the use of urban transportation systems

●To provide the tools for the improvement of urban mobility

●To propose actions for the improvement of the existing transportation system – small train

Narrow stone paved roads

Pulidu street is the main and wider road in the region

Road network Big percentage of the streets are stairs

Illegal parking Common practice in the city, residents of Panagia park their cars on a public square next to historical monuments

Parking problems

Only a small number of residences on Pulidu street have private parking spots.

Logistics

Providing commercial stores with goods without timetable restrains causes traffic congestion

Transportation problems

The small train travels in a single route through narrow streets

Monday – Saturday 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 20:45

Sundays and holidays 09:30 10:00 11:00 12:00 12:30 17:30 18:00 19:00 20:00 20:30

Mass transit systems – Small train

Cost benefit analysis on different urban transportation systems

●Vehicle acquisition cost

●Operation cost

●Operation subsidy

●Travel time

●Internal accident

●External accident

●Parking in public place

●Parking in private area

●Traffic congestion

●Road infrastructure

●Street side land value

●Municipality services

Different kind of costs must be considered and measured in order to evaluate urban transportation system. Internal or external cost, standard or varied.

●Equity

●Aerial pollution

●Noise

●Fuel consumption

●Exclusion

●Land use results

●Parking in public place

●Water pollution

●Waste disposal

Electric Vehicle €

Hybrid € Small train €

Fuel 0.1 0.14 0.6Maintenance 2.8 0.6 0.7

Tyres 0.11 0.11 0.15Operational cost / km 3.1 0.85 1.45

Insurance 280 280 350Travel tax 146 146 205Depreciation 3200 3200 4000Total cost per year 3626 3626 4555

8000 klm/year 0.4 0.4 0.57Total cost/km 3.5 1.25 2.02

Public transportation systems comparative analysis

cost Hybrid vehicle Electrical vehicle Small train

vehicle 1.25 3.5 2.02

route 0.41 0.41 0.52

parking 3.09 3.09 4.3

Traffic congestion 0.19 0.19 0.25

Road infrastructure 0.07 0.07 0.09

Street side land value 0.024 0.024 0.024

Road services 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125

Aerial pollution 0.078 0.072 0.173

Noise 0.04 0.03 0.06

Total 5.16 7.39 7.44

Public transportation systems comparative analysis

Cost benefit analysis conclusions

●Small train has the biggest cost than the other two systems

●The difference between the small train cost and the electrical

vehicle cost is small due to big operational cost of the electrical

vehicle

●Best ratings and smaller costs for the hybrid vehicles

●There is a big difference between the two bus systems (hybrid

and electrical) and the small train in aerial pollution and noise

Study for the rationalization of the existing public transportation systemGoals :

●Raise of passengers in Panagia urban transportation line●System effectiveness improvement●Road safety improvement ●Mobility improvement for residents and visitors

Proposed actions:

●Route (and alternative routes)●Operation timetable●Trip frequency●Vehicle●Equipment (bus stops, signing)●Traffic improvement●General (logo, Information, guided tours)

Vehicle testing

With the help of the local bus company president (professional driver) a small 20 seat bus was tested on the basic small train route and the proposed alternative routes in order to make sure that the proposals can be implemented.

Proposed new terminal

Kavala’s main public square just opposite of the present terminal

Tariff policies

User categories:

●Children●Pupils●Students●Young adults●Elderly●Families●Disabled●Tourists●Big families●Low income

people●Working people●Teams

Other city examples:

●Athens●Hamburg●Amsterdam●Barcelona●Berlin●Brussels●Geneva●Dublin●Helsinki●Lisbon●London●Madrid●Bilbao●Oslo●Paris●Prague●Stockholm ●Frankfurt

Alternative pricing systems:

●Single tariff●by travel length●by travel time●Multi zone ●by period of travel●by transport service

provided●by user category●ticketing

Proposed actions for Panagia

●Ticket price 0,50 Euros for all alternative routes for a two year period

●Integration to city’s urban transportation system after that and same

pricing as other bus lines

●Park and ride pricing with the “Teloneio” parking – Free bus ticket with

the parking receipt

●Special tourist ticket for one day

●Discount on special social groups (elderly and disabled) 20 cents

●Weak and month discount tickets (15 and 50 Euros)

●Line organized by the municipality and operated by the local

transportation company

Informing the public about urban transportation system

General principals:

●Variety in forms and kinds

●Consistency and persistency

●One morphologic character

Thank you