Donal McDaid. Transport in a Metropolis. Issues and Solutions

Presentation to Moscow Urban Forum | 8th December 2011

We shape a better world | www.arup.com

Transport in a Metropolis

Issues and Solutions

Infrastructure & Technologies(Transport Issues in a Metropolis)

Presentation Content

• Introduction

• Survey of travel behavior in Russian cities

• Benchmarking Internationally – C40 cities

• Where do we go from here?

• Summary and conclusions


Travel behaviour in Russian Cities



• Research Study by Arup into

travel demand and patterns in

Moscow, Saint Petersburg and

Krasnodar

• Objective was to understand

peoples perception of current

transport provision, reasons for

personal travel behavior and

barriers to change

• Transport Research (2010)

based on:

‒ passenger interviews

‒ user preference surveys



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Germany UK USA Czech Republic

Russia Brazil Turkey China India

• Moscow and Russia figures well below EU and US

• Significant scope for large increases in car ownership

• This needs to be planned for and tackled now

Car Ownership (cars per 1,000 population)


Survey Findings - Moscow Commuter Travel

• Large share of commuting by public transport;

• Relatively low car use, 18 – 20%;

• Low share of walking trips (less than 10%)

• No cycling.

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

Private Car Metro / Trains Surface PT Walking


• Car ownership is lower than in most European conurbations

• Commuter daily car use is also lower (about 21%) - congestion is

however comparable or worse than in many of those conurbations

Survey Findings - Comparison of mode choice

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Krasnodar Moscow Saint Petersburg

Warsaw Barcelona Amsterdam Copenhagen

Others

Cycle

Walk

PT

Car


25,4%

5,2%

35,8%33,7%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

Work / Home

Location

Price Comfort Time

Reasons to use private car?

Survey Findings – Private car use


49% workers predominantly park their car on-street, free of charge – this generates additional traffic

and congestion during peak periods;

paid car parking is rare (11%) – Wide availability of free car parking is likely to favour use of the

private car over alternative modes. (Scope to increase? Instrument for raising funds?)

almost no Park and Ride (4%) – potential associated with the Metro / rapid trams / buses.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Parking at work Free On-street Paid On-street Paid Off-street P&R

Where do you park your car (commuters)?

Survey Findings – Car parking


Significant number of commuters are willing to use alternative modes (67.2%);

A large number of shoppers driving a car are willing to use public transport (59.3%).

67,2%

32,8%

59,3%

40,7%

commuting shopping

Survey Findings – Car users willingness to use Public Transport


Survey Findings – Public transport users perspective

73%

15%

12%

Moscow

Very Bad

Not good

Acceptable

Overall negative perception of

the transport services;

Most respondents (88.2%)

consider current transport

provision as either ‘not good’ or

‘very bad’;

When the question is posed to

car owners only, the perception

of the transport services gets

worse again in Moscow, with

79.4% of car owners

considering PT service as being

‘very bad’ (vs. 73.1% of all

respondents).


Survey Findings – What do people think is the solution?

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0


Benchmarking Internationally – C40 Cities

• Arup co-authored a report

on an analysis of actions

underway in the worlds

megacities to address

climate change

• Surveys of member cities

between March and April

2011

• A key component of this

analysis was an assessment

of the transport sector in

each city and efforts to

drive sustainable transport

planning


Benchmarking Internationally – C40 Cities

• Key finding of the survey is that C40 City Authorities (Mayor)

typically have the authority to tackle climate change, with transport

a key lever in delivering on objectives.

• Review of what other cities are doing in transport planning,

considered under;

– Personal Transport Modes

– Passenger Transit within the City

– Passenger and Freight transport to and from the city


Where do we go from here?


Where do we go from here?

• Key drivers for transport planning in Russian Cities include;

– Increasing consolidation of population into cities

– A need for integrated land-use and transport planning (contain ‘urban

spread’)

– Potential for significant car ownership growth

– Urgent need to tackle existing congestion in cities

– Climate change


Where do we go from here? – Assess needs and plan

• City Authorities must plan and have the authority and resources to deliver integrated land use and transport planning

– Requires skilled teams of planners and transport engineers within the City Authorities (e.g. DfTDTI Moscow)

– Understand the issues and needs

– Develop the appropriate planning tools (e.g. transport modelling as a tool, not a solution)

– Establish clear development and transport planning policies, objectives and guidelines for city (including ‘Transport Impact Assessment’)


• If you plan for cars, the result will be more cars. However, if you plan for people, the result will be more people!

• In Moscow (as in many other cities), a minority (20 – 25%) of daily commuters creates major impacts for the majority of the population, also taking the majority of the public space;

• Busy wide traffic corridors and lack of pedestrian facilities create severance, making it less attractive to walk or use public transport;

A city for people, not cars


Where do we go from here? – Demand Management

Sustainable cities need brave leaders


Where do we go from here? – Expansion of PT Networks

Transport network integration mixture of;

• Carefully planned expansion of mass transit

networks

• Better use of surface transport modes (Bus,

LRT)

• Development of Public Transport Interchanges

• Use of ‘Park and Ride’


Where do we go from here? – the humble bus

• Bus networks will continue to have a significant role in city transport

solutions and future planning

• Strong drive to make the bus attractive again as a travel mode

– Bus Rapid Transit

– Reallocation of road space for priority


Make our streets attractive for walking and cycling

• Moscow has a low share of walking only trips to work (less than 10%) vs. Cities with comparable climate

(Warsaw 21%, Copenhagen 19%). Only 10- 15% of daily shopping trips are on foot;

• climatic conditions do have an influence in transport choice, but it is not a major consideration for more

than 40% commuters;


Where do we go from here? – The return of the bike!

The Copenhagenize Index -

Bicycle-Friendly Cities 2011


Where do we go from here? – Traffic Network

Management and Intelligent Transport Systems


Integration of land-use and transport planning Optimisation of existing street and transport networks Public Transport Network Integration Restrict car travel and parking in city centres Policies and measures to support walking and cycling Freight management within city centres

Summary and Conclusions

Presentation to Moscow Urban Forum | 8th December 2011

We shape a better world | www.arup.com

Thank You

For further information on the

C40 Cities Research visitwww.c40cities.org/

For further information on the research

project, contact Arup at;36 Krasnoproletarskaya Street Ул. Краснопролетарская, д. 36

4-th Floor 4-ый этаж

Moscow 127473 Москва, 127473

Russia Россия

T+7 495 933 7557

[email protected]

0

200

400

600

800

http://live.c40cities.org/