Upload
kyriakos-tyrologos
View
125
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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