Bbb vistvænar samgöngur i hluti lokaútg vinnuskjals

Vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag

I. hluti ‐ Áhrifaþættir og mælikvarðar

BETRI BORGARBRAGUR

Vinnuskjal ‐ 31. janúar 2011

Mannvit Verkfræðistofa

Grensásvegur 1

108 Reykjavík

Sími: 422 3000

Fax: 422 3001

@: [email protected]

www.mannvit.is

Samantekt Innlendar og erlendar rannsóknir á helstu áhrifaþáttum borgarskipulags sem hafa áhrif á ferðavenjur þ.e. ferðatíðni, ferðalengd og ferðamátaval voru rýndar í þessum fyrsta hluta verkefnis um vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag. Áherslan var lögð á að finna mælikvarða og töluleg viðmið sem reynst hafa vel við skipulag borga og borgarhluta þar sem markmiðið er að stuðla að vistvænum samgöngum innan þessara skipulagseininga og á milli þeirra. Áhrifaþættina sem skoðaðir voru og töluleg viðmið sem rannsóknir sýna að stuðli að vistvænum samgöngum má finna í töflunni hér að neðan. Frekari bakgrunnsupplýsingar um hvern áhrifaþátt og tilvísanir í heimildir er að finna í kafla 3.

Áhrifaþáttur Töluleg viðmið ‐ Stærðarbil Töluleg viðmið

‐ Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Vegalengd og ferðatími

0,3‐2,4 km eða 10‐15 mín gangandi* 2,1‐6,4 km eða 10‐15 mín hjólandi*

1 km eða 11 mín gangandi* 3,2 km hjólandi*

Þéttleiki byggðar 40‐100 íbúðir/ha 56 íbúðir/ha

Fjöldi starfa Takmarkaðar upplýsingar Takmarkaðar upplýsingar

Landnotkun Fjölbreytileiki, blönduð Fjölbreytileiki, blönduð

Gatna‐ og stígakerfi

90‐180 m milli gatnamóta <400 m ummál húsaraðar

130 m milli gatnamóta 400 m ummál húsaraðar

Gatnaþversnið Sjá Tafla 5 Sjá Tafla 5

Aðgengi að þjónustu

matvöruverslanir, veitingastaðir, bankar matvöruverslanir, veitingastaðir, bankar

Tekjur og þjóðfélagsstaða

Takmarkaðar upplýsingar Takmarkaðar upplýsingar

Bílaeign Takmarkaðar upplýsingar Takmarkaðar upplýsingar

Bílastæðaframboð 0,5‐1,5 stæði/íbúð 1 stæði/íbúð

Bílastæðagjöld 33‐350 kr/klst (eftir staðsetningu) 135 kr/klst

Aldur og fjölskyldugerð


Aðgengi almennings‐samgangna

200‐600 m milli biðstöðva strætó (eftir staðsetningu)

360 m milli biðstöðva strætó

Þjónusta almennings‐samgangna

10‐22,5 mínútur hámarksbiðtími 05:00‐00:30 þjónustutími

14 mínútur hámarksbiðtími 05:30‐00:15 þjónustutími

Vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag – I. hluti i

Efnisyfirlit Samantekt ..................................................................................................................................... 0

1 Inngangur ................................................................................................................................ 2

2 Hugtakaskýringar ..................................................................................................................... 3

3 Helstu áhrifaþættir ................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Vegalengd og ferðatími ........................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Þéttleiki byggðar ................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Fjöldi starfa ........................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Landnotkun ........................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Gatna‐ og stígakerfi ............................................................................................................... 15

3.6 Gatnaþversnið ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.7 Aðgengi að þjónustu ............................................................................................................. 22

3.8 Tekjur og þjóðfélagsstaða ..................................................................................................... 23

3.9 Bílaeign .................................................................................................................................. 23

3.10 Bílastæðaframboð ............................................................................................................. 24

3.11 Bílastæðagjöld ................................................................................................................... 27

3.12 Aldur og fjölskyldugerð ..................................................................................................... 28

3.13 Aðgengi almenningssamgangna ....................................................................................... 28

3.14 Þjónusta almenningssamgangna ...................................................................................... 30

4 Viðbótarefni ............................................................................................................................ 32

4.1.1 Göngugreiðleiki (e. Walkability) .................................................................................... 32

4.1.2 Hjólagreiðleiki (e. Bikeability) ....................................................................................... 32

4.1.3 Um skipulag vistvænna samgangna ............................................................................. 34

4.1.4 Modal Share .................................................................................................................. 35

4.1.5 Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms ........................................................................... 35

4.1.6 Low‐Emitting and Fuel‐Efficient Vehicles ...................................................................... 35

4.1.7 Public transport case studies......................................................................................... 36

5 Heimildir ................................................................................................................................. 38

2 Vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag – I. hluti

1 Inngangur Verkefnið Betri borgarbragur (BBB) er samstarfsverkefni fimm arkitektastofa, NMÍ og HÍ um rannsóknir á skipulagi landnotkunar sem unnar verða með öndvegisstyrk til þriggja ára úr tækniþróunarsjóði Rannís. Markmið BBB er að skilgreina verkfæri og miðla upplýsingum sem stuðla að vistvænni og sjálfbærri byggð til þeirra sem vinna að skipulagsgerð á Íslandi.

Sérfræðingar Mannvits í samgönguverkfræði munu vinna afmörkuð rannsóknarverkefni sem tengjast áhrifum skipulags á samgöngur fyrir BBB samstarfshópinn. Rannsóknarverkefnið Vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag skiptist í þrjá verkhluta sem unnir verða í samvinnu við BBB hópinn. Eftirfarandi er stutt lýsing á hverjum verkhluta:

Fyrsti hluti: Áhrifaþættir og mælikvarðar

Í fyrsta verkhluta eru fyrirliggjandi innlendar og erlendar rannsóknir rýndar í leit að helstu áhrifaþáttum í borgarskipulagi sem hafa áhrif á ferðavenjur þ.e. ferðatíðni, ferðalengd og ferðamátaval. Leitast er við að finna mælikvarða og töluleg viðmið sem reynst hafa vel við skipulag borga og borgarhluta þar sem markmiðið er að stuðla að vistvænum samgöngum innan þessara skipulagseininga og á milli þeirra.

Niðurstöður fyrsta hluta eru birtar í þessari skýrslu sem er hugsuð sem fyrsta skrefið í því ferli að rita praktískar leiðbeiningar um gerð skipulags sem stuðlar að vistvænum samgöngum. Hafa ber í huga að ekki er víst að töluleg viðmið úr erlendum heimildum eigi endilega við hérlendis. Í öðrum hluta verkefnisins verður unnið nánar með hvern áhrifaþátt við íslenskar aðstæður og töluleg viðmið mögulega sköluð til í framhaldinu.

Annar hluti: Úttekt á hverfum/borgarhlutum í Reykjavík og tillögur að úrbótum

Í öðrum verkhluta verða niðurstöður fyrsta verkhluta nýttar í praktíska úttekt á hverfum og/eða borgarhlutum á höfuðborgarsvæðinu. Hverfin verða valin í samráði við BBB starfshópinn. Með mælikvörðum og tölulegum viðmiðum um skipulag vistvænna samgöngueininga verður leitast við að greina hvað má betur fara í skipulagi eldri og nýrri hverfa í Reykjavík og tillögur að úrbótum settar fram.

Þriðji hluti: Viðmið og leiðbeiningar við skipulagsgerð

Í þriðja verkhluta verða niðurstöður fyrri verkhluta nýttar í ritun praktískra leiðbeininga um vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag. Í leiðbeiningunum verður leitast við að setja fram töluleg viðmið fyrir helstu áhrifaþætti sem skipulagshöfundar þurfa að hafa í huga til að stuðla að vistvænum samgöngum og sjálfbærni skipulagseininga á öllum skipulagsstigum. Dæmi úr úttekt á hverfum og borgarhlutum í Reykjavík verða tekin til frekari útskýringa á áhrifaþáttum.

Uppsetning skýrslu úr fyrsta hluta

Í þessari skýrslu úr fyrsta hluta verkefnisins eru birtar helstu niðurstöður heimildaöflunar. Í samantekt eru þessar niðurstöður settar fram í einfaldri töflu sem nýst getur sem grunnur að nokkurs konar greiningarlykli við mat á skipulagi hverfa. Í kafla 3 fær hver áhrifaþáttur sérstakan undirkafla (3.1‐3.14) þar sem upplýsingar og heimildir sem liggja að baki tölulegum viðmiðum eru birtar. Til að lágmarka kostnað við skýrslugerð eru erlendar tilvitnanir í undirköflum í flestum tilfellum ekki þýddar. Í kafla 4 er tekið saman ýmislegt viðbótarefni sem tengist viðfangsefninu en nýttist ekki beint í kaflana á undan.

Vistvænar samgöngur og borgarskipulag – I. hluti 3

2 Hugtakaskýringar

Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD)

Almennings‐samgöngumiðað skipulag. Skipulag hverfis út frá aðgengi að öflugum almenningssamgöngum sem uppfylla að stærstum hluta ferðaþörf fólks út fyrir hverfið.

New Urbanism Hreyfing sem aðhyllist gönguvæn hverfi sem innihalda ákveðnar húsagerðir og starfsgreinar

Complete Streets Akbrautir sem eru hannaðar og virka þannig að þær eru öruggar, aðlaðandi og veita þægilegt aðgengi fyrir alla notendur

Eco‐town Bæir (hverfi) sem eiga að ná fram afgerandi árangri í sjálfbærni


3 Helstu áhrifaþættir Helstu áhrifaþættir sem hægt er að vinna með til að stuðla að vistvænum og sjálfbærum samgöngum innan skipulagseininga og milli þeirra, m.v. fyrirliggjandi gögn, eru tilgreindir í neðangreindri töflu. Þess ber að geta að listinn er ekki tæmandi, fjölmargir þættir til viðbótar hafa áhrif á ferðamátaval í þéttbýli.

Í viðeigandi kafla er að finna tilvitnanir úr heimildaöflun um hvern og einn áhrifaþátt sem eru grunnurinn að þeim viðmiðum sem gefin eru í samantektartöflu í upphafi skýrslunnar. Tilvitnanirnar eru ekki í sérstakri röð og eins og áður sagði eru margar þeirra á frummáli heimildar.

Áhrifaþáttur Kafli

Vegalengd og ferðatími 3.1.

Þéttleiki byggðar 0.

Fjöldi starfa 3.3.

Landnotkun 3.4.

Gatna‐ og stígakerfi 0.

Gatnaþversnið 3.6

Aðgengi að þjónustu 3.7

Tekjur og þjóðfélagsstaða 0.

Bílaeign 3.9.

Bílastæðaframboð 0.

Bílastæðagjöld 0.

Aldur og fjölskyldugerð 3.12.

Aðgengi almenningssamgangna 3.13.

Þjónusta almenningssamgangna 3.14.

Tafla 1 –Áhrifaþættir skipulags sem stuðla að sjálfbærum samgöngum


3.1 Vegalengd og ferðatími

Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Vegalengd og ferðatími

0,3‐2,4 km eða 10‐15 mín gangandi* 2,1‐6,4 km eða 10‐15 mín hjólandi*

1 km eða 11 mín gangandi* 3,2 km hjólandi*

Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800 m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot [Department for Transport, 2007].

Walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under 2 kilometres. Cycling also has potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5 km, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport. [Department of the Environment, 2001].

Eco‐towns should be designed in a way that supports children walking or cycling to school safely and easily. There should be a maximum walking distance of 800m (shortest route) from homes to the nearest school for children aged under 11, except where this is not a viable option due to natural water features or other physical landscape restrictions [Communities and Local Government, 2009].

The local centre with shops and facilities should be within walking distance of all residences – 800 m [Taylor, 2008].

Mesta gönguvegalengd til skóla skal vera um 2,4 km og að annarri þjónustu (matvöruverslanir, bankar, veitingastaðir og krár) 0,4‐2,4 km [Lee, 2006].

Meðal göngutími að verslunum, grunnskólum, pósthúsum og annarri lykilþjónustu skal ekki vera meiri en 10‐15 mínútur [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Markmiðið er að minnka ekna vegalengd á einkabílum um a.m.k. 75% (A target of at least a 75 per cent reduction in miles travelled by private car against the local average) [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Rannsókn frá árinu 2006 sýndi fram á að umhverfislegir þættir sem stuðla að göngu voru t.d. hærri íbúaþéttleiki, minni húsaraðir í kringum heimili, styttri vegalengdir í matvöruverslanir og verslanir sem fólk sækir daglega. Í rannsókninni kom fram að meðalvegalengd sem fólk er tilbúið til að ganga í verslanir og annað sem það sækir daglega er 260‐440 m [Moudon, 2006].

Hjólreiðamenn eru líklegir til að vilja sækja sömu áfangastaði og gangandi vegfarendur. Hinsvegar, þar sem þeir ferðast mun hraðar þá eru þeir að öllum líkindum tilbúnir til að ferðast lengra. Ef reiknað er með að hjólreiðamaður ferðist um á hraðanum 15 km/klst þá kemst hann 5 km á 20 mínútum. Sú vegalengd sem hjólreiðamenn eru tilbúnir að ferðast er hinsvegar vissulega mismunandi milli hjólreiðamanna, aðstæðna og áfangastaða [McNeil, 2010].

Í rannsókn frá árinu 2008 voru GPS staðsetningartæki notuð til að skrá þær leiðir sem hjólreiðamenn fóru. Að meðaltali hjóluðu hjólreiðamenn tæpa 10 km á dag, miðgildi var tæpir 8 km. Miðgildislengd stakra ferða var 4,5 km en miðgildi ferða sem voru ekki til vinnu eða heimilis var 1,6‐3,4 km. Þetta bendir til þess að fjarlægðir milli vinnu og heimilis megi vera 3,2‐6,4 km en aðrar vegalendir þurfi að vera mest í 3,2 km fjarlægð frá heimili til að standast kröfur 20 mínútna hverfis [Dill, 2008].


Þátttakendur í þessari rannsókn voru að mestu leiti fólk sem þegar stundaði hjólreiðar. Niðurstöðurnar gætu því verið skakkar og sýnt að hjólreiðamenn séu duglegri en þeir eru í raun almennt. Hjólreiðamenn framtíðarinnar eru líklegri til að hjóla styttri vegalengdir en þeir sem hjóla nú þegar.

Í rannsókn frá árinu 2002 er spurt hversu langt „venjulegur“ hjólreiðamaður er tilbúinn að hjóla. Niðurstöður rannsóknarinnar eru að „venjulegur“ hjólreiðamaður er tilbúinn til að hjóla 2,1‐4,3 km [Sully, 2000].

Having established a site’s broad setting in terms of its relationship to a city, town or village centre, a good starting point is to examine the area within 10 minutes (about 800m) walking distance of the site. This can help to identify the range of facilities which residents may access comfortably on foot, as well as opportunities to reach more distant facilities by public transport [CABE, 2001].

Samgönguskipulag í Reykjavík – Ferðalengd og ferðavenjur á höfuðborgarsvæðinu 2002

Samkvæmt ferðavenjukönnun frá 2002 eru um 76% af öllum ferðum íbúa á höfuðborgarsvæðinu farnar á einkabíl. Hlutur Strætó bs. er rúm 4 % og hlutfall ferða sem farnar eru gangandi/hjólandi er rúm 19%. Þriðjungur allra ferða er styttri en 1 km og yfir helmingur allra ferða er styttri en 2 km. Ferðir til/frá vinnu eru flestar farnar þegar hvað mest álag er á gatnakerfinu en rúm 88% þeirra ferða eru farnar á einkabíl [Hönnun, feb 2006].

Mynd 1 – Ferðamátaval – Allar ferðir

Ferðir til vinnu eru flestar farnar þegar hvað mest álag er á gatnakerfinu og því er áhugavert að skoða sérstaklega val á ferðamáta ferða í/úr vinnu. Vegfarendur á grunnskólaaldri eru eins og gefur að skilja ekki í vinnu og því er úrtakið hér að stærstum hluta fólk á bílprófsaldri sem hefur þann möguleika að keyra einkabíl [Hönnun, feb 2006].

Meðallengd ferða til vinnu er 4,00 km ef ferðir innan reits eru taldar með en 4,29 km annars.


Mynd 2 – Ferðamátaval – Ferðir í/úr vinnu

Í töflunni hér að neðan sést hvernig ferðir dreifast eftir lengd. Það vekur athygli að þriðjungur allra ferða er styttri en 1 km og meira en helmingur allra ferða er styttri en 2 km. Þetta háa hlutfall má að hluta til útskýra með ferðakeðjum (e. trip chaining). Ferðakeðja er tvær eða fleiri ferðir sem farnar eru í röð, t.d. þegar foreldri kemur við í leikskóla á leið í/úr vinnu. Val á ferðamáta er breytist eins og gefur að skilja með lengd ferða [Hönnun, feb 2006].

Tafla 2 – Dreifing ferða eftir lengd


Mynd 3 sýnir hlutfall ferðamáta í mismunandi löngum ferðum.

Mynd 3 – Ferðamátaval eftir lengd ferða

Hlutfall ferða sem farnar eru á einkabíl hækkar hratt með vegalengd. Hlutfall ferða með strætisvögnum er hverfandi í stystu ferðunum en eykst með lengd. Á móti kemur að hlutfall ferða sem farnar eru gangandi/hjólandi lækkar hratt með vegalengd [Hönnun, feb 2006].


Mynd 4 sýnir frekar samband ferðamáta og lengdar ferða.

Mynd 4 – Ferðamáti og lengd ferða

Um 40% ferða í könnun Gallup sem farnar voru gangandi/hjólandi og um 13% af öllum ferðum höfðu enga vegalengd, þ.e. voru innan reits. Í línuritinu hér að ofan er ferðum með vegalengd styttri en 750 m því sleppt til að gefa rétta mynd af sambandi ferðamátavals og vegalengdar.

Mynd 4 sýnir hvernig líkurnar á að ferð sé farin fótgangandi eða hjólandi minnkar hratt með vegalengd, stærstur hluti þeirra ferða eða tæp 85% er styttri en 1 km og tæp 96% styttri en 2 km. Það skal ítrekað að gert er ráð fyrir að ferðir sem eiga sér stað innan reits flokkast styttri en 1 km.

Í umfjöllun hér að neðan er sem fyrr miðað við að á eðlilegum gönguhraða gangi meðalmaður um 5 km/klst sem jafngildir um 400 m á hverjum fimm mínútum. Meðalmaður gengur því 800 m á tíu mínútum og 1.200 m á stundarfjórðungi [Hönnun, des 2006].


Mynd 5 – Ferðamátaval – Ferðir í vinnu

Gangandi vegfarendur

Yfir 70% ferða til vinnu sem farnar voru gangandi voru styttri en 800 m miðað við gefnar forsendur og tæp 84% styttri en 1.200 m.

Út frá fyrirliggjandi gögnum má því álykta að þeir sem ganga til vinnu séu að jafnaði þeir sem búa innan við 1.200 m frá vinnustað. Miðað við vegalengdir ferða í könnun Gallup má álykta að tæplega fjórðungur Reykvíkinga búi í innan við 15 mínútna göngufjarlægð frá vinnunni. Það bendir til þess að hægt sé að meira en þrefalda fjölda þeirra sem ganga til vinnu en hlutdeild ferða sem farnar eru gangandi til vinnu getur að hámarki orðið 20‐25% miðað við núverandi skipulag borgarinnar [Hönnun, des 2006].

Ferðir með almenningssamgöngum

Meðallengd ferða sem farnar voru með strætisvagni til vinnu var 4,37 km. Um 95% ferða sem farnar voru með strætisvagni til vinnu voru lengri en 1.200 m og 86% lengri en 1.600 m.

Það kemur ekki á óvart að meðalfjöldi bíla á heimili þeirra sem tóku strætisvagn til vinnu er um helmingur meðalbílaeignar heimila í úrtakinu. Það staðfestir hve mikil áhrif aðgengi að einkabíl hefur á ferðamátaval. Lengd ferða kemur ekki heldur á óvart, flestir virðast ganga allt að 1.600 m í stað þess að nota almenningssamgöngur. Miðað við úrtakið úr könnun Gallup eru það að jafnaði einstaklingar sem búa í meira en 15 mínútna göngufjarlægð frá vinnu og búa á heimilum með einn eða engan einkabíl sem fara með strætisvagni til vinnu [Hönnun, des 2006].


3.2 Þéttleiki byggðar Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Þéttleiki byggðar 40‐100 íbúðir/ha 56 íbúðir/ha

Þéttleiki byggðar er skilgreindur sem íbúa‐, íbúða‐ og starfafjöldi á landfræðilega einingu (t.d. á hektara).

Lágmarksþéttleiki byggðar er ekki minni en 50 íbúðir (e. dwellings) á hektara, jafnvel nær 100 íbúðum á hektara á miðsvæðum þéttbýliskjarna, ef auðvelt á að vera að ganga eða hjóla í alla lykilþjónustu [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

20 dwellings per hectare will support half‐hourly bus service and 25 dwellings per hectare will sustain bus service (quality not specified) [Taylor, 2008].

Aukning þéttleika um 100% getur minnkað ekna kílómetra um 5‐12% ([Ewing, 2001] og [Brownstone, 2009]).

Þéttleiki byggðar, sérstaklega þéttleiki starfa á áfangastöðum, hefur mikil áhrif á ferðamátaval. Almenningssamgöngur og ganga eru mun algengari mátar þar sem þéttleiki starfa er mikill. Áhrif þéttleika á íbúasvæðum eru ekki eins skýr, particularly when socioeconomic characteristics and automobile ownership are controlled for. Ewing and Cervero [Ewing, 2001] note as an unresolved issue whether the impact of density on travel patterns is due to density itself or to other unobserved variables with which it is correlated, including attitudes.

New developments should be built to high density levels with a minimum net density of 100 dwellings per hectare. This density is sufficient to sustain high quality public transport services within walking distance from the new homes [Taylor, 2008].

This ped‐shed concept is used as basis for recommendations for suburban infill and intensification in London by Urbed (2002), who recommend that new housing in „ped‐shed“ (terms derived by analogy with river catchments and watersheds) areas should be built at minimum densities of 50 dwellings per hectare [Taylor, 2008].

Taking into account the average number of occupants in an apartment in Freiburg (2.04 people/apartment) and calculating with a factor of 1.25 (for the real average distance between a public transport stop and an apartment) means that the minimum density should be 40 apartments per hectare. For social reasons, it was established that the density in urban districts should be no higher than 70 apartments per hectare [Szymanska, 2008].

The idea of new housing linked to a railway station or a tram route, as so often happened in the nineteenth century, is still a real possibility. But for most developments it is the bus that matters. A crucial aspect of the connection between new and old development is the diversion or extension of an existing bus route, or the introduction of a new one. Putting to one side issues of subsidy, a certain critical mass of development is needed to justify a regular bus service at frequent intervals, sufficient to provide a real alternative to the car. This will vary with context and route


characteristics, but assuming stops at every 200‐300 metres, ideally this means densities above 40 dwellings per hectare, preferably with increased densities around the stops [CABE, 2001].

3.3 Fjöldi starfa Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Fjöldi starfa Takmarkaðar upplýsingar Takmarkaðar upplýsingar

Möguleikar á störfum innan svæðis geta minnkað ferðaþörf. Mælt er með því að a.m.k. 66% (best væri ef 80%) starfa séu innan vistsvæðis eða í almenningssamgangna, göngu‐ eða hjólafjarlægð, þar sem eitt staðbundið (local) starf er á hvert heimili [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Employment planned in association with the development should be able to source the required staff from within a 30 minute travel time catchment on public transport, plus walking and cycling distance around the site [Taylor, 2008].

Employment planned in association with the development should include many jobs that can easily be filled from a local pool of unskilled or semi‐skilled labour [Taylor, 2008].

3.4 Landnotkun Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Landnotkun Fjölbreytileiki, blönduð Fjölbreytileiki, blönduð

Fjölbreytileiki (diversity): Blönduð landnotkun, venjulega íbúa og atvinnusvæði og hvernig þeim er blandað innan svæðis (t.d. hlutfall starfa og íbúða) [NRCNA, 2009].

Þar sem fjölbreytileiki er settur fram sem hlutfall starfa og íbúða getur aukning fjölbreytileika um 100% minnkað ekna kílómetra um 5% [Ewing, 2001].

Jafnvel þó hægt sé að sýna fram á að þéttari og blandaðri byggð stuðli að færri eknum kílómetrum, stuðli að breytingu á ferðamátum og fækki bílferðum þá er mikilvægt að vita hversu mikil þessi áhrif eru og hvort þau séu nægilega mikil til að nýta þau [NRCNA, 2009].

Bornar voru saman sjö rannsóknir á eiginleikum sem stuðla að göngugreiðleika. Fimm þeirra sýndu að blönduð landnotkun væri lykileiginleiki [Mantri, 2008].

A good mix of both housing types and sizes is important in creating a basis for a balanced community [CABE, 2001].

To promote more sustainable residential environments local planning authorities should "avoid the inefficient use of land" (avoiding developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net), encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net) and "seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility, such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors" [Department of the Environment, 2001].


Mikilvægt markvið í skipulagi er blönduð notkun á nýjum svæðum. Ný hverfi hafa íbúahverfi, græn svæði, almenningsþjónustu, verslanir, vinnustaði og íþróttaaðstöðu. Skipulagning af þessu tagi minnkar verulega ferðaþörf þar sem þörfum fólks er mætt innan hverfisins. Að auki má blanda gerðum íbúða þannig að einstaklingar, fjölskyldufólk og eldra fólk blandist innan hverfisins. In addition, various types of accommodation make possible “housing careers” within a single district, where there are apartments for single people, families with children, and elderly people.These are all complementary functions of the districts [Szymanska, 2008].

Each Transit Oriented Development (TOD) or urban center should be divided into the following three zones to reflect the different level of pedestrian activities [City of Aurora, 2007]:

Mynd 6 – Context Zones

1. Core Zone (TOD District Urban Core Zone) – within approximately 1/8 mile of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers;

2. Transition Zone (TOD District Urban Center Zone) – between approximately 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers;

3. Edge Zone (TOD District General Urban Zone) ‐ between approximately 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers.

Appropriate street design parameters, such as cross‐sections, pedestrian amenities, levels of access control and design speed should be selected for each zone accordingly. Design speed is the selected speed to be used in determining the various geometric design features of a street, such as curvature, sight distance, grades and lane width. Access control is a way of regulating street access rights to and from properties abutting a street. The highest design speeds and levels of access control should occur in the edge zone and the lowest design speeds and level of access control should occur in the core zone. Similarly, the highest level of pedestrian amenities, such as wider sidewalks, shorter block length and shorter crossing distances, should occur in the core zone with reduced pedestrian amenities in the edge zone [City of Aurora, 2007].


The compatibility between street cross‐sections and the characteristics and physical forms of adjacent land uses is an important factor affecting urban forms and street functions in TODs and urban centers. The following land use categories should be considered when selecting street cross‐sections. In addition, Tafla 3 depicts the appropriate relationship between cross sections and land uses [City of Aurora, 2007]:

Residential Use: The predominant surrounding land use is multi‐family residential units, such as apartments and condominiums. These residences typically have a few combined access points for pedestrian and vehicular access along the street.

Civic Use: The predominant surrounding land uses are institutions, plazas and parks complemented with retail and office uses. They typically front onto the street with service businesses located in the same building. The buildings are typically built up to the sidewalk and pedestrian areas along the street.

Mixed Use: The surrounding land uses contain a mix of retail, office and residential. These uses can be located in the same building or in different buildings along the street. Retail uses can be located at the street level with residential and other uses on the upper floors.

Commercial: The surrounding land uses are typically office and retail. The buildings are usually set back from streets. On‐site parking and access driveways are usually provided to groups of businesses.

Tafla 3 ‐ Cross Section / Land Use Matrix

Cross Section ROW Width

Curb to Curb Width

Land Use and Frontage Type

Location Residential Civic

Mixed use

Commercial

Boulevard 146‘ 106‘ X X X Edge

Multi‐way Boulevard 156‘ 124‘ X X X X Edge

Main Street 4 Lanes with Median

112‘ 80‘ X X X X Transition/edge zone

Main Street ‐ 2 Lane with Median/Center Turn Lane

90‘ 58‘ X X X X Transition/edge zone

Main Street ‐ 2 Lanes with Parallel Parking

78‘ 46‘ X X X X Core/Transition zone

Main Street – 2 Lanes with Angled Parking

90‘ 58‘ X X X X Core/Transition zone

Couplet 73‘ 41‘ X X X X Transition/edge zone

Local Urban 66‘ 34‘ X X X Core/Transition zone

Residential Parkway 104‘ 76‘ X Transition zone

Neighborhood 62‘ 34‘ X Transition zone


3.5 Gatna‐ og stígakerfi Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Gatna‐ og stígakerfi

90‐180 m milli gatnamóta <400 m ummál húsaraðar

130 m milli gatnamóta 400 m ummál húsaraðar

A block length of between 100 and 150 metres would represent a general rule‐of‐thumb [CABE, 2001].

Bornar voru saman sjö rannsóknir á eiginleikum sem stuðla að göngugreiðleika. Fimm þeirra sýndu að gatnakerfi og tengingar væru lykileiginleikar [Mantri, 2008].

Filtered permeability. Þá eru hverfi t.d. hönnuð þannig að auðveldara er að komast um þau gangandi eða hjólandi en á bíl. Það er gert með því að hafa öruggar og aðlaðandi göngu‐ og hjólastíga til skóla og annarrar þjónustu [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Mynd 7 – Mid‐block Crossing

Mid‐block crossings with curb extensions should be considered at locations where a substantial number of pedestrians or bicyclists attempt to cross streets regardless of the presence of protection or identification of the crossing. These circumstances typically occur in locations with pedestrian attractions on both sides of a roadway, in areas with a combination of street‐facing retail shops and on‐street parking, and the presence of long blocks (i.e., blocks of 600‐feet or greater). Mid‐block crossing will only be applied to limited locations and will be analyzed on a case by case basis. Multilane un‐signalized controlled mid‐block crossing should be avoided [City of Aurora, 2007].

Þéttleika gatnamóta, þ.e. hversu mörg gatnamót eru á svæðinu – því fleiri því betra.

Húsaröð (block perimeter) skal ekki vera lengri en um 400 m (1350 fet). Þannig verður til þétt net gatna sem dreifir umferð vel og stuðlar að hljóðlátum og persónulegum (intimate) leiðum á milli bygginga [Siegman, 2003].


Viðmið sem hafa þarf í huga við samgöngumiðað skipulag með áherslu á almenningssamgöngur [Hermannsson, 2008]:

Uppbyggingareitir sem eru innan við 400 m að ummáli mynda þétt gatnanet með dreifðri og rólegri bílaumferð. Margar leiðir milli áfangastaða.

Umferðarhraða er haldið niðri með hraðatakmarkandi aðgerðum.

Í göturými er tekið frá gott pláss fyrir gangandi og hjólandi vegfarendur og umferðarljós eru stillt með þarfir þeirra í huga.

According to analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round [Berrini, 2010], the availability of cycling infrastructures in the awarding cities (Stockholm and Hamburg) was:

Hjólreiðainnviðir Bil

Aðskildar brautir 760 – 1.700 km

Leiðir meðfram grænum svæðum 630 km

Götur með 30 km/klst hámarkshraða 1.755 km

Hjólabrautir á íbúa 0,96 – 0,97 m/íbúa

Þéttleiki hjólabrauta 2,25 – 3,64 km/km2

Tafla 4 – Cycling infrastructures availability in Stockholm and Hamburg

Síðan um 1970 hefur átt sér stað mikil uppbygging á hágæða hjólreiðainnviðum í Freiburg í Þýskalandi. Vegna þessa hefur þar náðst góður árangur með hjólreiðar. Annað sem hefur einnig haft áhrif eru hjólastæði í borginni og áfangastaðir eins og verslanir, skólar og vinnustaðir. Mikilvægt atriði við að viðhalda háu hlutfalli ferða sem farnar eru fótgangandi var tilkoma breiðra göngusvæða (wide pedestrian zones) í miðbæ borgarinnar, tilkoma skrifstofuhverfa (district centers) innan nýrra hverfa og tillit til gangandi vegfarenda við hönnun innviða í borginni t.d. með breiðum gangstéttum, aðskilnaði hjólreiðamanna og gangandi vegfarenda og svæðum sem henta fyrir fatlaða og börn [Szymanska, 2008].

A grid or modified grid system with east‐west and north‐south continuities throughout a TOD or urban center site should be designed when feasible. Við hönnun gatnakerfa ætti að auki að hafa eftirfarandi bil á milli gatnamóta (sbr. Mynd 6):

Miðjusvæði (Core Zone) – 90 m milli gatnamóta (300 fet).

Skiptisvæði (Transition Zone) – 120 m milli gatnamóta (400 fet).

Jaðarsvæði (Edge Zone) – 180 m milli gatnamóta (600 fet).

Vehicular access to edge streets such as boulevards or multi‐way boulevards surrounding TODs and urban centers should be at the mile, half mile points or at 600 feet either side of the mile or half mile points. Vehicular access to edge streets should also avoid ¼ mile points or be right‐in/right‐out only. Pedestrian or bicycle access to the sidewalks of the edge streets should not be restricted by this provision. The maximum block size requirements may be adjusted for areas adjacent to transit rail stations to meet the transit rail station platform design requirements [City of Aurora, 2007].


Skv. staðli Aurora borgar [City of Aurora, 2007] um hverfi með samgöngumiðað skipulag (TOD) skiptist götuþversnið Context, Roadside og Traveled Way, þar sem:

Mynd 8 – Götuþversnið samanstendur af þremur þáttum

Context: The key shaping elements of the context for street cross‐sections include the characteristics and physical form of the predominant adjacent land uses and ground floor building uses, landscaping, site access, public and semi‐public open spaces, vehicular volumes, building forms, pedestrian, bicycle and transit activities and the predominance of certain travel modes.

Roadside skiptist í:

Mynd 9 – Roadside skiptist í fernt

- Edge Zone (Curb Zone)

The edge zone provides an interface between parked vehicles and street furniture. This zone should generally be kept clear of any objects. Parking meters may be placed here with consideration to door swings. The edge zone should have a minimum width of 1.5 feet and may be widened to a minimum of 4 feet at transit stops with shelters.


- Furnishing Zone

The furnishings zone is the key buffer component between the active pedestrian walking area and the vehicle traveled way area. Street trees, planting strips, street furniture, bollards, signal poles, signals, electrical, telephone and traffic signal cabinets, signs, fire hydrants and bicycle racks should be consolidated in this zone to keep them from becoming obstacles to pedestrians. The furnishings zone should have a minimum width of seven feet.

- Throughway Zone

The throughway zone is intended for pedestrian travel only and should be entirely clear of obstacles and provide a smooth walking surface. The throughway zone should be at a minimum of six feet wide, which is the minimum comfortable passing width for two wheel chairs on a sidewalk.

- Frontage Zone

The frontage zone is the area adjacent to the property line that may be defined by a building facade, landscaping area, fence, or screened parking area. A minimum width of 1.5‐feet should be provided for the frontage zone. The width of the frontage zone may be increased to accommodate a variety of activities associated with adjacent uses, such as outdoor seating or merchant displays.

Traveled way samanstendur af fjórum pörtum:

- Vehicle Travel Lanes

Vehicle travel lanes should range from 10 feet to 12 feet in width.

- Bicycle Lanes

A minimum bicycle lane width of five feet (seven feet including the gutter pan) should be provided.

- Medians

Medians should be used as an additional location for landscaping. Medians should also serve as pedestrian refuge islands within the traveled way when needed.

- On‐Street Parking

Angled parking allows motor vehicles to park with an angle to the driving lanes. Angled parking may be provided on selected cross‐sections with a minimum width of 16 feet perpendicular distance between curb and travel lane. Angled parking allows for increased “front door” retail parking and serves to slow vehicular speeds. Parallel parking is the on‐street parking spaces that are parallel to the driving lanes. A seven‐foot width should be provided for parallel parking.


3.6 Gatnaþversnið Sjá Mynd 6 samhliða töflu.

Tafla 5 – Helstu upplýsingar gatnaþversniða

Nam

e

Location

Travel Lan

es

Med

ian

Bicycle Lane

s

On‐street parking

Design Sp

eed [km/h]

Posted

spe

ed [k

m/h]

Access Co

ntrol

Display

Boulevard

Edge 4‐6 Yes No No 80 65 Max.

Multi‐way Bou

levard

Edge 2* and 4‐6

Yes Shared* Yes* 50*and80

40*and65

Low ‐Med*

Max

Main Street

4 lane

s w/m

edian

Transition Edge

4 Yes Yes Yes 55 ‐65

40 ‐50

High

Main Street

2 lane

s / med

ian

Transition Edge

2 Yes Yes Yes 50 ‐55

40 ‐50

Low ‐Med

Main Street

2 lane

s / parallel

Transition Core

2 No Yes Parallel 50 40 Low ‐Med

* on local access lanes


Nam

e

Location

Travel Lan

es

Med

ian

Bicycle Lane

s

On‐street parking

Design Sp

eed [km/h]

Posted

spe

ed [k

m/h]

Access Co

ntrol

Display

Main Street

2 lane

s / angled

Transition Core

2 No No Angled 50 40 Low ‐Med

Coup

let

Transition Edge

2 No Yes

Parallel on one or both sides

50 ‐55

40 ‐50

Low ‐Med

Local U

rban

Transition Core

2 narrow

No Shared Yes 50 40 Low

Reside

ntial Parkw

ay

Transition Core

2 Yes Yes Parallel 50 40 Low ‐Med

Neighbo

rhoo

d Street

Transition 2

narrowNo Shared Yes 50 40 Low


There are no hard and fast rules. Indeed the case studies show that streets can work at widths as varied as nine metres (Rolls Crescent, Hulme) and 24 metres (Canning Street, Liverpool ). What is important is that the space between the buildings is considered in relation to the scale of dwellings and the activities taking place in the street. For example , Canning Street works well with a very wide separation because the street is framed by 12 – 14 metre high buildings. In other cases landscaping can help create a sense of enclosure where wider spacing is required between dwellings , such as along principal movement routes. It follows from this that the design of streets needs to be tailored to the particular needs of the place and its physical and social context and considered in three dimensions [CABE, 2001].

Mynd 10 – Varying rations of street width to building height [CABE, 2001]


3.7 Aðgengi að þjónustu Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Aðgengi að þjónustu

matvöruverslanir, veitingastaðir, bankar matvöruverslanir, veitingastaðir, bankar

Í rannsókn frá árinu 2006 [Lee, 2006] voru 24 áfangastaðir í göngufjarlægð við heimili skoðaðir með tilliti til aðgengileika og nálægðar. Aðeins fjórir þeirra reyndust skipta máli. Þeir voru:

matvöruverslanir og markaðir

bankar

veitingastaðir og barir

skólar

Í annarri rannsókn sem gerð var sama ár [Moudon, 2006] var lykilspurningin „hverjir eru áfangastaðir hverfisins?“ Byggt á svörum þátttakenda sem ganga daglega til mismunandi áfangastaða voru niðurstöðurnar eftirfarandi:

matvöruverslanir (45,9%)

veitingastaðir, ekki skyndibitastaðir (23,0%)

lyfjaverslanir (19,2%)

kjörbúðir (16,3%)

bankar (15,8%)

kaffihús (15,0%)

pósthús (12,8%)

Residential developments should include or be closely associated with facilities that are used on an ‘every day’ basis – i.e. shop selling food and fresh groceries, newsagent, open space with children’s play area, post office and cash point, creche/ nursery and primary school, eating and drinking places, supermarket, and secondary school [Taylor, 2008].

Larger residential developments should also include or be close to facilities which can capture a large proportion of trips locally – i.e. medical centre, chemist, community centre [Taylor, 2008].

Residential developments should include or be close to as wide a range of shops and facilities as possible [Taylor, 2008].

Local centres should be pedestrian and cycle access only, so far as possible [Taylor, 2008].

The local centre with shops and facilities should be within walking distance of all residences ‐ 800m [Taylor, 2008].


3.8 Tekjur og þjóðfélagsstaða Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Tekjur og þjóðfélagsstaða


Lýðfræðileg samseting (demographic profile) fólks sem býr í samgöngumiðuðu skipulagi (Transit Oriented Development – TOD) er oft öðruvísi en hjá íbúum í nágrenninu. Meirihluti íbúa í TOD eru barnlausir einstaklingar eða pör, oft ungt vinnandi fólk eða eldri einstæðingar. Minni heimili eiga venjulega færri bíla og nálægð við góðar almenningssamgöngur minna þörf á mörgum ökutækjum. Samkvæmt tölfræðinni eiga heimili í TOD nærri helmingi færri bíla en önnur heimili og eru tvisvar sinnum líklegri til að eiga engan bíl [Arrington, 2008].

Í annarri rannsókn frá Kaliforníu kemur fram að helstu ástæðurnar fyrir því að fólk ákeður að flytja heimili sitt í TOD hverfi eru gæði og verð íbúða og gæði hverfistins [Lund, 2006]. Aðeins um þriðjungur þátttakenda í rannsókninni sögðu aðgengi að almenningssamgöngum væri ein af þremur aðalástæðunum. Hinsvegar nota íbúar í TOD almenningssamgöngur töluvert meira en aðrir. Höfundur skýrslunnar tekur fram að niðurstöður rannsóknarinnar gætu verið litaðar af lágu svarhlutfalli og því að íbúar TOD hafa hærri tekjur en íbúar annarsstaðar, þar búa fleiri sérfræðingar og skrifstofufólk, heimilin eru minni og þar eru færri innflytjendur frá Suður Ameríku (Hispanic) [Lund, 2006].

3.9 Bílaeign Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Bílaeign Takmarkaðar upplýsingar Takmarkaðar upplýsingar

Oft er litið framhjá því að bílaeign getur haft áhrif á ferðamátaval. Í rannsókn frá Badoe og Miller [Badoe, 2000] kemur fram að þar sem þéttleiki er meiri er bílaeign yfirleitt minni, notkun almenningssamgangna meiri og eknir kílómetrar færri. Ewing og Cervero [Ewing, 2001] benda einnig á galla þess að nota bíl á þéttbýlum svæðum vegna mikillar umferðar og fárra bílastæða.

Samkvæmt greiningu frá European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round, er bílaeign í þeim borgum sem hafa fengið verðlaun (Stokkhólmur og Hamborg) á bilinu 220‐360 bílar á 1000 íbúa en meðalbílaeign í þeim sjö borgum sem komust í lokahópinn voru 340 bílar/1000 íbúa [Berrini, 2010].


3.10 Bílastæðaframboð


Bílastæðaframboð 0,5‐1,5 stæði/íbúð 1 stæði/íbúð

As a guide to establishing parking policies that support sustainable development, PPG3 points to an upper threshold of 1.5 spaces per dwelling on average [CABE, 2001].

Reduced road infrastructure and car parking spaces with a maximum of one car parking space per household, and ideally 0.6 or less. Car ownership at BedZED shows that this is possible in the suburbs. Car clubs offer a possible solution here. A reduction of 75 per cent against the local average for commercial car parking [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

The masterplanning criteria for parking [Taylor, 2008]:

Set parking standards as maxima (definitely not minima) at less than 0.5 spaces per unit i.e. at least 50% of residential units should in effect be ‘car‐free’.

Segregate parking from homes in new residential developments.

A high proportion of housing should be car‐free and have no dedicated parking space.

Residents should be charged the full cost of parking provision.

Limited parking at local facilities and shops, all with a parking fee.


Hefðbundnar kröfur um lágmarksfjölda bílastæða gilda ekki.

Kröfur um hámarksfjölda bílastæða koma í staðinn, ekki fleiri en 500 stæði á hver 1000 störf.

Markaðsverð er rukkað fyrir notkun á bílastæðum. Mögulega frávik við verslanir sem rukka ekki viðskiptavini sem versla fyrir ákveðna upphæð.

Reglur um yfirbragð byggðar og staðsetningu bílastæða.


Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development. Maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices, reduce the land‐take of development, enable schemes to fit into central urban sites, promote linked‐trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle congestion. There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for disabled people [Department of the Environment, 2001].

Tafla 6 – Maximum Parking Standards [Department of the Environment, 2001]

Use

National Maximum Parking Standard 1 space per square metre (m2) of gross floorspace unless otherwise stated

Threshold from and Above Which Standard Applies (gross floorspace)

Food retail 1 space per 14m2 1000m2 Non food retail 1 space per 20m2 1000m2 Cinemas and conference facilities

1 space per 5 seats 1000m2

D2 (other than cinemas, conference facilities and stadia)

1 space per 22m2 1000m2

B1 including offices 1 space per 30m2 2500m2

Higher and further education 1 space per 2 staff + 1 space per 15 students (see note 1)

2500m2

Stadia 1 space per 15 seats (see note 2)

1500 seats

Notes:

1. The standard for students relates to the total number of students attending an educational establishment, rather than full‐time equivalent figures.

2. For stadia, sufficient coach parking should be provided to the satisfaction of the local authority and treated separately from car parking. Coach parking should be designed and managed so that it will not be used for car parking.

3. Parking for disabled people should be additional to the maximum parking standards. Development proposals should provide adequate parking for disabled motorists, in terms of numbers and design (see Traffic Advice Leaflet 5/95, Parking for Disabled People).

4. For mixed use development, the gross floorspace given over to each use should be used to calculate the overall total maximum parking figure. For land uses not covered in these standards, the most stringent regional or local standards should apply.


Case 1 – non‐residential projects [U.S. Green Building Council, 2009]:

- Size parking capacity to meet but not exceed minimum local zoning requirements.

or

- For projects that provide parking for less than 3% of full‐time equivalent (FTE) building occupants: Provide preferred parking for carpools or vanpools, marked as such, for 3% of total parking spaces. Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for carpool or vanpool vehicles. To establish a meaningful incentive in all potential markets, the parking rate must be discounted at least 20%. The discounted rate must be available to all customers (i.e. not limited to the number of customers equal to 5% of the vehicle parking capacity), publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area, and available for a minimum of 2 years.

or

- Provide no new parking.

or

- For projects that have no minimum local zoning requirements, provide 25% fewer parking spaces than the applicable standard listed in the 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Parking Generation” study at http://www.ite.org.

Case 2 – residential projects:

- Size parking capacity to meet but not exceed minimum local zoning requirements. Provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate shared vehicle use, such as carpool drop‐off areas, designated parking for vanpools, or car‐share services, ride boards and shuttle services to mass transit.

or


Case 3 – Mixed use (residential with commercial/retail) projects:

- Mixed‐use buildings with less than 10% commercial area must be considered residential and adhere to the residential requirements in Case 2. For mixed‐use buildings with more than 10% commercial area, the commercial space must adhere to non‐residential requirements in Case 1 and the residential component must adhere to residential requirements in Case 2.

or



3.11 Bílastæðagjöld


Bílastæðagjöld 33‐350 kr/klst (eftir staðsetningu) 135 kr/klst

In Olomouc (Czech Republic), parking zones have been established throughout the historic city centre and in some streets outside this zone, and the charges apply on weekdays between 09:00 and 18:00. One hour’s parking costs CZK 10 or CZK 20 (1 CZK = 6,6 kr 27. jan 2011), depending on the street. Parking season tickets can be purchased for sub‐areas, costing CZK 400 for three months, CZK 600 for six months and CZK 1,000 for one year for private individuals; and CZK 4,200,CZK 6,300 and CZK 10,500 respectively for companies. A pass for all parking zones, for both individuals and companies, costs CZK 8,400 for three months, CZK 12,600 for six months and CZK 21,000 for one year. There is also a time restriction of up to two hours in place. In addition, in the parking charge zones there is also a time limit of up to two hours, with certain exceptions in specially indicated places [Szymanska, 2008].

In Ostrava (Czech Republic), heavy traffic regulation has been introduced in selected residential areas. Other restrictions are in place in parts of the historic city centre, where pedestrian zones have been created. There are paid parking zones in the city centre and some districts.These zones cover an area in which almost one‐third of city residents live.The price for one hour’s parking is CZK 20 in the city centre and CZK 5 in other zones. The maximum parking time is limited to between 30 minutes and two hours, depending on the street. Parking charges apply on weekdays between 08:00 and 18:00. Those living within a parking zone are provided with one parking place but must purchase a special annual permit for CZK 600.The permit does not guarantee the availability of a parking space [Szymanska, 2008].

In Ponzan (Poland), the pressure of increasing motorisation has forced the city to look for solutions other than expensive road development. In 1993, one of the first parking‐charge zones in Poland was introduced in Poznan, and in 2003 it was extended to include 7,000 parking places. The zone comprises three areas with different charges: in themost expensive, the first hour costs PLN 3.00 (1 PLN = 4,8 kr 27. jan 2011), the second hour PLN 3.60, the third PLN 4.30, and the fourth and following hours PLN 3.00. In the second category the charges are PLN 2.70, PLN 3.20, PLN 3.60 and PLN 2.70 respectively. In the cheapest area, one hour costs PLN 1.00. Surrounding the parkingcharge zones in the city centre are nine “buffer parking” areas (approximately 1,200 places) where cars are guarded and parking is free of charge or not more than PLN 2.00 per hour (depending on location and time of day). These are not popular with drivers since they are situated up to a kilometre outside the city centre,with no nearby bus or tramstops. Bicycles can park for free in all these parking areas [Szymanska, 2008].

In Freiburg (Germany), in the city centre, parking has to be paid for in three zones, to which different prices apply. In the first zone, the minimum price is EUR 0.50 for 14 minutes (1 EUR = 159,2 kr 27. jan 2011). Each additional EUR 0.10 gives about two minutes 44 seconds parking (average EUR 2.20/hr). In the second zone the minimum price is EUR 0.40 for 15 minutes and EUR 0.10 for each additional three minutes 45 seconds (average EUR 1.60/hr). In the third zone, the minimum price is EUR 0.10


for 10 minutes (average EUR 0.60 /hr). A flat‐rate ticket is available only in the second and third zones and costs, respectively, EUR 8.00/24hr and EUR 3.00/24hr. The parking‐charge zones, along with the 16 multi‐storey car‐parks, are part of the integrated parking management system [Szymanska, 2008].

3.12 Aldur og fjölskyldugerð Áhrifaþáttur Stærðarbil Meðaltal eða miðgildi

Aldur og fjölskyldugerð



Húsnæði í öllum verðflokkum, lýðfræðileg blanda íbúa og starfa.

Mikilvægt að blanda byggð „rétt”.

3.13 Aðgengi almenningssamgangna


Aðgengi almennings‐samgangna

200‐600 m milli biðstöðva strætó (eftir staðsetningu)

360 m milli biðstöðva strætó

Sites which currently have poor public transport should not be developed until public transport has been improved [Taylor, 2008].

For less significant public transport links than train or metro stations, a smaller catchment area applies, because potential passengers will, in general, not be prepared to walk so far. For bus stops in urban settings, 300‐400m, about a 5 minute maximum walking time, is often taken as a practical standard to determine spacing of bus stops (e.g. Northamptonshire County Council 2007 Transport Strategy for Growth, Appendix 3, Guidance on creating lasting modal shift) [Taylor, 2008].

A public transport network that is quickly accessible, frequent and reliable, linking all business and residential areas and with links to the wider network [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

In a separate analysis underway at Oregon Public Health Division's Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, results suggest that 1650 feet (500m) constitutes a reasonable assumption of the distance people would be willing to walk to a transit stop, based on an average walking speed of 2.75 feet/second (on the slow end for older adults) and a walk time of 10 minutes (the average time people who walk to rail stops spend on that walk). These sample distances, ranging from 860 feet for grocery stores to 1650 feet for transit stops, fall on either side of the 1320 feet (quarter mile) often assumed as walkable [Costantino, 2010].



Þéttbyggður kjarni utan um strætóstöðvar eða lestarstöðvar, um 400 m radíus frá stöðinni (5 mín gangur). Þéttleiki byggðar minnkar þegar fjær dregur.

Þjónusta almenningssamgangna er hröð, tíð, áreiðanleg og þægileg. Tíðni 15 mínútur eða minna.

Biðstöðvar eru þægilegar og öruggar með rauntímaferðaupplýsingar, salerni o.fl.

Góð, yfirbyggð aðstaða fyrir reiðhjól á biðstöðvum

According to analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round, the share of population living within a 300 metre radius of local public transport stops (hourly or more frequent) for the awarding cities (Stockholm and Hamburg) ranged from 90% and very close to 100% [Berrini, 2010].

Since public transport requires a minimum number of potential users in order to be economically viable, new districts are developed close to existing or planned public transportation lines. Minimum numbers of inhabitants living within walking distance of public transport stops have been calculated for German cities: a minimum of 1,000 to 1,500 people within walking distance (300m) of a bus stop; a minimum of 3,000 people within walking distance (400m) of a tram stop; and a minimum of 4,000 people within walking distance (500 m) of a light regional rail station. Taking into account the average number of occupants in an apartment in Freiburg (2.04 people/apartment) and calculating with a factor of 1.25 (for the real average distance between a public transport stop and an apartment) means that the minimum density should be 40 apartments per hectare. For social reasons, it was established that the density in urban districts should be no higher than 70 apartments per hectare [Szymanska, 2008].

Tafla 7 ‐ Guidelines for public transport development in Freiburg [Szymanska, 2008]

Mode of Transport

Acceptable Walking Distance to Stop

The number of inhabitants Within Walking Distance Based on 40 Apartments per Hectare

The number of inhabitants Within Walking Distance Based on 70 Apartments per Hectare

Bus 300 m 1,476 2,583

Tram 400 m 2,623 4,591

Light Regional Rail 500 m 4,100 7,174


Skv. Mynd 6 ætti fjarlægð á milli stoppistöðva að vera [City of Aurora, 2007]:

1. Core Zone (TOD District Urban Core Zone) – within approximately 1/8 mile (200 m) of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers;

2. Transition Zone (TOD District Urban Center Zone) – between approximately 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile (200‐400 m) of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers;

3. Edge Zone (TOD District General Urban Zone) ‐ between approximately 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile (400‐600 m) of transit stations for TODs and the central plaza or main‐street areas for urban centers.

Local centres should be pedestrian and cycle access only, so far as possible [Taylor, 2008].

To reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use, locate the project within 1/4‐mile walking distance (400 m), measured from a main entrance, of 1 or more stops for 2 or more public, campus, or private bus lines usable by building occupants [U.S. Green Building Council, 2009].

3.14 Þjónusta almenningssamgangna


Þjónusta almennings‐samgangna

10‐22,5 mínútur hámarksbiðtími 05:00‐00:30 þjónustutími

14 mínútur hámarksbiðtími 05:30‐00:15 þjónustutími

A frequency of 10–15 minutes in the daytime is normally necessary to avert the tendency to use the car. The service should operate from around 6am to midnight [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Real‐time displays showing public transport departure times and actual running information [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

For buses (not running on segregated busways), which can suffer delays in traffic that tend to result in irregular service intervals and ‘bunching’, there is some evidence that perhaps a more frequent service interval of 10 minutes or less is required to achieve a passenger perception of a ‘turn‐up‐and‐go’ service. Analysis of bus services in Northamptonshire (Northamptonshire County Council 2007, Transport Strategy for Growth, Appendix 3, Guidance on creating lasting modal shift) showed that the services which attract enough passengers to be commercially successful tend to have service intervals of no longer than 10 minutes [Taylor, 2008].

20 dwellings per hectare will support half‐hourly bus service and 25 dwellings per hectare will sustain bus service (quality not specified) [Taylor, 2008].

The city’s 21 bus lines are divided into four groups: diameter lines going from one suburb to another through the city centre; radius lines, running from the suburbs to the city centre; tangential lines connecting industrial areas with residential areas and tram lines; and complementary lines (the largest group) connecting the suburbs with tramlines. During peak times buses run every 10 to 15 minutes in the city centre, and every 15 to 30 minutes in the suburbs within the city limits. At other


times during the day bus frequency depends on demand, although it is never lower than every 45 minutes and is usually every 15 to 30 minutes. At weekends the frequency is lower, at between 15 and 60 minutes depending on the line. Public transport starts at about 04:30 or 05:00 and stops at about 00:30 on weekdays and Sundays. On Saturdays, it starts around one hour later. Public transport at night comprises six bus lines for the city of Freiburg and surrounding areas, supported by on‐call shared taxis. The night bus lines are numbered, and are also named after the planets: night connections start from one point in the city centre, and night buses run from Friday night to Sunday morning every hour between 01:30 and 04:30 [Szymanska, 2008].

In 1984 the Freiburg “Environmental Protection Card” was introduced. This was a cheap monthly ticket without any limit on the number of journeys. Tickets were transferable and were also valid outside the city limits. Significantly, the introduction of a cheap monthly pass did not cause any long‐term troubles for the municipal transport company. The lower income resulting from cheaper tickets was made up by higher demand [Szymanska, 2008].

Minimal car parking at transport hubs: new developments should not centre on, or be planned in association with, park‐and‐ride style transport hubs [Taylor, 2008].


4 Viðbótarefni Í eftirfarandi kafla er tekið saman ýmislegt viðbótaraefni úr heimildaöflun, efni sem tengist viðfangsefninu en nýttist ekki beint í 3. kafla.

4.1.1 Göngugreiðleiki (e. Walkability) Stuðul fyrir göngugreiðleika (e. walk score) er hægt að reikna meðal annars á síðunni www.walkscore.com [Walk Score, 2010]. Vefsíða þessi gefur heimilisföngum einkunn eftir hversu mikil þjónusta er í innan við einnar mílu fjarlægð. Fleiri stig fást eftir því sem þjónustan er nær. Gallinn við aðferðina sem notuð er á þessari síðu er að hún notar fjarlægðir frá heimilisfangi að þjónustu í beinni línu á milli staða en ekki raunverulegar göngufjarlægðir. Þetta þýðir að staðsetning gatna og hindranir eru ekki teknar með í útreikninga. Að auki eru ekki gefnir mismunandi stuðlar fyrir mismunandi þjónustu. T.d. væri rökrétt að nálægð við matvöruverslun myndi vega meira en nálægð við skósmið. Þá er ekki tekið tillit til atriða eins og götubreiddar, öryggis, aðdráttarafls fyrir gangandi vegfarendur, brekka, umferðarþungra gatna og veðurs.

Ný útfærsla þar sem tekið er tillit til hindrana og staðsetningar gatna er í vinnslu, þá verður einnig tekið tillit til eftirfarandi:

Þéttleika gatnamóta, þ.e. hversu mörg gatnamót eru á svæðinu – því fleiri því betra.

Hlutfall gatna á gatnamót (e. link/node ratio), það er hversu margar götur liggja inn í hver gatnamót, t.d. eru gatnamót með umferð í fjórar áttir greiðari fyrir gangandi vegfarendur en einstefnu botnlangagata.

Þar sem styttri húsalengjur eru gönguvænni en lengri þá er það einnig notað sem mælikvarði.

4.1.2 Hjólagreiðleiki (e. Bikeability) Í mastersritgerð frá Portland State University 2010 [McNeil, 2010] er fjallað um hvernig blöndun innviða og áfangastaða hefur áhrif á hjólagreiðleika. Í þessari rannsókn er m.a. tekið tillit til raunverulegra vegalengda, aðstæðna og mismunandi áfangastaðir hafa mis mikið vægi, það hafa flestar eldri rannsóknir ekki gert.

A 2008 study by Dill and Gliebe [Dill, 2008] used GPS devices to track cyclists activity. GPS participants cycled an average of 6.2 miles per day and median of 4.9 miles per day. The median single trip distance was 2.8 miles, while median distances for trips other than to work or home varied from 1 to 2.1 miles. Applied to a 20‐minute neighborhood, these distances may suggest that work locations can be a bit more spread out (2‐4 miles from home) but that non‐work destinations might need to be between zero and two miles from home to meet a functional definition of a 20‐minute neighborhood.

Lack of access to grocery stores was the largest factor in decreasing bikeability scores in east Portland. Following grocery stores, lack of access to movie theaters, light rail stops, gyms, libraries, restaurants, and cafés all brought down bikeability scores considerably. However, policies that encourage carefully sited new stores or clusters could play an important role in increasing bikeability [McNeil, 2010].


Before the change in political system, Poznan had only 4 km of bicycle paths. Under communism, and during the first years of the political transformation, cycling was seen as a means of transportation for those who were not able to afford public transport or private cars. As such, it had no place in the image of a prosperous, modern society. Although modern planning reserved a great deal of space for road infrastructure, investments did not take into account the needs of cyclists. A shift in attitude came with the import of modern bicycles, after which cycling became popular as a form of recreation. Regional authorities reacted very quickly, putting up signs to mark several tourist bicycle routes around Poznan. Although this also stimulated bicycle traffic in the city, the situation of cyclists within the city limits did not improve. With the onset of the first severe traffic problems, the city council began to consider bicycles more seriously. Today, Poznan has 73 km of bicycle paths. These are constructed in three ways: by adapting wide pavements (in districts built in the 1970s and 1980s); alongside other road construction; and as separate investments. The quality of the bicycle infrastructure is not satisfactory. The most common problems with bicycle paths are:

the use of concrete slabs rather than asphalt as the path surface;

curbs higher than one centimetre, and general unevenness;

lack of separation from pedestrian traffic (in situations where this would be possible);

paths situated on one side of a street, rather than on both sides;

low priority for cyclists at junctions with intelligent traffic‐ lights, and a not very user friendly form of bicycle detection (cyclists have to stop and press a button and wait as there are no induction loops or video‐detectors);

lack of, or poor‐quality bicycle racks, which do not allow cyclists to attach a lock to the frame of the bicycle; and

lack of parking places for bicycles in new buildings (offices, housing, shopping malls etc.).

In Poland, as in other countries that are signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, cyclists are required to use bicycle paths or lanes where they exist. Poor‐quality bicycle infrastructure can therefore sometimes make cycling conditions worse than the lack of bicycle paths [Szymanska, 2008].

In Freiburg (Germany), in the city centre there are between 500 and 600 public parking places for bicycles and a further 3,000 in other parts of the city. According to state law, every new investment (house, shop, office etc.) has to include bicycle parking spaces. Detailed standards for every area and kind of activity are established by the city. These bicycle parking places have to be located inside or close to the building, on a private plot. Outside the historic city centre and in locations not served by public transport, bicycle parking places must be ensured by developers or private investors. The possibility to park a bicycle close to home, workplace, shops etc. is one of the most important factors stimulating bicycle usage. The city focuses on the following aspects [Szymanska, 2008]:

removing gaps in the bicycle network;

improving the quality of older bicycle paths and lanes (e.g. changing surfaces to asphalt);

separating bicycle and pedestrian transport on more frequently used routes;

improving bicycle network safety in hotspots (places with a higher number of accidents);

developing bicycle parking places in the city centre and a Bike&Ride system;


opening one‐way streets for bicycle traffic in the opposite direction; and

developing and improving bicycle signposts.

4.1.3 Um skipulag vistvænna samgangna Mikil áhersla er lögð á að forgangsraða þannig að bíllinn er ekki lengur í fyrsta sæti. Þarfir fólksins koma á undan þörfum einkabílsins. Einn af kostum þess að forgangsraða á þennan hátt er að öðlast meiri umhverfislega sjálfbærni – með því að hvetja til hjólreiða og göngu [CABE SPACE, 2008].

Mynd 11 – Forgangsröðun við skipulag hverfa og borga [Department for Transport, 2007]

Undir lok 20. aldarinnar voru gerðar margar tilraunir til að taka tillit til göngugreiðleika (e. walkability) við hverfaskipulag. Þá var stuðst við hugmyndir eins og t.d. Transit‐Oriented Development, New Urbanism og Complete Streets. Í Portland í Bandaríkjunum varð hugmyndin um 20 mínútna hverfi að lykilatriði þegar litið er til lífsgæða íbúa [Gerding, 2007].

Götur skulu vera hannaðar sem svæði en ekki bara sem umferðarmannvirki. Þarfir fólksins skulu vera ofar í forgangsröðinni en þarfir vélknúinnar umferðar. Það stuðlar einnig að hljóðlátum og mengunarlausum götum. Gatnakerfi skulu vera einföld og vel tengd og almennings‐ og einkasvæði skulu vera vel skilgreind. Götur og torg skulu vera þannig hönnuð að þau skapi hverfinu sérstöðu (local distinctiveness and identity) og séu örugg fyrir mismunandi notendur [CABE & BioRegional, 2008].

Við hönnun vistvæns bæjar (eco‐town) skal huga að [CABE & BioRegional, 2008]:

Efling göngu og hjólreiða sem samgöngumáta og til frístundaiðkunnar.

Shared spaces, shared surfaces and home zones in appropriate contexts.

Hönnun gatna og torga sem almenningssvæða með greinilega tengingu við nærliggjandi byggingar.

Öryggi og aðgengi hjólastæða.

Car parking provision that is well‐integrated into a high‐quality public realm.

Streets designed for extreme weather conditions such as flooding (for example with SUDS);

Active street frontages wherever possible.

Passive supervision of public space with housing and other buildings arranged to overlook the public realm.

An assessment of the impact the proposal is likely to have on activity levels of the town’s residents.

Gangandi vegfarendur

Hjólandi vegfarendur

Notendur almenningssamgangna

Sérstök þjónustuökutæki (t.d. sjúkrabílar og öskubílar)

Önnur umferð

Huga að fyrst

Huga að síðast


Aðgengilegum skólaleiðum og leiðum að verlslunum og öðrum stöðum sem íbúar sækja. Þessar leiðir þurfa einnig að vera aðlaðandi og öruggar fyrir alla notendur, sérstaklega börn, gamalt fólk og fatlaða.

Gerð íþróttamannvirkja og vistvænna líkamsræktarstöðva þar sem skipulagðir hópar halda sér í formi með því að halda umhverfinu hreinu.

Leiksvæðum sem hvetja ungt fólk til að njóta útivistar, bæði börn og unglinga.

4.1.4 Modal Share According to analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round, the modal share of short trips (less than 5 km) in the awarding cities (Stockholm and Hamburg) is [Berrini, 2010]:

Modal share Range

Foot & bicycle 56‐68%

Public transport 11‐25%

Car+moto 8‐34% Tafla 8 – Modal Share in Stockholm and Hamburg

4.1.5 Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms For commercial or institutional projects 300 000 square feet or less (<28 000 m2):

- Provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage within 200 yards of a building entrance for 3% or more of all building users (calculated average for the year).

- Provide shower and changing facilities in the building, or within 200 yards of a building entrance, for 0.5% of full time equivalent (FTE) occupants.

Commercial or institutional projects larger than 300 000 square feet (>28 000 m2):

- Provide secure bicycle storage for 3% of the occupants for up to 300,000 square feet, then an additional 0.5% for the occupants for the space over 300,000 square feet. Mixed‐use buildings with a total gross square footage greater than 300,000 square feet must apply this calculation for each use of the building.

- Provide shower and changing facilities in the building, or within 200 yards of a building entrance, for 0.5% of FTE occupants.

Residential Projects:

- Provide covered storage facilities for securing bicycles for 15% or more of building occupants. This case must be used by residential buildings or the residential portion of a mixed use building [U.S. Green Building Council, 2009]

Cycle storage at transport hubs: cycle storage facilities should be large, under cover and prominently sited close to station entrances (as per good European practice) [Taylor, 2008].

4.1.6 Low‐Emitting and Fuel‐Efficient Vehicles Provide preferred parking1 for low‐emitting and fuel‐efficient vehicles2 for 5% of the total

vehicle parking capacity of the site. Providing a discounted parking rate is an acceptable substitute for preferred parking for low‐emitting/fuel‐efficient vehicles. To establish a meaningful incentive in all potential markets, the parking rate must be discounted at least 20%. The discounted rate must be available to all customers (i.e. not limited to the number


of customers equal to 5% of the vehicle parking capacity), publicly posted at the entrance of the parking area, and available for a minimum of 2 years.

For project types that demonstrate market barriers to the definition of preferred parking closest to the main entrance, alternatives may be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

or

Install alternative‐fuel fueling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site. Liquid or gaseous fueling facilities must be separately ventilated or located outdoors. Consider sharing the costs and benefits of refueling stations with neighbors.

4.1.7 Public transport case studies Key messages from the public transport case studies [Szymanska, 2008]:

Prevent the disintegration of public transport and promote its image.

Cities must take the initiative – with local authorities playing an important role.

Create a good transport strategy and transport plan with ambitious goals consistent with the principles of sustainable urban mobility and strive toward long‐term improvement since short‐term gains are not always possible.

Consider creating a transport authority to take responsibility for organising the public transport system.

Integrate public transport planning with urban planning — e.g. make tram/bus stops easier to reach than car‐parking spaces.

Open the transport operatormarket to private firms, as competition can contribute to the improvement of public transport services.

Give priority to public transport both in terms of investment plans and physically on the roads.

Improve the standard of public transport so that it meets the needs of a wide group of citizens and becomes a good alternative to the car.

Introduce a good transport fare system: inexpensive and simple tickets, long‐term pass options, integration of different modes of transport and different operators in one area‐wide ticket system.

Create a good network and timetable that make it easy to transfer between different transport modes, and have lines that offer comprehensive coverage, including low‐density zones and night‐time services.

Keep vehicles clean and safe by introducing a monitoring system and regular cleaning service.

Pay attention to people with reduced mobility and provide better accessibility to public transport.

Along with public transport improvements, promote and invest in cycling and walking, introduce parking‐charge zones and traffic calming and introduce Park&Ride and Bike&Ride facilities.

Look for innovative financing solutions by persuading the city that this public service has to be subsidised (or just paid for under the service contract between the city and the operator) and by seeking co‐financing from EU funds and other donors.


Be active in different European transport projects and initiatives, which is a way not only to find additional funding but to network with other cities, exchange experiences and learn from others’ mistakes.

The main lesson to be learnt from these case studies is to prevent the disintegration of the public transport system. Cities must take the initiative and cannot afford to wait and do nothing. Public transport should be improved in such away that travel standards increase in order to provide a good alternative to car usage. The services on offer cannot be addressed only to the poorest social group. While the social role of public transport is obviously very important, the target group should be very wide. The achievement of this goal is relatively difficult, but, as shown by the examples of Freiburg and—on a smaller scale—Olomouc, it is possible. There are many ways to achieve success, although the most important are: cheap fares; the promotion of long‐term tickets; the integration of different modes of transport and different operators in one metropolitan area ticket system; high frequency (optimum every five to 15 minutes on main lines); a comprehensive offer including night buses and services in low‐density areas; and good possibilities to change between lines. Integrated urban planning and transport development should ensure that tram or bus stops are closer than parking places for private cars. Safety aspects are also very important: video monitoring is becoming the usual practice inside vehicles and at stops. Vehicles should be comfortable and clean [Szymanska, 2008].

Sustainable mobility cannot be limited to the improvement of public transport alone. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic also play a very important role. Some time ago, bicycles and public transport in general were considered as transportation for the poor. However, attitudes are now changing. Today, a well‐designed bicycle infrastructure is extremely important: smooth surfaces (e.g. asphalt), smooth curbs, safety lanes, priority at intersections, and the possibility to store bicycles safely and conveniently at home and at the office. Experience shows that poor infrastructure can discourage bicycle traffic even more than a lack of infrastructure. Pedestrians need wide pavements and pedestrian zones, ensuring safety on the streets. Pedestrian zones have become very popular as shopping areas and meeting places, that is, part of the urban lifestyle [Szymanska, 2008].

It is clear that more funding should be directed to the improvement of public transport than to road construction. The effects of improved road infrastructure are very quickly overtaken by the rising number of car trips being made, which have a negative impact on modal share. Similarly, uncontrolled suburbanisation leads to an increase in the number of trips made by car. New road investments should rather be concentrated only on optimising a city’s by‐pass system. Intelligent traffic‐lights also play a significant role. They can be an important tool in giving priority to public transport and in helping to achieve sustainable mobility. However, it is unfortunately also easy to change priorities and set out car oriented programmes [Szymanska, 2008].


5 Heimildir Arrington, G. B., and R. Cervero (2008), TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.

Badoe, D. & Miller, E. (2000), Transportation–Land Use Interaction: Empirical Findings in North America, and Their Implications for Modeling, in Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 235–263

Berrini, M. & Bono, L. (2010), MEASURING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY – Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round, Ambiente Italia

Brownstone, D. & Golob, T. F. (2009), The Impact of Residential Density on Vehicle Usage and Energy Consumption, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 91–98

CABE (2001), Better places to live – A companion guide to PPG3, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

CABE (2009), Hallmarks of a sustainable city, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London

CABE Space (2008), Civilised streets, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London

CABE & BioRegional (2008), What makes an eco‐town?, for BioRegional Development Group and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

City of Aurora (2007), Aurora Urban Street Standards – For Transit Oriented Developments and Urban Centers

Communities and Local Government (2009), Planning Policy Statement: eco‐towns – A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1, London, UK

Costantino, D. (2010) Oregon Department of Human Services, Office of Environmental Public Health, Environmental Public Health Tracking, Personal communication

Department for Transport (2007), Manual for streets, Thomas Telford Publishing, London

Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (2001), Policy Planning Guidance 13: Transport, London, The Stationary Office (TSO).

Dill, Jennifer and John Gliebe (2008), “Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus on Travel Time and Route choice”. Report No. OTREC‐RR‐08‐03, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium

Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2001), Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis, in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 87–114

Gerding Edlen, Principles of Place, Marketing Brochure, 2007. Accessed online 5/24/2010 at http://www.gerdingedlen.com/files/pdf/principles_of_place.pdf

Hermannsson, Þ. (2008), Áhrif skipulags á losun gróðurhúsa‐lofttegunda frá umferð í þéttbýli, Mannvit hf.

Hönnun (des 2006), Samgönguskipulag í Reykjavík – II. hluti stjórnun umferðarálags, fyrir Skipulags‐ og byggingarsvið Reykjavíkurborgar

Hönnun (feb 2006), Samgönguskipulag í Reykjavík – Fyrsti hluti greining á stöðu og stefnu, fyrir Skipulags‐ og byggingarsvið Reykjavíkurborgar


Lee, C. & Moudon, V.A. (2006), The 3Ds+R: Quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking, in Transportation Research, Part D 11, p.204‐215

Lund, H. (2006), Reasons for Living in a Transit‐Oriented Development, and Associated Transit Use. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 357–366

Mantri, Anupama (2008), A GIS Based Approach to measure Walkability of a Neighborhood, Master‘s Thesis at University of Cincinnati, pg 28

McNeil, N. (2010), Bikeability and the Twenty‐Minute Neighborhood – How Infrastructure and Destinations Influence Bicycle Accessibility, Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Portland State University

Moudon, Anne Vernez, Chanam Lee, Allen D. Cheadle, Cheza Garvin, Donna Johnson, Thomas L. Schmid, Robert D. Weathers, and Lin Lin (2006), “Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights”. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2006, 3, Suppl 1, S99‐S117

NRCNA (National Research Council of the National Academies) (2009), Driving and the Built Environment –The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 298, Washington, D.C.

Siegman, P. (2003), Is It Really TOD?, Tumlin and Millard‐Ball

Sully, Alex (2000), How Far Are “Ordinary” Cyclists Happy to Cycle As Part Of An “Ordinary” Journey? Paper presented at Velo Mondial,. Accessed online 4/4/10 at http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/SULLY12.PDF

Szymanska, W. (2008), Sustainable Transport Policies in South Eastern Europe – Needs, Priorities and Lessons Learnt from EU Countries, for The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

Taylor, I. and Sloman, L. (2008), Masterplanning Checklist for Sustainable Transport in New Developments, Transport for Quality of Life for Campaign for Better Transport.

U.S. Green Building Council (2009), LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development, USGBC, Washington DC

Walk Score (2010), Vefsíða: http://www.walkscore.com/, tekið af vef í september 2010

Documents

Bbb vistvænar samgöngur i hluti lokaútg vinnuskjals