Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation UVEK Bundesamt für...

Eidgenössisches Departement fürUmwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation UVEK Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung

Public Transport from the Standpoint of Spatial Development

and Agglomeration Policy

Ueli BalmerDeputy Head Transport Policy Section

Office for Spatial DevelopmentSwitzerland

2 Summer School 23.08.2010

Switzerland in brief

- Comparatively small - 40’000km2 (Germany 360’000 km2)- 7.7 Mio. people (Germany 82 Mio.)

- Unfavorable geography (2/3 mountainous)- Situated in center of Europe- 3’900’000 (523 per 1000 inhabitants)- Roads: 72’000 km- Railway lines: 5’000 km- Air: 3 international airports


Starting Point

• Community of Ferenbalm asks for better connectivity by PT

• Background• Revision of local planning• Canton demands

accessibility by PT• Canton

• Responsible for spatial planning

• Guidelines by Federal Law on Spatial Planning

• Karte Gem. Ferenbalm


Federal Law on Spatial PlanningIntentions

• Main intentions• Seperation of Settlement and non settlement areas• Economical use of landscape• Specific measures to support

• Conservation of nature• Good conditions for settlements and economy• Develop social, economical and cultural life in different

regions• Adequate decentralisation of settlement and economy• Ensure sufficient provision• Ensure integral defense

• Conclusion: Satisfy diverging interests


Law on Spatial PlanningSpecifications

• Obligation of planning• Specification of planning principles

• Protection of landscape• Limitation of extension of settlements• Sufficient connectivity of

• Residential zones and• Working zones by PT

• Maintenance and construction of ways for cycling and walking• Etc.

• Basic lines of planning have to be accepted by • Office for Spatial Development (examination) • Federal Government (final)


Effects on Traffic Volume: Limited

Development passenger transport 1960 - 2007 (Mio. Pkm)

0

20000

4000060000

80000

100000

1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 2007

Public Transportation (Road and Rail) Motorised Private Transport


Explanation:Diverging Incentives

• Dense infrastructure (road and rail)• Mobility is cheap

• Individual motor car traffic does not pay for external costs• Public transport heavily subsidised• Tax reductions when using the car for journey to work (if use

of PT is not « reasonable »)• Deficits in spatial planning

• Building in open Country• Settlements• Working Places • Shopping Centres

• Partially no or unsufficient access to PT


Specific Challenge Transport in Urban Areas

Speed reduction of >5% dueto increase of Road traffic till 203085-90% of Congestion located in Urban Areas


Is Public Transport the Solution?


The Example of Zurich


Suburban railway system of ZurichConcept and effects

• Access improved: Connections at least every 30’ for• 60% of the workplaces• 1/3 of the population of the catchment area

• Co-determining factors• Integral system with tramways and buses• Parking policy (in Zurich restricitve)• Capacity of road infrastructure

• Outcome: Success-story• Before: Increase of motorised transport absorbed by road• After: Increase absorbed by public transport


Further important findings

• Development of settlements shaped by motorway system• Suburban railway system followed

• Is now driver for development of region and• Gives incentives for

• Economical use of landscape• Concentration of development of settlements (near

stations)• But: Bearing on development limited:

• Depending on actions of stakeholders• Tax-level, location, existing structure of settlements

• Outcome: Mean for better management of development


Swisswide Approach:Infrastructure Fund

• Main aim of fund: Tackling congestion• Different aspects

• Completion of (planned) motorway network• Extension of motorway network at neuralgic links• Co-Funding of projects for urban and suburban transport• Contributions for maintenance of peripheral roads

• Funding: • Initial deposit from revenues of earmarked excise duties• Annual contributions of earmarked excise duties

• Expenses• Total: 1 Bio CHF (about 650 Mio. €) per year (average)• For urban areas: 300 Mio. (about 200 Mio. €) per year


Urban Areas:Requirements for Funding

• Link to Agglomeration Program indicating:• Participation of relevant stakeholders• Empowered governing body• Analysis of current land use and traffic flows• Transparency of cost estimations and consequences

proposed• Secured implementation and controlling• High efficiency for different criteria

• Contributions of local/cantonal bodies (min. 50%)


Urban Areas: Assessment/effectiveness criteria

1. Qualitative improvement of transport systems

2. Promotion of inward settlement development

3. Increase in traffic safety

4. Reduced envir. impact & resource consumption

5. Acceptable investment and operating costs


Urban Areas: Method of assessment of programmes Agglomeratio

n

submitted agglomeration programmes

conditions are not complied

conditions are complied

Assessment of the programm’s impact

order of priority of the different measures

50%

Measures List A

Measures List B

Agglomeration Transport :

AP X : AP Y :-M1 - M1-M2 - M2-… - …

Analysis level of basic requirement

45%

40%

30%

35%


Outlook: Further steps necessary

• Spatial planning important, but diverging interests• Develop social, economical and cultural life in different

regions• Adequate decentralisation of settlement and economy

• Upgrading of public transport important, but not sufficient• Private transport increases as well• Financial means limited

• Additional measures needed• Pricing policy?

• Report on Road Pricing – RP for Urban Areas• Mobility Pricing – pay as you drive


Mobility PricingExample Heavy Vehicle Fee

• Vehicles with admissible Weight > 3.5t• For Use of all Roads• Polluter pays principle - Fee-Calculation includes external costs• Performance-related

• Distance• Weight (Vehicle and Trailer)• Emissions (Situation since 2009)

• Euro 0/1/2: 2,0 €Cts/tkm • Euro 3: 1,8 €Cts/tkm• Euro 4-6: 1.5 €Cts/tkm

• In parallel: Increase of weight limit from 28 to 40 tonnes


Effects of new regime on driving performance

0

500

1'000

1'500

2'000

2'500

3'000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

vkm

in m

illio

n

Old traffic regime (28t-limit without LSVA)

New traffic regime (34t- / 40t-limit with LSVA)


Conclusions

• Public transport plays an essential role in spatial planning• Backbone for transport in urban areas (agglomerations)• Basic offer in countryside

• Law on Spatial Planning aiming for connectivity by PT but• Diverging interests (deconcentration)• Execution by Cantons• Controversial incentives (tax-system)

• Specific Regulation for urban areas• Agglomeration programs• Special funding

• Public transport important but not sufficient• Planning needs to become more rigid and better controled • Additional measures needed – Pricing measures

Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation UVEK Bundesamt für...

Documents

Transcript of Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation UVEK Bundesamt für...