Questionnaire for Pilot Sites Collection of Facts and Information of Pilot Sites
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Questionnaire for pilot sites Collection of facts and information of pilot sites for building a comparative, transnational typology of alpine territories For project partners: Please fill in the predefined gaps and boxes and try to answer all the questions clearly and completely. Use the predefined boxes and stick to the space limitations. If space isn’t enough, please use the attached document to add more information. The questionnaire will be transferred directly into a kind of factsheet of your pilot site. Therefor please try to give clear information and formulate it well, so that it can be used for presenting your pilot site. If you have questions concerning the filling in, the meaning of a question or anything else, do not hesitate to contact us (iSpace – Dagmar Lahnsteiner, [email protected], CEREMA – David Caubel, [email protected]) Name and type of the territory: Fürstenfeldbruck, Bavaria, Germany Location (political district / region, federal province, country, other relevant position information): county (23 municipalities) in Bavaria, Germany, part of the European Metropolitan Region Munich(EMM) - PART A: MAIN TERRITORIAL FEATURES - Factor Description Please fill in… Population Number of inhabitants (main residence) and year 213,481 (2015) - shares by age groups - 14.5% under 15 years old 63.97% 15-64 years old 21.53% 65 and older - share of working population - 61.5 % working population Area Total area of the municipality in km² 434.79km² Pop. density Number of inhabitants per km² (year) 491 inhab./km² (2015) Settlement Number of inhabitants per km² settlement area/ 2,654.04 inhab./km² (2015) density theoretically inhabitable area (year) Elevation Height above mean sea level in m 559m Settlement Sprawled settlements or mainly compact? Satellite Fürstenfeldbruck county has structure areas around a centre or more disconnected the second highest population centres/settlements? Physical barriers? density in Bavaria right after Munich county. Therefore, it is subject to considerable urban pressure. The county lies in between the prosperous state capital Munich in the east and mainly rural areas in the west. In total, the county consists of 23 municipalities. The eastern municipalities have experienced a rapid growth during the 70s and 80s. Currently, 80% of the county’s inhabitants live in the eastern part, in an area with a diameter of 13 km. There are two different 1 settlement structures; The East is densely populated with urban characteristics while the west is more rural with partially small districts and hamlets. Nevertheless, a migration from east to west can be noticed due to higher land prices and insufficient land in the east. Thereby, a second commuter belt will be appearing in the west of Fürstenfeldbruck. Topography of Is it flat land / hilly terrain/ alpine valley and basin Mostly flat land in the eastern settlement area landscape? Other? and south-eastern area while the remaining landscape is characterized by hilly terrain. Functional Are there any characteristics describing special - High density of schools with characteristics functions of the municipality (e.g.: popular tourist - many crosslinks to the state destination, concentration of jobs, school centre, capital and Metropolitan regional centre, winter sport resort, economically Region Munich attractive, isolated/ central/ interconnected to,..) - excellent comprehensive public transport, 24/7 Jobs Number of workplaces and employees within the 10,978 (2014) with municipality (year) 49,202 employees (2016) Commuter Number of working population commuting to outside 57,008 (2016) balance the municipality (year) Number of people commuting from outside into the 20,488 (2016) municipality (year) 2 - PART B: MOBILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND- 1. Modal split: Please insert the smallest-scale modal split values of traffic volume available for the municipality/territory adding also the scale, source, and year (= percentage of travellers using a particular type of transportation). Scale, source, year At county level, “Mobility in Germany” (MiD), 2008 Share by foot value in % by foot 16% Share bicycle value in % bicycle 14% Share MIV value in % motorized individual transport 59% (driver & passenger) Share PT value in % public transport 11% Share other/n.s. value in % other / not specified 0% 2. Public transport - Existing offer: Please describe the existing mobility offer in the municipality/ territory. - Which means of transport do exist? ☒ Local bus ☒ Regional bus ☒ Local train ☐ Long-distance train ☒ Urban railways (S-Bahn) ☐ Tramway ☐ Metro ☐ Other: - Frequency of public transport services: what is the shortest interval? ☐ < 5 minutes ☒ 5 - 15 min. ☐ 15 - 30 min. ☐ 30 – 60 min. ☐ > 60 minutes - How long is the travel time to the next regional/national centre? ☐ < 15 min OR the next centre is within the pilot site /municipality ☐ 15 – 30 minutes ☒ 30 – 60 minutes ☐ > 60 minutes - Is there a multi/intermodal hub? If yes, of which services does it consist (in the case of several hubs, choose a representative/ the best developed one)? ☐ No ☒ Yes, consisting of: ☒ Bus/tram station ☒ Railway station ☐ Metro station ☒ Park & Ride area ☒ Bicycle parking ☐ E-bike charging ☐ E-car charging ☐ Car sharing ☐ Bike rental ☒ Taxi rank ☐ Other: 3. Public transport - incentives: What is done to make public transport attractive? ☒ Dedicated tariff system (discounted tickets, annual passes, combined/integrated tickets for different means of transport, special offers, etc.) ☒ Dedicated information (websites, smartphone apps, campaigns etc.) ☐ Other (max.150 characters): 4. Supplementary mobility offer and initiatives: Please give a brief description (+ year of implementation, owner/ operator) of supplementary public transport systems and innovative initiatives in the municipality/territory which assist the PT or help to reduce private car use (Park & Ride areas, Carpooling/ Carsharing initiatives, bus-on-demand / call bus, share taxi, Secure hitchhiking, etc.). (max. 5 listings with max. 300 characters each) Park & Ride areas at all 16 stations in the county: http://www.p-r- 3 regional.de/fileadmin/mediapool/pdfs/P_R_Bestand_Dez_2015.pdf Share taxi: further development of the call system. Since 2016 comprehensive within the county, 24/7, included in the MVV tariff. Allocated by the district office Express busses: direct and quick connection from Fürstenfeldbruck to Starnberg since 12/2015. Direct connection between the district towns FFB and Germering since 12/2014 Car Sharing: “Stattauto” in Puchheim (1 vehicle), Gröbenzell (1 vehicle), Germering (3 vehicles), all close to the railway station Bike sharing: 5 bicycles are provided by the company “nextbike” in Germering at the railway station 5. Conditions for non-motorized private transport: How is the situation for biking and walking within the Are there additional offers like (free) (electric) bicycle municipality/territory?(max. 500 characters) rental, bike sharing or special measures/initiatives for pedestrians? (max. 500 characters) Current analysis of the road network for bicycles with Current planning of bicycle rental systems by some the objective of reasonable development. Currently, municipalities. Only one is supposed to be free of the network reveals some gaps and dangerous spots. charge. Germering already provides nextbike. The Problems to deal with are difficulties with properties, county will advocate for a consistent system and cost and political willingness. Pedestrians play a coordination. “Bus with feet” is carried out in some subordinate role. municipalities by BUND nature conservation (Kids, guided by an adult, walk to school together) 6. Local mobility knowledge: Which kind of data or studies are used or gathered on local mobility knowledge? Is there any kind of observation system in place to enhance the information about current and forecast local mobility needs, practices and CO2 impacts? (max. 5 listings with max. 300 characters each) MVV- Various passenger surveys & customer satisfaction sirvey Mobility in Germany (MiD) (nationwide study since April 2016) Regional database Germany (German federal statistic office) Carbon footprint of the county – subject Traffic (new in 2017, compared with 2012) Continuous updating of the local transportation plan and reachability analysis, since 2017 7. Mobility needs and demands: Do inhabitants or local stakeholders express mobility needs or gaps with regard to the current situation and territorial issues? If yes, what are the major ones? (max. 5 listings with max. 200 characters each) Improvements for the motorised private transport (local bypass, better road infrastructure, more parking space) Public transport improvement (new lines, more express busses, easy and fair tariffs) Improvement of the bicycle infrastructure (more bicycle lanes, better signage, more bicycle stands, more fast lanes, service stations and rental systems) Intermodal mobility stations 4 - PART C: MOBILITY AND SPATIAL PLANNING BACKGROUND - 1. Planning authorities: Please give an overview of the responsibilities concerning mobility and spatial/housing planning in the municipality/territory. Are there also authorities combining the spatial and mobility planning aspect? Mobility planning (max. 800 characters) Spatial/housing planning (max. 800 characters) Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Infrastructure: Plan federal traffic routes in Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety: coordination with every affected administrative