SUMP Acitivities in Thessaloniki.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Local mobility situation, planning practices and SUMP activities in Thessaloniki SLP1 Workshop, 19 October 2017, Thessaloniki Samuel Salem, Chrysa Vizmpa Transport Authority of Thessaloniki SA (TheTA) Metropolitan Unity of Thessaloniki (SKG) Basic Demographics THESSALONIKI • Thessaloniki 2nd largest city in Greece • 14 municipalities compose the Regional Unity of Thessaloniki • Population :1.107.998 (de facto ATH population, 2011 Census) • Region Unity Area: 3.683 km2 2 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Thessaloniki Administration Levels – TheTA’s Jurisdiction Thessaloniki Regional Unit Municipalities 1. Thessalonikis 2. Ambelokipon-Menemens 3. Volvis 4. Delta 5. Thermaikou 6. Thermis 7. Kalamarias 8. Kordeliou-Evosmou 9. Langada 10. Neapolis-Sykeon 11. Pavlou Mela 12. Pyleas-Chortiati 13. Chalkidonos 14. Oreakastrou 3 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Population Density Neapolis – Sykeon Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona Volvi Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis Thessaloniki Kalamaria Thermi 4 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Elderly Population Distribution in the Region Neapolis – Sykeon Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona Volvi Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis Thessaloniki Kalamaria Thermi 5 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Unemployment Rates in the Region Neapolis – Sykeon Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona Volvi Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis Thessaloniki Kalamaria Thermi 6 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Present Transport Facts Modal Share Public Non- Transport; motorized; 23% 2% Taxi; 4% Motorbikes; 4% Private Cars; 67% Stamos et al. (2013). Static traffic assignment model and 13/04/2016 08:30 am Source: mobithess urban mobility indicators for the city of Thessaloniki 2.2 million passengers daily trips by all modes 7 <SLP1> • <19/10/2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem> Present Public Transport Facts Bus Network Bus Network Characteristics 45 km • 78 Bus Routes (Urban & Suburban) • 622 Busses (mostly Euro IV & v) • 39.857.000 Vehicle – Kms by OASTH (2015) • 346.838.000 Passenger Capacity/year (2015) • 162.215.000 Passengers/ year (2015) • 4067 Itineraries/day (2015) • Mean passenger load factor 46.5% • Lengthiest service 45 km 8 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > Bus Fleet 9 <Event> • <Date> • <Location> • <Speaker> Bus Lanes • 9 Bus Lanes • 13 Km Length • Prior to Law 4482/2017 Joint Responsibility ThePTA/ Local Authorities 10 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > KTEL of Thessaloniki (Suburban Bus Services) Langadas city • Operator: KTEL of Thessaloniki • 4 lines mean • passenger load factor 24% • Fleet: 32 buses 11 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > Future Public Transport Network in Thessaloniki 12 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > Tools for Network Redesign 13 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > What ThePTA use to be… 14 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > What TheTA is… Board 5 Appointed by (9 members) the Minister of Transport 4 Representing (Including Local Chairman & Authorities & CEO) Stakeholders TheTA 15 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > TheTA vs ThePTA TheTA vs ThePTA • Allows for Holistic Approach • Weak organisational structure • Focuses on intermodality • Consensus among different • Connects land uses policies with stakeholders needed to reach a public transport decision • Access to operator ‘s real time • Weak statutory framework AVL/ fleet management data against the operator • Very ministry - centered • More flexible in everyday operation • More bureaucratic 16 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <S.Salem > The Thessaloniki SUMP Α Strategic Plan with emphasis on PT First of its kind in Greece Developed in the framework of the ATTAC/SEE Adapted to the particularities of the metropolitan area, the nature of the planning framework and the characteristics of the stakeholders and users Elaborated in difficult times with limited budget Requires active participation of all stakeholders: The Mobility Forum Support from transnational partners Following ELTIS Plus Guidelines Approved in February 2014 17 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> SUMP Stakeholders ‘Mobility Forum’ members STEP 1: Determine your potential for a successful SUMP • Technical Chamber of Commerce • Hellenic Institute of Transportation Engineers • Association Rights of the Pedestrians • Greek Passenger Federation • ATTIKO METRO S.A. • ECOCITY – ECOMOBILITY • Cyclist Association • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki • Organization of Public Transport of Thessaloniki • Metropolitan Authority of Thessaloniki • Region of Central Macedonia • Ministry of Transport • Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace • The Thessaloniki Traffic Police • Organization of Planning and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki (OR.TH.). 18 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> SUMP SWOT Analysis and Scenarios STEP 3: Analyse the mobility situation and develop scenarios Thessaloniki SUMP Strengths Weaknesses 3+1 key scenarios developed o Availability of large scale plans ● Strong position of road building and cars o Availability of human resources Scenario 0. ● Lack of knowledge management in o Interdisciplinary approach Do Nothing (education) larger scales ● Incomplete reporting of o Maturity of viable projects Scenario 1. (Metro) management interventions Business Αs Usual, Do Minimum o Fuel prices and development ● Institutional framework of project trends developments (long periods) ● Lack of THEPTA’s institutional Scenario 2. responsibilities Intermediate Development of Opportunities Threats Public Transport Favorable social climate for Development (economic and sustainable mobility social) Scenario 3. Create a metropolitan mobility Uncertain political developments Intensive Development of Public body Unemployment Transport Increased private sector (UITP Target PTx2 until 2025) participation (in collaboration with the public sector) Favorable legal and institutional 19 framework for the implementation<SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> S.M.A.R.T. Targets OBJECTIVES INDICATORS TARGET VALUES TARGET YEAR 15% 2016 Total PT ridership 50% 2020 Growth of public transport 10% 2016 Average PT occupancy with increased ridership 25% 2020 Average PT commercial 10% 2016 speed 25% 2020 -10% 2016 Off-street parking supply Decrease of car flows in -30% 2020 central area -15% 2016 On-street parking supply -30% 2020 10% 2016 Walking share in modal split Growth of active transport 25% 2020 in central area 10% 2016 Cycling share in modal split 15% 2020 -10% 2016 Decrease in pollution Pollution emissions SO2, O3, 20 emissions CO, NO2, PM10 -25% 2020 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> Effective measures (1/2) 1. Smart and integrated ticketing and integrated payment system 2. BRT, Bus priority at traffic signals 3. Awareness campaigns 4. Tram system 5. Intermodality among PT modes 6. Seaborne transport system 21 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> Effective measures (2/2) 7. Flexible Transport Systems 8. Integrated parking policy 9. Pedestrianisation and public space regeneration 10. Cycle lanes/ priority 11. Bike sharing system 12. Congestion charging and access control 22 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> Responsibilities and funding allocation STEP 7: Agree on Clear responsibilities and allocate funding 23 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> In February 2014 the Thessaloniki SUMP was finally adopted by ThePTA Board And then what??? 24 <Event> • <Date> • <Location> • <Speaker> After the adoption of the SUMP what? • STEP 8: Build monitoring and assessment into tha plan SUMP Quality Assessment Unit: • SUMP Greek Guidelines (i) to assess the quality of public transport services available through awareness-raising campaigns and user surveys (ii) to follow-up the implementation of the measures proposed within the SUMP (iii) to provide assistance to local authorities for preparation of Municipal SUMPs at local level Barriers : (i) financial resources required for data collection, quality control, staff resources, funding opportunities for measure implementation (ii) Data acquisition and cooperation amongst local authorities (iii) Appropriate management tools, methodologies etc 25 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> After the adoption of the SUMP what? • Special prize of the jury “SUMP Award 2014” • 7th Mobility Forum on March 2016 26 After the adoption of the SUMP what? • New legislative framework : Law N.4482/2017 “Transport Authority of Thessaloniki SA” • “Green fund” programme for 150 Municipalities • “Innovation 1” of SUMPs –Up project 27 Conclusions • Lack of Legislative framework for SUMPs in Greece Need for technical specifications adapted to Greek local conditions • Local authorities/municipalities are not fully aware of the importance of developing SUMPs. Unwillingness to participate in planning processes Need for campaigns and publicity actions on the advantages and the opportunities SUMP offers. 28 <SLP1> • <19.10.2017> • <Thessaloniki City Hall> • <Ch. Vizmpa> Conclusions •