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
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
Neapolis – Sykeon
Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona
Volvi
Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis
4
Neapolis – Sykeon
Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona
Volvi
Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis Thessaloniki Kalamaria Thermi
5
Neapolis – Sykeon
Ampelokipoi- Pavlou Menemeni Mela Kordelio – Evosmos Lagadas Oreokastro Chalkidona
Volvi
Delta Pylaia - Chortiatis
Thessaloniki Kalamaria Thermi
6
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
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
Bus Fleet
9
• 9 Bus Lanes • 13 Km Length • Prior to Law 4482/2017 Joint Responsibility ThePTA/ Local Authorities
10
Langadas city • Operator: KTEL of Thessaloniki • 4 lines mean • passenger load factor 24% • Fleet: 32 buses
11
12
13
14
Board 5 Appointed by (9 members) the Minister of Transport 4 Representing (Including Local Chairman & Authorities & CEO) Stakeholders
TheTA
15
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
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
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
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. o Interdisciplinary approach ● Lack of knowledge management in larger scales Do Nothing (education) ● Incomplete reporting of o Maturity of viable projects Scenario 1. (Metro) management interventions ● Institutional framework of project Business Αs Usual, Do Minimum o Fuel prices and development 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
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
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
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
STEP 7: Agree on Clear responsibilities and allocate funding
23
And then what???
24
• 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
• 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
• Lack of appropriate technical staff in Local authorities
Support by technical advisors and experts
• Luck of appropriate funding for developing the SUMP and implementing the measures
Strengthen the link between funding and SUMPs /National programmes and EU project opportunities, “Green Fund” opportunity
29
• Lack of (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
30
Thank you for your attention!!!
Sam Salem Chrysa Vizmpa [email protected] [email protected]
31