Intermodalitate Berlin

8/15/2019 Intermodalitate Berlin

1/45

Verkehr Intermodal Mobility in Berlin

Intermodal Mobility in Berlin –recent projects, assumptions, observations

2012 IMPACTS ConferenceParis, 29 th June 2012

Burkhard HornSenate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Berlin


2/45


2

Overview

1. Introduction: Mobility in Berlin – Where are we now and what‘s coming up? – General aspects

2. Intermodal Mobility in Berlin: recent projects

– Combining cycling and public transport – Car sharing – Electric vehicles

3. Observations – Achievements … and new conflicts – Solution approaches

4. Conclusions and Questions


3/45


0. A Short Summary of Yesterdays Work…


4/45


4

Interesting projects of shared mobility…


5/45


5

Innovative Examples of Shared Space…


6/45


6

Public Space and Bicycle Parking…


7/45


7

High Quality Solutions for Public Space…


8/45


1. Introduction


9/45


9

Integrated Urban Transport Plan - StEP-Verkehr

Long-termstrategy

Adressing alltransport modes

Setting ambitiousaims

Placing highrelevance onintermodality – forseveral reasons


10/45


10

Intermodality – Why?

1. Social Aspects• Demographic and social change• Emerging communication and technology trends• High demands of a mobile and flexible society• Strain on household and mobility budgets

2. Economic Aspects• Financial restrictions of the public households• No resources (and mostly no need) for large infrastructure projects• Supposingly high cost-benefit-ratio of walking/cycling,/PT-measures

3. Environmental Aspects• Need to reduce emissions, noice and use of public space• New technologies generating, supposingly generating new patterns of

usage


11/45


11

transport demand follows trends in society and economy

flexible,ind iv idua l

s tru c tu res & ind iv idua ls

t radi t io nal , r ig ides t ruc tures

- in the families- at working places- in social life- at place of residence

dual career

households

migrants

singleparents

parttime jobs

openinghours ofretailers

sub-urbani-

sation

weekend-couple

trends in society and economy influencing transport demand



12/45


12



13/45


13

Intermodality – What?Verkehrsmittelwahl 1998

MIV: 38%zu Fuß:

25%

ÖPNV:27%

Fahrrad:10%

Verkehrsmittelwahl 2008

zu Fuß:28%

Fahrrad:13%

ÖPNV:27%

MIV: 32%

Daily journeys by Berlin residents Data: 1998 from StEP 1.0; 2008 from SrV

Modal Split 1998 Modal Split 2008

walking28%

cycling

18%

public transport

29% EnvironmentalAlliance 75%

Car: 25%

Car Public

TransportCyclingWalking

One Aim for Cycling, Walking

and Public Transport, combined

in the “Environmental Alliance”

Modal Split 2025 - Aim

k hI d l M bili i B li


14/45


14

Intermodality – How?

• Making use of the existing trends

• Utilising technology potentials

• Bringing each mode up to full strength• Explore existing and create new synergies

• No re-invention of the wheel, but attempt to „make it turn smootherand faster“…

V k hI t d l M bilit i B li


15/45


15

Bike sharing &

Car sharing:idealcomplementsof traditional PT

U: metroS: rail rapit transit

BS: Bike SharingCS: Car SharingCC: Cash Car

CCT: Collect-call taxiDaB: Dial - Bus

car sharing

bike-sharing collect-call taxi

combinationPT & bike

flexible,ind iv idua l

complemen t s

Tradi t ional pu bl ic t ran s p o rt w i th

l in es an dtimetables

CC

CS

DaB

TaxiBS

CCT

Intermodality – How?

V k hIntermodal Mobilit in Berlin


16/45


2. Recent Projects

VerkehrIntermodal Mobility in Berlin


17/45


17

The Dreamteam: Combining Cycling and Public Transport

1. Bicycle Parking at Stations of PT



18/45


18


2. The Bicycle on the Train



19/45


19


3. Bike Sharing



20/45


20

The Classic Approach: Car Sharing at Stations



21/45

Intermodal Mobility in Berlin

21

Flexible Car Sharing



22/45

y

22

Flexible Car Sharing



23/45

y

23

The Newcomer: Electric Vehicles



24/45

3. Observations



25/45

25

There are two sides to everything…

Firs t Suc cessesFirs t Suc cesses•• con t in ious inc rease o f cyc l ing con t in ious inc rease o f cyc l ing •• pos i t ive no t ion o f w alk ing pos i t ive no t ion o f w a lk ing •• s table shares of pub l ic t ransp or t s table shares of pub l ic t ransp or t •• reduced car use reduced car use

Great num ber of syn ergies

• Measures sup por t in g eachother • Tim e and t rends are onintermo dal ity`s s ide

New conf l i c t s

• Alloc at ion / organisa t ion o fspace and t im e • Safety • Mobil i ty Cul ture

Lesson learned:• Priorisation sometimes needed• Careful evaluation of effects,causes and potentials

• Beware of (media/social/political) hypes or fashions…



26/45

26

Increasing Demands: Pedestrians

• Quality of streets andspaces / barrier freeaccessibility (ageing ofsociety)

new pedestrianstrategy

• Increase number of

conflicts with cyclingsubjective view vs.objective situation?



27/45

27

• Building new and extendingexisting infrastructure forcycling and parking

• Conflicts with

pedestrians,

buses (combined use ofbus lanes),

cars driving/parking on

cycling lanes,delivery vehicles etc.

• Unsatisfactory developmentsregarding accidents

Quelle: Polizei Berlin, Verkehrssicherheitslage 2011

Increasing Demands: Cyclists



28/45

28

Infrastructural consequences

• „Pedelecs“, „e-bikes“:growth dynamics anddemand for space

• „Public“ Bicycles(complementing public

transport)demand for space whereit is most scarce, i.e. in

the vicinity of publictransport hubs

(today ca. 1,250 public bices andca. 80 stations, extension to

5,000 public bikes and ca. 320stations planned)

Quelle: www.callabike.de

Development Dynamics of „new“ Mobility Products / Services



29/45

29

Car Sharing: New Concepts, extended products & services

• Additional claim on publicspace (parking)

• Competition between „classic“and „flexible“ car sharing

• „Fight“ concerning the scarceresource of public parkingspace for car sharing

• Uncertainness concerning theeffects on mobility behaviour



30/45

30

February 2011

Charging Infrastructure

„Electrification“ of Private Transportation

• Need of public (andprivate) space forcharging

infrastructure(including parkingfor charging)

• In 2014 700staiions (1.400charging points)and 5.000 electricprivate cars

• Uncertainty ofEffects



31/45

31

Observations and Assumptions

• New conflicts addressing “old issues”: – Who gets more

SpaceTime

Access Attention

PrestigeMoneyRight… of way

… to park… to re”fuel”… in conflicts… regarding safety

a) Infrastructure

b) Mobility Culture / Climate

c) Legal Aspects



32/45

32

Q u e

l l e : H y

d e r

a) Infrastructure:redesign of roads/reallocation of space

Example: Warschauer Straße



33/45

33

Q u e

l l e : H o

f f m a n

L e

i c h t e r / G r u p p e

P l a n w e r k

a) Infrastructure:

redesign of roads/reallocation of space

Example: Warschauer Straße



34/45

34

b) Mobility Culture / „Climate“

campaign adressing behaviour and attitudes• Starting point:

- growing number of accidents with cyclists

- Growing feeling of worse „climate“ in the streets, especially bypedestrians

- More cyclists on the streets: car drivers feel restricted

• Idea: Campaign for more „respect“, „take care of each other“• Aims:

- Target groups oriented information about dangers and conflicts

in city traffic- Sharpening the conscience of risks

- More acceptance of rules

- Strengthening a positive image of cycling



35/45

35


campaign adressing behaviour and attitudes• Set up like a campaign for a (new) brand

• Personalized campaign story (Holy Chistophorus, the „guardian

angel“ of the travellers)• 5 central motives, addressing (almost) all traffic modes

• Use of social media ( http://www.berlin-nimmt-rücksicht.de/ ,

http://www.facebook.com/christophorus.schutzpatron.der.reisenden ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slJ7uRAvZvA )



36/45

36


campaign adressing behaviour and attitudes



37/45

4. Conclusions and Questions



38/45

38

Conclusions

• Strengthening of intermodal mobility is important for reaching theaims of sustainable mobility and environment policies

• Some measures have proved themselves, others still have to• Serious research and testing is always necessary, there should be

no too rash decisions

• Priorities have to be set – we can‘t do evereything!• Intermodal mobility is important – but we should not forget the

„classic“ measures of sustainable mobility policies.

• Criteria for successfull measures are: Efficiency, impacts on theenvironment, impact on quality of public space, safety, costs…



39/45

39

Questions

• What is the real use of e-mobility for the cities?

• Does bike sharing work in every city and every country? How can

we make it more efficient?• What are the effects of the new flexible car sharing systems

concerning mobility behaviour, environment and qualitiy of publicspace? Who is the winner? The car industry?

• What are the best measures for improving the quality of publicspace? How can we put the right priorities?



40/45

40

Finally: an Optimistic Outlook…



41/45

41




42/45

42




43/45

43




44/45

44




45/45

45

Thank you for your attention.

Burkhard HornSenate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Berlin

www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr

Intermodalitate Berlin

Documents