News + Stories: Many people don’t want to give up their car because they need and like it. Are there any ways to motivate people positively to switch to other forms of mobility?
Table of Contents
- News + Stories: Many people don’t want to give up their car because they need and like it. Are there any ways to motivate people positively to switch to other forms of mobility?
- Another topic is commuting to the cities because more and more people are settling on the outskirts. Are there any approaches in urban planning to reduce these traffic flows?
- Are there any trends in the field of urban planning, especially when it comes to traffic and mobility?
- They have addressed the hierarchies of the forms of mobility. Is it also about which shape gets how much space?
- You mentioned the 15-minute city. What are the advantages of such a city?
- If you could design a city out of nowhere without having to take some consideration, what would it look like?
Aggleage of disruption: I lived in Rotterdam for around 15 years – people didn’t give up their cars there either. However, the car is not right in front of the door in the morning, but in a garage a little further away. In front of the door you have a bus or a tram stop and the cycling infrastructure is so sure that you let the children go to school alone and for sports by bike. But that doesn’t mean that you are not allowed to use your car. But cars should not be used automatically for every way just because they are in front of the door because there are no alternatives or because you think other forms of mobility are insecure. That is really important. As a mother, I see the big difference here. My older son took his bike in Rotterdam to go to school, friends or sports. Here in Graz, a mother is more in the position of the taxi driver who has to drive her children anywhere because it is not so safe to send her alone and the public transport (especially in urban areas) is not available across the board.
Another topic is commuting to the cities because more and more people are settling on the outskirts. Are there any approaches in urban planning to reduce these traffic flows?
Quote: A very good study by the University of Vienna has stated that the next big challenge for us urban planners is the suburbs. Such a suburb causes a lot of automotive. In order to solve the problem of mobility from the city edges into the city center, we will have to invest a lot in public transport in this area. But what does that mean for the people who have decided to live in the city? Do you agree that a lot will be spent on your tax money for the outskirts, which is the area where people have a lot of money in many cities anyway? The study has shown very well that we then have to look at the outskirts completely differently – than a place that also attracts people from the center for a visit. If you are already building a transport option for the community on the outskirts, it would be good if there was also a river in the other direction.
This raises the question: Will the suburb in the future become a place for leisure? Perhaps it would be good to have a place for children outside the center where they can play football games or go for a walk in nature. However, this means that public transport should not be developed exclusively for the people who drive into the city – it must also be available for people who want to live in the city and want to participate in the periphery. But there are also other forms of mobility, for example E-Bikeswith which you can cover a radius of 15 kilometers well. This is not bad for a city like Graz and could already improve the traffic situation. That is why the state of Styria is now investing quite a lot in the radoffs – not only in the city center, but also in the outskirts.
The focus of the planning should not be on the car, but should start with the pedestrians, then look at the bicycles, then on public transport and only then on the car
Are there any trends in the field of urban planning, especially when it comes to traffic and mobility?
Quote: As an institute for urban planning, we participated in a major competition in Luxembourg, to which ten consortia from all over the world were invited. The result was a manifesto in which it was recorded what we should change in our current way of planning in order to achieve a sustainable transition of our habitats. One aspect was the area of mobility. There it was about turning the existing hierarchy in mobility. The focus of the planning should not be on the car, but should start with the pedestrians, then look at the bicycles, then on public transport and only then on the car. So the car is not excluded, but you just have to think a little differently when planning. A first priority in planning would be a safe environment to walk to school. A good network of bike paths, locally and regional would also be important.
Another important point was the mix of functions that we try to take into account in our planning. Behind it is the idea of the 15-minute city of Carlos Moreno from the Sorbonne. The concept stipulates that you can reach all the public facilities in your area in 15 minutes that you need regularly, such as a kindergarten, a school, a shopping, a small park etc. This concept reduces the need for basic mobility.
This interview is part of the TU Graz Dossier “Cities in Climate Change”. You can find more dossiers at www.tugraz.at/go/dossiers.
They have addressed the hierarchies of the forms of mobility. Is it also about which shape gets how much space?
Quote: Yes, at the moment that’s exactly the topic in which the shoe is pressing. Theoretically, everyone here is that the pedestrians have to be protected and that would also be better for the environment. In addition, that would certainly be the cheapest form of mobility. But then there is the street space that only offers a certain amount of space, and you have to divide it.
Some streets were redesigned in Zurich. Starting from the house facade, the planners have looked at the room and allocated how much space for pedestrians, for the bicycles and for the trees is necessary – and the rest remained for the cars. You have developed a mobility concept that works and has the right size for active mobility forms. This is a question of mindset and it takes courage in politics to support this.
Of course we have to take care of the worries and fears of residents. If a concept provides that all cars come away in a certain area, alternatives have to be offered and they also have to be communicated – for example, a little used garage nearby. In addition, efficient public transport is required.
You mentioned the 15-minute city. What are the advantages of such a city?
Quote: In theory, this principle combines mobility, urban planning and the time factor. For me, this link is the clever core of this concept of Carlos Moreno. You have everything available on foot within 15 minutes to be able to make your daily life pleasantly. This not only promotes sustainable mobility, but also a living neighborhood. However, critics of the concept of the 15-minute city were wondered whether there is a risk that cities are working too much like several small villages and the individual areas no longer open to the outside and to each other. However, I do not see city as something centralized that is divided into zones, but as an accumulation of smaller centers. Therefore, it has nothing to do for me. It is more about that you have decentralized and subencent, which would be a very good concept for Graz. Then there would be about St. Leonhard or Andritz as a small sub -center, and that can work. In St. Leonhard had a farmers’ market near kindergarten, where you could see that young and old people met. That was quite nice. In addition, not absolutely everything has to be accessible within the 15 minutes. Of course, you should sometimes go outside to take advantage of offers in other parts of the city – the subenters must be connected by longer foot and cycle paths.
I recommend yourself Beacon Hill in Boston to look at, because that comes very close to my ideal for a city
If you could design a city out of nowhere without having to take some consideration, what would it look like?
Quote: I would never plan anything out of nowhere. I find it much nicer to transform a city with existing buildings and infrastructure. There was an excursion to the new administrative capital of Egypt with our students. Six million people are supposed to live there, the city was planned and built out of nowhere. There is no soul, history, but also resistance. The whole concept is designed for automotive – you have to put many kilometers to come from one point to another. Everything is connected to eight -lane streets. It looks like a nightmare. If you have a compact city, it is of course much easier to establish active mobility than in a wide -extensive city.
I would do the opposite. I would reuse building – it is good to get started with something that already exists. I would make everything very compact. And then I would pay very close attention to the distance between the building blocks and districts. But a high density does not necessarily mean that there must be towers – that’s a misconception. I recommend yourself Beacon Hill in Boston To look at, because that comes very close to my ideal for a city. In Boston Everything is flat except for one hill. There used to be several hills, but they removed everything and used the earth for the port. Only one remained and on the located building with a completely different typology than in the rest of the city. They are classic blocks with a rather high density, but they are never higher than five or six floors. Everything is compact there, but with beautiful streets full of green plants. For me this is a very nice example of successful urbanization.
Another example that I really like for a city concept is La Ferme du Rail in Paris. This is a very sustainable project and could serve as a pilot project for a city based on green corridors. Not only was the earlier rail infrastructure transformed into a green ring, which is fantastic for walks and cycling, but also created a building that is a combination of affordable residential building and glass house for crops. That is why it is also called the railway farm (Ferme du Rail) because they plant there, which can then be bought in place on the promenade. A restaurant and a small retail business were also housed in the project. This is a beautiful place of residence, because it is all made of wood, existing building infrastructure is used and the district is well linked to the vegetation. This fits with what I would recommend for the new development of cities: remain compact so that the most important thing can be reached at a short distance, integrate green areas and reuse what is already there to create a city in which everyone can live well with our planet.
