Final presentation opt
-
Upload
abrar-burk -
Category
Design
-
view
146 -
download
0
Transcript of Final presentation opt
![Page 1: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TRA(GG)IC.how did London deal with the congestion problem?
![Page 2: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
THE MOTIVATIONThis.
The internationally accepted density of vehicles/km road is approximately 300; in Bombay, the density/km has already crossed 1,000 vehicles
“
![Page 3: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
BACK TO LONDON. WHAT IS THE CONGESTION CHARGE?
- 2003 onwards, 4 wheelers have had to pay a daily ‘charge’ if they want to drive in central london
- The idea was to improve traffic flow
- Reduce pollution
- Generate revenues to improve road safety and public transport
![Page 4: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
QUESTIONS
- Did the congestion charge do the trick?
- What worked? What didn’t?
- What insights could be gained out of it that could potentially be applied to the Bombay context
![Page 5: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
TARGET
- People of Bombay. Just to start a conversation
![Page 6: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CONGESTION CHARGE ZONE2003
![Page 7: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
EXTENDED CONGESTION CHARGE ZONE2007 - 2011
![Page 8: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
CITY OF LONDON60.3 KM
CITY OF WESTMINSTER12.85 KM
KENSINGTON & CHELSEA30.4 KM
INITIAL AREA OF ANALYSIS2000 - 2014
![Page 9: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
FINAL AREA OF ANALYSIS2000 - 2014
Congestion Charge Zone
![Page 10: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
VISUAL REPRESENTATION
![Page 11: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
VISUAL REPRESENTATIONCITY OF LONDON
WESTMINSTER
KEN& CHELSEA
SURROUNDINGAREAS
CHANGE 5% CHANGE 7% CHANGE 3% CHANGE 1%BUSES
CYCLES
CARS
CHANGE 5% CHANGE 7% CHANGE 3% CHANGE 1%
CHANGE 5% CHANGE 7% CHANGE 3% CHANGE 1%
20032002 2004
congestioncharge zone
congestioncharge introduced
YEAR: 2003
city of london
26,804
city ofwestminster
28,631
kensington& chelsea
32,734
![Page 12: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
CITY OFLONDON
WESTMINSTER
NET REVENUE
56m£Lorem Ipsum dolor set amet. Some text about reallocation of land, or expenditure of revenue, or improvements in public transport or anything else (congestion related) that happened that year.
cars
20052006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
SURROUNDINGBOROUGHS
pollution: 33 µg/m3
CONGESTIONCHARGE ZONE
KENSINGTON& CHELSEA
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
CHARGE
5£
5% 5% 5%
5% 5% 5%
5% 5% 5%
5% 5% 5%
TRA(GG)IC — ABOUT DATA VISUALIZATION RESOURCES
![Page 13: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
POLLUTION LEVELS (µg/m³)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
31
27
28
30
25
23
22
22
23
20
21
19
![Page 14: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
INSIGHTS
- The congestion charge seemed to have helped in the inner city. It helped free up space for reallocation
- However, reduction in traffic even before the CC & in non-CC areas suggests that, other factors may also be responsible, such as recession, higher fuel prices, improved bus & cycle mobility
- The revenues generated were invested in improvement of bus & cycle mobility, which further contributed to reduction of congestion.
- IMPROVING THE MOBIITY OF A CITY DEPENDS OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS WHICH ARE ALL CO-DEPENDENT
![Page 15: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
NEXT STEPS
- Design information to accomodate secondary levels of information. Many variables contribute to a city’s mobility and all of them need to be understood in relation with each other in order to get a clearer picture.
- Which would mean revisiting the UI
- Which would mean revisiting the visual language. More coherence. Stronger visual metaphors
![Page 16: Final presentation opt](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022021921/58f079601a28ab56038b462d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
THANK YOUAbrar Burk