Mobility and Access to the river Methodology for Riprocity indicator 6

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity

IST | CESUR

Mobility and Access to the river

Methodology for Riprocity indicator 6

Pedro Pinto, [email protected]

Beatriz Condessa, [email protected]

Magaly Teixeira, [email protected]

Lisboa 16 02 09Workshop e Conferência Internacional

CIDADES E RIOS - Pontes para a Sustentabilidade

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity

IST | CESUR Lisboa 18 02 09Workshop e Conferência Internacional


How to describe and evaluate the social/urban dimension in the city/river relation?

Reviewing previous work done on both the RiProCity and Urbem projects, a set of measurement units were defined, based roughly on the European Common Indicators

Main criteria for selecting indicators and measurements:• should be relevant to the description of the city-river system and its interactions • should be applicable to all cities with rivers

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity



INDICATOR NUMBER 6: MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE RIVER

A set of measurement units were defined, evaluating the city’s performance in:

• Spanning the river, so as to minimize the barrier effect it can impose on the city’s mobility patterns (linear density of bridges that allow pedestrian crossing)

• Providing sustainable accessibility to the riverfront (existence of public transport system stops within walking distance of the riverfront)

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity




QuestionsDoes the city have enough pedestrian crossings of the river to allow an adequate integration between city and river? Is the riverfront accessible?

Headline Indicator: Ease of river crossing and Access to the riverfront

Measurement:

M1) Ease of pedestrian river crossing

M2) Accessibility to the river corridor using public transport

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity



INDICATOR NUMBER 6: MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE RIVERi) Ease of pedestrian river crossing

Bridges with pedestrian crossing - shared Footbridges

Bridges without pedestrian crossing

Length

Number of pedestriancrossings

AverageWidth

X

M1 =

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity



INDICATOR NUMBER 6: MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE RIVERi) Ease of pedestrian river crossing

Leiria:

Number of pedestrian crossings:7 before Polis / 12 after

Number of shared crossings:5 Before Polis / 6 after

Length of urban reach: 4231m

Average Width: 14,95m

M2 = 0,043 (before Polis)M2 = 0,064 (after Polis)

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity



INDICATOR NUMBER 6: MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE RIVERii) Accessibility to the river corridor using public transport

300 m

300 m300 m

Length

Number of stopswithin walking distance

River Corridor

M2 =

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity



INDICATOR NUMBER 6: MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE RIVERii) Accessibility to the river corridor using public transport

Leiria:

Number of stops on Mobilis lines:17 on Mobilis 1 + 17 on Mobilis 2 = 34 stops within walking distance

Length of urban reach: 4.2 Km

M2 = 8,1 stops/Km

IND

ICA

TOR

6M

obili

ty a

nd A

cces

sibi

lity




Questions to address/Future Developments

i) Ease of pedestrian river crossing

• calculation of the river crossings could be substituted by the length of each bridge span over the river length, instead of taking into account the average width of the river ?

ii) Accessibility to the river corridor using public transport

• single walking distance or if different walking distances should be considered for different modes of transport?

• Would the it work better as a ratio between the total area within walking distance of a stop that fell within the river corridor and the latter’s total area ?

Mobility and Access to the river Methodology for Riprocity indicator 6

Documents

Transcript of Mobility and Access to the river Methodology for Riprocity indicator 6