Advertisement

Environmental Friendly Transport Interchanges: Active Travel Accessibility and Policy

  • Vissarion Magginas
  • Eftihia Nathanail
  • Giannis AdamosEmail author
  • Maria Tsami
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 68)

Abstract

This paper focuses on active travel accessibility and the required actions to achieve a satisfying level of non-motorized access to urban interchanges. To this end, a systematic literature review was conducted, related to active travel policy measures and actions, as well as to measures aiming at the promotion of walking and cycling and the improvement of access to public transport terminals. This process was necessary in order to identify good practices and successful interventions implemented in Europe, but also to indicate potential legal, operational and infrastructure gaps and bottlenecks. Based on the above, the public transport system of Riga was investigated in terms of legislation, infrastructure, safety and space availability, addressing active travel accessibility to and from the main urban interchanges: Riga International Coach Terminal, Riga Central Railway Station and Riga Passenger Port Terminal. The critical assessment of the literature review findings and the analysis of the Riga transport system facilitated the drafting of recommendations for stakeholders and decision makers, who wish to put together action plans geared towards tackling the issue of active travel accessibility at urban interchanges.

Keywords

Soft transport modes Interchange accessibility Strategic plans Good practices 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on the research and work that has been conducted in the framework of the ALLIANCE project (http://alliance-project.eu/), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The authors would like to thank both the consortium of the project and the European Commission.

References

  1. 1.
    Garling, T., Bamberg, S., Friman, M., Fujii, S., Richter, J.: Implementation of soft transport policy measures to reduce private car use in urban areas. In: Panels of the Energy Efficiency and Behaviour Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsami, M., Adamos, G., Nathanail, E.: Sustainable development design for the transformation of the Thessaloniki’s railway station into a city hub. In: European Transport Conference 2013, Frankfurt, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavin, T., Metcalfe, O., Higgins, C.: Active travel-healthy lives. The Institute of Public Health in Ireland (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barton, H., Horswell, M., Millar, P.: Neighbourhood accessibility and active travel. Plann. Pract. Res. 27(2), 177–201 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Djurhuus, S., Hansen, H.S., Aadahl, M., Glumer, C.: Individual public transportation accessibility is positively associated with self-reported active commuting. Front. Public Health 2, 240 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vale, D.S., Saraiva, M., Pereira, M.: Active accessibility: a review of operational measures of walking and cycling accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 9(1), 209–235 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Song, Y., Preston, J., Ogilvie, D.: New walking and cycling infrastructure and modal shift in the UK: a quasi-experimental panel study. Transp. Res. Part A 95, 320–333 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monigl, J., Berki, Z., Szekely, A.: Guidelines for implementers of innovative cycling facilities for interchanges. NICHES+ (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nilson, P.K., la Cour Lund, B.: Promotion of cycling. In: ADONIS (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Commission: COM 431 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Commission: COM 551 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission: COM 279 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission: COM 490 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Commission: COM 527 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission: White Paper-European Transport Policy for 2010—Time to Decide/COM/2001/370 final/, Brussels (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Commission: White Paper-Roadmap to Single European Transport Area—Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System/COM/2011/0144final/ (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Commission: Together Towards Competitive and Resource-Efficient Urban Mobility/COM/2013/913 final/, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Furst, E.: Making the way to the university environmentally sustainable: a segmentation approach. Transp. Res. Part D 31, 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Price, D., Leather, A.: Transport Mobility Management: Small Changes—Big Impacts: Understanding TMM in the Urban Context. JOURNEYS (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richter, J., Friman, M., Garling, T.: Soft Transport Policy Measures 1: Results of Implementation. Karlstadt University Studies 31 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bamberg, S., Fujii, S., Friman, M., Garling, T.: Evaluation of soft transport policy measures based on behavioral theory. Transp. Policy 18(1), 228–235 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    City-Hub: Innovative Design and Operation of New or Upgraded Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges. City-Hub Project (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Commission: Sustainable Urban Transport Plans: Preparatory Document in Relation to the Follow-Up of the Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galloway, M., Graindorge, M., Monteanu, S.: Innovative Soft Measures: Deliverable 11 of the Success Project. CIVITAS (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MIDAS: Soft Measures for Sustainable Mobility: Lessons from Case Studies in Aalborg, Bologna, Clermont-Ferrand, Cork, Liverpool and Suceava (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Teytelboym, A.: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 28(1), 46–91 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Almgren, C.: Effects on Mode Choice with Individualised Marketing (IndiMark) in Goteborg. In: ECOMM 2003, Karlstad, Sweden (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boschetti, F., Maurizi, I., Cre, I.: Innovative urban transport solutions: CIVITAS makes the difference. CIVITAS (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar, P., Jain, S.S., Kulkarni, S.Y., Parida, M.: Accessibility to transit station in multi modal transport framework for Delhi. In: ICSBE-2010, Kandy, 13–14 December 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gill, A.: Changing Cities and Minds for Active Mobility. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veloconcepcija 2015: Rīgas pilsētas velosatiksmes attīstības koncepcija 2015–2030 gadam. Riga city Trafic department (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rules of the road N.571. “Ceļu satiksmes noteikumi”, MK noteikumi Nr. 571. https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=90585
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Cyclist infrastructure development plan: Velosatiksmes attīstības plans 2018–2020 gadam, Riga city (2018)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Road traffic law: Ceļu satiksmes likums. https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=45467
  36. 36.
    Latvian administrative violations code: Latvijas Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss. https://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=89648

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vissarion Magginas
    • 1
  • Eftihia Nathanail
    • 1
  • Giannis Adamos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Tsami
    • 1
  • Irina Yatskiv (Jackiva)
    • 2
  • Evelina Budilovich (Budiloviča)
    • 2
  1. 1.Traffic, Transportation and Logistics LaboratoryUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  2. 2.Transport and Telecommunication InstituteRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations