Public Transport—Feasible Solution for Sustainable Urban Mobility

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Fulfilling the nowadays population’s mobility requirements is an acute duty that the policy makers, and mostly those from the public transportation field or local authorities, should solve into a sustainable manner. We travel more and for different purposes, with a lot of travel means, proving a selfish travel behavior. The travel pattern, mainly in the cities, has changed dramatically during the last century, and we assist to an exacerbate use of the personal cars instead of the public transportation or walk. The paper investigates the public transportation system in Bucharest area, outlining the way the public authorities decided to shape its development. Different transport modes (subway, bus, tram, trolleybus) are analyzed, considering their network features and technological procedures. Using dedicated software (VISUM), the public transport levels of service for the city’s districts are evaluated. A concordance between the territory system characteristics and the public transport is seek out. Conclusions, to improve the public transport attractiveness and to alleviate the mobility, are proposed.

Keywords

Urban development Sustainable mobility Transport networks Public transport 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Albalate D, Bel i Queralt G (2009) Factors explaining urban transport systems in large European cities: a cross-sectional approach. IREA–working papers, IR09/005Google Scholar
  2. Allaire J (2004) Mobilité et effet de serre: l’évolution des villes au Nord et les perspectives au Sud. Cahier de recherche, Série EPE 37:2004Google Scholar
  3. Banister D (1997) Reducing the need to travel. Environ Plann B 24:437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banister D (2008) The sustainable mobility paradigm. Trans Policy 15(2):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BFS (2011) Mobility and transport 2010. Bern: Bundesamt fuer Statistik/Swiss Federal Office for StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickens M, Neff J, Grisby D (2012) APTA 2012 public transportation fact bookGoogle Scholar
  7. Dragu V (2001) Trafic urban şi suburban de călători, Editura BREN, Bucureşti. ISBN 973-8143-59-4, 152 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Dragu V, Rosca E, Rusca F, (2003). Service quality in the terminal joining magistral and urban transport. Transportation faculty. Politehnica University of Bucharest, Rumania, pp 5–7Google Scholar
  9. Dragu V, Ştefănică C, Burciu Ş (2011) The influence of Bucharest’s metro network development on urban area accessibility. Theor Empirical Res Urban Manage 6(1):5–18Google Scholar
  10. Dragu V, Roman VC, Roman EA (2014) Acţiuni asupra cererii de transport orientate către o mobilitate urbană durabilă, Buletinul AGIR nr. 2/2014, Editura AGIR, pp 78–83Google Scholar
  11. Dragu V, Burciu S, Rosca E, Rusca F (2015) Intervention opportunity model within transport studies. UPB Sci Bull Ser D Mech Eng 77(1):97–104Google Scholar
  12. EC European Commission (2011) White paper roadmap to a single European transport area towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM, p 144Google Scholar
  13. Filion P, Bunting T, McSpurren K, Tse A (2004) Canada-US Metropolitan Density Patterns: Zonal Convergence and Divergence1. Urban Geogr 25(1):42–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holden E, Linnerud K, Banister D (2013) Sustainable passenger transport: back to Brundtland. Trans Res A Policy Pract 54:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Research Council (US) (2001) Transportation research board. Committee for an international comparison of national policies and expectations affecting public transit. Making transit work: insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States. National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Newman PW, Kenworthy JR (1996) The land use—transport connection: an overview. Land Use Policy 13(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popa M, Raicu S, Costescu D, Rusca F (2006) Effects of a non-motorized transport infrastructure development in the Bucharest metropolitan area. In: 4th international conference on urban regeneration and sustainability (the sustainable city)Google Scholar
  18. Pucher J, Buehler R (2010) Walking and cycling for healthy cities. Built Environ 36(4):391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raicu S, Dragu V, Burciu S et al (2014) Effects of facility location on urban road traffic. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on traffic and transport engineering (ICTTE), pp 196–202Google Scholar
  20. Stefanica C, Dragu V (2013) About the quality of service in a transport terminal. Metal Int 18(9):276Google Scholar
  21. Univers Ingineresc nr. 17/1–15 septembrie 2015Google Scholar
  22. Vanco F (2011) Formes urbaines et durabilité du système de transports: Une application par les coûts de la mobilité urbaine des ménages sur l’agglomération Lyonnaise (Doctoral dissertation, Lyon 2)Google Scholar
  27. Yeh CF (2009) Intermodalité et coûts des déplacements urbains dans les mégapoles. Les cas de Paris, Shanghai et Taipei (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris-Est)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Transport, Department Transport, Traffic and LogisticUniversity Politehnica of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations