Urban Transport Crisis in New York City and Berlin - Essay Example

Urban Transport Crisis in New York and Berlin Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. New York Urban Transport Policy IIa. Description and general characteristics of urban transport in New York City 4 IIb. Problems related with current urban transport policy in NY 5 III. Berlin and Urban Transport Policy IIIa. General characteristics of Berlin’s urban transport policy 5 IIIb. Failures of urban transport policy in Berlin 6 IV. Succesful urban transport policies around the world IVa. The urban transport policy issue in the literature 7 IVb. Urban transport policy in European area 8 IVb1. The case of London 10 IVc. Efforts towards the creation of an effective urban transport policy 11 IVc1. The example of an effective urban transport policy – Boston 13 V. Proposals for transformation of existed urban transport of NY and Berlin 14 VI. Conclusion 15 I. Introduction One of the most important issues which concern all countries around the world is the urban transport policy that will be followed at a national or local basis. The above issue can be consider as a fundamental one because of the modern way of life which has imposed the transportation as part of the daily life. However, this problem does not have the same aspects in all states worldwide. There are cases that the urban transport policy formulated inside a country or a city has been proved effective and has helped the development of the nation or the particular city. On the other hand there are occasions where such a policy does not exist or it is not effectively applied. Current paper examines current urban transport policy of New York City and Berlin presenting all its particular elements and characteristics but also the problems related with its application. The identification of the problems related with the urban transport policy of the above cities is followed by the presentation of cities which have introduced an effective model of urban transport policy and which could therefore operate as an indicator of the changes that should be made on NY’s and Berlin’s urban transport policies. A general reference to the urban transport policy and its structure in the European area has also be included in order to present issues that should be taken into account when re-designing the urban transport policy of Berlin and New York. II. New York City Urban Transport Policy IIa. Description and general characteristics of urban transport in New York City New York City has adopted and applies a series of programs regarding the urban transport. More specifically, according to the official website [7], the local authorities have tried to resolve current problems regarding the public transportation by proceeding to specific measures, like the provision of seminars on Safety for pedestrians, drivers and bicyclists while the Traffic Safety is also taught in NYC Schools. Specific measures regarding the disabled have also been included in the City’s transport policy. On the other hand an advanced Traveler Information System has been introduced through which City drivers can be informed on the Traffic online through video from various locations in all City’s boroughs [7]. On the other hand, there had been specific provision for the provision of parking throughout the City (and its boroughs) and there is also a relevant guide provided to any interested driver. There are specific measures proposed for the safety in the Subway which are presented to the public through a guide published by the City Council. On the other hand, there are a series of transport means available to the public on a daily basis (Subway, Trains, Buses, Ferries) which can guarantee the transportation to the selected destination on time and at the best possible level of safety. However, it has to be noticed that citizens as well as all temporary residents of NY have to be constantly informed on programs that are in progress and have to take all necessary measures in order to secure their safety when moving around the City (or the boroughs). IIb. Problems related with current urban transport policy in NY One of the major problems of New York City is traffic which can reach (particularly during the day) very high levels. Furthermore, the City suffers from severe air pollution caused mainly by cars moving in the town daily while there is not specific lane provided to cyclists with the exception of some roads surrounding the Central Park. On the other hand, the measures taken towards the improvement of current situation seem to be limited to the provision of information on the safety in traveling and the existed parking areas around the City. The lack of specific measures for the resolution of the problems appeared in the urban transport area is obvious. It should be noticed here that on April of 2004 MTA New York City Transit joined the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) as a full signatory of its Charter on Sustainable Development (see organization’s website). The above initiative proves that there are efforts made towards the identification of an effective urban transport policy for New York City, however there must be a thorough and intensive examination of all issues involved before proceeding in any specific plan. III. Berlin and Urban Transport Policy IIIa. General characteristics of Berlin’s urban transport policy Berlin is a city that currently has 3,383,404 inhabitants (as of September 2004, 8). The City has been transformed to the centre of culture and education of Germany because of its existed infrastructure, the knowledge provided regarding the above areas and mainly the local history as related with these sectors. This assumption can also be justified by the fact that Berlin together with Hamburg and Bremen constitute one of current 16 German Bundeslander taking into account that all these cities have a long cultural and educational tradition. The above facts have led to the need for an advanced system of urban transportation that will be able to respond to the increased demands both of the citizens but also of the temporary residents (students, tourists) effectively. In this context, the city offers a wide range of means of transportation available to any interested individual [8]. According to the official website [8] the best proposal for a safe and fast travel throughout the city is the public transport system (BVG) which includes trains, trams, busses and ferries. On the other hand, there are specific provisions regarding the use of taxis, car or bicycle when moving in the city. Especially for cycling, it can be proposed as one of the best means to move fast as the existence of Cycle Lanes can guarantee the Safety of the cyclists. The use of bicycle is also recommended by the local authorities as it has been proven to be one of the most preferable means for moving in the city. IIIb. Failures of urban transport policy in Berlin Although the measures taken in Berlin regarding the transportation inside the city are significant, however it should be stated that in practice they have limited application. In fact, the city suffers from parking space and from high levels of pollution which are caused mainly by the cars used on a daily basis. Furthermore, the traffic in the ‘peak-hours’ is heavy and as a result the transportation in the city becomes a major problem even given the existence of a series of public transport means available to the individual. The governmental plans for the expansion of bicycles’ use which were also followed by the creation of ‘Cycle Lanes’ have been proved as inadequate to resolve the city’s problem related with the urban transport policy applied currently. On the other hand, the existence of limited space available for parking is another issue that has to be resolved in order for the city’s circulation to be regulated on a permanent basis. IV. Succesful urban transport policies around the world IVa. The urban transport policy issue in the literature Regarding the application of specific plans related with the urban transport in cities around the world, it should be stated that although there are areas of similarities among the particular cities, however measures that have been proved successful in one case may be inadequate for another geographical area. Specifically regarding the control of car use it has been found that ‘managing parking is a well-established mechanism for controlling car use but in many countries, a significant proportion of parking space is owned or leased by the private sector and so is beyond the direct control of the local transport authority (World Transport Policy and Practice, 2006, [1]). On the other hand Banister et al. (1993) accepted the existence of a common initial plan regarding the urban transport policy as applied in every city. However, they accept that during the application of the plan the need for modifications on existed rules usually appear and are incorporated in the whole strategy. From a different point of view, the study of Banister of 1993 referred specifically to issues related with the application of urban transport policies in certain regions (like Europe and US) where assumptions for similarities on international urban transport policies tend to appear (an approach which is repeated in the work of Banister of 2000 referring however especially to the challenges set for Europe regarding the viability of its current transport policy in the future). IVb. Urban transport policy in European area Europe has been facing significant challenges in many social and political areas. For this reason the cooperation between its members has been imposed as necessary in order to resolve the problems related with current social, financial and political framework as observed in every particular country of the region. Numerous initiatives have been made towards the above direction, on of which is the creation of Eurocities, a network in which major European cities participate and which has as a main target to create measures that will enhance the daily life in the region by ‘ensuring the economic prosperity and sustainable development of cities and regions, creating new opportunities for employment, strengthening social cohesion, and protecting the environment for future generations’ (Eurocities, 2006). The efforts that have been made so far towards this direction showed that the above challenges ‘can only be properly addressed if the different levels of public administration - cities and regions, national governments, and European institutions - are all working together’ (Eurocities, 2006) . One of the most significant areas of the above cooperation is that of the transport policy adopted and applied in the greater European region as decided by the states that participate in the above effort. However, although the above presented schema in which more than 120 European cities participate, provide the platform for the effective resolution of a series of daily social, political and financial problems as observed in the region, the limitation of its borders among certain cities of Europe create obstacles towards the enforcement of the decisions made by the participated cities. Urban transport policy is among the issues of high importance for this European organization however any decisions made on this public sector has to be limited to the participated cities either directly through the acceptance of specific urban transport strategies or indirectly through the transformation and the restructuring of public authorities that govern this sector in each particular city. On the other hand, it seems that European transport policy delayed to be developed and its ‘progress has been slow and with hold-ups due to the long process of approximation of national transport policies and the resulting institutional reforms’. The above assumption of Giorgi et al. (2002, 1) is based on the fact that the specific policy passed through a series of phases until its final formulation. It has been found by the above researchers that the initial ‘protracted phase of intense exchange of views with little policy output’ had been followed by the implementation of common market principles among the states. It is also noticed that ‘the turning point in the development of the Common Transport Policy came with the publication in 1985 of the White Paper on the Completion of the Internal Market, which identified restrictions on the provision of transport services as a serious barrier to open trade’. In the above context, ‘in the period between 1985 and 1991 the Commission initiated more than a dozen directives and regulations, amongst them such important ones as CD 440/91 on the development of the Communitys railways, CR 3820/85 on the harmonisation of social legislation relating to road transport, as well as the three liberalisation packages on air transport of 1987, 1990 and 1992 whereas starting from 1992 a shift in the nature of legislative initiatives towards directly influencing the national transport markets can be observed’ (Giorgi et al., 2002, 2). Since the early 1950s [5] ‘all developed countries have witnessed a mobility explosion; Indeed, across the fifteen countries in the European Union (EU-15), overall passenger transport use 15 (in cars, buses, coaches, trams, trains and aeroplanes) rose by 121% between 1970 and 1996; This translates to an increase in the average distance traveled by each EU citizen per day from 16.5km to 35km over the same period while transport demand across the EU-was calculated at being 4700 billion passenger kilometres in 1996’ (EC, 1999) On the other hand it should be stated that in the EU-15, there was [5] ‘a 34% increase in the number of vehicles owned between 1985 and 1995, with the number of cars on EU-15 roads growing from 60.77 million to 165.54 million, an average growth rate of just less than 4% a year; Thus, by 1996, there were 444 cars per 1000 EU-15 inhabitants (EC, 1999) while OECD (1995a) predicted that this would increase by a further 50% between 1995 and 2020, bringing vehicle ownership levels to more than 600 per 1000 people in many EU-15 countries’. IVb1. The case of London London is one of the major capitals in Europe. Its centre is visited daily by more than 300,000 commuters while a there is also a significant number of tourists moving around the city on a daily basis [10]. According to the Major’s statement [9] the transportation policy is a priority of the City’s Council. There are numerous means of public transport available daily for moving around London. The most common are buses, tube, trains and trams while there is a significant number of people who prefer using their bicycle when moving in the city. Moreover, according to official data [9], during 2002-2003 public transport’s share of trip making in London increased by 0.7 per cent reaching the total figure of 33.9 per cent. On the other hand the bus use has increased significantly reaching its highest percentage for over 30 years whereas cars and vans in Central London are used only by 10% of people (the same figure is increased to 64% for outer London and 76% for the rest of England). It seems from the above that the governmental policy regarding the urban transport has started to produce its results while the introduction of Congestion Charge had been a strategic measure for the limitation of car use in the centre of the city. The raise of the relevant charge as well as the extension of the zone of Congestion Charge as were decided in September of 2005 will also help to the decrease of car use in London’s boroughs. IVc. Efforts towards the creation of an effective urban transport policy It has to be noticed that the problem of urban transport policy has been examined a lot in the scientific field. In this context there have been a lot of efforts made in order to create forums or teams of discussion towards the identification of an appropriate solution. The introduction of New Mobility Agenda has been one of these initiatives. According to the organizational site the scheme was ‘launched in 1988 as an open international platform for critical discussion, exchanges of materials and views, and diverse forms of cross-border collaboration on the challenging, necessarily conflicted topic of sustainable transportation and social justice’. Moreover, the value and the effectiveness of this platform can be located to the fact that it is ‘unconstrained by bureaucracy, economic interests or schedules’ [1]. Transport development is often related with the financial performance of a specific region. More specifically it is suggested [4] that ‘there is a direct link between economic development and transport and it is argued that transport growth is unavoidable if economic growth is to be achieved’. The above assumption is however opposed by the notice that if this ‘was really the case, within the current economic system, transport would be doomed to indefinite growth’. It should be noticed that in order to effectively monitor the development of transport policies applied in the particular European countries, a system of advanced technology has been created that offer significant advances to its users. This system is European Transport Policy Information System (ETIS) which ‘will provide policy-makers and policy analysts with the capability to include the European dimension in monitoring and analysing developments in European transport related strategic issues concerning infrastructure investments, forecasts, projects and policy impact assessments’ and it will comprise four elements: ‘a data element, an analytical modelling element, a GIS and a final element interfacing users with the above elements’ (ETIS, website). The specific plan could be used in order to monitor Berlin’s urban transport policy locating any possible weaknesses and areas that need improvement. However, it would be useless for New York City as it is out of its area of control. Regarding the above it should be noticed that although there have been a lot of measures taken from the states towards the implementation of a successful urban transport policy, in fact it has been proved in practice that most of plans applied have been proved inadequate. Moreover, in 2005 [3], ‘7500 primary school pupils in Norway were asked about their journey to school and how they experienced traffic safety; Together with a study conducted in 2002 the study functions as an evaluation of the national “Active way to school” project. The projects’ main goal is to give children opportunities to walk or cycle to school in a safe manner. The results show that there has been little change in travel behaviour since 2002. Most children (43 percent) go to school on foot, 25 percent (of the children) are driven to school in private car. The study also looks at the traffic situation the children encounter on their way to school; When we take into consideration a number of factors that might influence the childrens’ travel behaviour, we find no effect of the project “Active way to school”’. IVc1. The example of an effective urban transport policy - Boston Boston (US) can be used as an example of implementation of a successful urban transport policy. More specifically, ‘as a result of air pollution legislation, a parking freeze was implemented in the mid 1970s. Initially, the freeze affected only commercial parking in particular areas (such as Logan Airport), but the types of parking now include all off- street motor vehicle parking spaces and the areas affected have steadily spread to localities such as Cambridge, the City of Boston, East and South Boston’ (World Transport Policy & Practice, 2006, [1]). Currently, there are about 7300 electronic parking meters offering two hours of on street parking in Boston while the privately owned parking lots and garages have been estimated to offer around 134,000 parking spaces to Boston drivers [11]. On 2000, the City introduced the ‘Citywide Transportation Plan, Access Boston 2000-2010’ which refers to specific issues of transportation around the city, like parking and cycling and provides significant information regarding the safety of pedestrians. On the other hand the specific plan includes provisions for the extension of existed public transportation network in order to cover more areas of the city. Moreover, according to official data revealed in the City’s website [11] the number of cars that are registered in the City of Boston has been estimated to 375,000 while there are also about 600,000 driven in the city daily. The above figures combining with the fact that the city has one of the best designed urban transport strategies, it can be assumed that the transport policy model used in the specific case has been proved to be a successful one even when the number of people and vehicle moving in a specific area is high. V. Proposals for transformation of existed urban transport of NY and Berlin In order for New York City and Berlin to resolve the problems related with their urban transport policies, they should proceed to a restructuring of their current strategy taking into account the developments made in the similar city environments (like London and Boston) but also the solutions provided by national and international organizations (Bryson et al., 1998). At the same time the plans proposed in the European area as a whole could provide an effective measure for the design and the implementation of a successful urban transport policy adapting the criteria used in the European market to each city’s needs and infrastructures (Warren, 1993). At a first level, it has to be noticed that both cities face significant problems with traffic and air pollution. These problems could be faced by a scheme similar with the one applied in London, the Congestion Charge. Taxing the entrance in the centre of the city could limit the number of cars moving in this area and as a result both traffic and pollution would be limited (Camagni, 1991, Apel et al., 1995). On the other hand, the increase of parking areas and the use of parking meters in all city’s roads (a plan applied in Boston) could also improve the transportation conditions in both New York City and Berlin. The difference in population between the above cities cannot be regarded as a criterion for the differentiation on the urban transport policies that should be applied in every case because each of the above cities could adapt the proposed policies to its needs and resources available. VI. Conclusion The study of the above issues regarding the existed urban transport policies in New York City and Berlin reveals that the formulation and the application of the specific strategies can be achieved only through the cooperation with relevant national and international bodies and the introduction of models that have successfully operated in similar environments. The above study also reveals the extension of a problem which has been examined intensively both in theory and in practice, the car use. More specifically, the use of car has been proved to be the causal condition for the creation of a series of significant problems for the citizens in New York and Berlin. The most severe consequences can be observed to the air pollution and the traffic of both the above cities. However, as the practice has showed the achievement of a successful urban transport policy requires the introduction and the implementation of specific measures including the use of enforcement power in order to secure their application. In other words, the relevant legislation needs to be stricter but there should be the required resources and measures available to guarantee the application of any urban transport plan. If the above requirements are not met, then every effort is going to fail. Works Cited Access Eurocities for a new Mobility Culture: http://www.access-eurocities.org Apel, Dieter & Pharoah, Tim, 1995, Transport concepts in European cities, Avebury Studies in Green Research, Aldershot, Hampshire Association of Public Transport / Union Internationale des Transports Publics (UITP): http://www.uitp.com Banister, David, 1993, Transport Planning in the UK, USA and Europe, E & F Spon, London. Banister, David & Berechman, J (eds.), 1993, Transport in a Unified Europe: Policies and Challenges, Elsevier, Amsterdam Banister, D., 2000, Sustainable Urban Development and Transport - a Eurovision for 2020, Transport Reviews, 20(1), pp.113-130 Beatley, Timothy, 2000, Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities, Island Press Bryson J. and Einsweiler R. (1988), Strategic Planning, Planners Press, New York Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (German Federal Highway Research Institute) website: http://www.bast.de/ Camagni R. (1991), "Metropolitan Areas and the Effects of 1992", in M. Quévit, Regional Development Trajectories and the Attainment of the European Internal Market, GREMI - RIDER, Louvain-la Neuve European Transport Policy Information System (ETIS): http://www.etis-link.info European Federation for Transport & Environment (T&E): http://www.t-e.nu European logistics infrastructure and transport expertise: http://www.elite-network.org Giorgi, L., Schmidt, M. (2002). European Transport Policy-A Historical and Forward Looking Perspective. German Policy Studies, 2(4): 1-11 International Union of Combined Road-Rail transport companies (UIRR): http://www.uirr.com Transport Statistics (links to official transport statistics sites from around the world) (DETR): http://www.transtat.detr.gov.uk/useful/relation.htm Warren, W.D. (1993), "A Transportation View of the Morphology of Cities", Transportation Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 367-377 World Bank (1994a), World Development Report 1994, Washington, D.C. World Bank (1994b), Making Development Sustainable, The World Bank, Washington D.C. http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/index.htm [1] http://www.uitp.com/publications/ [2] http://www.toi.no/category25.html [3] http://sedac.ciesin.org/openmeeting/downloads/1003159123_presentation_rio2.doc [4] http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/enoch.doc [5] www.nyccouncil.info [6] www.nyc.gov/ [7] www.berlin.de/ [8] www.london.gov.uk [9] www.cityoflondon.gov.uk [10] www.cityofboston.gov [11] Read More