City of Szekesfehervar Royal traditions Dominant economic role 1000 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City of Szekesfehervar Royal traditions – Dominant economic role 1000 years of mobility

Strategic location nowadays … • Mid-East Transdanubian Region • Capital of Fejér County • 170 km 2 Győr, Vienna • 100 000 inhabitants Budapest • At the intersection of European transport corridors 65 km Graz • Half way from the Capital to Lake Balaton by Motorway 7 (E71) • Economical center of the Zagreb, Trieste region – logistic service center

Strategic location nowadays… Roads of Szekesfehervar • Ring-road 8 424 13 980 8 363 • Motorway 7 (E71) – 5 486 Toll road • About 42 km of national 19 679 22 247 roads • About 85 km of municipal roads • About 230 km of 12 194 residential roads 8 731 • About 30 km of bicycle 4 361 roads 4 257 • Historical center is car free

...and it’s historical background • Roman roads in Pannonia – City of Gorsium • The military road to Feh é rv á r as a landmark • Crusades ’ routes – pilgrims station • Roads built on former canals • 19-20th century: intensive growth

City of Champions • Ice Hockey – in the Austrian League • Football – National Champ 2011, 2015 • Basketball – National Champ 2000, 2013 • Women Handball • Penthatlon • Athletics • Sailing

Population 2015: 97000 residents 13000 temporary inhabitants

Population – density 595/km 2 The number of inhabitants doubled in 50 years • Commieblocks around the city center • Mobility problems in town: ▫ No inner ring roads ▫ All routes pass near the city center ▫ Missing raliway crossing possibilities

Moto-evolution Number of registered cars Number of registered motorbikes 37 000 1 600 35 000 1 400 33 000 1 200 1 000 31 000 800 29 000 600 400 27 000 200 25 000 0 354 motorized vehicles/ 1000 inhabitants in 2012 436 in 2015

‚The city with no unemployment’ • Employment rate over 45 % • Industrial rate over 44,5 % • Manpower needed exceeds the number of workers in the city • 25-30 km of agglomeration • More than third of all workers of the agglo- meration works in the city

Commuters Rate of commuters Travel time Elementary school students: 18,8 % High school students: 58 % Employees: 30% In a workday: • 100K inhabitants • 27K commuters • 13K students Over 140K on the move

Distribution of travels in time sport, leisure, etc.

Travel modes City’ s modal split Regional commuter ’s travel mode 20,8% 19,6% 0,9% 58,6% Bus Train Contracted bus Individual

Challenges in Urban Mobility – ‚ Not without my car !’

Challenges in Urban Mobility – Public Transport • 41 bus lines • 74 buses • 3.2M vehicle kms • 407K trips • 1 million € loss (23% of total costs) • Missing connections • Changes in city layout • Changes in travel patterns

Challenges in Urban Mobility – Public Transport New network – under tendering: • New areas taken into service • More connections (hospital, railwaystation) • More direct lines • Less overlapping lines • 51 bus lines • 60 buses • 3.4 million vehicle km

Challenges in Urban Mobility – Bike and Ride Commuters’ bike storage problems There is no enough bike-stands • Local bus decentrums • Railway- and bus station • Bike routes are rarely connected

Challenges in Urban Mobility – School areas Need for: • Car-free zones - space for culture and fun • Kiss&Ride lanes • Dedicated walking paths, safe pedestrian crossings • School mobility plans

Railway Intermodality reconstruction : • Rails, underpass and signalling • 129 million EUR Intermodal junction: • 24 million EUR

Network • Long walking distances • Need for expanded bus bays Problem Tree • Lack of B+R and P+R possibilities - intermodality • Lack of parking facilities • Tight East-West corridors Legal and political regulation • No practice in demand-based • Lack of public and stakeholders and integrated planning involvement • Governmental level for agglomeration does not exist • Duration of investment preparation • Pay parking system • Lack of available information • Project indicators do not meet the aims Traffic • Bus network and Maintenance frequency • Lack of public-bike system • Condition of roads, sidewalks, bike-routes, • Harmonization of different public transport parks and paths • Low frequency of networks and timetables maintenance • Lack of road-safety audits

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • 2009

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept 2011 ▫ Version 2.0 - 2015

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept • QUEST project 2013

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept • QUEST project • Integrated Urban Development Strategy 2014 Transport related measures: • Various mobility optimized transport networks • Sustainable road development (modality, reconstruction, connection)

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept • QUEST project • Integrated Urban Development Strategy • BUMP project 2014

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept • QUEST project • Integrated Urban Development Strategy • BUMP project • Ecotale project 2014

CIVITAS – Magyar CIVINET Magyar CIVINET- Hungarian-speaking regional CIVITAS network • National workshops on sustainable urban mobility and more • Szekesfeherv á r is a founding member • Chairman: Attila Mészáros , Vice- Mayor of Szekesfehervar

The way to SUMP • Transport and Road Development Strategy • Feher-Bike concept • QUEST project • Integrated Urban Development Strategy • BUMP project • Ecotale project • Magyar CIVINET • SUMP ▫ Reviewing  available datasets,  conceptions,  policies ▫ Analysing mobility situation

Sustainable city - What we achieved Inner city rehabilitation • 2013: Main Street Led light strips, car free zone • 2015: Várkörút (‚Castle boulevard’) Cycling Infrastructure • 2015: Sóstó bike route • 2014-2015: bike-lanes road space reallocation ▫ Rákóczi u. ▫ Balatoni u. ▫ Várkörút

Sustainable city - future Modern City program: • Green city: new trees, leisure park, forest playground • Expansion of inner city – connecting Zichy Park to the Main street • Budapest – Balaton Bike Highway

City full of life… leisure

City full of life… culture

Organization structure: • Mayor ’s Office ▫ Office of City Architect ▫ Transport Office (legal and authority-works, planning, investments, controlling, traffic rules and road safety) ▫ Investments Office ▫ City Maintenance and Utility Supply Office • Business Organization for City Maintenance („ Citykeeper ”) Decision maker: Local Government (City Council) of Szekesfehervar

Process of local planning: Plans in hierarchy – managed by City Architect • National Development Plan • Regional Development Plan • Master Plan (Land use, transport network) (2004) • Urban Development Plan (traffic flow and infrastructure) (2001) „New way ” of thinking: • Integrated City Development Strategy (2009, 2014) -> Action Plan (2015) • Transport Development Strategy (2010)

SWOT on planning S W • Feher-Bike Network concept Lack of • Changes in pay -parking policy • sustainable policy • Green-city project • integrated data collection and analysis • Cooperation with: • Integrated planning (focus on road • Cycling Club safety) • Police – road safety department • evaluation process of measures • Local environmentalist association • public and stakeholders ’ involvement • Chamber of Architects (only politicians ’ local forums) • Association for Transport Sciences • campaigns to change vision (shared space, sustainable mobility modes) O T • City leader in CIVINET • Local government members ’ pressure • Calls requiring integrated and sustainable • Demand base actions • everyone knows better how to organize • Industrial companies ’s involvement in traffic investments • one can think only on one way • ‚Senate’: mayors’ consultancy (elder, • mass or volume? recognized, potent people, mainly not experts) • Vision of sustainability is not clear • National< – >municipal interests • SUMP 1.0 without workgroup • Measures to match EU calls • Political lobby on national level without professional background

SUMP oriented planning - fears • Planning process is not known in policy and by citizens • Until maintenance is still a problem higher visions are not in interest • Vision of Sustainable City is not clear (road safety and green city so far) • Members and their roles in WorkGroup - transport experts try to convince leaders and citizens • City development practice <-> European sustainable policies • Vision and objectives could be too wide • Bottom – up planning: calls->projects->measures->priorities • Communication (consequences of project Várkörut , reactions on mobility solutions...)