linking of land-use and public transport planning - Bergen kommune

Axel Kuehn – Independent Consultant⇒ Quartier 2 Lions - Tours/France⇒ Karlsruhe region (densification policy)The last sample case from Karlsruhe is used to illustrate more general densification policiesand not directly comparable with the other six cases. Certainly this approach is based on anexisting (regional) high quality light rail network.3

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-1: Rieselfeld – Area extension and tramway axe(source: Internet)Picture A-2: Rieselfeld – central tramway axe5

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-3: Rieselfeld – densities nearby the tramwayPicture A-4: Rieselfeld – not only residential housing6

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.2 Vauban FreiburgInitial concepts for the new use of the former military barracks site Vauban in Freiburg havebeen developed in the mid 90s and without any doubt experience from the Rieselfeldscheme were used for this project. The Vauban area of 38ha, 2000 flats and about 5000residents is considerably smaller then Rieselfeld, but shows however some special featureswhich are linked to the Freiburg philosophy regarding mobility management.Picture A-5: Flat types – Comparison Vauban area with city of Freiburg(Source: Claudia Nobis/DLR/ECOMM 2003)Also here the tramway connection is a core part of the project; furthermore Vauban has beenconcepted as a housing area specifically designed for the needs of young families, which canbe seen expressed i.e. in larger, car-free areas.Picture A-6: Vauban – car free housing areas(Source: Claudia Nobis/DLR/ECOMM 2003)7

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-7: Vauban – aerial view with former barracks situation(Source: Claudia Nobis/DLR/ECOMM 2003)Picture A-8: Vauban – aerial view with remaining old and first new buildings(Source: Claudia Nobis/DLR/ECOMM 2003)8

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-9: Vauban – central tramway axePicture A-10: Vauban – central tramway axe9

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-11: Comparison car ownership in Freiburg city, Rieselfeld and Vauban(Source: Claudia Nobis/DLR/ECOMM 2003-Stadt Freiburg)10

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.3 Scharnhauser Park StuttgartThe so-called Scharnhauser Park is a conversion project of the city Ostfildern in the greaterStuttgart region, the area having been before a helicopter airport of the US-forces.Picture A-12: Scharnhauser Park – a city quarter of its ownThe area covers 140ha and should in the final stage give room for 9000 residents and 2500working places.The project received in 2006 the German Urban Planning Award („Städtebaupreis“). Theproject succeeded against other shortlisted projects like the new centre („Neue Mitte”) inUlm, the exhibition city (“Messestadt”) Munich-Riem and the planning process in thehistorical city centre of Wismar!An integrated traffic concept was the basis for the whole planning. Backbone of traffic accessis the light rail line U7 from Ostfildern-Nellingen through Scharnhauser Park (three stops!)and via Ruit and Sillenbuch towards Stuttgart centre.11

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-13: Scharnhauser Park – Visualisation of urban planning concept(Source: Stadt Ostrfildern)Picture A-14: Stadtbahn-Haltestelle Scharnhauser Park12

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-15: Modernised barrack buildings within Scharnhauser Park13

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.4 Solar City Linz / Austria„Solar City“ in the Linz quarter of Pichling/Ebelsberg is a completely new housing area whichhosts today a population of about 4000 in 1300 flats. The area size is about 32ha whichgives a resulting density of 125 P/ha. This quarter is the first of four new settlements of asimilar size concepted within a masterplan for the Pichling area in 1992.The whole project was implemented between 1999 and 2005, the latter year seeing also theextension of the tramway into the new quarter. The social housings have been designed in“low-energy” style and generally climate issues have been a basic issue for the wholescheme.The project received a number of awards regarding its sustainable approach.Picture A-16: Linz tramway and bus network („Solar City“ bottom right)(Source: Linz AG)14

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-17: Aerial view of „Solar City“Picture A-18: Example for densities in „Solar City“ quarter15

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-19: Example for densities in „Solar City“ quarterPicture A-20: Tramway corridor in „Solar City“ quarter16

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-21: Central tramway stop in „Solar City“17

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.5 IJburg AmsterdamWith no more free space for additional housing areas available on the land side, the city ofAmsterdam took a decision in 1996, which had been prepared already for some time, to goforward with the so-called IJburg-project and to create a new quarter on seven artificialislands East of the city centre. In 2001 construction started, 2002 first flats have been in useby the new residents.Picture A-22: Location of new quarter IJburg in Amsterdam(Source: EXPATICA/Dutch Dreams)All-in-all about 18000 flats for about 40-45000 residents are planned with an average densityof 60 flats/ha (densities of 25-100 are used!). The total size of the area is about 300ha!!!The area width in IJburg – at least in the part which offers the direct PT-access with the tram– is in the same range as in the Rieselfeld, thus showing a corridor width of about 800m.For all planning steps on IJburg ecological aspects are in the foreground. This includesenvironmentally friendly materials, but also low-energy use (50% reduction!) by isolation anduse of solar energy. From the adjacent IJmeer-sea specific water for toilets and washingmachines is being produced and offered in all flats as „household-water“ within a separatepipe-system. Heating is arranged with steam from the cooling system of an existing powerplant.Garbage is collected centrally below ground – there are no surface garbage bins.Car traffic is not excluded on Ijburg but strongly reduced for environmental and safetyreasons. 80% of parking spaces are offered within the buildings and there is a maximum ofone parking space per household (which costs additional money!) Alternatives are offered bypublic transport, i.e. a new tramway line, bicycles and car-sharing offers. It is remarkable thatthere are no cycle lanes on the Haveneiland – the streets could be seen more as “cyclelanes with allowed car use”.18

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantThe Haveneiland sees dense block-style housing patterns while i.e. the Southwestern, lesswide, Rieteiland receives a contrastual low density pattern with single houses. Interesting isalso a relatively high freedom of the planners, which is visible by the fact that each block hasbeen developed by different architect groups which had to be co-operations of four architectseach. Whether relatively big block areas are filled with relatively high perimeter block stylehouses or lower inside buildings, or whether houses are distributed equally acroos the wholearea, is to be decided by the architects. There are also no prescriptions regarding buildingheights.Picture A-23: Overview map of IJburg with tramway line(Source: GVB, Amsterdam)The complete project should be finalised until 2012.19

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-24: IJburg – central tramway axePicture A-25: IJburg – central tramway axe20

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-26: IJburg – tramway axe and densities21

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.6 Quartier 2 Lions - Tours/FranceThe city of Tours (137000 population in city, 370000 in agglomeration) is about to establish afirst tramway line until 2013 which will pass from the quarters on the Northern side of theLoire river through the city centre, by-passing the main railway station and continuing on theSouthern side of the Cher river. Here it will become the PT-backbone for the biggestdevelopment area in Tours: the “quartier des 2 lions”.Picture A-27: Tours – envisaged tramway network (2 lines)(Source: Mobilitours)22

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantIt is obvious from picture A-28 that the line will pass more or less all its way through denselypopulated areas and interestingly the “2lions” development area and its surroundings (seepicture A-29 are currently (and up to 2013) still one of the less dense “white spots” on themap.Picture A-28: Tours – tramway line 1, bus network and densities(Source: Mobilitours)23

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-29: Tours – aerial view of 2Lions area today (“the city in its garden”)(Source: Internet)Originally started as a pure university (“Technopole”) site, the “2 lions” quarter has now gotanother strategic direction as a mixed area combining housing, university and office buildingswith open, landscaped areas.Picture A-30: Tours – map of 2Lions quarter(Source: SET)24

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-31: Tours – website of 2Lions quarter(Source: www.2lions.fr)Picture A-32: Tours – visualisation of 2Lions quarter(Source: Internet)25

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantThe mix of activities envisaged for the new “2 lions” quarter is also rather typical for theFrench approach regarding tramway corridors. Those are in almost any case, but certainlyfor the first line in a city, linking different activities and thus housing, education, working andpublic services in order to avoid “mono-cultural” public transport services oriented i.e. only ontraffic homework!The first tramway line in Tours is therefore linking a population of 62000 people, 31500working places, 13500 students and 9000 school pupils with 29 stops on 13km length. Out ofthis total the “2 lions” quarter will contribute on a total area size of 78ha about 5000residents, 4000 working places and 5500 students.50000 daily passengers are envisaged for the first line, thus about 3800 passengers/km.26

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.1.7 Karlsruhe region (“Nachbarschaftsverband Karlsruhe”)The so-called “Nachbarschaftsverband Karlsruhe (NVK)” is a political co-operation unit(“regional planning community”) of the city of Karlsruhe and the directly neighbouring townsand villages – in principle the Karlsruhe agglomeration.The NVK is responsible for the integrated land-use plan (“Flächennutzungsplan”) for theagglomeration area, the first plan of this type was established in 1985.Within the land-use plan 2010 (issued 2004) a “density model” was agreed which is based onfour settlement types (A-D) as shown in picture A-33.Picture A-33: Settlement types and requested density patterns (GFZ=FSI)(Source: NVK)27

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantThe choice of one of the four categories depends from the traffic point of view on thedistance from the city centre of Karlsruhe, i.e. any new housing area within a distance of300m) should notget densities lower the category C.Category A is only relevant within the city centre of Karlsruhe while category D is used forhousing areas outside the catchment corridors of the light rail/tramway network.Compromises between traffic oriented and urban planning views are certainly possible anddepending on specific local conditions lower densities have been (may be) chosen!The plan in picture A-34 contains all planned areas and mentions their categorizationaccording to the settlement types A-D.It is also visible that there is a basic strategy to concentrate new developments alongside thepublic transport network!28

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-34: New areas according the land-use plan and their densities(Source: NVK)29

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.2 Comparative discussion of examplesThe six cases described are quite different regarding their size and “population targets” (seediagrams A-35 and A-36) below. The area size shown here is the total size of areas and notthe net area size of the building areas (“Nettowohnbauland”; usually ~60-65% of the total)!Area size [ha]350300250200150100500Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-35: Area sizes of the six casesPopulation targets50000450004000035000300002500020000150001000050000Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-36: Population targets of the six cases30

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantLooking at the area sizes one could sort the cases in three groups:⇒ Small (30-70ha)⇒ Medium (~150ha)⇒ Big (~300ha)However, looking at population it becomes obvious that the much bigger (double sized)Scharnhauser Park from Stuttgart appears with smaller targets then the Rieselfeld case fromFreiburg while at the same time the 2lions case from Tours in comparison with Rieselfeld ofexactly the same size appears with much lower population targets.One explanation for such differences is certainly the “attitude” of those developmentsregarding the mix of residential housing with working places (see diagram A-37).Working places14000120001000080006000400020000Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-37: Working place targets of the six casesIt becomes very clear that both the 2lions and Scharnhauser Park developments are showinga much higher share of working places compared to the three cases Rieselfeld, Vauban andSolar City. One could say that the latter are near to pure residential areas while 2lions andScharnhauser Park (and IJburg) represent truly mixed developments.The diagram shown in A-38 shows the dominance of housing purposes with a ratio of 12(housing/population divided by working places) for Rieselfeld while 2lions comes out with aratio near 1!31

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantRatio housing/working places14,012,010,08,06,04,02,00,0Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-38: Ratio housing/working placesAnother explanation could at least theoretically be found in different shares of net housingareas compared to the total size, different densities or (very) different flat sizes.Ratio net building area/total area size [%]80,070,060,050,040,030,020,010,00,0Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-39: Ratio net building area / total area size32

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantWith net numbers for IJburg and 2lions estimated as 60% of the total area size (respectivelybuilding area size for 2lions) the diagram in A-39 shows that Rieselfeld, Vauban, Solar Cityand IJburg can be seen within a certain range, while the very low percentage forScharnhauser Park is explainable by the large part of the total area size reserved as a greenarea (not available for buildings; 70ha out of 140ha). The ratio based on the available 70hawould be quite on the same level as the other cases (58%). Similarly, 2lions would appear inthe same range if the green area (here 28ha of 78ha) would be excluded. This means,despite of the specific conditions for both Scharnhauser Park and 2lions we can assume nomajor differences between the 6 cases; maybe stating Vauban at the high end and Solar Cityat the low end of the range.Also, as the diagram in A-40 illustrates, all cases are in a range between 2.5-3 persons perhousehold, actually it is only the Solar City case which represents the high end of this range(possibly explained by family housing with children?).Density I [P/flat]3,53,02,52,01,51,00,50,0Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-40: Persons per flatTherefore the diagram in A-41 showing the number of flats for the six cases correlatesstrongly with the population diagram in A-36. A similar correlation is visible for the ratiosflats/ha and population/ha as shown in diagrams A-42 and A-43.33

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantFlats20000180001600014000120001000080006000400020000Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-41: Number of flatsDensity II [flats/ha total area]706050403020100Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-42: Ratio flats/ha (total area size; “settlement density”)34

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantDensity III [P/ha total area]180160140120100806040200Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-43: Ratio population/ha (total area size; “settlement density”)Trying an interpretation of these ratios makes a basic problem of classic density parameterslike FSI (Floor Space Index; GFZ in Germany-COS in France) immediately apparent: theyare of little use for mixed developments! Picture A-44 gives an overview of the FSI rangeacross the six cases.Floor Space Index (FSI/GFZ/COS)43,532,521,510,50RieselfeldVaubanScharnhauser Park lowScharnhauser Park highSolar CityIJburg lowIJburg high2 lionsPicture A-44: Floor Space Index (FSI) for the six development areas35

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantHomogeneous housing areas like Rieselfeld, Vauban or Solar City can be compared and it isa true fact that Solar City has been planned as a “concentrated low density area” (FSI=0,65)while both Rieselfeld and Vauban show nearly twice the density as Solar City whencomparing FSI, population/ha or flats/ha. However, the population density of ScharnhauserPark or 2lions which appears on the same level as Solar City gives a misleading impressionand both are certainly much denser in their appearance as one would assume when lookingonly on population numbers. The very low (calculated!) FSI for the 2lions area is certainlyinfluenced by the large share of green space (see map in A-30) within the total 70hadevelopment area – a net FSI using only the net building areas of 50ha would be at 0.57 andthus near to the Solar City one. The average FSI of Scharnhauser Park is at 1.25 and thuscomparable to Rieselfeld and Vauban.One last diagram (A-45) regarding density is looking at the area size used per resident(population).Density IV [area use m²/P]180160140120100806040200Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-45: Area use per resident for the six development areasIt is obvious that Rieselfeld, Vauban and IJburg (despite of being a mixed area; reasoned byhigh FSI!) are showing the lowest area use per head of population. Also the relatively higharea use for Solar City fits with its low density approach and the differences in FSI. However,as discussed before, both Scharnhauser Park and 2lions are certainly much different to SolarCity and not really low density developments! Both Scharnhauser Park and 2lions containlarge green areas, for Scharnhauser Park even 70ha of the total 140ha size are kept as a36

Axel Kuehn – Independent Consultant“nature park” for the new development! Taking this into account and using 70ha for the ratiocalculations Scharnhauser Park would rank in diagram A-43 on a similar level as Vauban orIJburg! Similarly using the 50ha of net building areas (instead 78ha) for 2lions would bringthis site much closer to Vauban and IJburg and away from Solar City.It may be interesting to compare those six “state-of-the-art” or “today’s” housing/developmentareas with some 60s/70s housing areas which are usually seen as “high density”.The two German examples shown in pictures A-46 and A-47 are from 1969 (Heidelberg-Emmertsgrund) and 1964 (Mannheim-Vogelstang).Emmertsgrund shows an FSI of 1.35 and a net population density of 424 P/ha whileVogelstang has an (average) FSI of 0.67 and a net population density of 222 P/ha.Picture A-45: Heidelberg-Emmertsgrund housing area(Source: Wikipedia)37

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-46: Mannheim-Vogelstang housing area.(Source: Wikipedia)Population/net housing area size300250200150100500Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-47: Population/net housing area size; “population density”38

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA direct comparison of those numbers with the diagrams in A-43 (population/ha) is notpossible as those are referring to the total area size while the ratio given in literature forthese examples are clearly referring to a net density (thus using only the net built up(“private”) areas and excluding public green, streets etc). The diagram in A-47 showstherefore the comparable net densities for the six cases.It is evident that the Mannheim example regarding its population density, despite its (on firstsight!) different approach appears in a very similar range as Rieselfeld, Vauban,Scharnhauser Park and IJburg! Its FSI appears even lower then Rieselfeld or Vauban!It is also evident that the Heidelberg-Emmertsgrund example with its concentration ofneighbouring high-rise buildings results in really high densities far beyond all casesdiscussed/described here and this despite an FSI not much higher then those used forRieselfeld or Vauban.Picture A-48a: Different housing approaches with similar densities(Source: APLUST)39

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-48b: Different housing approaches with similar densities(Source: CERTU)40

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPictures 46a and b should help to understand such “phenomenon”! A single high-risebuilding of 12 storeys with 3 flats per storey using 210m² out of 5040m² total “private” areasize has an identical density (and FSI/COS) as constructing two 3 storey buildings with 12flats per storey using 840m² of again 5040m² total area size. In both cases the net density is157 P/ha. Using the total space available to construct 24 single houses of 105m² each wouldresult again in an identical FSI but a slightly lower density with only 133 residents comparedto 157 for the first two examples (as houses of 70m² are not feasible/efficient!).The parameter which changes most between the three approaches is the use of surface forthe actual buildings: from only 10% for the single high-rise building to 33% for the “fleet ofsingle houses”State-of-the-art “collective” housing areas like the six cases described can be seen as aninteresting alternative to the no-more accepted high-density housing areas of the 60s and70s and -perhaps astonishing on first thought- in many cases they show quite similar or evenhigher densities without (most important!) appearing that dense!The Solar City as one of the cases is branded as “concentrated low density” – an interestingexpression!Picture A-49: 6 categories of housing(Source: AudaB)41

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-49 shows six categories of housing areas with three in the “individual” part rangingfrom 5 flats/ha to 50 flats/ha and three in the “collective” part ranging from 50 flats/ha to 245flats/ha. Interesting is the overlap between the “individual” and the “collective” group in therange of 50 flats/ha which means one meets a “gray border zone” between individual andcollective housing in which the actual residents may still feel individual even within acollective housing approach.Most of the sample cases presented show interesting and attractive approaches in thedescribed “border zone” (or slightly above it) which are dense enough for supporting andrequiring high quality public transport.It should also be mentioned that there is no need to use the same densities for a whole area– examples like Rieselfeld or IJburg show nicely that the highest density is being useddirectly adjacent to the tramway corridor, while the outer areas are established with lowerdensities (see picture A-50 from IJburg during construction phase).Picture A-50: IJburg aerial view - different densities(Source: Amsterdam City)42

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.3 Relevance of density for public transportOne might argue how much impact different housing styles and densities might have ontransport patterns and whether a step to higher densities will really support public transportuse?Picture A-51: Grenoble – empiric study on mode choice depending on densities(Source: PDU SMTC Grenoble)The diagram in picture A-51 is very interesting (challenging!) in this respect. It describes theresult of a survey made in Grenoble/France in which the modal choice of residents has beenmeasured against the density of the areas they live in! The percentages given are plus/minusagainst the average choice in the whole agglomeration.The blue curve represents public transport (TC=Transport Commun), the red one the privatecar. It is evident that for densities below about 4500 residents/km² (=45 residents/ha) the caris always higher then its average modal share while at the same time public transport isbelow average up to about 7000 residents/km² (=70 residents/ha). The optimal conditions forpublic transport (and the most difficult ones for the car) are at around 9000 residents/km²(=90 residents/ha). Interestingly this is apparently also a turn around point as with furtherdensity growth the car shares rise again while the three environmentally friendly modesloose! This might be explainable with the empiric study based on local conditions in whichhigh density areas also have high quality road infrastructure, while the medium density areascould be subject to traffic calming policies which support public transport.To allow a direct comparison the diagram in A-52 gives now population/km² (same data as inA-43).43

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPopulation/km² total area180001600014000120001000080006000400020000Rieselfeld Vauban ScharnhauserParkSolar City IJburg 2 lionsPicture A-52: Ratio population/km² (total area size; “settlement density”)We can notice that in all six cases one has reached densities which appear favourable forpublic transport! However, reaching such densities requires also implementing collectivehousing areas with about 30-60 flats/ha and in case of lower housing densities to combinethose in mixed areas with higher numbers of working places to compensate for the lowernumber of residents.More generally settlement density is in principle the only option to create enough populationnear-by public transport corridors, less easy and sometimes impossible in “ready areas” builtlong time ago, even more important for future developments which still can be steered in theright direction!Catchment population density has already been discussed in the working paper on“benchmarking” as one option to compare conditions. The diagram in picture A-53 comparesFrench and UK light rail and tramway systems.Lower UK numbers at least for the three systems Croydon, Sheffield and Manchester resultfrom a larger stop spacing with a resulting lower amount of (accessible) population. TheNottingham scheme as the first real “tramway” is nearing the number of Orleans, which dueto its more regional character has the lowest ratio of all French schemes.44

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-53: Catchment population densities of French/UK LRT-systems(Source: SYPTE-EGIS/FaberMaunsell)Assuming two stops per km with a catchment area of about 0.5km² each (= π x 400m x400m) and using a ratio of 2000 P/km as an example we notice a minimum average densityof 2000 P/km² (from 2000 P on 2 x 0.5km²) as a requirement to reach such a ratio. With onestop per km the required density would be at 4000 P/m².These numbers may appear low compared to the densities shown in diagram A-50, however,one should take into account that normally not all stops have a 100% catchment, manyhousing areas/projects are smaller then one km² and no tramway line passes on its fulllength through the middle of a housing area like Rieselfeld. For comparison one km tramwaythrough Rieselfeld with three stops would mean a full coverage of 0.8km² or a catchmentpopulation density of about 13000 P/km!!An older diagram (1980) illustrates also the impact of density on energy consumption(carburant). Understandably the higher consumptions correlate to higher car use while indenser areas the use of public transport reduces the energy consumption!45

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantPicture A-54: Densities and energy consumption(Source: Kenworthy/Newman)46

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantA.4 Possible lessons for Norway respectively the Bergen regionA recent benchmarking study comparing Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German, French andDutch cities (all in all 22 cities of comparable size) has revealed some interesting facts aboutPublic Transport efficiency (see picture A-55).Picture A-55: PT-input and output (=PT-efficiency)The diagram makes obvious that the three Norwegian cities/agglomerations Bergen,Stavanger/Sandnes and Trondheim invest much higher amounts of vehicle-kms per year andinhabitant then all other cities looked at, but don’t receive passenger numbers which wouldjustify such investments in operation. This result is certainly reasoned strongly by the landusepatterns used so far which require many bus services/lines to serve the wide-spreadpopulation in low-dense areas which favour car use.There is an urgent need (author’s point of view!) to use an investment project like the Bergentramway -at least on the medium term- to improve conditions for public transport by changingland-use patterns, mainly with regard to the location of new settlement areas and theirdensities, but also with regard to a possible densification in existing settlement areas withinthe future tramway network corridors.47

Axel Kuehn – Independent ConsultantThe sample cases and strategies presented here are certainly not all directly transferable tolocal conditions in Norway and Bergen, however, they can be used creatively as kind of an“idea pool”.The following strategies might be most interesting:⇒ Concentrating future development areas strongly within future tramway corridors inorder to use such additional potential to improve and extend the network.⇒ Avoiding wide-spread, low density developments outside of strong PT-axes andtransferring those into better-suited locations with higher densities.⇒ Introducing a certain “density policy” depending on location/distance andavailable/potential PT-quality.⇒ Creating awareness that collective dense housing areas are needed to support PT.⇒ Creating awareness that collective dense housing can still appear very attractive forresidents!⇒ Integrating supportive innovative measures like car-sharing, car free zones forspecific population groups.⇒ Investigating mixed areas of housing, working and education instead of “monoculture”- those areas creating more continuous bi-directional flows for PT.Karlsruhe, 16.04.2009Axel Kuehn48