1. travel
2. transports
3. public transport

COST TU 0902 WG 1 meeting in Riga 9-10.11.2011
–
9.11 / 14.15-18.00
–
Participants in Riga meeting
–
Minutes of the Karlsruhe meeting and a progress after
–
Discussion about Integrated analyses, WG1 goals in Memorandum of understanding
MOU , presentations
–
WG1 , table of content for a review
–
Case study regions
–
Scientific papers, conferences
• Trondheim conference paper 6/2012
• Helsinki conference spring 2013, Urban fabric ?
–
UZ
–
Next meeting in WG1
–
STSM in WG 1 , WG1 Meetings
–
Budget in WG 1
10.11. / 11.00-13.30 ( joint meeting with WG1 and WG 4)
–
Joint review ?
–
Planning policy , Case-studies, EEA (Urban Audit, UMZ)
List of participants in Riga meeting
–
Mika Ristimäki , chair of WG1 , SYKE / Helsinki [email protected]
–
Jonathan Köhler, vice-chair WG1, ISI / Karlsruhe. [email protected]
–
Gerald Leindecker, Linz,
–
Kestusis Zaleckis, Lithuania, [email protected]
–
Dragutin Mihailovic, Serbia, [email protected]
–
Jaume Fons, (EEA, Spain) [email protected]
–
Gabor Dombay, Budabest, [email protected]
–
Vincent Viguié,CERED Paris, [email protected]
–
Efren Feliu, Technalia / Bilbao, [email protected]
–
Michael Neuman, U,NSW, Australia [email protected]
[email protected]
UZ
Minutes of the Karlsruhe 13-14.7.2011 meeting
and a progress after
UZ
–
Four speakers were present at the meeting: Ristimäki (FI), Feliu (ES), Viguie (FR), Köhler (DE)
–
The key messages from these presentations were:
–
The need to have an agreement about what Integrated Modelling is and how it fits into IA methods in
general.
–
There may be common themes to all integrated Assessment analysis of cities, they all have a specific
geographical frame of reference (the definition of the region to be analysed) and use population and
geographical information together with economics in the assessment.
–
The following structure for the WG1 survey was agreed:
–
WG1 table of content for a review of urban IA studies
–
Mika Ristimäki [MR] introduced the agenda and explained the objectives of the MC meeting, which were to:
–
To present possible contributions to the WG1 case studies of Integrated Assessment methodologies for cities
–
To develop a structure for the first WG1 survey of Integrated Assessment methodologies.
–
Advance the WG programme and develop the plans for the coming year. Identify productive Short Term Scientific Missions
(STSMs).
–
The participants presented their proposed case studies.
–
MR presented the results of the EU PLUREL project on peri-urban development in the EU. Peri-urban areas are
defined as being in transition between rural and urban structures, forming a new area of interest outside the
suburban areas of cities. An analysis of Helsinki and the land use and transportation developments has been
undertaken and is proposed for inclusion as a case study in the WG1 review.
UZ
–
Efren Felieu [EF] presented a multicriteria environmental assessment of Vitoria, south of Bilbao. While this is not a
full integrated assessment analysis, information has been collected and analysed across several different
disciplines, which could be expanded into an integrated assessment. Therefore, consideration of this would make
a useful contribution to the WG1 review.
–
Vincent Viguié (VV) presented the NEDUM model of Paris. Time patterns of urbanisation have been generated
through modelling economic and transport patterns through time, using the differential equation approach of the
CIRED NEDYM model.
–
JK presented the Tyndall Centre IA assessment of London, combing disciplines including economics, transport
and flood risk analysis to develop scenarios of landuse patterns , climate change and consequent flooding risks
and damage assessments for Greater London and the surrounding area.
–
There was a discussion of futher WG1 outputs over the rest of the action. One possibility is a powerpoint
presentation of the results of the WG1 review. This is planned for 2012. A topic for further discussion is the
potential for the application of agent based modelling for IA of cities. A further possible topic for discussion is the
possible application of transitions theory ideas to urban integrated assessment. These will be discussed further in
future meetings.
–
MR has a trainee working with him at SYKE. MR will ask the trainee to look for further relevant cases of IA for
cities. TNO has an IA tool, which is used for consultancy and ARUP have also undertaken consultancy on IA for
urban areas.
–
Two possible STSMs were discussed. MR would like to go on an STSM to Karlsruhe, to analyse the Karlsruhe
public transport tram and S bahn system. VV would like to go to Bilbao, to calibrate the NEDUM model for Bilbao.
–
Next meeting. The next meeting of WG1 will be held in Spring 2012. When the draft wg1 review is presented in
Brno, the possiblility of holding a joint meeting with other WGs will be discussed.
MOU, Review and collate the existing technologies, methodologies and case
studies of integrated sustainability assessment at a city scale.
UZ
–
Sustainable development of cities involves a number of deeply inter-related
challenges, e.g. climate impacts, resource use and waste. However, responses to the
challenges of sustainable development are bound to have undesirable side-effects if
they are not studied in an integrated way. Integrated assessment of the form, function
and dynamics of change in urban areas represents a formidable challenge. A new
generation of quantified integrated assessment methods is emerging that is highly
innovative in a number of respects and has the potential to provide new tools to
support the complex process of managing urban areas. These tools are increasingly
integrating multiple facets of sustainability (e.g. multiple climate impacts, or
consideration of adaptation and mitigation measures) yet they remain embryonic.
Researchers are developing pioneering approaches to develop, previously
unavailable, integrated methods for analysis and decision making within the complex
coupled technological, human and natural systems that constitute urban areas.
–
The aim of this task is to bring together the scientists, engineers, planners and
stakeholders with an interest in managing cities to share methods, experiences and
ideas and explore different approaches to addressing this complex systems problem.
The sub-tasks required for Task 1 are:
UZ
–
(i) Review approaches to sustainability appraisal in European cities by identifying the
key needs of policy makers with regards sustainability in cities and the key metrics of
sustainability currently employed.
–
(ii) Review existing methods of integrated assessment, focusing on the limited
methods currently available at the city scale, but also drawing on experience from
other fields (e.g integrated coastal zone modelling) and scales (e.g. global integrated
assessment modelling).
–
(iii) Explore application of different methods through sharing data, methodological
expertise and case study information.
–
(iv) Draw on outputs from Tasks 2-4 to explore how adaptation/mitigation, resource
flows/ecosystem services and support for long term planning might be better
incorporated into city-wide integrated assessment models.
–
(v) Make recommendations, identify future research needs and provide a schematic
design for a systems-based integrated assessment framework for urban sustainability
analysis. This will be supported by case study examples where possible.
WG1 , table of content for a review
UZ
–
Scope of study: What are the questions? What is modelled or assests ? ( land use model,
transport model ) Key policy questions
–
Methodology/disciplines or academic fields: Geography, environment, economics, Scenarios
–
Data, data sources: Urban Audit, FARO, CORINLAND CORINAIR, Local datasets
–
Links with policy makers/Urban planners
–
Results of the case studies
–
–
Urbanisation, dynamics of urban form
–
Environmental impacts
–
Policy recommendations
–
Vulnerability and resilience
–
Were important connections between disciplines found that determined the results?
Conclusions
–
Added value of IA for urban planning; Can these methods/results be applied to other cities?
WG 1 Review, important aspects
UZ
– Introduction
– Planning literature (articles, Perth, World Planning School
Conf. 2011, TNO model system, ARUP?)
– Urban IA models
– Why IA modelling of cities? Planning aspects of urban
development, significant feedbacks between
aspects/disciplines
– Complexity/trans-disciplinarity/trade-offs and synergies
Discussion in WG1 : Should we contain the planning policy analyses into the WG1
review ? => Cooperation with WG 4
COST Case study, comparisson the corridors and analyses of
urban transformation usin IA methods
UZ
Case studies:
–
Helsinki-Lahti, Tampere ( Mika Ristimäki)
–
Praha-Liberec, Ostrava ( Lena Halounova)
–
Bilbao –Vittoria MCA analysis ( Efren Felieu)
–
Paris NEDUM ( Vincent Vigui´e)
–
London Tyndall ( Jonathan Köhler, Richard Dawson)
–
Any other? The interest of case studies by mail before 1.12. to Mika and Jonathan.
1 A4 paper for all case studies ; how your case study will contribute to MOU wg1
tasks and wg1 review content)
–
–
Budapest , Gabor
–
Barcelona, Jaume
–
Linz , Gerala
–
Kaunas., Kestutis
–
Belgrad, Dragutin
Case study regions in WG4? Oslo or Trondheim ?
Scientific papers, conferences
Trondheim conference paper 6/2012
– Mika and Jonathan will draft the content of the paper before end of
january 2012 , WG 1 writers are wellcome to join into this paper.
– Content: Summary of the IA methods and case studies
Helsinki conference spring 2013, Urban fabric ?
– Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) will organize a scientific
Conference about ”Urban Faric” in spring 2013.
– Any other articles or conferenses?
UZ
STSM and Next meetings
–
UZ
Lena Halounova was in Helsinki in last October
Next STMS in WG 1
–
Gerala Leindecker => Helsinki SYKE
–
Vincent Viguie => Bilbao Technalia
–
Mika Ristimäki => Karlsruhe Fraunhofer institute ( April 2012)
–
Gabor Dombay => SYKE in Spring
Next meetings
–
WG 1 meeting as part of wg leaders meeting in Brussel on Jan./ Feb. WG1 16.2,
–
Trondheim 19-21.6.2012
–
WG1 meeting 6.11.2012, Karlsruhe
–
Joint meeting with WG4 ?
Next Steps
– Combine the WG results in PPT
– Drafting the review; case study result, framework,
scope
– New case study proposals in November
– Next WG1 meeting in February linked in WG leaders
meeting
– Preparing the conference paper to Trondheim
conference
UZ
Travel behaviour Location of activities Travel surveys
Public transport zone Pedestrian zone
Urban form
Home environment
UZ
Commuting area
Travel profile
Car-oriented zone
Travel-related zones of urban form Low mobility
COST case studies
Examples ( Mika Ristimäki and Lena Halounova)
Helsinki-Lahti / Praha-Liberec
Tampere-Ostrava
Proposal for the future cooperation
–
Processing of three various cities in each country having similar conditions for
analyzing sustainable development:
–
number of inhabitants – for comparable city scale for land use, transport systems,
–
economical orientation – for comparable economical and social conditions,
–
distance to Helsinki/Prague boundary/centre – for comparable conditions for
external employment sources and other economical sources concentrated in
prevailing part in both capitals .
UZ
UZ
Tampere and Ostrava:
Lahti and Liberec
–
similar number of inhabitants - 300 000
–
similar number of inhabitants - 100 000
–
heavy industry,
–
–
university towns
textile and jewelry industry, and wood
processing in Liberec, wood processing, in Lahti
–
transport system, Ostrava tram and bus
system, Tampere bus system
–
transport system, Liberec tram system, Lahti
bus system
–
distance to capitals – more than 100 km (300
km to Prague – 3 hours by train, 200 km to
Helsinki – 2 hours by train, highway
connections)
–
distance to capitals – about 100 km (100 km to
Prague – 1 hours by bus, 100 km to Helsinki – 1
hour by train, highway connections)
–
winter and summer sport centers
–
–
–
Recreational town pairs including their
neighborhood
–
Lahti City , recreational resort/town Vierumäki ,
Pajulahti in Finland
–
Liberec and Jablonec mountainous touristic
region in the Czech Republic
Methods
UZ
–
Method description and data exchange for the partner to be able to apply it for his
already processed case city.
–
Mapping the urbanization with long time series in two cities in Finland and Czech
Republic using methods and determine new information found by the partner´s one.
–
Definition of urban forms and transport relationships.
–
Urban classifications used in urban planning in the case cities according to already
approved proposals and approved decisions.
–
Analyses of leisure time activities in urban and regional level focused also on aging
population taking into account also green infrastructure and green corridors in urban
form as the cheapest and the most natural human physical activity – walking.
Anticipated outcomes and deliverables
UZ
–
Comparison of two methods for land use determination in urban areas – their mutual
relations, advantages, disadvantages, resolutions, scales, derived information, etc. as
a case study.
–
Land use urban area types in Finland – cities with relatively new urban policy (19th –
21st century - and Czech Republic – cites with history since medieval period –
intensity population, comparison of relation between areas of production and
residential areas, city centers and subcenters (if exist) and recommendation for a
sustainable urban planning policy for European towns – in the northern and central
Europe
–
Transport systems in the different city pairs– types, intensity, distances to public city
transport network, connection to their capitals – examples and recommendations for
the spatial distribution for an efficient public city transport system.
–
Determination of indicators for suitable localization of recreational places for the aging
part of population living in cities – in prevailing part in their suburb areas.
Trip production
Travel behaviour Location of activities Travel surveys
Public transport zone Pedestrian zone
Urban form
Home environment
UZ
Commuting area
Travel profile
Car-oriented zone
Travel-related zones of urban form Low mobility
Travel-related Zones of Urban Form
in Urban and Peri-Urban areas,
Case Helsinki-Lahti corridor
Mika Ristimäki
Senior Researcher
Finnish Environment Institute
Unit of Built Environment
Helsinki, Finland
COST Case study, Helsinki- Lahti
UZ
– travel related zones of urban form from the hole corridor can be utilised
– describe and interpret the urban form and travel patterns in urban , peri-urban
areas and rural areas in corridor
– pedestrian zones are strongest within areas of high level of public transport service
and weakest in outer peri-urban areas. Sustainability urban design (SUD) analyses
around railways stations in corridor
– there is almost no potential to increase the public transport use in outer peri-urban
areas without large scale public transport investments and location of intensified
land use
– rail-based inner peri-urban region has been successful in creating more polycentric
urban form with less car-dependent life style
– zones can be generalized to a planning method, which can be used to assess the
effects of land use and transportation system development
– Planning policy analyses in corridor
– Future scenarios in corridor and assesments using IA methods
UZ
Travel related zones of urban form
Pedestrian zones
Public transport zones
Car-oriented zones
Travel related zones of urban form
• based on commonly known methodology applied in many countries (e.g. ABC planning policy)
• development of planning tool for land use and transport system planning
• definition of criteria for zones
• definition of urban form and mobility profiles for each zone type
• created in co-operation with land use and transport planners
UZ
General criteria for the travel related zones of urban form
Criteria for travel related
zones is based on
• distance to CBD area
• distance to public transport
stop
• headway for public
transport services
• location of subcentra
Public transport zones are on
more than 2 km distance of
the CBD area and there is high
level of service of public
transport.
1. Intensive public transport zone
2. Public transport zone
Pedestrian zones
Public transport zones
1. Pedestrian zone is limited in 1,0–2,0 km
radius of CBD area
2. Pedestrian zone is surrounded by a fringe
zone of the radius of 2-5 km radius of the
pedestrian zone
3. In the metropolitan area the subcentres
form an independent pedestrian zone
Car-oriented zones
The area outside the pedestrian and public
transport zones is car-oriented zone. Usually in
large urban areas there is also some public
transport supply in car-oriented zones, but the
public transport level of service is not as high as
on public transport zones. In small urban areas
the public transport supply of car-oriented zones
is modest.
Travel related zones in Helsinki Metropolitan Region
Travel related zones
of urban form on
urban and peri-urban
area
• implementation of
the zones on national
level in 250x250 m
grid cells
•pedestrian zones
describe the
polycentric nature of
Metropolitan Region
Data
• MUFFS data (Finnish
Monitoring System of
Urban Form and
Spatial Structure)
• public transport
supply data
• regional travel
survey data
UZ
UZ
Urban, peri-urban and rural areas in Helsinki Metropolitan Region
Helsinki Urban Region
Inner Peri-Urban area, good rail connection
Inner Peri-Urban area
Helsinki
Urban
Mid-sized
cities,Region
good rail connection
Inner
area, of
good
rail connection
OtherPeri-Urban
mid-sized cities
region
Inner
Peri-Urban
area
Outer Peri-Urban area
Mid-sized
cities,
good
rail of
connection
Small towns
in the
fringe
region
Other
mid-sized
of of
region
Rural areas
in thecities
fringe
region
Outer Peri-Urban area
Small towns in the fringe of region
Rural areas in the fringe of region
0
400 000
Helsinki Urban Region
Inner Peri-Urban Area, good rail
connection
Inner Peri-Urban Area
Outer Peri-Urban Area
800 000
1 200 000
1 004 800
107 800
67 700
92 200
Peri-urban areas have
altogether 268 000
inhabitants
Helsinki –Lahti corridor
UZ
Travel related zones in Lahti Region
UZ
Trip production
Travel behaviour Location of activities Travel surveys
Public transport zone Pedestrian zone
Urban form
Home environment
UZ
Commuting area
Travel profile
Car-oriented zone
Travel-related zones of urban form Low mobility
Features of Helsinki-Lahti
corridor
UZ
Pop.
Population amount near the railway stations in 2010 (1 km distance)
UZ
Population amount near the railway stations in 2010 (10 km
distance)
UZ
Workplace amount near the railway stations in 2010 (1 km
distance)
Commuting destinations ( workplace density) from Lahti to
Helsinki region in 1980 and 2003
UZ
Työmatkojen suhteellinen osuus
(%)
Lahdessa asuvien työmatkojen suuntautuminen Lahden
ulkopuolelle vuosina 1990, 1995 ja 2003
6
5
PKS + kehyskunnat (14)
4
Hollola
3
Nastola
2
Heinola
Orimattila
1
0
1990
1995
2003
Työmatkojen lukumäärä
Lahdessa asuvien työmatkojen suuntautuminen Lahden
ulkopuolelle vuosina 1990,1995 ja 2003
2500
PKS + kehyskunnat
(14)
2000
Hollola
1500
Nastola
1000
Heinola
500
Orimattila
0
1990
1995
2003
UZ
Commuters ( Lahti to Helsinki region) amount and
field of industry in 2003
UZ
Lahdesta pääkaupunkiseudulle ja sen kehyskuntiin suuntautuneet
työmatkat toimialoittain vuonna 2003
500
16
10
8
200
100
6
4
2
0
0
Työmatkojen
(%)
Työmatkojen lukumäärä
300
12
Työmatkojen suhteellinen osuus
14
400
lukumäärä
Työmatkojen
suhteellinen osuus
Kauppa: Marketing services
Teollisuus:Industry
Majrav: Restaurants and hotels
Lielpa: Services to other industries
Infosekt:Information sector
Korkeatekn: High--Tech
UZ
100 %
80-200 km
80 %
50-80 km
60 %
20-50 km
5-20 km
40 %
2-5 km
20 %
0-2 km
Teollisuus Kauppa Majrav
Lahdessa asuvien työmatkojen jakautuminen
pituusluokittain eri toimialoilla vuonna 1990 ja
2003 (alle 200 kilometrin työmatkat).
Commuters trips share by field of industry in 1990
and 2003
Lielpa
2003
1990
2003
1990
2003
1990
2003
1990
2003
1990
2003
1990
0%
Korkea Infosekt
tekn.
Kauppa: Marketing services
Teollisuus:Industry
Majrav: Restaurants and hotels
Lielpa: Services to other industries
Infosekt:Information sector
Korkeatekn: High--Tech
Trip production
Travel behaviour Location of activities Travel surveys
Public transport zone Pedestrian zone
Urban form
Home environment
UZ
Commuting area
Travel profile
Car-oriented zone
Travel-related zones of urban form Low mobility
Features of peri-urban area of
Helsinki Metropolitan Region
UZ
Examples of typical areal profiles of the zones
Work place
density (work
places/
hectar)
Areal density rate
(floor area/
land area)
Household density
(number of hh/
hectar)
Population
density (inhab./
hectar)
Commercial
work places /
hectar
Pedestrian zone
1,35
60
101
160-190
12,4
Fringe of pedestrian zone
0,53
36
59
56
1,4
Intensive public transport zone
0,25
18
34
19
1,0
Public transport zone
0,16
12
26
9
0,5
Pedestrian zone of a subcentre
0,35
25
46
26
3,1
Car oriented zone
0,07
4
11
3
Helsinki Urban Region
Inner Peri-Urban area, good rail connections
Pedestrian zone
0,16
12
24
8
Fringe of pedestrian zone
0,06
4
10
2
Public transport zone
0,10
8
17
3
Car oriented zone
0,02
1
3
<1
Pedestrian zone
0,08
6
12
4
Fringe of pedestrian zone
0,04
2
6
1
Public transport zone
0,05
3
7
2
Car oriented zone
0,02
<1
2
<1
1,0
0,2
Inner Peri-Urban area
0,4
0,1
UZ
Population development in inner and outer peri-urban area
Peri-Urbanisation
• Peri-urban development is the most rapid
type of land use change in Europe
• In Helsinki peri-urban area the urban sprawl
is one of the strongest in Europe
Share of
population in
car-oriented
zones is 36 %
Inner Peri-Urban area
100 000
Outer Peri-Urban area
90 000
90 000
80 000
80 000
70 000
70 000
60 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
Share of
population in
car-oriented
zones is 45 %
100 000
Population
Population
Public transport
zone is almost
non-existing
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
20 000
10 000
10 000
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2007
Pedestrian zone
Fringe of pedestrian zone
Good public transport zone
Public transport zone
Car-oriented zone
Zone outside densely populated area
2009
0
1985
1990
Pedestrian zone
1995
2000
2005
2007
Fringe of pedestrian zone
Good public transport zone
Public transport zone
Car-oriented zone
Zone outside densely populated area
2009
UZ
Outer peri-urban area
30,0
Development of population density in peri-urban areas
25,0
Inner Peri-Urban areas with
good area
railwith
connection
good rail connection
Peri-urban
inhabitants/hectare
30,0
Pedestrian zone
Good public tranport zone
15,0
Public tranport zone
20,0
10,0
15,0
10,0
Fringe of pedestrian zone
25,0
Inhabitant /hectare
Inhabitant /hectare
20,0
OuterOuter
Peri-Urban
areas
peri-urban area
30,0
20,0
Inhabitant /hectare
25,0
inhabitants/hectare
Car-oriented zone
Pedestrian zone
Sparsely-populated area
Fringe of pedestrian zone
Whole region
Good public tranport zone
15,0
Public tranport zone
Car-oriented zone
Sparsely-populated area
10,0
Whole region
5,0
5,0
5,0
0,0
1985
1990
1995
0,0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
0,0
1985
2005
1990
1995
2000
2005
Travel behaviour Location of activities Travel surveys
Public transport zone Pedestrian zone
Urban form
Home environment
UZ
Commuting area
Travel profile
Car-oriented zone
Travel-related zones of urban form Low mobility
Travel behaviour in urban
and peri-urban areas
UZ
Daily mobility in the viewpoint of individual travel
demand
work related
travel
work place
home
daily or
almost daily
grocery
shop
leisure
activities
several times
per week
visiting friends
or relatives
weekly
library
doctor’s
appointment
railway
hypermarket, station
shopping
specialized
work place of
centre
store
family
barber,
member
hair dresser
bank,
office
several times
per month
monthly
frequency of visits
several times
per year
airport
car repair or sales
yearly
once in a
few years
UZ
Daily mileage (passenger km) for inhabitants
0
pedestrian zone
Helsinki Urban
Region
fringe of pedestrian zone
5
10
6,6
2,6
8,5
pedestrian zone of subcentre
intensive public transport zone
3,4
4,6
35
40
45
50
passenger km/inhabitant, weekday
2,1
14,4
4,5
1,8
18,1
pedestrian zone
30
2,5
5,2
4,4
16,7
1,6
8,8
fringe of pedestrian zone
21,5
intensive public transport zone
20,7
public transport zone
8,5
1,6
6,6
29,6
car oriented zone
1,2
23,9
outside densely populated area
1,7
26,9
fringe of pedestrian zone
3,2
24,9
public transport zone
5,4
23,3
3,6
car oriented zone
31,9
outside densely populated area
4,3
30,1
pedestrian zone
6,0
5,2
28,9
intensive public transport zone
5,9
6,4
31,2
pedestrian zone
Outer PeriUrban area
25
1,7
10,6
car oriented zone
Inner PeriUrban area
20
1,5
11,6
public transport zone
Inner PeriUrban area,
good rail
connection
15
3,7
30,1
fringe of pedestrian zone
2,5
33,2
public transport zone
31,3
car oriented zone
4,5
37,1
outside densely populated area
3,6
35,4
walk
bicycle
car
bus
train
3,3
tram
metro
UZ
The interaction between population density and daily
passenger car mileage
daily passenger car mileage per person (km)
40
Outer peri-urban
area
35
Inner peri-urban
area
30
25
Inner peri-urban
area & rail
20
15
10
Helsinki urban
region
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
population density (inhabitants/ha)
pedestrian zone
fringe of pedestrian zone
public transport zone
car oriented zone
good public transport zone
100
Carbon dioxide emissions of transport (g/inhabitants, weekday)
0
pedestrian zone
fringe of pedestrian zone
Helsinki Urban
Region
pedestrian zone of subcentre
intensive public transport zone
public transport zone
car oriented zone
Inner PeriUrban area,
good rail
connection
pedestrian zone
fringe of pedestrian zone
intensive public transport zone
500
1 000
1 500
1 000
1 200
1 600
1 500
1 900
2 200
2 000
2 500
2 400
public transport zone
car oriented zone
3 300
2 700
outside densely populated area
3 500
pedestrian zone
Inner PeriUrban area
public transport zone
car oriented zone
outside densely populated area
pedestrian zone
Outer PeriUrban area
3 200
fringe of pedestrian zone
intensive public transport zone
2 000
3 300
3 000
2 700
3 600
3 400
3 300
fringe of pedestrian zone
3 600
public transport zone
3 600
car oriented zone
outside densely populated area
4 200
4 000
2 500
UZ
3 000
3 500
4 000
4 500
CO2grams/inhabitant,weekday