Adhesion Mobility and Planning Hello, in this video, I'll talk about the concept of adhesion of transport systems to territories. We will discuss about exploring a way among others of thinking the transport and mobility related to urban planning, essentially in spatial terms but also in terms of practices, uses, actors games and organizational processes. As you could see through the week courses and the videos of my colleagues the thought on transport and mobility is experiencing a revival which is due not only to the emergence of new practices but also to an awareness that the logic of transportation engineering sometimes helped to deconstruct the urban fabric. Indeed, production of transport in general and public transport in particular has long been thought and realized in a logic of movement from point A to point B regardless of what happens in between. This logic is that of the modern city shaped by the division of labor and distribution activities following zonings which must be linked together in the most effective way. This vision of transport as a link between point A and point B both considered as inventory and therefore space-times considers the same connection between the two points as out of space-time, as a non-place. It would be a void that must be cut by growing increasingly speed and reducing travel time, or occupying a distraction or any activity. Considered in this way, transport is increasingly designed and produced on site to minimize external interference and move faster and faster. They are therefore increasingly isolated from the city and what it refers to as social, economic activities and urban intensities. Faced with this situation, many authors and professionals propose to rethink mobility and transport systems by integrating in the reflection on the city. They defend the idea that any kind of transport modes and especially public transport, participates in a city project and in the improvment of the quality of urban space, it must participate in building or construction of the anchor of the mobility system to the territory of the city. This anchoring happens through better adherence to the territory. According to Jacques Lévy, the adhesion of a metric is the possibility for the traveler to cover all points of the route. It is the ratio between the length of the network in a given unit of measure and the number of breakpoints. This includes the idea that multiple breakpoints for a transit strengthen its grip. The more stations there would be, the more metric would cling to the territory and the more it would stick. The adhesion is measured on a scale, from the least to the most acceding member or from the discontinuous terminal adhesion to the continuous longitudinal adhesion. We find in a first extreme the air transport. Completely offline places, it takes off from point A to point B. It is completely disconnected. In the other extreme, we find walking completely continuous and fully adheres to the territory. It provides access to all these parties. Next, in descending order of adhesion we find bike, car, bus, tram, train perhaps the boat and finally the plane. George Amar proposes to classify the different types of movements according to their relation to the city by positioning them from the more discontinuous to the more continuous. To the spread and the general city territory correspond less adherent modes that increase the speed and reduce the anchor points. In contrast, the wealth of the urban fabric correspond to more adherent modes that allow access to a maximum of places as a kind of small points of sewing. Furthermore, the less a motion is adherent to the territory, the more its own content both in terms of activity and in terms of space is itself abroad to places and activities it connects. Conversely, the more the movement is adherent the more points that determine the adhesion are linked with the environment and determines the movement itself. The occupation of travel time has become more and more important with the emergence of new communication technologies. It is now possible to send an email, calling to schedule a meeting or just to play while moving. The idea of combining the thought of the city and its urban forms with the mobility and transport implies the idea of thinking these as a system where adherence to the territories is a positive value. The more discontinuous is a mode, the more it should be completed by continuous modes to enhance the adhesion of the system. Therefore, think intermodality as a system which allows to go from discontinuity to continuity. If we take the example of a TGV that connects to the city to a single point which is a big train station that must connect to a subway or streetcar or commuter train attached via an intermodal item. This subway is slightly stickier than the TGV which in turn connects to a bus line or for example a tram that it is much more adherent to the territory and multiplying the anchor points. It connects to other modes from intermodal nodes. The most adherent metric is the pedestrian metric, this system should promote interaction between mechanized transport and especially public transport on the one hand and pedestrian movement on the other. Therefore, we would have from these points a mesh networking of pedestrian paths. If we limit ourselves to the definitions given so far, adherence remains attached to the linearity of course. It does not support the thickness of territory including around each metric neither the report of continuity with hiking metric. The proliferation of anchorage points of a public transport line does not necessarily guarantee the link to the online environment. The anchors do not necessarily guarantee a good walking relay. If the route on foot is poorly designed or strewn with obstacles the adhesion of the system is undermined. If residents or pedestrians do not have access to the metric for one reason or another the adhesion of this transport is weakening despite the large number of stops. Thus, the notion of adherence involves a much broader understanding that is important to redefine or rather complete. If we take the definition of adhesion as the state of a thing that physically adheres to another in the case of urban space the adhesion becomes the own of urban items that promote contact among themselves and with the different parts of the territory. An adherent transportation mode is not only a fashion which multiplies anchor points but also a mode that connects these points to different objects constitutive of that territory. Thus, it seems clear that in the scale of the city, the transport system must adhere differently based on scales of territory, the centrality and the radiation from objects it connects. If we take for example public facilities and their radius of influence as shown in this diagram by Richard Rogers some metropolitan facilities need to be connected following the logic of the great distances and large areas. It can be a hospital, university or government. Their corresponding patterns are discontinuous modes connecting centralities between themselves. The more facilities are close to the small scale, the more metrics must be continuous. They must multiply the anchors to cling to small distances. At the local neighborhoods and neighborhood scale, when the distances are shorter it is the pedestrian metric that ensures adhesion. The various stops of a tram or a bus, for example must allow continuity of the pedestrian traffic from the interior of these modes outwardly. At each station, it should be possible to join within a walking comfort distance, all the elements constituting the surrounding territory within a certain thickness on either side of the line as shown in this drawing. It should also be possible to cross natural or artificial boundaries with special facilities. This would strengthen the contact between different metrics and the territory of the city via the pedestrian metric. In this context, the public space is of considerable importance because it is the support of pedestrian travels. If the other metrics are, when they have a good grip, small scale seams, as stated by Georges Amar, hiking metric through the public space is more like a weave on the whole territory. Seen in this way, the effectiveness of a mobility system and adhesion not only fall within the passage of the discontinuous mode to continuous modes but also weave through the public space. What we have just seen, identifies a problem we might call the adhesion paradox. Indeed, adherence to metropolitan areas and regions must allow transport efficiency in terms of journey times. In contrast, adherence to local scales must allow a serving of a multitude of locations and activities in proximity to each other. Because of this tension between levels of scale and service planning, the question of adhesion inevitably raises the problem of the articulation and balance between the commercial speed metrics and the finesse of the service and therefore the spacing of stations. A same metric can sometimes require speed at some places and slow and strong adhesion to others, especially near living areas and urban intensity. The difficulty is to identify accurately places of adhesion and places of non-adhesion. This is a problem that can not be answered, only case by case. By working fine and simultaneously, on urban morphology, distribution and the concentration of activities and places of living and much more technical aspects related to transport and mobility. After traveling this notion of adhesion and what it implies in planning mobility relationship I propose now to enrich the definitions we have explored so far. I propose to break the adhesion on three levels. First, the spatial grip we have explored before. By having public space and pedestrian metric as a reference, it is possible to define the adhesion of a mode of transport as its ability to increase contacts with the territory and it crosses with the objects that make up this territory. This adhesion is assured by multiplying anchor points or stops on one hand and the establishment of links and contacts in the thickness of the other territory. This is done through connection to other lines when it comes to large-scale and through the public space when it comes to the local level. To ensure a certain urban quality at the neighborhood, any urban object must provide some comfort access to pedestrian movement. It is the relationship of the various objects in the pedestrian metric which ensures adherence to the territory. Therefore the adhesion becomes one of the conditions of the construction of an urban space that would provide a certain quality of life in cities. Viewed this way, adhesion becomes the means to ensure continuity between the mobility space as a public space as understood by Isaac Joseph and urban public space built by streets, squares, parks, etc. The other two types of adhesion are: adhesion in terms of uses and practices; and adhesion in terms of organizational processes and actors games. It seems important to extend the concept of adherence to the territories with all its components. The adhesion is no longer the exclusive physical contact but also becomes the characteristic of a metric compared to some individual or collective behavior. The behavior and the dynamics of the actors that produce the city and people who use the metric in question become additional criteria to characterize adhesion. The adhesion in terms of uses and practices implies the idea that citizens accept at first the mode that is offered. Secondly, this implies the fact that they use it and they have access to it. To do so would require that the mode of transportation offer them some adhesion which is materialized in a first step by its efficiency, its quality and its comfort. A transport system that for example wastes users' time relative to another mode of motion, including the car or that involves many changes can discourage travelers from using it. It is in this case, what you observed through the case of the Geneva tram presented by Vincent Kaufman in previous lessons. The second point of adhesion in terms of uses and practices is accessibility. For a mode to be used, it would have to offer simply some accessibility which is materialized by two points. First spatial configurations. This refers initially to spatial configurations to be near living places, jobs, to be unobstructed and to the efficiency of the mesh. This also refers to the care of the elderly and the disabled requiring specific facilities. The second aspect of accessibility is financial. It is defined in relation to fares and the ability to access for a large number of citizens from different social backgrounds. This is especially important as the production of public transport is often marked by social prism or even socio-economic which aims to link neighborhoods together and to create diversity by bringing jobs to people. So that citizens can use the offer they should simply be able to afford to buy a ticket. The last point concerns security. It goes through a series of technical devices but also human for citizens to use public transport offered they should have above all a sense of security which allows them to borrow this transport without fear. This involves safety of users compared to physical attacks, thefts and accidents. It can go through a series of devices who are lighting stations or the installation of safety barriers, awareness, conflict mediation, control of ticket or extreme police repression. The adhesion in terms of organizational processes and sets of actors in turn involves initially the idea that territorial producers actors adhere to the proposed transportation project and integrate the processes and dynamics at work or in the future. Secondly, this implies that the project itself integrates the dynamics of various actors in its own process. As dynamic participating in the manufacture of the city, the creation, the management or the reorganization of a system or mode of transport systematically creates an interaction with other city productive dynamics. It highlights interaction of public sector actors private sector actors and civil society. It also uses interaction between different territorial scales levels that correspond to a variety of actors and systems of organizations and territorial production processes just as different. The adherence of this level of transport is its ability to hold the processes at work in the territory and integrate the demands and plans of the various actors. It is also its ability to adhere to different territorial levels and integrate into the overall process the processed that involve each scale. This adherence of organizational processes and territorial actors is not only concerned by the duration of the project until its completion. The city changes. It is constantly changing. Its games of actors and production dynamics are in perpetual motion and reconfiguration. The transport system should allow new projects to new players or new needs to graft to its own dynamics. Adhesion should not stop with the ending of works. It must continue and allow the modification of a line, its deviation, its extension or the increase in its capacity accordingly to the needs. It must also allow other actors to, for example, create additional intermodal nodes new centers and new developments. As we have seen in this video, the notion of adherence seems to help us reconcile a thought about the city and its urban forms with a thought on transport and mobility. In the next video, I suggest to come back to this notion of adherence exploring its analytical potential on the one hand and its potential as a tool for urban project on the other hand through a concrete case.
