Le cours présente un tour d’horizon introductif des interactions entre la mobilité et les dynamiques urbaines. Il propose des outils méthodologiques et opérationnels permettant d’appréhender et de réguler la mobilité. Ces vingt dernières années, la mobilité urbaine a beaucoup changé. Le nombre de déplacements de loisirs a augmenté tandis que la part des déplacements pour motif travail a diminué. Dans le même temps, de nouvelles formes de mobilités se sont développées, comme la multirésidentialité, la pendularité de longue distance, le tourisme urbain et l’excursionnisme. Ces changements ont été concommittants de transformations urbaines comme l’étalement urbain ou la fragmentation. Dans ce contexte, la mobilité est un enjeu pour l’ingénierie des transports urbains et le développement territorial, en particulier urbain: sa régulation nécessite une appréhension nouvelle de la demande de transport. Le cours montre ainsi aux étudiants les interrelations entre la ville et la mobilité, l’espace urbain et les flux de déplacements, tout en leur offrant une vision renouvelée du transport et de son impact sur le territoire et les modes de vie.
L'adhérence
Loading...
En provenance du cours de École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Mobilité et urbanisme
65 notes
À partir de la leçon
Mobilité et urbanisme
Ce sixième module a pour objet de décrire comment le processus d’interaction systémique entre les trois catégories d’opérateurs de la mobilité produit matériellement des tissus et des espaces publics urbains.
Rencontrer les enseignants
Vincent KaufmannProfesseur
Laboratoire de Sociologie Urbaine, Faculté de l’Environnement Naturel, Architectural et Construit, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Aniss M. MezouedDocteur
Laboratoire de Sociologie Urbaine, Faculté de l’Environnement Naturel, Architectural et Construit, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Bernard DeclèveProfesseur
Faculté d’Architecture, d’ingénierie architecturale et d’urbanisme, Université catholique de Louvain
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.
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
