0:21
We will talk a little about seduction.
While this may seem a little odd since in fact it is engineering.
So let me explain.
For the last thirty years we have had more and more opportunities
to move and live using different means.
If we think for example of a person with whom you would like to get in touch,
you can call him, you can send an SMS,
you can make an appointment with him, you can write to him,
you can go to his home.
So there are many possibilities.
This is just one example finally, one could multiply examples,
we all have spatial relationships and the use of these various means
that are available to us, that are very extensive
and therefore are used in everyday life.
So with all these choices, ultimately we each create
a lifestyle in connection with these techniques.
So it has a lot of implications for engineering,
including engineering of movements because there are a lot of alternative choices.
The residents of a neighborhood,
it can be seen in many research,
can finally use very different means to move,
to grow their businesses, and ultimately it is not uncommon
that they attend very different places at different times.
This is not because we live in the same neighborhood that we necessarily see each other.
It's a bit a feature of modern life, or rather of contemporary life.
2:05
Where I wanted to go, from seduction,
is that in a system where we have many choices,
for a technical solution that is introduced to be successful,
it must be attractive.
It must resonates with what people want to do,
their aspirations and then also their constraints,
because we do not live in a world free of constraints.
2:31
So it implies a certain cultural revolution, one might say,
in the world of engineering, where we did not have the habit
until now to think of tenders including transport deals
according to these parameters.
Often when we think an offer,
3:05
As it is a bit abstract, perhaps the simplest way
is to take an example, this example is an example that
we had the opportunity to work on at the EPFL it is the network reorganization
of the Genevan tram that took place in 2011.
For twenty years, as in many European cities,
the decision was made to redeploy the Geneva tramway.
It was done in stages, with successive sections put in service.
In 2010-2011, there was a network that consisted of seven lines,
which had been built like this in 10 years by adding sections.
It was characteristic for this network, a feature that was highly appreciated,
that on each axis, on each line, there were several destinations.
In other words there were several lines,
ie from a stop, we could take trams that were going
in several different directions, thus avoiding having to change
tram in the city center and multiplied the direct paths
throughout the city.
4:25
This network, from a technical point of view, was quite difficult to exploit,
so in December 2011 they decided to change
their operating concept and say "these double lines are suppressed
and on each axis we will keep one. "
That means, in different tram stops when you arrived
at a stop to take a tram, you have one line available
whereas before you had two or even three.
So that means there's a lot more changes on the network
especially downtown.
<I> This network was very badly perceived by the population, </ i>
<I> there was a lot of criticism for it, </ i>
<I> Geneva's public transport have lost users because of this. </ I>
It has caused some misunderstanding on the part of public authorities,
saying, "It's amazing, we took the decision to simplify the network
to improve the offer. "
With this new network, certainly, were eliminated direct connections
but a best speed can be offered, and more trams are offered
meaning that there are more, more often.
There is only one line, but there is one every three minutes,
whereas before there were two or three lines, but there were
only one every five minutes, let's say.
5:50
When we begin to deepen why the network was poorly received,
we fall back on this issue of seduction and logic of the user.
The user, what he seeks above all in Geneva, for various reasons,
is direct trops and comfortable journeys for downtown, public spaces
are relatively little developped and there is a motor traffic
which is quite large, so it's quite unpleasant to change line.
Therefore, even if there was an improvement in speed, and even if there has been
improved headways in the end, the new network
was not considered by the public as better than the old.
This example, I think, perfectly illustrates this terms
on engineering by seduction.
That is, if we want to think a network to expand the use
of public transport, so we have to really look
at the sensitivity of the population at different rates.
If we want to attract new users, it must attract, and seduce
it must consider their expectations, and in this case there expectations
were not to go faster or get a better rate,
but it was first to have direct paths.
7:18
This example of the tram network
illustrates what I wanted to show about engineering through seduction,
but one could develop many other examples.
In fact, what is important is not the example as such,
but that's what it says on perhaps the right way
to develop an engineering which can act on the practice.
For that, it is absolutely essential to develop deals
which are ultimately resonating with the public expectations.
What we talked about the tram network, we could also discuss it
about rail services, we could discuss it
for a range of urban services, even outside of transportation systems,
issues of habitat are eventually connected to this general problem.
I think you need to remember that there must be much more
dialog perhaps in engineering, between the technical world, which search
a good technical solution, such as with this case
of the Geneva tram network, the new network is technically certainly
much more efficient than the old, but it is not the only dimension,
there is also the human dimension, the request dimension,
and we must succeed in reconciling the two and work together
much further.
The good technical solution, if it is a bad solution
from the point of view of the user,
then we must conclude that this is a bad engineering solution.
That's the cultural revolution that must be carried on.
(Superposition of voices in different languages)
Vincent KaufmannProfesseur
Aniss M. MezouedDocteur
Bernard DeclèveProfesseur
