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.
Transport aérien et métropolisation
Loading...
En provenance du cours de École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Mobilité et urbanisme
65 notes
À partir de la leçon
La transformation des territoires par la mobilité
L’objectif du premier cours est d’identifier les qualités conceptuelles que doivent avoir les outils de description des flux et des déplacements pour répondre aux enjeux de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’urbanisme contemporain. Il consiste en une série de discussions théoriques autour du concept de mobilité.
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
Hello.
In this video I talk about the link
between air transport and metropolization
or more specifically the impact of low cost carriers
and the airports they use
on the transformation of the territories.
This presentation is the result of a research work,
underway at the Catholic University of Leuven,
led by Mario Cicolecchia,
on the impact of low cost airlines
on the transformation of urban territories.
It will question the potential
of an airport, as a integral urban element,
and not as a simple transport equipment.
Is it possible to think the airport
as a new centrality of urban production?
What would be its characteristics and dynamics?
These issues are among those raised by the research.
To enter to the subject,
we propose to illustrate, by quotations, the vision
which today focuses on airports.
These are not anymore simple equipment
associated with travel and mobility,
but have become key elements
in the developments of territories.
John Urry explains with an example
that the passage of airports
from monomodality to the multimodality,
accompanied by multifunctionality,
made the airport one of the key elements of globalization.
Robertson, meanwhile,
explains by the term "glocalization"
that the airport is the meeting point
or the articulation between global forces and local forces.
Castels explains that airports have become vital elements
of space and of global flows
on which the globalized economy of today is based.
Sudjic says that airports have become, along
museums or shopping malls,
public spaces of contemporary cities.
Finally, says Short
that airports are not only
nodes of the global network,
but are places of great local environmental impact
exacerbating tensions between the requirements
of the international connectivity and the needs
to live locally.
All these definitions
illustrates the convergence of ideas
on what the airports represent today
and on their importance in urban strategies.
However, these visions are brought mainly by sociologists,
and not by architects
or urban planners. So there is very little work
that predict the urban development dynamics
that are airport-related
and that would help to act better on the local and regional area.
Indeed, in the scientific literature,
the study of airports in connection with the urbane is little present.
Technical literature is essentially found,
in terms of architecture,
or how to build airports.
These have long been considered
as isolated objects, anti-urban
and connected to the city only by transport infrastructure.
It was not until 1980
that we started thinking the airport
as an urban object,
able to influence and change its environment locally,
while being a fundamental element
of metropolisation processes.
This new way of thinking the airport
generated a series of concepts
which attempts to define the link from the airport to the city and the urban.
We find for example :
and others.
We cannot explain here
all the concepts but we offer
to resume six models to try to describe
opportunities for city growth from the influence
of an airport, or in other words,
to describe forms of airport metropolisation.
The first model is the "AIRFRONT" model.
At the economic level,
it is a kind of "business district"
based mainly on commercial and industrial activities
related to transportation.
Spatially,
it is a small concentration localized between the city and the airport.
It is a model which is little consumer of land because it often develops
in places of existing economic activities that it will strengthen.
At the social level,
there are certain advantages that are associated with the development
of economic activity
and hence the supply of jobs in the region.
In terms of governance,
this model involves the creation of a spatial plan which often involves
public or private partnerships.
The second model is the "DECOPLEX"
(Development Ecology Complex)
it involves developing
a small industrial complex, economical and linear,
based on airport activity.
The activities we will find there will be transporting people
and goods
aviation operations and maintenance, etc.
Like its predecessor,
this model is little consumer of land, it develops a kind
of aeropole which focuses not only transportation,
but a series of satellite activities.
This model has very little social impact
because they are often offshored activities groups.
In terms of governance, there is very little impact
of public authorities because this model is often handled
by airport actors and private actors.
Thus, it has very little impact
on the city and on the socioeconomic development of the concerned territory.
The third model is the "AIRPORT CITY".
This is somehow an extension
of the previous model, with the difference
that the activity revolving around the airport
is no longer exclusively linked.
We can come by economic parks
leisure parks, banks, sports centers,
training centers and others.
Spatially,
it is a model that extends around the airport,
while remaining compact and dense.
At the social level, with this type of model,
there is a rupture of dynamics
as the airport becomes an element of competition with the city.
It includes all services and equipments
that is normally found in the city.
Sometimes even there we find a residential component
that often develops so competitively
compared to what is done in the city.
In terms of governance,
it is the airport that plans and develops the territory.
The fourth model is the "AIRPORT CORRIDOR."
This model matches that of current dynamics
between the city of Amsterdam and its airport.
Unlike the previous model,
where there is a break between the city and the airport,
here, there is an integration attempt.
The connection between the city and the airport
is no longer a simple linear infrastructure
but an urban development done in several activities and functions.
It is an attempt of coordination between the airport, the city and the region
for the overall growth of the region.
To achieve this, it is necessary to have a governance
coordinating between the public actors,
the airport actors and private economic actors.
The fifth model is the "AIREA".
It corresponds to that of Berlin Brandenburg Airport.
There is here also an attempted valorization of the region,
by balancing the forces of the city and those of the airport.
The model offers the development
of multiple nodes or specialized economic centers,
which are connected between them on the one hand, and to the airport
and the city on the other.
Spatially, it is a polycentric system,
like the modern "zonings"
where mobility and availability of transport infrastructure
are the basic conditions of its operation.
The region and the public authorities
are highly active in the planning
and ensure to respond not only to objectives
of international economic development,
but also to meet local social needs.
Governance is also mixed and involves all stakeholders.
This model was created to avoid
the development of airport megacities
that we will explore in the sixth and final model.
The last model is "AEROTROPOLIS".
This is an extreme model, inspired from the growth
of US cities.
The airport becomes the center of a new city.
The old town is only a part of this new city.
The latter is organized in specialized zonings
and without much diversity.
This model uses a lot of land, due to its spread
and low density.
It is based only
on economic development as the main engine.
Aspects of quality of life,
heritage, or otherwise,
are relegated to the background.
This type of model poses a series of problems in terms of governance
because it encompasses different administrative courts, a variety of actors
and areas that have developed spontaneously.
It involves a complexity of coordination for the overall territorial development.
These six models allow us to have a reading grid
to analyze current urban developments
around airports, including low cost airports
that develop in Europe today.
The dynamic development of these appeared
in a very short time,
leaving the authorities without management tools
of this type of dynamics.
Before the arrival of low cost airlines
air transport grew
following the pattern "Hub & amp; Spoke ".
Ie. a regional airport
is connected only with a principal national airport,
which is connected
with other major airports, national and of other countries.
Therefore, two regional airports
could only be connected through the main airports.
This type of model has generated a very technical collaboration
between airport as an infrastructure
and traditional national airlines.
It's a dynamic that has consolidated over time, based solely
on air transport.
With the emergence of low cost airlines,
the model changes to the "Point to Point".
This means that any regional airport can be connected
with any other without going through a central hub.
In this configuration, new partnerships
appear as low-cost airlines
are no longer seen only
as a means of transport,
but as a means to develop the peripheral regions.
Thus, public authorities in regions with airports
will appeal to airlines such as Ryanair, for example,
by offering various facilities,
to help them develop their territory.
These airlines are seen as accessibility generators
and as a new resource on which to develop policies
both urban and territorial.
Let us now take a concrete case, that of Wallonia, Belgium.
We find two airports:
that of Liege, dedicated exclusively to freight transport,
and of Charleroi, dedicated to transporting people
with low-cost airlines, including Ryanair.
We can see on the left chart
the increase in air traffic at the Charleroi airport
since the arrival of Ryanair in 1998.
Charleroi Airport is certainly a peripheral airport
compared to that of Brussels, Zaventem,
but it has an advantage of a strategic location.
It is at the crossroads of the highway that connects Charleroi to Brussels
all the way to Antwerp and the Netherlands,
and of the highway which connects Paris to Cologne, via Namur and Liège.
To understand the dynamics of Charleroi airport,
it is important to understand
the actor games that revolve around him.
First we find the Walloon region
that put airports available
to private managers through
concessions and contracts for decades.
Its goal was to revitalize this part of the region,
economically, and increase its attractivity.
Then we find the management company, BSCA
(Brussels South Charleroi Airport)
which is mainly
air traffic and commercial activity,
within the terminal only.
We also find SOWAER,
(Walloon Airport Company)
whose shareholders are mainly
the Walloon region, as well as some private shareholders.
SOWAER support spaces around the airport,
developing economic strategies on one hand,
and airport integration strategies with the city on the other.
The other major player is the city of Charleroi.
The latter has created, with 68 other cities,
an inter-municipal company for the management and implementation
of economic and technical studies: IGRETEC.
Its goal, in the case of Charleroi,
is to define strategies for the cities located
around the airport in order to benefit from its infrastructure.
The acting game of the development of Charleroi airport
and its territory thus fall around a triangulation
between Brussels South Charleroi Airport, SOWAER and IGRETEC.
In this little layout, one can see the occupied areas
for each player in the perimeter of the airport.
In this satellite image, the white line represents the limits
of the airport of Charleroi.
The areas in orange and red are areas that are being
developed and are considered strategic.
One of the strategic options of the region is achieving
a railway station in the terminal to quickly and directly connect
the city of Brussels to Charleroi airport without having to change
mode of transport at the Charleroi station.
The desire is to make Charleroi Airport the Brussels South Airport.
With this station project, one would go, considering all the stops,
from the Charleroi airport to the center of Brussels,
in a similar time budget than the current movement
from the Brussels Zaventem Airport to the center of Brussels.
SOWAER is currently developing a strategy to support airports
by making financial resources available, on the one hand,
but it will mainly develop a proactive policy
of creation of land reserves.
Through redemption mechanisms or expropriation, it will acquire
land, which it will provide
for the economic development of the airport.
During the past three years,
SOWAER created roughly thirty hectares to spend
on the economic development of the airport.
It is a policy that does not take into account other dynamics
of the territory and its inhabitants.
The choice of these policies are justified
by the promise of creating jobs for Wallonia.
The idea is to make economic profits of the airport activity
creating potential for development
where there was none.
In these images we can see how IGRETEC plans
to use its land reserves.
This is the project of one of the two economic parks
IGRETEC proposed for municipalities
around the airport.
It is divided into five sectors
which are: Life Sciences; Aerospace; Graphic Arts;
Business Services and Technology Industry.
The problem is that there is a lack of
integration of these "clusters" of activity in the city.
The residential function is absent
and there was no thorough analysis of the urban territory.
It lacks an overall vision of integration
as in many regional airports
because, as we mentioned earlier,
growth generated by these airports
was very quick and unexpected.
Municipalities have improvised without mastery of dynamics.
There has not been, in the case of Charleroi,
willingness to develop a new image of the city,
relying on the growth of its airport.
On these two images, one can see the second business park
proposed by IGRETEC, which proposes to transform
urban spaces into economic parks
based on research and scientific training.
It is understandable in the case of Charleroi
that we are in models
of the type of development, "AIRPORT CITY"
with the only difference that we are in a joint governance
where governments still have an important role.
In this video,
we could see what impact an airport,
and particularly a low cost airport,
can have on the territory and its metropolisation processes.
It is clear that it is important to think of the airport,
not as a single transport infrastructure separate from the city,
but as a dynamic urban generator equipment.
This implies the need to plan the airport's dynamic
in line with those of the city,
trying to converge
public policy and local interest
with economic policies of the airport and of the private operators.
One of the shortcomings of Charleroi Airport is exactly
the lack of integration channels of all stakeholders,
including inhabitants, in the exchanges
and definition of the strategies.
Finally, the cities involved in this type of airport
need to move from a management
and a local development strategy
to supra-local strategies for which
they may not have the necessary tools.
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.
