The Urban Mobility of the Future

THE 30KM/H SPEED LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION OF BOLOGNA HAS RAISED GREAT CONTROVERSY AND POLARIZED PUBLIC OPINION BETWEEN THOSE IN FAVOR AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST. THE INITIATIVE HAS HOWEVER THE MERIT OF REKINDLING THE DEBATE ON THE DELICATE AND COMPLEX ISSUE OF URBAN MOBILITY, WHICH CAN EVOLVE TOWARD INTERMODALITY WITH THE HELP OF TECHNOLOGY, AS GABRIELE GREA EXPLAINS

The 30km/h speed limit recently introduced in Bologna and the surrounding controversies is the most talked about topic in Italy at the moment, often with little knowledge of the facts. But it is just one aspect of a much broader and complex topic, namely urban mobility, which is destined to have a great impact on our lives and which local administrations and central political authorities will have to pay greater attention in a future that is already here. The best way forward to reduce traffic and pollution – along with the socio-economic, environmental, and health consequences they cause – is discussed in this interview with Gabriele Grea, who teaches smart cities, intelligent and sustainable mobility at Bocconi University.

The 30km/h debate. Much ado about nothing, one might say...
Yes, I agree. First of all, especially in city centers, average speeds are decidedly lower than 30km/h, and any increase in travel times, if it occurs, would be negligible. The 30km/h limit has been introduced in many other European cities, and figures on accidents and traffic fatalities, for example, tell us that it is a measure that works, if a sufficiently long time period is taken into consideration. And we must not forget that the main rationale behind it is the protection of all citizens, who are the most vulnerable street users as pedestrians.

Opponents argue that the number of accidents has not decreased. What is the situation in reality?
First of all, the time frame and transitional dynamics must be considered. Having made these considerations, the evidence tells us that accidents decrease and above all their severity decreases as maximum speed allowed decreases. An interesting case is Brussels, one of the very first cities to launch the 30km/h city concept. At first there was an increase in accidents involving bicycles and scooters. This was due to the fact that, with the lockdown involved, the number of two-wheeled vehicles in circulation had increased greatly, and it is obvious that if you go from 100 bicycles to 1,000 in a day the overall number of accidents increases, but not the relative incidents and above all these accidents are less serious. Today, three years later, we can say that the experiment was successful, with less congested traffic and an average speed that has decreased less than proportionally than the reduction in the speed limit.

And this has cascade has effects on the entire mobility of the city.
Of course, because having safer roads and more fluid traffic for public transit vehicles pushes us to reflect on which is the most efficient mode of transport and to consider mobility solutions other than the car.

Detractors argue that driving more slowly implies longer travel times and therefore talk about the economic value of time.
This impact, both from the point of view of travel times and from the point of view of their monetization, is very, very limited, if it happens at all. In in my opinion, this is not even the most correct way to approach a potential impact analysis of these measures. There are positive effects on the environment and therefore on health, safety, noise, and consequently on the quality of life.

Reducing speed limits is just one of the strategies that are useful for improving urban mobility. But city administrations are also moving in other directions.
It is a measure that fits into a broader context, not as an end in itself, but it is strategic if the context involves other measures both in mobility management and territorial organization. Integrated multimodality is the path of the future and must be understood both at the level of the transport supply chain and the range of possible choices, so that citizens can evaluate different options according to their convenience: it is an obligatory path we need to take in order to rationalize choices that limit the environmental impact of mobility. Let's imagine that to go from A to B a city resident uses bike sharing to reach the subway, then travels on the subway and perhaps then takes a bus and does the last bit on foot: this is an example of multimodality or intermodality. On the supply side, it means developing and promoting an integrated system of mobility services, thus giving residents a wider range of choices based on their habits and needs, and perhaps also by encouraging more virtuous behavior.

So what lies in store for urban mobility?
It will be a mobility that puts residents and their needs at the center by exploiting the innovations enabled by technology. We will see the emergence of integrated mobility through “Mobility as a Service” (or MaaS) digital platforms, with which we will not only be able to access a plurality of services, but real personalized offers, which will support the birth of new business models for mobility capable of generating value from integration and customization. It is a potentially very powerful tool, both for triggering a behavioral change in users, because it eliminates barriers to the use of different services, and from a planning point of view, because it allows you to collect information and plan services according to demand. Another element is the increase in flexibility, introduced by the growing digitalization of Demand Responsive Transit services, the traditional on-call services, useful for completing traditional public service both in areas and at times with weaker demand, and for citizens with greater need to personalize thier individual mobility. Finally, let's not forget autonomous driving, which fits well into a dynamic context of increasingly multimodal, integrated and flexible services.

What are the most virtuous cities in the world for mobility?
To identify successful examples it is necessary to look at the ability to adapt over time to the needs and opportunities that mobility generates. We often cite examples from Northern Europe, sometimes simplifying the debate by focusing on cultural and behavioral aspects. But reality and history are more dynamic. Let's take the case of Amsterdam: post-war planning in the Netherlands was based on a North American approach, made up of a widespread motorway network and the development of satellite cities around the historic center. In this car-centric scenario, a path was triggered over the years that has led to the growth of metropolitan and local mobility based on public transportation and active mobility, so much so that today we would never dream of saying that the Netherlands is a place everyone goes by car and where bicycles are harassed. Looking at more recent examples, we have already talked about Brussels and we could cite for example Barcelona, where with the experiment of "Superilles", mini-neighborhoods that have spread with limited or no traffic, because it is diverted only into some dedicated routes. It has become a classic, non-Nordic example of returning street space to citizens. In the same way, Paris has now become a "30km/h city", adopting a "democratic" approach, launching in parallel an urban planning strategy that tends to scatter the fundamental functions of the city in every different neighborhood (the "15-minute city"). This works to construct a multicentric structure of the city which is fundamental for this type of policy to succeed, so as not to penalize some urban districts compared to others.

by Davide Ripamonti
Translated by Alex Foti