Multifunctionality and Conflicts in 20 mph Zones

  • Luca Staricco Politecnico di Torino

Abstract

In the field of mobility, conflicts and local opposition may be generated not only by hard implementation of big transport infrastructures, but also by soft measures of traffic regulation. An example is represented by 20 mph Zones, which aim to enhance the intrinsic multifunctionality of urban streets: they try to limit the entity and the speed of car flows in residential areas through re-designing road spaces, so to improve in the meantime the liveableness and the environmental and aesthetic quality of these areas. The speed limitation of 20 mph can however determine protests and disputes by local residents and workers, as it disadvantages private motorized mobility, which represents – at least in most current Italian cities – the main form of mobility. The paper analyzes this kind of conflicts, through the case study of the Mirafiori Nord 20 mph Zone in Turin, which is recognized as a best practice in the Italian context. The analysis of this case, as well as the investigation of the main European and American guidelines on traffic calming techniques and plans, shows that a few critical issues turn out to be crucial in order to prevent and manage these conflicts. First of all, a prompt, well-timed communication plan is essential in order to inform residents and users of the area about the potential costs and benefits of traffic calming measures: even before implementation works begin, people has to know that lower accessibility levels by car will be compensated by an improvement of streets liveableness and environmental quality. From this perspective, residents should be involved in designing the new green and street equipments that may be placed, thanks to the redistribution of significant portions of road space to slow mobility components. Participation of school children is quite recommended, for example in the ideation of vertical signs for the access doors of the zone, in experiencing new pedestrian or cycling home-school journeys, and so on. Parking restrictions are often firmly unaccepted by residents, and should carefully assessed before being proposed. Regular reporting of monitored outcomes of the implemented traffic calming measures (mainly in terms of reduction of maximum speed, of dead or injured persons in road accidents, of pollution and noise local levels etc.) must allow keeping residents conscious of the actual benefits they can enjoy. Last, the implementation of 20 mph Zones must be framed in a more general strategy for urban mobility: push measures (just such as 20 mph Zones) for limiting accessibility levels to private traffic flows have to be counterbalanced by pull measures aimed at potentiating public transport, in order to better balance the modal split; otherwise, congestion on the primary road network could spread consistent traffic flows also inside residential areas, invalidating main benefits of traffic calming measures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Luca Staricco, Politecnico di Torino

Architect, PhD in Territorial Planning and Local Development, assistant professor at the Inter-university Department of Territorial Studies and Planning of Turin Polytechnic, where he teaches Mobility and land uses and Urban and territorial policies. His main research focus is about mobility and land use interaction, transport and urban planning integration, urban sustainability. Member of the Sustainable Cities Observatory at Turin Polytechnic. Editor, with Luca Davico, of the yearly Rapporto su Torino, which is promoted by the Giorgio Rota Foundation.

References

Bartolomeo M. (2007) “La governance incompleta delle infrastrutture lombarde: conflitti di interesse come causa di conflitti locali”, in Belli et al., Territori regionali e infrastrutture. La possibile alleanza, Angeli, Milano, 79-85.

Biddulph M. (2001) Home Zones. A Planning and Design Handbook, The Policy Press, Bristol.

Bobbio L. (2004) “Grandi opere e costruzione del consenso”, in Ferraresi, G., Moretti, A. e Facchinetti M. (a cura di), Reti, attori, territorio. Forme e politiche per progetti di infrastrutture, Angeli, Milano, 93-96.

Bobbio L., Zeppetella A. (a cura di, 1999) Perché proprio qui? Grandi opere e opposizioni locali, Angeli, Milano.

Busi R. (a cura di, 2003) Le normative europee per la moderazione del traffico, Egaf, Forlì..

CETUR - Centre d’étude des transports urbains (1992) Guide Zone 30. Méthodologie et recommandations, Bagneux.

Commissione Europea (2007) Libro verde “Verso una nuova cultura della mobilità urbana”, COM(2007) 551, Bruxelles.

Danish Road Directorate (2002) Beautiful Roads - A Handbook of Road Architecture. Copenhagen.

Debernardi A., Adobati F. (2010) “Chi è stato? Grandi infrastrutture di trasporto, conflitti territoriali ed identificazione dell’interesse generale”, paper presentato alla XXXI Conferenza italiana di scienze regionali. Aosta, 20-22 settembre.

Dematteis G., Governa F. (2001) Contesti locali e grandi infrastrutture, Angeli, Milano.

DfT - Department for Transport UK (2007) Manual for streets, London.

European Commission (2006) Reclaiming City Streets for People. Chaos or Quality of Life?, Bruxelles.

European Environment Agency (2009) Transport at a Crossroads. TERM 2008: Indicators Tracking Transport and Environment in the European Union, Copenhagen.

Hamilton-Baillie B. (2002) Home Zones - Reconciling People, Places and Transport, Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, London.

IHT - The Institution of Highways and Transportation (2005) Traffic Calming Techniques, London.

ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers (1999) Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, Washington, D.C.

Legambiente (2010) Mal’aria di città 2010, Roma.

Ministry of Transport (1963) Traffic in Towns. A Study of the Long Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas (Buchanan Report), Reports of the Steering Group and Working Group appointed by the Minister of Transport, HMSO, London.

Pucci P. (2008), “Grandi opere infrastrutturali e costruzione del consenso”, Territorio, 46, 9-15.

Socco C., Montaldo C. (2005) La strategia delle “zone 30”. Sicurezza, multifunzionalità e qualità ambientale delle strade urbane, Angeli, Milano.

Transportation Association of Canada (1998) Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, Ottawa.

Ventura V. (a cura di, 1999) Guida alla “zona 30”. Metodologia e raccomandazioni, Editoriale Bios, Cosenza.

Wegener M., Fürst F. (1999) Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art, Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund.

Published
2011-12-03
How to Cite
Staricco, L. (2011). Multifunctionality and Conflicts in 20 mph Zones. TeMA - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 4(4), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/509