Public Transport Integration into Urban Planning

Growth of towns is a result of citizen's social and physical division. Urban planners and scientists have increased the number of links between urban transport and urban development. Public transport has been in the focus of attention as a sustainable and environmentally sensitive transport that brings environmental benefit and possibility to serve mobility needs of citizens without private cars and reduces social division. The article identifies the main factors that affect the use of public transport in town: land use planning; local government policy; extent of economic resources; implementation of modern technologies; social tendencies. Analysis of the scientific literature has revealed four main models of towns of sustainable urban forms: neo-traditional development, urban restrictions, compact town and ecological town. Vilnius has the formed urban and mono-functional structure with a high imbalance between residential and work places which conditions a high mobility of inhabitants as well as high concentration of transport flows on limited-density street networks between the western residential areas and the central part of the City where the main workplaces are located. It presents the provisions of the Vilnius City Master Plan 2015 concerning the public transport improvement. The article also assesses developments in the public transport network in 2003-2009 resulting from changes in individual routes with regard to passenger time necessary for traveling. Modelling is carried out with the help of VISUM software. Citizens of Buivydiskės and Santariskės are mostly affected by the developments, while the situation in Pavilnys, Aukstieji Paneriai and Tarandė has changed only slightly.

[1]  Peter R. Stopher,et al.  Reducing road congestion: a reality check , 2004 .

[2]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey , 1989 .

[3]  Lorraine Cairnes,et al.  The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form , 1996 .

[4]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio , 2004 .

[5]  David A. Hensher,et al.  TRESIS: A transportation, land use and environmental strategy impact simulator for urban areas , 2002 .

[6]  U. Huwer.  Public transport and csar-sharing—benefits and effects of combined services , 2004 .

[7]  Nina Herala,et al.  Regulating traffic with land use planning , 2003 .

[8]  D. Hensher,et al.  PERFORMANCE-BASED QUALITY CONTRACTS IN BUS SERVICE PROVISION , 2003 .

[9]  W. R. Duff-Riddell,et al.  Network Modeling Approach to Transit Network Design , 2005 .

[10]  David A. Hensher.  Performance-based quality contracts in bus service provision , 2007 .

[11]  Yoram Shiftan,et al.  Scenario building as a tool for planning a sustainable transportation system , 2003 .

[12]  A. Wåhlberg.  Characteristics of low speed accidents with buses in public transport. , 2002 .

[13]  Karel Skokan.  Technological and Economic Development of Economy , 2011 .

[14]  Marija Burinskiene,et al.  Editorial: New methodology for sustainable development towards sustainable transportation system , 2009 .

[15]  Alan T. Murray.  Strategic analysis of public transport coverage , 2001 .

[16]  Patrik Vithlani.  The Curitiba Model : planning for sustainable cities , 1996 .

[17]  John Eliasson,et al.  A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices , 2000 .

[18]  Oliver Gillham.  The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate , 2002 .

[19]  Marjan Lep,et al.  Combining the grid‐based spatial planning and network‐based transport planning , 2009 .

[20]  Jeffrey Brown,et al.  Waiting for the Bus , 2004 .

[21]  A A Waldo.  THE UNDERLYING REASONING OF TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR , 2000 .