letícia quintanilha leticiaqs@ufrj · 2020. 8. 25. · letícia quintanilha –[email protected]...
TRANSCRIPT
BIKE – TRANSIT INTEGRATION
_ Transit catchment area_ bike as way to give more
mobility and access to the city facilities
_ Costs of displacements_ people with low income
depending more on public transport
_ Brazilian context and urban mobility polices_ equity
as an important part of the mobility agenda
_3 Metro lines_
Line 1_The oldest line, middle class profile
(average income of R$ 5.520,00)
Line 2_ Densest area and lowest incomes
(average of R$2.550,00)
Line 4_ Built for the Olympic Games (2016),
highest incomes (average of R$ 7.600,00)
METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
_ Circulation Infrastructure_ cycle lanes, cycle path, cycle
routes
_ Parking Infrastructure_ indoor parking and bike racks in
public spaces
_ Bike Sharing points_ bike sharing offer
METHODOLOGY
_GIS Mapping_ How bike infrastructure
relates to metro system
_ Catchment Area_ 200m from metro
access points
RESULTS
Photo: Transporte Ativo. <http://transporteativo.org.br/wp/2015/09/10/comprovado-infraestrutura-gera-demanda/>
RESULTS
Photo: Transporte Ativo. <http://transporteativo.org.br/wp/2015/09/10/comprovado-infraestrutura-gera-demanda/>
0,00
1000,00
2000,00
3000,00
4000,00
5000,00
6000,00
R$ 0,00 R$ 1.000,00 R$ 2.000,00 R$ 3.000,00 R$ 4.000,00 R$ 5.000,00 R$ 6.000,00 R$ 7.000,00 R$ 8.000,00 R$ 9.000,00
_Pearson Coefficient: 0,48 _
relatively low relation, but many
stations with no infrastructure on
the surroundings
RESULTS
RESULTS
0
50
100
150
200
250
R$ 0,00 R$ 1.000,00 R$ 2.000,00 R$ 3.000,00 R$ 4.000,00 R$ 5.000,00 R$ 6.000,00 R$ 7.000,00 R$ 8.000,00 R$ 9.000,00
_Pearson Coefficient: 0,60 _
relatively high relation, but with
an outline point in Pavuna
station
RESULTS
RESULTS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
R$ 0,00 R$ 1.000,00 R$ 2.000,00 R$ 3.000,00 R$ 4.000,00 R$ 5.000,00 R$ 6.000,00 R$ 7.000,00 R$ 8.000,00 R$ 9.000,00
_Pearson Coefficient: 0,32 _
relatively low relation, same
number of bikes in many points,
bike share system restricted to
Line 1 stations
CONCLUSIONS
_ Metro-bike integration_ unarticulated vision
preventing systemic conformation of urban mobility
_ Infrastructure distribution_ bike infrastructure more
provided close to leisure and high income areas
_ Equity on urban mobility_ actual vision of transport
and urban planning reinforces inequalities of access
