Method of comparative assessment of urban agglomeration transportation connectivity and ways to improve it in the context of sustainable development goals

Abstract

Aim. To conduct a comparative assessment of the capacity of bridge and tunnel crossings across the Neva River in St. Petersburg and across the Thames in London, and to present proposals for improving transport connectivity in large cities on the basis of its results.Objectives. To determine the parameters of bridge and tunnel crossings (number, length, number of traffic lanes, traffic light regulation, speed limits, etc.); to calculate the capacity of bridge and tunnel crossings for public and private transport; to compare the results obtained; to present specific proposals and conclusions.Methods. The method of modeling channels and interaction constraints between blocks (subgraphs, clusters, regions, etc.) separated by some obstacle, in this case — a river, is used. The characteristics of such channels are compared, in this case — the capacity of bridges and tunnels. Throughput capacity for motor transport is calculated according to SP 396.1325800.2018 “Streets and roads of settlements. Rules of urban planning design”, for public transport — by multiplying the number of trips by the passenger capacity of vehicles. The cost of construction of pedestrian bridges is calculated according to the standards specified in the order of the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation № 113, with the application of an increasing coefficient.Results. Calculations have shown that the total capacity of bridges over the Neva River in St. Petersburg exceeds the same indicator for London. At the same time, the difference in population and status of the city suggests that the load on London’s transportation infrastructure should be higher. Three possible explanations for this finding are given, one of which is the availability of alternative infrastructure in London to provide transportation connectivity between the banks of the Thames, in particular pedestrian bridges. Four sites for the construction of such bridges in St. Petersburg are suggested. The calculations indicate that the socio-economic effect will allow to recoup the cost of creating the bridges within 50 years, if each bridge will have 17.5 thousand crossings per day. In addition, a new formulation of the definition of transportation connectivity is proposed.Conclusions. The existing bridge infrastructure of St. Petersburg exceeds the London bridge infrastructure in terms of capacity for passenger cars. At the same time, the London transport system serves a much larger agglomeration and therefore seems more efficient to the author of the article. The author sees the reasons for this as the spread of dedicated lanes for public transport in London, insufficient use of the potential of the streetcar in St. Petersburg and the spread of alternative ways of crossing the Thames in London. Of these alternatives, the construction of bicycle-pedestrian bridges seems to be the best for St. Petersburg. Eight additional conclusions, observations and recommendations regarding traffic management and public transport are presented.