Assessing traffic and air quality in central copenhagen

Page 1

Assessing Traffic and Air Quality in Central Copenhagen

Sponsor: Miljøpunkt Indre By Sakshi Khurana, Lisa Mendez, Florentia Nicole Ong, and Caleb Stepanian

The Problem

Relevant Background Concepts

Limitations of Research

Key Findings

Miljøpunkt Indre By

Goal, Objectives and Methodology

Recommendations and Conclusions

Air Pollution on H.C. Andersens Boulevard ❖The air pollution on HC Andersens is the worst in Copenhagen ❖69% of pollution comes from auto traffic, NO2 above EU limit ❖Aarhus University Air Quality Measuring Station - located alongside H.C. Andersens ❖ Ultrafine particles from car

exhaust are carcinogenic → 500 premature deaths annually

Traffic Congestion on H.C. Andersens Boulevard ❖ Traffic worse on H.C. Andersens than any other road ❖Delays and barriers for pedestrians and bicycles ❖Tourism negatively impacted

What has been done in the past? ❖Five Finger Plan ❖Created in 1947 ❖Urban development within fingers ❖In between would be protected green space ❖1947 - 30 cars per 1,000 inhabitants ❖Shifted to urban development concentrated around main arterial roads

What has been done in the past? ❖ Metro System • Upcoming Metro Lines to be completed in 2019 • One of the upcoming stations is called Rådhuspladsen, on H.C. Andersens Boulevard • Metro systems alleviate traffic congestion by attracting bus riders and private car users!/about+the+metro/metro+expansion/about

What can be explored for the future? ❖ Tunnels ❖ Congestion pricing ❖ Light rail system ss-City-Tunnel-5692519.jpg

Miljøpunkt Indre By

“Bring citizens, businesses, and the public together in creating optimal solutions for the environment and climate”

Goal and Objectives The goal of our project was to analyze traffic in central Copenhagen and its effect on air quality, and determine the appropriateness of a tunnel for congestion alleviation and air quality improvement. 1. Understand current traffic patterns and identify main causes of congestion in the Indre By and Christianshavn areas. 2. Determine stakeholder opinion on traffic conditions and air quality.

3. Explore the appropriateness of tunnels to alleviate congestion and air quality issues and explore possible alternative solutions. 4. Compile recommendations and suggest the most appropriate course of action.

Methods ❖Direct observation: Identified where there is congestion ❖Interviews: Gathered information from experts ❖Street Surveys: Went out to H.C. Andersens and asked the public questions ❖Collected 47 surveys ❖Literature

Complexities and Concerns ❖ Difficulties of surveying ❖ Inaccessible experts ❖ Online surveys were biased → respondents were affiliated with Miljøpunkt Indre By

Key Findings

Map with observations of congestion level at 9:00 and 16:00

Key Findings Implementing a tunnel would be a viable solution for air and noise pollution but it would be less effective in reducing the number of cars on the road

❖Reduce air and noise pollution ❖Air pollution could be filtered ❖Elimination of noise pollution ❖Improve the traffic flow

❖Encourage car usage

Key Findings Other solutions have been proposed which focus on changing incentives for transportation in central Copenhagen by discouraging car usage and promoting public transportation

Seoul, South Korea m/watershed-eraurban-river-restoration/

Conclusion & Recommendations ❖Action must be taken before the problem worsens ❖A tunnel is not recommended however if necessary, implement congestion pricing and a green space ❖Recommend solutions focused on discouraging car usage

Thank you! Questions?