Page 1

SARIYER: A Sustainable Transportation Study

Bobby Boone, Daniel Thomas, Leopold Bรถhm, and Doga Demirtas

ITU SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2012-2013 FALL Assoc. Prof. Dr. Azime TEZER Key Words: 3rd Bridge, Sustainability, Transportation, Sariyer, Istanbul


I. INTRODUCTION “Important land-use and transportation decisions must be coherent with each other in order to maintain a planned and controlled urban and physical development in Istanbul” (UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners Istanbul Branch. As important as this is to Istanbul, it is also to its districts, including Sariyer. The district Sariyer’s mission is “to transform Sariyer into an ecological living space in which human welfare and life quality is high level for everyone while preserving and cherishing its natural, historical and cultural values” (Sariyer Municipality). In order to accomplish this mission, transportation planning should be an integral part in Sariyer’s sustainable and ecologically friendly future. The district of Sariyer is an ever-evolving peripheral area of Istanbul with rapidly changing transportation characteristics. These changes in the transportation system have caused great changes in land use. The district is home of the 2nd and future 3rd bridge to cross the Bosphorus, transporting thousands of Istanbul’s residents from the Anatolian peninsula to the European central business district daily. The installation of the third bridge is planned to disrupt the vulnerable ecological system in Sariyer, and the central business district (CBD) that resulted from the 2nd bridge link is ever sprawling north deeper into Sariyer’s natural environment. There are various modes of transportation to complement the bridges and much planned development in the district resulting. This study’s purpose is to review the current situation of transportation in the district, specifically examining the third bridge and other planned transportation investments. This project aims to (1) give brief history and profile of the district, (2) review and critique the current transportation options, (3) summarize the 3rd bridge’s and planned transportation development’s impact on the district, and (4) offer suggestions for transportation policy to help to ensure the ecology can be sustained. METHODOLGY In order to derive a sustainable solution for Sariyer’s future this paper uses a five-step process. The process first starts with giving the general profile information of Sariyer including the history, population and demographic trends, socio-economic status, and the action plan. Following this step, a transportation and land use analysis is conducted on existing transportation and land use factors that effect sustainability. The third step reviews the future development plans as outlined in the 3rd Bridge Report (2010) and Transportation Master Plan (2011) Taking the first three steps into consideration, suggestions were made in regarding the triple bottom line of economy, environment and society. Finally conclusions are made.


IS

DL AN

D

VE FUTURE DE

LY S

AN

IS

NA

ENVIRO N

PR OF

ORTATION

NA YLS

Social inclusion bringing economic prosperity

ONOMY

SUSTAINABILITY

SUGGESTIONS

Y IET

A better quality of life for all members of society based upon an increase in transport options available

Economic development, combined with sustainable transport systems bringing solid economic growth

EC

EA

NS SIO LU

SO C

T EN M Long-term

Business practices with low environmental impact

US

CO NC

Liveable cities and communities

environmental practices paired with minimal impact on the environment allows for the sustainable transport infrastur

TR ANSP

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

ILE

LOP

M

T EN

A

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

HISTORY During the Byzantine ages, Sariyer was not part of the main settlement areas, and was characterized by many empty lands and hills. A few settlements could be found along the shores of Bosphorus and Black Sea. Those places consisted of churches, small ports and a few houses around old castles. The 15th century led to the first, more or less, planned settlements at the waterfront of Sariyer. Ottoman headliners became attracted by climate and nature and started building waterside mansions. When the migration process from Anatolia started in the 16th and 17th century, small villages along the Bosphorus shores had been established. Those villages were mainly known for fishing such as Sariyer, Yenikรถy and Rumeli Hisan. At the end of the 19th century the Bosphorus neighborhoods of Sariyer became famous as an area for summer resorts. Due to the rapid growth based on the industrialization of Istanbul the number of Anatolian immigrants in Sariyer increased dramatically. The effect of a rapidly growing population combined with unplanned urban development is causing many problems for the district. Nowadays you find waterfront residences and shanty houses standing side by side (Sariyer Municipality). Transportation in Sariyer is difficult to chart throughout time. The first sea connection was made in 1996 and before then because of the lack of development in the district only roadways were available.


“Istanbul’s population growth mainly followed the country-wide development dynamics; on the other hand, the spatial urban formation was historically shaped by the city’s transportation network structure. Sea transportation was the most significant mode of transportation before the 20th century [although it did not reach Sariyer]; however, the urban texture started to change with the inclusion of surface transportation (road, rail and tramways), especially after the 1940s. The 1950s and 1960s brought major highway construction period in the country and Istanbul started to grow in the east-west direction with the impact of the E-5 highway construction.” (Tezer, Caliskan and Calik). DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE As shown in Figure 2 the population of Sariyer has been growing rapidly since the mid 1970s. Compared to the growth of the entire city, the increase in Sariyer started slightly earlier. Both charts are following the same trend of rapid growth since the 1970s and 1980s. The annual population growth rate in Sariyer is below the average rate of population growth of Istanbul. This difference can be attributed to the historical and present view of Sariyer as a district that is characterized as rural in large parts. However, during the 1990s Sariyer’s population growth rate exceeded Istanbul’s. In regards to the population employed, Sariyer was noted, in the Transportation Master Plan (2011), to have a little over 40,000 residents in the workplace.

Figure 2: Annual population growth in Sariyer (UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners Istanbul Branch)


Figure 3: Annual population growth in Istanbul (UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners Istanbul Branch)

EMPLOYMENT IN  WORKPLACE   VALUES   EMPLOYMENT   –POPULATION   RATIO  (%)   1996  

SARIYER

2006

40098 55261  

GROWTH (%)   3.3  

1996 0.20  

200 6 0.20  

EMPLOYMENT IN  HOUSE   VALUES   WORKPLACE    -­‐   HOUSE  RATIO   (%)   2006   95167  

2006 0.58  

Figure 4: Employment (Istanbul Transportation Master Plan) SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION Throughout Sariyer’s history the province has boasted service and industrial sector industries. Once the industrial sector’s shipping industry was removed, the service sector served as the most important economic contributor to the district, including many places for tourism: fish restaurants, bars and others. Sariyer’s fishing vessels represents 41% of the fishing sector in Istanbul. Recently, the southern area of Sariyer has been emerging as the new central business district of Istanbul. Sariyer’s south side hosts many headquarters, the Turkey-Istanbul Stock Exchange, the Turkish Football Federation, 21 embassies, and the most well-known & exclusive shopping-mall, Istinye Park (Sariyer Municipality). Tourism in the district presents another opportunity for economic development. Sariyer’s location on the Black and Bosporus Sea and large quantity of historical buildings calls for a large infrastructure for tourism; however, the current infrastructure cannot meet the demand. The current infrastructure consists of: - 4 hotels - 3 pensions


-

12 beaches 174 restaurants 3 parking lots 4 cinemas A couple of theatres and cultural centers

As the Figure 5 shows, the construction of buildings over time was highest in the 1980s, and afterwards a decline was recorded. The increase in constructed buildings during this time can be attributed to a change in law in 1985 that allowed private developers to build in Istanbul for the first time. Also the buildings constructed can be the reason why the population growth rate was highest at 3.9% during that decade as well. SARIYER  

BEFORE 1950   1895  

1950 –   1980   11072  

1980 -­‐   1990   10959  

1990 -­‐   2000   7762  

TOTAL 31688  

Figure 5: Number of Buildings Constructed by Decade (Sariyer Municipality) SARIYER’S ACTION PLAN The mayor, Mr. Sükrü Genç, lead a team to acknowledge and respond to the problems of Sariyer with the composition of Sariyer Development Action Plan (SDAP). This action plan seeks “to build a contemporary and happy city” (Sariyer Municipality). The plan lists the major problem areas: insufficient infrastructure, high disaster risk, weak local economy, poverty and lack of common city identity. In order to combat these problems three groups were identified: 1. Foundation: urban infrastructure for sustainable development 2. Quality of Multifaceted Life: social policy, education, health, culture and sports 3. Economic Development: services sector, tourism and becoming a brand After identifying the problems, there were priorities assigned: (1) zoning, (2) housing, (3) core with fast and unplanned urbanization, basic infrastructure and social facilities, and (4) intense traffic and insufficient parking lots. Finally, the plan outlines some implementation strategies, targeting what level - local or national government and other public and private stakeholders and the term – short (0-2 years), medium (2-5 years), and long (5 or more years). Figure 5 is an overview of the 18 actions of the 228 presented that considers sustainable transportation planning issues.


Sarıyer Development Action Plan Major problem areas: ✤

Priorities:

insufficient infrastructure high disaster risk

weak local economy

poverty

lack of common city identity

Plan outlines implementation strategies

targeting level (local/ national government; public/private stakeholders)

and term (short/ medium/long)

finally 228 actions are presented

1. zoning 2. housing

3. core with unplanned urbanization, basic infrastructure & social facilities 4. intense traffic

Figure 6: Sariyer Development Action Plan Summary (Sariyer Municipality)

Selected Actions Social Policy, Culture, Art, Sports and Animal Rights ✤

make parks, streets and avenues suitable for different disabled groups & give them chance to take their place in society

facilitate transportation from the places such as Kilyos that stay at coastal area to boost tourism

Underwater Tunnel Passage Project instead of Third Bosphorus Bridge ✤

Zoning, Urbanization and Infrastructure

Coast Line

preventing the social, economic and environmental problems caused by the Third Bridge and stopping northward growth of Sarıyer

zoning and regional plans to ensure sustainability and protect the environment

increase public transport and make existing options more effective

increase pedestrian and bicycle use to prevent noise and environmental pollution

modern Taxi stands

Figure 7: Sariyer Development Action Plan Selected Actions (Sariyer Municipality) The action plan coupled with the ever-transforming history and the socio-economic snapshot of Sariyer provides a great condition for continual advancements in land use and transportation. The following sections will outline and analyze future development plans and make suggestions for the future of Sariyer.


II. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE The first Transportation Master Plan was created in 1987 to include plans up until 2005. This plan included efforts to link the two sides of the Bosphorus Sea. Since then Istanbul has been using the “Local government regulation – No: 5393 Municipal Governments Law and No: 5216 Greater Municipality Law) [to] authorize municipal governments to establish efficient public transport services, especially for rail systems” (Tezer, Caliskan and Calik). The following modes review the availability of transport in the district of Sariyer. RAIL TRANSIT Since 1992, Istanbul’s M2 line has been a critical element for the city’s development. Now the M2 line connects Sishane to Haciosman, with the last four stations – ITU Ayazaga, Darussafaka, Seyratepe and Haciosman – being on the Sisli, Sariyer border. These stations opened within the last four years demonstrate the expansion of Istanbul’s development northward. The M2 line is detailed as being 16.5 Km, hosting 13 stations for a trip time of 27 min. This line is in operation from 06:15 to 00:00 and host 230,000 passengers per day. During peak traffic, trains run every four minutes to meet the demand. This line is also home to Istanbul’s every growing central business district. As the central business district continues to sprawl north, there is great opportunity with the rail system to increase ridership and decrease the amount of private vehicles used. Opportunities exist in expanding the line, decreasing the time between trains, and providing additional parking facilities at periphery stations. Hacıosman is the multi-hub station for Sarıyer District. This hub includes Hacıosman M2 Line Station (With a 4-Level Car Park) and main bus stops for Sariyer. With this hub, the connection has been granted from the Northern neighborhoods of Sarıyer like Zekeriyaköy, Rumeli Kavağı, Central Sarıyer to the outer Districts.

Figure 8: Istanbul’s Metro System (Istanbul Ulasim)


FERRY There are four routes that are available in the district of Sariyer: Sarıyer – Anadolu Kavağı The Sarıyer – Anadolu Kavağı route connects the Central Sarıyer and Rumelikavağı neighborhoods in Sarıyer district to Anadolukavağı in Beykoz. There are twelve trips in a day directly from Sarıyer – Anadolukavağı and thirteen trips between the Sarıyer-RumelikavağıAnadolukavağı route. İstinye – Küçüksu The İstinye – Küçüksu route connects the İstinye neighborhood of Sarıyer to Küçüksu, Beykoz with fourteen trips daily. Trips are held between 7:00 a.m. – 7:30 p.m. and only available on weekdays. Full Bosphorus Cruise This route is mainly voyage and tourist-based rather than transportation based route. It hosts two departures and two arrivals each day from the piers of Central Sarıyer – Rumeli Kavağı. The entire route consists of the following stops: Eminönü – Beşiktaş – Kanlıca – Sarıyer – Rumeli Kavağı and Anadolu Kavağı. Bosphorus Route The Bosphorus route is the longest ferry route in Istanbul and visits twenty-two different piers on the Bosphorus Sea. Emirgan – İstinye – Yeniköy – Büyükdere – Central Sariyer and Rumelikavağı neighborhoods have direct access to this ferry. Thirty-one trips are made on this route from the piers in the Sarıyer District each week.


Figure 9: Ferry connections to Sariyer (Sehir Hatlari Vapurlari) BUS There are a total of 10,730 bus stops in the Istanbul metropolitan area. According to Google Maps, Sariyer accounts for 354 stops with 233 serving the individual locations. The main concentration of bus stops exists in the southern, developed area of the district and follows major road routes further northward to the cities of Garipce, Rumelifeneri, KumkĂśy and Kisirkaya. Of the bus stops only 5 are not ran by IETT, but other private bus companies. Very few stops exist near the planned 3rd bridge crossing in Garipce.

Figure 10: Istanbul’s Bus Usage


DAILY TRIPS The over five hundred thousand daily trips experienced in the district of Sariyer represents 2.41% of Istanbul’s total trips produced. According the Transportation and Mobility Report (2007) the daily trips will increase by almost 150% however the percentage of the total trips in Istanbul will decrease. When examining Sariyer specifically 21% of the trips are by private vehicle, 9% by service vehicles, 23% by public transportation, and 47% by pedestrian activity. Most of Sariyer trips are within the district of Sariyer, but of the 31.2% that are to outer districts, public transportation and private vehicles represent the largest share of modes at 40.2% and36.4% respectively. Therefore it can be concluded that Sariyer is a pedestrian oriented district unless trips are made outside of the district, then like much of Istanbul the citizens rely on public transportation, including bus and rail. 2006 (Daily Trips)

Daily Trips

2023 (Daily Trips)

Produced by Sariyer: 503,582

Produced by Sariyer: 709,792

Private vehicles: 124,003 (36,5% within Sariyer)

Produced to Sarıyer: 416,817

Produced to Sarıyer: 638,889

Service vehicles: 53,231 (32,9% within Sariyer)

2.41% of total Istanbul trips produced by Sariyer

2.03% of total Istanbul trips produced by Sariyer

Public transportation: 134,996 (35,5% within Sariyer)

✤ ✤

1.99% of total Istanbul trips produced to Sariyer

Pedestrian: 269,995 (94,4% within Sariyer)

Total: 582,155 (62,8% within Sariyer)

1.82% of total Istanbul trips produced to Sariyer

Figure 11: Daily Trips (Transportation and Mobility Report)


Trips within Sariyer

Trips to outer districts

Private vehicles (12,4%)

Private vehicles (36,4%)

Service vehicles (4,8%)

Service vehicles (16,5%)

Public transportation (13,1%)

Public transportation (40,2%)

Pedestrian (69,7%)

Pedestrian (6,9%)

Figure 12: Sariyer’s Daily Trips (Transportation and Mobility Report) BEST WAY TO CITY CENTER Most trip demands from Sarıyer to outer districts are focusing mostly on Şişli, Beşiktaş and Fatih districts. The best way to access to Şişli is Metro M2 line. The trip time is about 20 minutes from last station of M2 line Hacıosman to Şişli-Mecidiyeköy station. Sarıyer has more M2 stations like Darüşşafaka, Atatürk Oto Sanayi and İTÜ Ayazağa and Şişli has Gayrettepe M2 station. With these optional stations, trip time can be shortened. Beşiktaş has some attraction centers like 4.Levent, Levent, Ortaköy and Beşiktaş (central). To access 4.Levent and Levent neighborhoods, M2 metro line is the best option. Trip time to these stations is about 15 minutes from Hacıosman station. Ortaköy and Beşiktaş (central) are neighborhoods that placed on the coast of the Bosphorus. Ferries are very useful to access to Ortaköy and Beşiktaş and they are the fastest mode especially on the peak hours. However, the main preference is motorways to access because the frequency of ferry trips from Sarıyer piers to Beşiktaş piers are quite low. The boundaries of Fatih district overlaps to Historical Peninsula. Fatih has many attraction centers. There are two options to access to Fatih except the motorway. Ferries are already operating between Sarıyer and Eminönü. However, they are the last option to access from Sarıyer because of the low trip frequency. The other alternative mode is T1 Kabataş – Bağcılar Tram line. M2 metro line and T1 tram line are connected via F1 Taksim – Kabataş funicular line. T1 is passing through 13 different stations in Fatih. However, this line sometimes cannot be the first choice because this line is not straight. Accessibility between Sarıyer and Şişli via M2 Metro line is capable since this underground line has low CO2 emmissions rather than motorized vehicles and reduces the density on the roads.


However, the extension of M2 metro line into Sarıyer district might be needed due to provide the increasing demand. Transportation modes to Levent and 4.Levent neighborhoods are not creating a problem because they are on M2 metro line. On the other hand, the frequency of ferry trips must be increased between Sarıyer and Beşiktaş since motorized vehicles to coastal neighborhoods grant the only access. To create more sustainable transportation modes, it is necessary to reduce the density on these ways and create alternative ferry trips. M2 Metro Line will be extended to Yenikapı until 2013. With this extension, the access time will be shorter. Besides, the ferry trip frequency has to be increased between Sarıyer and Eminönü. Because the trip demand is very high to Historical Peninsula and providing the access with two different sustainable transportation modes cause a serious reduction on motorway usage. ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS Istanbul is affected greatly by gated communities. This trend started during vital times of economic growth of 1990s. “[t]he preferences of people of high-income and elite social classes in Istanbul have shifted from the heterogeneous [urban fabric] to [more distanced] homogenous places [...]. As a result, mass housing areas have spread rapidly in the peripheries of the city (Berkoz).” Mostly single-family gated housing areas have been situated in the periphery of Istanbul since 1999 earthquake [, for instance Sariyer,] in the Marmara Region. Sariyers characteristics: Type of Gated Community

Count

Villa-type

16

Apartment-type

12

Mixed-use development

5

High-rise housing developments

0

Figure 13: Sariyer characteristics. 2005 (Gulumser) Sariyer brings up the following characteristics of gated single-family gated communities: Distance from Eminönü (km)

Population Mass Housing Area

Total area (ha)

Density of housing area (person/ha)

Beykoz

33

10.293

346,10

38

Büyükçekmece

45

2.813

57,37

65

Eyüp

22

4.323

125

34


Sarıyer

Distance from Eminönü (km)

Population Mass Housing Area

Total area (ha)

Density of housing area (person/ha)

30

6.594

126,80

52

Figure 14: Characteristics of selected Gate Singe-Family Gated Communities (Berkoz) “However their choice of location not only has detrimental effects on the natural environment but also on the social environment. Particularly, the communities located in the outskirts of the city create chaos and a class division between rural and upper class families. Therefore, they threaten both natural and social sustainability, while legally building developments through the loops in the regulations. Actually, gated communities shape the urban sprawl by creating new residential zones of the city that are planned and independent from the rest of the city. [...]However, the large demand for these settlements has led the size of available lands for agriculture and natural resources to decrease. Therefore, this current trend in the housing sector shows that Istanbul has no plans / strategies to control this development. In contrast, gated communities control the development and the sprawl of the city of Istanbul by affecting both the lives of the people who live in them and in the whole city. In addition, it is still unknown for whom and from what/who gated communities take refuge” (Unlu-Yucesoy, Korkmaz and Adanali). As Figures 15 and 16 show, there is a clear trend recognizable. Especially the upper-middle class nowadays uses informal mechanism to bypass legal issues and occupy the city’s priceless natural reserves.

Figure 15 & 16: Gated Communities in Istanbul, focus Sariyer region (Unlu-Yucesoy, Korkmaz and Adanali)


III. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CHANGES REGRDING THE FIRST AND SECOND BOSPHORUS BRIDGES OF ISTANBUL Urbanized areas grew in the southern part of Istanbul along the coast of Marmara Sea until 1950s. The transportation was based on the rail and seaways. After the 1950’s, the city began to expand northward because motorway investment. After the completion of the First Bridge, the main transportation modes of Istanbul were transformed rapidly. The bridge caused even greater expansion of Istanbul; urbanized areas have grown East and West, along with the northern forest areas. The construction of the First Bridge is focused on motorized vehicles, increasing the number of vehicles crossing the Bosphorus by 200%. However, passenger rate increased only by 4%. Car ownership was also increased by 230% in between 1970 - 1990 because of this transportation investment. In 1988, the Second Bridge (FSM) and Trans-European Motorway (TEM) were completed. TEM cross through the water basins and forest areas. Thus, the pressures of Land Use change on forest areas and water basins were increased. Following this, new settlements of Sultanbeyli and SarĹgazi were formed on the Asian continent. Industrial Zones chose their new settlements near TEM to gain easier access and new unplanned community settlements were raised in the area. Thus, the unity of the city was ruined.

Figure 17: Land use In Istanbul


After the operation of FSM began, vehicle ratio passing through the Bosphorus was increased by 1180%, while passenger ratio has been increased only by 170%. With the increased ratio of private cars and service vehicle trips and reduction of the ratio of public transportation options, it can be concluded that FSM encourages private car ownership and degrades the value of the public transportation.

Figure 18: The changes of modal distribution of trips between 1987 and 2006 THIRD BRIDGE PROJECT By understanding the impacts of the first and second bridge projects, we can now examine the proposed third bridge. It was stated that the “Construction of the first bridge will be a trap of bridge chains on the Bosphorus…” (Alpoge). The Third Bridge project was officially announced after the publishing of Istanbul Environmental Master Plan. In this plan, the Third Bridge did not exist and northern parts of Istanbul did not permit urbanization (See Figure 16).

Figure 19: Istanbul Environmental Master Plan Land Use If this project is constructed as planned, Sarıyer’s forestry areas and the absolute protection zones of the water basins will be under a serious risk (See Figure 17). These lands are vital for Sarıyer as well as Istanbul. Preserved lands will be urbanized inevitability after the operation of


the First and Second Bosphorus Bridges of Istanbul. This project is unsustainable because of its features. It will, over time, ruin the livability of the metropolitan area.

Figure 20: Zones under risk of the Third Bridge and motorways THIRD BRIGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Water resources:

Figure 21: Present water resource basins (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning)


Istanbul’s need for water is covered by numerous rivers and streams fed by the seven major water resource basins. Currently these water basins provide an average equivalent of 72.4% of all available water resources. As well as the increasing number of inhabitants, the improvements in the quality of live have also resulted in a significant increase in the demand for water. The current water resources, for instance the Terkos Basin (Figure 22) are not sufficient enough. Consequently new projects are being initiated to support the existing water resource systems. In this case, Istranca Streams in Kırklareli was considered as a new source of water (Figure 23). Furthermore ecological impacts on surrounding areas along the route of conveyance are the consequence. “Moreover, withdrawal from one basin will decrease the original discharges and may adversely affect the ecology of those rivers and streams. Therefore, any unplanned growth in the closest basins to the city should not be tolerated and current water basins must be preserved to decrease the need for extensive water conveyance from other provinces” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning). Not to be negligible, the most important and probably the only long-lasting water resources on the European side of Istanbul is connected by the district Sariyer. The precarious aspect in that context is the location of the third bridge, which is dangerously close to the water resource connection system. In Istanbul are uncountable illegal operating wells affecting the hydrogeology. Especially in rural areas is the believed value of five percent recently higher as assumed. Istanbul is, not yet, affected by cyclical drought, war, disasters, etc. “In this respect, groundwater reservoirs (aquifers) carry crucial importance” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning). In course of climate warming and consequently increasing values of droughts or the calculated earthquake within the next 30 years should be seen as a warn sign to be thought about.


Figure 22: Current and Prospective Water Resources in Istanbul (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning) Forestry resources:

Figure 23: Production function of forests (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning)

Figure 24: Functions of forests (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning)


Providing sustainability of forests resources the municipality of Istanbul has undertaken in relation forest boundaries, forest types and function of forests. “The interaction between the forests and their surroundings, Ecosystems, Flora-Fauna diversity, Recreation areas in forests and their tourism potentials, Hunting and Fishery, Pressures on forest ecosystems and Pollution” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning). Under these conditions Sariyers forests are mostly used as a hydrological function as well as preventing erosion function. These forests serve as protection areas from the settled areas for the economical function of the forest. “Especially the nature conservation, preventing soil erosion and hydrological function are the main issues for the forests of Sariyer. Even the municipality argued in 2007 that rapid urbanization and industrial facilities located in or near water basins, the magnitude of the pollution has now reached a critical point” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning). Beneath the ecological aspects, these forests act as recreation areas for Istanbul’s inhabitants. The planned third bridge in this area has to be criticized. Natural Threshold Synthesis “By taking into account pressures inflicted by humankind on natural resources and the environment, a natural threshold synthesis was outlined (Figure 25) which identifies eight key areas of: • Absolutely protected natural resource areas • Natural resource areas with priority protection • Limited natural resource areas • Mining areas which must inevitably be preserved • Mining areas which have preservation priority • Surface water basin boundaries • Forest boundaries • Settlement boundary areas” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning) Sariyer’s demography, economic structure and spatial development dispositions show that the special ecological structure and the life support systems of Sariyer are under enormous pressure. A more sustainable development is not just needed it’s a must. As the map shows, Sariyer nearly belongs to ‘absolutely protected natural resources areas’. The demand of the third bridge according to environmental aspects is unable to argue in cases of sustainability.


Figure 25: Natural Threshold Synthesis (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning) Strategic principles to provide sustainability in Istanbul to improve the quality of life “As an outcome of the analysis and synthesis process, the strategic principles determined in order to provide sustainability in Istanbul and to improve the quality of life is as follows: • preservation of the natural areas and ecologic resources • reducing unit energy consumption and emissions • closed environmental cycles • improving human habitats • precautions for natural and artificial risks • costing for the nature • monitoring the ecological issues, creating social consciousness for nature and improving the governance systems for ecological issues” (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning)


Figure 26: Environmental and Spatial Sustainability Syntheses for Istanbul (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning) Stimulating Land-use Changes Driven by a Third Bosphorus Bridge To find out which areas will be affected by the third bridge, we will refer to bi-national study of the Department of Geomatic Engineering, Yildiz Technical University as well as Department of Geoinformation Processing for Landscape and Environmental Planning, Technische Universit채t Berlin. The influences of the third bridge were classified by four Landsat satellite images. The first Bosphorus bridge was built in 1973 and the second in 1988. Therefore images were determined as 1972, 1987, 2002 and 2009. SLEUTH simulation software was used to predict the urban sprawl of Istanbul in the year 2030. Process: After calibration mode, the best-fit value of five growth coefficients computed as followed: Dispersion

7

Breed

70

Spread

100

Slope

1

Road Gravity

66


These parameters were used in the prediction mode and a simulation stop date was set to 2030. To find out transition lands from forest and agricultural and open spaces (Agr + OS) to urban area, change detection analysis was made between land use map for the year 2009 and sprawling map for the year 2030. Transformed area was calculated by multiplying pixel size with pixel counts.

Figure 27 - Table 4: Transition Lands from 2009 to 2030 (Ayazli, Batuk and Kleinschmit) Conclusion: Determining of the effects on urban sprawl has been studied for a long time. In this study, it was aimed to find out the effects of Istanbul Bosphorus Bridges on the urbanization through classifying satellite images into four time periods and to create simulation model for the year 2030. Landsat images, DEM, master plans and digitized route and motorways were used to determine transition lands from natural areas to urban areas. According to change detection analyses between the years 2009 and 2030, if the 3rd Bridge is built on Bosphorus, the most important natural areas will encounter with urbanization threats. Nearly 72% percent of the agricultural areas and open spaces and nearly 29% of the forest will be transformed to urban area Summary In case of environmental aspects the third bridge will harm the ecology in an unpredictable degree. “If forestry areas will reserve for the Third Bridge and motorways connecting to it, the benefits from these forests will be abandoned. Besides, the areas which are


required to assign for recreation, tourism and improvement of the community’s wealth will be sacrificed to the loot of the land and speculation. In addition, these benefits cannot be imported and substituted. Also, the protection of these forestry lands is vital” (Ekizoglu, Selmi and Hizal). The hydrological function of the forest will be defaced. Consequently even the water basins and the connection system will be defaced. Not to be negligible that by tearing down trees my affect the soil conditions in terms of erosion. The whole ecosystem will be cut in parts of the to be build connection streets. Biodiversity is in danger. Chopping of trees will change even the microclimate. The average temperature will increase and will affect another time the biodiversity. “Floras and Faunas cannot be reacquired if they have been damaged greatly or extinct completely. Also, the devastation of Istanbul Forests cannot be healed in short term, and it will require very long time to renew to their original form. There are numerous examples that are supporting this idea” (Ekizoglu, Selmi and Hizal). TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Over time there have been major transit investments spanning into the district of Sariyer and throughout the Istanbul metropolitan area. The M2 Sishane-Haciosman Metro Line has continued to see investment. At the Sishane end, the C1 Sishane-Yenikapi Metro Line is planned to be an alternative to the current Kabatas-Zeytinburnu Tram. This 3.6Km line will allow Sariyer to have a direct connection to Yenikapi and the Marmaray project described in the Third Bridge section of the paper. The Transportation and Mobility Report (2007) gives additional alternatives for metro lines through the Istanbul area. The two maps below demonstrate the specific alternatives that will connect with the M2 line allowing a east-west connection.


Figure 28: Söğütlüçeşme – Kazlıçeşme Metro Line The Söğütlüçeşme – Kazlıçeşme Metro Line’s total length is 22.3 km and has 14 stations. It passes through the Bosphorus under the sea. However, this line bypasses under Urbanized area so further analyses must be done. Sarıyer can use this line with a single hub connection with current M2 metro line at station 10. This line is expected to cost $1,647,000,000, carrying 727,865 passengers daily. By having a hub connection this line will support the M2 line significantly to hopefully reduce the number of private vehicle trips. However, by there not being a stop in between stations 10 and 11, it might discourage some of the leisure trips to the Bosphorus sea or leave the option of private vehicles only.


Figure 29: Kadıköy – Kazlıçeşme Metro Line The Kadıköy – Kazlıçeşme Metro Line is planned to have a total Length 40.5 km and 27 stations. One of these stations will have a transfer with M2 metro line. Station No.17 is also within the Sarıyer District. This project is expected to cost $2,922,000,000, carrying 1,601,656 passengers daily. The fact that this line will not connect but instead transfer to the M2 line might present a problem. Ridership might decrease depending on the transfer time and distance. Therefore, this line might spur additional transit oriented development areas and additional development north disregarding the district’s development plan. Furthermore, there are three other railway projects that are planned and will be completed by 2023. First, the M2 line will be extended to Cayirbasi, allowing for coastal Sariyer to have a connection with the Metro. This 2.7Km line will not connect to the main transportation hub in Sariyer or the third bridge connection in Garipce, presenting an opportunity for future development in the future. However, by having a coastal connection on the northern end of Istanbul more integrated modes of transportation will be possible. Next, the 4Km Hisarustu Line is intended to be a spur of the M2 at the Levent station, routing passengers to Rumeli Hisari neighborhood, at the southernmost area of Sariyer’s boundaries. This will be influential in providing metro access to the students at Bogazici University and a closer connection to one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Istanbul, Bebek. Finally, the most criticized proposal is the 14.5Km Besiktas-Sariyer Metro Line, an alternate route to Taksim-Cayirbasi Metro Line. This line is criticized because although great areas, the


population of 225,000 do not support the interest in building a metro line. Furthermore, it will be an expensive and difficult project because of the difficult typography. Therefore it has been suggested that “Havaray, AGT or railway system pulled by a Linear Motor (LIM)” be installed instead of a Metro line. The capacity is lower for these systems and the maximum slopes are 2.5% higher than Metro. This system is definitely a better response to the demand and site conditions. Also it allows for a unique experience outside of the general Metro lines, much like the cable way cars that link Macka to Taskisla and Eyup to Piyerloti. This system might also become a staple experience for visitors much like the streetcar that links Taksim and Tunel.

Figure 30: Monorail The European Environmental Agency (EEA) (Dobranskyte, Perujo and Pregl) outlined key indicators from the Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) indicator list to effectively analyze whether or not the transportation investments are sustainable or not. They have determined a set of indicator themes, including indicators and data sources. Three indicators were used for this project, excluding data sources. The data sources are applicable to the European Union and therefore excluding data needed for this study. If you look at the following chart it discusses transportation demand and intensity, spatial planning and accessibility, and transport supply. The definitions of each are: 1. Transport demand and intensity – passenger transport (by mode and purpose), number of accidents (injuries, fatalities, pollution resulting from transport, etc.), freight transport 2. Spatial planning and accessibility – average passenger journey time and length (per mode, per purpose) and location (urban/rural)


3. Transport supply – investments in transport infrastructure/per capita and by mode

Figure 31: Chosen TERM key indicators for proposed rail links

IV. SUGGESTIONS EXTENDING THE M2 METRO LINE TO GARIPCE Since the third bridge plans are approved and currently being implemented it is suggested that the district and municipal government adjust their future land use and transportation plans. As with any new infrastructure development, it is expected that development will follow. If Sariyer continues to develop northward and increases in population with the construction of the 3rd bridge, a suggestion can be made to continue the M2 line further North past the current last stop of Haciosman and planned last stop of Cayirbasi, to Garipce at the 3rd bridge connection. To support the rail investment, the density and population within a given radius should be adequate. This investment will aid in making the district more sustainable and accessible. Although the bridge is a proven unsustainable investment, the rail line extension can provide the opportunity for a multi-modal hub with rail, bus, ferry and park and ride availabilities. This hub can also present an opportunity for transit-oriented development that will not harm the fragile surrounding environment. It was determined that rail is the fastest way to arrive at the city center and most popular districts Sariyer’s residents visit. If the passengers who cross the bridge or come to the Bosphorus from the west opt to use rail as a part of their journey it can reduce travel time, emissions, and cost and improve the overall quality of life for the citizens of the district and themselves.


This rail extension can also support one of the main economic drivers in the district, tourism. By allowing a connection further north, more people might opt to visit the Black Sea beaches and great restaurants for the travel time would be greatly reduced. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Planning process has to include the evaluation of all components affecting it; an integrated approach is one solution to planning. The most important component of this process is the community. A plan that does not have participation of the community it effects, cannot be successful and will cause serious problems in long term. Planning approach in Turkey was previously a classic approach, which does not integrate the community. This approach caused the creation of inapplicable plans. Thus, the many plans were revised numerous times within very short periods, making long term planning impossible. Twelve out of thirty-five neighborhoods in Sarıyer District include high-density “gecekondu” (Turkish slums) settlements. An important part of the population of Sarıyer lives in these neighborhoods. The gecekondu communities do not benefit from the urban services or the other “legal” settlements while they are paying the same taxes. Besides, the pressure of extension of CBD area to Sarıyer along with the Third Bridge will result of land use changes of these settlements. As a result of these pressures, the community members in gecekondu settlements founded “The Platform of Sarıyer Neighborhood Associations” (Sarıyer Mahalle Dernekleri Platformu). The main purpose of this organization is to improve their living conditions and to gain the judicial assurance of these settlements; NGOs, jurists and academics support this organization. Sarıyer Municipality also mentioned that the requirement of participating planning process in the Sarıyer Development Action Plan. In the shareholder analysis of this plan, the community of Sarıyer, NGOs, professional associations and universities are the main shareholders of a development. This hopes to ensure the following development processes will integrate the community through scientific and professional aspects. Along with this, the Department of Gecekondu and Social Housing wass founded within Sarıyer Municipality. Purpose of this department is to evaluate the every gecekondu settlement as a whole, to provide the judicial assurance of gecekondu communities and to apply a participating planning mode to increase the wealthy status of these settlements. The participation of the community is very important to build sustainable plans. Community members are the main component of an urban plan. Thus, making a sustainable long term plan should not be done without the integration of the community. The responsibility lies in Sariyer Municipalities care. It is suggested that the integration of the community into the future development process should be executed as the Development Action Plan implies.


URBANIZATION BOUNDARIES AND BUFFER ZONES In order to create a sustainable Sariyer where the natural ecology and the built environment works collaboratively it is suggested that urban boundaries and buffer zones be implemented. An urbanization boundary could minimize the impact of the third bride on the environment. For instance, zoning laws can regulate the area to restrict construction from environmental areas that should be protected. Another type of boundary, buffer zones, can be either created spontaneously or planned. Buffer zones include development such as park and recreation areas, bikeways, and etc. For example, gated communities are enclosed by loop roads. These gated communities can explore buffer zones in their development plans as an option to end the polluting loop roads, placing circulation inside the buffer zone. Buffer zones can also help to maintain an balanced environment. Over the major highways, animal bridges can be installed to end the fragmentation of the natural environment, death of native animal populations and inbreeding.

V. CONCLUSION Sariyer has an uncertain future that residential, public and private entities can steer to develop a sustainable future, including transportation investments. The third bridge is a proven unsustainable investment that will change the future of Sariyer forever. Many other options were suggested, but certain actors insist to continue with construction. Given the unchangeable future, Sariyer will be placed at an interesting crossroad, having to decide whether to ignore the investment or to embrace it and set policies and plans in place to ensure the most sustainable future possible. The future railway projects and the suggestions can help alleviate the impact socially, environmentally and physically. The three characteristics of sustainability are intertwined in the suggestions presented: extending the M2 metro line, involving the community in future initiatives and setting urbanization boundaries and buffer zones. To implement the suggestions it will require policy changes at all governmental levels. The policy system is currently working against sustainable development. More enforcement of the existing policies is needed to ensure developments like the third bridge do not continue to happen, trumping the sustainable initiatives in place. To accomplish this policy change, communication between governmental institutions including transactions regarding policy and conflicts is needed, sustainable policies in the master plan should be added, and transparency policies be adopted. Sustainability is the future of the World, Turkey, Istanbul and even Sariyer, and striving for sustainability will be rewarding for each.


Bibliography Alpoge, A. Conference of the 2nd Bosphorus Bridge Debate (in Turkish). Book of Proceedings. Istanbul, 1978. Ayazli, Batuk and Kleinschmit. "Stimulating Landuse Changes Driven by a 3rd Bosphorus Bridge." Yildiz Technical University; Technische Universitat Berlin, n.d. Berkoz, Lale. "Comparing the Residential Developments in Gated and Non-Gated Neighborhoods in Istanbul." Istanbul Technical University, 2006. Dobranskyte, A., A. Perujo and M. Pregl. Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Ispra: European Communities, 2007. Ekizoglu, Abdi, et al. "The Summary Report of The Third Bridge and Its Effects on The Forests of Istanbul." Istanbul University, n.d. Gulumser, A.A. "A New Trend of Urbanization: Gated Communities in Istanbul." Istanbul Technical University, 2005. IETT - Istanbul Elektrik Tramvay ve Tunel Isletmeleri Genel Mudurlugu. 2012. 5 Nov 2012 <http://www.iett.gov.tr>. Istanbul Ulasim. 2012. 12 October 2012 <http://www.istanbul-ulasim.com.tr>. Istanbul Buyuksehir Belediyesi. 2012. 12 October 2012 <http://www.ibb.gov.tr/trTR/Pages/AnaSayfa.aspx>. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Department of Urban Planning. Istanbul Masterplan Summary. Istanbul, 2009. Istanbul Metropolitian Municipality. Current and Prospective Water Resources in Istanbul. Istanbul Buyusehir Belediyesi. Istanbul, 2007. "Istanbul Transportation Master Plan." 2011. Sariyer Belediyesi. Sariyer Kalkinma Eylem Plani. Plan. Istanbul, n.d. Sariyer Municipality. Sariyer Development Action Plan. Istanbul, 2010. —. Sariyer District and Municipality. Powerpoint Presentation. Istanbul, 2010. Sehir Hatlari Vapurlari. 2012. 25 Nov 2012 <http://www.sehirhatlari.com.tr/tr>. Tezer, Azime, et al. "Assessing Urban Transportation Development: Sustainable Transportation Perspectives for Istanbul." Sustainable Urban an Regional Infrastructure Development: Technologies, Applications and Management (2010): 231-44. Tokus, M. Urban Green Networks: Case of Istanbul, Sariyer. Master Thesis. ITU Graduate School of Science. Istanbul, 2012. UCTEA Chamber of Urban Planners Istanbul Branch. The 3rd Bridge Project Evaluation Report. Evaluation. Istanbul, 2010. Ulasim Planlama Müdürlügü. Transportation and Mobility in Istanbul. Summary. Istanbul, 2007. Unlu-Yucesoy, Eda, et al. "Case Study I - Rumeli Feneri and its environs, Istanbul - Living in Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion." 2009.

Sariyer - case study - transportation and land use planning  

Case study about Sariyers changes in land use and transportation planning. All rights reserved.

Advertisement