Introduction

This report sets out findings from the work commissioned by the Trnovo Park Civil Initiative. The remit was to review the project of the City Of Ljubljana (Mestna obcina Ljubljana - MoL) for extending Barjanska cesta across Trnovo Park. The review considers three aspects:
• the context for the project
• the implications for the Trnovo area and for the city as a whole
• alternative options to address the city’s transport problems.
It thus covers similar topic areas to those now required under EU policy for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIA), although it does not provide the technical detail expected in an EIA.

The work carried out to prepare this report has included:
• Evaluation of printed information and statistics supplied by the client and by contacts.
• Compilation of relevant information from Internet and other printed sources.
• Meetings for discussion with a number of interests in Ljubljana:
o Mr Janez Kozelj, Deputy Mayor, City of Ljubljana
o various independent and retired professionals in the fields of architecture and planning
o members of the Trnovo Park and other civil initiatives with relevant interests
o managers of some relevant NGOs
• Visits to study conditions at the project site, in the Trnovo Park area, and at locations across central Ljubljana

The writer is an independent consultant in transport policy and practice and also a chartered town planner. His experience and qualifications include:
• Forty year’s experience in the fields of transport policy and planning, and urban and regional planning, including management or contribution to urban transport planning projects, regional public transport strategies, evaluation of the relationship between transport networks and development projects.
• Acting as advisor to the Hungarian Government on the development of transport policy.
• Serving on two European Union Experts Groups.
• Membership, by election and qualification, of three UK professional institutes and of the UK Royal Society of Arts.
He is also a visiting research fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Context – Ljubljana

Ljubljana is the capital city of Slovenia. The city’s population is approximately 265,000; the total population of the region is about 500,000.. It has a compact centre, along the river round the castle hill. The central area is broadly defined by the railway line to the north, the Tivoli Park area to the west and the Trnovo suburban area to the south.

Slovenia has an advanced economy, close to western European standards, relying heavily on service industries and advanced manufacturing. Ljubljana is now the major centre for the service sector, i.e. the administrative, commercial, entertainment and leisure activities. This is particularly the case for the central area, which has the main concentration of shops, offices, restaurants and bars, museums and leisure facilities. The level of commuting into the city from the surrounding region has grown substantially; it is now estimated at 130,000 people arriving each day. The city is thus very important in provision of jobs and in generation of material wealth for Slovenia.

The leisure activities – eating and drinking, culture, entertainment - serve the whole city and its surrounding area, providing a focal point for people to meet up and enjoy their spare time in the heart of their historic city. For the many workers in pressured office jobs they provide the opportunity for relaxation at times during the day, making their working environment more comfortable and hence more efficient. In addition, tourism is an important activity, and the attractions in and on the edge of the centre offer an attractive package to persuade travellers from across the world to spend time in Ljubljana.

The current MoL urban planning strategy seeks to bring more development into the centre. However, it is largely focused on major new buildings and infrastructure rather than on considering options for upgrading the quality, attraction and effectiveness of the central area.

Context – transport in Ljubljana

There is at present no city transport strategy. Therefore relatively little information is available on travel patterns within the city or on the role played by the various transport modes. MoL intends to prepare a transport strategy soon; but not before work is under way on the current infrastructure projects.

Use of the car dominates travel in Ljubljana. No figures are available for travel overall within the city but 80% of daily trips for work are by car. Substantial traffic levels can be observed in the central area and in the various suburbs. Significant traffic jams have become a normal feature, especially on the main radial routes, round the outskirts of the city and further in to the centre. They also affect the various secondary roads through the suburbs, probably because many people are adopting more complex patterns of travel when they obtain a car. The main radial routes are two lanes in each direction but most other roads have only one lane in each direction. In the central area, the western side of the (incomplete) inner ring, Tivolska cesta, has two lanes in each direction, but the southern side (Zoisova cesta etc) has two lanes westbound but only one eastbound for the most part. Road junctions are often wider, to allow space for turning traffic.

There are also very serious problems with cars parked in and around the city centre. Drivers use every conceivable space, on the roads, pavements and cycleways, whether permitted or not. It makes life very difficult for people moving by foot and cycle and degrades the quality of the city.

Public transport beyond the city is provided by regional railway services and regional bus services. The railway services provide a fast and comfortable trip but of course they only serve those towns on the railway line, which are relatively few. Because the railway station is located on the northern edge of the city centre, travel by rail may not be attractive for people working in much of the city centre. The low frequency of services also means that train times may not always be convenient. The regional bus services provide connections to other towns and villages but they suffer from extended journeys times and some unreliability because of traffic congestion.

Within the city a network of bus services is operated by the city bus company LPP. These cover 22 routes, serving about 93% of the urban area of Ljubljana. In 2006 they operated 11 million kilometres and carried 88 million passengers. However, their share of total movement within the city has declined sharply and it is estimated at 14% now compared to around 40% in the 1990s. The urban fleet is about 200 buses. Over half are low floor and equipped with visual LCD displays, and one third have air conditioning. However, their average age is 11½ years, indicating that many buses are very old. Almost all routes operate along Slovenska cesta; this has two lanes each way, and one lane each way is reserved for buses. There is very little other priority for bus operation in the city. Because of the traffic congestion, therefore, journey times can be long and arrival of buses unreliable. Travel by bus has a poor image.

Cycling has also declined as a means of travel. The rise in traffic means that cycling is uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, reducing its attractiveness. There are plenty of cycle lanes in the central area, but these are of limited width and often interrupted at key points, so that they do not support through journeys effectively. Most of them are narrow tracks painted on stretches of pavements, reducing the width of pavements and leading to conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.

While there is no transport plan, a number of projects or proposals exist:

• The Mayor’s development strategy includes, as well as the Barjanska cesta extension, completion of the inner ring road, by linking Roska cesta and Njegoseva cesta with a new bridge over the river. New car parks will also be constructed in the centre, including one underneath the Market Colonnade. Slovenska cesta may be closed to through traffic.

• Ljubljana is a partner in the EU CIVITAS MOBILIS programme for sustainable transport. Under this, part of the bus fleet is being converted to biodiesel, and some new cycle racks are being installed. Education programmes are being carried out to promote the use of sustainable transport.• A study for a light rail (tramway) system was carried out in 2002 and the City has adopted its recommendations in principle. This would provide fast high quality services through the city centre and the main suburbs. Light rail services would also operate to neighbouring towns over the regional railway lines, much improving their effectiveness for city access. No steps have yet been taken to develop the project in detail, however, and the possible implementation date is seen as sometime in the future.

• MoL is also considering extending bus priority lanes to the main radial roads beyond the city centre. The current view is that this would require construction of an additional inbound lane on each road, involving heavy cost and some construction of property, and so far no steps have been taken to develop projects for implementation.

The Barjanska cesta extension project

The extension of Barjanska cesta across Trnovo Park was first proposed in the early 1990s, following a competition to recommend improvements to transport infrastructure. It was seen as offering a direct link from Riharjeva ulica into Slovenska cesta, removing the small diversion via Gradaska ulica. An assessment of the traffic implications was carried out in 1997, providing forecasts for 2005 and 2020, and also some forecasts of the noise and air pollution aspects. This did not amount to an environmental assessment, as the proposal pre-dated the European Union requirements for such processes.

The project remained as a proposal for many years without approval. It was then adopted by the current Mayor as one of the projects in his action programme to develop the city, and he has signed the authorisation for it to proceed. No further assessments of impact have been carried out, even though an EIA is now a requirement under EU policies. Nor has MoL held a formal consultation on the project.

The proposed road link provides for two lanes of traffic each way throughout. South from the point where it merges into the current Riharjeva ulica there are two lanes in each direction for most of the way to the traffic lights at the junction with Cesta v Mestni log; but part of this stretch has only one lane each way. At its north end it has a two lane bridge over the Gradaska river. North of this point the existing stretch of Barjanska cesta has first three lanes each way and then two to the junction with Zoisova cesta. (North of this junction is Slovenaska cesta, with two lanes each way but one in each direction reserved for buses.)

The bridge over the Gradaska river has been completed. In conjunction with this, the river has been put into a new concrete channel. Much of the work at the point where the link merges into the Riharjeva ulica has also been completed. The whole area between has been cleared, including removal of trees adjacent to the site.

At the road junction with Cesta v Mestni log there is no road directly eastwards. However, an alignment has been preserved eastwards, to extend Cesta v Mestni log across. In the 1997 assessment this was assumed to be built by 2005. The current status is not known. At present traffic to / from the east at this junction uses Cesta na Loko.

Impact of the project – Trnovo area

The most immediate impact of the project will be in the Trnovo area. Specific effects include increased traffic, and hence noise and pollution, with potentially greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists and more delay to bus services. The less specific but still very serious effects will include loss of the quiet atmosphere that this area has, which will affect the well-being of its residents.

Transport patterns appear to have developed significantly since the 1997 assessment, and thus the basis of the traffic forecasts will have changed. So it is not appropriate to give too much attention to them, but they offer some useful indicators of the direct effects.

Appendix 1 sets out the key figures drawn from the diagrams of traffic by road. It includes 1997 traffic levels (from the traffic model), 2005 forecasts and 2020 forecasts. (The 2020 forecasts are for the option with Slovenska cesta closed, which is MoL’s proposed strategy at present.) This suggests that most of the roads in the immediate area will see significant increases in traffic. This is very significant for all sections of the Riharjeva ulica, the main radial route linking to the southern ring road, indicating that the new road link will attract more traffic from outside the city as well as from the outer suburban area. It is also very high for Cesta v Mestni log in both directions, and on Opekarska cesta south of Cesta v Mestni log; this suggests that more traffic for the city centre is drawn to the area through the suburbs from east and west. The levels of traffic forecast for some of these roads, most of which are one lane in each direction, are actually higher than on the proposed new road link, even though it is two lanes in each direction. Some of these roads already suffer from heavy traffic for part of the day.

Figures given are only for two-way traffic totals; there are no indicators of congestion. Queuing at junctions is already common, sometimes at periods outside the peaks. The forecasts give traffic turning movements at some key junctions. At that of Riharjeva ulica and Cesta v Mestni log, quite large proportions of traffic will turn towards the city from Cesta v Mestni log as well as go straight over. This is likely to add to delays. The road system in the area has a number of other main junctions, including that of Barjanska cesta with Gradaska cesta and with Zoisova cesta; both could have queues of traffic waiting, especially at peak periods.

The 1997 assessment contained some limited figure for noise and air pollution but no comparisons over time. The traffic growth forecasts show clearly that conditions will become worse: probably much worse. The level of traffic noise will increase, both generally throughout the area and especially for areas adjacent to the roads carrying heavy traffic. Pollution from motor vehicles will also increase along the roads carrying heavy traffic. As it has a major junction north and south, the proposed new section of Barjanska cesta will probably see a lot of queuing traffic. This means noise and inefficient burning of petrol and diesel fuel as traffic moves slowly forward. This will particularly affect the adjacent school, disturbing the pupils and their teachers throughout the day, reducing the effectiveness of learning. Children are more likely to suffer from health problems from increased air pollution.

The increased levels of traffic attracted into the area might have two results for local residents with cars. It could make driving conditions worse for them and thus reduce the ease with which they can get out by car. It could also increase the number of car-borne commuters to the city centre using local car parks (which are not regulated) to park and then walk into the city.

With heavier traffic and more congestion, bus services are likely to become less effective and attractive. Walking and cycling will become potentially more dangerous because more vehicles are moving along the narrower secondary streets as well as the main roads. In practice people will hesitate to cycle or walk as much because this is unpleasant and perhaps threatening. So the freedom to get around locally will be reduced, especially for old people and children.

Access to the school will also be made worse from the west side of Trnovo. At present it is not easy, but the northern section of Riharjeva ulica is only two lanes and slow moving. If the proposed road is built, it will provide a two carriageway main road adjacent to the school, making it more difficult to reach from the western side.

There is also likely to be short term disturbance from construction traffic.

The project will also have a less clear but still crucial impact on the area by reducing the generally tranquil atmosphere. The most obvious example is at Trnovo Park, where the road takes a large part of the land and leaves only two small patches on the west side. Neither are likely to offer attraction as green areas in which to relax, as they will be too small and immediately adjacent to the new road with its heavy traffic, and the river which bisects them has now been turned into a concrete channel. This is important for all the residents, but it has wider implications, as the area is renowned as the home of Jože Plecnik. Trnovo is recommended in tourist guide books as a place to visit because its fertile marshy land remains as a quiet suburb that still feels rather like a village. It is also the location of Plecnik’s house, now a museum, and his nearby bridge over the Gradaska. Indeed, a sharp rise in traffic on Gradaska ulica past the bridge is shown in the 1997 forecasts.

These are primarily social and cultural effects, but they have direct effects, though these are difficult to measure. Reducing cultural and social cohesion can lead to more unneighbourly behaviour, possible social unrest, and perhaps more isolation of elderly and disadvantaged people; these require resources to deal with. Reducing the attraction of a tourist venue can affect the income from tourism.

Impact of the project – the wider city effects

The project also has an impact on the city as a whole, as it forms part of a policy to support the expansion of car travel. It thus complements the proposals to complete the inner ring road on the eastern side and to build more car parks in the city centre, notably at the Market Colonnade. Together, these policies raise a number of serious issues about the future of Ljubljana. The city’s growth appears to be based on the assumption that the existing growth in levels of car use, which cause serious congestion and degradation of the environment, will continue. Providing more roads and car parks fuel’s peoples’ expectations that car is the only way to travel. No transport study has yet been carried out to establish the impact or to evaluate alternatives.

As experience across Europe has shown, a compact city such as Ljubljana cannot provide an efficient and attractive environment for business and leisure through car access: it is simply impossible to fit in sufficient cars. Completing the inner ring road and building more car parks in the centre will simply worsen the city’s efficiency and attractiveness. This was identified as early as 1964 by the report prepared in Great Britain by Colin Buchanan, and his themes were being developed in practice by the time of the 1975 United Nations conference ‘Better towns with less traffic’.

The focus on car use also has a social impact. It means that only those people who have a car available can travel freely. The other modes of travel – buses, cycling and walking – are becoming less effective and attractive. So people without cars are finding it even more difficult to reach essential places – such as jobs or schools, or even shops and health clinics. Much of their travel now involves some discomfort.

Conclusions

MoL’s current view is that action needs to be taken now to ensure better traffic flow. Time can then be found to examine other options and draw up a transport strategy, which will probably include the proposed light rail system. However, this assumes that the Barjanska cesta extension will provide benefits in the short term. As this review shows, it will make things worse in the short term. The focus on road construction, which also includes completing the inner ring road and building more city centre car parks could prove even more destructive. The city centre is becoming choked by cars, to the extent that its future success could be permanently eroded.

Ljubljana’s transport problems can only be dealt with effectively by taking firm steps to reduce car use where it has a negative effect, substantially improving public transport and providing much better conditions for cycling and walking. But currently there is not even much information on transport patterns and trends or on the relationship of transport with the city’s economy or with peoples’ lifestyles.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are offered:

• The Barjanska cesta extension project should be halted now. The project area should be restored as a green area with cycleway and footpaths, and perhaps some community building.

• The completion of the inner ring road, through the eastern link, and the construction of more central area car parks should be cancelled.

• A study of transport should be carried out, in order to generate understanding. This should form the basis for producing a strategy and implementing it. The strategy should include short term programmes and medium term investment.

• An initial programme of short term actions should be set in hand while the first phase of the transport study is being carried out. This programme, which could involve expansion of the current CIVITAS MOBILIS work, might include:
o Much more extensive priorities (on roads and at junctions) for buses, aimed at providing fast and reliable journeys.
o Upgrading the cycle network, through linking up and improving cycleways, and providing good cycle parking.
o Firm management of car parking, to ensure that existing facilities are convenient for users but that indiscriminate car parking is eliminated.
o Improvements to pavements and pedestrian facilities throughout the city, with creation of more quiet car-free zones.

• The long term programme should include investment in the light rail (tramway) project, on which further development should be started soon.

These recommendations are aimed at making the central area more accessible but with much less car travel and reducing disturbance from traffic throughout the city. This will involve reallocating road space away from car use but it will make the city more efficient and attractive, a more effective place for economic development through commercial and leisure activities and a more attractive place for the people of Ljubljana and beyond to meet up and relax. Many other cities across Europe have already found that this approach to city transport produces substantial returns in terms of attracting investment, improving the environment and achieving social cohesion. A few examples are briefly set out in Appendix 2.

Reg Harman - 23 September 2007

Appendix 2

Some brief examples of experience from other European cities

Birmingham (England) shows the problems of an inner ring road. In the 1970s Birmingham completed an inner ring road round the city centre, linking the main radial roads and large city car parks, with underpasses at the main road junctions. This was subsequently found to make the city centre less attractive, because of congestion and pollution. Over the last decade the city council has reduced the inner road to a local road, cutting parts of it, filling in the underpasses and providing many pedestrian crossings. This has formed part of a strategy which has seen major development of offices, shopping centres and leisure facilities in the city centre.

Croydon (England) had a modern tram system opened in 1999, providing direct connections to surrounding areas of Greater London. Although the city was already well served by frequent bus and suburban train services, the opening of the tramway led to road traffic falling by 9%, while recorded commercial trade in the city centre went up by 9%.

Most cities of France with over 200,000 inhabitants now have a modern tramway, under a policy developed since the 1980s to increase the attraction and success of commercial businesses without increasing car traffic. New systems continue to be built and existing ones (such as Bordeaux and Lyon) are being substantially extended. Most of these systems are designed to provide fast access to the city centre from the suburbs and fro adjacent areas, and they have been linked to increased central area development. The opening of a tramway in a city has always led to the number of passenger on public transport increasing significantly, usually by about one third, and the proportion of travel by public transport has risen similarly.

Freiburg (Germany) gives substantial priority to cycling, especially in the city centre. It has a few streets where cyclists have total priority; cars may travel only slowly. The Wiliwi bridge, which crosses the railway into the Altstadt (old city centre), carries 10,000 cyclists a day. The nearby new town of Vauban is designed round cycle routes and three quarters of the working population cycle to work. The city also has a tramway system, which operates through streets in the Altstadt which are banned to all other traffic; it provides fast links through the suburban areas of the city. The system is being expanded.

Goteborg (Sweden) has for many years applied strict traffic management measures and controlled parking to the city centre. The centre is divided into four quadrants, it is not possible to drive between them, and car access is in any case limited. The city has a large tramway system, which crosses the centre and extends to the suburbs and to neighbouring towns. Strict controls on freight vehicles are now being applied to the central area. Cycling has high priority throughout the city, with many cycleways. Traffic calming is being extended throughout the city’s residential areas.

In the Netherlands all cities now follow the ‘ABC’ policy for city development and transport investment, aimed at minimising car use and maximising access to centres of economic activity. All areas are categorised as ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’, with the general idea to locate ´the right business in the right place'. There are three different areas:
• ‘A’ locations are easily accessible to local, regional and national public transport (= areas around public transport interchanges), especially city centres. Commuting by car should be under 10-20%.
• ‘B’ locations are easily accessible both by local and regional public transport and car (= areas where high standard public transport routes cross ring roads). Commuting by car should be under 35%.
• ‘C’ locations are easily accessible by car (= areas along the highways).
Shops are preferably located in A-areas, never in C-areas. Offices are located in A- and B-areas, while C-areas should only be used for transport activities or land intensive activities. The ABC system integrates a series of standards (density of employee per m2, parking places per employees). It also acts as a focus for development of public transport, cycling and walking routes.