لخّصلي

II- Can urban planning lead to sustainable mobility?
Such a question was the subject of a work done by Vincent Fouchier, urban planner and researcher, (Public establishment for the development of the new town of Every
One of the key questions that has been asked is whether we want to limit the place of the automobile in our urban areas. This question goes beyond technical-environmental aspects (pollution, nuisances, costs, etc.): it concerns a choice of society (lifestyles, landscapes, equity, etc.). The answer to this question of the place given to the car has serious consequences for urban planning decisions.
II.1. Density can limit automobile addiction
Several relatively recent studies have confirmed our knowledge of the link between urban density and travel. Among these, a famous international comparison, carried out by P. Newman and J. Kenworthy (1), has delivered significant results.
These two Australian researchers have shown that automobile use in urban areas is confronting and that urban densities are low.
They also highlighted the correlation between density and energy consumption in transport per capita. The preservation of energy resources would thus go through more compact urban forms. As such, Asian cities, such as Tokyo or Hong Kong, but also European cities, including Paris and Berlin, would be less expensive in energy than their American counterparts.
The location of urban development and its density take responsibility for the rate of motorization. It is therefore interesting to measure recent trends in the spatial distribution of the population, in terms of densities.
This study showed that walking saw its modal part decrease by 11% on the number of trips, revealing an increasing role of the automobile.
These researchers carried out calculations which stipulate that individuals who reside in municipalities with the lowest net human densities travel daily distances 2.3 times greater than those who reside in high density: 35 km per day against 15. La the modal part of the automobile is much higher in the first case than in the second.
The separation of functions in the urban fabric, a corollary of low density extensions, is also responsible for the increased role of the automobile in travel.
The public transport service to uni-functional areas (business parks, for example) will never be sufficient to be attractive to the automobile. Or, a large part of recent urbanizations consist of relocations of equipment or places of activity formerly located in denser sectors and better served by public transport.
These new locations compete with those that remain in the city center.
The creation of peripheral cinema complexes, after those of shopping centers, help to strengthen the place of the automobile in urban areas: their accessibility is much better for motorized people than for others. It is therefore an urbanism that excludes non-motorized people. The spatial dispersion of functions (commerce, services, employment, etc.), which maintained a city center, and sparse urban sprawl then combine to explain the development of automobile use.
The automobile creates much more nuisance per person transported than public transport, as everyone knows. This observation can be made in various fields (noise, pollution, energy consumption, occupation of space, etc.), and for multiple spatio-temporal scales (from the very short-term local impact to the global impact very long term).