INTEGRATED PLANNING OF PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REGION: THE CASE OF LJUBLJANA
CELOSTNO NAČRTOVANJE JAVNEGA POTNIŠKEGA PROMETA MED MESTOM IN REGIJO NA PRIMERU LJUBLJANE
David Bole, Matej Gabrovec, Janez Nared, Nika Razpotnik Viskovic
Park and ride Dolgi most in Ljubljana. P+R Dolgi most.
Integrated Planning of Public Passenger Transport between the City and the Region: The Case of Ljubljana
DOI: 10.3986/AGS52106
UDC: 911.375:656.025.2(497.4Ljubljana)
COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT: This article draws attention to the connection between transport planning and the settlement pattern and consequently the need for integrated planning of both the settlement and transport system. It primarily focuses on the suburbanization of Ljubljana and the state of public passenger transport in the Ljubljana Urban Region. Certain topical transport studies and measures are discussed from this perspective. The analysis shows the need for integrated planning that could be realized in the form of the concept of a polycentric layout of the region with interconnected centers as the main bearers of residential and business functions.
KEYWORDS: transport geography, Ljubljana Urban Region, regional planning, public passenger transport, integrated planning
The article was submitted for publication on March 26, 2012.
ADDRESS: David Bole, Ph. D.
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Email: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
Matej Gabrovec, Ph. D.
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Email: matej@zrc-sazu.si
Janez Nared, Ph. D.
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Email: janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si
Nika Razpotnik Viskovic, Ph. D.
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Email: nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si
Contents
1	Introduction	144
2	Methods	144
3	Ljubljana and its metropolitan region	144
4	Suburbanization and settlement
expansion in the LUR	146
5	Transport situation in the LUR	148
6	Analysis of selected transport studies
and measures in the LUR	150
7	Conclusion	152
8	Acknowledgments	153
9	References	153
1	Introduction
Transport planning heavily depends on settlement structure. Therefore suburbanization, which began in Slovenian cities in the last decades of the twentieth century (Ravbar 1997), raises a number of questions regarding effective commuting and transport connections between suburbanized areas and employment centers. From this perspective, the most important developments in Slovenia definitely take place in the Ljubljana Urban Region (hereinafter: the LUR), which saw a concentration of business, employment, creative, financial, political, and administrative power in the past (Bole 2004, 2008; Nared 2007; Ravbar 2007, 2009, 2011; Ravbar, Bole and Nared 2005). Unfortunately, the centralization of activities and suburbanization were not connected with integrated transport planning. Alongside increased motorization, investments were primarily directed toward building the freeway network and less to establishing and promoting an effective public transport system. This was reflected in increased employee commuting, and because of poor public transport the increased flow primarily resulted in increasingly frequent use of cars and subsequently in distinct rush hours and increased demands for parking space. Due to the negative effects this development had on the quality of life in Ljubljana and other metropolitan regions, discussions on possible solutions have become common.
This article presents the role of the LUR as a metropolitan region, suburbanization in past decades, and the related development of transport infrastructure and especially public passenger transport as a necessary prerequisite for effective commuting between the metropolis (i.e., Ljubljana) and its surrounding countryside. The goal of the article is to determine the suitability of transport measures in the LUR based on transport and spatial development analyses.
2	Methods
The intensity of suburbanization was analyzed using data on the new residential areas built between 2002 and 2010, which the Slovenian Statistical Office collects at the level of municipalities, data from the Register of house numbers for the 2005-2011 period, and data on the growth of built-up areas, which the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia collected at the level of cadastral districts. All of the land-use types coded with numbers ranging from 200 to 399, comprising buildings, transport infrastructure, parks, construction sites, and so on, were included among the built-up areas. The increase of traffic on national roads was analyzed using the data from the 2000 and 2009 traffic census. The map does not include lower-category roads (e.g., municipal roads) and some other road sections that did not exist during the period studied (e.g., the freeway section towards Trojane) or for which information was lacking.
In the last section, various specialized studies and measures related to public passenger transport in the LUR were compared against documented best-practice examples (Catch-MR 2012). Their advantages and disadvantages were determined and potential better solutions were suggested.
3	Ljubljana and its metropolitan region
According to the Slovenian Statistical Office, in 2011 the LUR had a population of 533,213 (SI-STAT Data Portal, 2012), which accounted for 26% of the total Slovenian population. In recent decades, the population in the region increased by 43,000 or nearly 8.8%. The City of Ljubljana has a population of 279,898, which accounts for 13.6% of the total Slovenian population and more than a half of the total LUR population.
Ljubljana was an important center even before Slovenia's independence; after independence, it further increased its role and attracted an extensive functionally dependent countryside to it. Because various government institutions are located here, it became an attractive employment area, in which jobs in the business sector (especially services) began to concentrate in addition to administrative jobs. In 2011, the active working population in Ljubljana amounted to 205,246 (274,643 in the LUR in the same period),
or a fourth of the total Slovenian active working population (SI-STAT Data Portal, 2012). Based on Ljubljana's leading role, Ravbar (1997) ascribed a metropolitan character to the LUR.
In 2009, 24,191 enterprises operated in the region (nearly 45% of all Slovenian enterprises), employing 178,911 people (37.3% of people employed in Slovenian enterprises). These generated 43.2% of Slovenia's added value: nearly 70% in the service sector, 23% in industry, 7% in construction, and 0.2% in agriculture. A full 70% of all enterprises in the region operated in Ljubljana; these employ more than 78% of people working in the region's enterprises and generate approximately 83% of the region's added value. At the same time, this accounts for a third of all Slovenian enterprises, approximately 30% of all employees in them, and 36% of the total added value created (Pečar 2011: 34-35).
The process of marked centralization of activities can be understood as a logical consequence of establishing new power structures, which is important from the viewpoint of strengthening Ljubljana's importance within Europe as a whole. In addition, it can also be understood as an administrative and political predominance of the capital over other Slovenian centers, which is a step backwards in terms of harmonized and balanced regional development, especially in the sense of Friedmann's center-periphery model of economic and spatial development (Friedmann 1966, cited in Heineberg 2007: 113). Namely, strong centralization is not reflected only in economic conditions. For example, Ravbar (2011) establishes that the LUR has a notable concentration of creative professions (with a growing share in Ljubljana) as well as a large share of investment activities, with two-fifths of all Slovenian investments reported between 2000 and 2006 in this area, which has a quarter of the entire Slovenian population and a third of all jobs (Ravbar 2009: 170).
4 Suburbanization and settlement expansion in the LUR
Settlements within the urban region primarily have two things in common: intense commuting and a harmonized development of transport infrastructure, including public passenger transport. The growth in the number of jobs and the population of suburbanized settlements and the development of non-agrarian activities are also typical (Drozg 2006). With suburbanization, the features of the formerly compact city are also becoming increasingly common for the suburbs in the physical, social, and economic sense (Drozg 2006: 14). This process is regarded as a problem especially when the expansion of settlement is unplanned or spontaneous. This leads to imprudent use of space, the loss of high-quality farmland and land important for protecting natural values and resources, high costs of (municipal) infrastructure, the move of central urban activities to suburbs, environmental pollution, and the loss of landscape identity (Cof 2005; Ravbar 1999; Drozg 1996; Friedrichs 1975).
According to Cof (2005), a more extensive construction of detached houses in the LUR was reported from 1951 to 1975, especially in the municipalities of Domžale, Mengeš, Komenda, Grosuplje, and Brezovica. Construction especially spread in the settlements on the edges of the city, along the main roads between settlements, and in remote areas outside compact settlements. From 1975 to 1985, construction was the most intense in the municipalities of Trzin, Domžale, and Komenda, and from 1985 to 2002 in the municipalities of Domžale, Mengeš, Vodice, Dol pri Ljubljani, Ig, Grosuplje, and Škofljica, especially along the main roads and freeway access roads.
Housing construction has also continued after 2002; it can be observed that all areas in the LUR don't have the same intensity of new construction (Figure 1). The analysis of the number and area of new housing based on the data from the Slovenian Statistical Office for the 2002-2010 period shows that the majority of m2 of floor area of new dwellings per km2 of municipal area were built in the City of Ljubljana and in Komenda, and in the municipalities closest to Ljubljana: Škofljica, Vodice, Medvode, Trzin, Dol pri Ljubljani, Grosuplje, Vrhnika, and Domžale.
The Register of house numbers was also analyzed, in which the data for 2005 were compared to those of 2011. The house number is defined by the centroid of the building it belongs to. In this regard one should mention that, if a building has several numbers, each number has its own centroid, usually near the entrance to the building that labels it. To make things easier, in this case as well the number of new house numbers per km2 of municipal area was calculated; the results are shown in Figure 2. The highest density of new house numbers was observed in the Municipality of Logatec, which in recent years has become a pop-
ular settlement area, especially for young families. Due to the lower prices of real estate compared to the municipalities close to the City of Ljubljana and the still acceptable distance to the capital, these families decide to live in the Municipality of Logatec. The demand is followed by the supply of new buildings, either as detached houses or even more notably as apartments sold on the market. A high density of new house numbers was also observed in the municipalities closer to Ljubljana: Komenda, Škofljica, and Dol pri Ljubljani.
As in past decades, construction mainly spread on farmland, but to a smaller extent than it would have if it had not been for the system of protecting the highest-quality farmland (Cof 2005). Unfortunately, this system did not contribute considerably to a planned approach to the expansion of settlements, but in numerous cases even impeded the planned expansion and completion of settlements; consequently, construction spread to swampy and flood-prone areas, the edges of the forest, and forested land. This caused additional spatial problems and the need to introduce additional measures such as flood protection (Cof 2005).
5 Transport situation in the LUR
The settlement development described above had a negative effect especially on transport conditions. The region is characterized by a monocentric spatial structure with Ljubljana's marked predominance as an employment center, and a single-mode transport structure with a marked predominance of cars. The use of public transport is decreasing. It is mainly connected with bus transport, which is not competitive in terms of saving time due to operating on mixed roads and subsequent delays in traffic jams (Strokovne podlage za pripravo... 2008). Several factors that create needs for additional mobility and additional transport flows point to the difficult transport situation. In addition to the suburbanization tendencies already mentioned and the simultaneous socioeconomic transformation of the wider region, the most important among these factors is the accessibility or availability of transport infrastructure. Based on the studies carried out (Bole 2011) it has been established that even the construction of fast main roads (such as freeways) causes greater commuter flows and thus creates new transport flows. Thus during the construction of the freeway network Ljubljana in particular became more accessible in terms of the time required to reach it and thus also the destination of increasing number of commuters, employees, and students. It has been estimated that in 2009 the number of employees not living in Ljubljana and students commuting to Ljubljana was nearly 150,000 (Gabrovec and Bole 2009; Kozina 2010). Improved freeway infrastructure increased mobility especially on those routes where important freeway sections were newly built.
The »dependence« of suburbanized municipalities on commuting to major employment centers has also been proved in other studies (e.g., Bole 2004). The connection between road infrastructure and suburbanization can be inferred from Figure 3, which shows the growth in built-up areas in the LUR by cadastral district from 1999 to 2011.
Figure 4 shows the absolute and relative increase in car traffic on national roads in the LUR. In addition to transit traffic, this increase is most likely connected with increasing commuting by employees and students as well as with mobility for other reasons such as shopping and leisure activities. A decrease in road traffic can be observed on those roads on which traffic was redirected to freeways due to the introduction of toll stickers - for example, on the old Upper Carniolan main road or the Ljubljana-Domžale road. A decrease can also be observed in some less suburbanized rural areas of the LUR, such as the Tuhinj Valley and Dobrepolje.
With regard to increased car traffic it should be noted that at the same time this increase is also notably unsustainable. The data for the City of Ljubljana alone show that the number of passengers in city passenger transport decreased by more than 9% between 2004 and 2008. The decrease in the number of passengers in bus transport between towns was even greater (by approximately 40%) and the number of passengers in railway traffic stagnated. In the same period, the number of cars registered in the entire region increased by nearly 9% (Statistični letopis MOL2009, SI-STAT Data Portal 2011). The modal split in the LUR is unfavorable because, based on the 2003 data, 13% of passengers used public transport, whereas the share of car passengers was 58% (Anketa po gospodinjstvih 2003). These figures show unsustainable mobility modes in the LUR, which primarily depend on the extensive use and low occupancy of cars (1.3 passengers per car) (Anketa po gospodinjstvih 2003; Verovšek 2008).
Legend/Legenda
Growth in personal cars on roads from 2000 to 2009 in % / porast osebnih vozil na cestah med letoma 2000 in 2009 v %
from/od 5001 to/do10000 from/od 10001 to/do 20000
from/od 20001 to/do 40000	Author ofmap content /avtor vsebine zemljevida: David Bole
0	10 km	Authors of the map/Avtorja zemljevida: David Bole, Manca Volk
above/nad 40000	I_I	Source/Vir podatkov: Prometne obremenitve 2000 in 2009
© GIAM ZRC SAZU 2010
Figure 4: Increase in car traffic on LUR roads, 2000-2009.
6 Analysis of selected transport studies and measures in the LUR
The unsustainable development of transport in the region described in the previous section is the result of stagnation or even deterioration of the range of services offered in the public passenger transportation system. In the 1980s and 1990s, no attention was directed to public passenger transport as part of spatial
and transport planning and also no measures were taken at the operative level. The public passenger transport network did not change and a lower demand resulted in gradually smaller supply. Only in the last decade have various studies on public transport begun to be prepared due to increasing transport problems; however, as a rule the ideas presented have not been carried out. In the past five years, individual municipalities have developed individual measures to improve public transport, but these measures were not connected with the suggestions presented in the previous studies. Despite their positive effects, they have certain weaknesses due to which the effect in relation to the funds invested was smaller than it would have been in the case of a tariff integration of all modes of public passenger transport and simultaneous restrictive measures related to car traffic. The selected discussion papers and measures are critically analyzed below also based on the analysis of best practices conducted as part of the Catch-MR project (2012).
In the Spatial Plan of the City of Ljubljana (Prostorska zasnova Mestne občine Ljubljana 2002), the constant growth in car use was first mentioned as a key issue in transport. The plan set the selection of means of transport as a primary transport goal. In planning transport, the authors did not limit themselves only to the territory of the City of Ljubljana, but covered the entire region in their plan, which was the only prudent thing to do given the intense commuting. They envisaged regional rail transport as the backbone of public transport, which would be connected to the city's public transport at primary transfer points. They designed an auxiliary bus transport network, which included tangential routes in addition to radial routes.
In 2009, the Expert Opinion on Managing Public Transport in the LUR was commissioned by the LUR Regional Development Agency. The proposed public passenger transport plan »is based on the introduction of modern rapid transport routes« connecting the intermodal transfer points with Ljubljana's center (Javni promet... 2010, 38). The authors prepared a plan for a network of rapid transport routes and P + R parking areas in several versions. However, they did not prepare a more detailed plan for the bus network in the region, which would make it possible to access the intermodal transfer points. The impression is that the authors envisaged the rapid transport stops to be primarily accessed by cars, and fed to a lesser extent through bus routes. From the viewpoint of sustainable mobility management, the space next to the rapid transport stops is the most suitable for planning new settlement and it would be wasteful to use it for oversized parking areas. P + R parking areas are primarily intended for the residents of smaller remote settlements, in which public passenger transport cannot be effectively organized. Some transport experts thus draw attention to the fact that excessive promotion of the use of P + R parking areas may also reduce the use of regional public transport routes (Nore 2011; Karamychev and van Reeven 2011).
The Ministry of Transport (since 2012 the Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning) manages the project of integrated public passenger transport separately from regional and city planning. The basic goal of the project is the tariff integration of all modes of public passenger transport in Slovenia, which is to be achieved by 2014 at the latest (Projekt Integrirani... 2012). Several discussion papers have been prepared as part of the project, including a paper on the future tariff system (Gabrovec and Kotar 2008; Hočevar, Gabrovec and Anzeljc 2008) and uniform electronic tickets (Fajfar etal. 2011). In addition, an information web portal and a uniform national timetable are being prepared. In contrast to the majority of European countries, in Slovenia the organization of public passenger transport (except in cities) falls under the jurisdiction of the state (Zakon o prevozih... 2006-2011). Due to the top-down approach, expressing local interests and needs is rendered difficult and, because of the slow implementation of the national project described here, some local communities began improving public passenger transportation on their own; however, their measures are usually not aligned with the national project described here and the regional expert opinions.
The Municipality of Dol pri Ljubljani was the first local community in the LUR that gave the initiative for major improvements to public passenger transport (Gabrovec, Lep and Bole 2007; Gabrovec and Bole 2009). At the same time, the frequency of the bus route connecting the municipality with Ljubljana was significantly improved and the price of tickets was lowered. As a result, the number of passengers increased several-fold. A detailed analysis showed that the services offered primarily attracted secondary-school students and to a very small extent employed commuters as well. Based on the survey conducted, it can be concluded that this measure could have had a greater effect if the tariffs had been integrated with city passenger traffic.
Following 2010, the initiative in the region was taken over by the City of Ljubljana, which extended the city passenger traffic routes into the region in cooperation with some neighboring municipalities
(Brezovica, Grosuplje, Ig, Medvode, and Škofljica). In this way, the residents of these municipalities were offered a higher frequency of rides and lower ticket prices. The negative side of the improved range of services is the occasional longer travel times due to the lower speed of travel of city buses compared to regional ones. For residents of some remote settlements, the time of travel was additionally extended because in line with the new bus timetable they have to transfer from an regional bus to a city one, whereas before they had a direct regional bus connection to downtown Ljubljana. In some cases, greater effect could have been achieved by improving the frequency of regional buses and their simultaneous tariff integration with city traffic. This solution could not be carried out due to specific technical and organizational problems. With equal funds invested, this measure, which definitely improved accessibility for numerous residents, could have achieved better results if national and regional officers and politicians had acted in a more concerted manner. The best-practice example from Budapest (Documentation... 2010) shows that introducing direct routes in place of transfers improved service, and eliminating transfer stops made the public space available for other activities.
7 Conclusion
This article presents the inseparable connection between suburbanization and changes in the region's transport system. At the national level, clear centralization of activities in the LUR is underway, whereas simultaneous deconcentration of settlement and, to a smaller extent, economic activities is taking place at the regional level. In such conditions, the needs to travel are great and the data presented in this article show that this travel is increasingly burdening the main arterial roads and the loop around Ljubljana. The increase of »traffic« pressure from the region towards the center of the LUR is further exacerbated by the negative tendencies regarding the use of public passenger transport, especially buses.
The »mixture« of the processes mentioned above is also typical of other highly urbanized regions in Europe. They all face the fact that in the functional and spatial sense urban regions tend to be increasingly organized as a network and in a way they decentralize. In and of itself, this process is not wrong or harmful if it does not lead to excessive dispersion of settlement and other activities, and thus consequently to a dispersion of traffic flows and unsustainable mobility patterns. Unfortunately the data show that this is precisely what is happening in the LUR: traffic flows are increasing together with unsustainable forms of mobility, which causes numerous spatial, ecological, healthcare, and other problems.
This article critically evaluates the selected transport studies and especially measures in the LUR, whose main goal was to improve the public passenger transport system and mobility within the region in general. The main finding is that the biggest problem in the LUR is legal and political because only national and local institutions are responsible for public passenger transport. The absence of the regional level of making decisions about transport planning (as well as spatial planning) seems to be a considerable obstacle because it does not take into account the actual state of affairs and the interconnection of the city and its peri-urban space within the region. The public passenger transport measures taken in the LUR are thus limited to individual attempts - which are actually praiseworthy - such as extending the city routes into settlements surrounding the city, but they are not harmonized and part of a wider regional public passenger transport system.
From the viewpoint of integrated planning (of public passenger transport) the new conditions in the region should therefore be acknowledged and taken into account, and the principles of integrated settlement and transport planning should be followed in the future. The German spatial planner Sieverts (2003) claims that planners must finally abandon their concepts of an old, compact, and monocentric city and take into account the more recent, regional aspect of the city. A city is actually a region, and transport, urban, landscape, and spatial planning is actually regional planning. This same fact should also be presented to Slovenian planning professionals. An urban region such as the LUR should be developed in a more polycentric and less dispersed manner, also by introducing and building an effective public passenger transport system. Settlement and economic activities should be concentrated along public-transport corridors, which would make it possible to link them to the center. This ultimately has to do with the realization of the principles of a polycentric or regional city, which links suburbanization and related traffic flows with selected major urban centers in the peri-urban area. This enables more harmonized and sustainable development within the region.
These principles are mentioned in some spatial documents, studies, and plans (e.g., Prostorska zasnova ... 2002). However, the absence of jurisdiction and instruments of regional organization and planning of public passenger transport in particular makes it impossible to move from a »declarative« to a de-facto implementation of the principles of comprehensive urban region development.
8	Acknowledgments
This article was prepared as part of the Catch-MR (Interreg 4C) project, which is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Slovenian Government Office for Local Government and Regional Policy, as well as part of the postdoctoral project Transport Land Use: Changes and Influence on Everyday Life, financed by the Slovenian Research Agency.
9	References
Anketa po gospodinjstvih: raziskava potovalnih navad prebivalcev ljubljanske regije 2003: URBI d. o. o.,
PNZ d. o. o., Ninamedia d. o. o. Ljubljana. Bole, D. 2004: Daily mobility of workers in Slovenia. Acta Geographica Slovenica 44-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS44102
Bole, D. 2008: Ekonomska preobrazba slovenskih mest. Geografija Slovenije 19. Ljubljana. Bole, D. 2011: Spremembe v mobilnosti zaposlenih: primerjalna analiza mobilnosti delavcev v največja zaposlitvena središča Slovenije med letoma 2000 in 2009. Acta Geographica Slovenica 51-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS51104 Catch-MR, 2012. Internet: http://www.catch-mr.eu/ (21.3.2012).
Cof, A. 2005: Vplivi širjenja pozidanih zemljišč na krajinske kakovosti prostora v Ljubljanski urbani regiji v obdobju 1951-2002. Urbani izziv 16. Ljubljana. Documentation of the Budapest workshop, 2010. Internet: http://www.catch-mr.eu/public/DB_Data/files/
Downloads/documentation_final_02_07.pdf (21.3.2012). Drozg, V. 1996: Urejanje prostora z vidika razpršene gradnje. Raziskovalno poročilo. Inštitut za geografijo. Ljubljana.
Drozg, V. 2006: Regijsko mesto Maribor. Revija za geografijo 1-1. Maribor.
Fajfar, D., Podobnik, V., Šuntar, A., Genjac, A., Zrimc, K., Obradovic, A., Ahlin, B., Kranjec, P., Žagavec, D., Matajič, M., Ponikvar, K., Bolha, V., Hočevar, M., Zajc, T., Jemenšek, B., Žagar, M., Miklavžin, V., Duric, A., Samec, M., Tkalec, V. 2011: Oblikovanje standarda za enotno elektronsko vozovnico. Končno poročilo, IGEA, Prometni inštitut, Logiteh. Ljubljana. Friedmann, J. 1966: Regional development policy. A case study of Venezuela. Cambridge. Friedrichs, J. 1975: Soziologische Ananlyse der Bevolkerugs-Suburbanisierung. Veröfentlichungen der
Akademie fur Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Band 102. Hannover. Gabrovec, M., Bole, D. 2009: Dnevna mobilnost v Sloveniji. Georitem 11. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M., Kotar M. 2008: Izdelava conskega sistema v Republiki Sloveniji. Končno poročilo, Agencija za promet. Ljubljana.
Gabrovec, M., Lep, M., Bole, D. 2007: Analysis of Commuter Responses to Extensive Changes in Public Transpost Supply - A Case Study of Dol pri Ljubljani/Slovenia. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering 15-1. Bratislava.
Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije 2011: Zbirni podatki rabe zemljišč po katastrskih občinah Slovenije
med letoma 1999 in 2011. Interno gradivo. Ljubljana. Heineberg, H. 2007. Einführung in die Antropogeographie/Humangeographie. 3. Auflage. Paderborn. Hočevar M., Gabrovec, M., Anzeljc, V. 2008: Izdelava tarifnega sistema javnega potniškega prometa
v Republiki Sloveniji. Končno poročilo, Agencija za promet. Ljubljana. Javni promet v Ljubljanski urbani regiji, 2010. Ljubljana.
Karamychev, V., van Reeven, P. 2011: Park-and-ride: Good for the city, good for the region? Regional Science
and Urban Economics 41-5. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.106/j.regsciurbeco.2011.03.002 Kozina, J. 2010: Transport accessibility to regional centres in Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS50203
Nared, J. 2007: Prostorski vplivi slovenske regionalne politike. Geografija Slovenije 16. Ljubljana.
Nore, N. 2010: Park & Ride in Oslo & Akershus. Internet: http://www.catch-mr.eu/public/DB_Data/files/ Downloads/Park_and_ride_Oslo_BudapestNov2010.pdf (21.3.2012).
Pečar, J. 2011: Poslovanje gospodarskih družb v letih 2008 in 2009 - regionalni pregled. Delovni zvezek 20-1. Ljubljana.
Projekt Integrirani javni potniški promet, 2012. Internet: http://213.250.33.136/en/web/guest/52 (23.3.2012).
Prometne obremenitve cest 2000 in 2009: Direkcija RS za ceste. Ljubljana. Internet: http://www.dc.gov.si/si/ delovna_podrocja/promet/ (22.3.2012).
Prostorska zasnova Mestne občine Ljubljana, 2002. Mestna občina Ljubljana, Oddelek za urbanizem. Ljubljana.
Ravbar, M. 1997: Slovene cities and suburbs in transformation. Geografski zbornik 37. Ljubljana.
Ravbar, M. 1999: Graditev stanovanj in sosesk. Mesta in urbanizacija v Sloveniji. Zbirka urejeno in sonaravno št. 3. Ljubljana.
Ravbar, M. 2007: Geografija človeških virov v Sloveniji - pomen ustvarjalnih socialnih skupin za regionalni razvoj. Geografski vestnik 79-2. Ljubljana.
Ravbar, M. 2009: Economic geographical assessment of investments - a development factor in regional development. Acta geographica Slovenica 49-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS49105
Ravbar, M. 2011: Creative social groups in Slovenia: contribution to geographic studying of human resources. Acta geographica Slovenica 51-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS51204
Ravbar, M., Bole, D., Nared, J. 2005: A creative milieu and the role of geography in studying the competitiveness of cities: the case of Ljubljana. Acta Geographica Slovenica 45-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS45201
Sieverts, T. 2003: Cities without cities. London.
SI-STAT Data Portal, 2012. Statistični urad Republike Slovenije. Internet: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/ statfile2.asp (19.3.2012).
Statistični letopis MOL 2009: Mestna občina Ljubljana. Ljubljana.
Strokovne podlage urejanja javnega prometa v regiji, 2009. Končno poročilo, Omega consult. Ljubljana.
Strokovne podlage za pripravo Regionalnega prostorskega načrta Ljubljanske urbane regije, 2008. Povzetek zaključnega poročila za ključni aktivnosti št. 1 in 2. Urbanistični inštitut Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. Internet: http://rralur-prostor.uirs.si/dokumenti/Porocila%20projekta/Zaključna%20poročila/ SPRPN%20LUR_zaključno%20poročilo%20za%20ključni%20aktivnosti%20št.%201%20in%202_povz etek_15102008.pdf (16.3.2012).
Verovšek, Š. 2008: Prometa urbanega območja Ljubljane in Münstra. Dela 29. Ljubljana.
Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu. Uradni list Republike Slovenije 131/2006, 5/2007, 123/2008, 28/2010, 49/2011. Ljubljana.
Celostno načrtovanje javnega potniškega prometa med mestom in regijo na primeru Ljubljane
DOI: 10.3986/AGS52106
UDK: 911.375:656.025.2(497.4Ljubljana)
COBISS: 1.01
IZVLEČEK: V prispevku želimo opozoriti na povezanost prometnega načrtovanja s poselitvenim vzorcem in posledično na potrebo po celostnem načrtovanju obeh - poselitvenega in prometnega sistema. Osredotočili smo se zlasti na suburbanizacijo Ljubljane in stanje na področju javnega potniškega prometa v Ljubljanski urbani regiji, v tej luči pa smo skušali osvetliti nekatere aktualne prometne študije in ukrepe. Analiza je pokazala potrebo po celovitem načrtovanju, ki bi jo lahko udejanjili v obliki koncepta policentrične zasnove regije z medsebojno prepletenimi središči kot poglavitnimi nosilci bivalnih in gospodarskih funkcij.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija prometa, Ljubljanska urbana regija, regionalno planiranje, javni potniški promet, celostno načrtovanje
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 26.3.2012.
NASLOV: dr. David Bole
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
dr. Matej Gabrovec
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: matej@zrc-sazu.si
dr. Janez Nared
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si
dr. Nika Razpotnik Viskovic
Geografski inštitut Antona Melika
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-pošta: nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si
Vsebina
1	Uvod	158
2	Metode	158
3	Ljubljana in njena metropolitanska regija	158
4	Suburbanizacija in širjenje poselitve v LUR	159
5	Prometna situacija v LUR	160
6	Presoja izbranih prometnih študij
in ukrepov v LUR-u	161
7	Sklep	162
8	Zahvala	163
9	Literatura	163
1	Uvod
Prometno načrtovanje je močno odvisno od poselitvene sestave. Zato suburbanizacija, ki je slovenska mesta zajela v zadnjih desetletjih 20. stoletja (Ravbar 1997), odpira številna vprašanja učinkovite dnevne mobilnosti in prometne povezanosti suburbaniziranih naselij z zaposlitvenimi območji. S tega vidika je v Sloveniji zagotovo najpomembnejše dogajanje v Ljubljanski urbani regiji (v nadaljevanju LUR), kjer se je v preteklosti osredotočila gospodarska, zaposlitvena, ustvarjalna, finančna in politično-upravna moč (Bole 2004 in 2008; Nared 2007; Ravbar 2007, 2009 in 2011; Ravbar, Bole in Nared 2005). Žal centralizacija dejavnosti in suburbanizacija nista bili povezani s celovitim prometnim načrtovanjem. Ob povečani motorizaciji so bile naložbe usmerjene predvsem v gradnjo avtocestnega križa, manj pa v vzpostavitev in spodbujanje učinkovitega javnega potniškega prometa. Omenjeno se je odrazilo v povečani dnevni mobilnosti zaposlenih, zaradi slabšega javnega prometa pa se je povečan pretok odrazil zlasti v vse pogostejši rabi osebnih avtomobilov, posledično pa v izrazitih prometnih konicah ter povečanih potrebah po parkirnih površinah. Zaradi negativnih vplivov, ki jih je ta razvoj imel na kakovost življenja v ljubljanski (kot tudi ostalih metropolitanskih regijah), so vse bolj aktualne razprave o možnih rešitvah.
V	prispevku predstavljamo vlogo LUR-a kot metropolitanske regije ter suburbanizacijo v preteklih desetletjih in s tem povezan razvoj prometne infrastrukture oziroma zlasti javnega potniškega prometa kot nujnega predpogoja za učinkovito dnevno mobilnost med metropolo (Ljubljano) in njenim zaledjem. Cilj prispevka je na podlagi opravljenih analiz prometa in prostorskega razvoja presoditi, ali so obstoječi prometni ukrepi na ravni LUR ustrezni.
2	Metode
Intenzivnost suburbanizacije smo analizirali s pomočjo podatkov o novih stanovanjskih površinah med letoma 2002 in 2010, ki jih na ravni občin zbira Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, podatkov iz evidence hišnih številk med letoma 2005 in 2011 ter podatkov o rasti pozidanih površin, ki jih je na ravni katastrskih občin zbrala Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Med pozidane površine smo vključili vse vrste rabe tal s šiframi od 200 do 399, ki vključujejo stavbe, prometno infrastrukturo, parke, stavbišča in podobno. Povečanje prometa na državnih cestah smo analizirali s pomočjo podatkov o štetju prometa leta 2000 in 2009. Na karti niso prikazane ceste nižjih kategorij (občinske) ter nekateri drugi odseki cest, ki bodisi niso obstajali v tem časovnem obdobju (na primer odsek avtoceste proti Trojanam) bodisi so imeli pomanjkljive podatke.
V	zadnjem poglavju smo različne strokovne študije in ukrepe s področja javnega potniškega prometa v LUR-u primerjali z dokumentiranimi primeri dobrih praks (Catch-MR 2012). Ob tem smo ocenili njihove prednosti in slabosti in nakazali možnosti boljših rešitev.
3	Ljubljana in njena metropolitanska regija
LUR je imela leta 2011 po podatkih Statističnega urada Republike Slovenije 533.213 prebivalcev (SI-STAT podatkovni portal 2012), kar predstavlja 26 % prebivalstva Slovenije. V zadnjih desetih letih se je število prebivalcev v regiji povečalo za dobrih 43.000 oziroma nekaj manj kot 8,8 %. V Mestni občini Ljubljana (MOL) živi 279.898 prebivalcev - 13,6 % slovenskega prebivalstva in več kot polovica vseh prebivalcev LUR-a.
Ljubljana je bila pomembno središče že pred osamosvojitvijo, po njej pa je svojo vlogo še povečala in nase navezala obsežno funkcijsko odvisno zaledje. Zaradi umeščanja različnih državnih ustanov je postala privlačno zaposlitveno območje, kjer so se poleg upravnih delovnih mest začela zgoščati tudi delovna mesta v gospodarstvu, zlasti storitvah. Tako je imela Ljubljana leta 2011 kar 205.246 delovno aktivnih prebivalcev (LUR v istem času 274.643) ali skupno četrtino vseh delovno aktivnih v državi (LUR približno eno tretjino) (SI-STAT podatkovni portal 2012). Na podlagi vodilne vloge Ljubljane je Ravbar (1997) LUR-u pripisal metropolitanski značaj.
Leta 2009 je v regiji poslovalo 24.191 gospodarskih družb (skoraj 45 % vseh gospodarskih družb Slovenije), ki so zaposlovale 178.911 delavcev (37,3 % zaposlenih v gospodarskih družbah v Sloveniji). V njih so ustvarili 43,2 % dodane vrednosti Slovenije, od tega skoraj 70 % v storitvenih dejavnostih, 23 % v in-
dustriji, 7 % v gradbeništvu in 0,2 % v kmetijstvu. V Ljubljani je poslovalo dobrih 70 % vseh gospodarskih družb regije, ki zaposlujejo nad 78 % zaposlenih v gospodarskih družbah regije in ustvarijo okoli 83 % dodane vrednosti regije. Obenem to pomeni tretjino vseh slovenskih gospodarskih družb, okoli 30 % zaposlenih v njih in 36 % ustvarjene dodane vrednosti (Pečar 2011, 34 in 35).
Proces izrazite centralizacije dejavnosti lahko razumemo kot logično posledico vzpostavljanja novih oblastnih struktur, kar je pomembno z vidika krepitve pomena Ljubljane v širšem evropskem prostoru, pa tudi kot upravno-politično pogojeno prevlado glavnega mesta nad ostalimi slovenskimi središči, kar z vidika skladnega in uravnoteženega regionalnega razvoja pomeni korak nazaj, zlasti če bi upoštevali Fried-mannov središčno-periferni model gospodarsko-prostorskega razvoja (Friedmann 1966, citirano po: Heineberg 2007, 113). Močna centralizacija se namreč ne odraža le v gospodarskih razmerah. Tako Rav-bar (2011) na primer ugotavlja, da je v LUR-u izrazita koncentracija ustvarjalnih poklicev (pri čemer se povečuje delež teh v Ljubljani), pa tudi velik del naložbenih aktivnosti, saj sta bili med letoma 2000 in 2006 na območju s četrtinskim deležem prebivalstva in dobro tretjino delovnih mest zabeleženi kar dve petini vseh slovenskih investicij (Ravbar 2009, 170).
4 Suburbanizacija in širjenje poselitve v LUR
Naselja znotraj mestne regije družita zlasti živahna dnevna mobilnost prebivalstva in skladen razvoj prometne infrastrukture, vključno z javnim potniškim prometom. Značilni so tudi rast števila delovnih mest in števila prebivalcev v suburbaniziranih naseljih ter razvoj neagrarnih dejavnosti (Drozg 2006). S subur-banizacijo lastnosti nekdanjega kompaktnega mesta postajajo vse bolj značilne tudi za obmestje v fizičnem, socialnem in gospodarskem smislu (Drozg 2006, 14). O tem procesu kot problemu govorimo predvsem takrat, ko širjenje poselitve poteka nenačrtovano, stihijsko. Posledično se soočamo z nesmotrno rabo prostora, izgubljanjem kakovostnih kmetijskih zemljišč in zemljišč, pomembnih za varovanje naravnih vrednot in naravnih virov, visokimi stroški za infrastrukturno in komunalno opremljanje, selitvijo osrednjih urbanih dejavnosti v primestni prostor, onesnaževanjem okolja in izgubljanjem pokrajinske identitete (Cof 2005; Ravbar 1999; Drozg 1996; Friedrichs 1975).
V LUR-u po ugotovitvah Cofove (2005) obsežnejšo pozidavo zemljišč z individualnimi družinskimi hišami beležimo v obdobju od 1951-1975, predvsem na območju občin Domžale, Mengeš, Komenda, Grosuplje in Brezovica. Gradnja se je širila zlasti na obrobjih naselij, vzdolž prometnic med naselji in na oddaljenih zemljiščih zunaj strnjenih naselij. Med letoma 1975 in 1985 se je najbolj intenzivno gradilo na območju občin Trzin, Domžale in Komenda, med 1985 in 2002 pa v občinah Domžale, Mengeš, Vodice, Dol pri Ljubljani, Ig, Grosuplje in Škofljica, še posebej vzdolž prometnic in ob avtocestnih priključkih.
Gradnja stanovanj se nadaljuje tudi po letu 2002; opazimo lahko, da vsa območja v LUR-u ne beležijo enake intenzitete novih gradenj (slika 1). Analiza števila in površin novih stanovanj na podlagi podatkov Statističnega urada Republike Slovenije za obdobje 2002-2010 kaže, da je bilo največ m2 stanovanjskih površin na km2 površine občine zgrajenih v MOL-u in Komendi ter v občinah, ki so v neposredni bližini Ljubljane: Škofljica, Vodice, Medvode, Trzin, Dol pri Ljubljani, Grosuplje, Vrhnika in Domžale.
Slika 1: Površina novih stanovanj (v m2) na km2 površine občine v obdobju 2002-2010, LUR. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Analizirali smo tudi evidenco hišnih številk, primerjali smo leti 2005 in 2011. Centroid hišne številke je določen s centroidom stavbe, ki ji pripada. Pri tem moramo omeniti, da je v primeru, ko ima stavba določenih več hišnih številk, vsaki hišni številki določen svoj centroid, praviloma blizu vhoda v stavbo, ki ga označuje. Tudi v tem primeru smo za lažjo predstavo izračunali število novih hišnih številk na km2 površine občine, rezultate pa prikazujemo na sliki 2. Najvišjo gostoto novih hišnih številk smo zabeležili v občini Logatec, ki je v zadnjih letih postala priljubljeno priselitveno območje predvsem mladih družin. Le-te se zaradi nižjih cen nepremičnin v primerjavi z občinami v bližini MOL-a ter še vedno sprejemljive oddaljenosti od prestolnice odločajo za bivanje v občini Logatec. Povpraševanju sledi tudi ponudba novogradenj, tako v obliki individualne gradnje, še bolj izrazito pa v obliki prodaje stanovanj na trgu. Višjo gostoto novih hišnih številk smo zasledili še v občinah bližje Ljubljani: Komenda, Škofljica in Dol pri Ljubljani.
Pozidava se je, tako kot v preteklih desetletjih, širila pretežno na območju kmetijskih zemljišč, vendar v manjšem obsegu, kot bi se, če ne bi bil v veljavi sistem varovanja najkakovostnejših kmetijskih zemljišč
(Cof 2005). Žal pa omenjeni sistem ni dosti pripomogel k načrtnemu pristopu širjenja naselij, ampak je v številnih primerih celo zaviral načrtno širjenje in zaokroževanje naselij, pozidava pa se je posledično širila na močvirnata in poplavna zemljišča, na gozdni rob in gozdna zemljišča. S tem so nastali dodatni prostorski problemi in potrebe po dodatnih ukrepih, kot je na primer protipoplavna zaščita (Cof 2005).
Slika 2: Število novih hišnih številk v obdobju 2005-2011 na km2 površine občine, LUR. Glej angleški del prispevka.
5 Prometna situacija v LUR-u
Predstavljeni naselbinski razvoj je neugodno vplival zlasti na prometne razmere. Za regijo sta namreč značilni monocentrična prostorska struktura z izrazito prevlado Ljubljane kot zaposlitvenega središča in enomodalna prometna struktura z izrazito prevlado potovanj z osebnim avtomobilom. Uporaba javnega prevoza upada. Le-ta je večinoma vezan na avtobusni promet, ki pa zaradi obratovanja na mešanih voznih površinah in posledično vključenostjo v zastoje ter vezanostjo na progo in postajališča ni časovno konkurenčen (Strokovne podlage za pripravo ... 2008). Na težavne prometne razmere kaže več dejavnikov, ki ustvarjajo potrebe po dodatni mobilnosti in dodatnih prometnih tokovih. Med njimi je poleg omenjenih suburbanizacijskih teženj in hkratne socialno-ekonomske preobrazbe širše regije najpomembnejša dosegljivost oziroma opremljenost s prometno infrastrukturo. Na podlagi opravljenih raziskav (Bole 2011) je bilo ugotovljeno, da lahko že sama izgradnja hitrih prometnic (na primer avtoceste) povzroča večjo dnevno mobilnost in s tem ustvarja nove prometne tokove. Tako je ravno Ljubljana v obdobju izgradnje avtocestnega križa postala časovno bolj dostopna in s tem cilj vse večjemu številu dnevnih vozačev, delavcev in šolarjev. Ocenjeno je, da je bilo leta 2009 število »neljubljanskih« delavcev in šolajočih, ki dnevno potujejo v Ljubljano, skoraj 150.000 (Gabrovec in Bole 2009; Kozina 2010). Z izboljšanjem avtocestne infrastrukture je narasla mobilnost zlasti na tistih relacijah, kjer so se dogradili pomembni avtocestni odseki.
»Odvisnost« bolj suburbaniziranih občin od dnevne vožnje v večja zaposlitvena središča je bila dokazana v drugih raziskavah (na primer Bole 2004). Na povezanost cestne infrastrukture in suburbanizacije lahko sklepamo na podlagi slike 3, kjer je prikazana rast pozidanih površin v LUR-u po katastrskih občinah med letoma 1999 in 2011.
Slika 3: Rast pozidanih površin po katastrskih občinah LUR-a med letoma 1999 in 2011. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Slika 4 kaže absolutno in relativno povečanje prometa z osebnimi vozili na državnih cestah v LUR-u. Poleg tranzitnega prometa je to povečanje najbrž povezano z vse večjo dnevno mobilnostjo zaposlenih in šolarjev, pa tudi mobilnostjo iz drugih vzrokov, kot sta nakupovanje in preživljanje prostega časa. Upad cestnega prometa je viden na tistih cestah, kjer se je najbrž zaradi uveljavitve vinjetnega sistema promet preusmeril na avtoceste - na primer na stari gorenjski magistralni cesti ali cesti iz Ljubljane proti Domžalam. Upad pa je viden tudi na nekaterih podeželskih območjih LUR-a, ki so manj suburbanizirana, kot na primer Tuhinjska dolina in Dobrepolje.
Slika 4: Povečanje prometa z osebnimi vozili na cestah LUR-a med letoma 2000 in 2009. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Ob povečanju osebnega prometa je treba opozoriti, da ima to povečanje hkrati izrazito netrajnosten način. Samo podatki za MOL kažejo, da je število potnikov med letoma 2004 in 2008 v mestnem potniškem prometu upadlo za več kot 9 %. Upad potnikov v medkrajevnem avtobusnem prometu je bil še izrazitejši (za okoli 40 %), število potnikov v železniškem prometu pa je stagniralo. V istem času se je v celotni regiji število registriranih osebnih motornih vozil povečalo za skoraj 9 % (Statistični letopis MOL 2009, SI-STAT podatkovni portal 2011). Izbira prevoznega sredstva (modal split) v LUR-u je neugodna, saj se je po podatkih iz leta 2003 z javnim prometom peljalo 13 % potnikov, medtem ko je bil delež potnikov v avtomobilih 58% (Anketa po gospodinjstvih 2003). Te številke izkazujejo netrajnostne načine mobilnosti v LUR-u, ki so pogojene zlasti z obsežno uporabo in nizko zasedenostjo (1,3 potnika na avtomobil) avtomobilov (Anketa po gospodinjstvih 2003, Verovšek 2008).
6 Presoja izbranih prometnih študij in ukrepov v LUR-u
Netrajnostni razvoj prometa v regiji, ki je opisan v prejšnjem poglavju, je posledica stagniranja oziroma celo nazadovanja ponudbe javnega potniškega prometa. V osemdesetih in devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja se javnemu potniškemu prometu ni posvečalo nobene pozornosti niti pri prostorskem niti pri prometnem načrtovanju, prav tako ni bilo nobenih ukrepov na operativni ravni. Omrežje javnega potniškega prometa se ni spreminjalo, zaradi manjšega povpraševanja pa se je postopoma zmanjševala tudi ponudba. Šele v zadnjem desetletju so se zaradi naraščajočih prometnih težav začele pripravljati različne študije s področja javnega prometa, vendar pa ideje praviloma niso bile realizirane. V zadnjih petih letih so posamezne občine zastavile posamezne ukrepe izboljšav javnega potniškega prometa, vendar ti ukrepi niso bili povezani s prometnimi zasnovami predhodnih študij. Kljub pozitivnim učinkom so imeli posamezne slabosti, zaradi katerih je bil učinek glede na vložena finančna sredstva manjši, kot bi lahko bil v primeru tarifne integracije vseh oblik javnega potniškega prometa in hkratnih omejitvenih ukrepih osebnega prometa. V nadaljevanju kritično analiziramo izbrane strokovne naloge in ukrepe, pri čemer se opiramo tudi na analizo dobrih praks, ki smo jo opravili v okviru projekta Catch-MR (2012).
V	Prostorski zasnovi Mestne občine Ljubljana (2002) je prvič kot ključni problem na področju prometa navedena stalna rast uporabe osebnih motornih vozil. Kot primarni cilj na področju prometa je postavila spreminjanje izbire prometnega sredstva. Avtorji se pri načrtovanju prometa niso omejili na ozemlje mestne občine, ampak so s prometno zasnovo posegli na celotno regijo, kar je glede na intenzivno dnevno mobilnost edino smiselno. Kot hrbtenico javnega prometa so predvideli regionalno železnico, ki se bo z mestnim javnim prometom povezovala na primarnih prestopnih točkah. Zasnovali so dopolnilno omrežje avtobusnega prometa, ki je vsebovalo poleg radialnih tudi tangencialne linije.
V	letu 2009 so bile po naročilu Regionalne razvojne agencije LUR pripravljene Strokovne podlage urejanja javnega prometa v regiji. Predlagani načrt javnega potniškega prometa »temelji na vzpostavitvi sodobnih hitrih linij«, ki povezujejo intermodalna prestopna mesta s središčem Ljubljane (Javni promet... 2010, 38). Avtorji so pripravili zasnovo omrežja hitrih linij in P + R parkirišč v več različicah. Pogrešamo pa podrobnejšo zasnovo omrežja avtobusnih linij v regiji, ki bi omogočile dostop do intermodalnih prestopnih točk. Vtis je, da avtorji predvidevajo dostop do postajališč hitrih linij predvsem z osebnimi vozili, manj pa z napajalnimi avtobusnimi linijami. Prostor ob postajališčih hitrih linij je z vidika trajnostnega upravljanja z mobilnostjo najprimernejši za načrtovanje nove poselitve in ga je potratno uporabiti za prevelika parkirišča. P + R parkirišča naj bi bila namenjena prvenstveno prebivalcem manjših odmaknjenih naselij, v katera ni mogoče učinkovito organizirati javnega potniškega prometa. Nekateri prometni strokovnjaki zato opozarjajo, da je pretirano spodbujanje uporabe P + R parkirišč lahko tudi zmanjša uporabo regionalnih linij javnega prometa (Nore 2011; Karamychev in van Reeven 2011).
Neodvisno od regijskega in mestnega načrtovanja Ministrstvo za promet (od leta 2012 Ministrstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor) vodi projekt integriranega javnega potniškega prometa. Osnovni cilj projekta je tarifna integracija vseh vrst javnega potniškega prometa v Sloveniji, ki naj bi bila izvedena najkasneje leta 2014 (Projekt Integrirani .2012). V okviru projekta je bilo pripravljenih nekaj strokovnih nalog, med drugim o prihodnjem tarifnem sistemu (Gabrovec in Kotar 2008; Hočevar, Gabrovec in Anzeljc 2008) in enotni elektronski vozovnici (Fajfar in sodelavci 2011). V pripravi pa je informacijski portal in enoten nacionalni vozni red. V nasprotju z večino evropskih držav je v Sloveniji organizacija javnega potniškega prometa (razen mestnega) v državni pristojnosti (Zakon o prevozih ... 2006-2011). Zaradi pristopa od zgoraj navzdol je oteženo izražanje lokalnih interesov in potreb, zaradi počasnosti izvajanja omenjenega državnega projekta pa so se nekatere lokalne skupnosti same lotile izboljšav javnega potniškega prometa, vendar pa njihovi ukrepi praviloma niso usklajeni niti z omenjenim državnim projektom niti z regionalnimi strokovnimi podlagami.
Med lokalnimi skupnostmi v LUR-u je prva dala pobudo za večje izboljšave javnega potniškega prometa občina Dol pri Ljubljani (Gabrovec, Lep in Bole 2007; Gabrovec in Bole 2009). Avtobusni liniji, ki povezuje občino z Ljubljano, so hkrati bistveno izboljšali frekvenco in znižali ceno vozovnic. Dosegli so nekajkraten porast potnikov. Podrobna analiza je pokazala, da je ponudba pritegnila predvsem dijake, v zelo majhni meri pa zaposlene dnevne vozače. Na podlagi anketiranja ocenjujemo, da bi ukrep lahko imel večji učinek v primeru tarifne integracije z mestnim potniškim prometom.
Po letu 2010 je v regiji prevzela pobudo MOL, ki je v sodelovanju z nekaterimi sosednjimi občinami (Brezovica, Grosuplje, Ig, Medvode in Škofljica) podaljšala linije mestnega potniškega prometa v regijo.
Prebivalcem v teh občinah so tako ponudili višjo frekvenco voženj in nižje cene vozovnic. Slaba stran izbolj -šane ponudbe so v nekaterih primerih podaljšani potovalni časi zaradi nižjih potovalnih hitrosti mestnih avtobusov od medkrajevnih. Prebivalcem posameznih bolj oddaljenih naselij se je potovalni čas dodatno podaljšal, ker morajo skladno z novim voznim redom prestopati z medkrajevnega avtobusa na mestni, prej pa so imeli neposredno povezavo z medkrajevnim avtobusom do središča Ljubljane. V nekaterih primerih bi lahko boljši učinek dosegli z izboljšanjem frekvence medkrajevnih avtobusov in njihovo hkratno tarifno integracijo z mestnim prometom. Take rešitve ni bilo mogoče izvesti zaradi nekaterih tehničnih in organizacijskih težav. Ukrep, ki je nedvomno izboljšal dostopnost številnim prebivalcem, bi lahko ob enakih finančnih vložkih dosegel boljše rezultate v primeru usklajenega delovanja državnih in lokalnih uradnikov ter politikov. Primer dobre prakse iz Budimpešte (Documentation.. .2010) nam na primer pokaže, da so z uvedbo direktnih linij namesto prestopanja izboljšali storitev in pri tem zaradi ukinitve prestopne postaje sprostili javni prostor za druge dejavnosti.
7 Sklep
V članku smo prikazali neločljivo povezanost suburbanizacije s spremembami v prometnem sistemu regije. Na ravni države poteka očitna centralizacija dejavnosti v LUR-u, medtem ko na ravni regije hkrati poteka dekoncentracija poselitve, v manjši meri pa tudi dekoncentracija ekonomskih aktivnosti. Potrebe po potovanjih so v takšnih razmerah velike in podatki v tem prispevku kažejo, da ta potovanja vse bolj obremenjujejo glavne vpadnice in obvoznico okoli Ljubljane. Povečevanje »prometnega« pritiska iz regije proti središču LUR-a pa dodatno povečujejo negativne težnje glede uporabe javnega potniškega prometa, zlasti avtobusnega.
»Zmes« zgoraj omenjenih procesov je značilna tudi za druge visoko urbanizirane regije v Evropi. Vse se soočajo z dejstvom, da se mestne regije v funkcionalnem in prostorskem smislu organizirajo vse bolj mrežno in se na nek način decentralizirajo. Ta proces sam po sebi ni napačen ali škodljiv, če ne vodi v preveliko razpršenost poselitve in drugih aktivnosti in s tem posledično v razpršenost prometnih tokov in netrajnostne vzorce mobilnosti. Žal pa se na podlagi podatkov zdi, da se v LUR-u dogaja ravno to - prometni tokovi naraščajo, netrajnostne oblike mobilnosti prav tako, s tem pa se pojavijo številni prostorski, ekološki, zdravstveni in drugi problemi.
V našem prispevku smo kritično ovrednotili izbrane prometne študije in predvsem ukrepe v LUR-u, ki so imele kot poglavitni ukrep izboljšati sistem javnega potniškega prometa oziroma mobilnosti znotraj regije na splošno. Glavna ugotovitev je, da je poglavitni problem znotraj LUR-a pravno-politične narave, saj imajo pristojnosti v javnem potniškem prometu le ustanove na državni in lokalni ravni. Odsotnost regionalne ravni odločanja o prometnem načrtovanju (in tudi prostorskem!) se izkaže za precejšnjo oviro, saj ne upošteva dejanskega stanja in medsebojne prepletenosti mesta z njegovim obmestnim prostorom znotraj regije. Ukrepi v javnem potniškem prometu v LUR-u so zato omejeni na sicer hvalevredne individualne poskuse (na primer podaljševanje mestnih linij v obmestna naselja), a medsebojno niso usklajeni in niso del širšega, regionalnega sistema javnega potniškega prometa.
Z vidika celovitega načrtovanja (javnega potniškega) prometa bi zato morali sprejeti nove razmere znotraj regij in jih upoštevati, v bodoče pa se zlasti držati načel integriranega načrtovanja poselitve in prometa. Nemški prostorski načrtovalec Sieverts (2003) pravi, da se morajo načrtovalci dokončno posloviti od predstav o starem, strnjenem, enosrediščnem mestu in bolj upoštevati novejši regionalni vidik mesta. Mesto je pravzaprav regija in prometno, urbanistično, krajinsko, prostorsko načrtovanje je pravzaprav regionalno načrtovanje. Z istim dejstvom je treba soočiti tudi slovensko načrtovalsko stroko. Mestno regijo, kot je LUR, je treba tudi s pomočjo izgradnje učinkovitega javnega potniškega prometa razvijati bolj »policentrično« in manj razpršeno. Poselitev in ekonomske dejavnosti bi se morale osredotočati ob javnoprometnih koridorjih in jih na ta način navezati na središče. Pravzaprav gre za udejanjanje načel »policentričnega« ali »regijskega« mesta, ki suburbanizacijo in z njo povezane prometne tokove navezuje na izbrana večja urbana središča v obmestnem prostoru. S tem se omogoča skladnejši in bolj trajnosten razvoj znotraj regije.
Omenjena načela so sicer omenjena v nekaterih prostorskih dokumentih, študijah in prostorskih zasnovah (na primer Prostorska zasnova Mestne občine Ljubljana 2002). A ravno odsotnost pristojnosti in instrumentov regionalne organizacije in načrtovanja javnega potniškega prometa onemogoča preskok iz »deklarativnega« v dejansko udejanjanje načel celovitega razvoja urbane regije.
8	Zahvala
Prispevek je bil pripravljen v okviru projekta Catch-MR (Interreg 4C), ki ga sofinancirata Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj in Služba vlade RS za lokalno samoupravo in regionalno politiko ter in podoktorske-ga projekta Prometna raba tal: spreminjanje in vpliv na vsakodnevno življenje, financiranega s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije.
9	Literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.