Tema. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment (University of Naples)
Not a member yet
806 research outputs found
Sort by
I nuovi tunnel ferroviari del Frejus e del Gottardo: un confronto politico-istituzionale
No full textProjects of the two new railway transalpine tunnel of Frejus and Gothard have similar technical characteristics: an identical length (57 km), a similar cost (10 billion Euros) and the existence of a highway along the same Alpine corridor. But, whilst the new Gothard is now under construction and should become operational in 2017, the new Frejus is at standstill at preliminary phases and has faced a very strong local opposition on the Italian side of the Alps. This difference can be explained by analysing the political and institutional framework of the two projects. The new Swiss tunnel is integrated into a national scheme of transport policy which is based on: the development of a new system of railway infrastructures, which features two new transalpine tunnels (the new Gothard and the Loetschberg); the implementation of a distance-related heavy vehicle fee, which is levied on the basis of total weight, emission level and the kilometres driven; the provision of financial resources to stimulate the transfer of transalpine freight from road to railway. The approval of such a scheme started twenty years ago: it was based on a constitutional decree, implemented through several Federal acts and supported by three confirmatory referenda. The new French-Italian infrastructure is not integrated in any transport policy scheme. The new tunnel is only partially consistent with the overall goals of the European transport policy and the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention (which has not yet been ratified by the Italian Parliament): actually no action for modal shift is envisaged. Moreover, the new tunnel was initially supported by a structured consultative and participative procedure – based on the ‘débat public’ technique – only in France. In Italy this megaproject was not backed by an effective deliberation process, neither at the local nor the national level; on the contrary: it was considered among the strategic projects of the so-called ‘Legge obiettivo’ and therefore it could bypass the ordinary administrative procedures (and the otherwise mandatory environmental impact assessment). The late creation of a consultative committee (the so-called ‘Commissione Virano’) and the implementation of participative procedures have not been always consistent and has not proved valid to stop the fierce opposition to the project.Le nuove gallerie ferroviarie del Frejus e del Gottardo hanno caratteristiche tecnico-economiche simili. Ma, mentre il nuovo San Gottardo è in costruzione e dovrebbe entrare in esercizio nel 2017, il progetto del nuovo Frejus è fermo alle fasi preliminari.Le ragioni di questa differenza sono da attribuire al diverso schema istituzionale e politico in cui le due grandi opere si inseriscono.Il tunnel svizzero è parte di un vasto disegno di politica dei trasporti, finalizzato al potenziamento del trasporto ferroviario e allo spostamento del traffico dalla strada alla ferrovia, anche grazie all’introduzione di una nuova tassa sul traffico stradale di merci. Tale disegno è stato sostenuto da ben tre referendum confermativi.Il tunnel italiano non è integrato in nessuna politica nazionale dei trasporti e si inquadra solo parzialmente nella politica europea dei trasporti e nel Protocollo sui trasporti della Convenzione delle Alpi: esso infatti non è affiancato da misure per lo spostamento del traffico dalla strada alla rotaia. Solo in Francia l'approvazione del progetto ha previsto il ricorso a meccanismi consolidati di partecipazione; in Italia il tardivo – e non sempre coerente – ricorso a tali meccanismi non è stato sufficiente per fronteggiare la persistente opposizione al progetto
Italia 2011: territorio senza politiche, politiche senza territorio
No full textThe paper aims at discussing from a critical perspective the state of art of territorial policies on the national scale, through the political geography approach, interested in the restructuring processes of the role of the State and regional governments, and using the key of de-territorialisation/territorialisation effects of physical infrastructures.The last decades are thus analyzed as a set of missed opportunities for the Italian territorial development, where the central government’s approach has essentially been led by engineering and economical logics, with no ability to take into account the territorial implications of technical choices.The history of spatial planning at national level has proved, in short, a history of broken promises: in spite of exceptional richness and variety of armor urban settlement and regional frameworks of regional economic structures, public action to conduct central level have rarely crossed the issues of territorial expansion and enhancement, and when that occurred, as the experience of Project 80 and in that, therein, regional strategic platforms at MIT initiatives have been undertaken without any real ability to affect the sore spots of our land imbalances in allocation of resources between North and South of the country, "poverty" of equipment of Italian cities, land use and landscape resources increasing over the decades.While Europe is trying - with difficulty - to respond with crosssectoral programming to complex problems, in Italy seem to prevail industry solutions and dominated by a logic "economist" and not territorialized, which actually eludes concrete points raised by the financial crisis and budgetary constraints.This is even more true if you intentionally look through the lens of the geographic infrastructure initiatives undertaken by the central government, after an intense phase of concentration of financial resources in the frame construction of infrastructural base of the peninsula, the issue has undergone variations only technological and economic no capacity for reflection on the relevant territorial implications of the choices made. While in other European countries, the integration between infrastructure development and regional development was seriously taken into care, emphasizing the aspects of "territorial project" - the French experience is, as always, eloquent in this respect - in the last fifteen years, the territorial aspect choices of infrastructure has been sacrificed on the altar of rationality engineering and financial calculations. Far from asserting that these issues are minor, we believe that the dynamics of de-territorialization and selective territorialization generated by the various infrastructure options that require attention, until now, is completely lacking.The paper aims at discussing from a critical perspective the state of art of territorial policies on the national scale, through the political geography approach, interested in the restructuring processes of the role of the State and regional governments, and using the key of de-territorialisation/territorialisation effects of physical infrastructures.The last decades are thus analyzed as a set of missed opportunities for the Italian territorial development, where the central government’s approach has essentially been led by engineering and economical logics, with no ability to take into account the territorial implications of technical choices.The history of spatial planning at national level has proved, in short, a history of broken promises: in spite of exceptional richness and variety of armor urban settlement and regional frameworks of regional economic structures, public action to conduct central level have rarely crossed the issues of territorial expansion and enhancement, and when that occurred, as the experience of Project 80 and in that, therein, regional strategic platforms at MIT initiatives have been undertaken without any real ability to affect the sore spots of our land imbalances in allocation of resources between North and South of the country, "poverty" of equipment of Italian cities, land use and landscape resources increasing over the decades.While Europe is trying - with difficulty - to respond with crosssectoral programming to complex problems, in Italy seem to prevail industry solutions and dominated by a logic "economist" and not territorialized, which actually eludes concrete points raised by the financial crisis and budgetary constraints.This is even more true if you intentionally look through the lens of the geographic infrastructure initiatives undertaken by the central government, after an intense phase of concentration of financial resources in the frame construction of infrastructural base of the peninsula, the issue has undergone variations only technological and economic no capacity for reflection on the relevant territorial implications of the choices made. While in other European countries, the integration between infrastructure development and regional development was seriously taken into care, emphasizing the aspects of "territorial project" - the French experience is, as always, eloquent in this respect - in the last fifteen years, the territorial aspect choices of infrastructure has been sacrificed on the altar of rationality engineering and financial calculations. Far from asserting that these issues are minor, we believe that the dynamics of de-territorialization and selective territorialization generated by the various infrastructure options that require attention, until now, is completely lacking
Sustainable Urban Mobility: Current Strategies and New Challenges for European Cities
Get PDFNel decennio 2001-2010 numerosi passi sono stati compiuti dall’Unione Europea per orientare le città europee verso forme di mobilità sostenibile. Finalità comune alle numerose iniziative messe in campo dall’UE è stata quella di promuovere, soprattutto nelle aree urbane, un aumento della mobilità – indispensabile per lo sviluppo competitivo delle città e per garantire ai cittadini elevate opportunità di accesso alle dotazioni urbane – e una contemporanea drastica riduzione dei significativi costi ambientali che ad essa risultano, a tutt’oggi, associati.Strategie, iniziative e ricerche in ambito europeo sono state orientate, nel corso del decennio 2001-2010, a promuovere una sostanziale limitazione del trasporto individuale su gomma all’interno delle aree urbane e ad incentivare forme di mobilità sostenibile. Più specificamente, strategie e azioni sono state prioritariamente rivolte a: favorire innovazioni relative ai modi e ai mezzi del trasporto urbano; garantire un riequilibrio intermodale all’interno delle aree urbane, favorendo il trasporto pubblico, soprattutto su ferro, e gli spostamenti pedonali e ciclabili; superare la settorialità che ha a lungo caratterizzato la pianificazione dei trasporti, delineando processi di governo basati sull’integrazione tra politiche e strumenti per la pianificazione della città, dei trasporti e dell’ambiente (Galderisi, 2007). A partire dal 2007, l’Unione Europea ha ulteriormente e significativamente intensificato il proprio impegno per una riduzione dei costi ambientali della mobilità urbana: dal Libro Verde sul Trasporto Urbano, al Patto dei Sindaci mirato a coinvolgere attivamente le città europee nel percorso verso la sostenibilità energetica ed ambientale e, ancora, al più recente Libro Bianco sui Trasporti del 2011, numerose sono state le iniziative messe in campo dall’Unione Europea per dare concretezza e operatività agli indirizzi già delineati nel Libro Bianco del 2001.Inoltre, le nuove sfide ambientali che le città, e non solo quelle europee, sono chiamate ad affrontare nel prossimo futuro, dai cambiamenti climatici ai crescenti costi e alla progressiva riduzione del petrolio (prospettiva di lungo termine ma di certo non trascurabile), hanno contribuito a rafforzare la centralità del tema della mobilità urbana anche in ambito scientifico e nuove prospettive di ricerca che inquadrano tale tematica nella più ampia griglia teorica della costruzione di città “resilienti” vanno sempre più chiaramente delineandosi.Pertanto, a partire da una sintetica rassegna delle più recenti iniziative messe in campo dall’Unione Europea per una mobilità urbana sostenibile, il presente contributo focalizza l’attenzione sulla rilevante influenza che il concetto di resilienza sta oggi assumendo nella revisione delle politiche per la mobilità in ambito urbano e, soprattutto, nel fornire una decisiva spinta verso una più efficace integrazione tra governo delle trasformazioni urbane e governo della mobilità.In the decade 2001 – 2010 the European Union has undertaken taken numerous initiatives to guide the European cities toward sustainable mobility.The common purpose of the several initiatives implemented by the EU consisted in increasing, mainly in urban areas, mobility – unavoidable requirement for a competitive development of cities and for assuring better opportunities of access to urban services – and a contemporaneous drastic reduction of the heavy environmental costs that still now are associated with urban mobility.Strategies, initiatives and researches at European level have been addressed, during the decade 2001-2010, to promote a substantial limitation of current car-based mobility inside urban areas and to improve different forms of sustainable mobility.In detail, strategies and acitons have been mainly targeted to:- encourage innovations in the ways and means of urban transport;- assure an intermodal balance inside urban areas, improving public transport, above all rail transport, and pedestrian and bicycle travels;- overcome the segmentation that has long characterized transport planning, outlining governance processes based on the integration between policies and tools for city, transport and environment planning (Galderisi, 2007).Starting from 2007, the European Union has further and significantly increased its engagement in reducing the environmental cost of urban mobility.From the Green Paper on Urban Transport to the Covenant of Mayors aimed to actively involve the European cities in the path towards energy and environmental sustainability and, still, to the recent Transport White Paper 2011, several initiatives have been implemented by the European Union in order to effectively achieve the goals outlined in the White Paper 2001 and to define the future targets.Moreover, the new environmental challenges that the cities, not only the European ones, have to face in the future, from the climate changes to the growing costs and progressive oil reduction (a long-term although not negligible perspective), have helped to strengthen the centrality of urban mobility in scientific field.Besides, new research perspectives that frame the above-said topic of urban mobility into the wider theoretical framework of the “resilient” city are increasingly taking shape.Therefore, starting from a brief survey of the recent initiatives put forward by the European Union for sustainable urban mobility, this contribution focuses on the remarkable role that the concept of resilience plays in the present review of urban mobility policies and, mainly, in providing a decisive push towards an effective integration between governance of urban transformation and governance of mobility
