1 modelling urban sustainability: the propolis experience michael wegener solutions 2004 symposium...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Modelling Urban Sustainability:The PROPOLIS Experience
Michael Wegener
SOLUTIONS 2004 SymposiumCambridge, 15 December 2004
2
The PROPOLIS Project
3
PROPOLIS (2000-2004)
PROPOLIS (Planning and Research of Policies for LandUse and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustainability) was a project of the Key Action “City of the Tomorrow” ofthe 5th RTD Framework of the European Commission.
Objectives
- to research, develop and test integrated land use and transport policy assessment tools and methodologies
- to define sustainable urban strategies and to demon-strate their long-term effects
4
PROPOLIS Partners
- LT Consultants Ltd., Helsinki (Coordinator)- Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund- Spiekermann & Wegener (S&W), Dortmund- University College London, London- Marcial Echenique & Partners Ltd., Cambridge - Trasporti e Territorio srl, Milan- Marcial Echenique y Compañia SA, Bilbao- STRATEC S.A., Brussels.
5
PROPOLIS
Case studycities/models
MEPLAN
MEPLAN
MEPLAN
MEPLAN
TRANUS
TRANUS
IRPUD
6
Bilbao1.1 million pop.
0 5 km
7
Brussels2.9 million pop
0 5 km
80 5 km
Dortmund2.6 million pop
9
Helsinki0.9 million pop
0 5 km
10
Inverness0.1 million pop
0 5 km
11
Naples3.0 million pop
0 5 km
12
Vicenza0.8 million pop
0 5 km
13
The Dortmund Region
14The Dortmund region
15
The Reference Scenario
16
17
18
19
Scenarios
20
Scenarios (1)
000 Reference scenario
111-112 Local investment scenarios111 Public transport investments112 'Dortmund project'
211-219 Car operating costs211 Car operating costs +25%212 Car operating costs +50%213 Car operating costs +100%214 Car operating costs +75%219 Car operating costs +300%
221-222 Parking costs221 Parking costs +50%222 Parking costs +100%
231-232 Cordon pricing231 Cordon pricing 2 €232 Cordon pricing 6 €
21
Scenarios (2)
311-321 Speed limits311 Maximum speed –10% on all roads 321 Maximum speed –20% on local roads
411-421 PT speed and fares411 PT travel time –10%412 PT travel time –5%421 PT fares –50%
511-541 Land use511 Compact city scenario521 Polycentric development541 Urban growth boundary
711-719 Combination scenarios711 Scenarios 214+421712 Scenarios 214+412+421713 Scenarios 214+412+421+521719 Scenarios 219+412+421+541
22Compact city scenario
23Polycentric scenario
24Urban growth boundary scenario
25
Scenario Comparison
26
27
28
29
Synergies between policies
–1.96–0.86+7.26Synergies
–17.61–3.81–23.28–4.96+27.45–11.56–1.93713 (214+412+421+521)
–17.66–4.33–21.32–4.10+20.19–13.69–2.02Total
–18.89
–0.04
+1.62
–0.35
–6.24
–0.05
+1.95
+0.01
–20.98
–0.12
–0.68
–0.46
–3.61
–0.06
–0.42
–0.01
+6.49
+1.15
+11.84
+1.01
–14.77
+0.02
+2.49
–1.43
–2.78
0.00
+0.75
+0.01
214 Car operating costs +75%
412 Public transport travel time –5%
421 Public transportfares –50%
521 Polycentric devel-opment
CO2 No. ofcars
Car- km
Pctcar
Pct public
Trip length
No. oftrips
Difference to Reference Scenario in 2021 (%)Scenario
30
Environmental Impacts
31
Modelling urban sustainability
Aggregate land-use transport model
Zonal data
Aggregate land-use transport model
Zonal environmental impact model
Aggregate land-use transport model
Zonal data
Aggregate land-use transport model
Spatial disaggregation
Spatial disaggregation
Zonal data
Microsimulationland-use transportmodel
Disaggregateenvironmental impact model
Disaggregateenvironmental impact model
No spatial disaggregation
Spatial disaggregationof output
Spatial disaggregationof input
Few impactsLimited feedback
All impactsLimited feedback
All impactsAll feedbacks
PROPOLISILUMASS
32
Micro database
For the synthetic micro database zonal data are allocated to raster cells.
Two steps are performed:
(1) Conversion of polygons to raster cells
The polygons of a land-use map are converted to raster cells and each raster cell is assigned a land-use category.
Land-use categories
Residential high-density
Residential low density
Industrial
Open Space
33Population
34Employment
35Exposure to air pollution
Exposure above guidelines:9.0 percent of SEG 19.2 percent of SEG 28.0 percent of SEG 3
36Exposure to traffic noise
Disturbed by traffic noise:39.8 percent of SEG 134.1 percent of SEG 231.2 percent of SEG 3
37Difference in traffic noise in Reference Scenario 2021 v. 2001
38Difference in traffic noise in Scenario 713 v. Reference Scenario in 2021
39
Evaluation
40
Sustainability
In PROPOLIS, sustainable development consists of three interconnected components:
- ecological or environmental sustainability - social or human sustainability - economic efficiency
41
Sustainability Indicators
Environmental Global climate change
Air pollution
Consumption of natural resources
Environmental quality
Social Health
Equity
Opportunities
Accessibility and traffic
Economic Total net benefit from transport
42
Environmental Indicators
Global climate Greenhouse gases from transportchange
Air pollution Acidifying gases from transportVolatile organic compounds from
transport
Natural Consumption of mineral oil productsresources Land coverage
Need for additional new construction
Environmental Fragmentation of open spacequality Quality of open space
43
Social Indicators
Health Exposure to PM from transport at housing
Exposure to NO2 at housingExposure to traffic noiseTraffic fatalitiesTraffic injuries
Equity Justice of distribution of economic benefits
Justice of exposure to PMJustice of exposure to NO2Justice of exposure to noiseSegregation
Opportunities Housing standardVitality of city centreVitality of surrounding regionProductivity gain from land use
Accessibility Total time spent in trafficand traffic LOS of public transport and slow
modesAccessibility to city centreAccessibility to servicesAccessibility to open space
44
Economic Indicators
Total net benefit Transport investment costsfrom transport Transport user benefits
Transport operator benefitsGovernment benefits from transportTransport external accident costsTransport external emissions costsTransport external greenhouse gases
costsTransport external noise costs
45
Evaluation
The USE-IT module
Indicatorweights
Themeweights
Environmen-tal index
Policyalternatives
46
Environmental quality
Natural resources
Air pollution
Global climate change
Reference scenario in 2021
Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
47
Accessibility
Opportunity
Equity
Health
Reference scenario in 2021
Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
48
Economic Evaluation
Economic evaluations are made in a special module
TRTTRT
49
Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
50
Conclusions
51
Conclusions (1)
The existing level of sustainability will not
be maintained in the base scenario.
Further growth in income will result in
- further spatial decentralisation of residen-ces and workplaces,
- more car ownership,- more and longer trips,- more energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases,
- more traffic noise and air pollution,
- less open space and natural habitats.
52
Conclusions (2)
Transport policies making car travel less attractive (more expensive or slower) are very effective in reducing car mobility and making cities more sustainable.
However, these policies depend on a not too dispersed spatial organisation. In addition, diversified labour markets and different job locations of two-worker households make spatial co-ordination of residences and work-places difficult.
53
Conclusions (3)
Transport policies making public transport more attractive (i.e. faster or less expensive) have only little effect on car mobility.
However, they contribute to further spatial decentralisation of residences and work-places.
54
Conclusions (4)
Land-use policies to increase urban density or mixed land-use or development near pub-lic transport stations without accompanying measures to make car travel less attractive have only little effect on car mobility.
However, these policies are important in the long run as they provide the preconditions for a reduction of car mobility.
55
Conclusions (5)
Policy packages combining policies making car travel less attractive and policies making public transport more attractive and land-use policies to increase urban density and mixed land use are very effective in achieving less car-dependent cities.
56
More information:
PROPOLIS website:http://www.ltcon.fi/propolis
PROPOLIS Final Report:Lautso, K., Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M., Sheppard, I., Steadman, P., Martino, A., Domingo, R., Gayda, S.: PROPOLIS – Planning and Research of Policies forLand Use and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustain-ability. LT Consultants,Helsinki, 2004.
57