final conference presentation oliver lah 11-12/09/2014

Final conference presentationOliver Lah

11-12/09/2014

SHAPE-IT final conference presentation Slide 2

Contents

• Introduction– Research questions• Policy integration• Policy processes

– Methodology• Case-studies– Findings

• Policy recommendations


Methodology

• Literature review• Interviews with local experts• Catalogue of factors/indicators– Policy integration

Integration vs. effectiveness

– Policy processesInfluential factors vs. successful development and implementationPublic-participatory elements vs. acceptance


Research questions

• Overall:Why are policies successful in some instances, but not in others?

• Sub questions:– Policy integration

Does the integration of policies in their local frameworks affect their effectiveness, and if so, how?

– Policy processesWhat factors influence the successful development and implementation of effective sustainable transport policies and more specifically, do public-participatory elements influence the policies' acceptance and implementation, and if so, how?


Effectiveness?

Policy integration (1)

Policy integration affect

Does…


Policy integration criteria

• Effectiveness– Modal share– Traffic demand– Traffic demand– Public

support/satisfaction– Traffic safety (accidents)– GHG emissions– Noise– Air quality/pollutant

emissions

• Integration– Policy fit– Institutional fit– Institutional

support/opposition– Others…


Successful development &

implementation?

Policy processes (2a)

Influential factors

affect

Which…


Policy processes criteria

• Successful development & implementation– Ambition– Change in ambition

• Influential factors– Actors and their

strategies– Policy brokers/veto

players– Institutional

structures– Situational factors– Nature of the

problem


Public support (& effectiveness)

Policy processes (2b)

Participatory processes

affect

Do…


Policy processes criteria II

• Acceptance and implementation– Public

support/satisfaction

• Public participatory process– Public consultation– Stakeholder

consultation– Public information – Receptiveness


Policy integration

Case studies


Policy processes

Case studies


Munich case studies

Policy integrationTransport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan)• Binding plan for the city’s

transport• Includes commitment to move

away from cars

Policy processesRadlhauptstadt München (cycle-capital Munich)• Cycling promotion/marketing

campaign• Organises many different (types

of) events• Works to improve environment

for and image of cycling• Works with various actors (e.g.

Police, cycling advocacy groups) to


Munich case studies

Source: Radlhauptstadt München


Munich findings

Policy integrationTransport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan)• TDP was part of the overall

urban development plan• Broad consultation with other

stakeholders• Mode-specific

commitments/goals• Clear roles/responsibilities

defined

Policy processesRadlhauptstadt München (cycle-capital Munich)• Cycling promotion/marketing

campaign• Clear goals• Key stakeholders (incl.

potential veto players) involved early on

• Key supporters played a significant role


Netherlands case studies

Policy integrationInterrelation of Dutch LEV laws• Local (Utrecht)• Provincial• National• European• Includes commitment to move

away from cars

Policy processesUtrecht Electric• Enhance sustainable

transport in the city• 200 charging stations• Electrify the city’s fleet (≈60

cars & scooters)• Expand electric transport in

cooperation with businesses


Netherlands findings

Policy integrationTransport Development Plan (Verkehrsentwicklungsplan)• Expectation gap:• National desires uniform policies• Local desires tailor-made policies• Differences in duration, type

and extent of projects/demos• Rigid deadlines/schedules• Difficult application processes

Policy processesUtrecht Electric• Communication • + Cooperation • + Customisation

= Successful roll-out


Findings: The Netherlands

EU

NL

Province

Local Local custom

Stable long-term policy

?!

Successful roll-out

Customisation

Cooperation

Communicatio

n


Swedish case studies

Policy integrationLundaMaTs sustainable urban transport plan (Lund)• PT link LundLink• Bicycle promotion measures• Establishment of a Mobility

Office

Policy processesStockholm congestion charge• Charge on cars to enter

central Stockholm• Trial followed by permanent

system• Subject to significant debate

and controversy• Significant reduction in

congestion within the zone


Stockholm

Source: treehugger.com


Swedish findings

Policy integrationLundaMaTs sustainable urban transport plan (Lund)• Broad stakeholder

consultation in creation• Incl. cross sectoral working

groups• Capacity building was carried

out

Policy processesStockholm congestion charge• Highly complex constellation of

actors • Unclear responsibilities • Lack of central leadership• Progress only made after the

national Road Administration took charge

• Trial was valuable to let residents experience the scheme


Krakow case studies

Policy integrationTeleBus• On-demand bus service• Serves areas with low

population-density (scheduled services too expensive)

Policy processesMobility Forum• Regular meetings in which

Krakovians can communicate with the administration regarding transport issues• Open entry or by invitation

(depending on topic)


Krakow findings

Policy integrationTeleBus• Support from national and EU

level• Locals doubtful: ‘had

something taken away from them’• Not well communicated to

them that TeleBus offered a better service

Policy processesMobility Forum• Supported by Mayor• And Polish Association of

Transport Engineers• Attended by councillors


Policy recommendations

1. Take your policy to all levels2. Break out of the box3. Build bridges, not walls4. Find the sweet spot between policy measures5. Divide the task and multiply the success6. Scout out your stakeholders7. Add stakeholders’ views into the mix8. Take stock of your potential private sector partners9. Shout it from the rooftops

Thank you for your attention!Oliver Lah

[email protected]

final conference presentation oliver lah 11-12/09/2014

Documents

acceptance slide

problem slide

policy integration affect

policy processes case

radlhauptstadt mnchen

significant role slide

communicat ion slide

integration of policies