integrated transport planning in rome · integrated transport planning in rome: accessibility-based...
TRANSCRIPT
Summer School Naples (Italy)19 June 2012
TUD COST Action TU1002Accessibility instruments for planning practice in Europe
Integrated Transport Planning in Rome: accessibility-based evaluation of new
urban developments
Prof. Eng. Agostino NUZZOLO University of Roma “Tor Vergata” – Dept. of Enterprise Engineering
OUTLINE
The case study of the urban area of Rome - characteristics of the study area- the new land-use urban Master Plan (PRG - Piano Regolatore Generale)
The role of transport planning in the urban development- a retrospective outlook toward an integrated approach
Quantitative analysis of the impacts- Land-Use Transport Interactions (LUTI) models: STIT - accessibility analysis
ROME METROPOLITAN AREA (Province)
ROME METROPOLITAN AREA CHARACTERISTICS
ROME METROPOLITAN AREA CHARACTERISTICS
ROME METROPOLITAN AREA CHARACTERISTICSRome Municipality
Employment Residents
City centre 143 605 10% 49 016 1%
Sub-central area 706 675 52% 1 512 138 42%
Peripheral area 247 893 18% 985 650 27%
Urban conurbation 53 413 4% 156 110 4%
Rest of the Province 217 459 16% 895 091 25%
1 369 044 100% 3 598 005 100%
Residents and Employment
city centre + sub-central area = 62% of the total Employment and 43 % of residents
ROME METROPOLITAN AREA CHARACTERISTICS
TRANSPORT SYSTEMRegional rail services structure
TRANSPORT SYSTEMmetro lines
Rome municipalityInternal trips in peak period
TRAVEL DEMAND
• 590.000 trips in peak period (54% car, 12% motorbike , 34% public transport
• Travel demamd highly polarized towards the sub-central and city center 67% of incoming trips
Peak period(7.30-8.30) City center Sub-central area Peripherical
area
Total outcoming
trips
City center 7.688 4.946 1.242 13.877 2%
Sub-central area 30.242 229.755 70399 330.396 56%
Peripherical area 15.119 106.127 123.145 244.391 42%
Total attractedtrips 53.049 340.829 194.787 588.665 100%
9% 58% 33% 100%
• Polycentric development of Rome to decongest the city center
• New dense business districts (“ centralities”) connected to the urban railways
• Integration between urban plans of delocalization/urban-regeneration and the transports investments
INTEGRATED LAND-USE/TRANSPORT PLANNING POLICIES
The Urban Master Plan (PRG) of Rome (2001)
Location of new business districts (Centralità)
Centralità # jobsacilia madonnetta 8 790
alitalia magliana 2 458
anagnina romanina 8 823
bufalotta 11 156
cesano 1 753
euro sud castellaccio 8 125
fiumicino magliana 2 798
la storta 3 688
massimina 3 987
ostiense 6 905
p.te di nona lunghe 6 609
pietralata 10 465
polo tecnologico 22 981
ponte mammolo 1 504
saxa rubra 2 506
tor vergata 16 244
torre spaccata 3 125
Totale 122 577
INTEGRATED LAND-USE/TRANSPORT PLANNING POLICIES
The Master Plan (PRG) of Rome (2001)
PRG-2020 SCENARIONew employment distribution among economic sectors
2001 2020 Diff. %
Commerce 190 360 17% 215 068 18% 24 708 13%
Private services 360 645 33% 416 307 34% 55 662 15%
Public sectors 547 167 50% 589 374 48% 42 207 8%
Total 1 098 172 100% 1 220 749 100% 122 577 11%
locations of the new employments in the new business district (i.e. “centralità”)
PRG-2020 SCENARIO
New housing settlements
PRG-2020 SCENARIO
New transport infrastructures
+ 11 km di metro+ 13 stations
- Line B1 (Bologna-Conca d’Oro) - Line C (S. Giovanni -quartiere Alessandrino)
+ 76 km di metro+ 94 stations
First phase
Total planned
PRG-2020 SCENARIO
THE ROLE OF TRANSPORT PLANNING IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT :
a retrospective outlook toward an integrated approach1970-80• transport planning assume the land use variables (e.g.
population, economic activities, new urban developments) and“derives” the transport demand accordingly
• the “4-stages” approach ActivitiesSpatial
distribution
DEMANDlevel, spatial-distribution,
modal split
TransportNetworks
O-D Matrices
LOS attributes
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The role of transport planning in the urban development :a retrospective outlook toward an integrated approach
1990 - today• The performances of the transportation system are assumed to
affect some land use variables (e.g. distribution of populationand activities, the dwelling prices,…)
• The interactions among Transport and Land-Use variables isexplicitly considered
Land-use/transport Interactions (LUTI) models
TRANSPORT-LAND USE INTERACTION AT METROPOLITAN SCALE
Why it is necessary to forecast the LUTI? 1. to forecast future mobility taking into account spatial
transformation, in particular the one derived from transport supply interventions
2. to evaluate how and how much transport supply interventions, through:• accessibility level increase• commuting cost reduction
can lead spatial transformation towards urban and regional planning objectives ( i.e. towards polycentrism)
ACTIVITY SYSTEM
Land-Use Transport Interactions (LUTI) models
ActivitiesSpatial
distribution
Accessibilityand transport-related costs
DEMANDlevel, spatial-distribution,
modal split
TransportNetworks
O-D Matrices
LOS attributes
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Employment
Residents/Households
Labor market
Housingmarket
How to simulate land use – transport interactions?
LAND USE- TRANSPORT MODELS
• BOYCE (Boyce et al. 1992).
• DELTA (Simmonds, 1999).
• IMREL (Anderstig e Mattsson (1998).
• IRPUD (Wegener, 1998).
• ITLUP (Putman, 1998).
• MEPLAN (Echenique, 1994)
•LILT (Mackett, 1991)
•METROSIM (Anas, 1998)
•TRANUS (de la Barra, 1998)
•URBANSIM (Waddel et al., 1998)
STIT (Nuzzolo e Coppola, 2000)
• Simulation model of Land Use-Transport Interactions
• Developed for STA Spa and applied in the Rome area
• Aimed at forecast long term travel demand as result of transport infrastructural interventions
STIT: the overall modeling architecture
Nuzzolo A., Coppola P. (2005) “S.T.I.T.: a system of mathematical models for the simulation of land-use and transport interactions” Proceedings of European Transport Conference -ETC 2005, Strasbourg (F)
Residents/ workerratios
per zone
Total number of workeplaces in Services
Total number of workplaces in Commerce
O-D matricesby mode and
purpose
Level of service
DEMANDMODELS
level, spatial-distribution,modal split
ASSIGNMENT MODEL
SupplyNetworks
Zonal Accessibility
Model
Input dataOutput data
Nr. of workersper zone
Residential Location Model
Workersper zone
Housesoccupancy rates
ServicesLocation model
CommerceLocation model Workers in Comm.
per zone
Workers in Services per zone
GeneralisedTravel Cost
Residential SurfacesN. of houses
Zonal characteristics
Residentsper zone
Workers in basic activities per zone
Activities occupation
Modal shift (peak hour)
• …
Trips attracted Current
AutoPRGAuto diff% Current
PTPRGPT
diff%
City Center (ZTL)
19 329 14303 -26% 29 871 39 430 32%
Sub-Central area
154 629 132192 -15% 149 357 249 426 67%
peripheral areas
212 614 195605 -8% 19 914 22 105 11%
Total 386 571 342100 -12% 199 143 310 962 56%
Modal shares 66% 52% 34% 48%
IMPACTS FORECASTING
Increase of trip mean lenght
SIMULATION OF THE MASTER PLAN SCENARIOresults
trip meanlenght
Trip meantime
Actual 14.6 30.7
Master Plan
scenario15.9 32.8
9% 5%
trip meanlenght
Trip meantime
Actual 14.6 29.8
Master Plan
scenario 19.1 36.8
31% 14%
trip meanlenght
Trip meantime
Actual 14.7 32.4
Master Plan
scenario12.8 28.9
-13% -11%
Car + motorbike Public transport
% variations of Socio-economic activities
Residents Private services Empl.
CommerceEmpl.
TotalEmpl.
Central areas -1.1% 6.3% 4.5% 2.3%
peripheral areas 6.3% 21.7% 12.4% 47.2%
Total -1.0% 7.4% 5.6% 11.2%
IMPACTS FORECASTING
0.3 - 0.50.1 - 0.30.05 - 0.1 0 - 0.05
Variations %
IMPACTS FORECASTING% variations of Residents
ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS
• Lack of funding to implement the whole plan requires the definition of priorities
• A methodology based on Public Transport accessibility is proposed to identified a ranking among the centralities to be implemented first
ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSISMethodology
• Define the Public Transport accessibility indicators– Passive accessibility of services w.r.t. to
population and to emploees– Active of population towards the workplaces
• Compute the accessibility for the zone belonging to the centralities of the PRG
• Ranking the centralities according to their accessibility (to be used together with other indicators)
Passive Accessibility of the activities located in the generic zone “d” w.r.t. the Population in the study area
o
PT dottoPopdAcc ,exp 21
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS (1)
Zone d
Zone oi
Zone on
Zone o1
…
Travel Times
# of Residents…
where: • Pop(o) is the number of residents in the zone o• ttPT(o,d) is the generalized travel times using Public Transport on the
OD pair (o,d)• 1 and 2 estimated parameters
Passive Accessibility of the activities located in the generic zone “d” w.r.t. the Employees in the study area
o
PT dottoEmpdAcc ,exp 21
THE PTACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS (2)
Zone d
Zone oi
Zone on
Zone o1
…
Travel Times
# of Employees …
where: • Emp(o) is the number of Employees in the zone o• ttPT(o,d) is the generalized travel times using Public Transport on the
OD pair (o,d)• 1 and 2 estimated parameters
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS
THE ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORSThe passive accessibility indicators are equivalent with respect to the objectives of our analysis, due to similar distribution of population and employees among the zones of the study area
Active Accessibility of the residents in a given zone “o” w.r.t. the workplaces in the study area
d
PT dottdjobsoAcc ,exp 21
Zone o
Zone di
Zone dn
Zone d1
…
Travel times
# of jobs…
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS (3)
where: • jobs(d) is the number of workplaces in zone d• ttPT(o,d) is the generalized travel times using Public Transport on the
OD pair (o,d)• 1 and 2 estimated parameters
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY INDICATORS
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS
THE PT ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSISCompute the accessibility for the zone belonging to the
centralities of the PRG
CONCLUSIONS
Land-Use / Transports Interactions models • Land-Use / Transports Interactions models allow to better
estimate the impacts of transport infrastructures on the mobility and network performances
• In facts, LUTI models allow to estimated the relocation of population and certain activities (e.g. commerce and private services) due to the changing transport cost and zonal accessibility
• In this respect the estimated impacts on land use are useful to verify the coherence among transport and territorial planning goals
CONCLUSIONS
PT Accessibility analysis• In the case study presented the PT accessibility analysis has
allowed us to identify a ranking between the zones subjected to new developments
Densification vs. polycentric development• Polycentric development may increase the average distance of
the trips (and therefore the externalities related to road traffic)• This suggest to prioritize the densification of those areas with
higher accessibility more than to develop new “urban poles” in peripheral areas