1 modelling urban sustainability: the propolis experience michael wegener solutions 2004 symposium...

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