Kein Folientitel

1
Modelling Urban Sustainability The
PROPOLIS Experience Michael Wegener SOLUTIONS
2004 Symposium Cambridge, 15 December 2004
2
The PROPOLIS Project
3
PROPOLIS (2000-2004) PROPOLIS (Planning and
Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport
for Increasing Urban Sustainability) was a
project of the Key Action City of the Tomorrow
of the 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 (SW), 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 study cities/models
6
Bilbao 1.1 million pop.
7
Brussels 2.9 million pop
8
Dortmund 2.6 million pop
9
Helsinki 0.9 million pop
10
Inverness 0.1 million pop
11
Naples 3.0 million pop
12
Vicenza 0.8 million pop
13
The Dortmund Region
14

The Dortmund region
15
The Reference Scenario
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Scenarios
20
Scenarios (1) 000 Reference scenario 111-112 Local
investment scenarios 111 Public transport
investments 112 'Dortmund project' 211-219 Car
operating costs 211 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 Parki
ng costs 221 Parking costs 50 222 Parking
costs 100 231-232 Cordon pricing 231 Cordon
pricing 2 232 Cordon pricing 6
21
Scenarios (2) 311-321 Speed limits 311 Maximum
speed 10 on all roads 321 Maximum speed 20
on local roads 411-421 PT speed and fares 411
PT travel time 10 412 PT travel time 5 421
PT fares 50 511-541 Land use 511 Compact
city scenario 521 Polycentric development 541
Urban growth boundary 711-719 Combination
scenarios 711 Scenarios 214421 712 Scenarios
214412421 713 Scenarios 214412421521 719
Scenarios 219412421541
22
Compact city scenario
23
Polycentric scenario
24
Urban growth boundary scenario
25
Scenario Comparison
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Synergies between policies
30
Environmental Impacts
31
Modelling urban sustainability
No spatial disaggregation
Spatial disaggregation of output
Spatial disaggregation of input
Zonal data
Zonal data
Zonal data
Aggregate land-use transport model
Aggregate land-use transport model
Aggregate land-use transport model
Aggregate land-use transport model
Spatial disaggregation
Zonal environmental impact model
Spatial disaggregation
Microsimulation land-use transport model
Disaggregate environmental impact model
Disaggregate environmental impact model
Few impacts Limited feedback
All impacts Limited feedback
All impacts All feedbacks
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
33
Population
34
Employment
35
Exposure above guidelines 9.0 percent of SEG
1 9.2 percent of SEG 2 8.0 percent of SEG 3
Exposure to air pollution
36
Disturbed by traffic noise 39.8 percent of SEG
1 34.1 percent of SEG 2 31.2 percent of SEG 3
Exposure to traffic noise
37
Difference in traffic noise in Reference Scenario
2021 v. 2001
38
Difference 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 transport change A
ir pollution Acidifying gases from
transport Volatile organic compounds from
transport Natural Consumption of mineral oil
products resources Land coverage Need for
additional new construction Environmental Fragmen
tation of open space quality Quality of open
space
43
Social Indicators Health Exposure to PM from
transport at housing Exposure to NO2 at
housing Exposure to traffic noise Traffic
fatalities Traffic injuries Equity Justice
of distribution of economic benefits Justice
of exposure to PM Justice of exposure to
NO2 Justice of exposure to noise Segregation
Opportunities Housing standard Vitality of
city centre Vitality of surrounding
region Productivity gain from land
use Accessibility Total time spent in
traffic and traffic LOS of public transport and
slow modes Accessibility to city
centre Accessibility to services Accessibili
ty to open space
44
Economic Indicators Total net benefit Transport
investment costs from transport Transport user
benefits Transport operator benefits Governm
ent benefits from transport Transport external
accident costs Transport external emissions
costs Transport external greenhouse gases
costs Transport external noise costs
45
Evaluation The USE-IT module
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
Economic Evaluation Economic evaluations are
made in a special module
49
(No Transcript)
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.lt
con.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
for Land Use and Transport for Increasing Urban
Sustain- ability. LT Consultants, Helsinki,
2004.
57
(No Transcript)