1 Modelling Urban Sustainability: The PROPOLIS Experience Michael Wegener SOLUTIONS 2004 Symposium Cambridge, 15 December 2004

2 The PROPOLIS Project

3 PROPOLIS ( ) 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 (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 study cities/models MEPLAN TRANUS IRPUD

6 Bilbao 1.1 million pop. 05 km

7 Brussels 2.9 million pop 05 km

8 0 Dortmund 2.6 million pop

9 Helsinki 0.9 million pop 05 km

10 Inverness 0.1 million pop 05 km

11 Naples 3.0 million pop 05 km

12 Vicenza 0.8 million pop 05 km

13 The Dortmund Region

14 The Dortmund region

15 The Reference Scenario

16

17

18

19 Scenarios

20 Scenarios (1) 000Reference scenario Local investment scenarios 111 Public transport investments 112 'Dortmund project' 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% Parking costs 221 Parking costs +50% 222 Parking costs +100% Cordon pricing 231 Cordon pricing Cordon pricing 6

21 Scenarios (2) Speed limits 311 Maximum speed –10% on all roads 321 Maximum speed –20% on local roads PT speed and fares 411 PT travel time –10% 412 PT travel time –5% 421 PT fares –50% Land use 511 Compact city scenario 521 Polycentric development 541 Urban growth boundary Combination scenarios 711 Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios

22 Compact city scenario

23 Polycentric scenario

24 Urban growth boundary scenario

25 Scenario Comparison

26

27

28

29 Synergies between policies –1.96– Synergies –17.61–3.81–23.28– –11.56– ( ) –17.66–4.33–21.32– –13.69–2.02Total –18.89 – –0.35 –6.24 – –20.98 –0.12 –0.68 –0.46 –3.61 –0.06 –0.42 – – –1.43 – Car operating costs +75% 412Public transport travel time –5% 421Public transport fares –50% 521Polycentric devel- opment CO 2 No. of cars Car- km Pct car Pct public Trip length No. of trips 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 Zonal data Microsimulation land-use transport model Disaggregate environmental impact model Disaggregate environmental impact model No spatial disaggregation Spatial disaggregation of output Spatial disaggregation of input Few impacts Limited feedback All impacts Limited feedback All impacts All 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-densityResidential low densityIndustrialOpen Space

33 Population

34 Employment

35 Exposure to air pollution Exposure above guidelines: 9.0 percent of SEG percent of SEG percent of SEG 3

36 Exposure to traffic noise Disturbed by traffic noise: 39.8 percent of SEG percent of SEG percent of SEG 3

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 Environmenta lGlobal 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 climateGreenhouse gases from transport change Air pollutionAcidifying gases from transport Volatile organic compounds from transport Natural Consumption of mineral oil products resourcesLand coverage Need for additional new construction EnvironmentalFragmentation of open space qualityQuality of open space

43 Social Indicators HealthExposure to PM from transport at housing Exposure to NO 2 at housing Exposure to traffic noise Traffic fatalities Traffic injuries EquityJustice of distribution of economic benefits Justice of exposure to PM Justice of exposure to NO 2 Justice of exposure to noise Segregation OpportunitiesHousing standard Vitality of city centre Vitality of surrounding region Productivity gain from land use AccessibilityTotal time spent in traffic and trafficLOS of public transport and slow modes Accessibility to city centre Accessibility to services Accessibility to open space

44 Economic Indicators Total net benefitTransport investment costs from transportTransport user benefits Transport operator benefits Government 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 Indicator weights Theme weights Environmen- tal index Policy alternatives

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

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: 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