1. Kenji Doi and Masanobu Kii Kagawa University doi@eng.kagawa-u.ac.jp WCTRS seminar on Green Urban Transport in China Shanghai, September 11th to 13th, 2010 Shanghai, September 11th to 13th, 2010

2. Challenges of sustainable mobility 1 1 Vision -led Vision -led Consensus -led Consensus -led Management -oriented Management -oriented Innovation -oriented Innovation -oriented Management of Urban Mobility System Management of Urban Mobility System Systems innovation to achieve social needs Systems innovation to achieve social needs

3. Land use Infrastructure Compact city/region Road diet for all users Quality mobility New social infra Personal mobility Mass transit Complement TOD/Corridors Transport Management of UMS in the LUTI framework 2 2 Public transport is facing an internal quality disruption process. PT as we conceived it (collective) is sometimes not sustainable. Management of urban mobility systems has to start with the location of activities, where the need for mobility is generated

4. I. Visioning level Policy instruments Barriers Strategies Social objectives Constraints Vision Timing of investment for mass transit systems Maximum utilization of existing infrastructures Opening / promoting market for value capture III. Implementation level III. Implementation level II. Strategic level Strategy: a combination of instruments Restriction of car ownership and use Competitive public transport systems Choice of mass transit technologies Visioning: a big picture of objectives Enhancing QoL under constraints Building quality stock in corridors Location-efficient urban structure 3 3 Decision making process Assessment Solutions

5. cross-assessment model visioning and strategic level Providing a cross-assessment model to support the decision making in the visioning and strategic level towards sustainable urban mobility systems Aims of our study Vision-led Plan-ledConsensus-led Strategic objectives Technical objectives Operational objectives 4 4 Internal coherence Mayors/ Leaders Planners/ Specialists Stakeholders/ Interest groups External coherence Mayors/ Leaders

6. 5 5 Cross-assessment in the strategic level User’sbenefit Operator’s profit profit Lowcarbon Synergy or trade-off effects among objectives Priority of equity equity Priority of environment efficiency Strategic objectives (prioritized targets/values) 5 5

7. Japan: 2000 - 2030 - 269 cities/metropolises Three prioritized targets: - maximize profit of public transport operation (PM) - maximize net benefit of transport users (NBM) - minimize CO 2 emissions (CO2) Land use scenarios: - trend - compact corridors - multi-cores Cross-assessment in the LUTI framework 6 6 Subsidies Population distribution Fares Transport strategy Transport strategy Age structure Spatial structure Spatial structure Mobility style Mobility style User’s benefit Operator profit Cross-assessment Policy inputs CO 2 reduction

8. Analytical framework 7 7 s Urban land use Transport Strategies Trip generation and distribution by age Modal choice: Modal choice: P ijk

9. 2030 (compact) 2030 (trend) 2000 (present) population Land use scenarios : 2000 to 2030 8 8 269 urban areas which are divided into 1km grid cells urban area non-urban area

10. Public transport operator Decide the LOS of rail and bus in each area (grid-cell) to maximize their profits under the given travel demand, fare level, and subsidy. Transport user Choose transport modes (rail, bus, private car) of their daily travels to minimize the generalized travel cost. Government / Authority Subsidize the PT operators to promote targeted transport strategies and control the locations of residence and work place. UMS components and actors’ behavior 9 9 The urban mobility system is formed by infrastructures, networks, services and agents. The main networks are formed by the inter-linkage of individual elements (infrastructure or services). The main agents are governments/authorities, service operators, users of the various transport modes and other citizens. Model Assumptions

11. 6.9 6.2 6.1 5.2 4.7 4.8 5.9 0246810 CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU 2030 Compact 2030 Trend MT-CO2/yr Results of cross-assessment in nation(2) 10 Emissions reduction: ’00-’30 NBM : maximize net benefit of transport users -353 -160 -907 -961 - 275 -174 -944 -1024 - 924 -1200-1000-800-600-400-2000 bil. yen/yr Current Financial balance of PT CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU 2030 Compact 2030 Trend PM: maximize profit of public transport operation CO2: minimize CO2 emissions

12. Results of cross-assessment in nation (2) 11 Change in operator’s profit Change in user’s benefit -5000500 1000 bil.yen/yr CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU Compact Trend 572 765 18 -37 649 750 -20 -99 -309 -1994 1581 -538 -182 -1775 1539 -277 -3000-2000-100001000 2000 bil.yen/yr CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU Compact Trend 0 200 400 600 800 0.00.51.01.5 CO2 emissions reduction(MT-CO 2 /yr) Financial balance(bil yen) LU scenario (t ): trend (c): compact CO2(t) CO2(c) PM(t) PM(c) NBM(t) NBM(c) 1000 Relationship of CO 2 reduction and financial balance of PT (Comparison with BAU)

13. Emissions reduction by CO2 minimization strategy Emissions reduction (tCO 2 /yr) 100,000 - 40,000 -100,000 20,000 -40,000 10,000 -20,000 0 -10,000 Spatial distribution of outcomes (1) 12 Trend scenarioCompact scenario

14. Trend scenarioCompact scenario 10 - 5 - 1 - 5 - 1 -5 - -10 --5 --10 User’s benefit (bil. yen/yr) User’s benefit by CO2 minimization strategy Spatial distribution of outcomes (2) 13

15. Difference: compact scenario - trend scenario Spatial distribution of outcomes (3) 14 Less reduction due to more congestion Tokyo more reduction due to shorter trip length Osaka Emissions (tCO2/yr) 20,000 - 10,000 - 20,000 1,000 - 10,000 -1,000 - 1,000 -10,000 - -1,000 -20,000 - -10,000 --20,000 Difference in CO 2 reduction Benefit loss due to more congestion Tokyo User’s benefit (bil. yen /yr) 10 - 5 - 1 - 5 - 1 -5 - -10 --5 --10 Difference in user’s benefit

16. Predicted impacts of the LUTI scenarios 第 5 次高松市総合計画 trendcorridors & multi-corescorridors 020406080100120 KT-CO 2 /yr CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU bil. yen/yr 020406080 trend corridors & m-cores CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU CO2 PM NBM BAU trend corridors & m-cores User’s benefit: ’00-’30Emissions reduction:’00-’30 15

17. Findings The three value factors (efficiency, equity and environment) do not necessarily conflict with each other. The CO 2 minimization target can contribute to improve the financial balance of PT and users’ benefits in national total. The impacts of transport strategies differ among regions, yet most regions can reduce more CO 2 emissions and gain greater benefits by the LUTI strategies. Future work Development of a LUTI framework which can would allow flexible consideration of the three value factors for targets/ objectives and constraints. ( Does low-carbon represent an objective or a constraint?) Conclusion 16

18. Land use Infrastructure Compact city/region Road diet for all users Quality mobility “Commobility” New social infra Personal mobility Mass transit TOD/Corridors Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing society 17 Complement Transport Urban mobility system has to evolve with social infrastructures to meet the need of a low-carbon and ageing society towards the “commobility” Management of urban mobility systems has to start with the location of activities, where the need for mobility is generated.

19. Less preferences and choices, more constraints Less forecasting, more backcasting Less details, more essentials (Prof. Michael Wegener, SIG1 Co-chair)

21. UMS in the Urban System transit corridor transit corridor Quality T. Block Quality T. Block Green corridor Green corridor Enhancing future QoL Building quality stock Population decline Change in values Financial constraints Environmentalconstraints Ageing society A1 UMS is an enabler of the urban system and a subsystem having strong relations with the other subsystems assure quality of life (land-use, green, security, education, etc.)

22. a ） Min-CO2 approach contributes to an increase in operator’s profit and might increase user benefit. b ） PM approach contributes to a reduction in CO 2 emissions, but might decrease user benefit. c ） City compaction contributes to a reduction in CO 2 emissions. but might decrease user benefit. Policy impact Results of Cross assessment A2 Cross-assessment ＋ － Subsidies Population distribution Fares Transport strategy Transport strategy Age structure Spatial structure Spatial structure Mobility style Mobility style User’s benefit Operator profit CO 2 reduction ＋ ＋ － N

23. Vision -led Vision -led Consensus -led Consensus -led Management -oriented Management -oriented Innovation -oriented Innovation -oriented Management of Urban Mobility System Management of Urban Mobility System Systems innovation to achieve social needs Systems innovation to achieve social needs Low carbon transport We have enough Menu of Instruments! Commobility transport We need further leap-frog innovation Commobility transport We need further leap-frog innovation Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing society A3

24. Resource Depletion Environment Climate change Health Social conflict ？ Constraints and Innovations A4