Kenji Doi and Masanobu KiiKagawa [email protected]
WCTRS seminar on Green Urban Transport in ChinaWCTRS seminar on Green Urban Transport in China Shanghai, September 11th to 13th, 2010Shanghai, September 11th to 13th, 2010
Challenges of sustainable mobility1Visio
n-led
Consensus-led
Management-oriented
Innovation-oriented
Managem
ent of M
anagement of
Urban
Urban
Mobility System
Mobility System
Systems innovation
to achieve social needs
Land useLand use InfrastructureInfrastructureCompact
city/region
Road diet for all users
Quality mobilityQuality mobility
New social infraNew social infra
Personalmobility
Masstransit ComplemeCompleme
ntnt
TOD/CorridorsTOD/Corridors
TransportTransport
Management of UMS in the LUTI framework2
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
I. Visioning levelI. 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 levelIII. Implementation level
II. Strategic levelII. Strategic levelStrategy: 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 Decision making process
Assessment
Solutions
Providing a cross-assessment modelcross-assessment model to support the decision making in the visioning and strategic levelvisioning and strategic level
towards sustainable urban mobility systems
Aims of our study
Vision-ledVision-led Plan-ledPlan-led Consensus-ledConsensus-led
Strategic Strategic objectivesobjectives
Technical Technical objectivesobjectives
Operational Operational objectivesobjectives
4
Internal coherence
Mayors/Leaders
Planners/Specialists
Stakeholders/Interest groups
External coherence
Mayors/Leaders
5Cross-assessment in the strategic level
User’s User’s benefitbenefit
Operator’sOperator’s profitprofit
LowLowcarboncarbon
SynergySynergy or or trade-offtrade-off effects among objectives effects among objectives
Priority ofPriority of equityequity
Priority ofPriority ofenvironmentenvironment
Priority of Priority of efficiency efficiency
Strategic objectives (prioritized targets/values)Strategic objectives (prioritized targets/values)
5
Japan: 2000 - 2030
- 269 cities/metropolises
Three prioritized targets: - maximize profit of public transport operation (PM) - maximize net benefit of transport users (NBM) - minimize CO2 emissions
(CO2) Land use scenarios: - trend - compact corridors
- multi-cores
Cross-assessment in the LUTI framework6
Subs
idie
s
Population distribution
FaresTransportstrategy
Age
stru
ctur
e
Spatialstructure
Mobilitystyle
User’sbenefit
Operatorprofit
Cross-assessment
Policy inputs
CO2
reduction
Analytical framework7
ss
Urban land useUrban land useTransport StrategiesTransport Strategies
Trip generation Trip generation and distribution by and distribution by
ageageModal choice: Modal choice: Pijk
2030 (compact)
2030 (trend)2000 (present)
population
Land use scenarios : 2000 to 20308
• 269 urban areas which are divided into 1km grid cells
urban areanon-urban area
Public transport operatorDecide 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 userChoose transport modes (rail, bus, private car) of their daily travels to minimize the generalized travel cost.
Government / AuthoritySubsidize the PT operators to promote targeted transport strategies and control the locations of residence and work place.
UMS components and actors’ behavior9• 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 A
ssumptions
6.9
6.2
6.1
5.2
4.7
4.8
5.9
5.9
0 2 4 6 8 10
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
2030
Com
pact
2030
Tre
nd
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 -200 0
bil. yen/yr
Current
Financial balance of PT
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
2030
Com
pact
2030
Tre
nd
PM: maximize profit of public transport operation
CO2: minimize CO2 emissions
Results of cross-assessment in nation (2)11Change in operator’s profit Change in user’s benefit
-500 0 500 1000bil.yen/yr
CO2PM
NBMBAUCO2PM
NBMBAU
Com
pact
Tren
d
572
76518
-37
649
750
-20-99
-309
-1994
1581-538
-182
-1775
1539-277
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
bil.yen/yr
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
CO2
PM
NBM
BAU
Com
pact
Tren
d
0
200
400
600
800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5CO2 emissions reduction(MT-CO2/yr)
Fina
ncia
l ba
lanc
e(bi
l yen
)
LU scenario(t ): trend(c): compact
CO2(t)
CO2(c)
PM(t)
PM(c)
NBM(t)NBM(c)
1000 Relationship of CO2 reduction
and financial balance of PT(Comparison with BAU)
Emissions reduction by CO2 minimization strategy
Emissions reduction (tCO2/yr)
100,000 - 40,000 - 100,00020,000 - 40,00010,000 - 20,000
0 - 10,000
Spatial distribution of outcomes (1)12
Trend scenario Compact scenario
Trend scenario Compact scenario
10 - 5 - 101 - 5
-1 - 1-5 - -1
-10 - -5 - -10
User’s benefit(bil. yen/yr)
User’s benefit by CO2 minimization strategy
Spatial distribution of outcomes (2)13
利用者便益の差(10億円/年)(コンパクト-趨勢)
10 -5 - 101 - 5-1 - 1-5 - -1-10 - -5
- -10
Difference: compact scenario - trend scenario
Spatial distribution of outcomes (3)14
CO2削減量の差(tCO2/年)(コンパクト-趨勢)20,000-10,000- 20,0001,000- 10,000-1,000- 1,000-10,000- -1,000-20,000- -10,000
- -20,000
Less reduction due to more congestion
Tokyo
more reduction due to shorter
trip length
Osaka
Emissions (tCO2/yr)20,000 - 10,000 - 20,0001,000 - 10,000-1,000 - 1,000
-10,000 - -1,000-20,000 - -10,000
- -20,000
Difference in CO2 reduction
Benefit loss due to more congestion
Tokyo
User’s benefit(bil. yen /yr)
10 - 5 - 101 - 5
-1 - 1-5 - -1
-10 - -5 - -10
Difference in user’s benefit
Predicted impacts of the LUTI scenarios
第 5 次高松市総合計画
trend corridors & multi-cores
corridors
0 20 40 60 80 100 120KT-CO2/yr
CO2PMNBMBAUCO2PMNBMBAUCO2PMNBMBAU
bil. yen/yr0 20 40 60 80
trend
corri
dors
corri
dors
& m
-cor
es
CO2PMNBMBAUCO2PMNBMBAUCO2PMNBMBAU
trend
corri
dors
corri
dors
& m
-cor
es
User’s benefit: ’00-’30 Emissions reduction:’00-’30
15
FindingsThe three value factors (efficiency, equity and environment)
do not necessarily conflict with each other.
The CO2 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 CO2 emissions and gain greater benefits by the LUTI strategies.
Future workDevelopment 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?)
Conclusion16
Land useLand use InfrastructureInfrastructureCompact
city/region
Road diet for all users
Quality mobilityQuality mobility““Commobility”Commobility”
New social infraNew social infra
Personalmobility
Masstransit
TOD/CorridorsTOD/Corridors
Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing society17
ComplemeComplementnt
TransportTransport
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.
Less preferences and choices, more constraintsLess forecasting, more backcasting
Less details, more essentials (Prof. Michael Wegener, SIG1 Co-chair)
UMS in the Urban System
transitcorridor
QualityT. Block
Greencorridor
Enhancing future QoLEnhancing future QoL
Building quality stockBuilding quality stock
Population Population declinedecline
Change in Change in valuesvalues
Financial Financial constraintsconstraints
EnvironmentalEnvironmentalconstraints constraints
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.)
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 CO2 emissions, but might decrease user benefit.c ) City compaction contributes to a reduction in CO2 emissions. but might decrease user benefit.
Policy impact
Results of Cross assessmentA2
Cross-assessment
+
-
Subs
idie
s
Population distribution
FaresTransportstrategy
Age
stru
ctur
e
Spatialstructure
Mobilitystyle
User’sbenefit
Operatorprofit
CO2
reduction
++
-
N
Vision
-led
Consensus-led
Management-oriented
Innovation-oriented
Managem
ent of M
anagement of
Urban
Urban
Mobility System
Mobility System
Systems innovation
to achieve social needs
• Low carbon transport We have enough Menu of Instruments!
• Commobility transport We need further leap-frog innovation
Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing societyA3
Resource Depletion
EnvironmentClimate change
Health
Social conflict
?
Constraints and InnovationsA4