Kenji Doi and Masanobu KiiKagawa Universitydoi@eng.kagawa-u.ac.jp

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