Managing Urban Mobility Systemsthrough a Cross-assessment Modelin the LUT framework WCTRS seminar on Green Urban Transport in China Shanghai, September 11th to 13th, 2010 Kenji Doi and Masanobu Kii Kagawa University firstname.lastname@example.org
Innovation -oriented Management -oriented 1 Challenges of sustainable mobility Vision -led Consensus -led Systems innovation to achieve social needs Management of Urban Mobility System Ageing society Low-carbon society Auto-dependent society
2 Management of UMS in the LUTI framework Management of urban mobility systems has to start with the location of activities, where the need for mobility is generated Land use Infrastructure Compact city/region Road diet for all users Transport Mass transit Personal mobility Complement New social infra TOD/Corridors Quality mobility Public transport is facing an internal quality disruption process. PT as we conceived it (collective) is sometimes not sustainable.
I. Visioning level Social objectives Constraints Vision 3 Decision making process • Visioning: a big picture of objectives • Enhancing QoL under constraints • Building quality stock in corridors • Location-efficient urban structure II. Strategic level Policy instruments • Strategy: a combination of instruments • Restriction of car ownership and use • Competitive public transport systems • Choice of mass transit technologies Barriers Strategies III. Implementation level Assessment • Timing of investment for mass transit systems • Maximum utilization of existing infrastructures • Opening / promoting market for value capture Solutions
4 Aims of our study Providing across-assessment modelto support the decision making in thevisioning and strategic leveltowardssustainable urban mobility systems Planners/ Specialists Stakeholders/ Interest groups Mayors/ Leaders Mayors/ Leaders Plan-led Consensus-led Vision-led Technical objectives Operational objectives Strategic objectives Internal coherence External coherence
5 5 Cross-assessment in the strategic level Strategic objectives (prioritized targets/values) Priority of efficiency Priority of equity Priority of environment Low carbon User’s benefit Operator’s profit Synergy or trade-off effects among objectives
Operator profit 6 Cross-assessment in the LUTI framework CO2 reduction • Japan: 2000 - 2030 • - 269 cities/metropolises • Three prioritized targets: - maximizeprofit of public • transport operation (PM) • - maximizenet benefit of • transport users(NBM) • - minimizeCO2 emissions(CO2) • Land use scenarios: • - trend • - compactcorridors • - multi-cores User’s benefit Transport strategy Fares Mobility style Subsidies Age structure Spatial structure Population distribution Cross-assessment Policy inputs
7 Analytical framework Urban land use Transport Strategies Trip generation and distribution by age Modal choice: Pijk s
8 Land use scenarios : 2000 to 2030 2030 (compact) • 269 urban areas which are divided into 1km grid cells urban area non-urban area 2000 (present) 2030 (trend) population
9 UMS components and actors’ behavior • 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. • 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 Model Assumptions 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.
10 Results of cross-assessment in nation(2) Emissions reduction: ’00-’30 Financial balance of PT Current - 924 4.8 BAU BAU - 1024 4.7 NBM 2030 Trend NBM - 944 PM 5.2 2030 Trend PM - 174 6.1 CO2 - CO2 275 BAU 5.9 BAU - 961 5.9 NBM - 907 NBM 2030 Compact 2030 Compact 6.2 PM PM - 160 CO2 6.9 CO2 - 353 - 1200 - 1000 - 800 - 600 - 400 - 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 bil. yen/yr MT-CO2/yr NBM : maximizenet benefit of transport users PM: maximizeprofit of public transport operation CO2: minimizeCO2 emissions
11 Results of cross-assessment in nation (2) Change in operator’s profit Change in user’s benefit -99 -277 BAU BAU -20 1539 NBM NBM Trend Trend 750 PM -1775 PM -182 CO2 649 CO2 -538 BAU -37 BAU 1581 NBM NBM 18 Compact Compact 765 -1994 PM PM 572 -309 CO2 CO2 -500 0 500 1000 2000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 bil.yen/yr bil.yen/yr 1000 Relationship of CO2 reduction and financial balance of PT (Comparison with BAU) PM(t) CO2(t) 800 PM(c) CO2(c) 600 Financial balance(bil yen) 400 LU scenario 200 (t): trend NBM(t) (c):compact NBM(c) 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 CO2 emissions reduction(MT-CO2/yr)
Emissions reduction (tCO2/yr) 100,000 - 40,000 - 100,000 20,000 - 40,000 10,000 - 20,000 0 - 10,000 12 Spatial distribution of outcomes (1) Emissions reduction by CO2 minimization strategy Trend scenario Compact scenario
13 Spatial distribution of outcomes (2) User’s benefit by CO2 minimization strategy Trend scenario Compact scenario User’s benefit (bil. yen/yr) 10 - 10 5 - 5 - 1 - 1 -1 - -1 -5 - -5 -10 - -10
Difference in user’s benefit Difference in CO2 reduction Emissions (tCO2/yr) User’s benefit (bil. yen /yr) 20,000 - 10 - 10,000 - 20,000 5 - 10 1,000 - 10,000 - 5 1 -1,000 - 1,000 - 1 -1 -10,000 - -1,000 - -1 -5 -20,000 - -10,000 - -5 -10 - -20,000 - -10 Tokyo Tokyo Osaka Less reduction due to more congestion Benefit loss due to more congestion more reduction due to shorter trip length 14 Spatial distribution of outcomes (3) Difference: compact scenario - trend scenario
trend corridors corridors & multi-cores 第5次高松市総合計画 BAU NBM PM CO2 BAU NBM PM CO2 BAU NBM PM CO2 15 Predicted impacts of the LUTI scenarios Emissions reduction:’00-’30 User’s benefit: ’00-’30 BAU NBM trend trend PM CO2 BAU corridors corridors NBM PM CO2 BAU corridors & m-cores corridors & m-cores NBM PM CO2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 bil. yen/yr KT-CO2/yr
16 Conclusion Findings • The 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 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?)
17 Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing society Management of urban mobility systems has to start with the location of activities, where the need for mobility is generated. Land use Infrastructure Compact city/region Road diet for all users Transport Mass transit Personal mobility Complement New social infra TOD/Corridors Quality mobility “Commobility” Urban mobility system has to evolve with social infrastructures to meet the need of a low-carbon and ageing society towards the “commobility”
Thank you! Less preferences and choices, more constraints Less forecasting, more backcasting Less details, more essentials (Prof. Michael Wegener, SIG1 Co-chair)
A1 UMS in the Urban System • 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.) Population decline Change in values Enhancing future QoL Ageing society Green corridor transit corridor Quality T. Block Building quality stock Environmental constraints Financial constraints
Operator profit CO2 reduction A2 Results of Cross assessment User’s benefit Transport strategy Fares ＋ N ＋ － Mobility style Subsidies Age structure ＋ － Spatial structure Population distribution Cross-assessment Policy impact a）Min-CO2 approach contributes to an increase in operator’s profit and might increase user benefit. b）PMapproachcontributes 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.
Innovation -oriented Management -oriented A3 Commobility for a low-carbon and ageing society Vision -led Consensus -led Systems innovation to achieve social needs Management of Urban Mobility System Ageing society • Commobility transport • We need further leap-frog innovation Low-carbon society • Low carbon transport • We have enough Menu of Instruments! Auto-dependent society
A4 Constraints and Innovations Social conflict ？ Resource Depletion Environment Climate change Health