What can CREATE contribute to SUMPs Peter Jones

What can CREATE contribute to SUMPs? Peter Jones Scientific Coordinator SUMPS Co-ordinating Group Meeting, Brussels, 7 th and 8 th June, 2017

The Proposition • The SUMP is an important policy tool that encourages cities to look well beyond providing for private motor vehicles and instead to promote sustainable urban mobility • But it is now recognised by leading cities that transport systems play a much wider role in delivering city visions • Although SUMP guidance alludes to this, it seems that it is not yet well embedded in SUMP practice • CREATE can assist in this, in several ways

What is CREATE? ‘Transport Policy Development Process’ Planning for people movement: public transport, walking & cycling; car restraint Planning for motor vehicles: road building, parking Planning for city life: transport as ‘place’, remove obtrusive transport infrastructure, support other objectives (e. g. health)

Car Driver Modal Shares over Time

Observed Stages of Policy Development • Stage 1: vehicles - promoting car ownership and car use – 1 A: colonisation of carriageways and footways by motorised vehicles – 1 B: investment in urban motorways and multi-storey car parks • Stage 2: person movement – encouraging efficiency and sustainability – 2 A: investment in high-capacity public transport systems, for station-to-station flows – 2 B: emphasis on ‘seamless’ travel, inclusive, door-to-door journeys and encouraging walking and cycling; reallocation of road space and restraint of car traffic • Stage 3: city life – encouraging place making and liveability – 3 A: ‘place-making’ in transport infrastructure (railway stations, urban streets); remove obtrusive transport infrastructure – 3 B: heavily involvement of transport in achieving non-transport policies (e. g. health, regeneration)

Focus of Most Existing SUMPs • Stage 1: vehicles - promoting car ownership and car use – 1 A: colonisation of carriageways and footways by motorised vehicles – 1 B: investment in urban motorways and multi-storey car parks • Stage 2: person movement – encouraging efficiency and sustainability – 2 A: investment in high-capacity public transport systems, for station-to-station flows – 2 B: emphasis on ‘seamless’ travel, inclusive, door-to-door journeys and encouraging walking and cycling; reallocation of road space and restraint of car traffic • Stage 3: city life – encouraging place making and liveability – 3 A: ‘place-making’ in transport infrastructure (railway stations, urban streets); remove obtrusive transport infrastructure – 3 B: heavily involvement of transport in achieving non-transport policies (e. g. health, regeneration)

Dubrovnik SUMP conference 30/03/17

CREATE’s Contribution 1. Articulating what a Stage 3 city looks like – Including forecasting and appraisal implications 2. Advising cities on how to compress the journey from Stage 1 to Stage 3 3. Setting out ideas for future city development – a possible Stage 4?

‘Stage 3’ Characteristics • Focus on place-making and liveability • New types of objectives, indicators and appraisal • Re-assessment of the transport planning process: from ‘predict and provide’ to ‘vision and validate’

Stage 3 A: Motorway Removal and Place Making Portland Seoul Stage 1 3 A Stage

Stage 3: Street Redesign 1

Stage 3: Tf. L’s London-wide Street Classification

Indicators by Stage 1 • • Stage 2 Average network speeds • PT frequency and reliability Day-to-day variability Vehicle congestion Car parking availability Road traffic accidents Noise Air pollution • • • Stage 3 • Time use in transport modes Access to bus stops & • Intensity of street stations activities Safety and security • Time spent in local area Seamless travel • Value of high quality PT modal split public space Walking/cycling modal • Health of the shares population Door-to-door travel times • Social interaction by mode • Social equity and inclusion • Community severance

New indicator: severance caused by different types of roads UK EPSRC Research Project 14 Provisional unpublished results

Severance index vs. willingness to pay 15 Provisional unpublished results

‘Predict and Provide’ Can be traced back to 1960 s Urban Land Use/ Transportation Studies: – Forecast likely growth in car ownership and use – Demonstrate inability of existing road networks to cope with this increased demand – Propose major road building to avoid extreme congestion and gridlock (maybe with demand management) – Iterate plans until major problems addressed (or budget/political limits reached)

Proposal: ‘Vision and Validation’ - 1 • Develop comprehensive future city/country vision, with strong stakeholder engagement: desired living patterns and achievement of a set of agreed outcomes • Identify what transport can contribute to delivering the vision: major/minor investments plus (more flexible) pricing and regulatory measures • Ensure co-ordinated with other sector strategies (e. g. health, education)

Proposal: ‘Vision and Validation’ - 2 • Determine under what future range of conditions and behavioural responses this package of policies would provide good value for money – stress test • Then see how the programme can be tweaked to increase robustness, by covering more of the fan of possibilities – ‘Real Options Analysis’ • Iterate with appraisal – but multi-sector, as many benefits from transport will accrue to other sectors, and actions by other sectors affect travel demand

‘P & P’ vs ‘V & V’ Present Future 1. Forecasts, with uncertainty 2. Develop set of schemes which meet some parts of fan of possible demands, plus other objectives ‘P & P’ 2. Generate ‘fan of possibilities’ ‘V & V’ 1. Develop vision for future living 4. Develop feasible trajectory from ‘then’ to ‘now’ by backcasing 3. Stress test to see over what range of futures valid, and seek to expand robustness

And more. . . A Possible ‘Stage 4’? • Many cities are experiencing rapid population growth, and fear that all transport networks will become overloaded – ‘Stage 3’ is not enough • CREATE is exploring a possible ‘Stage 4’ – Maybe with a stronger emphasis on optimising infrastructure use through cross-sector planning (e. g. retail, health) – ‘systems of ‘systems’ approaches • Or will AVs take us back to Stage 1? !!

A progression to Stage 4?

On-going Development of Stages 1 and 2 Maa. S AVs Stage 4?

Potential impact of AVs – do we repeat history? AV-dominated cities? ? Stage 4? …OR?

Alternative city trajectories Source: analysis by Roger Teoh, MSc Dissertation Imperial/UCL 2016

Thank you ! peter. jones@ucl. ac. uk http: //www. create-mobility. eu