1. New trends in urban transport
planning for sustainable mobility
Venezia, 6-7 ottobre 2011
Giuseppe Inturri, Matteo Ignaccolo, Salvo Caprì, Elena Rubulotta
Università di Catania, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale
1
ginturri@dica.unict.it

2. Contents
Sustainable Development and Sustainable Mobility
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools
Mobility Planning and Accessibility Planning
Open questions and proposals towards a Sustainable Mobility
Planning Process
Some examples
Conclusions
2

3. Sustainable Development and
Sustainable Mobility
3

4. Sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987)
‘Sustainable development
is development that
meets the needs of the
present without
compromising the
ability of future
generations to meet
their own needs’
From Our common future, the final report of the UN
Commission on Environment and Development,
chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland
4
Sustainable development

5. Sustainable development
variable levels of sustainability
Developing technological for efficient exploitation of natural resources
Polluting no more than ecosystems can tolerate
Reducing consumption of non-renewable energy and material resources
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide
Reducing total energy consumption in the rich countries
Satisfying aspirations for an improved standard of living (or quality of life)
Promoting public participation
Promoting causal-oriented protection of the environment
Preserving nature’s intrinsic value
Promoting inter- and intra-generational equity
Brundtland
definition, Satisfying basic needs
1987
Safeguarding long-term ecological sustainability
5
Sustainable development

6. Sustainable mobility, an evolving concept
 United Nation
Climate change and clean
Conference (Rio energy
de Janeiro, 1992),
put transport at Sustainable transport
the forefront of
the sustainability Sustainable consumption &
production
debate
Conservation and management
of natural resources
Public Health
6
Sustainable mobility

7. EU Energy and Transport in Figures
St atistical Pocket book 2010
Sustainable mobility
Trend of GHG emissions by sector
7

8. Sustainable Mobility,
an evolving concepet
8

9. Sustainable mobility, an evolving concept
Focus Ref.
Reduction in transport volume CEC, 1992
Does not endanger public health or OCSE, Paris
ecosystems 1996
Reducing traffic intensity (congestion CEC, 1993
and pollution) rather than transport
volumes
Improving efficiency and CEC,
competitiveness, liberalizing market 1998;2001
access, ensuring fair and efficient
pricing
offers choice of transport mode, and EU, 2001
supports a competitive economy, as
well as balanced regional
9
development Sustainable mobility

10. Sustainable mobility, an evolving concept
Focus Ref.
Social attitude to Social Change and
behavioural change Sustainable Transport
Conf., Un. of
California, Berkley,
2002
Car dependence as a Gorham, 2002;
social problem Newmann and
Kenworthy, 1999
Equity impacts and Feitelson, 2002
distributional
implications
Social – psycholgical Gatersleben and
issues: willingness to Uzzel, 2002
change and
10
communication Sustainable mobility

11. Evolving approaches to SM
1992 2011
Impacts environment society economy equity
accessibility,
reducing transport volume transport intensity congestion,
Focus and consumptions (local pollution) competitiveness
safety,
quality of life
environemental
enginnering
Disciplines transport geography
sociology political science social psychology
transport economy
EIA, quantitative scenario building case studies,
institutional
Approaches modelling, regression and scenario qualitative
analysis
analysis analysis modelling
How to achieve
When is transport Why do we fail to
Questions Is transport sustainable?
sustainable?
sustainable
achieve SM?
mobility?
Adapted from Holden, 2007. Achieving Sustainable Mobility. Asgate e-book
11
Sustainable mobility

12. EU asks for implementing SM Plans
Issues Ref.
Sustainable Urban Transport Plans CE, 2007
To meet society’s economic, social and
environmental needs whilst minimizing
their undesirable impacts on the
economy, society and the
environment
Green Paper on urban mobility CE, 2007
Open questions on how to promote SM
Action Plan on Urban Mobility CE, 2009
20 measures to achieve SM
12 CE, 2007, Sustainable Urban Transport Plans - Preparatory Document in
relation to the follow-up of the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment Sustainable Mobility Plans

13. Sustainable Mobility
approaches, strategies and tools
13

14. measures and strategies to promote SM
Hoyer, 2000 Banister, 2005
reduction of polluting emissions Reduce the need to travel.
increased energy efficiency Reduce the absolute levels of car use and road
freight in urban areas.
Level of sustainability
use of alternative energy sources Promote more energy-efficient modes of
travel for both passengers and freight.
increased load factors Reduce noise and vehicle emissions at source.
Encourage a more efficient and
transfer between different environmentally sensitive use of the vehicle
modes and means of transport stock.
Improve safety of pedestrians and all road
reductions of infrastructure users.
provision
Improve the attractiveness of cities for
residents, workers, shoppers and visitors.
reductions in mobility
14
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools

15. measures and strategies to promote SM
Sustainable Urban Transport Plans (CE 2007)
Operational objectives and targets
• Decoupling economic growth and the
demand for transport with the aim of
reducing environmental impacts.
• Achieving sustainable levels of transport energy
use and reducing transport greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Reducing pollutant emissions from transport
to levels that minimize effects on human health
and/or the environment.
• Achieving a balanced shift towards environment
friendly transport modes to bring about a
sustainable transport and mobility system.
• Reducing transport noise both at source and CE, 2007, Sustainable Urban Transport
through mitigation measures to ensure overall Plans - Preparatory Document in relation
exposure levels minimise impacts on health. to the follow-up of the Thematic Strategy
on the Urban Environment
• Halving road transport deaths by 2010
compared to 2000.
15
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools

16. Common and basic strategies to SM
to reduce the need to AVOID
travel and trip lengths
to encourage modal shift SHIFT
to encourage greater
efficiency in the transport IMPROVE
system.
16
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools

17. Common and basic strategies to SM
E GGE
GGE  PKT  
PKT E
AVOID SHIFT IMPROVE
17
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools

18. Links between Urban Transport and Climate Change
Armin Wagner, Energy and Transport, GTZ Eschborn
www.gtz.de/climateandtransport, www.sutp.org
Sustainable Mobility: approaches, strategies and tools
Toolbox of instruments
18

19. Emerging of alternative approaches
to transport planning for SM
19

20. Conventional Transport Planning and
Modelling
 Conventional traffic models Trip Generation
(Lewis, 1998)
• Land Use Data
• Travel Generation Factors
Trip Distribution
Feedback
• Friction of Space Factors
 Land use, social and economic • Calibration Factors
• Transportation Networks
issues not properly included Modal Split
 Focus only on satisfying a Traffic Assignment
growing demand
Transport Systems
Rodrigue J.P., 2006, The Geography of
 Measuring the network i2
A B
performance in terms of high i1
i3
speed and low congestion, leads
i6
1
L
i4 2
to self-prophetic always
i5 L
3
L
increasing transport supply and
4
Administrative Divisions L Land Use
k
car dependency
k
T ,T
k
32 23
C Ia
k
k
Ib D
Wab
l kl
l Id
l Wcd Ie
T6
Ic
Modal node
Traffic Intermodal node
Centroid Mode k
Traffic (Spatial Interactions) Mode l Transportation Network
20
Conventional transport planning

21. Conventional Transport Planning and
Modelling
 Conventional traffic models
(Litman, 2011)
 Only account for travel between
zones, not travel within zones
 Fail to account for generated
traffic impacts
 Rarely include transit quality
factors other than speed
 Rarely predict the impact of
mobility management measures
21
Conventional transport planning

22. Functional hierarchy of the road network
(Rofè, 2009)
 The stiff road network
hierarchy suggested by the
law, leads to good mobility
and bad accessibility
5.11. 2001
Geometriche per la Costruzione delle Strade, DM
Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Norme Funzionali e
22
Conventional transport planning

23. Hierarchical vs Grid Road Network, (Litman,
2011)
Low accessibility  Higher average traffic speed
 Longer distances
 Increasing congestion
 Poor walking and cycling conditions
Litman, 2011
High accessibility
 Shorter connected roads
 More direct connections between
destinations
 Narrower streets and lower speed
 More walking and cycling and then
transit trips
23
Conventional transport planning

24. Sustainability in transport planning in Italy
 Sustainability is not part of the Urban Traffic Plans (PUT) in
Italy, the only compulsory plan, without strategic vision (two
years of life)
 A lot of different sector, sometime conflicting, planning tools
(safety, cycling, parking, etc.)
 Sustainability is partially included in the goals of Urban Mobility
Plans (PUM): satisfying mobility needs while reducing social
and environmental transport costs
 A lot of laws funding partial SM actions (car sharing,
electric cycling, etc.)
 Introduction of the Mobility Management (TDM in Europe)
DM 1998.
 Sustainability can be introduce in transport planning through
the Strategic Environmental Assessment (VAS) procedure
(L.152/96)
24
Conventional transport planning

25. Need for a new transport planning approach
(Banister, 2008)
Conventional Planning for sustainable
transport planning mobility
Mobility Accessibility
Traffic People
Large in scale Local in scale
Street as a road Street as a space
Motorized transport All modes, pedestrian and cyclist first
Forecasting approach Visioning on cities
Economic evaluation Multicriteria approach
TSM TDM
Minimum travel time Time reliability
Segregation of people and traffic Integration of people and traffic
25
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

26. Mobility Vs. Accessibility (Handy, 2002)
 Need to resolve the duality
 Mobility is the potential for
movement, the ability to get
from one place to another
 It increases if the number
travelled veic-km’s increases
 Accessibility is the potential
for interacting among
different and distributed urban
activities
 It increases if the number of
opportunities, within a fixed
time or distance, increases
26
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

27. Accessibility Vs Mobility (Handy, 2002)
 good acessibility with poor
mobility
(many and close destinations
but heavy traffic)
 poor accessibility with good
mobility
(few and far destinations with
low traffic)
27
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

28. Mobility indicators
 Level of Service
 Average speed
 Traffic intensity
 Vehicle-km travelled
 the current goal of a transport
engineer is:
 to find the capacity that is needed to
allow more vehicles driving faster
 building new roads or enhance the
existing ones is an automatic self-
prophecy
 This can reduce other forms of
accessibility, by constraining
pedestrian travel and stimulating
more dispersed, automobile-
oriented development patterns
28
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

29. Accessibility indicators
 HCM LoS is related to traffic
 We need a LoS related to land-use/transport and social
system as a whole
 Current measures of accessibility include
 an impedance factor, reflecting the time or cost of reaching a
destination,
 an attractiveness factor, reflecting the qualities of the potential
destinations
 They should better include the number of choices in both
destinations and modes and the social group involved
 low incomes, without a car, disabled, children, young, older, migrants,
minorities
29
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

30. 30
Accessibility indicators
Geurs K. T., van Wee B. (2004), Accessibility evaluation of land-use and
transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport
Geography, 12 127–140
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

31. Component Sustainability
Accessibilit Mathematical
y indicator formulation Transp Land Temp Indiv
Env Econ Soc
ort use oral idual
Infrastructure-
+ -  - - + -
based measures
Location-based
+   - - + +
measures
Person-based
+  + + - - +
measures
Utility-based
+  -  - + +
measures
Place Rank  - - - - - -
Place&Time
+ - - - - + -
Rank
Score: + = criterion satisfied; - = not satisfied;  = partly satisfied (adapted from Geurs and van Wee, 2004)

32. Accessibility maps
 The Access to Destinations
study (El-Geneidy and
Levinson 2006) evaluates
accessibility including
 Detailed land use activities
at destination
 Accessibility measures by
mode of transport
 Accessibility measures by
group of users
http://www.cts.umn.edu/access-study/
32
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

33. Planning for Sustainable Mobility
33

34. Basic elements of Sustainable Mobility
Planning
 Adequate territorial scale and authority
 Urban, metropolitan, neighbouring authorities
 Commitment for sustainability
 balancing economic development, social equity and
environmental protection
 Include wider societal and environmental costs and benefits
into alternative evaluations
 Community involvement
 Citizens and stakeholders participate in decision making,
implementing and monitoring the plan
 Integrated approaches and tools
 Integrate SM planning into a city-wide sustainable development
long-term vision
 Integrate Accessibility Planning, Regulatory, Economy,
Information, and Technology tools
 Focus on achievable targets based on assessable
indicators while selecting plan actions and measurable
indicators to continuously monitoring impacts and
results and re-addressing the planned actions
34
Open questions and proposals towards a SMAP

35. Sustainable Mobility Planning process
Impacts and
Selection of suitable indicators Best practices
results modelling
Ex-ante evaluation
Scenarios Actions and
Status analysis
development budget
Plan implementation
Plan preparation
Operative
Actions Strategic lines
measures
Monitoring
Stakeholders
Indicators assessment
Ex-post evaluation
Output Results Impacts
35 Adapted from PILOT Manual www.pilot-transport.org/

36. Planning for accessibility
Issues of Planning for Sustainable Mobility
36

37. Planning for Accessibility
 We believe that Shifting from Mobility-Oriented to
Accessibility-Based Transport Planning is the key
towards Sustainable Transport Planning
 Accessibility and social issues
 Equity in access to opportunities (e.g., employment, services,
shopping, education, health care, and amenities) contributes to
meeting basic human needs and aspirations for a better life
(Boschmann, 2008) and reduce social exclusion
 Accessibility and economic issues
 Mix land use, compact and walkable cities reduce individual
and collective costs of mobility and enhance the opportunities
for economic and trade interactions both for employer and
employees, retailers and consumers
 Accessibility and environmental issues
 High density urban areas, close urban destinations, accessible
to a wide range of low impact transport mode (walking,
cycling, transit), reduce the environmental impacts
37
Mobility Planning vs Accessibility Planning

38. Planning for Accessibility: open questions
 How to incorporate
 accessibility into transport planning?
 improvement in non motorized mode?
 incentives to change travel behavior?
 more accessible land use and urban design?
 information available to users on mobility and accessibility
options
 perspective of different users (adult commuters, students,
tourists, children, low-income people, disabled people)
38
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

39. The monitoring of the plan
Issues of Planning for Sustainable Mobility
39

40. Selection of SM indicators
 Literature on SM indicators
 DISTILLATE project (http://www.distillate.ac.uk/)
 SUMMA (www.summa-eu.org)
 CE , 2005. Manual on SEA of transport infrastructure palns.
 DETR, 2000. Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies
 ISFORT, 2005. Studio sugli indicatori di valutazione delle politiche per la
mobilità urbana sostenibile
 OCS, 2010. Il Piano Urbano di mobilità sostenibile
 CE, 2005. Manual on strategic environmental assessment of transport
infrastructure plans
 UK DETR, 2000. NATA: New Approach to Appraisal - Guidance on the
Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies
40
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

41. Framework IORI – tree structure of
measures, actions, strategic lines
Carlo Socco, Il Piano urbano di mobilità sostenibile,
OCS, 2009
41
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

42. Framework IORI – matching indicators and
objectives
Strategic
lines
Actions
Operative
measures
EC, The New Programming Period 2007-2013
INDICATIVE GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION METHODS:
MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS
Working Document No. 2
42
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

43. Framework IORI – efficiency, effectiveness,
sustainbaility
EC, The New Programming Period 2007-2013
INDICATIVE GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION METHODS:
MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS
Working Document No. 2
43
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

44. OCS
(IL PIANO URBANO DI MOBILITA’ SOSTENIBILE, 2010)
44
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

45. Community involvement
Issues of Planning for Sustainable Mobility
45

46. Community involvement (EU Grabs project,
expert paper)
EU Grabs project, Amsterdam expert paper
46
Open questions and proposals towards a SMP

47. Some steps towards Sustainable
Mobility Planning
Issues of Planning for Sustainable Mobility
47

48. Example 1: a network model for bicycle
mobility
 Bicycle ‘potential’ demand modelling
 Compatibility/safety measures for network edges and
nodes
 Introducing ‘equivalent distance’ in order to build a cost
function:
C (k )   f I (i) leq (i)   g J (n)
ik nk
 Computing bicycle travel times for assessing bicycle
accessibility for urban zones
48
Some examples

49. Example 1: a network model for bicycle
mobility
Potential
demand
49
Some examples

50. Example 1: a network model for bicycle
mobility
Bicycle and
car traffic
50
Some examples

51. Example 1: a network model for bicycle
mobility
Network
compatibility
51
Some examples

52. Example 2: climatic factors in assessing
network walking accessibility
 Oudoor thermal comfort
 Universal thermal climate index (UTCI)
 A cost function based on the equivalent walking distance
and a climatic multiplier:
CM (i)  wd (i)  1  s(i)  wd (i)   2  as(i)
C (k )    
ik    3  rx(i)   4  tf (i) 
 Computing walking routes and times in several typical
weather scenarios
52
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

53. Example 2: climatic factors in assessing
network walking accessibility
 Assessing the impact of traditional actions on walking
accessibility
 Assessing the impact also of ‘green’ actions (shading trees,
green paths) on walking accessibility
53
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

54. Example 2: climatic factors in assessing
network walking accessibility
Map of climatic penalty
on walkability (summer)
54
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

55. Example 2: climatic factors in assessing
network walking accessibility
Map of climatic penalty
on walkability (winter)
55
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

56. Example 3: new accessibility measures
 Based on a revision of Multiple Centrality Assessment
(MCA)
 Closeness centrality: based on the minimum cost paths
to/from the other zones
 Betweenness centrality (and betwenness 10): based on
the number of best (or good) routes crossing the zone
 Straightness centrality: based on the route distance in
relation with the ortodromic distance; for a whole
network, the global efficiency measures its connectivity
degree
56
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

57. Example 3: new accessibility measures
Closeness
centrality
57
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

58. Example 3: new accessibility measures
Betwenness
centrality
58
EU Grabs project, UNICT expert paper Some examples

59. Example 4: Province of Siracusa Land
Use/Transport Plan, 2009
 Integrated Land-use and Transport Planning
 (Piano Territoriale Provinciale - Schema di Massima, 2009; Piano Provinciale
della Mobilità - Piano Direttore, 2010)
 For the land use plan:
 Accessibility analysis (as things stand now) in order to define criticality and
planning consequently
 In the transport plan:
 Simulation of planned actions in order to verify the effects on accessibility
 Results:
 Usefulness of accessibility analysis in the planning context : it can help planners
by providing objective measurements to support choices in the writing of the
plans and by verifying the improvement expected from action plans.
 Accessibility is a measure that will be helpful in a planning process because it
can be both the aim of the planning and a measure for valuing the actual level
of organisation of the territory.
59
Some examples

60. Example 4: Province of Siracusa Land
Use/Transport Plan, 2009
60
Some examples

61. Conclusions
 Sustainable Mobility is the main goal of EU transport policies
to reconcile economic development, environmental protection
and social equity
 Shifting from Mobility Planning to Accessibility Planning seems
the straightest approach to Sustainable Mobility
 Basic issues of Sustainable Mobility Planning are
 a detailed GIS-based Land Use/Transport modeling
 definition of accessibility indicators of the Land Use/Transport
system
 definition of a monitoring system based on the integration of socio-
economic impact indicators into the Strategic Environmental
Assessment procedure
 Community Involvement, changes in awareness and attitudes as
distinctive components of the Plan
61
Conclusions

62. References
 Banister and Button (eds, 1993),Transport, the Environment and Sustainable Development, (London: E & FN Spon).
 Banister D., (2005). Unsustainable Transport. (London: Routledge).
 Banister D., (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy (15).
 Boschmann EE, and Kwan M.P, 2008. Toward Socially Sustainable Urban Transportation: Progress and Potentials . International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2:138–157, 2008
 Brundtlnad, H. 1987. Our common future, the final report of the UN Commission on Environment and Development.
 Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press
 CEC (1992), Green Paper on the Impact of Transport on the Environment. A Community strategy for ‘sustainable mobility’,
COM (92) 46 Final
 CEC (1993), The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy – A global approach to the construction of a
community framework for sustainable mobility, Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 3/93
 CEC (1998), The Common Transport Policy – Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future. COM (98) 716 Final
 CEC (2001), White paper. European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide, COM (2001) 370 Final
 Cervero, Robert and Kara Kockelman. 1997. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation
Research Record D: Transport and the Environment,Vol. 3, pp.199-219
 Chapman S., Weir D., 2008. Accessibility planning methods. NZ Transport Agency Research Report 363.
 Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). 2002a. CNU Charter. Available: http://www.cnu.org/aboutcnu/index.cfm.
 El-Geneidy A, and Levinson D., (2006), Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures, Center for
Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/access-study/publications
62

63. References
 Feitelson, E. (2002), ‘Introducing Environmental Equity Concerns into the Discourse on Sustainable Transport: A Research
Agenda’, in Black and Nijkamp (eds),
 Gatersleben, B. and Uzzell, D. (2002). Sustainable transport and quality of life. In Black and Nijkamp (2002). Social Change and
Sustainable Transport. Indiana University Press
 El-Geneidy A, and Levinson D., (2006), Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures, Center for
Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/access-study/publications
 Gorham, R. (2002), ‘Car Dependence as a Social Problem: A Critical Essay on the Existing Literature and Future Needs’, in
Black and Nijkamp (eds),
 Handy, S. and D. Niemeier. 1997. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning
A, Vol. 29, pp. 1175-1194.
 Handy S., 2002. Accessibility- vs. mobility-enhancing strategies for addressing automobile dependence in the U.S. . European
Conference of Ministers of Transport.
 Høyer K.G. (2000), Sustainable Mobility – the Concept and its Implications, PhD Thesis
 Katz, Peter. 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Litman T., 2011. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning Measuring People’s Ability To Reach Desired Goods and
Activities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute
 Lewis S.L., 1998. Land use and transportation: Envisioning regional sustainability. Transport Policy (5).
 Newman, P.W.G. and Kenworthy, J.R. (1999), Sustainability and Cities. Overcoming Automobile Dependence (Washington DC:
Island Press).
63