SCATTER WORKSHOP, Brussels, November 9th 2004 KARI LAUTSO / LT CONSULTANTS SCATTER SPRAWLING CITIES...

SCATTER WORKSHOP, Brussels, November 9th 2004 D G R esearc h

KARI LAUTSO / LT CONSULTANTS

SCATTERSPRAWLING CITIES AND TRANSPORT:

FROM EVALUATION TO RECOMMENDATIONS

Lic. Sc. Kari Lautso/LT Consultants:

The Helsinki case

SCATTER WORKSHOP

Brussels, November 9th, 2004



Contents

1. Methodology: City sprawl assessment/sustainability assessment

2. Helsinki – background3. Examples of tested policies and

their effects on city sprawl and urban sustainability

4. Overall conclusions



1. Methodology: City sprawl assessment/sustainability assessment



Two methods for describing urban sprawl:

• Urban sprawl variables

• Sustainability indicators and indeces



Urban sprawl variablesOverall mobility• Average travel time (all modes) minutes/tripPublic transport• Modal share of public modes %• Passenger-km by public modes km/household/aRoad traffic• Private vehicle-km km/household/a• Greenhouse gases from transport eq.ton/household/a• Average road traffic speed km/hLand use• Inhabitants in urbanised zones #• Employees in urbanised zones #Accessibilities• Average home-work travel distance kilometres• Accessibility to city centre minutes/trip• Accessibility to services minutes/trip• Productivity gain from land use %



Why sustainability evaluation?

• The phenomenon of city sprawl is illustrated and can be understood through the city sprawl variables.

• The aim of sustainability evaluation is to answer the following questions:– Is city sprawl sustainable or not?– Is one alternative to fight city sprawl better

than another one?



What is sustainability in urban planning context?

Institutional frameworkEnvironmental sustainability

Economic efficiency

Socialsustainability

sustainabilityComprehensive

For a city to be sustainable it needs to use resources in an efficient and equitable way within the carrying capacities of the environmental and social systems it is dependent on.



Environmental indicators

Global climate changeGreenhouse gases from transport

Air pollution Acidifying gases from transport Volatile organic compounds from transport

Consumption of natural sources Consumption of mineral oil products, transportLand coverageNeed for additional new construction

Environmental quality Fragmentation of open spaceQuality of open space

Environmental Index



Social indicators…Health

Exposure to particulate matter from transport in the living environment

Exposure to nitrogen dioxide from transport in the living environment

Exposure to traffic noise

Traffic deaths

Traffic injuries

Equity Justice of distribution of economic benefitsJustice of exposure to particulatesJustice of exposure to nitrogen dioxidesJustice of exposure to noiseSegregation



…Social indicators

Opportunities Housing standardVitality of city centreVitality of surrounding regionProductivity gain from land use

Accessibility Total time spent in trafficLevel of service of public transport and slow modesAccessibility to city centreAccessibility to servicesAccessibility to open space

Social Index



Economic indicators

Transport investment costsTransport user benefitsTransport operator benefitsGovernment benefits from transportTransport investment costsTransport external accidents costsTransport external emissions costsTransport external greenhouse gasesTransport external noise costs

Economic index: total savings €/inhabitant (NPV)



TOOLS for calculating the indicator values ( from PROPOLIS)

Ecomic calculationsGIS

IllustrationLand use and transport models

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres

Absolute changePP 214

5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000

Relative changePP 214

5 ...2 ,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0 ,5 ... 0 ,5-2 ,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres

Absolute changeEM 214

5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000

Relative change (%)EM 214

5 ...2,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0,5 ... 0 ,5-2,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5 Evaluation



The evaluation process

Weights of the themes

Weights of the indicators

Alternative scenarios

The environmental index



2. Helsinki – background



Surrounding region• Rural• Urban

Metropolitan area• outer parts (suburbs)• inner parts• central parts• city centre

Land use superzones



Intercity comparisons



Projects included in the reference solution



Population and densities in the base forecast

Polpulation and employment:

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

HelCentre

InnerHMA

OuterHMA

HMASuburbs

Oth Urban Rural

Hou

seho

lds

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

HelCentre

InnerHMA

OuterHMA

HMASuburbs

Oth Urban Rural

Em

ploy

ees

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Hel Centre Inner HMA OuterHMA

HMASuburbs

Oth Urban Rural

Rel

. ch

ange

in H

ouse

hold

s/sq

-km

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

-30%-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Hel Centre Inner HMA OuterHMA

HMASuburbs

Oth Urban Rural

Rel

. ch

ange

in E

mpl

oyee

s/sq

-km

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Relative densities vs 1990:



3. Examples of tested policies and their effects on city sprawl and urban

sustainability



Increase speed of current rail services 25%?



In general (big/radial) rail enhancements contribute to sprawl…

113 H – Decrease current rail travel times 30%

-5000

0

5000

10000

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-10000

-5000

0

5000

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020



…like the reduction of public transport fares512 H – Decrease public transport fares by 20 %

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

Relocation from HMA

From suburban areas towards centre and from rural areas to urban



Planned Metropolitan Area Rail Investments…



…do not, however, seem to contribute to sprawl

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

112 H – HMA plan-public transport rail investments, compare with do-nothing :



Land use measures

A-type land-use zones



Pricing land-use seems (also) efficient 311 H – Annual tax (development impact fee) in non urban zones + fiscal incentive (tax reduction) in urban zones

-10000

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HM

A

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020



Policies tested and

their sustainability

evaluation0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0 ,8

1

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Global climate change

Air PollutionConsumption of natural sourcesEnvironmental quality

HealthEquity

Opportunity

Accessibility

813 C

omb. 41

1+51

2+311

+331

000 B

ase 2001

000 B

ase 2011

000 B

ase 2021

001 D

o not in

vest

002 O

nly car in

vestm

ents

003 O

nly PT inves

tment

s

121 D

evelop

orbita

l connec

tions o

f PT

211 Vuosa

ari

212 M

arja-V

antaa

213 K

eski-Pasi

la

214 E

spoon

kesku

s

215 M

atinkyl

ä

311 DIF 670

euro/a

312 D

IF 340 e

uro/a

313 D

IF 1000

euro/a

321 A

BC land u

se regul

ation for

busine

sses

331 A

BC land u

se pri

cing for

busine

sses

411 Car

operatin

g cost +

50%

412 C

ordon

(pea

k) prici

ng 2.55 e

uro

512 P

T fare

- 20%

811 Com

b. 411+5

12+311

812 C

omb. 41

1+51

2+33

1

Environmental index

Economic index €/inhabitant

Social index

Investment policies New town alternatives Land use (pricing) policies Transport pricing CombinationsBase



Land use (pricing) policies

000 Base 2001

000 Base 2011

000 Base 2021

Base

0 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 10 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 1 -500 0 500 1500 2500



HealthEquity

Opportunity

Accessibility

Environmental index Economic index €/inhabitantSocial index

311 DIF 670 euro/a

312 DIF 340 euro/a

313 DIF 1000 euro/a

321 ABC land use regulation for businesses

331 ABC land use pricing for businesses

Land use (pricing) policies



Conclusions – land use (pricing) policies

• The changes of the environmental, social and economic sustainability indeces are small

• The effects of land pricing policies on– overall mobility– city sprawl– CO2 emissions and– accessibilities

are positive



Transport pricing

000 Base 2001

000 Base 2011

000 Base 2021

Base

0 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 10 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 1 -500 0 500 1500 2500



HealthEquity

Opportunity

Accessibility


Transport pricing

411 Car operating cost +50%

412 Cordon (peak) pricing 2.55 euro

512 PT fare - 20%



Road pricing is efficient in reducing (population) sprawl

411 H – Car operating costs +50%

-10000

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5000

0

5000

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA Suburb

s

Oth U

rban

Rural

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hel Cent

re

Inner

HMA

Outer H

MA

HMA S

uburbs

Oth U

rban

Rural

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

Relocation to HMA



Conclusions - transport pricing• The transport pricing policies perform well

environmentally, socially and economically– However, lowering PT fares, increasing speed

and service have a negative impact on city sprawl indicators

– Car pricing policies work efficiently against the city sprawl effect

• Combination of car pricing and PT policies have positive effects while also the city sprawl remains at reasonable level



Combinations (car pricing, PT, land use)

000 Base 2001

000 Base 2011

000 Base 2021

Base

0 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 10 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 1 -500 0 500 1500 2500



HealthEquity

OpportunityAccessibility


813 Comb. 411+512+311+331

811 Comb. 411+512+311

812 Comb. 411+512+331

Combinations



Policy combination 2

812 H = 411 (VOC+50%) + 512 (fares –20%) + 331 (LU pricing)

-5000

0

5000

10000

Hou

seho

lds

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5000

0

5000

Em

ploy

ees

Diff2005

Diff2010

Diff2015

Diff2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Hou

seho

lds

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

Em

ploy

ees

% 2005

% 2010

% 2015

% 2020



Conclusions - combinations

• The combination policies are able to simultaneously improve all dimensions of sustainability (compared with the base scenario)

• In some cases they also maintain or improve the current level of sustainability

• The combinations work efficiently against city sprawl but the overall effect remains small compared with the base trends: population and welfare growth.



Conclusions - combinations• Results of the combination policies in

Helsinki:– car-km reduction - 14 –18%– PT-km increase +16 -17%– CO2 reduction - 11 – 12%– accident reduction - 12 – 14%– less exposure to noise and pollutants– improved accessibilities– less sprawl– economic benefits (NPV) +1900€/inh



4. Overall conclusions



Overall conclusions

• The sustainability evaluation showed that mosts of the tested policies reducing sprawl also improved the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e.

• Reduced sprawl means increased sustainability (exception: PT improvements may sustainable but may add to city sprawl)



Conclusions

• The best policies were the combinations of car pricing, PT fare reductions and land use policies

• They had positive impacts on most of the city sprawl variables and simultaneously improved all the three dimensions of sustainability



Thank you for your attention!



Base trends vs. policy combination 813



Less cars

better accessibilities

Less sprawl



The Economic index in different car pricing policies

The Economic index in different public transport pricing policies

Pricing policies:There is an optimum for car pricing and PT fares

Economic Index- Car Pricing Policies

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

+25% +50 % +75 % +100 % +150% +200%

NP

Veu

ro/c

aoit

a

Increase of car operating costs

Base

Economic Index- Public Transport Policies

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

+20% ± 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100%

NP

Veu

ro/c

aoit

a

Increase/decrease of public transport fares



New town alternatives

000 Base 2001

000 Base 2011

Base

0 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 10 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 1 -500 0 500 1500 2500



HealthEquity

Opportunity

Accessibility


New town alternatives

211 Vuosaari

212 Marja-Vantaa

213 Keski-Pasila

214 Espoon keskus

215 Matinkylä

000 Base 2021



Conclusions – New town alternatives

• The overall differences are environmentally, socially and economically small between the alternative locations

• Pasila, the most central alternative, with best PT and road connections has also the highest increase in overall mobility



Objectives: What are the current trends - what do we try to achieve?

Sustainability

2000 2020

Goal

Continuation of existing policiesDo nothing

Time



CO2

-16 ,0 %

-12 ,0 %

-8 ,0 %

-4 ,0 %

0 ,0 %

2 ,0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

Car m ile age

-2 5,0 %

-2 0 ,0 %

-15,0 %

-10 ,0 %

-5,0 %

0 ,0 %

5,0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Do Nothing

2 P T oriented land us e

3 Car c os t + 75 %

4 P T s peed + 5% , fare -20%

5 Com bination 3 and 4

6 Com bination 2, 3 and 4

M odal s har e - PT

-5,0 %

0 ,0 %

5,0 %

10 ,0 %

15,0 %

2 0 ,0 %

2 5,0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

Inh ab itan ts in ur banz one s

-1,5%

-1,0 %

-0 ,5%

0 ,0 %

0 ,5%

1,0 %

1,5%

1 2 3 4 5 6

M odal s hare - car

-16 ,0 %

-12 ,0 %

-8 ,0 %

-4 ,0 %

0 ,0 %

2 ,0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

Em ploye e s in ur banz one s

-0 ,1%

0 ,0 %

0 ,1%

0 ,2 %

0 ,3 %

0 ,4 %

0 ,5%

0 ,6 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ave r age tr ave l tim e

-5,0 %

-4 ,0 %

-3 ,0 %

-2 ,0 %

-1,0 %

0 ,0 %

1,0 %

2 ,0 %

1 2 3 4 5 6

Urban sprawl assessment



0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

SH

SE

SO

SA

- 500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

EG

EA

EQ

EQ

1B S- 0 1

2B S- 2 1

3 4 5 6 1B S- 0 1

2B S- 2 1

3 4 5 6 1B S- 0 1

2B S- 2 1

3 4 5 66 2, 3

Sustainability evaluationEnvironmental index Social index Economic index



Investment policies

000 Base 2001

000 Base 2011

000 Base 2021

001 Do not invest

002 Only car investments

003 Only PT investments

121 Develop orbital connections of PT

Investment policies

Base

0 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 10 0, 2 0, 4 0, 6 0, 8 1 -500 0 500 1500 2500



HealthEquity

Opportunity

Accessibility




Conclusions – Investment policies

• The effect on environmental and social sustainability is small

• Transport investments (both PT and road) tend to, in many cases:– increase kilometres travelled – increase the average travel time– increase CO2 emissions– decrease accessibilities



Car costs +75% - Land use changes

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000

Relative changePP 214

5 ...2 ,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0 ,5 ... 0 ,5-2 ,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000


5 ...2,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0,5 ... 0 ,5-2,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5

Population Employment



Indicators are defined to measure each dimension of sustainability (PROPOLIS). The indicator themes are:

Health EquityOpportunities

Accessibility and traffic

ENVIRONMENTALGlobal climate change Air pollution Consumption of natural sources Environmental quality

Total net benefit from transport

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENTAL



Example: Noise levels and exposure to noise



PT-fares –60% - Land use changes

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000


5 ...2 ,5 ... 50 ,5 ... 2 ,5

-0 ,5 ... 0 ,5-2 ,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5

0 20 40

kilom etres

0 5 10

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000

Relative change (%)PP 123

5 ...2,5 ... 50,5 ... 2,5

-0,5 ... 0,5-2,5 ... -0,5-5 ... -2,5... -5




Car costs +75%, PT speed/service +5%, PT fare –20%

0 20 40

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000

Relative change (% )PP 717

5 ...2 ,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0,5 ... 0 ,5-2,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5

0 20 40

kilom etres


5000 ...

2500 ... 5000500 ... 2500

-2500 ... -500-5000 ... -2500

... -5000


5 ...2,5 ... 50,5 ... 2 ,5

-0,5 ... 0 ,5-2,5 ... -0 ,5-5 ... -2 ,5... -5


SCATTER WORKSHOP, Brussels, November 9th 2004 KARI LAUTSO / LT CONSULTANTS SCATTER SPRAWLING CITIES...

Documents

Transcript of SCATTER WORKSHOP, Brussels, November 9th 2004 KARI LAUTSO / LT CONSULTANTS SCATTER SPRAWLING CITIES...