3 PROPOLIS (2000-2004) PROPOLIS (Planning and Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustainability) was a project of the Key Action City of the Tomorrow of the 5th RTD Framework of the European Commission. Objectives -to research, develop and test integrated land use and transport policy assessment tools and methodologies -to define sustainable urban strategies and to demon- strate their long-term effects
4 PROPOLIS Partners -LT Consultants Ltd., Helsinki(Coordinator) -Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund -Spiekermann & Wegener (S&W), Dortmund -University College London, London -Marcial Echenique & Partners Ltd., Cambridge -Trasporti e Territorio srl, Milan -Marcial Echenique y Compañia SA, Bilbao -STRATEC S.A., Brussels.
5 PROPOLIS Case study cities/models MEPLAN TRANUS IRPUD
31 Modelling urban sustainability Aggregate land-use transport model Zonal data Aggregate land-use transport model Zonal environmental impact model Aggregate land-use transport model Zonal data Aggregate land-use transport model Spatial disaggregation Zonal data Microsimulation land-use transport model Disaggregate environmental impact model Disaggregate environmental impact model No spatial disaggregation Spatial disaggregation of output Spatial disaggregation of input Few impacts Limited feedback All impacts Limited feedback All impacts All feedbacks PROPOLISILUMASS
32 Micro database For the synthetic micro database zonal data are allocated to raster cells. Two steps are performed: (1) Conversion of polygons to raster cells The polygons of a land-use map are converted to raster cells and each raster cell is assigned a land- use category. Land-use categories Residential high-densityResidential low densityIndustrialOpen Space
40 Sustainability In PROPOLIS, sustainable development consists of three interconnected components: - ecological or environmental sustainability - social or human sustainability - economic efficiency
41 Sustainability Indicators Environmenta lGlobal climate change Air pollution Consumption of natural resources Environmental quality Social Health Equity Opportunities Accessibility and traffic Economic Total net benefit from transport
42 Environmental Indicators Global climateGreenhouse gases from transport change Air pollutionAcidifying gases from transport Volatile organic compounds from transport Natural Consumption of mineral oil products resourcesLand coverage Need for additional new construction EnvironmentalFragmentation of open space qualityQuality of open space
43 Social Indicators HealthExposure to PM from transport at housing Exposure to NO 2 at housing Exposure to traffic noise Traffic fatalities Traffic injuries EquityJustice of distribution of economic benefits Justice of exposure to PM Justice of exposure to NO 2 Justice of exposure to noise Segregation OpportunitiesHousing standard Vitality of city centre Vitality of surrounding region Productivity gain from land use AccessibilityTotal time spent in traffic and trafficLOS of public transport and slow modes Accessibility to city centre Accessibility to services Accessibility to open space
44 Economic Indicators Total net benefitTransport investment costs from transportTransport user benefits Transport operator benefits Government benefits from transport Transport external accident costs Transport external emissions costs Transport external greenhouse gases costs Transport external noise costs
45 Evaluation The USE-IT module Indicator weights Theme weights Environmen- tal index Policy alternatives
46 Environmental quality Natural resources Air pollution Global climate change Reference scenario in 2021 Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
47 Accessibility Opportunity Equity Health Reference scenario in 2021 Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
48 Economic Evaluation Economic evaluations are made in a special module
49 Reference Local Car costs Parking Toll Speed PT Land use Combination
51 Conclusions (1) The existing level of sustainability will not be maintained in the base scenario. Further growth in income will result in -further spatial decentralisation of residen- ces and workplaces, -more car ownership, -more and longer trips, -more energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases, -more traffic noise and air pollution, -less open space and natural habitats.
52 Conclusions (2) Transport policies making car travel less attractive (more expensive or slower) are very effective in reducing car mobility and making cities more sustainable. However, these policies depend on a not too dispersed spatial organisation. In addition, diversified labour markets and different job locations of two-worker households make spatial co-ordination of residences and work- places difficult.
53 Conclusions (3) Transport policies making public transport more attractive (i.e. faster or less expensive) have only little effect on car mobility. However, they contribute to further spatial decentralisation of residences and work- places.
54 Conclusions (4) Land-use policies to increase urban density or mixed land-use or development near pub- lic transport stations without accompanying measures to make car travel less attractive have only little effect on car mobility. However, these policies are important in the long run as they provide the preconditions for a reduction of car mobility.
55 Conclusions (5) Policy packages combining policies making car travel less attractive and policies making public transport more attractive and land-use policies to increase urban density and mixed land use are very effective in achieving less car-dependent cities.
56 More information: PROPOLIS website: http://www.ltcon.fi/propolis PROPOLIS Final Report: Lautso, K., Spiekermann, K., Wegener, M., Sheppard, I., Steadman, P., Martino, A., Domingo, R., Gayda, S.: PROPOLIS – Planning and Research of Policies for Land Use and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustain- ability. LT Consultants, Helsinki, 2004.