Tools for Representing and Appraising the Distributional Impacts of Policies Example: Streetspace Allocation Peter Jones & James Paskins Centre for Transport Studies, UCL Leeds, 21 st May 2007

Current Situation Authorities encouraged to measure distributional impacts of strategies and schemes – but little guidance Main advice relates to taking into account effects of income differences (e.g. equivalence scales, distributional weights) Recent legislation in UK to ensure no discrimination, in terms of disability, age, ethnicity, gender – strengthens case for examining distributional impacts

Distributional Dimensions WHO: Social group distribution (‘vertical equity’): –Directly affected (e.g. children) –Indirectly affected (e.g. parents) WHERE: Spatial distribution (‘horizontal equity’): –Design area –Wider impact area WHEN: Temporal distribution: –Time period –Generational/cohort differences

Requirements of Tools Aid identification of relevant social groups, plus spatial and temporal impact areas Identify relevant categories and measures of impacts Provide basis for assessing gainers and losers, and severity/significance of change Consider possibility of integration into current appraisal methodologies

Types of Tool Development 1.Congestion charging: Bristol, Edinburgh (PROGRESS), WebTag guidance 2.Accessibility Planning: Barnsley Dearne, South Yorkshire 3.Streetspace reallocation: Bloxwich, West Midlands

Streetspace Reallocation Increasing emphasis on redesigning high streets: –Encourage more sustainable modes –Regenerate high streets & increase liveability Given space/capacity limitations, more for one group often means less for others Need a method of assessing design needs and gainers/losers under different options

Option Generation & Appraisal

Determine Street Type Source: ‘Link and Place - A Guide to Street Planning and Design’ I-BI-CI-DI-EI-A II-A III-A II-BII-C III-B II-DII-E III-CIII-DIII-E V-A IV-BIV-CIV-DIV-E V-BV-CV-DV-E Local NeighbourhoodDistrictCity National Neighbour hood Local District City National IV-A Arterial streets Non-arterial streets Place status (A, B, C, D and E) Link status (I, II, III, IV and V) Link/Place classification matrix

Select Street User Groups/Activities

Requirement for Street Elements Crossing placesTraffic islandStreet seatingCycle standsCycle laneBus laneBus baysRunning lanesParking baysDisabled parking bays Loading bays Pedestrians ●● Pedestrians who have mobility difficulties ●● Those using the street to socialise/relax ● Cyclists ●●●● Bus users visiting the street ●●●● Those travelling to other destinations - all modes ● Car users (non-disabled) visiting the street ●●● Disabled car users visiting the street ●●●●● Shopkeepers ●●

Minimum Design Requirements Existing Spaces Design Spaces Parking Bays1012 Loading Bays1014 Disabled Bays24 Bus Stops44 Crossings33

Streetspace Option Generation Kit

Blocks – Colour and Size Use colour to denote different types of space usage Some based on current street colour categories; e.g. blue = disabled parking (blue badge) Size represents to scale space required to accommodate feature

Scheme Comparison

Differences in Provision by Option Plan APlan BPlan C General ParkingYellow4410 Disabled ParkingBlue282 LoadingBrown222 Bus StopOrange111

Appraisal Spreadsheet Compares the impacts of various street designs on different user groups Inputs include desired and actual levels of provision for each street element Output is a comparison of the impacts for the various user groups Following example replaces 6 parking bays with a bus stop

User Impact Matrix Matrix indicates relevance of different street features to different user groups Impacts are only positive (1) or negative (-1); the matrix does not include any weighting

Provision and Impacts The screenshot shows the spreadsheet being used to show the impacts of replacing 6 parking spaces with a bus stop Current plan elements are entered here Proposed plan elements are entered here

Provision and Impacts The impact matrix is used to calculate the impacts from the current provision and for the proposed plan

Spreadsheet Output Comparison shows there will be a positive impact for bus users and negative impacts for car users (including disabled car users) BUT this comparison did not take account of: –the relative importance of the user groups or –the ideal or maximum numbers of elements

Adding User Group Weights The weightings in the matrix could be altered (e.g.) to favour plan options that: –Prioritise bus users –Prioritise disabled car users –Discourage car use by other groups User groupOriginal weightingRevised weighting Bus passengers15 Disabled car users12 Car users10.5

Revised Impact Matrix The weightings are then fed into the impact matrix………. Bus user weighting Car user weighting Disabled user weighting

Street Element Weighting There may be an upper limit, or ideal number of a particular element The spreadsheet currently allows a maximum provision point to be set; after this point, increasing provision does not increase the benefit for any group It is possible to include other relationships, for instance diminishing returns

Setting a Cut-Off Point Adding extra spaces does not increase the benefit In this example, the maximum number of parking spaces has been set at 6

Spreadsheet with Weightings The revised impact matrix now includes the following: A. User Group Priorities: –Priority for bus users –Priority for disabled drivers –De-prioritising car users Cut-off point for parking spaces: –After 6 have been provided there is no benefit from additional provision

The Effect of Weighting Weighted matrix: Unweighted matrix

Conclusions Spreadsheet currently under development, as an aid to option appraisal/selection – and to more targeted option generation Encourages more explicit treatment of objectives, priorities and needs More work required on inputs BUT, as yet, does not take into account location of design elements along a street

Value of Relative Location? P 4 Bus Stop Shops

Contact Details