Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CO2
NO2
CO2
€ NO2
Indicators for Sustainable Urban Transport in Europe
Overview and examples
Henrik Gudmundsson PhD., Chief Advisor, CONCITO
Expert Group Meeting on
Planning and Assessment of Urban Transportation Systems
22-23 September 2016, Kathmandu, Nepal
NO2
€ CO2 CO2
CO2
NO2
• Chief advisor in Cities and Transport at CONCITO Green think tank, Copenhagen
• 10 year as Senior Researcher in transport policy at Technical University of Denmark
• 18 year as head of section/researcher in the Danish Ministry of Environment
• Contributions to several European and national projects, expert groups, scientific publications etc. on sustainable transport
• New book: “Sustainable Transportation - Indicators, Frameworks and Performance Management” Springer 2016 (co-authors, Hall, Marsden, Zietsman)
Henrik’s Background
1. The role of indicators in Sustainable Transport Assessment
2. The European Union Sustainable Transport policies
3. Examples of European assessment frameworks and indicator systems for urban transport
– City Statistics
– European Green Capital Award,
– CIVITAS indicators
4. Summary
Overview
• Transport systems have multiple impacts of significance for Sustainable Development
• Complete knowledge and models of sustainable transport systems are not available; approximations are needed
• Policy goals and measures for sustainable transport need to be assessed ex ante, monitored in real-time and evaluated ex post
• What is not measured and compared cannot be managed and improved
Indicator systems are essential for Sustainable Transport Assessment
?
From ’Dublin Dashboard’
• Indicators are variables that are selected to represent key properties of systems and phenomena of policy interest
• Indicators are measurable using quantitative or qualitative values, but do not provide complete information on systems or phenomena
• Indicators are intended and used for descriptive, normative or prescriptive assessments of sustainable transport
Definition and role of indicators
Review and Explore – How are we doing?
Account and Compare – Who accomplished what?
Improve and Learn – How can we do better?
Describe and Inform – What is going on ?
Diagnose and Explain – How did we get here?
Plan and Decide – What should we do?
Different applications of indicators
• Indicators are embedded in frameworks that are conceptual and procedural constructs
• Frameworks organize how indicator systems are designed, managed, and applied
• Frameworks provide focus and structure
Frameworks are essential
ConceptWhat to measure?
IntentionWhy to measure?
ProcedureHow to measure?
Type Features
System
• Measuring transport system conditions and performance,
• ‘State of repair’, ‘Traffic vol.’, ‘Mode split’
Pillar
• Measuring according to Environmental, Economic, and Social impacts of transport
• ‘Emissions’, ‘Costs’, ‘Access’
Goal
• Performance compared to specified goals and performance targets,
• ‘reduce delay 10%’, ‘0 fatalities’
Chain • Measuring along causal chain, typically for environment policy
• ’Pressure’, ’State’, ‘ Response’
Some indicator framework types
RESPONSEDRIVING FORCE
STATE
PRESSURE IMPACT
“Political decision makers…gather information and do not use it; ask for more information and ignore it; make decisions first and look for relevant information afterwards; and collect and process a great deal of information that has little or no direct relevance to decisions” .
Source: Sager & Ravlum (2005) The political relevance of planners’ analysis: The case of a parliamentary standing committee, Planning Theory, 4(1), pp. 33–64.
Provocative finding…
Types of use Explanation
Instrumental use To support decisions to act To serve as a signal
Conceptual use
Frame the perception and structuring of a problem with no direct use
Symbolic use Reference without drawing any consequences; decisions already made
Tactical use
Use as an excuse, e.g. to postpone action
Non-use
(self-explanatory)
Different forms of knowledge use
Sources: Gudmundsson & Sørensen (2013); Weiss, CH (1988)
• 28 member states
• Annual budget of 145 bill €
• 508 million inhabitants
• 72,3% live in cities, towns and urban areas
• Urban transport in Europe: – 23% of transport CO2
– 69% of traffic accidents
– Many cities exceed air quality limit values due to transport
European Union
• European Commission proposes European policies and legislation
• Member States (Council) and the European Parliament adopts European legislation
• Member states implement European policies and legislation
• Various institutions monitor European systems, policies and legislation
EU: Complex institutional set-up!
?
Exclusive competence
Shared competence
Competence to co-ordinate member states
Competence to support member states
• Customs union • Competition rules • Monetary policy
(for euro area • Conservation of
marine resources • Commercial
policy • Certain
international agreements
• Internal market • Social policy • Cohesion • Agriculture and
fisheries • Environment • Consumers • Transport • Energy • Security; Justice • Public health • Research • Development • Humanitarian aid
• Economic policy • Employment • Social policies
• Improvement of human health • Industry • Culture • Tourism • Education • Civil protection • Administrative cooperation
Key European policy areas
• Decoupling economic growth and environmental impacts
• Modernizing the EU framework for public passenger transport
• Reducing transport energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (new cars: 95 g CO2/km by 2020)
• Reducing pollutant emissions
• Shift towards environment friendly transport modes
• Reducing transport noise
• Halving road transport deaths by 2020 compared with 2011
Some EU Sustainable Transport goals
Name Focus Frame Type
Transport role
Transport Indicators
EU Transport Scoreboard (2014 -)
Performance of national transport systems and policies
System and goal
Only topic 29
EEA TERM Indicator report (2000 -)
Environmental performance of EU and national transport policy
System chain and goal
Only topic 14
EUROSTAT SDS Monitoring (2005 - )
EU Sustainable Development Goals at EU and national level
Pillar, System and goal
One of 10 topics
10
EU transport indicator systems : Country level
EU Transport Scorecard - examples
Employment share in high growth transport enterprises
Quality of railroad infrastructure
Source: EURO STAT http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/scoreboard/index_en.htm
• Limited jurisdiction for the EU level
• ’Subsidiarity principle’
• Soft approach: – General concepts and guidelines
– Support for research
– Financial support to cities
– Support for best practice exchange
• No binding goals (except air quality)
• No bindings urban policies
• No binding frameworks or indicators
EU and Urban Transport
• ”Strategic plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life…”
Wefering et al. EU Guidelines, 2014
Key conceptual framework: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP)
• “Planning for the future of your city with its people as the focus”
• ”Plan for a city our children would like to live in”
Elaborating a monitoring and evaluation plan
Selecting indicators for goal setting and
assessment
Evaluate processes and outcomes
Assess measures and scenarios
Monitor plan implementation
History of EU SUMP policy
2002 6th Environmental Action Program 2002-10
•Need for ’Thematic strategy’ for the urban environment • Need to tackle rising volumes of traffic, increase share of public transport, walk, cycle’
2004 EU expert group on urban transport and environment
• SUTP concept analyzed • EU SUTP directive proposed
2005 Thematic Strategy for the Urban Environment (DG ENV)
• No directive • SUTP Guidance promised • Support for knowledge exchange
2006 EU Renewed strategy for Sustainable Development
• ”Local authorities should develop and implement urban transport plans..”
2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility
‘Accelerating the take-up of SUMPs’
2011 Transport White Paper • Goal for Urban Transport • Guidance for SUMP (draft)
2013 ’Urban Mobility Package’ • ‘Encourage the use of SUMP’s’ • “Member States should promote SUMP’s”
2014 Follow-up • Guidance for SUMP (final) • ‘Urban Mobility Observatory’ (ELTIS)
Types of Indicator applications
Stand alone indicator
Indicator set or system
Systems for ex ante scenario
analysis, SUMP development
Systems for Real time surveillance and monitoring
Systems for ex post project,
SUMP or policy evaluation
Comprehensive or cross cutting assessment systems
Indicator applications for ST in EU
Stand alone indicator
Indicator set or system
Systems for ex ante scenario
analysis, SUMP development
Systems for Real time surveillance and monitoring
Systems for ex post project,
SUMP or policy evaluation
Comprehensive or cross cutting assessment systems
Name Focus Frame Type
Transport Role
Transport Indicators
EU City Statistics Quality of Life Ex post Subtopic 10
Ref. Framework for Sust. Cities
Sustainable Urban Development
Ex ante Subtopic 14
European Green Capital Award
Green and sustainable cities
Integrated Subtopic 10
ECOMOBILITY SHIFT
Sustainable Mobility
Integrated Only topic 20
SUMP Self assessment tool
Sustainable Mobility
Ex ante Only topic
100 questions
CIVITAS Capital indicators
Sustainable Mobility
Indicator set Only topic
28
Urban Transport Scorecard
? ? Only topic
?
EU transport indicator systems : Urban level examples
Cost of a combined monthly ticket for public transport for 5-10 km in the central zone
Number of deaths in road accidents
Cost of a taxi ride of 5 km to the center at day time
Number of private cars registered
Length of bicycle network (dedicated paths)
People commuting into the city
People commuting out of the city
Share of journey to work (by mode)
Average time of journey to work (minutes)
Average length of journey to work by private car
City Statistics Transport indicators
City Transport Statistics illustrated
Number of registered cars per 1000 inhabitants
Number of traffic fatalities per 10.000 inhabitants
Source: EUROSTAT http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/RSI/#?vis=city.statistics&lang=en
European Green Capital Award
Focus: Environmental performance
Hosted by: European Commission
Coverage: All cities above 100.000 inh. (+20-100.000)
Frequency: Every year since 2010
Type: Integrated ; Competitive
Role of transport: One out of 13 areas (water, air, noise, waste….)
Approach • Indicators are combined with qualitative evaluation of achievements and future plans • Cities are ranked for each area and all ranks added
Transport Indicators
• 4 (5)
Comments: • No follow-up on performance • Not sustainable ‘balance’
EGCA Transport indicators
Length of cycle lanes (meters/inhabitant)
Share of journeys under 5 km made by private car (%)
Population living within 300 metres of an hourly public transport service (%)
Share of buses classified as low emission vehicles (%)
Transport ton CO2/inhabitant
Scoring exercise per area
Local Transport assessment for 2014
1 Dedicdated cycle lanes (meter/inh)
2. Share of population near Public transport
3. Car share of journeys under 5 km
4. Proportion of clean buses
CITY 1 0,60 71,0 25,0 0,0
CITY 2 0,02 95,9 50,0 0,0
CITY 3 0,70 94,0 6,4 50,0
CITY 4 0,09 97,5 42,0 0,0
CITY 5 0,04 0,0 9,3 0,0
CITY 6 0,68 98,0 12,0 34,0
CITY 7 0,67 94,4 23,0 77,0
CITY 8 1,40 70,0 48,9 0,0
CITY 9 0,26 91,0 50,0 10,0
CITY 10 0,09 94,3 45,0 0,0
CITY 11 0,72 87,0 36,0 36,0
CITY 12 0,11 90,0 50,0 0,0
CITY 13 0,19 91,0 39,0 39,0
CITY 14 0,02 95,0 50,0 0,0
CITY 15 0,12 99,0 74,5 9,5
CITY 16 0,00 95,0 15,0 0,0
CITY 17 0,10 95,0 35,0 75,0
CITY 18 0,16 95,0 23,0 5,0
European Green Capital Award
Nijmegen 2018
Examples of good practices
Copenhagen as World’s best city for bicycles • At least 50% will go to work or school by bike • Number of seriously injured cyclists cut by half • At least 80% of cyclists feel safe and secure • A reduction of transport CO2 by 20%
Aosta Green Logistics ‘Cityporto ‘ • Unloading goods to the city • Distributing goods with low-carbon
vehicles • Streets, squares have greater appeal • The service has created new job
opportunities
CIVITAS Capital indicator set
Focus: Sustainable Mobility Planning
Hosted by: CIVITAS
Coverage: All European cities (intended)
Frequency -
Type: •Voluntary Indicator set
Approach •Based on literature review and interviews •Focus on what cities need • Discussed with six cities
28 indicators in Nine topic areas
Travel Patterns; Accessibility; Speed and safety Walking; Cycling; Public Transport; Cars and parking Socio-economic impacts; Environmental impacts
Comments: • Not based in sustainable framework (TBL) • Not applied in full in any city
Description for each indicator:
Definition
Purpose and goals
How to gather data
Example of city use
• Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Paris, Lyon, Stuttgart and Zurich
• Similar indicators are used, but often not exact same
• Far fewer the 28 indicators are normal
• Main use of data is for planning, policy monitoring, sometime statutory reporting, not benchmarking
• Typical comment: “Interesting set of indicators– but who would pay for costs of extra data gathering?”
Interviews with ‘advanced’ cities
Ranking indicators using 5 criteria
C1: Relevance for one or more of the sustainability dimensions (environment, social, economic), or measuring key transport system features
C2: Representation of all urban modes, especially SUMP compatible modes such as walking, cycling and public transport, but also motor vehicles C3: Alignment with data and indicators that many cities use already C4: Easy data collection, preferably with standard concepts and methods C5: Actionability and decision relevance for a city, including for urban planning, financial allocation, and communication
C6: Support reporting for key European urban transport policy goals, such a GHG emissions, alternative fuels, traffic safety, congestion, ICT/ITS deployment
Indicators with highest scores
Category Indicator with highest score
Travel Patterns Modal split
Accessibility Density (land use)
Speed and safety Safety – people killed and seriously injured
Walking Accessibility of outside built environment
Cycling Extent of on-street cycle network
Public Transport Public transport service per capita
Cars and parking Car ownership
Social impacts Citizen satisfaction with transport system
Environmental
impacts
CO2 emissions from transport per capita
• No ‘official’ European monitoring of urban transport (yet)
• Not ‘mandatory’ set of indicators or index for Sustainable transport in European cities
• Several voluntary assessment frameworks are offered by the European Institutions and professional bodies – General Sustainable Development/Quality of Life frameworks
– Specific sets of indicators for urban transport
– Assessment and scenario tools to support development of new plans
– Self-evaluation tools for sustainable urban transport plans
• Will the EU deliver an Urban Transport Scoreboard?
Summary EU
City Statistics (Urban Audit) Reference Framework for European
Sustainable Cities (RFSC)
European Green Capital Award (EGCA)
Transport system
Number of private cars registered Number of personal cars per adult
Length of bicycle network (dedicated cycle paths
and lanes)
Bicycle lanes and paths proximity Length of cycle lanes (meter/inhabitant)
Percentage of pedestrian streets and walkways
Accessibility to public transport stops Population living within 300 metres of hourly
public transport service
Roads maintenance
Investment in transport infrastructure
Travel patterns and behavior factors
Share of journeys to work by mode Traffic modal split for persons Share of journeys under 5 km made by private car
(%)
Modal split of freight transport
Average time of journey to work (minutes) Congestion index
Average length of journey to work by private car
(km)
People commuting in and out of the city
Cost of a combined monthly public transport ticket
in the central zone
Passenger transport prices
Cost of a taxi ride of 5 km to the centre at day time
Satisfaction with level of public transport services Satisfaction with level of public transport services
Transport impacts
Number of deaths in road accidents
Transport energy consumption Transport ton CO2/inhabitant
Traffic light using LED
Number of companies with Green Travel Plans
Share of buses classified as low emission vehicles
(%)
Limited integration across frameworks
CIVITAS
• Program to promote cleaner, better transport in cities.
• Started 2002
• Over 200 cities have been involved
• Good Practice exchange, guidance and research
Communicative Frameworks
ELTIS
• ’Urban Mobility Observatory’
• Website and knowledge hub
• Started 2004
• Training material, case studies, guidance on SUMP
• Urban transport News
http://www.civitas.eu/ http://www.eltis.org/
• Cities need and use indicators but not always the same
• The need for indicators depend on purpose and applications
• Large variation in how much cites use indicators
• Limited interest in benchmarking and comparison
• New issues such as Smart City will require and allow new types of indicators
Summary for European cities
Advanced city example
Website: http://www.dublindashboard.ie/Overview/stats
• If indicators are too simple -> They may be misinterpreted
• If indicators are too complex -> They may not be applied
• If indicators are too few -> They may be misused
• If indicators are too many - > They may be ignored
• High agreement regarding domains; Medium agreement about topics; Limited agreement about specific indicators
• What is the role for local, national, regional or global frameworks?
Challenge...
EXTRA SLIDES
Target groups
• Media
• General public
•Decision makers
• Stakeholders
• Policy experts
• Scientists
Aggregation and Communication
Compo- Site (1)
Key indicators (5-15)
Broad Indicator sets (15-200+)
Data, Observations, Records (10.000+ > entries)
Type Strengths Weaknesses
System • Direct focus on transport systems
• Exploits transport agency data
• Not addressing sustainability
• Ignores wider interactions
Pillar • Clear conceptual relation to sustainability
• Holistic; Simple
• Not all transport impacts allocate to one pillar
• May show conflicting results
Goal • Political relevance
• Good for steering
• Organizational basis
• No-goal impacts may be lost
• Focus on incremental change
• Risk of silo thinking
Chain • Supports different steps of planning process
• Possibility for deeper analysis
• Complex, data and resource demanding
• Imitates modelling without the underlying knowledge
Use for Sustainable Transport
45
Monitoring EU SDS Strategy
Source: EUROSATAT 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/
Based on statistics from each EU state
EU agencies involved in monitoring
European Commission DG MOVE
European Commission DG ENVIRONMENT
European Commission Joint Research Centre
European Commission EUROSTAT
European Commission DG REGIO
European Environment Agency EEA
CIVITAS Program
Combining surveys
Proportion of people satisfied with public transport services and the quality of air in their city. Source: Urban Europe EUROSTAT (2016)
