Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative DEMAND MANAGEMENT Working Group Directorate-General for Energy and Transport

Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two

Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative

DEMAND MANAGEMENT Working Group

Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Luca Persia (University “La Sapienza” – Rome)

Ian Bewick (TTR) - Rapporteur


The Group

• Dublin

• Ile de France

• London

• Oulu

• The Hague


The theme

• Demand Management is … a broad set of policies and measures aimed at reducing/rationalising transport demand on a network or part of it, in order to reduce traffic congestion and externalities

• … a very wide set of indicators collected during Year 1


From Year 1 to Year 2

• Due to the big effort requested by data collection, participant cities decided to:

− Put more emphasis on experience exchange, rather than on indicator collection

− Refine some quantitative figures, while introducing several qualitative indicators

− Focus on two well defined themes


Focus of the group on:

1. Integration of land-use and transport planning

2. Parking policies


Some results: the site visits• 3 interesting and fruitful visits to:

1. Dublin (Focus on: integration of land-use and public transport planning)

2. The Hague (Focus on: integration of land-use and transport planning)

3. Ile-de-France (Focus on intermodality)

• Reactions on transferability


Some results: quantitative indic.

• Data on relationships between land-use

and transport -> interesting findings

• Data on parking -> main gap in the

urban transport databases


Population of the cities

0

2.000.000

4.000.000

6.000.000

8.000.000

10.000.000

12.000.000

London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France

Regional

Metropolitan


Population density

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000


Metropolitan

Regional


Job density

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

London The Hague Oulu Dublin


Pop. density and car usage

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

The Hague London Ile de France Dublin Oulu

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

Pop. density

Car share


Job density and car usage

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

The Hague London Ile de France Dublin Oulu

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

Job density

Car share


Average trip length

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Private modes

Public transport


Trip length and city size

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Oulu The Hague Dublin London Ile de France

0

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

7.000.000

8.000.000

9.000.000

10.000.000

Priv. modes

PT

Population


PT trip length and pop. density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Oulu Dublin Ile de France London The Hague

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

PT lenght

Pop. density


N. of parking spaces in CBD

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000


On-street

Off-street


P+R spaces per 1000 residents

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0



Some results: qualitative indic.

• Drawn from PLUME

• Presented with different levels of details:London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile-de-France No Yes Yes Yes Yes No TfL Policy but individual boroughs may have their own policies

Parking in the centre in public facilities is expensive, except for essential car users.

With implementation of 1000 space underground car park in the city centre, the objective is to reduce parking spaces on street and also to increase the cost of parking

Yes, in Central Areas in particular although it is Local Authority led. For example parking charges in the Dublin City Council are zonal based, with 5 tariff zones.

Not for residents but for visitors in the business centre of Paris


Mono/poly centric

London The Hague

Oulu Dublin Ile-de-France

Now Poly Mono Mono Mono

Long term

Poly Mono Mixed Poly Poly


One authority for land-use and transport planning?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


One integrated plan for land-use and transport?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Parking policies linked to development (standards)?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Parking policies linked to public transport?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Public incentives to locate close to public transport?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Policy aimed at increasing cycling/ pedestrian facilities?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Policy aimed at increasing cost of car parking?

0

1

2

3

4

5

Yes No


Some conclusions

• Integration of land-use and transport planning is a main priority for participant cities

• Gaps on parking data (n., revenues, fines) can affect correct planning

• People prefer to discuss, rather than to measure: balanced mix of quantitative/qualitative indicators

Documents

Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative DEMAND MANAGEMENT Working Group Directorate-General for Energy and Transport