Post on 02-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Stepping Stones
GPS: Final results
Pieter TanjaKrakow, 18th September 2014
Project team: Jorg Thiemann-Linden, Jürgen Gies,Tom Rye, Zsuzsanna Olofsson,Jantine Zwinkels, Pieter Tanja
anjaopConsultT
10 april 2014
Objectives Stepping Stones
STEP-BY-STEPWhat-question | Large number of cases | Statistical analysis
GPSHow-question | moderate number of cases | Qualitative analysis
SHAPE-ITWhy question | small number | Explorative
To understand:1. the successful (policy) measures aimed at making mobility patterns more
sustainable (WHAT)2. the underlying mechanisms (the HOW and WHY) including social &
psychological factors
10 april 2014
Objectives GPS
To understand:
• The effective and efficient (combinations of) policy measures that influence the travel behaviour of car users towards more sustainable mobility patterns (Less, smarter, cleaner)
• The key aspects of the process to implement such measures effectively and efficiently
• Measures that are of common interest across Europe, so capable of application in a variety of contexts
• How such measures may need to be adapted to fit different contexts – in other words, how transfer of a policy measure can best be brought about.
10 april 20144
GPS: the selected cases
Evidence based: learning from real-life experiences (barriers & drivers)
Categorization of cases
10 april 20145
Some examples of cases
Strategy
Hannover Regional SUMP “pro Klima” : Policy integration Programme to achieve CO2 reduction targets
Infrastructure
Köniz / BernShared space approachIntegrate urban develop-ment with transport
Regulation
FreiburgQuality of lifeLow-energy buildingsParking restrictions
Mobility Management
Den BoschInnovative sharing conceptFeasible business case? Specific target group
10 april 20146
The way they were analyzed
A staged approach:
Interview guidelines
Documents review &
interviewsCase descriptions
Intercase analysisTwinning casesConclusions & recommendations
10 april 20147
GPS: Intercase analysis
Answering the following research questions:
1. What were problems they were seeking to address in relation to the case
objectives?
2. Range of costs and relationship to “success” of measure
3. Key success factors and barriers
4. How barriers were overcome
5. Key ways used to manage public reaction
6. Use of, insights and benefits from framework on behavioural change
7. Are measures transferable – or do they depend on local conditions?
Answering for each category of cases:
“What works best?” Key success factors and lessons learned
10 april 20148
Conclusions overall project objectives
1. 75% of the projects reviewed had positive impacts on travel behaviour
2. The biggest shifts: site or corridor specific infrastructure schemes Heilbronn’s light rail scheme
3. “Softer” mobility management interventions: lesser reductions, much lower cost “Head on, Engine off” in Dortmund, or No Ridiculous Car Trips in Malmö
4. City wide strategies: no monitoring data except LundaMats
Lundamats: a small but marked reduction in car use by residents
5. In general: other significant benefits, including air quality and safety improvements and noise reduction.
6. No conclusions about the benefits of packaging measures
7. Less successful? Less information! Only two, Leisure Bus and Shopping Trips to Svågertorp
10 april 20149
General lessons learned
Arrange for political support and broader perspective
Get decision on high political level + multi-level funding
Connect sustainable mobility with what matters to the city (attractiveness)
Pay attention to good & smart planning
Manage the task as a project (people, budgets, milestones, deliverables)
Identify the right moment: ‘Windows of opportunity” and go public by the media
Involve ‘front running’ stakeholders
Citizens: Involve open-minded citizen groups (“happy few”), but also the skeptics
Local companies: (“Business breakfast” meeting, cooperation dialogues)
10 april 201410
Strategy Use windows of opportunity to establish example structures for
sustainable transport (e.g. redevelopment areas)
Use of international knowledge on integration of urban spatial planning and transport planning to reduce traffic demand in specific situations
Get more insight in the change of consumers’ attitudes
Try to remove barriers to inter-disciplinary collaboration and integration of departments within the administration
Example of LundaMats II
Was built on LundaMats I (infrastructure) Defined 18 clear targets and 42 priority key projects Urban and transport planning integration
Pedestrian, bicycle, public and commercial transport,
mobility management Lundamats will be presented in more detail tomorrow
10 april 201411
Regulation Overcome resistance to change by an array of initiatives
Put local regulation policies (parking limitation, speeds limits) in a broader context Road safety, street space usage, air quality, noise
Support measures with corresponding street design
Do not be scared by car drivers’ lobbying, involve them
Making changes temporary may well make them definitive!
Example of Berlin speed limits Started from traffic noise and air quality standards 30 km/h on several main roads partly during night only Intensive monitoring on traffic flow (positive results) Continued decreasing speeds year by yearf
10 april 201412
Infrastructure Look at infrastructure in a broader context
Arrange the right conditions for co-funding
Arrange for ongoing communication
Learn from earlier ambitious projects elsewhere, evaluate
Example of the lightrail system in Heilbronn
Started in 1990s, still in the implementation phase
Improving inner city’s economy by reshape of streets
Significant rise in passenger numbers in the last years
Transferable to other cities: make use of existing
infrastructure
10 april 201413
Mobility Management Arrange for a joint public-private budget Install an adequate (special purpose) organization able to involve other
stakeholders and citizens
Tune campaigns to the problem and to the target group
Facilitate introduction of new services by learning by doing, real alternative travel options, new tax regulations, business areas
Example of Taskforce Mobility Management (NL)
Maatschappij/overheid• Bereikbaarheid• Filereductie• Duurzaamheid• Economische vitaliteit
Organisatie/werkgever• Aantrekkelijke werkgever• Bereikbaarheid/parkeren• Kostenreductie• MVO
Werknemer/Mobilist• Thuis/mobiel werken• Flexibele werktijden• Balans werk/privé• Keuzevrijheid
Vraag: wensen/behoeften Slim werkenen
Slim reizen
Vermijden• Thuis/mobiel werken• Aansturing op output• Loslaten 9-5 cultuur• Samenwerken op afstand
Aanbod: oplossingen
Verminderen• Beprijzen wegverkeer• Reiskostenregeling• Verhuiskostenregeling
Vergroenen• Stimuleren OV/fiets• Verminderen
woon-werk verkeer• Schoner vervoer
Objective: 5% congestion reduction Special purpose organization, use
of covenants Focus on employers: 1750 involved
in 15 regions Employers decide on measures Link to labour conditions
10 april 201414
Key conclusions about succesful projects
What turned out to be important?
Innovative structures for delivering projects, e.g. responsibility for project delivery to organisations outside the municipality
A pragmatic approach (seen in many projects)
Key people: skilled technical staff can overcome barriers without political support
Involving other municipal departments or organisations not previously involved in transport issues: new staff, avoiding losing momentum
The ability to take advantage of new laws or funding streams
10 april 201415
Outlook: towards a better evaluation culture
Monitoring and evaluation is lacking in many cases
Succesful projects frequently are based on previous evaluation, reducing risks for decision makers to initiate ambitious projects
Ex post evaluation mostly found in mobility management (relatively new area)
Systematic evaluation is needed for further improvement and transfer of measures
Possibilities to achieve this:
Incorporating a specific obligation into projects
Incentives for monitoring and evaluation by funding mechanisms
10 april 201416
Thank you for your attention!
Any questions?