Lecture 1 - 18 July 2023

Transport System planning.
Sustainability, variables Sergio Celestino
and measurement www.ctl.uniroma1.it

sergio.celestino@uniroma1.it
Master ENSTP
Yaoundé, Cameroon
July - September 2023
Enseignement 6.2 :
Elaboration des Politiques de Transport et
de Mobilité
Lecture nr.1
18 July 2023
Course program: an overview
1. Transport System planning. Sustainability of TS, variables and

measurement
2. The policies: land use, infrastructural measures
3. The policies: infrastructure management, pricing, city logistics
4. The policies: road safety, attitudes and behaviour, dissemination and
information
5. Exercise 1: use of databases
6. The planning tools: urban and regional planning, sectorial plans
7. Supporting methods and tools; Innovation and future trends
8. Exercise 2: online supporting tools
9. Monitoring transport systems, evaluating policies
2
Course program
1. Transport System planning. Sustainability of TS, variables and

measurement
Tuesday 18 July 2023, Sergio Celestino
1.1 The planning process

1.2 The different planning levels and context
1.3 EU policies
1.4 Approaches and actors
1.5 The concept of sustainability and its measurement
1.6 Sustainability, state and policy variables
1.7 Characteristics of transport systems: international comparisons
3
Course program
2. The policies 1
Tuesday 25 July 2023, Sergio Celestino
2.1 Classification of transport policies:

• Land-use
• Infrastructural measures
4
3. The policies 2
Tuesday 1 august 2023, Kagan Capkin
• Infrastructure management
• Pricing
• City logistics
Slide 5
4. The policies 3
Tuesday 8 august, Kagan Capkin
• Attitudes and behaviour

• Dissemination of information
• Road safety measures
Slide 6
5. Exercise: the use of databases
Tuesday 22 august 2023
Stephen Kome Fondzenyuy
Steffel Ludivin Feudjio Tezong
Slide 7
6. The planning tools: urban and regional planning, sectorial
plans
Tuesday 29 august 2023, Sergio Celestino
6.1 The Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP)

6.2 The Urban Traffic Plan (UTP)
6.3 The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
6.4 The sectorial plans:
• Road Safety Plan (Case study: Rome)
• Cycling Plan
• Public Transport Plan
• City Logistics Plan (Case study: Bologna)
• Company Mobility Plan (Case study: Sapienza University)
Slide 8
7. Supporting methods and tools; Innovation and future trends
Tuesday 5 September 2023
Davide Shingo Usami
7.1 The benchmarking methods

7.2 Online supporting tools
7.3 Crowdsourcing
7.4 Mobility As A Service
7.5 Sharing mobility
7.6 Electric mobility
7.7 Automation
Slide 9
8. Exercise: online supporting tools
Tuesday 12 September 2023
Steffel Ludivin Feudjio Tezong
• Use of specialized tools/software for the analysis and

evaluation of transport systems
Slide 10
9. Monitoring transport systems, evaluating policies
Tuesday 19 September 2023, Sergio Celestino
9.1 Evaluation tools:

• Cost-Benefit Analysis CBA,
• Cost Effectiveness Analysis CEA,
• Multi-Criteria Analysis MCA
9.2 Evaluation of the effectiveness of policies and measures
9.3 Monitoring of the transport system
9.4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Impact
Assessment (SEA)
9.5 Road safety Impact Assessment (RIA)
Slide 11
1. Transport System planning. Sustainability, variables and
measurement
Summary
• The planning process
• Planning levels and contexts
• Continental policies
• Approaches and actors
• The concept of sustainability and its measurement
• Sustainability, State and Policy variables
• Characteristics of transport systems: international
comparison
Slide 12
The planning process
The planning process
Monitoring of external
context
Definition of boundary Definition of

Strategig planning conditions objectives
Identification of
available budget
Planning of Definition of Modeling, design

unexpected events alternative strategies and evaluation
Choice of the best

strategy and definition
of implementation plan
Identification of
Sector interventions indicators to be
Plan monitoring
measured
Other sector
Other sector
Definition of Allocation of
working phases responsibilities Measurement of
indicators
Definition of the workplan
Comparison of
Sectorial implementations results with
objectives
Sector management
Slide 14
Strategic planning
Slide 15
Sector management
Slide 16
Plan monitoring
Slide 17
Analysis of gaps
• Measurement errors
• Influence of external factors (confounding
factors)
• Overlapping of effects of different interventions
• Uncorrect implementation of interventions
• Wrong initial estimation (modeling errors)
18 Slide 18
Planning levels and context
Planning levels and context 1
• There is a general trend of decentralization of

legislative power, leading to a fragmentation of
planning activities
• Context of application:
• European (continental)
• National
• Regional
• Metropolitan
• Urban
• Local (district)
20
• Time horizon:
• Long-term (eg 10-10+ years), strategic planning,

including new big scale infrastructures, land use
modifications and innovative technologies. Large
application area
• Medium-term (eg 5 years), tactical level, including

new small scale infrastructures
• Short-term (eg 2 years), operational level, including

optimization of existing transport systems
21
Time horizon
and
uncertainty
22
• Long-term planning:
– Long-term plans are more likely to be used as
guidelines for the city authorities rather than strict
requirements on them
– Long-term plans tend to have less influence on
actual policy, making the whole exercise somewhat
abstract
– The problem of uncertainty
– But long-term perspective is needed: even 25 years
is far too short to assess the full consequences of
some of our actions today, like the building over of
green land and CO2 emissions
23
• Different mobility sectors:

– The whole mobility system
– The (local) public transport systems
– The cycling mobility
– City logistics
– Road safety
– Intelligent Transport Systems
– Company mobility
• Need for coordination and integration among
the different planning tools
24
Continental policies
EU Policies
Slide 26
Why does the EU have a transport
policy? 1
• Europe needs strong transport connections to drive trade and
croissance
economic growth, and to create employment and prosperity.
Transport networks allow goods to be distributed efficiently and
people to travel
• Transport is a cornerstone of European integration process
• Overcoming obstacles between Member States and creating a

single European transport area with fair competition
conditions for and between the different forms of transport:
road, rail, air and waterborne
• The industry now employs around 11 million people,

accounting for 4.5 % of total employment in the EU
Slide 27
Employment by mode (2016)
Slide 28
Why does the EU have a transport
policy? 2
• EU households today spend 13.5 % of their income on
transport-related goods and services (2.100 € per head),
making transport the second-largest item in their household
budgets after house-related expenditure
• EU transport policy is also about helping and protecting

people when they travel. One of its achievements has been to
secure and uphold passenger rights (eg in case of delays)
• Passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility qualify for

special attention.
Slide 29
Transport policy landmarks 1
• In 1985 a White Paper was issued by the European
Commission on promoting the internal market. It contained
specific references to transport and certain goals to be
achieved by 1992
• 2001: Another White Paper showed a more decisive shift

towards an environmentally responsible transport policy to
adapt to uneven growth in the various forms of transport
• 2006: A progress review decided that more was needed to

combat transport’s negative impact on energy use and
environmental quality. It proposed measures such as a
freight logistics plan, intelligent or ‘smart’ systems to make
transport greener and more efficient and a plan to boost inland
waterways
Slide 30
Transport policy landmarks 2
• 2011: A follow-up White Paper (‘Roadmap to a single
European transport area’) focused on the work remaining to
be done to complete the internal market in transport. Among
other areas, it focused on:
– building integrated transport networks which draw
together different means of transport, or modes;
– creating multimodal hubs (or ‘nodes’) and removing
longstanding bottlenecks that can be technical,
administrative or capacity related;
– improving infrastructure in the countries which joined the
EU from 2004 onwards;
– emphasising research, innovation, investing in transport for
the future without dependence on oil and preparing the
industry to meet difficult decarbonisation targets without
reducing mobility.
Slide 31
The main fields of action
• Legislation: dismantling cross-border barriers, open access to
markets and infrastructure, achieve technical compatibility,
improve road safety
• Infrastructures: Trans-European transport network, or TEN-T,

a longstanding and ambitious project to modernise and ‘knit
together’ today’s patchwork of national parts into a smooth-
running network that connects all corners of Europe
• Research and innovation: funding of huge research

programmes (Framework programmes, Horizon 2020, etc)
Slide 32
The TEN-T Network
Slide 33
Infrastructures
Slide 34
Vehicles
Motorization rate: Global 182 Africa 44
Slide 35
Main
trends
13/07/2023 Slide 36
Annual growth rates EU-28
Slide 37
Passenger
transport
by mode
13/07/2023 Slide 38
Passenger transport modal split
Slide 39
Freight
transport
by mode
13/07/2023 Slide 40
High speed rail
Slide 41
Energy consumption
Slide 42
Greenhouse gas emissions
Slide 43
Greenhouse gas emissions trend
Slide 44
Greenhouse gas emission by mode
Slide 45
Greenhouse gas emission by mode
trend
Slide 46
Greenhouse gas emission by road
mode trend
Slide 47
Trend of fatalities
Slide 48
International comparison
In Africa: 270 fatalities per million inhabitants
Slide 49
Main future objectives
• Halve the use of conventionally fuelled cars in urban transport by
2030, phase them out in cities by 2050
• 30% of road freight over 300 km shifted to other modes (rail or

waterborne) by 2030, more than 50% by 2050
• Completion of High-speed railway network by 2050
• Fully functional core TEN-T network by 2030
• Connect all core network Airports to the rail network by 2050
• Zero fatalities in road transport by 2050
• Move towards full application of «user pays» and «polluter pays»

principles
Slide 50
Approaches and actors
Complexity of decision making
• Traditionally, transport and land use decisions have been made
solely by elected politicians, advised by expert
professionals
• Very few cities are “islands”, so policies are influenced by

neighbouring towns and cities, as well as by regional,
national and continental policy
• The private sector and agencies are increasingly responsible

for public transport, road construction and land use decisions
• Users, businesses and residents expect to be fully involved in

decision-making
Slide 52
Interactions and multiple objectives 1
Decisions on specific policies can often appear

deceptively simple. A new light rail line, for example,
seems a good idea because it provides faster public
transport, attracts people out of cars, and hence
enhances the environment.
• But will other drivers simply use the resulting road space?
• Will light rail encourage longer distance commuting?
• Is it the best solution for the poorest residents?
• Is it the most cost-effective way of improving conditions?
Slide 53
Interactions and multiple objectives 2
• Urban land use and transport are a complex system, and the
knock-on effects of any one decision may be difficult to predict
and sometimes counter-intuitive
• Cities should be concerned with the impacts of transport on

other social issues, such as health, education and social
inclusion
• What is best will depend on the emphasis a city gives to

reducing congestion, improving the environment, stimulating
healthier lifestyles, strengthening the economy and protecting
those who are disadvantaged. It’s a matter of choiches.
Slide 54
Policies: a wide range of options
• We now have available a much wider range of possible policy

interventions, including land use, information technology,
management and pricing to add to the conventional provision
of new infrastructure
• We know much less about the potential of some of these

newer instruments, or how well they work in different
situations
• Which is the best package of policies? Do they interact

between each other? Are there synergies or diseconomies?
Slide 55
Barriers to progress
• Many obstacles can hinder a city’s (more in general
a Public Administration’s) ability to implement
effective and efficient policy instruments:
– complex institutional structures

– legal restrictions on the use of certain measures
– financial restrictions on the overall budget or the ways in
which it can be spent
– political and public opposition to certain types of policy
instrument
– responsibilities often split between departments,
particularly for land use, public works and transport, with
lack of horizontal integration between these sectors
Slide 56
Institutional integration
The key first step for each city is to understand who can
influence decisions and to what extent. The second is to
involve them in as many stages of the decision-making
process as possible
Slide 57
Stakeholder involvement
Slide 58
Approaches to decision-making
Two extreme approaches to decisions:
• a rational, analytical approach, which leads inexorably to the
“right” solution;
• a less organized approach, often called “muddling through”,
in which objectives are never specified, remedial action is
taken when it becomes essential, and more important
decisions are dependent on the power struggles between
interest groups.
• This second model can be seen at work in many of today’s

cities
• Equally an extreme reliance on analysis is inappropriate in a

situation in which priorities and preferences differ and
outcomes are uncertain
Slide 59
The muddling through approach
Slide 60
Actual approaches
• Three categories of approaches can be identified:

– Vision-led
– Plan-led
– Consensus-led
• Vision-led approaches usually involve an individual (typically

the mayor) having a clear view of the future form of city they
want, and the policies needed to achieve that vision
• Relatively few cities have a visionary leader in this sense, but

there is evidence that those which do have made the most
progress
Slide 61
Actual approaches 2
• Plan-led approaches involve specifying objectives

and problems and adopting an ordered procedure
identifying possible solutions to those problems,
and selecting those which perform best
• Politicians and members of the public are

sometimes less familiar with the abstract concept
of objectives (such as improving accessibility)
than they are with concrete problems
Slide 62
Actual approaches 3
• Consensus-led approaches involve discussions between the

stakeholders to try to reach agreement on each of the stages
in the plan-led approach:
– the objectives to be pursued and their relative importance;

– the problems to be tackled and their seriousness;
– the policy instruments to be considered and their
appropriateness;
– the selection of policy instruments which best meet the
objective;
– the way in which they should be combined into an overall
strategy, and implemented
Slide 63
Which approach is best?
• There is no simple answer to this question. However, there are
some obvious pitfalls
• A vision-led approach is critically dependent on the individual

with the vision. If he or she leaves office, it may prove very
difficult to avoid completely abandoning the strategy
• A plan-led approach can become dependent on professional

planners, who may lose sight of the needs of politicians and
stakeholders
• A consensus-led approach may, unless agreement can be

quickly reached and sustained, lead to delay and inaction
Slide 64
Which approaches do cities adopt?
Slide 65
The concept of sustainability and its
measurement
2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development: SDGs
Slide 67
Specific Goals
• 9.1 «Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient

infrastructure, including regional and transborder
infrastructure, to support economic development and human
well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for
all.»
• 11.2 «By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible

and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road
safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special
attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women,
children, persons with disabilities and older persons.»
Slide 68
Goal 11: Progress 20191
• The proportion of urban residents who have convenient
access to public transport (defined as living within 500 m
walking distance of a bus stop and within 1,000 m of a railway
and/or ferry terminal) remains low, particularly in developing
countries.
• Based on data from 227 cities from 78 countries in 2018, on
average, 53 per cent of urban residents in all regions had
convenient access to public transport, from a low of 18 per
cent in sub-Saharan Africa to a high of 75 per cent in
Australia and New Zealand.
• In some regions that have low access to public transport,
informal transport modes are highly prevalent and often
provide reliable transport for the majority of urban populations.
Slide 69
• Globally, urban surfaces are expanding at a faster rate than

their populations. Between 2000 and 2014, areas occupied by
cities grew 1.28 times faster than their populations.
• Closely related to this trend is that the urban densities of

cities have been declining, creating profound repercussions
for environmental sustainability at the local, regional and global
scale.
• Better management of urban growth will be crucial in order to

guarantee sustainable urbanization.
Slide 70
• In 2016, 9 in 10 people living in urban areas still breathed air

that did not meet the World Health Organization’s air quality
guidelines value for particulate matter – that particulate
matter 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5) not exceed an
annual mean of 10 micrograms per m3 or a daily mean of 25
micrograms per m3.
• More than half of the world population experienced an

increase in PM2.5 from 2010 to 2016.
Slide 71
What is transport sustainability?
• There is ample evidence that most (urban) transport systems are

unsustainable, in terms of their growing levels of congestion,
pollution, fuel consumption and accidents
• Sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland

Commission as development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs
• Most cities transport systems would fail this test
Slide 72
2001 EU Transport Council definition
Slide 73
The three pillars of sustainability
Slide 74
Eight specific objectives 1
1. Economic efficiency: involves maximising the benefits which

users can gain from the transport system, after taking account
of the resource costs of provision and operation of the
transport system
1. Protection of the environment: this objective involves

reducing a number of adverse impacts of the transport and
land use system: regional pollutants such as NOX and SO2;
local pollutants such as particulates; noise and vibration;
visual intrusion; fragmentation and severance of settlements
and biodiversity; and loss of cultural heritage and natural
habitats
Slide 75
3. Liveable streets and neighbourhoods: this objective is

focused on streets and outdoor conditions in residential areas.
It includes the positive external effects on social, cultural and
recreational activity in neighbourhoods, increased freedom of
movement on foot and bicycle, and reduced sense of danger
for these modes
3. Safety: this objective straightforwardly involves reducing the

numbers of accidents for all modes, and reducing the severity
of those which occur. However, since some locations, age
groups and modes have higher accident rates than others, the
safety objective also has equity implications
Slide 76
5. Health: pollution, noise and accidents affect health, but so does

the stress of living and working in congested cities. Increasingly
the lack of exercise offered by an increasingly motorised
transport system is being seen as an even greater threat to
health
5. Equity and social inclusion: under equity the principal

concerns are the need for reasonably equal opportunities to
travel, costs of travel and environmental and safety impacts of
travel. Within social inclusion we include accessibility for those
without a car and accessibility for those with impaired mobility
Slide 77
7. Contribution to economic growth: land use and transport

policies should support economic growth. Transports that
improves access or enhances the environment can lead to
increased economic activity and possibly to sustained economic
growth
7. Intergenerational equity: all of the above objectives are

important for today’s cities, but many of them will have
implications for future generations also. Three particularly:
greenhouse gas emissions, and particularly CO2, affecting
longer term climate change; consumption of land; depletion of
non-renewable resources, particularly oil
Slide 78
Which objectives are more important?
• Usually it is not possible to satisfy all of the objectives which may

be desirable, as some of them will be in conflict; for example it
is often difficult to improve accessibility without intruding into the
environment
• Priorities between objectives are a matter for political

judgement which is exercised by the decision-maker, but other
stakeholders’ views can be judged as part of an effective
participation campaign
Slide 79
Sustainability, State and Policy
variables
How to measure sustainability? 1
• Indicators are ways of quantifying objectives or sub-objectives.
For example, casualty numbers would measure the overall safety
objective
Slide 81
• Indicators like number of casualties are often called outcome

indicators, in that it measures part of the outcome of a strategy.
• It is also possible to define input indicators, which measure

expenditure and resources provided for transport
• Output indicators which measure what has been done (e.g.

length of bus lanes implemented)
Slide 82
• Intermediate outcome indicators, which describe how the

transport system is responding (e.g. number of bus users)
• Of these, outcome indicators are the most informative, since

they directly measure performance against the specified
objectives
• However, output and intermediate outcome indicators may be

helpful in understanding how a change in performance has
been obtained
Slide 83
The PROPOLIS
indicator system
PROPOLIS used no input indicators

(although cost of the strategy tested
was included in the economic
indicators), and no output indicators,
but focused specifically on outcome
indicators which covered all its key
objectives, and intermediate
outcome indicators, such as trip-km
and modal shares
Slide 84
A difficult process
• Suitable data are crucial to assess the level of sustainability
and define appropriate policies. Several difficulties can harm
the process:
– Do data exist?
– Are they available?
– Are they accessible?
– Are they updated?
– Are they comparable?
– Are they reliable?
– Are they expensive?
• New technologies can significantly support the process
Slide 85
A different approach
• A study conducted by CTL in 2009, within the Italian National
Transport Plan, focused on sustainability of Italian cities
• Steps:
– Definition of a suitable set of indicators on:
• Tipology of city
• Current level of sustainability
• Adopted policies
– Grouping of comparable cities
– Analysis of relationships between indicators
– Identification of good practices within each group
– Choice of policies (road map) suitable to each city
• Test bed: 50 Italian cities (>100.000 inhabitants)

Slide 86
Definition of indicators
• Three groups of indicators have been used:
– State indicators (Urban context, Vehicle fleets, Mobility)
– Sustainability indicators (Air pollution, Road accidents,
Modal share, Public Transport demand)
– Policy indicators (PT supply, Private transport supply,
Management measures, Road space allocation, Regulatory
measures)
• From the initial set of 200 indicators, a subset of 53 indicators (17

+ 13 + 23) has been obtained through a correlation analysis,
showing:
– similar indicators strongly correlated
– indicators not correlated with Sustainability indicators
SIDT 2011 Pagina 87

The sources
• Italian cities:
– ISTAT
– ACI
– Osservatorio “Audiomob” di ISFORT
– Ecosistema Urbano
– Rapporto Annuale APAT
– Euromobility
– Direct surveys
• European cities:
– Mobility in Cities DB UITP
– EUROSTAT
– OCSE
– BESTUFS
Pagina 88
State indicators
Regional Population, Surface, Density, Density of

variables Residential Area
Euro 3-4 Vehicles, GPL and Methane Vehicles,

Vehicular fleet Vehicle rate, Motorcycle Rate, Good Vehicles
Rate
Total urban
Total number of Intracity trips
mobility
Total number of attracted trips

Attracted trips: share of Public Transportation,
Commuter
Private cars, Motorcycles, Mopeds, and
traffic
Scooters, Bicycles, Pedestrian traffic, Other
Modes
SIDT 2011 Pagina 89

Sustainability indicators
Accidents Accidents rate
Average PM10, Average NO₂, Days exceeding
limits of PM10 in at least one monitoring station,
Pollution
Hours exceeding limits of NO₂, Hours
exceeding limits of O₃
Public
transport Demand for public transportation
demand
Intra-city trips: Share of Public transportation,

Urban mobility
Private cars, Motorbikes, Mopeds, and
(modal share)
Scooters, Bicycles, Pedestrian traffic, Other
modes
SIDT 2011 Pagina 90

Policy indicators
Public transport Service supply, Lenght of surface network, Percentage of
supply bus lanes, Intensity of service
Length of road network, N. of Paid street parking places, N.
of Parking places in interchanges, N. of Paid parking places
in LTZ (Limited Traffic Zones), N. of Paid street parking
Private transport
places in the City Centre, N. of Paid street parking places in
supply the Municipal Area, N. of Regulated on-street parking
places, On-street parking fare – 1st hour, Off-street parking
fare – 1st hour
Management N. of car-free days, N. of car-free Sundays, Traffic
measures restrictions
Reallocation of
LTZ, Pedestrian areas, Bicycle paths
road space
Regulatory
PUT adoption, PUM adoption, Mobility Manager (M.M.)
measures
SIDT 2011 Pagina 91

Correlation analysis
Indice sintetico
Occupati -
Totale posti auto su massimo 100 Costo annuale
Occupati - Autobus Occupati - Densità Numero posti auto Totale posti auto Rapporto posti auto Totale posti auto in
N° incidenti Popolazione - Superficie - Densità Densità corsie strada Totale posti auto Densità strade Densità Aree Densità Piste funzione di: mezzi Tariffa media minimo
Auto-vetture Moto-cicli per Totale veic per Treno, tram, urbano, filobus, Occupati - Piedi Occupati - Auto Motocicletta, numero utenti N° incidenti per Densità Ferrovie Autobus, Tram, Densità Tot. Rete vett**Km_tot/po Integrazione Corsie pref./rete nei parcheggi di su strada a a pagamento / posti parcheggi in sede Densità Ztl (km2 Mobility % auto Euro3 e Totale GPL e Tariffa media
mortali per 'LOC Abitata LOC Abitata (abitanti/kmq) preferenziali regolamentati/riser su strada (?) per comunali pedonali (m2 ciclabili (km a minore impatto parcheggi in permesso
per 1000 ab 1000 ab 1000 ab metropolitana corriera, e bicicletta % privata % ciclomotore, TP per ab 100000 abitanti (km/kmq)) Filobus di sup. (Km/kmq) p tariffaria di sup.tot. (%) interscambio per pagamento per regolamentati- propria per 1000 /100 km2) Manager (M.M.) Euro4/tot. Auto Metano % strisce blu
100000 abitanti Comune Comune (Kmq) - LOC Abitata (km/kmq) vati per 1000 1000 abitanti (km/kmq) per 100 abitanti) per 100 km2) ambientale, tipo di sede propria sosta su strada
% autobus extra- scooter % (km/kmq) 1000 ab. 1000 abitanti riservati abitanti
abitanti carburante per residenti
urbano %
utilizzato
Auto-vetture per 1000 ab 1,00 -0,23 0,80 -0,25 -0,67 -0,28 0,73 -0,43 -0,62 0,23 0,42 -0,26 -0,10 -0,30 0,09 0,01 0,18 -0,32 -0,03 -0,32 -0,20 0,05 -0,22 -0,12 -0,28 -0,14 -0,42 0,06 -0,12 -0,51 0,08 0,10 -0,26 -0,07 0,27 -0,32 -0,54 -0,07
Moto-cicli per 1000 ab 1,00 0,40 0,08 0,23 -0,16 -0,41 0,84 0,11 0,29 -0,09 0,24 -0,04 0,28 0,00 -0,08 -0,03 0,00 0,11 0,28 0,10 -0,21 -0,14 0,19 -0,03 -0,08 -0,33 -0,17 0,23 -0,13 -0,16 -0,03 0,26 0,09 -0,15 -0,03 0,06 -0,21
Totale veic per 1000 ab 0,80 1,00 -0,18 -0,49 -0,36 0,43 0,11 -0,51 0,39 0,33 -0,10 -0,13 -0,11 0,08 -0,04 0,16 -0,29 0,04 -0,13 -0,12 -0,08 -0,31 -0,01 -0,26 -0,18 -0,62 -0,05 0,04 -0,51 -0,03 0,07 -0,08 0,00 0,16 -0,34 -0,51 -0,20
Occupati - Treno, tram, metropolitana %

1,00 0,50 -0,09 -0,32 0,09 0,27 0,02 -0,24 0,74 0,16 0,37 0,02 0,05 0,11 0,46 0,24 0,57 0,20 -0,18 0,24 -0,07 0,00 0,09 -0,09 -0,02 0,11 0,06 0,19 -0,06 0,09 0,27 -0,17 0,29 0,07 -0,02
Occupati - Autobus urbano, filobus, corriera,

autobus extra-urbano %
-0,67 0,50 1,00 0,05 -0,75 0,38 0,85 -0,13 -0,44 0,47 0,01 0,36 -0,07 0,06 0,03 0,60 0,03 0,56 0,26 -0,04 0,38 -0,03 0,24 0,19 0,34 -0,01 0,22 0,48 0,03 -0,07 0,21 0,20 -0,37 0,47 0,55 0,00
Occupati - Piedi e bicicletta %

1,00 -0,55 0,05 0,19 -0,02 -0,01 -0,23 -0,21 -0,10 -0,13 -0,21 -0,24 0,07 0,10 0,13 0,26 0,44 0,15 0,44 0,19 0,42 0,44 -0,04 -0,11 0,22 0,39 0,16 0,19 0,22 0,15 0,23 -0,08 0,21
Occupati - Auto privata %
0,73 -0,75 -0,55 1,00 -0,67 -0,73 -0,03 0,35 -0,30 0,09 -0,23 0,17 0,16 0,14 -0,41 -0,12 -0,59 -0,36 -0,13 -0,36 -0,37 -0,21 -0,44 -0,39 0,12 -0,24 -0,47 -0,23 -0,10 -0,36 -0,36 0,23 -0,39 -0,44 -0,01
Occupati - Motocicletta, ciclomotore, scooter %

0,84 -0,67 1,00 0,30 0,25 -0,24 0,30 -0,03 0,24 -0,16 -0,20 -0,09 0,10 0,14 0,47 0,23 -0,19 0,05 0,43 -0,11 0,20 -0,19 -0,25 0,43 0,01 0,03 0,13 0,33 0,30 -0,26 0,08 0,20 -0,22
numero utenti TP per ab
-0,62 -0,51 0,85 -0,73 1,00 -0,01 -0,28 0,20 0,00 0,02 -0,13 -0,06 -0,06 0,58 -0,12 0,37 0,15 0,18 0,49 -0,12 0,21 0,24 0,59 -0,02 0,10 0,74 0,06 -0,09 0,18 0,22 -0,22 0,23 0,64 0,15
N° incidenti per 100000 abitanti

-0,13 1,00 0,47 -0,04 -0,10 -0,19 -0,10 -0,28 -0,08 -0,02 0,03 0,14 -0,08 0,06 0,12 0,12 -0,26 0,21 -0,15 -0,18 0,12 -0,04 0,23 -0,01 0,23 0,30 0,42 -0,23 -0,16 0,11
N° incidenti mortali per 100000 abitanti

-0,44 1,00 -0,34 -0,22 -0,21 0,26 0,00 0,04 -0,33 -0,36 -0,24 -0,29 0,09 0,02 0,06 -0,19 0,12 -0,17 0,11 -0,30 -0,16 -0,19 -0,12 -0,06 -0,11 0,43 -0,40 -0,31 0,16
Popolazione - 'LOC Abitata Comune

0,74 0,47 1,00 0,27 0,45 -0,13 -0,08 -0,06 0,48 0,17 0,55 0,41 -0,31 0,21 -0,06 -0,03 0,03 -0,30 -0,13 0,39 -0,11 0,16 -0,04 0,21 0,06 -0,29 0,24 0,11 -0,30
Superficie - LOC Abitata Comune (Kmq)

1,00 -0,27 -0,25 -0,27 -0,26 0,43 0,15 0,04 0,39 -0,16 0,29 -0,32 -0,13 0,00 -0,08 -0,33 0,13 -0,02 0,04 -0,12 0,19 -0,02 -0,11 0,10 0,11 -0,11
Densità (abitanti/kmq) - LOC Abitata

1,00 0,36 0,63 0,53 0,08 0,12 0,37 -0,07 -0,27 0,00 0,35 0,52 0,01 -0,26 0,44 0,35 -0,22 -0,19 -0,14 -0,13 -0,16 -0,37 0,45 0,17 -0,29
Densità Ferrovie (km/kmq))
1,00 0,65 0,51 -0,18 0,03 0,03 -0,22 0,20 -0,13 -0,08 0,05 -0,13 -0,04 0,61 -0,09 -0,04 -0,27 0,14 -0,10 -0,12 0,25 0,05 0,02 -0,10
Densità Autobus, Tram, Filobus (km/kmq)

0,63 0,65 1,00 0,83 -0,13 0,00 -0,04 -0,30 0,04 -0,07 -0,12 0,35 -0,16 0,16 0,67 0,00 0,01 -0,32 -0,03 -0,30 -0,17 -0,16 0,36 0,16 -0,12
Densità Tot. Rete di sup. (Km/kmq)

0,53 0,51 0,83 1,00 -0,17 0,08 0,13 -0,38 0,03 -0,08 -0,08 0,15 -0,09 -0,03 0,56 0,01 -0,07 -0,24 0,08 -0,17 -0,04 -0,14 0,33 0,03 -0,16
vett**Km_tot/pop 0,60 0,58 1,00 0,20 0,40 0,38 -0,02 0,46 -0,10 0,26 0,23 0,20 -0,18 0,29 0,20 0,15 -0,24 0,05 0,10 -0,33 0,23 0,20 -0,01
Integrazione tariffaria 1,00 0,17 0,11 -0,10 0,06 0,16 0,17 0,10 0,02 -0,10 0,08 -0,20 0,36 -0,05 0,07 0,39 -0,23 0,37 0,15 -0,20
Densità corsie preferenziali (km/kmq)

0,57 0,56 -0,59 0,55 1,00 0,62 -0,08 0,34 0,43 -0,13 0,47 -0,02 -0,02 0,44 0,03 0,30 0,17 0,22 0,37 -0,15 0,37 0,08 -0,18
Corsie pref./rete di sup.tot. (%)

0,62 1,00 -0,07 0,17 0,36 -0,20 0,38 0,13 -0,28 0,18 -0,07 0,43 0,18 0,26 0,20 -0,04 0,27 -0,09 -0,16
Numero posti auto nei parcheggi di interscambio

per 1000 ab.
1,00 -0,10 -0,11 -0,04 -0,06 0,34 0,03 -0,25 0,33 0,08 0,10 0,15 0,15 0,25 -0,12 -0,08 0,07
Totale posti auto su strada a pagamento per 1000

abitanti
1,00 0,10 0,30 0,69 0,29 0,11 0,41 0,44 0,15 -0,02 -0,01 0,16 0,05 0,00 0,38 0,07
Totale posti auto su strada regolamentati/riservati

per 1000 abitanti
1,00 -0,32 0,80 0,16 -0,04 0,43 -0,08 0,22 0,08 -0,08 0,37 -0,08 -0,05 -0,16 0,12
Rapporto posti auto a pagamento / posti

regolamentati-riservati
1,00 -0,02 0,19 0,65 -0,09 0,30 -0,18 -0,16 0,10 -0,38 -0,07 0,45 0,42 0,05
Totale posti auto su strada (?) per 1000 abitanti

0,69 0,80 1,00 0,31 -0,01 0,42 0,22 0,32 0,06 -0,03 0,36 0,03 -0,06 0,07 0,11
Totale posti auto in parcheggi in sede propria per

1000 abitanti
0,59 1,00 0,21 -0,08 0,76 0,17 0,02 0,01 0,14 -0,01 0,18 0,39 0,48
Densità strade comunali (km/kmq)

0,61 0,67 0,56 1,00 0,01 0,24 -0,33 -0,01 -0,12 -0,40 0,15 0,27 0,22 0,28
Densità Ztl (km2 /100 km2)
1,00 0,04 0,14 0,15 -0,19 0,16 -0,15 0,00 0,17 -0,03
Densità Aree pedonali (m2 per 100 abitanti)

-0,51 0,48 -0,47 0,74 0,76 1,00 -0,04 0,08 0,16 0,00 0,04 0,00 0,60 0,41
Densità Piste ciclabili (km per 100 km2)

1,00 0,34 0,24 0,50 0,11 0,32 0,01 0,14
Indice sintetico massimo 100 funzione di: mezzi a

minore impatto ambientale, tipo di carburante
utilizzato
1,00 0,45 0,21 0,26 0,11 -0,02 0,17

Mobility Manager (M.M.)
1,00 0,09 0,22 0,24 0,13 0,22
% auto Euro3 e Euro4/tot. Auto

1,00 0,01 0,17 0,03 0,01
Totale GPL e Metano % 1,00 -0,12 -0,25 0,19
Tariffa media strisce blu 1,00 0,29 -0,21
Tariffa media parcheggi in sede propria

-0,54 0,55 -0,44 0,64 0,60 1,00 0,23
Costo annuale minimo permesso sosta su strada

per residenti
0,48 1,00
SIDT 2011 Pagina 92

Correlation results (examples)
• Car ownership is significantly correlated with:
– PT share (-)
– Car share (+)
– PT users (-)
– Pedestrian areas density (m2/pop) (-)
– Average cost of off-street parking (-)
• PT share is significantly correlated with:

– Size (population) of the city (+)
– N. of fatal accidents (-)
– PT intensity (vehic-km/pop) (+)
– PT reserved lane density (km/km2) (+)
– Pedestrian areas density (m2/pop) (+)
– Average cost of off-street parking (+)
3rd Workshop on Sustainable Mobility 13/07/2023 Pagina 93

Grouping of cities
• Several Cluster Analysis techniques (e.g. hierarchical models, k-

means algorithm) have been applied, taking into account
different combinations of State indicators
• Best results obtained with the hierarchical model, using two

indicators (Size and Population density), leading to 4 clusters:
1. Small cities with low density
2. Small cities with high density
3. Medium size cities
4. Big cities

The groups
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
N. Cities 24 9 12 4
Average population 128.600 171.900 286.000 1.353.200
Average density 599 1.582 2.885 6.051

(inh./km2)
Average use of PT 90 95 180 401
(Users-year/inh.)
Average use of PT 5,8 6,2 12,9 26,7
(% of intra-city
trips)
Average Sustainability indicators 1
Air pollution

Road accidents

PT demand (PT users/population)

Policy indicators 1
PT supply and reserved lanes

Policy indicators 3
Parking supply

Characteristics of transport systems:
international comparison
International comparison 1
• Sustainability, State and Policy indicators can differ

significantly comparing different areas of the world
• This is due to different land use models, leading to different

travel patterns
• Automobile dependence, expressed through comparative levels

of car ownership and use and transit service and use, varies
widely and systematically across a large sample of international
cities

International comparison 2
• US cities exhibit the most extreme dependence on the

automobile, followed by Australian and Canadian cities, with
European and Asian cities having very much more transit-
oriented cities with greater levels of walking and cycling
• These patterns are not strongly related to differences in wealth

between cities, but do vary in a clear and systematic way with
land use patterns
• The data suggest that the most car-dependent cities are less
wealthy than some other more transit-oriented cities

Urban density

Vehicle ownership, use and wealth

US vs rest of the world

PT supply and use

Journey-to-work

GRP and car use 1

10 myths about car dependence 1

1. Wealth. The economic processes which link wealth and urban

form are much more complex than conventional argument has
been considered. The correlations are very weak and in more
recent times are going in the opposite direction
1. Climate. Global cities study of 32 cities found there was no

correlation between gasoline consumption (a key indicator of
automobile dependence) and average annual temperature, or
between urban density and average annual temperature

3. Space. Central and South America have vast areas of

rural land similar to the U.S. and Australia but their cities
are all high density (Buenos Aires 80 per ha, Salvador 90
per ha, Santiago 144 per ha, Lima 171 per ha, Caracas
175 per ha and Mexico City 224 per ha). Russia has no
shortage of land but its cities are very efficient users of
space (Moscow 139 per ha and St Petersburg 85 per ha)

4. Age. The city’s age does affect its spatial and

transportation traditions. Cities founded before the middle of
the 19th century were built around walking, then transit spread
the city out, and finally the car allowed even lower densities.
However, many modern cities have been built with a walking-
based or transit-based urban form around which they continue
to develop. Asian cities, including modern Tokyo, Seoul and
Hong Kong are high density walking and transit cities with tiny
levels of car use compared to U.S. and Australian cities

5. Health and social problems. Some urban commentators

suggest that the primary motivation behind low density cities is
one of health and social amenity. Lowering densities was seen
as a way to improve health through a ‘wholesome supply of
good air’. This justification for the garden suburb continued
even after a century of medical evidence showed that
sewerage and sanitary facilities were the key factors in the
promotion of good health. Cities such as Hong Kong and
Singapore have extremely high health rates

6. Rural lifestyles. Cities with low densities and a great

commitment to the private car, usually have an Anglo-Saxon
tradition. In general, English, American and Australian traditions
have idealised rural places and their literary heroes are from the
countryside. This idyllic view of rural life, is called ‘pastoralism’
and asserts that the country provides solitude, innocence and
happiness. However, each new spacious ‘rural’ kind of suburb is
soon surrounded and engulfed by more suburbs. European and
Asian traditions are much less antiurban and have always
maintained strong commitments to cities where people can
meet in the street and in public spaces

7. Road lobbies. Similar lobbies exist in all countries, but not all
are as successful as in the U.S. The political power of the
road lobby everywhere is strong but not overwhelming;
governments are answerable to the wider public as well as to
the lobbyists. The influence of strong private industry lobbies
for the automobile in many European and Asian countries
has been minimised by equally powerful lobbies for Public
Transport

8. Land developers. Not all capitalist cities have optimized

private gain in an automobile dependent way. Many
European cities, in particular, have managed to create a far
less car dependent kind of urban growth. Developers still
make money, but their capital is used to create the kind of
densities that enable social goals to be achieved, such as
walkable and transit-based cities.

9. Traffic engeneering. Most major cities which built

extensive freeways then found that this process spread out
land use and generated more and more traffic, until very
soon after completion the freeways were already badly
congested. The obvious response to the failure of
freeways to cope with traffic congestion is to suggest that
still further roads are urgently needed. The new roads are
then justified again on technical grounds in terms of time,
fuel and other perceived savings to the community from
eliminating the congestion …

9. Traffic engeneering. This sets in motion a vicious circle

or self-fulfilling prophecy of congestion, road building,
sprawl, congestion and more road building.
Automobile dependence is inevitable in such traffic
engineering. Awareness of this phenomenon, now called
induced or generated traffic, is increasingly common in
the literature. In fact, traffic is now being referred to not
as a liquid that flows where it is directed, but as gas
which expands to fill all available space

10. Town planning. Low density suburbs around the world are
often very similar in form as well as function. This kind of
planning is also facilitated when ‘town planning’ is
considered to be what occurs at the local subdivision level
and no overall strategic direction for the city or its
regions is ever created. However, strategic planning is
now a much more developed process and especially
where a city-wide government or co-ordinated set of
governments, can provide a plan for the whole city.

Lecture 1 - 18 July 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 1 - 18 July 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport System planning.

Sustainability, variables Sergio Celestino

and measurement www.ctl.uniroma1.it

1. Transport System planning. Sustainability of TS, variables and

1. Transport System planning. Sustainability of TS, variables and

1.1 The planning process

2.1 Classification of transport policies:

3.1 Classification of transport policies:

4.1 Classification of transport policies:

• Attitudes and behaviour

6.1 The Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP)

• Public Transport Plan

• City Logistics Plan (Case study: Bologna)

• Company Mobility Plan (Case study: Sapienza University)

7.1 The benchmarking methods

• Use of specialized tools/software for the analysis and

9.1 Evaluation tools:

Definition of boundary Definition of

Planning of Definition of Modeling, design

Choice of the best

• There is a general trend of decentralization of

• Long-term (eg 10-10+ years), strategic planning,

• Medium-term (eg 5 years), tactical level, including

• Short-term (eg 2 years), operational level, including

• Different mobility sectors:

• Transport is a cornerstone of European integration process

• Overcoming obstacles between Member States and creating a

• The industry now employs around 11 million people,

• EU transport policy is also about helping and protecting

• Passengers with disabilities and reduced mobility qualify for

• 2001: Another White Paper showed a more decisive shift

• 2006: A progress review decided that more was needed to

• Infrastructures: Trans-European transport network, or TEN-T,

• Research and innovation: funding of huge research

Motorization rate: Global 182 Africa 44

In Africa: 270 fatalities per million inhabitants

• 30% of road freight over 300 km shifted to other modes (rail or

• Completion of High-speed railway network by 2050

• Fully functional core TEN-T network by 2030

• Connect all core network Airports to the rail network by 2050

• Zero fatalities in road transport by 2050

• Move towards full application of «user pays» and «polluter pays»

• Very few cities are “islands”, so policies are influenced by

• The private sector and agencies are increasingly responsible

• Users, businesses and residents expect to be fully involved in

Decisions on specific policies can often appear

• Will light rail encourage longer distance commuting?

• Is it the best solution for the poorest residents?

• Is it the most cost-effective way of improving conditions?

• Cities should be concerned with the impacts of transport on

• What is best will depend on the emphasis a city gives to

• We now have available a much wider range of possible policy

• We know much less about the potential of some of these

• Which is the best package of policies? Do they interact

– complex institutional structures

• This second model can be seen at work in many of today’s

• Equally an extreme reliance on analysis is inappropriate in a

• Three categories of approaches can be identified:

• Vision-led approaches usually involve an individual (typically

• Relatively few cities have a visionary leader in this sense, but

• Plan-led approaches involve specifying objectives

• Politicians and members of the public are