I n T he N a me o f Allah

portation
ns
Tra
le

a b
a i n
S u st

National Policy Solutions ng ineering

ivil E
C

of
nt
Departme
Presenter: Ali Darvishvand
Instructor: Dr. Amirhassan Kermanshah
 Policy-makers must persuade millions of Americans to alter
some of their most cherished social goals and comfortable
personal conduct.
ANTHONY DOWNS (1992)

2 Riber Hansson
 A historic milestone in climate action

Target:

“to hold the increase in the global average temperature to

well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing
efforts to limit increase to 1.5°C”

2 3
 Top annual CO2 emitting countries, 2020 (from fossil fuels)

Source: www.ucsusa.org

2 4
 Emission gap growing, but low carbon transport has high mitigation potential

Business-as-Usual (BAU)
pathways project further
increase, up to 18 Gt CO2
Transport
emission
gap of 16 Gt

For transport to contribute

to the 1.5 degree Celsius
goal of the Paris Agreement,
CO2 emissions have to go
down to 2 Gt CO2 by 2050!

Source: National Urban Mobility Policies & Investment Programmes, Oliver Lah et al.(2020)

2 5
 How far can I travel with one tonne of CO2 ?

(Values in kilometres per passenger) A load factor of 100% assumed for all values

146,100

119,100

101,200

80,600

31,100
28,600
17,200

Pedestrian Bike Bus rapid transit Articulated bus City bus Rapid transit train Private car Motorcycle Scooter
Source: GIZ (2014)

2 6
 National policies
of some countries
regarding sustainability

2 7
 U.K. POLICIES

Rio Earth Summit (1992):

Kyoto Protocol (1997):

Post-Kyoto and Paris Agreement:

Transportation Policies:

The UK implemented a range of measures to promote sustainable transport, including incentives for electric vehicles,
investments in charging infrastructure, and policies to improve public transportation. The decision to phase out new
petrol and diesel cars by 2030 is a significant move.

Recent Developments (2020 onward):

The UK continued its commitment to sustainability, even amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Policies include further support for electric vehicles, investments in public transportation, and measures to enhance
air quality in urban areas.

2 8
 THE NETHERLANDS POLICIES

Rio Earth Summit (1992):

Kyoto Protocol (1997):

Post-Kyoto and Paris Agreement:

Transportation Policies:

The Netherlands has implemented a holistic approach to sustainable transportation, emphasizing cycling
infrastructure, promoting electric vehicles, and investing in efficient public transportation. Policies also include
urban planning that prioritizes non-motorized transport.

Recent Developments (2019 onward):

The Netherlands has set ambitious emissions reduction targets for 2030, with a specific focus on sustainable
mobility. Initiatives involve investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, further promotion of cycling, and
advancements in public transportation.

2 9
 U.S. POLICY

Rio Earth Summit (1992):

Kyoto Protocol (1997):

Post-Paris Agreement:

Transportation Policies:

Over the years, the U.S. has implemented a mix of federal and state-level policies to promote sustainable transport.
This includes Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, support for electric vehicles, and investments in
public transportation. State initiatives, like California's Zero Emission Vehicle program, have been influential.

Recent Developments (2021 onward):

The Biden administration, which took office in 2021, has placed a renewed focus on sustainability. Policies include
significant investments in electric vehicle infrastructure, support for public transit, and efforts to reduce emissions in
the transportation sector.

2 10
 Regional Share of Transport CO2 Emissions

Source: SLoCaT (2018)

2 11
 Two suggested plans
Town and country planning association (Blowers, 1993)
1. Regulatory mechanisms to control emissions.
2. Tax increases that would favor energy-efficient transport modes.
3. Support for new technologies and alternative modes.
4. Planning approaches that would lessen the need for automobile travel.
These are good proposals, but they leave a little too much to the imagination; they are too broad and not specific enough.

Hughes’s 12-Point Plan: A Critique

2 12
 ASIF Framework and CO2 emission calculation

2 13
 Transportation is an essential enabler for
many of these goals!

(by 2030)

www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment

www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment 14
 Depending on the degree of centralisation, urban mobility can be a
competence of one or several national ministries and/or local governments.

Please, note that the expression national level may also correspond to the
provincial, state or regional level, depending on the division of competences.

2 15
 Policy & Governance

Sustainable urban development cannot be organized by a single actor

An actor is a person or organisation who acts!

Many people think that sustainability is the responsibility of government;

government should take care of it

But government has only limited control

of the actions of others that influence sustainability

2 16
 Policy & Governance

Multiple actors need to collaborate

2 17
 Policy & Governance
An Example

In international & multilateral agreements,

governments promised to save energy, to
reduce carbon emissions and switch to
renewable energy resources.

National governments transposed these agreements into national law.

However, most of the buildings they are not owned by governments,

but by private enterprises, social housing companies, landlords and individual persons.
Energy is provided by private suppliers.

Home owners are free to contract any supplier

2 18
 Policy & Governance
An Example…

Thus, Governments have few means

to make these different actors to
comply with their energy policies
A commanding and control approach
– however tempting it will be-
will not be effective

2 19
 Policy & Governance

The governance challenge of sustainability

also results from the complexity of the urban
environment, consisting of types of actors
owning and using the different parts of the
urban environment, spaces and spatial scales
and many different infrastructures, such as
roads, energy infrastructures And also the
less visible infrastructures such as sewage
systems and telecommunication cabels.

2 20
 Policy & Governance

Cities are also referred to a socio-technical systems,

consisting of different subsystems with intertwined technological and institutional elements.

We can distinguish subsystems in different ways

Local Regional National

2 21
 Policy & Governance

Whatever distinction you use, it is important is to realise

that the subsystems identified, always are related to other
subsystems.

Be aware of these relationships when developing and

implementing sustainable urban solutions:

Avoid shifting problems to other subsystems

Identify and make use of opportunities for

synergetic solutions

synergetic solutions that solve two or more problems

at the same time

2 22
 Policy & Governance

Three important groups of actors

Government Market Society

Public Actors Private Actors Societal Actors

With their policies and actions, the actors within these groups all contribute to the governance of sustainability

2 23
 Policy & Governance

The instruments of these actors

2 24
 Interaction

Coordination

Remember the example

Collaboration

2 25
 Let's take a look at two articles in particular...

2 26
2 27
 Whether NMS and parking policies lead to a more sustainable mobility?

Seven different scenarios for reducing car use are analyzed…

2 28
 First of all...

The need to connect services across different service providers and service contexts
The two main factors
determining the role of
mobility hubs The integration of different “mobility layers” that make up the current and future
regional transportation landscape

2 29
 First of all...

MaaS can be thought of as a novel service that

allows users to get from their origin to their
destination by combining several available mobility
options (such as public transport, shared bike, etc.)
and presents those in a single online interface,
while the user is not required to e.g. own a car or
bike her/himself

Seamless door-to-door mobility for users! https://www.reading.gov.uk/

2 30
 First of all...
NMS refer to public and private transportation
services that are mostly available on-demand and are
generated and run Mobihubs MaaS
by mobile technology and real-time location data

They are part of an incremental shift in travel behavior toward

a multimodal system Smart
MicroMobility
Shared
and mobility
effectively contributing to mobility evolution and healthy,
clean, spacious, accessible, and livable cities.

NMS can be viewed as the crucial tools of urban mobility policies and sustainability, focusing on the environmental aspect.

2 31
 The region which this case study focuses on is the Metropolitan Region Rotterdam and The Hague in the Netherlands

Source: H. Zhou et al. (2023)

MRDH region: the centers of Delft, Rotterdam and The Hague

2 32
 We want to answer these questions

To which extent do the mobility hubs help to reduce the number of car trips?

When half of the total population would own a MaaS subscription, to which extent do the mobility hubs in
combination with sharing services contribute to more sustainable mobility in the MRDH region?

To which extent can an improved cycling infrastructure and public transport service stimulate the utilisation rate
of mobility hubs?

To which extent would the parking capacity and parking cost affect the car flow in the city centers of the MRDH
region?

2 33
 Modes included in the model
walking (WALK) public transport (PT)

cycling (BIKE) demand- responsive transport (DRT)

Seven mode categories
using an e-bike (EBIKE) being a passenger in a car (CP)
driving a car (CAR)

7(access mode) × 7(main mode) × 7(egress mode) = 343 combinations !

The 25 out of 343 combinations that are most likely to be used are included in the model

2 34
 Input data

The first type of data

• Data related to the population of the region

Population data of Snelder et al (2021) pertaining to the year 2030 that was synthesised through a
population generator based on data of the Dutch governmental institution Statistics Netherlands (CBS)
pertaining to the year 2016

The synthesised population data contains many characteristics of the population on an individual level
such as age, possession of private vehicles, etc.

2 35
 Input data

The second type of data

The land use data report for every TAZ information on the

number of employment places (offices, shops, etc.), number of education places (i.e., schools),
the actual area of the TAZ and its urbanisation level (i.e., the population density),
the number of paid and non-paid parking spaces
and the average hourly parking costs
+
the locations of the mobility hubs

2 36
 Input data

The third type of data

• level-of-service data for each possible origin–destination pair

For each possible pair and each of the seven

unimodal travel modes that are considered,
we generate
travel time, cost and distance for three different
periods over the day (morning peak, evening
peaking and off-peak)

2 37
 Model description

ABM(Activity Based Model) can be used to measure the impact of NMS and parking policies in any scenario.

The ABM simulates travelling activity on a weekday to assist policy makers in this region in planning activities.

Multinomial probit model

2 38
 The scenarios considered in the case study

*The “Reference 2030” scenario is based on the forecast of the population made in this study, while the transport system is similar
to today’s one.

2 39
 Results

2 40
2 41
 Let's go back to the study questions...

The overall impact of the introduction of mobility hubs on their own however appears quite limited, which is
because of the fact that the use of mobility hubs induces a longer travel time.

After introduction of MaaS, the share of total trips undertaken as a car driver or car passenger decreases by an
amount which is equivalent to 3.9% of the total number of trips, while the share of trips undertaken by e-bike or by
a multimodal mode increases by about 4.2% and 2.5%, respectively.

It turns out that in case only the travel time required by public transport is reduced, the modal split of trips appears
to be hardly affected. And similarly to reduce the travel time of micromobility.

It turns out that reducing the parking capacity reduces the number of trips undertaken by car from and/or to the
city centers by about 3% (from 25.3% to 22.4%), while increasing the use of more sustainable modes.

2 42
2 43
 The Paris Area

2 44
 Emission factors by mode

NOx and PM2.5 emission factors reflect on-road emissions and CO2 emission factors reflect type-approval values.

2 45
 The contribution of the different transport modes to the
total number of trips, total distances, and total emissions

While private cars are used as the main

mode for only 40% of the trips,
these trips represent
52% of the distances travelled and about
85% of transport emissions
on a typical weekday

2 46
 Proportion of trip purposes for car and non-car trips

27% car
19% other modes
for escorting trips

2 47
 The ASI Framework

1) avoiding the need to travel by reducing distances;

2) shifting travel to a low-carbon mode;
3) improving vehicles to be more energy-efficient and fuels to be less carbon intensive.

Modal Shift Scenarios

three scenarios in which car trips could be shifted away from car:

2 48
 Cumulative Distribution Function of the difference in travel time between car, e-biking and public transit at the
trip chain level

The intersection of the red line and

the dashed blue line
indicates that >50% of the trip chains
would be at most 20 min longer by
e-bike than by car

Google
Travel time information Console Directions API

2 49
 Environmental cost of daily (weekday) mobility in the status-quo situation

The corresponding annual cost amounts to €977 m

(€318 m climate-related costs + €659 m health-related costs)

Emissions from car use represent 86% of the total cost!

(€840 m)

2 50
 Potential to Reduce Emissions with the Shift, Avoid and Improve Options

A modal shift away from car would actually reduce daily For an increase in daily travel time below 10 min, allowing
travel time for a non-negligible share of car users, 27% in a shift to e-bike yields emission savings of between 8% and
Scenario 1, 25% in Scenario 2 and 13% in Scenario 3. 15%, depending on the scenario.

2 51
 Share of emissions saved and associated monetary benefits

Even when no travel time increase is allowed,

annual climate and health benefits
can be substantial,
between 33 m and 71 m
depending on the Scenario

For a travel time increase

below 10 min, the benefits
roughly double

2 52
 Conclusion

In our second scenario, 25% of car users may be able to shift away from cars for parts of their trips
while experiencing a net decrease in travel time, and 46% may be able to shift away under an
increase in daily travel time of at most 10 min.

14% of carbon and air pollution emissions could be saved, generating 125 million euros of annual
climate and health benefits.

If one further considers that trips involving several car passengers are unlikely to be shifted, the
proportions decrease significantly: under that scenario, only 13% of the car users may be able to
shift while saving time, only 24% while staying below a travel time increase of 10 min, and only 8% of
emissions, worth 70 m, could be saved.

2 53
 References
Black, W. R. (2010). Sustainable transportation: problems and solutions. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB02729243

Zhou, H., Dorsman, J., Mandjes, M. M., & Snelder, M. (2023). Sustainable mobility strategies and their impact: a case study using a multimodal activity based model. Case

Studies on Transport Policy, 11, 100945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.100945

Zhou, H., Dorsman, J., Snelder, M., Mandjes, M., de Romph, E., 2020. Effective determination of MaaS trip modes in activity-based demand modelling. In: Proceedings of 9th

Symposium of the European Association for Research in Transportation (hEART).

Leroutier, M., & Quirion, P. (2023). Tackling car emissions in urban areas: Shift, avoid, improve. Ecological Economics, 213, 107951.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107951

Lah, O., Werland, S., Kodukula, S., Eckermann, A., Mettke, C., Würtenberger, L., Bongardt, D., & Eichhorst, U. (2020). National Urban Mobility Policies & Investment

Programmes – Guidelines.

SLoCaT (2018). Transport and Climate Change Global Status Report 2018. Available at: http://slocat.net/tcc-gsr

Storme, T., Casier, C., Azadi, H., & Witlox, F. (2021). Impact Assessments of New Mobility Services: A Critical review. Sustainability, 13(6), 3074.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063074

Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., González, M. A., & Narayan, J. (2017). Mobility as a Service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of

schemes, and key challenges. Urban Planning, 2(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i2.931

2
 D ep
ar t m e
n
to
fC
g

i v il
En g in e e r i n

THANK YOU