The Alpine Voice on SUMP

Transcription

1 PUMAS Planning Sustainable regional-urban Mobility in the Alpine Space A project financed by the Alpine Space Programme The Alpine Voice on SUMP WP8 Action 8.1

2

3 Introduction and document background This document has been prepared as one of the deliverables from the PUMAS project WP8. The main purpose of the document is to summarise a number of the key issues in the project into one document that explains clearly the main lessons from the project for SUMP in the Alpine Space. The document is structured as follows: It presents some findings from the project as to how SUMP in the EU generally and in the Alpine Space are similar. It presents the key messages from the project. It provides a few examples of good practice from cities in the project. Finally, it suggests a legacy for PUMAS. SUMP in the EU generally compared to SUMP in the Alpine Space PUMAS as a project based in the Alpine Space proceeded from the premise that there were differences in SUMP in the Alpine Space. The project found that there were indeed differences, but these are mainly in context, and that SUMP as a process is similar in the different Alpine Space countries and, by extension, in all parts of the EU. The results of the process may differ due to the different context, but the process is much the same. For example, step 3.1 in the SUMP planning cycle, Prepare an analysis of problems and opportunities, will be carried out in the same way in cities inside and outside the Alpine Space. However, within the Alpine Space problems such as narrow valleys trap air pollution and very high long distance truck traffic and pollution due to location on trans-alpine route are likely to come up more often in the analysis than in cities outside the Alpine Space. In a project workshop, partners sought to identify some of those contextual and other factors that make the Alpine Space different and that would therefore influence the outcome of a SUMP, or that provide the context for the SUMP process. For example, the fact that these member states tend to have many levels of government and responsibilities split between many organisations would clearly make the SUMP process more difficult (since agreement with many organisations would be required). However, this is not a particular characteristic of the Alpine Space but rather of the member states concerned. The different contextualising factors are listed under relevant categories, below. Geography: 1. Different types of territorial contexts. 2. Close to Alps, high mountains, which are both a resource but also a barrier. Economy: 1. Mostly better off than many other regions (e.g. Bavaria compared to north east Germany) 2. Different type of sectors mix economy: services (HI-TECH); manufactures; tourism services;

4 Cities and regions: 1. Small/medium sized cities, transit cities, transit corridors, no mega cities, 2. Urban sprawl predominates in suburbs thanks to a lack of planning in suburbs, but with strict regulation in historic centers. Largest cities tend to have fewer than 2 million inhabitants, with entire metropolitan areas no larger than 4 million, and with a polycentric development pattern. Transport corridors: 1. Connections (EAST WEST) tend to dominate. There is more difficulty with north south connections. However, east west connections by public transport across international borders can also be problematic (e.g. Trieste-Ljubljana). 2. In regional terms there is only a small number of transport corridors, with limited capacity. Urban environment: 1. Locally very high air pollution, concentrated in valleys, with differences urban-rural; traffic is the main polluter in rural areas but industry adds to this in urban areas. Ozone a major issue in summer. 2. Air quality standards and regulations vary from north to south. Administration: 1. High administrative capacity. 2. Cross border, cooperation cross border, different types (regions, municipalities, cities), higher level of capacity, high level of corruption. 3. Bureaucracy, many levels of administration with divided responsibilities. Only partly developed vertical cooperation. Spatial and transport planning: 1. Good basis for SUMP, especially France with PDU law. 2. Cities exhibit good practice in SUMP measures e.g. cycling in Bolzano, cycling, public transport and land use planning in Munich, parking management in Vienna. 3. National infrastructure (road and rail) dominates transport system of many cities confined on international transit routes in Alpine valleys e.g. Innsbruck, Bolzano.

5 Key messages from the project about SUMP There are a number of key lessons and messages from the PUMAS project that are explained below. Although PUMAS is of the Alpine Space, the majority of these key messages are applicable and relevant to SUMP in any part of the European Union. Key message 1 the SUMP Guidelines form a framework for action; they are not set in stone Although the EU SUMP Guidelines (and, where applicable, national guidelines) have been useful and were used by all PUMAS project partners, these guidelines are only a framework. Each step of the SUMP development process set out in the guidelines has to be adapted so that it fits with local requirements and local context, and so that the city can achieve its objectives with regard to SUMP. Whilst there are good arguments for not producing a SUMP lite guidance document, the practical experience from PUMAS of cities using the EU Guidelines shows that some by virtue of their size or available resources can only carry out very limited activities for some steps, or may leave out a step altogether. It is well known that even in cities whose SUMPs are held up as best practice examples, such as Lund in Sweden, steps are missing from their SUMP (in the case of Lund, there is no budget or implementation plan included). In the PUMAS cities, examples of adaptation of the Guidelines included the following: With no or limited baseline data available, it was sometimes hard to define SMART objectives. This meant that in some cases baseline data were estimated and methods to begin the measurement of indicators for the SMART objectives were included. There was often no existing system and/or experience with monitoring and evaluation activities at the measure level. This again led to the setting up of a monitoring and evaluation system within the project but without SMART targets at the measure level. Because of complex administrative structures task forces established, in case of Nova Gorica on two levels: first level involved in all activities, second only in all key steps Key message 2 scale of SUMP development The EU SUMP Guidelines were tested at various scales within the project. As a result we can conclude that the methodology is usable at all scales, from the whole of a large city to, for example, a corridor within a small city of 30,000 inhabitants, but to do so it needs the adaptation and scaling of individual steps. For example, establishing the baseline in a large city may need a large amount of rigorously gathered data, whereas in a smaller city and especially for its first SUMP, a small number of carefully chosen indicators for which data can be gathered relatively easily (e.g. cordon counts) may well suffice. In some cases within PUMAS, as advocated in the Guidelines, the production of a single SUMP for a larger area that covered several smaller administrative areas proved to be a good approach especially in:

6 Regions with polycentric structure, such as Gorizia/Nova Gorica, or around Venice, for example; and Smaller cities with problems of lack of internal capacity to develop and implement the SUMP here the sharing of skills and staff helped greatly in moving the SUMP forward. The challenge to SUMP adoption and implementation in such cases is of course that political decision making is not merged and so the political steps must be carefully managed to ensure that all administrative areas that are working together approve the same SUMP at the same time. In PUMAS, none of these single SUMPs covering several administrative areas was taken to politicians for approval, so this step is yet to be achieved in the project cities. Key message 3 still need for specific guidance on some SUMP topics At the EU level there is now quite a lot of guidance and support on the general SUMP methodology in the form of training material, presentations and face to face workshops and seminars, based largely on the EU SUMP Guidelines, and also on practical experience from cities that have implemented SUMPs. But specific guidance is still lacking in some important topic areas such as: where to obtain specific knowledge and expertise when it is lacking in city administrations; arguments and participation/consultation methodologies to use about SUMP with traffic engineers whose understanding of transport and mobility is based around assessing road and junction capacities in terms of vehicles and who may be uncomfortable with discussion of places for people ; appraisal of different options for measures (both how appraisal works, and how to do it); the need for data collection and modelling; and the types measures for which analysis using modelling is appropriate, and those for which it is not. Key message 4 need for SUMP audit framework The EU SUMP Guidelines were used at different scales and in different conditions within the project, for example: At the measure level Munich: Regional multimodal routing planner linked to the Public Transport Journey Planner Lyon: Goods deliveries in dense urban areas Rhône-Alpes: A guide on transport plans and mobility agencies Turin: A metropolitan goods transport and delivery plan Venice: Safe and healthy school arrivals At the corridor level SUMP for Vienna and Schwechat (Vienna airport connection corridor) At the regional and cross border level

7 Cross border SUMP for Gorica region It can thus be seen that in many cases the Guidelines were used to guide the planning and implementation of SUMP measures rather than an entire SUMP. This experience within the project highlighted the need at the European scale for an audit framework that would help to define what should be in a SUMP and what should not be, and which elements of the process have to be implemented in order to call the resulting document (and set of measures, and their implementation) a SUMP. Where the Guidelines are used at the scale of a measure, it is not clear that this is still a SUMP. In addition, there is a danger that traditional transport planning, focusing on the construction of large infrastructure projects (mainly urban roads, but also some rail schemes) may adopt SUMP terminology and process in order to sanitise and make acceptable what might otherwise be unacceptable projects similar to green-wash, a situation of SUMPwash may arise where lip service is paid to the concept in order to get approval for pet schemes that in fact do not contribute anything to SUMP objectives. The SUMP audit scheme should therefore be capable of addressing this challenge. Key message 5 more data needed on impacts of SUMPs Although the EU SUMP Guidelines stress the importance of monitoring and evaluation, and the PUMAS partners ensured that monitoring and evaluation were part of their activities, there is still a lack of evidence about the effects of measures and SUMPs. Therefore, there is a pressing need for websites such as Eltis and to present in an easily accessible format the evaluation results from actual SUMPs and from typical SUMP measures. At present, Eltis includes many case studies of interesting measures, many of which also include impact evaluation data, but it would be very useful to have these available in a list that summarises the measure and its effects. Similarly, includes a list of SUMPs but data on their impacts is not summarised each individual SUMP must be consulted to see whether any data are available. Efforts are also needed to gather more data, particularly from French and English SUMPs, where some form of monitoring and evaluation has been carried out. Key message 6 SUMP and the national level The experience of SUMP shows that active involvement of the national level (ministry or other national government agency) is crucial for success. The countries with the greatest level of SUMP activity are those where it is either required at the national level, or where there are national funds available for development and/or implementation of SUMPs. Experience in Slovenia in PUMAS shows that the country s national SUMP platform could not have been successful without its effectively being sponsored by national government, as this helps to convince cities of the importance of the concept to them. The involvement of the national level is relevant to all sizes of cities, but particularly to small cities and towns that lack capacity and knowledge on transport planning. Key message 7 - financing

8 Due to the European Commission s current emphasis on SUMPs as a means of achieving White Paper goals, there is currently much financing available for the development of SUMPs and associated data gathering and modelling. However, implementation funds are much more limited. Some form of conditionality on the use of structural funds for urban transport being linked to a SUMP is therefore to be welcomed and a promising area for implementation of measures and further development of SUMPs; national governments could also enhance this conditionality at the individual member state level. Key message 8 national platforms for SUMP The national platform on SUMP tested in Slovenia within the project proved to be a successful tool for exchange of information and experiences. This platform is funded by the relevant national ministry and run by a national research institution. It organises regular events, produced the national Slovene guidance on SUMPs, and provides advice to cities on developing their SUMPs. It also publicises Slovene SUMP activity outside the country. It will also soon begin training a number of Slovene consultants about SUMP so that they can assist cities in receipt of Structural Funds for their SUMPs. Recently, however, some competition has emerged between different SUMP platforms in the same country (each funded in the main by a different EU project(s)), and this causes confusion among the city participants in the platform(s). Key message 9 SUMP as a new planning concept Within the EU there are big differences in the legislative background for SUMPs. In a few countries they are obligatory, whilst in others there are legally required transport plans, but these do not have all the characteristics of SUMPs (for example, the German Traffic Development Plan, or the Dutch Municipal Traffic and Transport Plan). In many other countries, strategic transport planning has not existed as a discipline; transport plans have been defined in terms of infrastructure, the space for which is allocated within spatial plans, and the implementation of which is the responsibility of city engineers. This means that SUMPs face the problem of lacking clear status in some countries. Nonetheless, more and more cities, even in countries whose cities have traditionally lacked a strategic transport planning functions, are finding that there is a place for even a non-mandatory SUMP alongside legally required spatial and environmental plans. The SUMP is a means of coordinating transport planning with these other plans and also for ensuring that transport contributes to the objectives of the other plans. It can also be a useful forum for bringing together staff from different city departments who perhaps previously have not worked together. Key message 10 building or changing a tradition in strategic transport planning Tradition in strategic mobility planning varies between the countries, and as explained above in many countries there is no tradition, so the first steps take a lot of time. For SUMP to succeed it requires a new way of thinking about transport planning at its most basic, from the question how many vehicles can pass through this junction and park on this street? to how (many) people can use this junction and the space around it?. This change, although easy to summarise in one

9 sentence, can require a seismic shift in the perceptions of a city s traffic engineers and planners. To bring this shift about, there is a need for individual pioneers working within city administrations, but they need to be supported by others at the national level who can visit the city and provide advice, and by lessons from Champion cities (see below) that show that this change in thinking is not too risky and can bring big benefits. Good practice SUMP examples from PUMAS As an appetiser, two good practice examples from the project are described here. However, a wider selection in greater detail can be found in the PUMAS Final Report. Nova Gorica/Gorizia Slovenian partners in the PUMAS Project, the Municipality of Nova Gorica and the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia developed a cross-border SUMP for the area of seven municipalities Slovenia and Municipality of Gorizia in Italy. This is one of the first planning documents in Slovenia involving an area that spans the national border. Its aim is to promote sustainable development and to encourage cooperation at all levels. The SUMP process followed the established methodology described in the EU SUMP Guidelines and lasted almost two years. During this time a number of activities were carried out, involving both politicians and officials, that started a live discussion on sustainable mobility on many levels. The resulting document offers a long term strategic direction for development of the transport system in the region and a number of measures. The overall vision of the SUMP, which included objectives and possible measures for five identified pillars transport planning, walking, cycling, public transport and motorised traffic was developed. Some measures started developing and even being implemented even before the document was officially approved. The two key city municipalities Gorizia and Nova Gorica are as well now starting the process of development of their own SUMP which will be based on the regional SUMP but with more focus on their local and individual projects. The process was helped by both regionally and internationally there was a strong awareness of needs for common actions. The region has as well a long tradition of working together and well established forms of cooperation on some topics. Those helped to find a way to work together in future as well in the field of transport planning. In important driver of the activities are as well available national and EU funds for activities in future. Lyon Urban logistics is a complex topic with many stakeholders and no obvious regulatory authority, but it is also an emerging and important issue for modern cities. The pilot activity in Lyon focused this topic but within the framework of the first half of the SUMP planning circle: preparing well and rational and transparent goal setting. Lyon worked on involving in these phases stakeholders who often do not take part in participation processes. This paved the way for the next steps (elaborating and implementing the plan) which will be led by the metropolitan transport authority in the revision of the PDU (Plan de déplacements urbains: French urban mobility master plan).

10 The context of urban freight in Lyon offers a wealth of stakeholders involved and innovating projects. The Greater Lyon Authority leads a consultative committee which promotes public and private initiatives and allows the local authority to build its strategy in accordance with them. To complement it, Lyon worked to obtain new information on retailers needs and expectations. This was done by means of a survey and several participatory workshops. The survey conducted was an analysis of the mobility situation (SUMP step 3) regarding transport of goods. Using phone interviews and interviews, a response rate of 14.5% of the commercial premises in the Presqu ile area of central Lyon was obtained. This previously unpublished data attracted the attention of stakeholders and media on the issue when the results were presented. This was a first phase of awareness raising. The survey showed mixed opinions of retailers regarding deliveries in Lyon city-centre: they are generally satisfied with their deliveries and do not sense any emergency to change the situation but at the same time they think that problems of parking and traffic interfere with their activity. The survey emphasized also that shopkeepers are under the impression that they do not have a decision power over deliveries since a large majority of them are performed by carriers (who manage their own delivery organisation). Workshops helped to develop a common vision (SUMP step 4) between retailers and other actors of the supply chain: experts in urban logistics, haulage companies, shopkeepers, local authorities, logistic and commercial real estate companies, mass-market retailing groups. Highly innovative methods were used in order to encourage participation from a wide range of stakeholders, including those directly involved in the field rather than their representatives (which is more common in institutional processes). In the workshops, debates showed that there is no "one size fits all" approach and that local microsolutions should be explored. New logistics services were discussed, such as night deliveries with silent trucks and equipments, lockers to collect products at any time, offsite stockrooms to expand shop stocks in places where real estate is less expensive, reservation system of delivery zones or green vehicles operated with new technologies of information and communication. A simpler and less technology-hungry option is for retailers to organise themselves in order to gather their deliveries in a same street and/or time schedule, for example within a neighbourhood commercial organisation. Key barriers and drivers Experience in all partner cities revealed a number of generic barriers and drivers to the adoption of the SUMP process, as follows Drivers The need to use a new process because of the perceived problems of past approaches (to, for example, public consultation). The availability of EU funds and within that an emphasis on sustainability that can in part be addressed via a SUMP. Availability of national funds to support SUMP or SUMP measures. Key influential organisations if they support process.

11 Key people skilled actors and process negotiators. Value of monitoring and evaluation data and ability to tell a good story about the SUMP. Barriers Perceived car culture in some cities making it difficult to address issues such as road capacity, access regulations and parking. Established ways of working within municipalities that are challenged by SUMP both individual professional cultures, and inter-departmental working Lack of capacity (actual numbers of staff, or staff with right skills) Lack of knowledge within municipality about specific topics leading to problems in developing measures e.g. in topic of public transport Some stakeholders may simply not be interested in, for example, urban logistics or company travel plans because they perceive no direct problem with these issues PUMAS legacy This section of the report considers how the issue of SUMP in the Alpine Space may continue after PUMAS and the influence of the project on that process. PUMAS leaves a direct legacy in terms of the measures and the SUMPs that have begun and in some cases been implemented within the project lifetime; and the mechanisms for joint working that have been set up, and therefore new working relationships founded. The usefulness of these mechanisms and working relationships will be seen in future years with SUMPs adopted and measures implemented (and monitored and evaluated). PUMAS has also revealed a number of areas for further action/work at the national and European level in terms of encouraging and giving incentives to municipalities and cities to develop and implement more SUMPs, as follows: More training and skills development is required on specific aspects of SUMP for example, public transport measures; appraisal and modelling; internal organisational culture change; and data collection and evaluation. Current training is good but a little too general. National guidelines that are more specific to the individual member state situation are required. The EU Guidelines should make clear that there is room to adapt the methodology to the local situation. There is a need for national level platforms, with very clear national government involvement, to promote and encourage SUMP and to deliver some of the training and capacity building required.

12 If these platforms can also provide some funding for SUMP development and/or implementation, linked to the quality of a city s (proposed) SUMP, this would act as a further important boost to cities SUMPs and to overall levels of SUMP activity in each member state. There is a need for a (relatively simple) audit framework that allows cities themselves as well as national agencies and ministries to assess whether a document and process that a city has implemented is really a SUMP.

13 Summary and recommendations The PUMAS project was focused on the Alpine Space. It has shown that SUMPs and SUMP measures can be developed and implemented in the Alpine Space using the generic SUMP methodology as set out in the EU Guidelines on SUMP. This demonstrates that the Alpine Space, although it has some differences from the rest of the EU (as described in more detail earlier in this document), it has many more similarities in terms of the context for sustainable urban mobility. The document has provided a number of recommendations for further actions in terms of SUMP in the Alpine Space and more widely. These were described in the previous section. The key messages of the Alpine Space the Alpine Voice on SUMP are below by way of final summary to this document: Key message 1 the SUMP Guidelines form a framework for action; they are not set in stone and must often be adapted to local context. Key message 2 the scale of SUMP development will vary, related to city size, capacity and experience Key message 3 there is still need for specific guidance on some SUMP topics, such as appraisal, or measures for specific modes of transport Key message 4 need for SUMP audit framework to easily assess whether a SUMP is really a SUMP Key message 5 more data still needed on impacts of SUMPs there is still little available Key message 6 the importance of the national level in encouraging, leading and giving incentives to cities to develop and implement SUMP cannot be underestimated. Key message 7 financing SUMP development is good, but finance is needed for SUMP measures also Key message 8 there is positive experience of national platforms for encouraging and promoting SUMP, but there should only be one in each country, to avoid confusion Key message 9 SUMP is a new planning concept that demands new organisational and professional cultures, which can take time to develop Key message 10 SUMP is about building or changing a tradition in strategic transport planning