considering land use as a transport policy tool: a london perspective isabel dedring, transport for...

Considering land use as a transport policy tool:

A London perspective

Isabel Dedring, Transport for London

IMPACTS Vienna, 13-14 March 2006

2

Topics for discussion

• Context: Why consider land use?

• Land use as a transport policy tool

• Barriers?

• Questions for discussion

3

October 2003 Delay - AM Peak (Working days only - Mon to Fri)

Road Network Performance and Research

Information derived from data provided by ITIS Holdingsobtained from vehicles fittedwith GPS devices

Note: - Network shown is ITISlinks on Network of Interest.- AM Peak is 7am to 10am.- Delay measurement is peakspeed compared to night speed (10pm to 6am - free flow) in mins/km- Links with 2 or more observations are shown- Both directions are shown

A highly congested road network…

Saturday pm off-peakWeekday am peak ITIS graphOctober 2003 Delay - PM Off Peak (Saturdays)

Road Network Performance and Research

Information derived from data provided by ITIS Holdingsobtained from vehicles fittedwith GPS devices

Note: - Network shown is ITISlinks on Network of Interest.- PM Off Peak is 2pm to 4pm.- Delay measurement is peakspeed compared to night speed (10pm to 6am - free flow) in mins/km- All links with one or more observations are included- Both directions are shown

Greater than 1.51 – 1.50.5 -10.25 – 0.5Less than 0.25No data

Key

4

…Low densities make public transport provision difficult…

Residential density per person per hectare, 2001

5

…Half of all car trips in suburban London are under 2 kmT

otal

(m

illio

ns tr

ips)

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

<200m 200m to500m

500m to1km

1km to 2km 2km to 5km5km to 10km 10km to20km

20km to50km

50km ormore

Car Bus Underground/DLR Rail Walk Cycle Other

Total journeys within Outer London by mode and distance

6

What policy tools can we use to address these challenges?

• Rail modes not appropriate for dispersed trips

• Limited additional road space for buses

• Limited room – and no political appetite – for road widening schemes

• London-wide road pricing not in place; earliest possible adoption 2012

• Some scope for increasing walking and cycling

Can land use policy help respond to transport demand growth?

7




• Barriers?


8

Land use as a transport policy tool: 3 levels

Macro: London-wide

Local areas

Micro: Specific developments

9


Macro: London-wide

Local areas


10

What can be done at the macro level?

Transport benefits

1.Ability to support growth

2.Catalyse development (and capture increase in land values!)

3.Make better use of the existing network and increase density to reduce trip length

Actions

1.Add capacity to cater for population/jobs

2.New transport links help create new areas

3.Locate development where there is existing capacity

11

Align transport capacity to projected growth…

Projected Employment Growth2001 - 2026

Projected Population Growth2001 - 2026

12

… but also target growth where there is existing capacity

Access to public transportPublic Transport Accessibility Level

Worst

Best

13


Macro: London-wide

Local areas


14

What can be done at the micro level?

Transport benefits

1. Increase use of public transport/ walking & cycling to access that location

Actions

1.Design of individual developments to facilitate access by all modes

2. ‘Travel plans’ to integrate each development with the transport network

15

Example: Site layout

16


Macro: London-wide

Local areas


17

What can be done at the local level?

Transport benefits

1.Trips are shortened and combined

2.Trip distances are shorter

3.Shift motorised trips to non-motorised modes

(But limited applicability for work trips)

Actions

1.Co-locate services

2.Locate services closer to residential areas

3.Shift short trips to walking by improving the local environment

18

Case study shows impact of different development patternsT

raff

ic le

vels

•Transit-based (mixed-use development around transport nodes)

-30%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Impact of land use patterns

Base case

Transit-based

Short drivebased

Walking-based

-25%

• Short drive based (assumes use of car, but trips are shorter)

-15-20%

• Walking-based: Providing good walking routes in and around town centre

19

Example: Relocating a hospital

• National health service moves hospital to new site outside town centre

• Increase in number of bus routes to hospital from 1 to 7

• Cost borne by TfL: ~£1m/year

20

Example: Managing consequences of local land use decisions

Borough of Kingston - October 2003 delay, 8am to 9am, Monday to Friday

High

Medium

Low

Already engaged

Schools – potential for congestion reduction • Delay >2 mins per km

• Delay 1.5 to 2 mins per km

• Delay 1 to 1.5 mins per km

• Delay <1 min per km

Borough boundary

21




• Barriers?


22

Barriers to joined-up land use and transport policy

1. Institutional barriers

2.Professional silos

3.Lack of data on land use/ transport relationship

4.Limited mechanisms for considering land use in transport appraisals (and vice versa)

5.Partial devolution only – central Government and local boroughs still retain many planning (and other) powers

6.Transport costs not borne by land-use decisionmakers

23




• Barriers?


24

Questions for discussion

• Are there other ways transport should be making use of land use policy?

• Other experiences regarding barriers and how to get around them?

• Any empirical evidence of these relationships from other cities?

considering land use as a transport policy tool: a london perspective isabel dedring, transport for...

Documents