option generation for transport policy measures and packages

School of somethingFACULTY OF OTHER

Institute for Transport StudiesFACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT

Option Generation for Policy

Measures and Packages: the Role of

the KonSULT Knowledgebase

Anthony May and Haneen Khreis

Climate Change Targets and Urban Transport Policy - Malta - 13/14 April 2015

Presentation outline

o Introduction

o The case for option generation

o Weaknesses of option generation

o The history of KonSULT

o The structure of KonSULT

o Recent enhancements

o A worked example

o Assessing the performance of KonSULT (cities’ feedback)

o Conclusions

The case for option generation

o Cities now have access to a wide range of policy measures

o The number of available measures continues to expand

o Very little guidance available on how to select suitable

measures

o Even more the case for the development of measures

packages

o Option generation methods needed to identify the individual

policy measures and packages which should be considered

o But rarely regarded as a key stage in the development of

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans

Introduction

“Unless a wide range of appropriate options is considered, there

is a risk that the best options are overlooked and money could be

wasted…

A good option generation process is crucial to ensure that the

transport interventions that offer the highest returns can be found

… The full range of options should look across all modes and

include making better use of the existing transport system,

including better pricing; investing in assets that increase capacity

….; investment in fixed infrastructure; and combinations of these

options.” (Eddington, 2006)

Weaknesses of option generation

o Over-reliance on preconceived ideas

o Focus on supply-side rather than demand-side measures

o Lack of awareness of the wider range of policy measures

available

o Lack of evidence of the performance of measures in

different contexts

o Lack of a formalised approach for option generation

o Lack of expertise in designing a given policy measure to

meet local needs

o Failure to appraise the resulting options appropriately in

terms of effectiveness, acceptability and value for money

The history of KonSULT

o Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport

(www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk)

o Designed to help overcome weaknesses in option generation

o Launched at the first workshop of the WCTRS Special Interest

Group on Urban Transport Policy in Leeds, 2002

o Developed since with support from the EC, the UK DfT, the UK

EPSRC and the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund

o Can assist policy makers, professionals, and interest groups to:

1. Understand the challenges of achieving sustainability in urban transport

2. Identify appropriate policy measures and packages for specific contexts

The structure of KonSULT

(1) The Measure Option Generator

User specifies context, objectives/problems/indicators, strategy

KonSULT offers an ordered list of possible measures, packages from (2)

Not to prescribe solutions but to encourage innovation

(2) The Policy Guidebook

A consistent assessment of each measure

Based on a first principles assessment and results from case studies

(3) The Decision-Makers’ Guidebook

Explains the underlying principles in (1), (2)

Based on a Logical Structure; precursor to SUMP guidance

Recent enhancements

o Completed in the EU co-funded project CH4LLENGE

(http://www.sump-challenges.eu)

o Based on participating cities’ reviews and experience

o Updated and restructured the website

o 10 minor and 23 substantial updates, 14 new entries (46 to 61)

o Extended list of barriers identified

o Substantial improvements to the option generation facility:

- Supressing the identification of user type

- Redefining the areas of interest within a typical city

- Indication of time typically required to implement a specific measure

- Simplifying the resulting scores and clarifying their meaning

o Expanded interaction matrices in the package option generator

Specify area type

Base searches on objectives,

problems or indicators

Select strategy/ strategies and

assign weight

Suggested policy measures

and package option generator

Choose single measure for

complementary packages

Choose method (barrier) and

measures to be considered

Results

Choose method (synergy) and

measures to be considered

Results

Cities’ feedback

Nine city partners in CH4LLENGE were asked about:

• The appropriateness of the measures and packages suggested

• The extent to which they are already using these measures

• Whether KonSULT has suggested measures which they would not

otherwise have thought of

• Whether it has suggested measures which they would not consider

• Whether it has provided them with new information on these

measures

• Whether it has generated outputs which are inconsistent with their

expectations

• Whether there are ways in which the operation of KonSULT could be

enhanced

Results

City A: Western European/ 15 yrs. of

SUMPs development

• Already using 53/ 61 measures and

considering a further 4

• No new measures suggested

• 4 measures won’t be used

• 3 measures with ranking inconsistent

with expectations

• Prefer further guidance on packages

• Difficult to reflect the scale of

application

• Useful, easy to use, consistent with

current approach

City B: Western European/ 5 yrs.

encouraging SUMPs development

• KonSULT suggestions reflected

directly adopted strategy

• 2 new measures suggested

• 3 measures of interest but legally

unavailable

• No inconsistencies

• Difficult to reflect the scale of

application

• Difficult to understand the scale of

package synergy

• Clear, of help in working with

stakeholders, inspirational

Results

City G: Eastern European/ early

stages of considering SUMP

• First exposure to such facility

• Already using 7 of the measures

suggested and considering a further 8

• 1 new measure suggested


• Valuable additional information

City H: Eastern European/ early stage

of considering SUMP

• Already using 4 suggested measures

and considering 2



• Offered comparative data, references,

and measures with wider impacts

• Packaging facility helps understand

interactions

Conclusions

o KonSULT appears to be of greater value to cities at an earlier

stage in the development of SUMPs

o And for stakeholders, young professionals

o New measures suggested in 6/8 participating cities

o Rarely inconsistent with the cities’ understanding/ expectations

o Easy to use and offers valuable additional information +

references

o Some misunderstanding of the packaging facility

o Does not contribute to the detailed design of the measures

(which was never its aim!)

o SIG G3 members are invited to assess the upgraded version of

KonSULT, and identify additional measures/ case studies

Thank you for your attention

Any questions?

Appendix

City C: Western European/ developing

second SUMP

• Already using 54/ 61 measures

• 7 measures out of scope/ unacceptable

• Provides useful information

• Confirms their SUMP design

• Helpful for packaging where no model

• More useful to students/ young professionals/

smaller cities

City D: Eastern European/ advanced 1st

SUMP development

• Draft SUMP includes 44/ 61 measures. For 12,

KonSULT added to its understanding


• 11 measures won’t be used


• Easy to use, provides extensive information in

accessible format

• Some measures are in practice packages and could

usefully be disaggregated

City E: Eastern European/ working towards

the SUMP development

• Already using 18 measures suggested and

considering a further 9


• KonSULT added to the understanding of the

measure

• Did not fully understand the packaging concept

• Would prefer more guidance on meaning of scores,

costs, timescales

City F: Eastern European/ currently

developing first SUMP

• Already using 28/ 61 measures and considering a

further 9

• 1 new measure suggested; one unacceptable



• Had wanted to test both objectives and problems

option generation for transport policy measures and packages

Environment