Moderator Gunnar Heipp, director, strategic planning department, Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft (MVG), opened the proceedings by emphasising how mobility planning involves efficiently connecting people and places, now and in the future. “Galloping urbanism means cities are gaining in importance as powerhouses of the economy, concentrating 80% of the world’s economic output,” he said. Hence urban sprawl must be avoided to ensure they grow along a sustainable path, with a citizen-focused approach. “Cities need to be reinvented with new governance models, to effectively coordinate and optimise all their mobility services,” he added.
Our common goal, presented during the seminar by Alain Flausch, secretary general, UITP, should be compact urban growth, connected infrastructure, and coordinated governance. “This will boost long-term urban productivity, and yield environmental and social benefits,” he said. Indeed, the solution lies within careful planning, namely:
- integrated infrastructures: for better managed growth through effective planning, supported by robust public transport systems
- smarter cities: digitisation, information, ICT (information communication technologies), and the use of ‘big data’ are also opening up possibilities for boosting urban planning, public transport efficiency, and sustainable urban mobility
UITP’s main message is that planning tomorrow’s smart cities around a connected and efficient public transport network will support the building of compact, connected cities. In turn, the latter can deliver better growth and quality of life, as well as becoming more attractive to citizens and businesses.
PLANNING & STRATEGY REACH
Achieving the above goal calls for a wider city/region strategy; one whereby public transport functions as the backbone of the sustainable, urban mobility system, supporting and supported by other urban policies: land use, freight, environment, energy, health, social services, economic development, education, etc.
Backed by the efficient use of technology, integrated mobility planning should concentrate on the following, five key principles, as defined by UITP, which will ensure that plans become reality:
- sharing the vision
- effective governance
- long-term political commitment
- strong links with land-use planning & economic development
- long-term funding commitment
Drawing up an Integrated Mobility Plan is certainly a milestone. Yet in many cases, the real challenge is to transform words into action. This was the main theme of the seminar’s morning session, gathering precious insights presented by five experts from five cities that each excel in these principles, together with round table discussions involving all participants.
SHARING THE VISION
In Burgas (Bulgaria), Ruska Boyadzhieva, Municipality project manager, explained that it has been understood that sustainable urban mobility builds on city identity. An Integrated Mobility Plan often challenges local traditions, reflects the ambition of the city, contributes to the shaping of urban areas, and impacts the everyday lives of citizens. Therefore a participatory approach from the first step of the planning process is essential. A shared vision can be built on the interaction of three dimensions: institutional support, community participation, and sectoral integration.
From the Bulgarian example, as well as those from Bergen, Gothenburg, and Rotterdam, participants came to the conclusion that to sell the vision and achieve buy-in from all the stakeholders involved in the Plan (whether businesses, real estate developers, or the public at large), the prerequisites are to involve all stakeholders right from the early days, at the design phase.
EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
The experience in Montreal presented by Sylvain Ducas, director, urban planning department, City of Montreal, demonstrates the strong links between land use, density, and good public transport service.
The main challenge is to coordinate the high number of public transportation authorities (15) at metropolitan level. Consequently, the government of the Quebec province plans to grant Montreal the special status of ‘metropolis of Quebec’; thus allowing specific powers of governance in public transport at metropolitan level. This law might create a specific metropolitan body in charge of managing public transport.
As described in the Montreal case study, an effective governance structure is crucial to an optimal plan. During the round tables, participants underlined the need for integration, following the same red line:
- horizontal integration (of different mobility modes, or – possibly geographical – decision-making levels), or
- vertical integration (structure and responsibilities of existing agencies, or institutions, sharing public transport know-how)
However, integration from a geographical perspective and the inclusion of the living area in the plans remain crucial. Although urban planning is mostly a local matter from a governance viewpoint, mobility and public transport should nevertheless be treated at the regional level in order to attain a more global vision. As for integration between transport modes, participants stressed that public transport authorities must support the connection of ‘traditional’ modes such as rail, metro, or bus, with new ones like car- or bike-sharing. Such integration will serve to establish convenient and user-friendly ‘mobility platforms.’
POLITICAL COMMITMENT
The case of Munich, as presented by Christian Ude, the city mayor between 1993 and 2014, highlighted the importance of long-term political commitment. After decades of collaboration between all stakeholders in urban transport (city council, airport authorities, Chamber of Commerce, car and bicycle clubs, public transport operators, etc.), this German city has created a shared, long-term vision supported by decision makers, regardless of changes in the political majority at federal, state, or city levels.
This approach has been further strengthened by the fact that the Lord Mayor of Munich was designated the chairperson of both Munich operator MVG and Munich Transport Authority (MVV), which greatly helped cohesion between stakeholders, as well as setting a strong figure for transport at city level.
During the round tables, participants agreed that long-term political commitment is not easy to achieve: the consequent investment in capital necessary for public transport projects very often leads politicians to take unpopular decisions, while the (time) limitations of their mandates prevent them, and the population, from immediately reaping any benefits; drawbacks that don’t help when it comes to being re-elected, and which create an incentive for politicians not to invest in such projects.
LAND USE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
London, as explained by Elaine Seagriff, head of London-wide policy & strategy, Transport for London (TfL), benefits from the Mayor’s role in integrating the strategic planning of land use, transport and economic development. A role that has led to sustainable growth in an exploding metropolitan area. Indeed, transport links have enabled massive increases in employment density.
In spite of increasing pressure, notably on housing and social services, the implemented policies have unlocked possibilities for significant additional housing and employment in identified opportunity areas. However such opportunities depend largely on the provision of new transport schemes, notably through the development of the London Overground network, the Northern Line Extension, and Crossrail 2.
During the round table discussions, participants focused especially on planning, and expressed concerns for the planning of future systems within cities, which must taken into account when designing today’s plans. For instance, if driverless cars are the future, then the city should be shaped according to future needs in terms of space, roads, etc., and integration between modes guaranteed by interchange hubs.
LONG-TERM FUNDING COMMITMENT
Hanne Bertnes Norli, vp strategy & development, Ruter (public transport authority for Oslo and the county of Akershus) presented the situation in the rapidly-growing Norwegian capital, which had to establish a funding strategy for the long run. While in 2008, politicians earmarked toll ring revenues to subsidise public transport (notably based on the fact that car owners were benefitting from better driving conditions), other agreements have also been signed between Oslo and Akershus in order to sustain public transport subsidies at 2007 levels.
A further, significant step has been the recent study, commissioned by Ruter, to demonstrate the benefits of public transport. Its findings reveal that each euro invested in public transport produces 4.5 times its value in the economy.
In line with the fact that long-term funding and political commitments are closely linked, round table participants agreed on the need for transport practitioners to better showcase the benefits of public transport projects in order to obtain funds – be they from public or private sources – and on the importance of internalising external costs: taking Oslo as an example, they underlined the importance of the willingness of users (notably car owners) to pay, which can only be proven through this type of analysis.
SMART CITIES: CONNECTING INFRASTRUCTURE, SERVICES & PEOPLE
The afternoon session opened with a presentation by Ina Homeier, project manager from the city of Vienna, on ‘Smart City Vienna‘.
This long-term initiative seeks to improve the design, development, and perception of the federal capital. It is exploring a cross-section of the city, covering all areas of life, work, and leisure activities in equal measure, and including everything from infrastructure, energy and mobility, to all facets of urban development. Smart City Vienna has set itself the task of consistently and continuously modernising the city, in order to significantly reduce energy consumption and emissions without having to forego any aspects of consumption or mobility.
Smart City Vienna stands for the ‘intelligent city’, meaning intelligent and innovative solutions, responsible and sustainable use of resources. The Smart City Vienna Framework Strategy is a long-term umbrella programme (running up to 2050) that will establish a structural framework to ensure its implementation.
The key objective for 2050 is quality of life for all the inhabitants of Vienna, while minimising the consumption of resources. This will be achieved through comprehensive innovation and strong political leadership.
DEBATING THE ISSUES
What can be done to encourage further ‘smart city’ developments? That was the question at the core of the debate with experts, following the presentation on Vienna: Colette Maloney, head of the smart cities & sustainability unit, European Commission; Salla Ahonen, director, sustainability & environmental policy, Microsoft; Mieczyslaw Reksnis, head of road & transport department, Warsaw City Hall; and Sebastian Marx, CEO, City of Gothenburg’s European office.
To kick start the debate, Mr Heipp stated that hardly a week passes without a mayor somewhere in the world unveiling the next ‘smart city’. “But what exactly does this mean?” he asked. “And what role should transport play?”
- Smart city: definition & role
Ms Ahonen suggested that smartness describes cities that realise what they want to do differently, not necessarily in smart technology itself. “Transport is an obvious starting point for smart cities as it impacts all urban citizens on a daily basis,” she said. For Mr Marx, smartness is also about driving city collaboration and using innovation to link city departments. This was a sentiment shared by Ms Maloney, who felt that the key to smart cities is ‘integration’. While agreeing that smart cities is the right direction to take, Mr Reksnis pointed out that it is still an emerging topic in some cities, and that it involves making ‘citizens smarter’ too. He also stressed that the media can play an important role in communicating the benefits of smart cities to citizens.
- Technologies: a closer look
The panel session then considered the technologies themselves. “Most of those needed for smart cities are already here; we are just not using them,” argued Ms Ahonen. “So there must be other barriers to why cities are not taking them up.”
Ms Maloney responded that this was perhaps because what the technologies were able to offer, and what the cities wanted to achieve, did not always line up. “But as we begin to understand smart cities better, the more uptake we will see,” she reckons, adding that lessons have been learned around the importance of opening data, while noting, all the same, that the latter does not have to be free.
Both the city representatives from Gothenburg and Warsaw noted that due to the democracy of cities, they sometimes move at a slower rate than business, and that the lack of city finance is also slowing the pace of innovation. This was a point picked up by Ms Ahonen, too. “Both businesses and cities need to better understand each other’s needs and wishes,” she said, “if we are to build the effective partnerships required to transform our approach to innovation.”
Other barriers highlighted by the panellists included the complexity of the procurement process and risks associated with not knowing the end result of new untested innovations.
- Food for thought
Panellists were asked to give their take-away points from the Q&A session. All mentioned high upfront costs: if we are to see progress on smart cities, it would be best to forget mega-projects and focus instead on quick-win options. As public transport infrastructure is already established in many cities, a connected public transport system therefore offers an investor a ready, quick-win smart city solution that can lay the foundations for wider city initiatives. In fact, public transport is leading the way; apps using open data have made the jump from interesting novelty to reliable consumer service. The same is also true when it comes to the electrification of transport, with the public transport sector ahead of the game.
When questions were opened to the floor, panellists were asked about the economic case of smart city investments. All concurred that it was difficult to provide concrete examples of complete smart cities, but that many, small-scale efforts are indeed demonstrating the potential.
Another question raised by the audience concerned effective governance to overcome the silo approach within cities, in order to build compelling partnerships. Again all the panellists spoke of the need to bring together public and private players, pointing out that this is best addressed at the local level.
As a further take-away point, all recognised that smart cities offer significant opportunities for new funding, partnerships, contacts and so forth. Hence the public transport sector must be in a position to make the most of opportunities that arise, otherwise they will be grasped by new players entering the mobility market.
WRAP UP
Concluding the day, Mr Heipp, highlighted that a recurring theme was leadership, and and the importance of cities learning from one another. “UITP is in an ideal position to facilitate this through events such as the one today,” he said. “Successful smart city strategies require a strong vision, effective governance, long-term political commitment, new funding arrangements, and, most importantly, ‘connectivity’ and ‘collaboration’ within the public transport sector and with other city services.”
The afternoon panel discussion not only spotlighted the central role that public transport can play in smart cities, but also the fact that the same very principles designed for an integrated master plan for a city are applicable to any smart city strategy, e.g. such as the one developed in Vienna. This is because, from a policy perspective, the two approaches aim to achieve the same goasl: encourage better growth and develop attractive, sustainable cities that enhance people’s lives.
The findings from this one-day seminar demonstrate that while there is no single answer, the public transport sector can play a key and leading role as ‘urban integrator’.
For more information, do not hesitate to contact Stéphanie.Priou@uitp.org