School offorsomething
Institute
Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
OTHER
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
City B: Western European/ 5 yrs.
encouraging SUMPs development
• Already using 53/ 61 measures and
considering a further 4
• KonSULT suggestions reflected
directly adopted strategy
• No new measures suggested
• 2 new measures suggested
• 4 measures won’t be used
• 3 measures of interest but legally
unavailable
• 3 measures with ranking inconsistent
with expectations
• No inconsistencies
• Prefer further guidance on packages
• Difficult to reflect the scale of
application
• Useful, easy to use, consistent with
current approach
• 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
City H: Eastern European/ early stage
of considering SUMP
• First exposure to such facility
• Already using 4 suggested measures
and considering 2
• Already using 7 of the measures
suggested and considering a further 8 • No inconsistencies
• 1 new measure suggested
• Valuable additional information
• No inconsistencies
• Offered comparative data, references,
and measures with wider impacts
• Valuable additional information
• 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
City E: Eastern European/ working towards
the SUMP development
•
Already using 54/ 61 measures
•
•
7 measures out of scope/ unacceptable
Already using 18 measures suggested and
considering a further 9
•
Provides useful information
•
4 new measures suggested
•
Confirms their SUMP design
•
•
KonSULT added to the understanding of the
measure
Helpful for packaging where no model
•
•
Did not fully understand the packaging concept
More useful to students/ young professionals/
smaller cities
•
Would prefer more guidance on meaning of scores,
costs, timescales
City D: Eastern European/ advanced 1st
SUMP development
•
Draft SUMP includes 44/ 61 measures. For 12,
KonSULT added to its understanding
•
6 new measures suggested
•
11 measures won’t be used
•
No inconsistencies
•
Easy to use, provides extensive information in
accessible format
•
Some measures are in practice packages and could
City F: Eastern European/ currently
developing first SUMP
•
Already using 28/ 61 measures and considering a
further 9
•
1 new measure suggested; one unacceptable
•
No inconsistencies
•
Valuable additional information
•
Had wanted to test both objectives and problems