The Future of the Metropolis:
Tools and Models
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning
MIT Course 11.953
May 2006
Mikel Murga, MIT Research Associate and Lecturer
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Contents
„
„
„
„
Looking at Transport
Modeling the Future
Transport Goals
Critical Challenges
Mikel Murga
2
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
A new way of looking: Systemic Thinking
Goals
Problem
Decision
Results
Situation
Decisions
Side Effects
Goals
Environment
Goals of
Other Agents
Actions of Others
Figure by MIT OCW.
5
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
“The Future of Operations Research (OR) is Past”
by Russell Ackoff 1979
1. First, there is a greater need for
decision-making systems that can
learn and adapt effectively than
there is for optimizing systems that
cannot.
2. Second, in decision making, account
should be taken of aesthetic valuesstylistic preferences and progress
towards ideals because they are
relevant to quality of life.
3. Third, problems are abstracted from
systems of problems, messes.
Messes require holistic treatment.
They cannot be treated effectively by
decomposing them analytically into
separate problems to which optimal
solutions are sought.
4. Fourth, OR's analytic problemsolving paradigm, "predict and
prepare," involves internal
contradictions and should be
replaced by a synthesizing planning
paradigm such as "design a
desirable future and invent
ways of bringing it about”.
5. Fifth, effective treatment of messes
requires interaction of a wide
variety of disciplines, a
requirement that OR no longer
meets.
6. Sixth and last, all those who can be
affected by the output of
decision making should either be
involved in it so they can bring their
interests to bear on it, or their
interests should be well
represented by researchers who
serve as their advocates.
Mikel Murga
6
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Modeling the future
„
„
„
Forecasting:
„ Short term extrapolation:The future on the basis of the past
„ Applicable to slow incremental change
People believe that today’s status quo will remain
Scenarios, to accept pattern
breaks, and to improve our
decisions!
Forecasting
Scenarios
uncertainty
predictability
Time into the future
Number crunching may keep you busy and non-thinking
Mikel Murga
7
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Example of Scenario Planning
TENTATIVE FUTURE SCENARIOS
Element
Socioeconomic (population)
Economic (jobs and income)
Spatial development
1: BAU
Immigration and aging acc. to
BAU-population scenario of
Basque country
Trend development of income
2: Increased pressure
Increased aging and
immigration leads to higher
population increase and aging
Increased economic
development
Like BAU
Motorization
Slight trend to bigger
agglomeration
Trend development
Technology: Vehicle efficiency
Improvement acc. to TRENDS
Improvement acc. to TRENDS
Transport policy
Slight change towards private
cars and trucks(passenger and
freight transport)
Moderate infrastructure
improvement
Increased change towards
private cars and trucks
(passenger and freight
transport)
increased road infrastructure
improvement
Increased growth rate
Just a current example
Mikel Murga
3: Modal Shift and
environmental improvement
Like 2. evtl. Other Basque
scenario
Like 2
High development towards
bigger agglomeration
Decreased growth rate
Increased vehicle efficiency
(private and public road
transport, rail)
Increased share of public
transport, non motorized
transport and rail (freight)
increased rail infrastructure
improvement
8
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting and Forecasting
„
„
We learn only from the past!
Look at American and European cities
with subways…
„
„
„
When were those systems built?
Have they shaped those cities?
How should we then evaluate their
contribution???
Mikel Murga
9
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting
The reality modeled for 1985 and 2004
in Bilbao shows similar congestion levels
but with higher flows
Mikel Murga
10
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting
The home surveys from 1987 and 2002 describe
a clear unsustainable trend … WHAT ARE THE
REASONS BEHIND THIS ???
Distribución
viajes por modos
en el in
Bilbao
Metropolitano
Modal Splitdeinlos
Metropolitan
Bilbao
1987
and in 2002
70%
62,4%
60%
1987
2002
50%
43,4%
40%
The change in the economy,
drove the changes in mobility
31,1%
30%
18,5%
20%
13,3%
11,2%11,8%
10%
5,5%
1,8%
0,4%
0,1% 0,1%
0%
A PieFoot
On
Coche
Automobile
Bus
Bus
Modos
Tren
Train
Metro
Metro
Otros
Others
Mikel Murga
Bici
11
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting… the best learning method!
See how Innovate Boston is
Searching for lessons in the past!
Mikel Murga
12
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting:
Boston’s Commuter Trip at Residence End
Clay Pit Pond
Perch Pond
Pit Pond
Mystic River
Chelsea River
Jerrys Pond
Belle Isle Inlet
Island End River
Belle Isle I
Fresh Pond
Little Mystic Ch
Millers River
Millers River
Sawing Pond
Charles River
Charles River
Basin
Charles River
Frog Pond
Public Garden
Pond
Boston Harbor
Fort Point
Channel
Muddy River Pond
er Pond
2000 HBW Modal Split at ORIGI
Muddy River
Block Group Charts
Reserved Channel
Chestnut Hill
Reservoir
Fisher Hill
Reservoir
Brookline
Reservr
Leverett Pond
Old Harbor
Sargent Pond
Wards Pond
Mikel Murga
3,000
1,500
750
Boston Harbor Drove alone
Carpool
Bus
Streetcar
Subway
Railroad
Walked
0
.4
.8
13
1.2
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting:
Boston’s Commuter Trip at Residence End
128
The tyranny of the thousands Í
Ì Î
of small decisions (F.Salvucci)
129
38
93
95
Ì
Î
Í
28
1
Ù
Ú
107
3A
129
95
Î
Í
Ì
4
62
114
3
Ù
Ú
2
1A
99
126
60
2A
2000 HBW Modal Split at ORIGI
20
Ù
Ú
Block Group Charts
16
90F
Ì
Î
Í
1 Ì
2
Î
Í
Ú
Ù
90
27
90
Ì
Î
Í
30
9
28
93
Ì
Î
Í
203
Mikel Murga
0
3,000
1,500
750
Drove alone
Carpool
Bus
Streetcar
Subway
Railroad
Walked
1
2
3
14
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting:
Boston’s Commuter Trip at Destination End
Clay Pit Pond
Mystic River
Chelsea River
Jerrys Pond
d
Belle Isle I
This instead is the result of conscious
decisions by an enlightened elite
Island End River
Bel
Little Mystic Ch
Millers River
Charles River
Charles River
Basin
Charles River
Muddy River Pond
2000 HBW Modal Split at Destination
Block Group Charts
Frog Pond
Public Garden
Pond
75,000
Boston Harbor
37,500
18,750
Fort Point
Channel
Muddy River
Reserved Channel
Fisher Hill
Reservoir
Leverett Pond
Mikel Murga
Drove alone
Carpool
Bus
Streetcar
Subway
Commuter rail
Boston
Harbor
Walk
Taxi
0
.4
.8
Miles
1.2
15
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting:
Boston’s Commuter Trip at Destination End
129
95
Ì
Î
Í
Í
28
Ì Î
38
93
1
Ù
Ú
114
128
62
107
3A
129
4
95
Î
Í
Ì
62
3
Ù
Ú
2
1A
99
126
60
20
Ù
Ú
27
2000 HBW Modal Split at Destination
Block Group Charts
2A
75,000
37,500
18,750
16
90F
Ì
Î
Í
90
Ì
Î
Í
30
90
Ì
Î
Í
9
28
135
93
Ì
Î
Í
203 3A
Mikel Murga
Drove alone
Carpool
Bus
Streetcar
Subway
Commuter rail
Walk
Taxi
0
1
2
Miles
3
16
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting
„
„
„
„
Transit makes high density central city possible
Even in the US with transit serving only 2% of
all person trips, it is critically important in
shaping the big cities
The home to work commute in Boston (and in
other American cities like Chicago, New York,
San Francisco..) shows the critical role of transit
in its downtown
The downtown job density makes it impossible
to rely solely on the automobile
Mikel Murga
17
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Backcasting
„
„
„
As a chicken and egg problem, job
density and parking restrictions go hand
in hand
But parking restrictions do not impede
economic development
In fact, Boston development has been
very impressive, since its EPA led
parking freeze in 1973
Mikel Murga
18
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Transport and Land Use
„
„
Opening the new frontier…
Who gains with a new expressway?
„
„
„
„
New access opportunities?
Faster times for present users?
New development opportunities?
Induced demand to get back to square one?
Mikel Murga
22
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Transport Efficiency and Quality of Life?
„
„
„
„
Which are the real goals of Transport
Policy??
The systems view aligns transportation
proposals with higher goals
You will have to be creative in the use
of your tools and approaches
A Day in the Life of an executive type
a Grandma, a yuppie, a child ….
Mikel Murga
27
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Focus on Quality of Life?
„
„
„
„
When traffic is tamed, a good walking environment
results
Walkers enjoy a wide range of sensory experiences
When most people drive, the buildings end up lacking the
detail and relief that people need and enjoy
People attract more people
See Jan Gehl work in Melbourne
Mikel Murga
30
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Has transit solved Bilbao’s problem?
„
In the last decade, the transit network added a state-of-the-art new subway, a new Light Rail
and new refurbishment of the RENFE, FEVE and ET rail networks
Mikel Murga
31
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Transit’s contribution beyond transport
„
„
In parallel to the new infrastructure
projects, the quality of the urban
space has been improved
However experience shows that this
has not been enough to turn the
tide…
Mikel Murga
32
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Quality of Life: Generic Recommendations
„
„
„
„
„
„
Upgrade Squares
and Plazas
Rehabilitate wide
streets
Develop transit
Reduce through
traffic
Enhance Park Lands
Create pedestrian
and bike networks
„
„
„
„
„
Mixed uses for day and
night livability
Attract residents
Foster markets, cafes
and educational
institutions
Improve ground floor
frontage
Organize public activities
and events
Mikel Murga
34
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Transport and Land Use
„
Suburban sprawl and the car:
„
„
„
„
„
„
Did we want to segregate society?
Downtown vs the Mall, who benefits?
Can we change the Public versus private
space debate?
What about, public poverty versus private
wealth?
Transit and density
Infill development around stations
Mikel Murga
35
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
If you only fix the transportation …
„
… A beautification
program -- without
people as in Troy, NY
Mikel Murga
36
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
If you only fix the transportation …
A beautification program -- without people as in Norfolk, VA on weekends
Mikel Murga
37
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Future Trends and Challenges
„
„
„
„
„
„
Globalized (or Flattening) World
Global warming
Aging of society
Increasing income gaps
Physical separation based on income
Road Congestion
You will have to come up with your own recipes,
to provide effective answers to this critical issues!
Mikel Murga
38
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Future Trends and Challenges
We need new sustainable models of development – other than
letting the automobile shape the future of our lives
It cannot be based on do as I tell you, instead do as I do
Mikel Murga
39
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Transit: an opportunity for rehabilitation
Mikel Murga
41
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
The power of a LRT project
Mikel Murga
42
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Strasbourg
LRT as an excuse for urban transformation
Mikel Murga
43
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Modeling provides technical feasibility
… even though vision is what counts!
Mikel Murga
44
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
Mikel Murga
45
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
Mikel Murga
46
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
Mikel Murga
47
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
Mikel Murga
48
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
Mikel Murga
49
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Even a small project: before and after
We need new measuring tools to gauge the contribution!
Mikel Murga
50
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Your contribution
Of all the kinds of work I can imagine the hardest
work of all is thinking -- and that's why most
people just don't do it.”
Henry Ford in his highly original
"My Philosophy of Industry" published in 1929
You will be surprised how often you can make meaningful proposals with a bit of thinking plus some creativity
Mikel Murga
51
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Your contribution
„
The Netherlands ABC location policy:
„
Locations:
„
„
„
„
A: main transit hub – few parking - downtown
B: district center or small town bus junction
C: Not served by transit
Activities:
„
„
„
A: People intensive land uses
B: Commercial and service activities with low
turnout (e.g..: car sales, furniture dealers…)
C: Goods intensive uses
Work simultaneously at the macro and strategic level, and at the detail level
Mikel Murga
52
Comparative Land Use and Transportation Planning – May 2006
Final thought
Be on the lookout for all the lessons from
the past
„ Do measurements and keep those records
for future reference, and updates
„ Come up with new metrics for the actual contribution of transportation projects
„ You can manage only what you measure
„ Do challenge the status quo… and dare to
be creative!
„
Mikel Murga
57