Civitas ii results shanghai

CIVITAS II Demonstration Phase

2005-2009

Don Guikink – DTV Consultants

At Shanghai Expo 2010

CIVITAS-II 2005-2009 9 September 2010 Shanghai – D. Guikink

Content

• The CIVITAS Initiative

• CIVITAS II Demonstration Cities

• Evaluation Approach

• What worked well?

• What was expected to work better?

• Key Facts and Figures

• Main Conclusions


The CIVITAS Initiative - objectives

• To promote and implement sustainable, clean

and (energy)efficient urban transport measures

• To implement and evaluate integrated packages

of technology and policy measures

• To build up critical mass and markets for

succesful innovative concepts


The CIVITAS Initiative – key elements

• CIVITAS is coordinated by cities: it is a

programme “of cities for cities”

• Cities are at the heart of local public private

partnerships

• Political commitment is a basic requirement

• Cities are living ‘laboratories’ for learning and

evaluating


CIVITAS II Demonstration Phase

• Focus on small and medium sized cities (150.000

– 500.000 inhabitants)

• They may lack specific expertise & political support

to test innovative measures

• They lack innovation resources that large and capital

cities usually attract

• There are more medium-sized than large (> 1 million)

cities across Europe, and therefore they are

important to reach the critical mass

• Development of the political dimension

• Development of the common evaluation

approach

• Strong development of the ‘brand’ CIVITAS and

corporate identity


Roles for CIVITAS-GUARD

1. Support CIVITAS II in performing their:

• Evaluation Activities via Evaluation Liaison Group

• Dissemination Activities via Dissemination Liaison Group

2. Monitor the progress of CIVITAS II measures and

provide independent advice for the EC

(In CIVITAS Plus divided into POINTER and VANGUARD)


CIVITAS II Demonstration Cities (2005 – 2009)

http://www.civitas.eu/project_sheet?lan=en&id=1





Why did they participate?

• Because of the possibility to learn from other

cities

• Because of political will to make a step forward

in reaching sustainability

• Because of a strong local key-actor (or

individual person)

• Because it was possible to integrate measures

that are implemented in their cities and to

understand synergy effects

Because CIVITAS’ aims fitted perfectly in local

objectives for sustainable mobility


• Clean vehicles and alternative fuels (23)

• Access management (25)

• Integrated pricing strategies (8)

• Stimulation of public transport modes (37)

• New forms of vehicle use and ownership (18)

• New concepts for goods distribution (18)

• Innovative soft measures (47)

• Telematics (32)


Share of number of measures versus share of

costs per clusters


Evaluation Framework in CIVITAS

CIVITAS Evaluation Objectives

Impact Evaluation Guidelines for defining

evaluation scenarios

Common core indicators

Guidelines for measurement

Guidelines for up-scaling

Guidelines for reporting

Process Evaluation Collecting information on

all stages of the measure

Feedback and support

Factors of success and

unexpected barriers

Input for policy

recommendations

Evaluation at

Measure and

City Levels

Cross-site Evaluation Comparing results across sites

Assessing transferability

Conclusions and recommendations

CIVITAS

Measures

Reporting

Evaluation Results


Outline of Impact Evaluation Framework

Detailed Measure Descriptions Effects/Impacts Indicators

Evaluation Plans

Measure or Grouped Measure

level Evaluations

Project & City

understandings

Cross-site Evaluation

and Transferability

G U A R D

‘Baseline’

‘Business-as-Usual’

‘After’

Support for Recommendations to other

EUROPEAN CITIES


Approach to Process Evaluation

Implementation Process of Measures


Impacts and Common Indicators

Benefits ECONOMY

Costs

ENERGY Energy Consumption

Pollution / Nuisance ENVIRONMENT

Resource Consumption

Acceptance

Accessibility

Employment

Equity

Health

SOCIETY

Security

Quality of Service

Safety

Transport Ssytem TRANSPORT

Transport System


What worked well?

• Use of clean fuels produced significant reductions in emissions at local level

• Integrated (packaged) measures of ‘carrots and sticks’ in combination with clear explanation

• Citizens involvement from an early stage rose awareness levels

• Installation of small-scale public transport measures

• Installation of low emission zones

• Active traffic management schemes reduced fuel usage and emissions


What was expected to work better?

• Reduced installation and maintenance costs of

innovative products

• Increase in technical capacities

• Quality and user-friendliness of technical

innovations

• Natural acceptance of cycling and car sharing

• Exploitation of LEZ (eg goods distribution


Some CIVITAS II Facts &

Figures

• Over 200 measures

implemented

• 3150 new carpoolers attracted

• 2900 rental bikes installed

• extension/installation of 13 LEZ

• reduction of car trips 12%

• 89% less congestion in LEZ

• travel times savings up to 25%

• fuel savings up to 8%

• Forum Members: 72 (2005) ,

181 (2010), representing 60

million EU inhabitants

Increase in the Clean Vehicle Fleet

(700 vehicles)

CNG / Other

Gas

30%

Biodiesel

20%

LPG

20%

Soot Filters

12%

Euro IV

8%

Electric

3%

Other

2%Hybrid

1%EuroV

4%


Evaluation Issues

Differences in Expectations

Timing and Scale of Measures

Parallel Measures and Policies

Quality of Evaluation

Clarification of Measures

Resources for Evaluation

Overlapping Measures

Baseline Variability


Key Evaluation Findings

Success of legislation

Biodiesel success

Car pooling/car sharing potential

Cycle use increases

Urban logistics complex partnerships

Mobility management

Public transport measures effective

Access control reduces car use/improves

environment


Main Conclusions CIVITAS II

• Attitudes towards sustainable modes improved significantly in all CIVITAS II Cities

• Citizen involvement at an early stage leads to wider public acceptance Clean vehicles are on the rise – EuroV (VI) probably best in terms of environmental benefits

• SMART-measures for mobility management can be implemented relatively easy and are very effective

• Access restrictions and parking control contribute to better local travel conditions

• Organisational planning is of major importance

• Stakeholder partnerships have led to fruitful cooperation

• Solid evaluation is necessary to assess long-term impacts


Thank you for your attention

• Project Manager: Don Guikink,

[email protected]

On behalf of