WHAT THEY GAIN
- less traffic
- air quality
- bruit
- quality of public space
URBAN PLANNING & MOBILITY · FRENCH METROPOLIS
Pedestrianize a historic center without driving out the people who live there.
The center is not only a place people come to. It is also a place from which people must be able to continue living their lives.
42 hectares, a projected 68 % reduction in traffic, an environmental ambition pursued across several political terms. The question was not whether the project was legitimate, but who would bear its day-to-day operating cost.
- DECISION
- Pedestrianize 42 hectares of historic city center
- POPULATION
- 420 000 residents and workers
- HORIZON
- 36 months of trajectories
- KEY ISSUES
- Acceptance · residential access · leaving the center
SCOPE
42 hectares
PROJECTED TRAFFIC
−68 % within the area
PROFILS
16 profiles · 5 configurations
EXTENSIVE PEDESTRIANIZATION PROJECT
A legitimate urban project,
whose city-center residents
could become its first victims.
The area covers the main shopping and residential streets of the historic core. Technical studies had validated feasibility: 68 % less car traffic, with measurable improvements in air quality and acoustic comfort.
The risk perceived by the project team was counterintuitive. The first potential victims of the scheme were the residents themselves: families with children, older people with reduced mobility, workers employed outside the metropolitan core. Poorly calibrated pedestrianization could trigger a residential exodus to the outskirts and durably weaken the center's social and generational mix.
Five configurations were tested before decisions on scope and sequencing.
- children and school activities
- courses volumineuses
- home services
- exceptional journeys
- horaires atypiques
- reduced mobility
FIRST REVELATION
71 % of city-center residents
support the principle.
They reject the loss of residential access.
The apparent conflict — for or against pedestrianization — was therefore poorly framed. The real issue was not support for a car-free city, but the material possibility of organizing daily life within it.
“The center could be made so much better to live in that some lives became impossible to organize there.”
WHAT THEY ALSO HAVE
- children
- bulky shopping
- home services
- exceptional journeys
- atypical hours
CORE COMPARISON
Same area.
Only one difference: the exemption.
FULL PEDESTRIANIZATION WITHOUT EXEMPTION
- acceptance: 34 %
- intention to leave within 5 years: 18 %
PEDESTRIANIZATION + RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION
- acceptance: 76 %
- intention to leave within 5 years: 3 %
■ acceptance■ intention to leave within 5 years
- resident badge
- regulated deliveries
- residential parking preserved
Beneficiary user without constraints.
SECOND REVELATION
Technical sophistication
can become friction.
MOST GRANULAR CONFIGURATION
Zoning by sub-area
+ differentiated access.
Technically sophisticated. Structurally the least accepted.
WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE
“Which rule
applies today?”
Daily lack of clarity weakens overall perception of the scheme, including among those who benefit from it.
TECHNICAL OPTIMIZATION EASE OF USE
| accumulated friction from a complex rule· · · friction from a clear rule
A complicated rule is not endured once. It is endured on every shopping trip, every school run, every delivery, every visit.
SMALL COMPLEXITY REPETITION HIGH FRICTION
THIRD REVELATION
Progressive rollout
is not merely gentler.
ABRUPT ROLLOUT
- no correction window
- lasting opposition crystallized
PROGRESSIVE ROLLOUT OVER 5 YEARS
- observe real usage
- adjust the hours
- fix parking
- address mobility for older people
+22 points of acceptance at 36 months, vs an abrupt timetable.
420 000 residents and workers.
16 profiles of relationship
with city-center life.
SIMULATED POPULATION
The population covers the metropolitan core and inner ring. It was structured into 16 profiles combining age, household structure, work-related mobility constraints, relationship with city-center life and length of residence.
3 200 synthetic residents, business owners and workers were interviewed on the 5 configurations, with dynamic follow-ups on residential friction points.
- age
- household structure
- work-related mobility constraint
- relationship with city-center life
- length of residence
CITY-CENTER FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
school and after-school travel chains, occasional but non-negotiable need for vehicle access
OLDER PEOPLE WITH REDUCED MOBILITY
distance to parking is decisive, dependence on home services
WORKERS WITH IRREGULAR HOURS
travel outside permitted time windows, low compatibility with time-restricted access
WORKERS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE CITY CORE
daily vehicle use from the center, high sensitivity to residential parking
LONG-TERM RESIDENTS
strong residential roots, greater tolerance for transformation if access remains possible
RECENTLY ARRIVED RESIDENTS
weaker roots, quicker decision to leave when daily friction rises
BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AREA
dependence on delivery windows, attention to footfall
INNER-RING RESIDENTS
regular visits to the center, relationship as a visitor rather than a resident
HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT A VEHICLE
direct benefit from pedestrianization, low exposure to access constraints
- PUBLIC DATA
- INSEE
- SURVEYS
- Household travel surveys
- METROPOLITAN DATA
- Car use and residential mobility
These configurations reveal part of the population's heterogeneity. The simulation operates on synthetic individuals, not a handful of persona types.
THE 5 CONFIGURATIONS
The same area.
Five ways to close it.
The five configurations were tested against the same population to isolate the effect of the exemption scheme, zoning, time windows and rollout sequencing.
- 01FULL PEDESTRIANIZATIONClosed area with no exemption scheme: 34 % acceptance among city-center residents, 18 % intention to leave within 5 years.
- 02PEDESTRIANIZATION + RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTIONVehicle-access badge for residents, regulated delivery hours, residential parking preserved: 76 % acceptance, 3 % intention to leave within 5 years.
- 03ZONED PEDESTRIANIZATIONCenter divided into pedestrian zones with differentiated vehicle access by sub-area: technically the most refined configuration, structurally the least accepted.
- 04TIME-BASED PEDESTRIANIZATIONDefined vehicle-access windows during the day, with no answer for travel at irregular hours.
- 05PROGRESSIVE PEDESTRIANIZATION OVER 5 YEARSOpen the area in waves of sub-sectors, observing real usage and correcting parameters between waves.
METHOD
Before recommending,
we tested reactions.
- 420 000 RESIDENTS AND WORKERS
- 16 PROFILES
- 3,200 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED
- 5 CONFIGURATIONS
- FOLLOW-UPS ON RESIDENTIAL FRICTIONS
- 36 MONTHS OF TRAJECTORIES
- AREA-SCOPE DECISION
- residential departure
- mobility displacement effects
- impacts commerciaux
- 01
RESIDENTS ACCEPT THE PRINCIPLE, NOT THE LOSS OF ACCESS
71 % of historic-center residents support the principle of pedestrianization. What they reject is losing vehicle access for their own residential needs.
- 02
THE ZONED SYSTEM IS THE LEAST ACCEPTED
The technically most sophisticated configuration is perceived as difficult to understand in everyday life. A clear binary system achieves higher acceptance.
- 03
A PROGRESSIVE TIMETABLE MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO OBSERVE AND CORRECT
The 36-month acceptance trajectory is 22 pts higher with a progressive wave-based rollout than with an abrupt timetable.
Imagine All The People does not ask a model to imagine what a city-center resident might think about pedestrianization. Five configurations are tested against a coherent, heterogeneous synthetic population to observe possible trajectories before the scope decision is made.
STRATEGY SELECTED
Full pedestrianization.
General residential exemption.
- 01full pedestrianization of the historic area
- 02general residential exemption via vehicle-access badge
- 03services for residents included in the scheme
- 04delivery hours regulated and negotiated with businesses
- 05residential parking preserved immediately around the area
- 06wave-based rollout over 60 months, interim review at 24 months
THEN REALITY ARRIVED
Three operational waves,
observed at 24 months.
- INTENTION TO LEAVE
- 4 %observed at 24 months, vs 3–5 % projected
- RETAIL FOOTFALL
- +12 %vs previous period
- RESIDENT SATISFACTION
- 68 %within the pedestrianized area
- OPERATIONAL WAVES
- 34th wave underway with adjusted parameters
- AJUSTEMENT 01extended Saturday delivery windows
- AJUSTEMENT 02mobility support for older people receiving home care
- SIMULER
- DEPLOY
- OBSERVER
- CORRIGER
SIMULATION
Projected intention to leave between 3 and 5 % with the exemption scheme, versus 18 % without an exemption.
OBSERVATION
4 % intention to leave at 24 months, +12 % retail footfall, 68 % satisfaction among residents within the area.
The progressive timetable does not merely make the transformation gentler: it turns the system into a learning system. Each wave produces data, each correction feeds the next wave. The right project is not the one that knows everything before it starts, but the one designed to learn without having to reverse the entire decision.
TAKEAWAY
“Residents were not rejecting
the car-free city.
They were rejecting a city where living became
more complicated than coming for a walk.”
“The objective was not only to pedestrianize the center. We had to prevent its environmental success from driving out the people who lived there.”
- 01Support for the principle ≠ acceptance of implementation.
- 02The supposed beneficiaries can become the first victims of a poorly calibrated transformation.
- 03An exemption can protect the overall objective rather than weaken it.
- 04Ease of use > technical sophistication in systems repeated every day.
- 05Progressive rollout can turn a policy into a learning system.
A real case.
A confidential organization.
This case is based on a completed simulation. The organization and location are not named where confidentiality requires it. The decision, configurations tested and findings are presented without revealing information that could identify the client.
