Taming the Private Motor Vehicle (Trends-Problems-Policies) Konstadinos (Kostas) Goulias Penn State...
-
Upload
colin-verne -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Taming the Private Motor Vehicle (Trends-Problems-Policies) Konstadinos (Kostas) Goulias Penn State...
Taming the Private Motor Vehicle(Trends-Problems-Policies)
Konstadinos (Kostas) GouliasPenn State University
How do we ship goods?(ton-miles, all goods - US)
412555
735
1055
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1970 1980 1990 1997
RailTruckWaterPipelineAir
88% increase in ton miles in truckSource: Pucher, 1999
How do we ship goods?(% ton-miles, all goods)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1970 1980 1990 1997
RailTruckWaterPipelineAir
Source: Pucher, 1999
How do we travel (intercity)?(billions of passenger miles, all purposes)
10261210
1598
1951
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
1970 1980 1990 1997
AutoAirBusRailroad
Source: Pucher, 1999
How do we travel (intercity)?(modal share, all purposes)
86.982.5 80.2 79.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1970 1980 1990 1997
AutoAirBusRailroad
Source: Pucher, 1999
How do we travel (urban)?(modal share, all purposes)
81 84 85 87 89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1969 1977 1983 1990 1995
AutoPublic TransportWalkBicycleOther
Source: Pucher, 1999
Auto ownership and use
306
203
389
298
573
396
613554
650635
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1960 1970 1980 1990 1996
Cars/1000 people
Thousands ofvehicle km/km ofroadway
Source: Pucher, 1999
Vehicle km of travel/Total roadway length
Who pays? (inflation-adjusted, constant 1996 USD)
7481
26
62
31
73
28
88
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1970 1980 1990 1996
PT % passengerfareRoad costs % byuser charges
Source: Pucher, 1999
Cost allocation - FHWA 1997
Estimate cost responsibility of different vehicle classes
Estimate government costs and revenues Identify components of agency costs at all levels
(Federal, State, Local) Assess equity by different levels of users Guide policy of truck size and weight Guide policy on user charges Initial exploration on “external” costs
Source:Forkenbrock, 1999
Vehicle Class Federal State Local All
Auto 0.993 0.959 0.074 0.736
Pickup/Van 1.218 1.189 0.076 0.910
Bus 0.109 0.812 0.022 0.387
Single unit truck 0.824 1.181 0.050 0.768
Combination >50Kpounds
0.867 0.979 0.052 0.780
Ratios (who pays)? (2000 user charges/allocated costs)
Source:Forkenbrock, 1999
Including accidents, air pollution, greenhouse gases, and noise truck freight underpays by 13.2%
Energy and Environment
Fuel economy improved rapidly in US (18.6 MPG in 1978 v. 25.4 MPG in 1996) - CAFÉ regulation
Fatalities per mile traveled decreased dramatically - new vehicle and highway technology
Mobile source emissions per vehicle decreased - vehicle technology
Fuel prices are getting lower CO2 emissions are rising because of increasing travel Other “criteria” pollutants are decreasing but:
Source:Greene, 1999, Schiper, 1999
Emission Inventory U shaped curve (CO, NOx, HC)?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Million Tonnes
Source:Acutt & Dodgson, 1999
Summary Private car dominates other modes Intercity travel dominated by car too! Air travel on the rise Heavy use of roadways Subsidies did not help public transport No clear signs of saturation in car ownership Highway users underpay maintenance and other
easily measurable costs Traditionally considered “external” costs are not
accounted for Gains in air pollution may be offset by increasing
activity
How did we get here?
Public Policy Factors Tax and pricing policies favor private car Federal and State highway construction and
maintenance favor the private car Federal tax and credit supply favor suburban
residential development and home ownership, which in turn favors longer travel - private car
Political and jurisdictional fragmentation favor suburbanization (residential and commercial)
Source: Giuliano, 1999
Social and Cultural Values Strong private property rights Historical preference for single family home
ownership The suburban ideal - quality of life (myth?) Ethnic and racial conflicts Demographic and labor force participation trends Higher income-lower car prices?
Source:Giuliano, 1999
Current and Future Trends in the US Rising incomes - more suburban homes - more cars -
more car and air travel - less travel by other modes Job decentralization - more suburban jobs - more free
parking - longer distances - central location not needed
No signs of reversal Many plans!!!
Source:Giuliano, 1999
What Happens in Other Countries?
Good News (% of trips by mode, 1995)
45
49
52
76
89
13
16
16
10
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Austria
Germany
Italy
Canada
USA
AutoPublic Trans.BicycleWalkingOther
Other 5 1 4 2 3
Walking 28 22 24 10 6
Bicycle 9 12 4 2 1
Public Trans. 13 16 16 10 2
Auto 45 49 52 76 89
Austria Germany Italy Canada USA
Source: Pucher, 1999
4530
14
4320
30 35
124
70
19 27
213
73
1327
69
17 110
50
100
150
200
250Au
stria
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
at B
ritai
n
Gre
ece
Italy
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Portu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Japa
n
Can
ada
USA
More cars every day (% increase/capita 1980-1994)
7
Source: Pucher, 1999
435417
310
367
430
489
374
199
528
382385357350
404452
344
495
635
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700Au
stria
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
at B
ritai
n
Gre
ece
Italy
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Portu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Japa
n
Can
ada
USA
More cars every day (autos/1000 persons-1994)
Source: Pucher, 1999
4175
5376
62506941
607962166086540254615488
3697
2878
61246300
3304
9789
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000Au
stria
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
at B
ritai
n
Gre
ece
Italy
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Portu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Japa
n
Can
ada
USA
More car-km every day (auto km/person and year-1994)
Source: Pucher, 1999
30 29
48 50
31
44
5562
3438
119
103
20
38
59
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120Au
stria
Belg
ium
Den
mar
k
Finl
and
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
at B
ritai
n
Gre
ece
Italy
Net
herla
nds
Nor
way
Portu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
Switz
erla
nd
Japa
n
Can
ada
USA
More car-km every day (percent change 1980-1994)
Source: Pucher, 1999
Why? We are becoming increasingly car dependent (e.g., if you
buy a car you will use it and create more need for it) Fragmented activities dispersed in time and space (e.g.,
short time in the evening for leisure) Domination of car inhibits growth of other modes (e.g.,
highway maintenance budgets) Perceptions, attitudes, and information provision (e.g.,
see next slide - multiple reasons)
Traveler Objective and Subjective Situations(reasons for not using public transportation in 13 German cities-25,000 trips)
Source: Socialdata, 1999
Dimension 1: General constraints dictating a mode (e.g., weather conditions, need touse a specific vehicle for work purposes, carrying luggage, presence of adisability, need to serve a passenger, etc.).
Dimension 2: System Availability (e.g., no public transportation exists for the originand/or destination of the trip).
Dimension 3: Service Availability (e.g., no public transportation service exists for theorigin and/or destination of the trip at the time needed).
Dimension 4: Lack and Complexity of Information (e.g., too complex scheduleand/or fare system)
Dimension 5: Negative/Positive Disposition (e.g., fan to drive, walk, or cycle,displeasure using a bus).
Dimension 6: Time Considerations (e.g., too many transfers, waiting times are toolong, the walk to and from the bus stop is too long, lack of schedule reliability,the mode is too slow, etc.).
Dimension 7: Comfort Considerations (e.g., not enough seats in the vehicle, toocrowded, too high/low temperature in the vehicle, high security risk, unpleasantriders, etc.).
Dimension 8: Cost Considerations (e.g., the fare is too high for a traveler or a party oftravelers).
29%
46%
7%
47%
27%
19%
4%
4%
Top Trucking Transportation Issues Delays due to inspections and permits (safety
& shipping papers)
Highway (un)reliability - unexpected delays
Highway “quality”
Options Used & Considered
Policies Management strategies Public education & information New technologies
Policies
Charge for the full costs of private car ownership and use (e.g., internalize traditionally considered as external costs - maybe considering social costs)
Promote the development and use of new technologies (e.g., alternatively fueled vehicles, more efficient vehicles, fiscal incentives)
Allocate costs to “gainers” more equitably (e.g., charge developers for transport improvement costs)
Promote non-private car modes (e.g., bicycle network grants, walking paths)
Management Strategies Traffic management using “command and control”
centers Intermodal-multimodal station improvements Creation of information systems for managing traffic and
informing travelers Programs for incentives and disincentives (e.g., park-
and-ride, ridesharing) Telecommunications to substitute travel (e.g., work at
home programs, neighborhood telecenters) Individualized marketing
Education - Outreach
Involve people in planning and in regulatory functions Educate public and decision makers about “total” costs Develop new communication methods Understand car dependency - land use - environment
Technology
Energy efficient vehicles Ultra low emission vehicles Electric, hydrogen, fuel cell, and hybrids Information and telecommunication technology in cars Information and telecommunication technology in
managing traffic Infrastructure design Automated highway system
Policies & Jurisdictions/Levels International - agreements and targets/standards Federal/EU - regulations State/National - fiscal incentives, pricing Local/Regional - location strategies, land use,
incentives for behavioral change
Source: Banister, 1999
Is all this going to work?
Some of the actors Persons, their households, and their social networks Companies (producers, shippers, receivers) Governments and their agencies (all levels) Semipublic-Semiprivate agencies/authorities (ports,
airports, tollways) Associations & interest groups
35
Lo
w
Gra
de
H
igh
1.2
2.
2
3.2
7
6
5
2
4
3
11
10
9
8
12
3
4
5
6A
7
8
910
12
11
6B
2
3
4
5
6
87
9
10
11
1
1
C
C+
B
D+
5.3 7.6 10.0Low Importance High
1. Mass trans it sys tems 2. Pedestrian travel 3. Bicycle travel 4. Quality of roads 5. Number of roads 6. Passenger rail system 6A. Quality of passenger rail
system 6B Quality of rail freight
system 7. Availability of different
methods of travel 8. Amount of funding
provided 9. Ef fects on land use10. Effects on environment11. Effects on economic
development12. Variety of goods
movement methods
Planners, n=203 Residents, n=1000 Commercial, n=272
Scales:10 = very importan t, 1 = not at all4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D
The importance/grade-matrix presented above is very instructive. It combines the grades (on an“A” to “F” scale) the public gives to Pennsylvania’s transportation functions with what they think areimportant to emphasize in the 25-year plan. Quality of roads, availability of different methods oftravel, mass transit systems, funding, and environmental issues are high on importance to the 25-
I have a problem! The public says mass transit is important but it is ok -
yet it does not carry many passengers The public says improve the roads (important and bad
shape) If I follow this suggestion and invest on roads, I will
create more incentives to use the private motor vehicle, which in turn creates even more problems
Difference between public service and private product?
What are some ideas that you can give me to take home?