Why is MORECO of interest to you?

komobile stadtland

Facts Background Trends

Peak Oil and Energy Prices

Diesel

Regular

Plus

komobile stadtland

Peak Oil

Oil demand

2003 <> 2030

Oil

supp

ly

Shortage and increasing prices

komobile stadtland

Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumption

0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Jahr

Ter

ajo

ule

/ Ja

hr

Traffic & Transport

Domestic heating, hot water

Industry, steam generation, ...

e.g. Oil consumption in Austria 1995–2010

source: Statistik Austria, Energiestatistik, Energiebilanzen Österreich 1970 - 2010

Ter

ajo

ule

/ ye

ar

komobile stadtland

Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumptionPreview of main petrochemical demand, Italy 1990 – 2025 (billion tons)

Traffic & Transport Number of private cars per person, French examples

RHONE ALPES

Traffic & Transport: Energy consumption in France

RHONE ALPES

One third of the total French energy consumption is due to transport

36% of CO2 emissions are due to transport (2008)

Increasing energy prices = increasing costs for accomodation and mobility!

Possible short-term and long-term adaptive reactions on rising energy prices (SOURCE: Gertz et al. 2008 zitiert in Frehn, Dittrich-Wesbuer, Verkehrsfolgenabschätzung der Siedlungsentwicklung, Dortmund, im April 2012)

Private households: course of action

limited usage of cars

reduction of other budgets

spatialreorganisation

switching reduction of activities

efficient Vehicles

efficientvehicles

higher degree

of occupation

fuel-efficientstyle

of driving

choosing shorter

destinations

transferring domicileor place of work

publictransport

nonmotorized

traffic

new media

new kinds of transport

Unwanted effect: meaning heavy individual constraints causing loss of welfare

Preserving structure: useful option, but dependency on oil remains

Changing structure: option supports independence of oil

komobile stadtland

Necessity to use the car

residence

place of work

leisure

supply

social contacts

others

komobile stadtland

Settlement Patterns that Leave no Choice!

Extensive settlement patternsMonofunctional residential areas

Disproportionate land consumption compared to population growth

Maximized distances

Low density = bad coverage by public transport

No shops or services, no places of employment

foto: SAGIS

komobile stadtland

Jobs far away from residential areasShopping centres on the outskirts of the city

Far away from residential areas

Inaccessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users

Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites

VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg

komobile stadtland

Fragmented residential areas

City: 20 m road / housing unit

Area of single-family-detached houses: up to 150 m road / housing unit

foto: SAGIS

komobile stadtland

Reduced and fragmented agricultural areasless local high-quality food

Far away from residential areas

for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users

Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites

Purple SIR

Foto: Pascale Margot Rougerie

Under-utilised central locations

Deserted city and village-centres

Missed chances

komobile stadtland

foto: VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg

Architecturally sophisticated, energy efficient, built ecologically!

B U T

High consumption of land, car-dependent, not sustainable!

komobile stadtland

Good architecture! Good location?

photo: Erika Mahoney

UIRS

The role of motivations in residential site and mobility mode decisions

Private / social benefits and costs of choosing housing locationand mode of transport types which motivate travel behaviour

UIRS

Choosing a housing locationin the city

photo: Mario Mariordo

Private benefits

-Physical proximity to urban amenities

-Working place / living placein close proximity

-No need for a car

-Good living qualityin high priced areas

Private costs

-Too high density

-Traffic congestion

-Environmental pollution

-Only high priced areas offervery good quality for living

-Large share of income spent on living expenses

-Less leisure opportunities without a car

author: unknown

UIRS

Choosing a housing locationin suburban areas/villages

P benefits• Realized preference for low-density living• Proximity to natural areas, private garden• Lower crime rates• More living area for the same money• No costs for inherited building sites• Quality of life is higher than in urban areas

P costs• High mobility costs in the long run• High dependency on car• Greater stress due to long journeys to work• High time costs for all family members• Risk of loss of property value due to

changing travel conditions (energy prices)

illustration: Kevin H.

Private benefits

-low-density living

-natural areas, private gardens

-Lower crime rates

-More living space

-No costs for inherited building sites

-Quality of life is higher

Private costs

-High mobility costs in the long run

-High dependency on cars

-Greater stress due to travelling to work

-High time costs

-Risk of property value loss

photo: Barbara Jordan Dettweiler

UIRS

Choosing mode of transportCommuting by car

costs• Long commuting times• High travel costs• Health problems• Psychological problems• Less opportunities to meet people

and get new experiences

Private benefits

-Better access to employment opportunities

-Combining trips to work + other daily chores

-More opportunities for accessto desired or affordable housing

Private costs

-Long commuting times

-High travel costs

-Health problems

-Psychological problems

-Less opportunities to meet and interact with people

source: Dealer Refresh

source: alamy

UIRS

Choosing mode of transportCommuting by public transport

photo: Salvatore VuonoSource: Photosynth

Private benefits

-Reduction in commuting costs

-Reduction in road accidents

-Reduction in noise and air pollution

-Enhancement in work productivity

-Reduction of stress

Private costs

-Greater time costs

-Forces people to follow precise timing

-In some areas not all public transports modes are available

UIRS

Choosing mode of transport:Walking and cycling

source: Lovingthebike.comsource: Cortina

Private benefits

-Daily physical training

-Lower risk of obesity

-Independency of traffic congestions

-Opportunity to use routes with good environmental quality

-Stress-less time

Private costs

-Built environment features can affect the amount of time a trip takes, but also the comfort, safety and enjoyment of the walking environment

-Good equipment is needed

-Facilities and time for changing clothes and washing/showering is required

UIRS

photo: Mario Mariordo

source: Cortina

source: Lovingthebike.com

photo: Andrej Gulič

photo: Andrej Gulič

Social benefits

-Lower fiscal costs for infrastructure

-Higher density settlements are more socially sustainable

-High density urban livingfor social interaction

-Inner-city redevelopments on ‘brownfield’ sites

-Presence of supra-local services

Social costs

-Degradation of public spaces

-Greater health and safety risks

-High cost of renovation

-Lack of interest of real estate agents

Choosing a housing locationin the city

UIRS

Choosing a housing locationin suburban areas/villages

source: BabyCentre Blog photo: Andrej Gulič

Social benefits

-Suburbanization creates separation of land uses

-Superstores are feasible on the outskirts

-Inhabitants bring money to municipalities

-More opportunities for development of social and welfare nets

-Social integration is stronger

Social costs

-Degradation of public spaces

-Loss of open space

-Larger ecological footprint

-High demands on public infrastructure

-High dependency on car traffic

-Commuting can be considered a huge social cost

UIRS

Choosing mode of transportCommuting by car

source: The Ohio State University

source: EntitySolutions

Social benefits

-Increased productivity and individual welfare

-Better functioning of labour markets

Social costs

-Long daily commuting times

-Increased traffic congestion and environmental pollution

-Unfavourable socio-physical condition of commuters; accident costs

-Roads’ construction and maintenance

-Surface taken up by road infrastructure

-Decline and abandonment of city centres

UIRS

Choosing mode of transportCommuting by publ. transport

photo: Andrej Gulič

photo: Andrej Gulič

Social benefits

-Cost efficiency for the travelers

-Environmentally more friendly modes of transport

-External benefits of public transport

-Reduction of social and environmental costs

Social costs

-Congestion costs

-Overcrowding in peak hours

-Poorly coordinated timetables

UIRS

Choosing mode of transportWalking and cycling

source: Cortina

photo: Andrej Guličsource: Grist

Social benefits

-Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

-Lower consumption of space

-Improvement of the psycho-physical well-being

-Greater equity and solidarity between traffic participants

-Promotion of tourism and recreation

Social costs

-Construction of walking + cycling routes

-Allocation of local services along the routes

-Reconversion of roads to walking and cycling routes

-Introducing new mobility management tools

UIRS

Broader social impacts on motivations

source: Lipman, B.

- Motivations depend on the prevailing cultural and value system in a given area (state, region, local community

UIRS

Variablesthat influence the development of motivations / preferencesfor specific housing location and modes of transport

source: Lipman, B.

source: Sergio Pecanha author: Jill Andrews- Social and cultural context

- Characteristics of labour force / employment decentralisation

- Advancements in communication technologies

- Types of households/ position in the life cycle

- Characteristics of current housing / potential new housing

source: The WTM Blog source: Shirt.Wootsource: getty images I corbis

Increasing land consumption despite stagnant population

foto: SAGIS

komobile stadtland

Urban Sprawl / Land Consumption

source: Umweltbundesamt (UBA), 9. Umweltkontrollbericht, Wien 2010 / data Austria

inh

abit

ants

(m

io)

sett

lem

ent

area

per

inh

abit

ant

(m

² / i

nh

)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

population

settlement area

komobile stadtland

Development of settlement area per inhabitant

food production

recreation

habitat

ecological balance

increasing distances

damaged environment

inefficient use of supplies

extensive systems for supply and disposal

Separation, fragmentation, loss of area

–

options

+costs

municipality

komobile stadtland

100 47 2563

Single family detached houses: 12 housing units/ha floor space ratio: 0,23

Single family houses coupled: 21 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,40

Row houses:

34 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,61

Multi-storey appartment houses: 75 housing units/hafloor space ratio: 0,88

source: SIR„Infrastrukturkostenstudie Salzburg, SIR-Konkret 4/2007

Traffic accessibility, water supply, sewage disposal, electricity, street lights

Infrastructure costs per housing unit in %

komobile stadtland

Infrastructure costs depending on development density

Fewer children in an aging society!New demands on infrastructure!

komobile stadtland

Demographic Change

Structure of the population, by age group and sex, EU-27; in % of total population

source: Eurostat (Online-Datencode: demo_pjangroup, proj_10c2150p)

men (2010)

women(2010)

men(2060)

women(2060)

> 85 years

80 – 84 years

75 – 79 years

70 – 74 years

65 – 69 years

60 – 64 years

55 – 59 years

50 – 54 years

45 – 49 years

40 – 44 years

35 – 39 years

30 – 34 years

25 – 29 years

20 – 24 years

15 – 19 years

< 5 years

5 – 9 years

10 – 14 years

komobile stadtland

Aging society ...

Requirements of older people on the living environment

Within walking distance

• daily consumer needs (freedom of choice)• public transport• recreation areas• social network• medical supplies

Accessibility of• mobile services• regional services and supplies

functional diversitysafe paths

barri

er-fr

ee e

nviro

nmen

t

komobile stadtland

Increasing Health Expenditures

31,

4 B

IL E

UR

/ ye

ar

source: STATISTIK AUSTRIA

The cost-share of the health care system exceeds 10 % of economic output and are continuing to rise!

Health expenditures in % of GDP

komobile stadtland

Health expenditures caused by road traffic

komobile stadtland

source: VCÖ 2012