Evaluation of transport management measures for sustainable development in Beijing

Evaluation of a Selection of Transport

Management Measures for Sustainable

Development in Beijing, China (15-4084)

Meng Xu a, b; Susan Grant-Muller a

a Institute for Transport Studies (ITS), University of Leeds b State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety,

Beijing Jiaotong University

Session 402-Implementing TDM Strategies

The 94th TRB Annual Meeting

2

Outline

Recent Transport Management Measures in

Beijing

Implementation Effects: Summary for Beijing

Municipality

Qualitative Evaluation: Sustainability vs Equity

and Efficiency

Summary and conclusion

3

Prioritisation of mass transit systems (S1)

Private car ownership measures (S2)

Staggered peak-hour planning (S3)

Parking charge policies (S4)

Demand management through license plates (S5)

S1 S1; S2; S5 S1; S2; S3 S1; S2; S3; S4; S5

2008 2009 2010

Figure 1 Distribution of transport management policies over time

Recent Transport Management Measures in Beijing

With rapid socio-economic growth, the development of mass

transit has been prioritised to increase transport efficiency

and mitigate congestion;

A focus on the development of subways and large capacity

rapid transit systems, an aspiration to develop as a ‘public-

transport city’ with an attractive, fast and convenient mass

transit service;

Implementation of ‘four priority’ policies to improve the PT

system (land use; investment; dedicated road lanes; fiscal

support);

Establish the social welfare importance of public transport.


Prioritisation of mass transit systems (S1)

Application process and use of the quota for private car

and official business car purchase;

The new measures started from the 1st January of 2012,

with Beijing car purchasers needing to draw lots to

obtain a car license plate;

A Beijing driver is only allowed to own one car, but car

owners can update vehicles without entering the lot-

drawing procedure;

For a period of five years (2012-2017), applications

which would increase the size of the governmental and

public agency vehicle fleet are not allowed.


Private car ownership measures (S2)

Commuters in Beijing changed their peak hour departure

times as the new ‘adjusted-work-hour’ policy was launched on

12th April of 2010;

Around 0.81 million municipal government employees have

been involved in the scheme, including employees from all

parties and governmental organizations, social groups, public

units, state-owned enterprises and urban collective-owned

enterprises;

The working day was adjusted to start at 9:00am instead of

8:30am and to end at 6:00pm instead of 5:30pm.


Staggered peak-hour planning (S3)

Parking fee regulations divide Beijing's non-residential

parking areas into three zones (within the 3rd ring road area;

between 3rd ring road and 5th ring road area; outside the 5th

ring road area) and different parking fees apply in each zone;

Specification of new charges standard for parking in daytime

(7:00am-21:00pm) based on three defined zone types;

The parking fee is as high as ¥15 (about $2.45 USD) per hour

in some highly congested areas, putting many employees

under financial pressure if they need to park near to their

work place.


Parking charge policies (S4)

During 07:00am and 8:00pm, private cars and official business

vehicles inside the 5th ring road (inclusive) should not be

driven on public roads for one day per week;

Every three months, the group of vehicles that could not use

public road space for a certain weekday would rotate;

Traffic permits for entering Beijing are needed for Non-Beijing

passenger service vehicles, and Non-Beijing passenger

service vehicles heading for Beijing and with traffic permits to

entering Beijing will be prohibited to run within the 5th Ring

Road (inclusive) from 7:00am to 9:00am and from 5:00pm to

8:00pm on workdays.


Demand management through license plates (S5)

9

Outline


Beijing


Municipality


and Efficiency


Implementation Effects

Vehicle growth

179.8 206.5

235.8

269.4

318.6

390.9 402.8

419.2

258.3

287.6 312.8

350.4

401.9

480.9 498.3

520

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

V

ehic

le N

um

ber

(U

nit

: 10,0

00 V

eh)

Year

Private Car Number

Total Vehicle Number

Expon. (Private Car Number)

Expon. (Total Vehicle

Number)

Figure 2. Annual variation in vehicles in

Beijing municipality (2005-2012)

Total private cars in

Beijing has

increased

dramatically from

2005-2010.

With the

introduction of S2

in late 2010, the

growth in

motorization

decreased.


Trips by mode

Year

Total

daily

trips

Road

surface

PT Subway Car Cycling Population

Average

daily

trips

Average

vehicle

trips

2008 26.37 6.41 1.82 7.64 4.62 16.95 2.84 1.56

2009 27.46 7.94 2.75 9.34 4.97 17.55 2.93 1.56

2010 29.04 8.18 3.35 9.93 4.76 19.61 2.54 1.48

2011 28.73 8.11 3.95 9.48 4.32 20.19 2.35 1.42

2012 30.33 8.28 5.09 9.9 4.22 20.69 2.36 1.47

Table 2 Trips with respect to modes (Unit: Million journeys per day)

Road surface public transport trips and subway trips

continue to increase, whilst cycling trips decrease.

Although total daily trips increase each year (except in

2011), the average daily trips and average vehicle trips

steadily decrease in total.


Trips by mode (Cont.)

Year/

Mode

Average travel distance

(km)

Average travel time (min)

Morning peak

(7am-8am)

Evening peak

(5pm-6pm)

M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4 M1 M2 M3 M4

2009 7.3 14.8 10.9 2.9 54.4 68.3 36.4 23.0 55.4 62.7 35.9 24.9

2010 9.6 16.9 9.3 3.8 60.7 73.1 32.9 21.4 66.4 74.8 38.9 23

2011 10.3 16.5 11.4 4.7 56 58 35 17 57 51 39 22

Table 3 Peak trips with respect to travel modes

Trip differences during the peak hours indicate that the

selected transport management measures had an impact

in terms of peak hour trip mitigation.

Key: M1: Road surface public transport; M2: Subway; M3: Car; M4: Cycling.

13

Outline


Beijing


Municipality


and Efficiency


Qualitative Evaluation

Sustainable aspects of transport management policies

With respect to society:

(So1) Meet basic human needs for health, comfort, and convenience

in ways that do not stress the social fabric

(So2) Allow and support development at a human scale, provide for

a reasonable choice of transport modes, types of housing,

community and living styles

(So3) Produce no more noise than is acceptable by communities

(So4) Be safe for people and their property



With respect to economy:

(Ec1) Provide cost-effective service and capacity

(Ec2) Be financially affordable in each generation

(Ec3) Support vibrant, sustainable economic activity

With respect to environment:

(En1) Make use of land in a way that has little or no impact on the

integrity of ecosystems

(En2) Use sparingly energy sources that are essentially not

renewable or inexhaustible

(En3) Use other resources that are renewable or inexhaustible,

achieved in part through the reuse of items and the recycling of

materials used in vehicles and infrastructure

(En4) Produce no more emissions and waste than can be

accommodated by the planet’s restorative ability


An assessment approach based on equity and efficiency criteria

a) Equity Principles:

EP1- Utilitarian policy principle

EP2 – Equal shares policy principle

EP3 – Rawlsian policy principle

EP4 – Egalitarian policy principle

EP5 – Minimum floor policy principle

EP6 – Maximum range policy principle

b) Efficiency Criteria:

ET1- Minimizing Cost

ET2- Maximizing Service Level


Evaluation of Transport Management Policies

Sustainability

Index

Society Economy Environment

So1 So2 So3 So4 Ec1 Ec2 Ec3 En1 En2 En3 En4

Equity EP1 S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+

S4+,-

S1+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+ S1+,- S1+,+

EP2 S1+,+

S2+,+

S1+,+

S2+,+

S1+,+

S2+,+

S1+,+

S2+,+

S1+,+ S1+,+ S1+,+

S2+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+ S1+,- S1+,+

EP3 / / / / / / / / / / /

EP4 S4+,+ S4+,- / S4+,+ S4+,+ / S4+,+ / / / /

EP5 / / / / / / / / / / /

EP6 / / / / / / / / / / /

Efficie

ncy

ET1 S1+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+;

S5+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+

S5+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+;

S5+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+ S1+,- S1+,+

ET2 S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S4+,-

S1+,+ S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S3+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+

S4+,+

S1+,+ S1+,- S1+,+

Table 4. Multi-criteria evaluation of selected transport management measures



In Table 4, the row consists of assessment indices covering

equity principles and efficiency criteria. The column consists of

the social, economic and environmental aspects from the

definition of transport sustainability.

The subscript “+” represents ‘satisfied’, the subscript “-”

represents “not satisfied” and the notation “/” represents “not

applicable” for the evaluation.

E.g, “S1+,+” in the first cell reflects that the policy S1 satisfies the

principle EP1 and the criterion So1. “S1+,-” crossing EP1 and

En3 reflects that policy S1 satisfies the principle EP1 but does

not satisfy the criterion En3.



• The selected measures (S1-S5) are subparts of society and

economy. More effective transport management policies

covering other aspects of sustainable transport still need to

be considered.

• The priority development of a mass transit system is aligned

with a sustainable transport system. To reflect travel and

structural characteristics of Beijing, a more effective

evaluation approach to capture the impacts of mass transit

policies is needed.

• Other transport management policies (S2-S4) are focused on

reducing levels of activity and adjusting mode shares. These

are expected to impact on social and economic factors

rather than broader sustainability.

20

Outline


Beijing


Municipality


and Efficiency


Beijing authorities have focused in depth and over time on the

problem of congestion and need for transport sustainability.

Effects of the selected transport management measures with

respect to vehicle growth and trips growth are illustrated. They

indicate that the measures generally had a positive impact.

Selected measures have been evaluated using a qualitative

framework comprising equity and efficiency in one dimension

and sustainability elements in the other dimension.

Qualitative evaluation shows the measures were targeted to the

society and economy and demonstrate a utilitarian policy

principle and cover efficiency criteria. They still leave gaps to

satisfying other important principles as listed in Table 4.

Summary and Conclusion

The framework is flexible in that either quantitative

information or a mixture of quantitative and heuristic data

may be used.

Although from an economic perspective these measures fail

to achieve an efficient market outcome, the government

backing still made them effective.

The evaluation approach can be used to help policymakers

appreciate the range of effects of transport management

measures and potential ‘trade-offs’ between these, resulting in

the improved design of future measures.

Summary and Conclusion

Thank You!

Evaluation of transport management measures for sustainable development in Beijing

Environment

Transcript of Evaluation of transport management measures for sustainable development in Beijing