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?