Transcript Economic Impacts of Non-Technical Measures for Emisison Reduction in Transport The PEP Workshop, 27.9.2013, Almaty Claus Doll, Fraunhofer ISI, Germany © Fraunhofer ISI.

Economic Impacts of Non-Technical
Measures for Emisison Reduction in
Transport
The PEP Workshop, 27.9.2013, Almaty
Claus Doll, Fraunhofer ISI, Germany
© Fraunhofer ISI
Clean air in cities through clean cars
 More efficient motors
250
and new propulsion
technology
most pollutants in
road transport since
1990
 50% reduction in road
200
Kohlendioxid (CO2)
Lachgas (N20)
Index 1991 = 100
 90% reduction of
Gesamtemissionen in Deutschland gegenüber 1990
Methan (CH4)
150
Org. Verbindungen (VOC)
Staub und Ruß (PM)
Stickstoffoxide (NOx)
100
Schwefeldioxid (SO2)
Kohlenmonoxid (CO)
Ammoniak (NH3)
50
fatalities
0
1991
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 2
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Background: Past and Future of Road
Transport‘s Environmental Effects
... but more cars lead to
 Congestion and a huge waste of
time
 Rising CO2 emissions together with
increasing damage per ton of CO2
 More accidents, particularly with
vulnerable road users
 More noise pollution with serious
health implications
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 3
Valuation of CO2 emissions
Total external costs of transport in Europe
2008: 515 bn. € or 1000 € per inhabitant
Million EUR
per year
Up- & Downstream (difference low/high scenario)
350.000
Climate Change (difference low/high scenario)
314.000
Up- & Downstream Processes (low scenario)
300.000
Climate Change (low scenario)
Other Cost Categories
250.000
Noise
Air Pollution
200.000
Accidents
150.000
100.000
66.000
48.000
50.000
19.000
29.000
27.000
6.000
4.000
Rail Pass.
Rail Freight
2.000
0
Car
©INFRAS/CE/ISI
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 4
Bus / Coach
MC
LDV
HDV
Air Pass.
IWW
Estimates of average delay costs in
European countries
100
Ranges of average delay costs 2008
90
Average delay costs (€/1,000 vkm)
80
70
Maximum (Trans-Tools results)
60
Minimum (regression over national studies)
50
40
30
20
10
5
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 5
0
UK NL LU NO DE DK
IE
BE
SE
ES
IT
GR PT CH
FI
FR
CZ
AT
PL
SI
HU EE
LT
LV BG RO SK
Decades of fostering car free travel in
European cities - no measurable effect
Histogram of annual changes in the percentage of car use for
commuting
trips
Histogram
of annual
changes in the percentage of car use for
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 6
commuting trips
80
70
60
30
70
Copenhagen,
60
Copenhagen,
Denmark. 42%
Denmark. 42%
1996 to
26'%
2005
50
50
40
Number of cities out of all observations with multi year
data (n = 166 / 350)
Number of cities out of all observations with multi year
data (n = 166 / 350)
80
1996 to 26'% 2005
40
Bilbao, Spain.
75% 2005 to30
56%
2008
20
10
0
-6
Bilbao, Spain.
75% 2005 to 56%
2008
Vitoria/Gasteiz,
Vitoria/Gasteiz,
Spain. 0.8% 2001
Spain. 0.8% 2001
to 74% 2008 to 74% 2008
20
10
0
-6
-3
-2
Data source:
-1
0
1Percenatage
2 points
3 of modal
4 share 5
10
Eurostat Urban
Percenatage points of modal share
Data source: Eurostat _Urban Audit Database, accessed 15.7.2013 Audit Database
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Data source: Eurostat _Urban Audit Database, accessed 15.7.2013
5
10
The Study „Economic Aspects of Non-Technical
Measures for Emission Reduction in Transport“
Core research questions:
 Does low emission and sustainable mobility pay off for the user?
 Which consequences do sustainable mobility patterns have for society?
 By which instruments can we achieve the ecological reconstruction of curent
mobility systems?
Client:
German Federal Environment Agency (UBA)
Projektteam:
Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe (lead)
INFRAS, Zürich
IFEU, Heidelberg
Laufzeit:
Nov. 2009 – Oct. 2012
Internet:
www.ntm.isi-projekt.de
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 7
The case studies: five measures for
reducing emissions in transport
Measure1:
10 %-points
more cycling
and walking
in clities
Measure 2:
10 %-points
more bus
and tram
in cities
Measure 3:
10 % shorter
journeys on
all relations
Measure 4:
10 % less
fuel use
per person on
all car trips
Individual level:
Macro-economic level:
What do these measures
Which impacts does the
mean for the user?
implementation of the measures
have on the economy?
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 8
Measure 5:
10 %-points
more rail in
long-distance
freight
Policy level:
Which instruments are
suitable to implement
the measures?
Cost categories and data sources
Kategorie
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 9
Indikator
Private costs
Total user costs of mobility incl. purchase and maintenance
of vehicles: fuel, parking and tickets (ADAC, DB, BVG,
Stadtmobil, etc.)
Travel and
wait time
Benefit of lower travel time by trip purpose: business: 23,48
€/h, commuting 8,48 €/h, private 7,10 €/h. Social benefits:
3,50€/h. (EU Handbook ext. costs 2008, fed. investm. plan).
Health
Up to 50% lower heart infarct risk with regular exercising.
Corresponds to 2000 €/month and person acc. to state of
fitness (WHO HEAT Tool, DeStatis)
Traffic
safety
External accident costs by means of transport and road
type; value of statistical life of 1.6 mill. € (UIC 2011)
Environment,
climate. noise
Climate change consequences (80 – 145 €/t CO2) plus
health risks and building damages by air pollutants and
noise (UBA methodological convention 2012)
The PExMo mobility cost calculator
Legende:
Features:
Tool in MS Excel
MIV 1
and level of congestion.
 External costs of climate change,
MIV 2
Bahnfahrt
ÖPNV
CarSharing
 Time costs by trip purpose, mode
Ergebniswert/ Referenzwert (nicht veränderbar!)
Blatt zurücksetzen
Fahrzeugtyp:
Kleinwagen Benzin
Fixkosten:
14.72 Cent/km
14.72 Cent/km
Schadstoffklasse:
Euro 5
Variable Kosten:
10.63 Cent/km
10.63 Cent/km
2. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zum motorisierten Fahrzeug Nr.2 (MIV 2) an:
Sonstiges
Single and season tickets for PT,
rail and Carsharing
Wert ins Feld eintragen
1. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zum motorisierten Fahrzeug Nr.1 (MIV 1) an:
Multi-modal trip chains
Cars by size and emission class
Wert ist veränderbar
Allgemeine Datenabfrage: (Bitte nur Zutreffendes ausfüllen!)
Fahrrad




Aus Liste auswählen
Fahrzeugtyp:
Bitte auswählen
Fixkosten:
#NV
Cent/km
#NV
Cent/km
Schadstoffklasse:
Bitte auswählen
Variable Kosten:
#NV
Cent/km
#NV
Cent/km
#NV
Euro/Jahr
#NV
3. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zur Bahnfahrt an:
BahnCard-Kunde:
Bitte auswählen
Preis der BahnCard:
Zeitkarten-Besitzer:
Bitte auswählen
Preis der Zeitkarte:
0 Euro/Jahr
Preis der Zeitkarte:
0 Euro/Jahr
4. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zur Fahrt mit dem ÖPNV an:
Zeitkarten-Besitzer:
Bitte auswählen
5. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zu Fahrten mittels CarSharing an:
Fixkosten:
Variable Kosten:
8.25 Euro/Monat
1,3 Cent/km
Fixkosten (veränderbar)
8.25 Euro/Monat
var. Kosten (veränderbar)
1,3 Cent/km
6. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zu Fahrten mit "Sonstiges" an: (unter Sonstiges versteht man: Leasingwagen, Leihwagen, etc.)
Gesamtkosten (fix +
variabel):
0
Cent/km
7. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zu Fahrradfahrten an:
Fixkosten:
50.00 Euro/Jahr
air pollution and noise by mode,
urban/rural environment and time
Frei verfügbar unter:
of day
Variablen Kosten:
30.00 Euro/Jahr
Fixkosten (veränderbar)
50.00 Euro/Jahr
var. Kosten (veränderbar)
30.00 Euro/Jahr
www.ntm.isi-projekt.de/downloads.php
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 10
Euro/Jahr
weiter
Personal benefits of more cycling
and walking
Commuting (15 km, 250 days/a); cycling
instead of driving a car. Direct and
indirect annual savings:






Car owning and use:
+3100 €
Health benefits
+1900 €
Environment, noise
+ 150 €
Travel and wait time
-1700 €
Safety
-1900 €
Total
+1500 €
Comparing commute and leisure trips in cities
with car (compact), PT, bike and walking
Annual costs (euros)
Example:
Car
Bike
Commuting 15 km
Environment *
Safety
Lost health benefits
Travel & wait time
* Including climate and noise
Source: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)
Impacts:


Car size, exhaust standard, number of passengers
Length and type of route, state of fitness of the traveller
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 11
Car
Bike
Walk
Short leisure trips 3 km
Direct private costs
Personal benefits through more
public transport use
Commuting (15 km, 250 days/year) by
bus/tram instead of car. Direct and
indirect savings per year






Car and tickets:^^
+2300 €
Health impacts
+ 600 €
Safety:
+ 200 €
Environment, noise
+ 100 €
Travel and wait time
Total
Impacts:


+2900 €
- 300 €
Annual costs (euros)
Example:
Car
Tram
Commuting 15 km
Environment *
Safety
Bike & Tram
Lost health benefits
Travel & wait time
Car
Tram
leisure trips 3 km
Direct private costs
* Including climate and noise
Source: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)
Size, age, emission standard and occupancy of the car,
Distance from / to public transport stops, number of interchanges, occupancy rate and
environmental friendliness of bus and tram fleet.
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 12
Personal benefit of more efficient
car use
Commute (15 km, 250 days/a) by car with
2 instead of 1 person. Direct and indirect
savings per year:






Car owning and use
+1800 €
Safety
+ 200 €
External impacts
+ 100 €
Health impacts
0€
Travel and wait time
0€
Total
+ 2100 €
Comparing commute, leisure and business trips
in cities with car of different size and occupancy
Annual costs (euros)
Example:
Mid class
petrol E3
1 person
Small
petrol E5
1 person
Commuting 15 km
Environment *
Safety
Pkw-Größe, Umweltstandard und Anzahl der Insassen
Zeitaufwand zur Erhöhung des Besetzungsgrades
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 13
Travel & wait time
Direct private costs
* Including climate and noise
Source: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)
Einflussgrößen:


Mid class Upper cl.
petrol E3 diesel E3
2 persons 1 person
Compact Upper cl.
diesel E5 diesel E3
1 person 2 persons
Business trip 100 km
Macro-economic modelling approach with
ASTRA
System dynamics model
ASTRA-D:

Developed since 1998 for EC
and German institutions

Closed macro-economic
feedback model

Integrated consideration of
transport and economic
sectors

Time sequence of policy
measures possible

Modeling of second round
effects

Detailed computation of
emissions by mode and time
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 14
Macto-economic benefits of more
active mobility
Instruments:
•
•
•

More cycling helps public transport. Doing so
we provide a real alternative to the private
car.

The environmental alliance creates
investments and jobs (+4%), which more
than balance less production in the
automotive industry.

Travel time increases also in remaining car
travel due to de-acceleration measures. Well
received in times of increasing stress and
burn out.

Emissions: air pollutants (-8%) decline more
intensively than CO2-Emissionsn (-2%) due
to energy use of public transport.
Parking fees, congestion charges
Investment in cycle lanes
Advertisement and campaigns
Macro-economic key
key indicators
indicators
Macro-economic
Gross domestic product
Employment transport
Emplayment general
Infrastructure transport
Infrastructure general
Travel time
CO2 emissions
Pollutions (NOx)
Particles (PM)
Change to scenario without measures (%)
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 15
Selected macro-economic indicators:
measures compared to base case
Change 2030 against reference
case without measures
M1:
M1:
cycle&&
Fuß
walk
Rad
M2:
public
M2:
transport
ÖPNV
M3:
shorter
kürzere
paths
Wege
M4:
M4:
fuel
Kraftst.efficiency
efizienz
M5:
M5:
rail
Güterfreight
bahn
50%
40%
BIP
GDP
30%
Beschäftigung
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 16
Employment
Investitionen
Investment
Verkehrswegebau
Transp. infrastr.
THG (CO2)
KIimagase(CO2)
Air pollutants
Luftschadstoffe
(NOx)
Comparison of macro-economic costs and
benefits – without travel time
Curr. value 2010
(bill. Euro)
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Walking &
cycling
Public
transport
Shorter
trips
Fuel
efficiency
Rail
freight
Health benefits
11,53
18,67
12,60
17,40
0,00
Safety benefits
0,64
0,40
6,93
-0,01
0,11
Environment etc. benefits
0,49
0,27
3,06
-2,28
3,46
Total benefits
12,66
19,34
22,59
15,11
3,57
Investments and operations
1,29
2,41
11,02
0,20
1,73
Benefit-costratio
+9,8
+8.0
+2,1
+75,5
+2,1
Benefit- and cost
categories
* Ohne Zeitkosten
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 17
Comparison of macro-economic costs and
benefits – with travel time
Benefit and cost
categories
Time benefits
Unit
Present
Cycling&
walking
Public
transport
Shorter
car trips
Efficient
car use
Rail
freight
-63,26
-51,35
-55,25
-28,99
-1,34
Health benefits
value
11,53
18,67
12,60
17,40
0,00
Safety benefits
2010 *
0,64
0,40
6,93
-0,01
0,11
0,49
0,27
3,06
-2,28
3,46
-50,61
-32,01
-32,66
-13,89
2,23
12,66
19,34
22,59
15,11
3,57
1,29
2,41
11,02
0,20
1,73
-39,2
-13,3
-3,0
-69,4
1,3
9,8
8,0
2,1
75,5
2,1
0,4
0,1
0,3
-11,4
2,0
Environmental benefits
Total benefits
Benefits without time
Investments
Bill. euros
Present
value
2010 *
bill. euros
Benefit-cost ratio (BCR)
BCR without time
BCR for environment
* Net present value with 2020 and 2030 values
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 18
Ratio
Success factors to shift people away from
the private car
Most important: classical hard
facors of public transport supply:

Network density

Costs

Travel speeds
Soft factors relevant, but less
expressed:

Safety (accidents + crime)

Staff (friendliness)
Source:
USEmobility project
EC 7th Framework Programme)
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 19
Linked success of public transport, walking
and cycling policies
Survey on UIPT Urban Mobility
Database: Main success factors for
public transport use:




Quality of supply (vehicle kilometres)
Generalised costs in relation to cars
Number of bike parking places
Percentage of green areas in cities
Success of walking & cycling closely
linked to PT
With good and complete alternatives
people are ready to go without car
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 20
Recommendations
The case studies show, that transforming mobility systems to a more sustainable one
is possible and pays off for the individual and the society

In addition to environment and climate protection transport users users save
money. In addition they experience a considerable health benefit when cycling or
walking more of up to 2000 €/year.

For shifting travel demand away from the private car, investments in cycling and
walking infrastructure and in PT are required. This mostly balances out income
declines in the automotive industry.

Transport systems may be successfully transformed by setting prices and fees,
various regulatory measures, attractive and high capacity PT services as well as a
modern region and city concepts (city of short paths). Most powerful are
combinations of push and pull measures.
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 21
Positive Vision 2050: Seamless and
sustainable mobility
New personal transporters (PT)
Car-sharing
PTAs
Mobility Card
PT / Bike-sharing
Modern public transport
Electric
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 22
city cars
Implications for central Asia

Due to income levels, benefits and costs of policies for walking and cycling are
considerably lower. But benefit to cost ratios may be similar

Mentality differences may exist. But successful examples from Europe indicate, that
environmentally friendly travel can be implemented in very different cities.

New technoligies (e-bikes) and organisational forms (carsharing) may help that central
asian countries manage mobility in quickly developing economies better than the
west in the past 50 years
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 23
Available materials
At www.ntm.isi-projekt.de study reports and the PExMo tool are available (German only):


E-Paper for public communication (German)


PExMo Cost Calculator (German)
Full report (German)
Summary (German and English)
5 measure leaflets: (German)
© Fraunhofer ISI
Seite 24