© Fraunhofer ISI

Economic Impacts of Non-Technical Measures for Emisison Reduct ion in TransportT h e P E P W o r k s h o p , 2 7 . 9 . 2 0 1 3 , A l m a t y

C l a u s D o l l , F r a u n h o f e r I S I , G e r m a n y

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 2

Clean a i r in c i t ies through c lean cars

More efficient motors and new propulsion technology

90% reduction of most pollutants in road transport since 1990

50% reduction in road fatalities

0

50

100

150

200

250

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Inde

x 1

991

= 1

00

Gesamtemissionen in Deutschland gegenüber 1990

Kohlendioxid (CO2)

Lachgas (N20)

Methan (CH4)

Org. Verbindungen (VOC)

Staub und Ruß (PM)

Stickstoffoxide (NOx)

Schwefeldioxid (SO2)

Kohlenmonoxid (CO)

Ammoniak (NH3)

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 3

Background: Past and Future of Road Transpor t ‘s Env i ronmenta l Effec ts

... 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 Valuation of CO2 emissions

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 4

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

Car Bus / Coach MC LDV HDV Rail Pass. Rail Freight Air Pass. IWW

Million EUR

per year Up- & Downstream (diff erence low/ high scenario)

Climate Change (diff erence low/ high scenario)

Up- & Downstream Processes (low scenario)

Climate Change (low scenario)

Other Cost Categories

Noise

Air Pollution

Accidents

©INFRAS/ CE/ ISI

314.000

19.00029.000

48.000

66.000

6.000 4.000

27.000

2.000

Tota l ex ternal costs of t ranspor t in Europe 2008: 515 bn. € or 1000 € per inhabi tant

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 5

Seite 5

Est imates of average delay costs in European count r ies

Ranges of average delay costs 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

Ave

rage

del

ay c

osts

(€/

1,00

0 vk

m)

Maximum (Trans-Tools results)

Minimum (regression over national studies)

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 6

Decades of fos ter ing car f ree t rave l in European c i t ies - no measurable effect

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-6 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Num

ber o

f citi

es o

ut o

f all

obse

rvati

ons

wit

h m

ulti

yea

r da

ta (n

= 1

66 /

350

)

Percenatage points of modal share

Histogram of annual changes in the percentage of car use for commuting trips

Data source: Eurostat _Urban Audit Database, accessed 15.7.2013

Vitoria/Gasteiz, Spain. 0.8% 2001 to 74% 2008

Copenhagen,Denmark. 42% 1996 to 26'% 2005

Bilbao, Spain. 75% 2005 to 56% 2008

Data source:Eurostat Urban Audit Database

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-6 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Num

ber o

f citi

es o

ut o

f all

obse

rvati

ons

wit

h m

ulti

yea

r da

ta (n

= 1

66 /

350

)

Percenatage points of modal share

Histogram of annual changes in the percentage of car use for commuting trips

Data source: Eurostat _Urban Audit Database, accessed 15.7.2013

Vitoria/Gasteiz, Spain. 0.8% 2001 to 74% 2008

Copenhagen,Denmark. 42% 1996 to 26'% 2005

Bilbao, Spain. 75% 2005 to 56% 2008

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 7

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, ZürichIFEU, Heidelberg

Laufzeit: Nov. 2009 – Oct. 2012

Internet: www.ntm.isi-projekt.de

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 8

The case s tud ies: f ive measures for reduc ing emiss ions in t ranspor t

Measure1: 10 %-pointsmore cyclingand walking

in clities

Measure 2: 10 %-pointsmore bus and tram in cities

Measure 3: 10 % shorterjourneys on

all relations

Measure 4: 10 % lessfuel use

per person onall car trips

Measure 5: 10 %-pointsmore rail in

long-distancefreight

Individual level: What do these measures

mean for the user?

Macro-economic level: Which impacts does the

implementation of the measureshave on the economy?

Policy level: Which instruments aresuitable to implement

the measures?

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 9

Cost categor ies and data sources

Kategorie 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)

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 10

The PExMo mobi l i ty cost ca lcu lator

Features: Tool in MS Excel Multi-modal trip chains Cars by size and emission class Single and season tickets for PT,

rail and Carsharing Time costs by trip purpose, mode

and level of congestion. External costs of climate change,

air pollution and noise by mode, urban/rural environment and time of day

Legende:Aus Liste auswählen Wert ist veränderbar Wert ins Feld eintragen Ergebniswert/ Referenzwert (nicht veränderbar!)

Allgemeine Datenabfrage: (Bitte nur Zutreffendes ausfüllen!)

1. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zum motorisierten Fahrzeug Nr.1 (MIV 1) an:

Fahrzeugtyp: Kleinwagen Benzin Fixkosten: 14.72 Cent/km 14.72 Cent/kmSchadstoffklasse: 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:

Fahrzeugtyp: Bitte auswählen Fixkosten: #NV Cent/km #NV Cent/kmSchadstoffklasse: Bitte auswählen Variable Kosten: #NV Cent/km #NV Cent/km

3. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zur Bahnfahrt an:

BahnCard-Kunde: Bitte auswählen #NV Euro/Jahr #NV Euro/JahrBitte auswählen 0 Euro/Jahr

4. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zur Fahrt mit dem ÖPNV an:

Zeitkarten-Besitzer: Bitte auswählen Preis der Zeitkarte: 0 Euro/Jahr

5. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zu Fahrten mittels CarSharing an:

Fixkosten: 8.25 Euro/Monat Fixkosten (veränderbar) 8.25 Euro/Monat1,3 Cent/km 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.)

0Cent/km

7. Bitte geben Sie Ihre Daten zu Fahrradfahrten an:

Fixkosten: 50.00 Euro/Jahr Fixkosten (veränderbar) 50.00 Euro/JahrVariablen Kosten: 30.00 Euro/Jahr var. Kosten (veränderbar) 30.00 Euro/Jahr

weiter

MIV

1M

IV 2

Bahn

fahr

tÖ

PNV

CarS

hari

ngSo

nsti

ges

Fahr

rad

Gesamtkosten (fix + variabel):

Preis der Zeitkarte:Preis der BahnCard:

Zeitkarten-Besitzer:

Variable Kosten:

Blatt zurücksetzen

Frei verfügbar unter: www.ntm.isi-projekt.de/downloads.php

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 11

Personal benef i ts o f more cyc l ing and walk ing

Example:

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 €

Impacts:

Car size, exhaust standard, number of passengers

Length and type of route, state of fitness of the traveller

Comparing commute and leisure trips in cities with car (compact), PT, bike and walking

Car Bike Commuting 15 km

Car Bike Walk Short leisure trips 3 km

Environment * Safety

Lost health benefits Travel & wait time

Direct private costs

* Including climate and noiseSource: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)

An

nu

al co

sts

(eu

ros)

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 12

Personal benef i ts through more publ ic t ranspor t use

Example:

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 - 300 €

Total +2900 €Impacts:

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.

An

nu

al co

sts

(eu

ros)

Environment * Safety

Lost health benefits Travel & wait time

Direct private costs

* Including climate and noiseSource: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)

Car Tram Bike & Tram Commuting 15 km

Car Tram leisure trips 3 km

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 13

Personal benef i t o f more eff ic ient car use

Example:

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 €Einflussgrößen:

Pkw-Größe, Umweltstandard und Anzahl der Insassen

Zeitaufwand zur Erhöhung des Besetzungsgrades

Comparing commute, leisure and business trips in cities with car of different size and occupancy

An

nu

al co

sts

(eu

ros)

Environment * Safety

Travel & wait timeDirect private costs

* Including climate and noiseSource: PExMO-Tool (Fraunhofer)

Mid class Small Mid classpetrol E3 petrol E5 petrol E31 person 1 person 2 persons Commuting 15 km

Upper cl. Compact Upper cl.diesel E3 diesel E5 diesel E31 person 1 person 2 persons Business trip 100 km

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 14

Macro-economic model l ing approach wi th 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 15

Macto-economic benef i ts o f more act ive mobi l i ty

Instruments:

• Parking fees, congestion charges

• Investment in cycle lanes

• Advertisement and campaigns

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.

Macro-economic key indicators

Gross domestic product

Employment transport

Emplayment general

Infrastructure transport

Infrastructure general

Travel time

CO2 emissions

Pollutions (NOx)

Particles (PM)

Macro-economic key indicators

Change to scenario without measures (%)

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 16

Selected macro-economic ind icators : measures compared to base case

M1: Fuß &

RadM2:

ÖPNV

M3: kürzere

Wege

M4: Kraftst.-efizienz

M5: Güter-bahn

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

BIPBeschäftigungInvestitionenVerkehrswegebauKIimagase(CO2)Luftschadstoffe (NOx)

Ch

an

ge

20

30

ag

ain

st

ref-

ere

nce c

ase

wit

ho

ut

me

a-

su

res

GDPEmploymentInvestmentTransp. infrastr.THG (CO2)Air pollutants

M1: cycle &

walk

M2: public

transport

M3: shorterpaths

M4: fuel

efficiency

M5: rail

freight

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 17

Compar ison of macro-economic costs and benef i ts – wi thout t rave l t ime

Benefit- and cost categories

M1

Walking & cycling

M2

Public transport

M3

Shorter trips

M4

Fuel efficiency

M5

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-cost-ratio

+9,8 +8.0 +2,1 +75,5 +2,1

Curr. value 2010(bill. Euro)

* Ohne Zeitkosten

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 18

Compar ison of macro-economic costs and benef i ts – wi th t rave l t ime

Benefit and cost categories

UnitCycling&walking

Public transport

Shorter car trips

Efficient car use

Rail freight

Time benefitsPresent

value

2010 *

Bill. euros

-63,26 -51,35 -55,25 -28,99 -1,34

Health benefits 11,53 18,67 12,60 17,40 0,00

Safety benefits 0,64 0,40 6,93 -0,01 0,11

Environmental benefits 0,49 0,27 3,06 -2,28 3,46

Total benefits Present

value

2010 *

bill. euros

-50,61 -32,01 -32,66 -13,89 2,23

Benefits without time 12,66 19,34 22,59 15,11 3,57

Investments 1,29 2,41 11,02 0,20 1,73

Benefit-cost ratio (BCR)

Ratio

-39,2 -13,3 -3,0 -69,4 1,3

BCR without time 9,8 8,0 2,1 75,5 2,1

BCR for environment 0,4 0,1 0,3 -11,4 2,0

* Net present value with 2020 and 2030 values

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 19

Success fac tors to sh i f t people away f rom the pr ivate 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 20

Linked success of publ ic t ranspor t , walk ing and cyc l ing pol ic ies

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 21

Recommendat ions

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 22

Posi t ive Vis ion 2050: Seamless and susta inable mobi l i ty

Mobility Card

Electric city cars

PT / Bike-sharing

Car-sharingNew personal transporters (PT)

Modern public transport

PTAs

© Fraunhofer ISI

Seite 23

Impl icat ions for cent ra l As ia

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 24

Avai lab le mater ia ls

At www.ntm.isi-projekt.de study reports and the PExMo tool are available (German only):

E-Paper for public communication (German)

Full report (German)Summary (German and English)

PExMo Cost Calculator (German)

5 measure leaflets: (German)