world mobility at the end of the twentieth century and its ...web.mit.edu/aeroastro/sites/waitz/publications/WBCSD.report.pdf · Chapter 4 — Personal Mobility in the Developing

DEDICATED TO MAKING A DIFFERENCE

world mobility at the endof the twentieth century

and its sustainability

prepared for the Sustainable Mobility Working Group of the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River Associated Incorporated

i

KINDS OF SUSTAINABILITY 1-2

But Some Mobility is Desired for its Own Sake 1-3Mobility Shapes and is Shaped by Our Patterns of Settlement 1-3

feature box •Why Public Transport Loses Market Share — A Primer on the Power of Desirable Mobility Characteristics 1-4

Mobility 2001 — Taking the Pulse 1-5

MOBILITY AND ITS IMPORTANCE 1-5

Mobility is Principally a Means of Improving Accessibility 1-5Mobility Enables Economic Development 1-6

• Figure 1-1. Transit share of motorized travel has generally been decreasing 1-6Telecommunications and Mobility 1-7

MOBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 1-7

Measures to Be Increased 1-7Access to means of mobility 1-7

• Figure 1-2. Current (1997) levels of mobility in different regions of the world 1-8• Figure 1-3. Modal share of passenger-kilometers across the world regions (1997) 1-8

Equity in access 1-9Appropriate mobility infrastructure 1-9Inexpensive freight transportation 1-9

Measures to Be Reduced 1-9Congestion 1-9

• Table 1-1. Measures of transportation infrastructure per capita (km/million inhabitants) 1-10“Conventional” emissions 1-10

• Table 1-2. Emission rates in London (grams/passenger–km) by mode, 1997 1-11feature box •Ozone — A Complex Pollution “Cocktail” 1-11

Greenhouse gas emissions 1-11feature box •CO2 Emissions by Sector 1-12

Transportation noise 1-12• Figure 1-4. Share of worldwide CO2 emissions from the combustion of fuel, by sector — 1998 1-13

Impacts on land, water, and ecosystems 1-13Disruption of communities 1-14Transportation-related accidents 1-14Use of nonrenewable, carbon-based energy 1-14Transportation-related solid waste 1-15

MOBILITY 2001 — A ROAD MAP 1-15

Chapter 2 — Patterns of Mobility Demand, Technology, and Energy Use 1-15Chapter 3 — Personal Mobility in the Urbanized Developed World 1-15Chapter 4 — Personal Mobility in the Developing World 1-16Chapter 5 — Trends in Intercity Travel 1-16Chapter 6 — Freight Mobility 1-17Chapter 7 — Worldwide Mobility and the Challenges to Its Sustainability 1-17

one● introduction

table of contents

two ● patterns of mobility demand, technology, and energy use

• Figure 2-1. Annual increments of the world population and of the urban population, 1950–2030 2-2

TRENDS IN POPULATION AND URBANIZATION 2-3

Urbanization and its Concentration in the Developing World 2-3feature box •Medians Don’t Tell the Whole Story 2-3

• Figure 2-2. World population growth, 1950–2030 (billions of people) 2-4Suburbanization 2-4

• Table 2-1. Population of cities with 10 million inhabitants or more — 1950, 1975, 2000, and 2015 (in millions) 2-5

www.wbcsdmobility.org

ii

PATTERNS OF TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AND DEMAND 2-5

The Effect of Income on Travel Behavior 2-5• Figure 2-3. More Money, more travel, everywhere 2-6• Figure 2-4. Distances change, time does not 2-7

Travel Growth: From Walking to Cars to Planes 2-7• Table 2-2. Growth in passenger-kilometers traveled 2-8• Figure 2-5. Percentage shares of total passenger-kilometers traveled 2-8

Implications for the Future 2-9

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY 2-9

Some Vehicle Fundamentals 2-9Historical Perspective 2-10

• Table 2-3. Typical engine and transmission efficiencies 2-10Current Technology Status 2-10Sustainability Challenges Posed by the Technologies of Motorization 2-12

Air quality impact of automotive technology 2-12Global climate change impact of automotive technology 2-12Challenges posed by vehicle manufacturing processes 2-13

feature box •The Rise and (Partial) Fall of Lead in Gasoline 2-13feature boxx •Vehicle Emissions Reduction — A Qualified Success 2-14

ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION 2-14

Petroleum Supply, Price, and Trends 2-14• Table 2-4. World production of crude oil 2-15• Table 2-5. Ex-tax consumer cost of fuels in the United States 2-15

Refining and Quality of Petroleum Transportation Fuels 2-16• Table 2-6. World oil demand and price, 2020 2-16• Table 2-7. Recent and projected world transportation fuel demand (million barrels/per day) 2-17• Table 2-8. World nonpetroleum transportation energy use, 1998 2-17

Nonpetroleum Transportation Energy 2-17feature box •Developments in Fuel-Cell Technology 2-18feature box •Petroleum-Like Fuels without Petroleum 2-18

CONCLUSIONS 2-19

mobility 2001

TRENDS IN URBAN MOBILITY IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD 3-2

Urban Decentralization and Automobility: Two Mutually Reinforcing Trends 3-2• Figure 3-1. Indicators of transport use, 1990 3-2• Figure 3-2. Ownership of passenger cars in OECD countries, 1960–1995 3-3• Figure 3-3. Use of passenger cars in OECD countries, 1960–1995 3-3

Rising auto ownership and use 3-3A drive toward the suburbs 3-4

• Table 3-1. The growth of selected metropolitan areas, 1960–1990 3-4Provision of highway infrastructure 3-5

• Table 3-2. Motorways and road network in developed countries, 1970–1997 3-5Extent of and prospects for these trends 3-6

The Role of Public Transport 3-6The extent of public transport in the developed world 3-6

• Table 3-3. Some indicators of public transport system capacity 3-6Trends in the use of public transport in the developed world 3-7

• Table 3-4. Some indicators of public transport mobility (km/capita/year) 3-7Public transport operations 3-7

Nonmotorized Transport (NMT) 3-8• Figure 3-4. Role of nonmotorized transport in selected European cities 3-8

three ● personal mobility in the urbanized developed world


iii

SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS 3-9

Road Safety 3-8Nonrenewable Resource Consumption 3-9

feature box •Integrating Sustainability Concerns into the Transportation Planning Process: The US Experience 3-9

• Table 3-5. Changes in emissions of atmospheric pollutants 3-10Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3-10Noxious Emissions 3-10

• Table 3-6. Farebox recovery ratios for selected cities in developed countries 3-11Vehicular Noise 3-11Economic Viability of Public Transport 3-11Creation of Transport-Disadvantaged Social Groups 3-12

feature box •Ambivalent Public Attitudes to the Social Impacts of Private Vehicle Use 3-12Community Disruption 3-13Traffic Congestion 3-13

MITIGATING STRATEGIES 3-14

Reducing the Demand for Auto Use 3-14Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 3-14

feature box •“Foregone Travel” Due to Telecommuting or Home-Based Work 3-14City center automobile restrictions 3-15Traffic calming 3-15The rebirth of the city car 3-15

feature box •Traffic Calming — A US Example 3-15Car sharing: Separating ownership from use 3-15

feature box •Japanese Experiments with Shared-Use Cars 3-16Fuel taxes: Pricing automobile use appropriately 3-16Congestion pricing 3-17

feature box •London Considers Congestion Charges — For Four Decades 3-17Enhancing the Capacity and Efficiency of the Existing Road and Public Transport Infrastructure 3-18

Expanding the physical capacity of the highway system 3-18Innovation to increase the operational and economic efficiency of public transport 3-18

feature box •Underground Metroroutes 3-18Operational highway improvements using intelligent transportation systems technology 3-19

feature box •Real-time Passenger Information Systems 3-19Improving the Available Transport Options 3-20

Provision of public transport 3-20Improving nonmotorized transport 3-20

feature box •Transport Deregulation Around the Developed World 3-20feature box •Advanced Traffic Information Systems in Tokyo, Japan 3-21feature box •Traffic and Incident Management, Melbourne, Australia 3-21

Providing transport options for those without autos 3-21Land-Use and Urban Design Strategies 3-22

Public transport-oriented development 3-22feature box •Portland, Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundary — The Rigors of Land-Use Planning 3-22feature box •The Public Transport Metropolis 3-23

Spatial location policies: The Dutch ABC policy 3-22Integrated Approaches 3-23

CONCLUSIONS: A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY 3-24

table of contents


iv

mobility 2001

four● personal mobility in the urbanized developing world

URBAN MOBILITY AND MOTORIZATION: A GROWING CHALLENGE 4-3

• Table 4-1. Greater Santiago — evolution in motorization, auto mode share, trips 4-3The Rapid Growth of Motorization 4-3

• Figure 4-1. The relationship between income and mode share in Santiago and São Paulo 4-4• Figure 4-2. Mode shares in selected cities of the developing world 4-5

feature box •There is Significant Variation in the Motorization Rates Across the Developing World 4-5Nonmotorized Transport (NMT): Still a Dominant Means of Travel 4-6

• Table 4-2. Motorization rates in developing nations, 1998 4-6feature box •Motorization is Not All Autos — The Role of Two-Wheelers 4-6

Public and Paratransit Systems: The Crux of Developing City Mobility 4-7Latin America 4-7Africa 4-8Eastern and Central Europe 4-8

• Table 4-3. Overall average travel speeds in Nairobi — bus versus matutu 4-8Asia 4-9

Urban Rail Transit 4-9Land Use and Transportation: The Architecture of Cities 4-9

feature box •Shanghai Expands 4-10

CONSEQUENCES: CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINING MOBILITY 4-11

Safety 4-11• Table 4-4. Traffic fatalities in selected regions 4-12• Table 4-5. Mode share and road accidents in Delhi, 1994 4-12

Congestion 4-12Infrastructure decay and institutional weakness 4-12

• Table 4-6. Average, evening peak auto and bus speeds in Brazilian cities 4-13Local Air Pollution 4-13

• Table 4-7. Condition of main roads by region 4-14• Table 4-8. Motor vehicle contribution of total air pollutants in selected developing-country cities 4-14

Noise Pollution 4-14Other Environmental Impacts 4-15Social Equity 4-15

The poor 4-15Women 4-15

feature box •Trade in Used Vehicles: Opportunities and Dilemmas 4-16Assessing the Impacts 4-16

feature box •Mobility as a Force for Economic Development in Developing Countries 4-17• Table 4-9. Road transport externality estimates for developing-country cities (as % of GRP) 4-18

THE CURRENT POLICY AND STRATEGY ENVIRONMENT 4-18

Current Conditions and Needs 4-18Infrastructure Maintenance and Expansion 4-19

feature box •Urban Road Funds 4-20The private sector to the rescue? 4-20What future for the busway and urban rail? 4-21Public transport service buses 4-21

feature box •Mexico City’s Roadways: Chasing Urban Expansion? 4-21feature box •Privatization: Concessions of Transport Infrastructure in Bangkok 4-22

Managing the private operators 4-22feature box •The Shifting Tides of Policy: The Vehicle Size and Paratransit Debates 4-23

Enhancing urban rail ridership 4-23Nonmotorized Transport (NMT): From the Foot Path to the Bike Path and Beyond 4-24

feature box •Bogotá: It is Never Too Late to Start Improvements 4-25Traffic and Infrastructure Management 4-25


v

table of contents

TRENDS IN THE VOLUME OF INTERCITY TRAVEL 5-2

• Table 5-1. Distribution of 1995 US Domestic Intercity Trips and Passenger-Kilometers, by Mode 5-2• Figure 5-1. Intercity travel in Britain (1990) and the Netherlands (1990) 5-3• Table 5-2. Change in US Domestic Intercity Trips and Passenger-Kilometers Per Person, 1977 and 1995 5-3• Table 5-3. Change in US Domestic Air Trips and Passenger-Kilometers per Person, 1977 and 1995 5-3• Figure 5-2. Annual compounded growth in air traffic by region (1985–1999) 5-4

THE DEMAND FOR INTERCITY TRAVEL 5-4

• Table 5-4. Change in Domestic Intercity Auto Trips and Passenger-Kilometers per Person, 1977 and 1995 5-5

• Table 5-5. International Trips of US Residents, 1977 and 1995 5-5The Role of Telecommunications 5-6Intercity Trips — Various Kinds for Various Reasons 5-6

Business travel 5-6Nonbusiness travel 5-6

AUTO 5-7

Intercity Auto Travel in the Developed World 5-8feature box •Intercity Highways Affect the Cities they Link 5-8

Intercity Auto Travel in the Developing World 5-8

BUS 5-9

• Figure 5-3. Trends in bus use (1980–1998) 5-9

RAIL 5-10

• Figure 5-4. Where is rail passenger traffic? 5-10Rail in the Developing World 5-10

• Figure 5-5. Trends in rail ridership in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Japan 5-11Rail in the Developed World 5-11Rail in the United States and Canada 5-12

feature box •New High-Speed Rail Technology 5-12Rail’s Link to Cities 5-12

feature box •What is the Potential of HSR? 5-13High-Speed Rail Services 5-13

• Figure 5-6. Curve of the rail/air modal split (distances between 300 and 600 km) 5-13

AIR 5-14

Regulatory Environment 5-14Evolution of Hub and Spoke Operations 5-15

feature box•General Aviation 5-15Relationship between intercity air passenger and cargo operations 5-15

Trends in Aircraft Technology and Fuel Efficiency 5-16Trends in Aircraft Size 5-16Impacts of Air Transportation on the Global Environment 5-17Aviation’s Effects on Cities 5-18

Ground access 5-18Impacts of air transportation on the local environment 5-18Regulation of aircraft emissions 5-18

five● trends in intercity travel

Demand Management 4-26feature box •Curitiba, Brazil: Bus-Based Public Transport That Works 4-26

Mobility and Land Planning 4-27feature box •Singapore: The Paragon of Land-Use Planning and Traffic Management 4-27

Transport Planning and Institutions: Daunting Tasks Ahead 4-27• Table 4-10. Differing responsibilities and goals in transport and land planning in Santiago 4-28

feature box •Rural Transport in Developing Countries 4-29


vi

mobility 2001

Components of the Freight System 6-2Urban freight movements 6-2

feature box •What does “Freight Mobility” Mean? 6-2feature box •Importance of Freight Transportation to the Local Standard of Living 6-3

Regional freight movements 6-4National or continental freight movements 6-4

feature box •The Lunch Box Carriers of Mumbai 6-4feature box •The Role of Rail in Regional Freight Movements 6-4feature box •Air Freight 6-5

• Table 6-1. Ocean shipping demand 6-6International freight movements 6-6

• Figure 6-1. Value of freight shipped, 1980 and 1997 6-6The Merchant Fleet 6-7

• Figure 6-2. Global container activity by region — 1980 and 1998 6-7• Figure 6-3. Elements of urban freight: food, paper, and solid waste 6-8• Figure 6-4. Energy production in selected countries 6-8

WHAT IS BEING MOVED AND WHAT IS MOVING IT? 6-9

The Commodities that Constitute Freight Movements 6-9How Freight is Moved in Different Parts of the World 6-9

• Figure 6-5. Freight traffic in selected countries, early 1990s 6-10• Figure 6-6. Rail freight trends in selected countries, 1970 vs. early 1990s 6-10• Figure 6-7. Road freight trends in selected countries, 1970 vs. early 1990s 6-11

SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS RELATED TO FREIGHT MOBILITY 6-11

• Figure 6-8. Rail freight traffic in Western Europe, 1970 versus early 1990s 6-12Operational Sustainability Concerns 6-12

Capacity and congestion 6-12Infrastructure availability 6-12

feature box •Cheap Freight Rates as the Key to the Global Economy 6-12feature box •Time Scales of Change 6-13

System concerns: secure trade routes and stable financial markets 6-13Economic Sustainability 6-14

feature box •Freight’s “Public Relations” Problems 6-14Addressing Operational Sustainability Concerns 6-14

feature box •When is a Truck “Too Large”? 6-15Productivity improvements in freight transportation 6-15

feature box •Freight and Information Technology 6-16Privatization and deregulation of the railroad industry 6-16

six ● freight mobility

• Figure 5-7. Point sources of VOC an NOx emissions — airports versus other major

sources in the New York metropolitan region 5-19• Figure 5-8. Comparing current and future airport contributions to regional NOx levels 5-19

Aircraft noise 5-19• Figure 5-9. Environmental issues that most concern airports in the US 5-20

Infrastructure Constraints 5-21• Figure 5-10. People affected by aircraft noise in the United States —

number within 65dB and within 55 dB DNL as a function of time 5-21• Figure 5-11. Anticipated time for the 50 largest airports in the US to reach capacity 5-22• Figure 5-12. Large US airports canceling or indefinitely postponing expansion projects because

of environmental issues 5-22Air traffic control issues 5-23

CONCLUSION 5-24


vii

table of contents

IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD 7-2

A Developed-World Sustainability Scorecard 7-3

IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD 7-3

A Developing-World Sustainability Scorecard 7-4

MAJOR CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY 7-4

With Respect to Light-Duty, Personal-Use, Privately Owned Motor Vehicles 7-4• Figure 7-1. Sustainability scorecard — developed world 7-5• Figure 7-2. Sustainability scorecard — developing world 7-5

With Respect to Passenger Rail Systems 7-6With Respect to Air Travel 7-7For Motorized Freight Transportation 7-7For Transportation of Freight Over Inland Waterways 7-8

SEVEN “GRAND CHALLENGES” TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY 7-8

INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY — AN OVERARCHING CHALLENGE 7-9

Developed Countries 7-9Developing Countries 7-10

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRESENT MOBILITY SYSTEMS 7-10

APPENDICES A-1

REFERENCES R-1

CONTRIBUTORS C-1

seven ● worldwide mobility and the challenge to its sustainability

Operational Sustainability: Key Issues and Challenges 6-16Environmental and Social Concerns Related to Freight Transport 6-16

Energy use and CO2 emissions 6-16

feature box •Energy Use of Ocean Freight 6-17feature box •How Much Energy Does it Take to Get Cereal to the Breakfast Table? 6-18

Air-quality impacts 6-18• Figure 6-9. Pollutants produced in moving freight 6-19• Figure 6-10. Importance of emissions from heavy trucks in Federal Republic of Germany, 1987 6-19• Table 6-2. Transport contribution to total emissions — by vehicle type in Mexico City (1996) 6-20

Social and environmental disruption to communities 6-20feature box •Freight and Environmental Trade-offs 6-21

Environmental concerns related to domestic waterborne transport 6-21Environmental concerns related to ocean shipping 6-21Safety 6-22

CONCLUSIONS 6-23



People desire mobility. They desire it both for its own sake and because it enables them to overcome the dis-tance that separates their homes from the places where they work, shop, seek medical attention, go toschool, do business, or visit friends and relatives. Businesses also desire mobility because it also helps themovercome distance — the distance that separates them from their sources of raw materials, from their markets, and from their employees. However, mobility is also associated with a variety of negative impacts —congestion, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, disruption of neighborhoods, noise, accidents, etc. Anotherconcern is that the world’s current mobility systems rely almost exclusively on a single source of nonrenew-able energy — petroleum. The tension between humankind’s desire for mobility and its concerns about the negative impacts associated with mobility raises the question of whether mobility is sustainable. This reportwas commissioned by the WBCSD on behalf of a group of its members as the first step in addressing thatquestion. It was prepared by a group of researchers from MIT and Charles River Associates, and provides a“snapshot” of worldwide mobility at the beginning of the 21st century. It identifies the major threats tomobility’s sustainability. Mobility 2001 covers both the developed and developing worlds, all modes of transportation, and the movement of freight as well as the movement of persons.

Throughout most of human history, “mobility” has meant moving people andgoods at the speed a person could walk, a horse could gallop, an ox could drawa cart, or a boat propelled by sails or oars could move through the water. It wasnot until the nineteenth century that humans harnessed steam energy and usedit to move their goods and themselves at a significantly faster pace. The inven-tion of the petroleum-fueled motor vehicle at the end of the nineteenth centuryand the airplane at the beginning of the twentieth century opened up opportu-nities for greatly increased speed and greater travel flexibility. Roads could gowhere railroads could not, and airplanes only needed runways on which toarrive and depart.

As a result of these innovations, the twentieth century was a “golden age” ofmobility. The volume of personal travel and the volume of goods moved bothgrew at unprecedented rates. By the end of the century, individuals who in ear-lier centuries would have spent their entire lives within a hundred kilometers oftheir birthplace thought nothing of traveling to distant continents on businessor for pleasure. Raw materials, manufactured goods, and food from half a worldaway became widely available.

1-1

introduction

All populations and geographicregions did not participate evenly inthis twentieth-century expansion ofmobility. As the century closed, theaverage citizen of one of the wealthi-er nations was able to act as thoughdistance were virtually irrelevant. Butaverage citizens in most of the poorercountries of the world still transport-ed themselves and their goods inmuch the same way as their ances-tors did. Even within individual coun-tries, the access to mobility enjoyedby citizens of different ages, ethnicbackgrounds, and incomes variedgreatly. Regardless of a country’saverage income per capita, itswealthy citizens were generally muchmore mobile than its poor. They weremore able to enjoy the benefits thatthis mobility created — overseasvacations, homes away from crowdedcity centers. And they also were bet-ter able to avoid the negative conse-quences associated with mobility —congestion, pollution, injuries anddeaths from traffic accidents, and soforth.

Although increased mobility yieldedgreat benefits, it also generatedmajor negative consequences. This isnot something unique to the growthof mobility in the twentieth century.The desire for increased mobility hadled to congestion and pollution prob-lems in densely populated urbanareas long before the advent of theautomobile, the train, or the airplane.Accidents involving vehicles drawn byhorses and oxen or propelled by sailsor oars killed and injured people.During the latter half of the twentiethcentury, however, certain of the neg-ative consequences of enhancedmobility began to become evident ona regional and even a global scale.

Pollution produced by the internalcombustion engines that poweredhundreds of millions of motor vehi-cles began to degrade the air qualityof more and more cities. The explo-ration, extraction, transportation, andrefining of the fuels to power trans-portation vehicles began to damagethe environment on an increasingscale. Noise from airplanes carrying

people and goods to distant placesdisturbed the peace of tens of mil-lions of people. And by the end ofthe century, it began to be generallyacknowledged that emissions of car-bon dioxide from the burning of fos-sil fuels, a large share of which istransportation-related, was affectingthe climate of the planet.

The latter half of the twentieth centu-ry also witnessed both urbanizationon a scale hitherto unknown in thedeveloping world and the suburban-ization of many urban areas in thedeveloped world. Cities in somedeveloping-world countries seemedto leap almost overnight from theage of the horse, the cart, and thebicycle to the age of the automobileand the jet airplane. This greatlyincreased the number of peopleexposed to vehicle-related air pollu-tion, congestion, noise, and acci-dents. It also greatly expanded theworld’s demand for energy.Suburbanization emptied out thecenters of many established cities inthe developed world, as peoplesought to escape the pollution andcongestion — only to encounter pol-lution and congestion in the suburbsto which they had fled.

KINDS OF SUSTAINABILITY

As the century closed, more andmore people began to questionwhether the extraordinary trends inmobility that had characterized thelast half of the century were sustain-able. Indeed, “sustainability” was aword that began to be heard increas-ingly in connection with all sorts oftransportation issues.

“Sustainable mobility” is a term thatcan mean different things to differentpeople. The World Business Councilfor Sustainable Development defines“sustainable mobility” as “the abilityto meet the needs of society to movefreely, gain access, communicate,trade, and establish relationshipswithout sacrificing other essentialhuman or ecological values today orin the future.” This definition empha-sizes the social aspects of mobility.

But for many people, the term “sus-tainable mobility” reflects more mun-dane concerns — concerns relatingto whether the transportation sys-tems on which our societies havecome to depend can continue tofunction well enough to meet ourfuture mobility needs.

• Can the number of automobilesand commercial vehicles keepincreasing?

• Can our roads accommodateboth the increased volume ofpassenger vehicles and theincreased numbers of trucksthat seem to be required totransport ever-growing volumesof freight?

• Can existing and planned air-ports accommodate theincreased number of flights thatare projected to result from thecontinued rapid growth of airtravel?

• Can the airspace, especiallyover regions such as WesternEurope and eastern NorthAmerica, accommodate thislarger number of airplanes?

• Are the fuels going to be avail-able to power all these cars,trucks, buses, and airplanes?

We will refer to these as issues of operational sustainability.

We will refer to the broader set of concerns reflected in the WBCSDdefinition as issues of economic,social, and ecological sustainability.

• Even if our transportation sys-tems can be made to handlethe increased loads that societyis placing on them, can we (ordo we want to) live with theresults?

• Can urban areas in both thedeveloped and developingworlds cope with growing con-

introduction

1-2www.wbcsdmobility.org

also improve accessibility by reducingthe distance that must be overcome.“Reaching” need not necessarilyimply movement to a specific physi-cal location. Someone can “reach”someone else by telephone, and vari-ous telecommunications technologies may enhance accessibility. For agiven spatial distribution of activitiesand a given level of telecommunica-tions capabilities, however, increasedaccessibility generally is associatedwith increased mobility.

Different modes of transport offer dif-ferent levels of mobility and accessi-bility in different circumstances.Consider the automobile and the air-plane. In urban settings, the automo-bile provides the highest level ofaccessibility. Automobile users do nothave to accommodate a schedule.They can depart whenever they wish,and they usually have a choice ofroutes to their destinations. In con-trast, for travel between urban cen-ters separated by more than a fewhundred miles, airplanes provide thehighest level of accessibility. Thegreater inherent flexibility of theautomobile is overshadowed by thegreater speed of the airplane.

But Some Mobility is Desired forits Own Sake

While most mobility is desiredbecause it improves accessibility,some mobility seems to be desiredfor its own sake. One can engage inphilosophical discussions about whypeople travel more than is requiredto meet their basic accessibilityneeds. But it is indisputable thatthey do. People like to see newplaces. They like to learn how otherslive. Sometimes they merely want to“get out of the house.”

Not only do people like to travel,they care about how they travel. Theypay more than the minimum price toobtain greater amenities on airplanes,trains, and cruise ships. They spendlarge sums of money not merely topurchase motor vehicles, but to pur-chase motor vehicles that have just

the characteristics they want. If suchvehicles are not available in the mar-ketplace, they will spend money oncustomization.

So mobility — both the amount oftravel and the manner in which travelis undertaken — provides more thanmere accessibility. It also is a reflec-tion of people’s individuality and oftheir status. Why is this? Some blamethe motor vehicle industry and thetravel industry for “artificially creatingdemand” through their advertising.But the plain fact is that we really donot have a very good idea why peo-ple consume more mobility than they“really need.” This certainly is anissue that could benefit from well-designed, objective research.

Mobility Shapes and Is Shapedby Our Patterns of Settlement

Mobility also shapes our patterns ofsettlement. For many centuries,transportation was slow and capacitywas low, which meant that opportu-nities were accessible only if peoplelived near them. Overland travel wasslow and dangerous. Only light andcompact goods could be transportedover great distances — spices, gold,and silks being the classic examples.Ships could carry more goods, andaccess to ports often determined thelocation and wealth of cities. Buttravel by water, especially by sea, wasalso slow and dangerous. Long-dis-tance interaction was rare, and thosewho undertook it ran great risks. Byand large, people had to live close toone another if they were to interactroutinely.

Once technological advances allowedincreased travel speeds, the impor-tance of proximity declined some-what. Individuals and firms becamewilling and able to sacrifice nearnessfor other desirable land and buildingcharacteristics, such as more spaceand greater environmental amenities.Many feedback processes combinedto make proximity less important.The industrial revolution enabled thedevelopment of higher-speed trans-

portation systems. These systems, inturn, facilitated the industrial revolu-tion by opening up tracts of land forlarger industrial plants and by provid-ing relatively rapid access to distantsources of raw materials.

Today, two overarching phenomenaare shaping the pattern of humansettlement. The first of these isurbanization — the tendency forpopulations to concentrate in cities.The second is decentralization —the tendency of these same urbanareas to expand outward, generally atrates faster than overall populationgrowth, producing net declines in thepopulation densities of metropolitanareas. Neither of these phenomenacould be occurring without increasedmobility.

Mobility systems affect urban growthin an important way because theymake areas of a city more or lessaccessible, altering the land valuesand an area’s attractiveness for vari-ous uses. Transportation investmentsoften open up new areas for develop-ment. A common example in boththe developed and developing worldis the highway on an urban fringethat facilitates suburbanizationaround the existing urban core.

As population moves to the urbanfringes, high-capacity radial urbanexpressways are often built to facili-tate trips by suburban commuters tojobs in the urban core. Other activitiesfollow residents, creating the edgecities seen in both developed anddeveloping countries. Inexpensiveland and easy access by private vehi-cles allow the building of shoppingcenters, supermarkets, and hyper-marchés and malls, which offer a sin-gle location for convenient shoppingin a wide variety of shops, with freeparking and other amenities.

With increasing residential and eco-nomic activity in the fringes, theamount of traffic between fringe loca-tions also increases. This encouragesthe development of circumferential

mobility 2001


gestion and growing volumesof emissions?

• Can we afford to build andmaintain the infrastructure thatwould be required to relievecongestion, and are we willingto let it be built?

• Has the increased use of privatemotor vehicles, which offergreater individual mobility forthose who can afford and oper-ate them, deprived the poor,the elderly, and others of accessto jobs, the ability to visitfriends, to purchase the goodsthey need at competitiveprices, and to obtain neededmedical attention?

• Can the world bear the eco-nomic and environmental costsof locating, extracting, trans-porting, and processing thepetroleum required by a grow-ing number of vehicles?

• Can the planet’s oceans andatmosphere continue to absorbthe increased pollution generat-ed as a byproduct of the trans-portation of vastly larger num-bers of people and volumes ofgoods?

Questions relating to operational sus-tainability largely focus on mobilityas it impacts individuals. Can a trans-portation system enable them tofunction as they have come toexpect? Can I get to work? Can I getto my business appointment in a dis-tant city? Will the package that I amexpecting be delivered on time?Questions relating to economic,social, and environmental sustainabil-ity, on the other hand, focus moreon mobility’s impact on the broadersociety, though often in the contextof how this impact might affect theindividual. Are emissions from motorvehicle exhaust becoming so greatthat people in my community(including me) might become ill? Isour society becoming so dependenton the car that older people whocannot drive (including me, when Ibecome old) will not be able to getplaces and see people? Is the impact

introduction


Why Public Transport Loses Market Share — A Primer onthe Power of Desirable Mobility Characteristics

In the chapters that follow, we will show that the trend toward privately owned motor

vehicles and away from reliance on “conventional” forms of public transport (such as

buses and subways) is nearly universal. Various explanations have been advanced to

explain this phenomenon. In the United States, some have suggested that the decline

in public transport is the result of an organized “conspiracy.” Others have charged that

the villain is the “unfair subsidization” of lower-density housing.

An understanding of how transportation systems differ in their ability to deliver the var-

ious characteristics of mobility leads to a much simpler — and much less sinister —

explanation. It also helps to identify the characteristics that “unconventional” forms of

public transportation would need in order to compete effectively with the private auto-

mobile.

The growth in private motor vehicle fleets derives directly from the mobility benefits

and enhancements that these vehicles provide. With their inherent flexibility in sched-

ule and choice of destinations, automobiles offer the maximum potential benefits to be

derived from motorized mobility. These benefits — travel time, travel comfort and

amenities, and status and prestige — are not entirely related to “functional” mobility.

The automobile is often superior to other modes in terms of travel times and incremen-

tal out-of-pocket costs, factors that are frequently thought to be the key drivers of trav-

el choices at the level of the individual trip. In addition, private vehicle travel also offers

other service attributes that are important to consumers. For example, while parking

capacity constraints may intrude, private vehicles can frequently provide full origin-to-

destination service, with minimal walking and waiting times. An automobile trip also

offers complete schedule and route flexibility. In particular, it is possible to follow a

route that involves one or more intermediate stops so that a single chained trip may

serve multiple purposes with minimal disruption. While commuting between home and

work, for example, one might drop children off at school, shop, or take care of other

personal business. Finally, private vehicles generally provide a superior level of comfort

and convenience.

The private motor vehicle’s value to the consumer is often more than utilitarian, howev-

er. In many if not most societies today, private vehicles not only signify arrival in the

middle class, but arguably serve as a tool for “making it” to the middle class, by pro-

viding potential access to greater job opportunities as well as a host of other “accouter-

ments” of middle-class life, such as shopping at malls.

The contrast of the private motor vehicle’s characteristics with those of traditional fixed-

route, fixed-schedule public transport is striking. To begin with, public transport may

not even be an option for many trips. When it is, the user needs to find a convenient

stop at both the origin and destination, and must wait for a vehicle to arrive. In ideal

circumstances, the service is running on time and the user has sufficient schedule flexi-

bility, knowledge, and information to minimize the amount of time spent waiting. But

these conditions are not always met, and service unreliability may lead to lengthy waits.

At off-peak hours, service may be limited, and there may be no late-night service at all.

For these reasons, conventional public transport systems are best at serving high levels

of travel demand concentrated in a relatively limited area or along well-defined corri-

dors; environments where access difficulties are minimized and acceptable levels of ser-

vice can be offered to many users in efficient and cost-effective operations. Areas that

typically meet these criteria include the urban core and the high-density corridors

between the core and the suburbs. Indeed, unless a potential service area meets these

criteria, investment in public transport facilities with high fixed costs (such as the infras-

tructure requirements for urban rail) would be unlikely to meet any reasonable

on the world’s climate resulting fromthe emission of greenhouse gasesgoing to harm mankind (includingmy children and grandchildren)?

Both types of sustainability concernsreflect the vital role that mobility hascome to play in our lives as we enterthe twenty-first century. We cannotlive without mobility. But can we livewith its consequences? Will the mobil-ity we need now and expect to needin the future be available to us? Willthe economic, environmental, andsocial costs associated with this mobil-ity be tolerable? For mobility to betruly sustainable, the answer to ques-tions of both types must be “yes.”

Mobility 2001 — Taking thePulse

In 2000, several member firms ofthe WBCSD decided to “take thepulse” of the world’s mobility at theend of the twentieth century. They

wanted to know just how mobilepeople and goods really were in var-ious regions; how this mobility waschanging; and the extent to whichmobility was threatening to becomeunsustainable — or indeed, mightalready have reached that point.

Providing the vehicles and the fuelson which mobility depends is the pri-mary occupation of millions of peopleworldwide. Millions more service andmaintain these vehicles or operatethem. Mobility is one of the world’slargest businesses, a business basedoverwhelmingly on energy from asingle raw material — petroleum.Virtually all mobility today is depen-dent on a continuous supply ofpetroleum, a dependence that is notsustainable indefinitely.

The WBCSD member firms that firstassembled in 2000 wanted to under-stand how companies like theirsmight help assure that mobility is sus-

tainable. They had a real stake in thequestion because they are themselvesamong the world’s largest firms in themobility business. Their long-run sur-vival depends on mobility being sus-tainable.

This report, Mobility 2001, was com-missioned by the WBCSD on behalfof these member firms, which includesix of the world’s 10 largest compa-nies, and is intended to reflect condi-tions at a particular moment in time— the end of the twentieth century.The picture we offer is not static,however. Complex phenomena likemobility and the challenges to sus-taining it can be understood only ifwe appreciate the history of the prob-lem, as well as the diversity of thathistory across the developed anddeveloping world. Because the storyinvolves our largest structures —cities and transportation systems —the deeply rooted issues that we dis-cuss will also persist for decades. Ifmobility is to be made sustainable by2030 — the stated goal of theWBCSD member firms supportingthis effort — measures that will even-tually produce the necessary changesmust be undertaken almost immediately.

MOBILITY AND ITS IMPORTANCE

Mobility is Principally a Meansof Improving Accessibility

By and large, people seek to increasetheir mobility in order to improveaccessibility — “the ease by whichdesired social and economic activitiescan be reached from a specific pointin space” (US DOT, BTS 1997a; 136.).Distance impedes accessibility. It sep-arates people’s homes from theplaces where they work, shop, seekmedical attention, go to school, dobusiness, or visit friends and relatives.It separates firms from their sourcesof raw materials, from their markets,and from their employees. Mobilityenables people to overcome distance.

Mobility is not the only means ofimproving accessibility. Changing thespatial distribution of activities can

mobility 2001


economic investment standard. Similarly, fare revenue production by a public transport

system in these circumstances would be unlikely to cover any significant portion of the

operating costs.

Given public transport’s difficulty in fulfilling many mobility-related needs in wealthier

societies, it is not surprising to find that its share in providing mobility (and accessibili-

ty) declines with increased incomes. As incomes rise to the point where GDP per capita

reaches around US$5,000 per year, mobility expands mainly through increased use of

public transport, although automobility — accesses to and use of the automobile —

starts to assert itself as this figure is approached. Above that income level, increased

mobility is largely through greater use of private vehicles, and in many instances, public

transport use falls, thereby reinforcing the growth of automobile use. Figure 1-1 shows

this trend in a selection of cities in the developed world in the period between 1960

and 1990.

This discussion also illustrates why public transportation’s ability to compete for users

with the private vehicle is further curtailed by the impact of widespread private vehicle

use on urban form. In particular, the sprawling suburbanization engendered by

widespread automobile access and use creates a pattern of land use and activity that

conventional public transport is particularly ill-equipped to serve: a scattering of

demands among many geographically dispersed origins and destinations, with no ori-

gin-destination pair or corridor attaining particularly high demand densities.

In metropolitan areas other than those whose land-use patterns (at least in their urban

cores) predate the explosion of automobility, public transport systems will need to find

ways of more nearly matching the mobility characteristics provided by the automobile

in order to capture a significantly larger market share. Understanding what these char-

acteristics are, and how they might be provided by various types of unconventional

public transport, is the first step toward eventually permitting communities to reduce

their dependence on the private automobile — if that indeed is what they wish to do.

roads to facilitate these movements.(These circumferential roads alsoserve to divert through traffic awayfrom the urban center.) Such roadsmay be easier and less expensive toconstruct than urban facilitiesbecause land is more available. Again,the provision of road infrastructurecan accelerate the outward relocationof households and businesses. Withina few years of being opened, it is notunusual for these roads to carry trafficlevels that (on the basis of prior land-use patterns) were not forecast tooccur until after 20 or more years ofservice.

Mobility Enables EconomicDevelopment

“The division of labor is limited bythe extent of the market,” writesAdam Smith, describing how the spe-cialization of production can lowerthe cost and increase the variety ofavailable goods (Smith, 1776). Oneof the greatest barriers to the divisionof labor has always been the cost anddifficulty of transportation. Smithobserved that the division of labor

can only occur in cities. In remoterural areas, each family unit had to becapable of performing virtually alltasks needed to support their survival.No one could afford to specializebecause the demand for specializedskills was not sufficient.

But cities could not exist until the reli-able, cheap transportation of basicfoodstuffs became possible. Onlythen could people risk not growingtheir own food, regardless of howunsuited to agriculture their locationmight be.

Transportation capabilities also deter-mined how large cities could grow.The average city in ancient Greece issaid to have had a population of onlyabout 10,000. This was the most thatcould be supported by the trans-portation systems that connectedthese cities and their immediate hin-terlands. But the population ofancient Rome managed to grow toapproximately 1,000,000 because theRomans were able to transport largequantities of grain from Egypt using

high-capacity (for their day) ships.Rome also managed to transportwater — by means of aqueducts —and to dispose of waste products —by means of sewers.

Inexpensive, reliable freight trans-portation also has transformed other-wise worthless substances — such asremotely located deposits of low-grade iron ore — into valuableresources. Indeed, it is not an exag-geration to state that personal andgoods mobility has made possible ourpresent globalized economy. Whilesuch institutional and politicalchanges as the dismantling of varioustrade barriers have been necessary toglobalization, without the improve-ments in personal and goods mobilitythat characterized the last half of the20th century, such changes wouldhave been meaningless exercises.There would have been no way fortrade to increase.

Some contend that, on balance,globalization is not a “good,” some-thing that creates net benefits. While

introduction


there is certainly room for debateabout the range and desirability ofthe consequences of globalization, itis important to recognize that high-quality, efficient freight systems facili-tate sustainable development. Indeed,if freight systems were less efficient inenabling people around the world tofind markets for their goods and topurchase products from distant lands,then everyone’s standard of livingwould suffer. The poor around theworld would be hurt, not helped.There would be more famine and disease, not less. Environmental devastation in developing countrieswould be increased, not reduced, aspeople struggle to provide for themselves without the goods theyimport from the outside world.

Telecommunications andMobility

As we have already noted, telecom-munications systems do indeed facili-tate accessibility, but whether theysubstitute for mobility, enhancemobility, or complement mobility isunclear. Many people considertelecommunications to be a substi-tute for mobility. According to thisline of reasoning, the movement ofpeople (and perhaps also certaingoods) will become less and less nec-essary as telecommunications tech-nologies improve. Electronic mail willreplace the physical delivery of letters. The World Wide Web willreplace newspapers and magazines.Telecommuting will replace actualcommuting. Perhaps. But as onerecent advertisement put it, “Ever seen a computer deliver a package?”Achieving high levels of accessibilitywithout mobility may be as difficult as realizing that other promised feature of our information age, thepaperless office.

Whether telecommunications tech-nology will ultimately enable the elec-tronic transmission of knowledge,ideas, and information to substitutefor the physical transportation of peo-ple and goods will depend both onthe quality of telecommunicationsservices and the quality of mobility.

E-mail is clearly becoming a substitutefor conventional postal mail. It pro-vides a readable and reproduciblecopy instantaneously, yet (once thenecessary equipment is in place) itcosts a fraction of what standard mailcosts. With the development of digi-tal signatures and reliable, secureelectronic payment systems, the needfor conventional mail is likely toshrink even further. But e-mail maybe a special case. Telecommuting isbecoming less of a rarity (a recentestimate [Switkes and Roos 2001]suggests that as many as 15 millionUS workers may be engaging in someform of telecommuting by 2002), butquite often it cannot serve as anacceptable substitute for the actualpresence of individuals in the work-place. Videoconferencing is increasing-ly being used by business. But itsquality will have to improve quite abit before it can replace more than atrivial share of face-to-face businessmeetings. In short, whether telecom-munications technology will turn outto be a net substitute for or a netcomplement to mobility is still verymuch an open question.

MOBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

For mobility to be sustainable, it mustimprove accessibility while avoidingdisruptions in societal, environmental,and economic well-being that morethan offset the benefits of the accessi-bility improvements. This means thatany assessment of mobility’s sustain-ability must include not only a judg-ment as to its effectiveness in improv-ing accessibility but also a judgmentas to the magnitude and conse-quence of any associated disruptionsin social, environmental, or economicwell-being.

One way of organizing the informa-tion required to make these judg-ments is to separate indicators intotwo categories: those measures thatsociety would like to see increasedand those that society would like tosee reduced. An increase in the for-mer would reflect the success of asystem in providing the importantvalues associated with mobility —

improving personal accessibility andenabling businesses to provide con-sumers with affordable products andservices. A decrease in the latter mea-sures would reflect the success of asystem in mitigating trends that threaten societal, environmental, andeconomic well-being. These trendsinclude climate change, resourceexhaustion, congestion levels thatimpede productivity and threatensocial stability, public health problemscreated by air pollution, ecosystem collapse, and others. As a general ruleof thumb, mobility becomes moresustainable as it increases the mea-sures in the first set and reduces themeasures in the second set.

Measures to Be Increased

Access to means of mobility. Dis-tance impedes accessibility, andmobility is the ability to overcomedistance. As we have noted above,mobility is not the only way to gainaccess to goods and services —telecommunications is another — butmobility is surely an important wayfor people to achieve accessibility.

But mobility itself requires access, andthis can be impeded by cost as wellas by location. As already noted, pri-vately owned motor vehicles are typi-cally the most flexible means of pro-viding mobility. But in many parts ofthe world, the cost of purchasing,garaging, maintaining, and operatingsuch vehicles is well beyond themeans of much of the population.People must walk, use bicycles ortwo-wheeled motorized vehicles, orrely on various forms of public trans-port. Bicycles are limited in theirrange and in the amount of weightthey can carry. Two-wheeled motor-ized vehicles are less limited in boththese regards, but are still expensive.Public transport is generally lessexpensive in terms of the daily finan-cial outlay required to use it but isoften difficult to reach and providesrelatively poor and inflexible service.

Increasing access to flexible, afford-able means of mobility can be

mobility 2001


introduction


achieved through improvements inany or all of these various dimensions.Reducing the cost of various types ofmotorized vehicles is one suchavenue of improvement. Improvingthe flexibility and reach of publictransport systems is another.Developing new transportationdevices that combine flexibility withlow cost is a third.

Figure 1-2 shows annual per capitapersonal transportation by mode forthe world’s regions. These datainclude only travel by bus, rail, auto,and air. Nonmotorized transportationor two- and three-wheeled motorizedtransport, all of which play majorroles in some parts of the world, arenot included. These data indicatethat per capita use varies by roughlya factor of 24 across these regions,with the United States showing byfar the highest. Western Europe andPacific OECD (principally Japan)show roughly the same per capitalevels, at about half the rate of theUnited States.

Figure 1-3 shows that mode sharealso varies significantly across regions.Rail use (both intercity and urban) isespecially high in Pacific OECD; busand coach use is high in Europe. The automobile, however, accounts for at least 50% of the distance traveled in each region shown except for fourof the first five, Pacific Asia, and theworld as a whole. In North America,the automobile accounts for over80% of total passenger-kilometers.

Equity in access. An increasingreliance on privately owned motorvehicles for transport means thatthose without access to such a vehiclemay find themselves seriously disad-vantaged in their ability to get to jobs and services. The limitations of con-ventional public transport in citiesincreasingly tailored to the privatevehicle only serve to accentuate thisrisk. Particularly vulnerable are groups such as the elderly, the poor, peoplewith disabilities, and youth.

Worth particular mention in thisregard are the needs of the elderly. Inthe developed countries, the absolutenumbers of older people are increas-ing rapidly, as is their percentage ofthe population. These people may behealthy and independent for severaldecades after they retire and maylead active lives requiring consider-able mobility. Many will continue touse automobiles, though safety issuesmust be considered in licensingthem. More generally, many olderpeople as they age will increasinglyexperience physical, financial, andother barriers in using the transportsystem, in moving around their com-munities, and in accessing the ser-vices and facilities they need. So thereare different categories of usersamong the elderly, but almost allwould benefit from a well-developedpublic transport network as a primaryor backup system.

Appropriate mobility infrastruc-ture. Inadequate infrastructure seri-ously impedes sustainable economicand social development, particularlyin the developing world. Extensivepassenger rail networks exist only inAsia and Europe, and general road-way provision in the developingcountries falls far behind that in thedeveloped world (see Table 1-1).

Lack of capacity is often a seriousissue on both urban and interurbanlinks. The basic connectivity of theroad network may be deficient, withimportant population or economiccenters poorly linked to the rest ofthe country. In some cases, specificindividual facilities such as bridgesare lacking, and less convenient alter-natives like ferries serve in theirplace. The quality of road infrastruc-ture is frequently not good, becauseof deficiencies in the original designand construction,inadequate controlof trucks with excessive axle loads,inclement climatic conditions(extreme heat, heavy rainfall, orsevere freeze/thaw cycles), orneglected maintenance.

Inexpensive freight transporta-tion. As urban populations grow,there is greater need to move rawand semifinished materials fromwhere they are found and processed,and to ship finished goods to market.Cities cannot exist without thesefreight systems, and people in ruralareas cannot find markets for theirgoods without them either. However,the volume of freight and freight-moving vehicles is becoming so greatin many areas of the world that theyare major competitors for scarceinfrastructure capacity and also majorsources of air pollution. The growthof e-commerce depends upon anability to deliver electronicallyordered goods quickly and efficiently.Just-in-time manufacturing has similarrequirements. Many of the world’sexisting freight transportation systemswere built in different eras to meetrequirements that were very differentfrom those of today.

Measures to Be Reduced

Congestion. Personal mobility canbe improved on an individual basisand in a rather short period of time.For example, if income is no longer aconstraint, people who walked orbicycled can choose to travel usingfaster modes, such as automobilesand motorized two wheelers. As aresult of increased demand for per-sonal mobility, infrastructure demandcan increase rapidly. But infrastructurecan only be provided collectively at alarger scale, and this takes time. Theinertial nature of transportation facili-ty development and urban structureadjustments makes it difficult to keepup with a population’s rapid shifts tomotor vehicles, and this results inserious system imbalance and enor-mous congestion.

Travel by private automobile tends toconsume more space and infrastruc-ture per unit of travel than does travelby public transport, though the valid-ity of this broad generalization hingescritically on the passenger loadings ofthe public modes. Full buses makemore efficient use of road infrastruc-

mobility 2001


ture than cars do, and empty busesare less efficient.

Congestion on road networks mani-fests itself in travel delays and ineffi-cient vehicle operations. Less obvious-ly, perhaps, congestion is the cause ofpervasive economic inefficiencies, asindividuals, households, and firmsadjust their activities to compensatefor time lost in traveling and tohedge against the possibility thattrips may take longer than expected.Some level of congestion is economi-cally efficient; however, buildinginfrastructure to get rid of all conges-tion is not a solution. The costs —economic as well as environmental —would far outweigh any possibleadditional benefits to travelers.

Congestion results from a mismatchbetween available road capacity andthe traffic that attempts to use it at agiven time. This mismatch mostlyoccurs because, as a society, we arenot able (or willing) to schedule ouractivities more uniformly through theday and night. In other words, con-gestion is often better characterizedas a peaking problem, rather than aproblem of inadequate capacity.

The relatively simple economic con-cept of externalities is basic to thecongestion issue. The individual trav-eler who enters the road networkduring peak travel periods does notpay the full cost that the decision totravel imposes on everyone else.Since price does not equal marginal

cost, demand exceeds supply andcongestion is the result. Economistshave long argued that congestioncould be “solved” if only individualmotorists could be charged the “fullcost” they impose on others by theirdecision to use roads at peak periods.Until recently, this debate about thetheoretical properties of congestioncharges was largely academic, since itwas impossible to levy such chargeswithout bringing traffic to a halt.However, with the development oftechnologies capable of levying con-gestion-based tolls on moving vehi-cles, the discussion has moved fromthe academic to the political arena.Apart from cost considerations relat-ed to the implementation of a con-gestion pricing scheme, it hasbecome embroiled in the broaderargument over just how great theexternal costs of driving actually areand whether the level of gas taxesand registration fees already beingpaid by motorists, especially in placeslike Europe and Japan, more thancover these costs.

“Conventional” emissions.Transportation vehicles are majorsources of local, urban, and regionalair pollution. The substances emittedby transport vehicles that contributeto this pollution include sulfur dioxide(SO2), lead, carbon monoxide (CO),volatile organic compounds (VOCs),particulate matter, and nitrogenoxides (NOx). These substances arecommonly referred to as “conven-tional” transport emissions to distin-guish them from emissions of green-

house gases, though there is someoverlap (see feature box).

Private-vehicle travel tends to gener-ate larger amounts of emissions perunit distance traveled than do publictransport modes (Table 1-2), but thisis probably too general a statementto be of much value in any specificlocal circumstances. Clearly, manyother factors are involved, includingaverage vehicle occupancy rates, theage and maintenance level of therespective vehicle fleets, and so on.

Technologies to reduce emissionsfrom spark-ignition (i.e., gasoline-powered) engines were first intro-duced in the United States and Japanin the late 1960s. Europe followedwith similar regulations a decadelater. Standards for exhaust emissions,and for evaporative emissions ofVOCs from vehicle fuel systems, havebecome progressively more stringentand are scheduled to continue thattrend. Emissions from new vehicles inthe most strictly controlled regionsare 90% to 98% lower than theywere prior to control. Other parts ofthe world are following this step-by-step regulatory approach, thoughwith some lag.

The emissions from vehicles poweredby compression-ignition (i.e., diesel)engines (including trucks, off-roadconstruction vehicles, railroad loco-motives, and waterborne vessels)were in the past less strictly regulatedthan emissions from gasoline engine

introduction


Table 1-1. Measures of transportation infrastructure per capita (km/million inhabitants)

Intercity Rail Urban Rail Roads Motorways

EU 15 415 18 9,330 125

Central and Eastern European countries

635 50+ 7,880 24

United States 140*/890 7 23,900 325

Japan 210 6 9,200 51

World 210 4 4,750 35

Source: European Commission (2000). *Only 38,000 km in passenger service

vehicles, in part because exhausttreatment technologies — catalystsfor NOx, traps for particulates —were not sufficiently developed toenable their widespread use. Bothtechnologies are progressing, andplans are in place to reduce NOx andparticulate emissions significantlyfrom current levels (which are abouta factor of three below uncontrolledlevels).

Emissions from vehicles powered bycontinuous combustion engines (pre-dominantly aircraft gas turbines) con-sist principally of NOx. Aircraft emis-sions can be a significant local source

of NOx, exacerbating the problem ofreducing ambient concentrations ofozone. NOx emissions from gas tur-bines have been controlled to someextent by modifying the combustionchanges in flat mix chambers of theseengines. Further reductions are likelyto occur in the future.

The adoption of more effective abate-ment technologies (generally inresponse to stricter government-imposed emissions standards) willlead to significant reductions in per-vehicle emissions rates. This will not,however, automatically translate intoequivalent reductions in total vehicle-related emissions. Total light-dutypassenger vehicle fleet emissions inthe United States, for example, areonly about 30% to 40% lower for COand 50% lower for HC than theywere before the imposition of con-trols. Emissions of NOx have beenreduced by even less. This is due tothe growth in the number of vehiclesand their use, the changes in fleetmix, and high emissions from a smallfraction of the fleet due to vehicleage, failure, malfunction, or tamper-ing. (Studies in many parts of theworld where strict emissions regula-tions are in place indicate that abouthalf the total vehicle fleet emissionscome from 5% to 10% of the vehi-cles — the high emitters.) In addition,the turnover time of the vehicle fleetis typically more than a decade,which delays the full impact ofstricter new vehicle standards.

In most of the developed world, therate of decrease in per-vehicle emis-sions has been large enough to offsetthe countervailing effects of increasesin traffic and the growth in the num-ber of vehicles. As a result, an overalldecrease in vehicle-related emissionscan reasonably be projected in theintermediate term. In the developingworld, however, the reverse is true.The speed of motorization, the lag inadopting more recent vehicle pollu-tion control devices (in part due tothe need to upgrade fuel quality andfuel distribution systems), and theslow turnover of vehicle fleets meanthat total vehicle-related emissionsare growing.

Greenhouse gas emissions. Thepollutants discussed above are gener-ally considered a local, urban, orregional problem. Other emissionshave a global impact. Carbon dioxide(CO2) is produced by the combustionof fossil fuels. In the concentrationstypically encountered in urban andrural environments it has no knownhealth effects. CO2 is called a “green-house gas” because it is one of theatmospheric chemicals that con-tribute to the greenhouse effect thatwarms the planet.

Certain other emissions from trans-portation — methane, nitrous oxide(N2O), and vehicle air-conditioningrefrigerants — are also greenhousegases. These gases have a much high-er potential effect on climate change

mobility 2001


Ozone — A ComplexPollution “Cocktail”

Readers may be surprised that we

omitted terrestrial (i.e., ground-

level) ozone from the list of emis-

sions that cause local, urban, and

regional air pollution. This is

because ozone is not an emission. It

is a complex “cocktail” formed by

sunlight acting on emissions of

VOCs and NOx. Ozone is controlled

by controlling the emissions of

these two substances, but which of

the two emissions should be con-

trolled to the greater extent differs

by region. In some regions, VOCs

are the controlling factor. In others,

it is NOx. “Overcontrolling” one of

these pollutants when the other is

the controlling factor can actually

increase ozone formation.

Table 1-2. Emission rates in London (grams/passenger-km) by mode, 1997

Private Motor Vehicles

4-wheel 2-wheel

Taxis

Buses

Metro

Carbon monoxide 12.9 8.9 1.8 0.3 0.03

Hydrocarbons 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.1 0.0

Oxides of nitrogen 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.2 0.3

Oxides of sulfur 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.15

Lead 0.02 0.02 — — —

Particulate matter 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.02 0.01

Carbon dioxide 197 115 470 89 91

Source: London Transport Buses (1999).

per unit concentration than CO2,although their atmospheric concen-trations are much smaller. Vehiclesappear to be a modest source ofmethane and N2O. Leakage of vehi-cle air-conditioning fluids (CFCs inthe recent past — now bannedbecause of their contributions to thepolar ozone “holes”) and theirreplacements are also as significant asgreenhouse gases. Use of CFCs isnow banned by the MontrealProtocol, though CFCs are probablystill being released. The HFCs thatreplaced CFCs in vehicle air-condi-tioners are shorter-lived in the atmo-sphere, though they still have someeffect on the earth’s thermal balance.

Atmospheric concentrations of car-bon dioxide and methane haveincreased significantly since the startof the industrial age. More recently,the earth has experienced a generalwarming trend, particularly pro-nounced in the last decade. Thoughthere has been some dispute aboutthe extent to which increases in thesegreenhouse gases are responsible forthe warming trend, IPCC WorkingGroup 1 recently concluded (IPCC2001, p. 10): “The warming over thelast 50 years due to anthropogenicgreenhouse gases can be identifieddespite uncertainties in forcing due toanthropogenic sulfate aerosol andnatural factors (volcanoes and solarirradiance).”

There has been a growing interna-tional consensus that prudencerequires us to reduce the amount ofCO2 added to the atmospherethrough human activities, includingtransport. It has been estimated thattransport activities account for rough-ly 26% of total worldwide CO2 pro-duction by humans, and this sharehas been increasing (IEA 2000a).

Production of CO2 goes hand inhand with the consumption of ener-gy if the source of power is a fossilfuel. Where power is produced fromother sources (for example, hydro-electric or nuclear), CO2 productionis minimal. Presently, the only forms

of transport that are able to use suchclean power on any scale are publictransport vehicles in countries such asSwitzerland, Norway, and France thatproduce large amounts of electricpower using hydro or nuclear energy.These vehicles (subways, trams, andelectric buses) draw their electricpower from overhead lines or electri-fied third rails.

Data from London (Table 1-2) showthat private vehicles (and taxis) tendto generate relatively large amounts

of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. Thetaxi figure is particularly high becausetaxis usually carry only one or twopassengers and may cover consider-able distances cruising for new pas-sengers or repositioning themselves.The low figure for London busesreflects the relatively high passengerload factor on buses in the Londonsystem. For the United States, wherethe average passenger load per bus isonly about nine, the CO2 emissionsper passenger-kilometer would besomewhat higher.

Transportation noise. Cars andtrucks are major sources of noise pol-lution in most cities. Most developedcountries have had vehicle noiseemission regulations since the 1970s.Technological progress in enginesand exhaust systems has made thesevehicles considerably quieter. Forexample, the EU allowable noise levelof a modern truck is approximatelyequivalent to that of the typical car in1970. Nonetheless, the noise createdby motorized transportation remainsa significant impact on urban resi-dents’ health and quality of life.Noise is often cited as the main nui-sance in urban areas, and traffic noiseis the worst offender (a German studysuggests that 65% of the populationis adversely affected by road trafficnoise, with 25% seriously affected).As an indication, residential propertyvalues are measurably lower nearnoise-producing main roads, high-ways, and railroad tracks.

A typical urban residential neighbor-hood in the United States has decibellevels between 55 dB and 70 dB.Continued exposure to noise above85 dB causes hearing loss. A recentstudy of Austrian schoolchildrenfound that the low but continuousnoise of everyday local traffic cancause stress in children and raiseblood pressure, heart rates, and levelsof stress hormones. The research,conducted by US and Europeanresearchers, was the first major studyof the nonauditory health effects oftypical ambient community noise.

introduction


CO2 Emissions by Sector

The International Energy Agency

(IEA) produces estimates of CO2

emissions by sector for the world as

a whole and by country. Figure 1-4,

developed from data included in the

IEA’s most recent report on CO2

emissions from fuel consumption,

shows emissions by sector. The 26%

attributed to the transport sector

breaks down into the following sub-

sectors: road transport (both passen-

gers and goods) — 16.9%; other

domestic transport (transportation

of passengers and goods by rail, air,

and inland waterway) — 6.1%;

international air transportation —

1.4%; and international water trans-

portation — 1.7%. The sector iden-

tified as “energy production”

includes the production of electricity

and heat (steam) for general use —

32.0%; the production of energy

(principally electricity and heat) by

firms largely for their own use —

4.3%; and the production of energy

by other energy industries — 5.4%.

The direct combustion of fuels in

manufacturing and construction

account for 19.0% of CO2 emis-

sions; the direct combustion of fuels

in residences (largely for space heat-

ing) account for 7.6%; and the

direct combustion of fuels by com-

mercial and other sectors account

for 5.7%. (CO2 emissions from the

production of electricity and heat

used in manufacturing, construc-

tion, residential, commercial, and

other sectors is attributed to the

energy-producing sector.)

Source: IEA (2000a).

Besides vehicle engines and exhaustpipes, much of the noise producedby vehicles today, especially in high-way operations, results from themovement of vehicles through theair, and the contact of tires with theroad. The former can be reduced byaerodynamic vehicle body designs(which also have the effect of improv-ing fuel efficiency and reducing emis-sions). The latter can be reducedthrough tire tread designs andimprovements in pavement surfacetextures (which also have the effect ofdraining water more effectively andso reducing the risks of accident).Noise barriers can also minimize theimpact of vehicle noise on nearbyactivities.

Aircraft are another important sourceof noise. Major airports typically han-dle hundreds of thousands of aircraftarrivals and departures per year. Mostof these aircraft are jet-propelled. Inmost of the developed world, increas-ingly stringent aircraft engine noiseregulations, coupled in some caseswith late-night curfews, have suc-ceeded in reducing the total noiseexposure at most large airports. Thisis much less true, however, for thedeveloping world. In many cases, air-craft that can no longer meet devel-oped-world noise standards are sold

to developing-world operators andcontinue their noisy existence.

Impacts on land, water, andecosystems. Roads, bridges, air-ports, harbors, and the vehicles thatuse them have profound effects onhabitats and ecosystem communitiesof natural species. Transportationinfrastructures in developed countriesare vast in scale and extent. Forexample, the road network in theUnited States consists of tens of thou-sands of kilometers of lightly traveledroads (paved and unpaved) cuttingthrough agricultural and wildernessareas, dense networks of residentialstreets and arteries in urban and sub-urban areas, and heavily traveledhighways that can extend uninter-rupted for hundreds of kilometers.This extensive system is a source ofnumerous environmental distur-bances. Some of these occur duringconstruction and some during use.Examples are runoff of surface materi-als, changes in local hydrology, thefragmentation of habitats, and theintroduction and proliferation of inva-sive species.

Once built and in operation, high-ways and other transportation facili-ties (such as terminals) have enduring

effects on the quality of nearbywaters and local hydrology. They area chronic source of sediments andcontaminants as a result of the runoffof materials deposited on the roadsurface by traffic and road mainte-nance crews, and by erosion of sideslopes and degraded constructionmaterials. Runoff infiltrates water-sheds through discharge directly intoadjacent ponds and other surfacewaters, through drainage systems,and through infiltration to groundwa-ter. The migration of road salt intopublic water supplies and privatewells is a significant problem. Thephysical imprint of the transportationsystem also has profound effects:streams are rechanneled and wet-lands filled, impeding water flows andshifting the location of stream anddrainage networks.

These highway system effects areaccompanied by those caused byother branches of the transportationsystem. Water-borne transportationcauses several unique disturbances towater systems. Commercial water-ways are dredged to widen anddeepen channels, upsetting bottomsediments and contaminants.Waterborne transportation hasproved to be a vexing conduit forexotic species. The waterborne trans-portation of hazardous materials canresult in release of these shipments,causing water as well as land and airpollution.

The ecological and habitat distur-bances caused by roads extend farbeyond the land they occupy and thehabitats they disturb. The distur-bances created by traffic noise, vibra-tions, and light, for instance, extendfor some distance, disrupting essentialanimal behaviors, such as feeding andreproduction. By subdividing thelandscape into small pieces, roadsalso fragment habitats and interruptessential wildlife movements. If thepatches between roads become toosmall, the habitat may be incapableof providing resources needed tomaintain viable and resilient wildlifepopulations.

mobility 2001


Air pollution also has a major impacton ecosystem behavior. Transportationemissions have cumulative and long-lasting effects on the function andbiological composition of ecosystems.Ozone can adversely affect mountainand forest ecosystems over largeareas. Emissions of NOx result in acidrain and nutrient enrichment, suspect-ed causes of biological changes in ter-restrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The longer-term ecological effects ofthese emissions outside urban areasare poorly understood. It is ofincreasing concern that all emissionsfrom transportation vehicles, and thedisruption of habitats and naturalprocesses caused by the extensivetransportation infrastructure systemand its use, are leading to gradualdeclines in biological diversity andecosystem functions on regional andnational scales. Climate change isalso likely to affect ecosystem diversi-ty and stability.

Disruption of communities. Al-though more difficult to quantify, theincreasing orientation of the urbantransport system toward private vehi-cles can have additional effects onthe quality of community life. Urbanmotorways were sometimes builtthrough the middle of establishedcommunities (most frequentlythrough communities with insuffi-cient political power to oppose thatalignment successfully), in effectdividing the community and con-structing a physical barrier betweenthe two halves.

More generally, there are relativelyfew opportunities for serendipitousinteractions between residents in acommunity dominated by private-vehicle travel, because when peopleleave their homes they isolate them-selves in cars. This can lead to a lossof sense of community and socialcohesion.

“Barrier effects” are not limited tohighways. Rail lines can also dividecommunities, especially when they

are elevated to eliminate grade cross-ings. Communities have objected toactions (such as railway mergers andthe construction of new lines) thatthreaten an increase in the number offreight-carrying trains travelingthrough them, even though such anincrease may mean fewer freight-car-rying trucks on the highways.

Transportation-related acci-dents. The cost in human lives,injuries, and suffering attributable tohighway and road crashes is stagger-ing, particularly compared to other,less common risks of harm thatinvoke much greater publicity withfar fewer victims. Toward the end ofthe 1990s, around 42,000 peoplewere killed each year in road acci-dents in Western Europe, down fromaround 56,000 at the beginning ofthe decade. In the United States, thenumber of people killed in road acci-dents per year varied between40,000 and 45,000. On average inthe two regions together, a persondies in a road accident about everysix minutes. In some countries, roadaccidents are the primary cause ofdeath in the 15- to 30-year-old agegroup. The number of people serious-ly injured in road accidents is typicallymore than ten times higher, and thenumber of people receiving lightinjuries over 65 times higher, thanthe number of fatalities. Fatality ratesin the cities of the developing worldare growing rapidly and are oftenalready at alarmingly high rates,given the low absolute levels ofmotorization.

Road accident victims are not justmotorized vehicle drivers and occu-pants, but also include pedestriansand bicyclists. In developed countries,these groups account for roughly10% to 15% of the total number ofroad fatalities. The plight of pedestri-ans and bicyclists is worse in develop-ing countries, where they account fora disproportionately large number ofroad accident fatalities.

Use of nonrenewable, carbon-based energy. Every vehicle requires

energy. In order to supply that energy — the energy to transportpeople and freight worldwide byland, sea, and air — more than oneliter of petroleum is consumed eachday, on average, for each of theworld’s six billion inhabitants. In theindustrialized countries, transporta-tion consumes more than half thepetroleum used for all purposes. Indeveloping countries the share is lessthan half, but it has been rising and isexpected to reach at least half withina decade.

Transportation not only requires agreat deal of petroleum, it needs verylittle energy other than petroleum.Fuels derived from petroleum nowaccount for more than 96% of all theenergy used in transportation. Therehas been no sign of any decrease inthat percentage (IEA 2000b). Othersources of transportation energy —coal, natural gas, alcohols, electricpower — have been significant inparticular places or times but all havebeen minor fractions of the total.

Therefore, the projected growth indemand for mobility leads to a pro-jected growth in demand for oil fortransportation. “Mainstream” projec-tions put consumption levels in 25 to30 years at twice the level of today(IEA 2000b; EIA/US DOE 2001). Thisprovokes a sustainability debate: forhow long will producers ofpetroleum, a huge but ultimately lim-ited resource, be able to satisfy trans-portation’s ever-increasing demandfor oil? And at what price? Linked toavailability of supply is the fact that65% of the world’s known reserves ofconventional petroleum are locatedin the Middle East (BP 2000), andthere is concern about the rest of theworld being so dependent on whathas been a politically volatile region.

The more pressing sustainability issueis not the availability of fuel but CO2emissions resulting from the produc-tion/manufacture and use of fuel,whether the fuel is derived from con-ventional petroleum, heavy oil, ornatural gas. Switching from

introduction


petroleum-like fuels to other fuelsthat emit less CO2 during their manu-facture and use could mitigate CO2emissions from the use of transporta-tion fuels. That is the principal drivingforce behind the current interest infuels such as ethanol or methanolthat are derived from biomass, and infuels such as hydrogen or electricpower that can be derived fromsources of primary energy that do notemit CO2. The path to sustainabilityin transportation energy will have toexplore options such as these.Presently, there are many economic,technical, and other barriers to thecommercialization of these alternativefuels, but further work can reducemany of those barriers.

Transportation-related solidwaste. Vehicles — especially automo-biles and light trucks — are majorusers of materials such as steel, iron,aluminum, glass, and plastics. Theextent to which these materials arereused varies significantly by region. Inthe United States, for example, morethan 95% of ferrous material in all de-registered motor vehicles is repro-cessed, with at least 75% of the vehi-cle mass extracted for reuse. This highpercentage is driven by the strength ofthe steel minimill industry and theready market for its products. In othercountries, the percentage is lower. Asubstantial number of used vehicles isshipped abroad from Europe (to NorthAfrica and Eastern Europe) and fromJapan (to Southeast Asia).

MOBILITY 2001 — A ROAD MAP

No single study can hope to providea truly comprehensive treatment ofmobility in all its aspects worldwide,or the challenges to its sustainability.In conducting this study, we havemade choices between breadth anddepth of coverage that we hope willprovide the reader with a sense of thecritical issues without overwhelmingdetail. We have organized the reportaround a series of six pictures, each anatural part of the mobility story.

Chapter 2 — Patterns ofMobility Demand, Technology,and Energy Use

We discuss the surprising stability inthe average amount of time and theaverage share of income that differ-ent populations have been willing todevote to personal transportationover the last 50 years. While the dis-tance traveled per person each dayhas increased rather steadily, the timespent in accomplishing this travel hasvaried from about an hour per day tojust under an hour and a half per day.With one notable exception — Japan —the share of disposable income spentby the average citizen of a developedcountry on personal travel has variedbetween 11% and 16%. The increasein average distance traveled has beenmade possible by a shift towardfaster, more flexible personal trans-portation modes — especially theautomobile and the airplane.

We review the evolution of the basictransportation technologies that havesubstantially improved the perfor-mance and productivity of personaland freight transportation. Thisreview focuses heavily on propulsionsystems. With the exception of trainspowered by externally supplied elec-tricity, all motorized personal andfreight transportation vehicles arepowered by some form of combus-tion engine — spark-ignition, com-pression-ignition, and continuousignition (turbine). Improvements inmaterials have also contributed tothese improvements in transporta-tion. We describe these materials andefforts to increase their recyclability.Finally, we describe the characteristicsof the petroleum-based fuels current-ly used to power essentially all vehi-cles and review the effectiveness, todate, of the relatively limited effortsbeing made to enable us to make thetransition from our near-completedependence on these fuels.

Transportation technologies — bothpropulsion systems and vehicles —continue to improve. Several trends,such as the increased market share ofthe more efficient diesel engine in

passenger cars and light trucks andthe limited production and marketingof hybrid electric vehicles, offer thepromise of significant improvementsin light-duty vehicle energy efficiency.These, as well as other efforts by theautomotive and aircraft industries andtheir suppliers to explore and developbetter performing and more efficientvehicle technologies, indicate thateven more improvements are likely inthe future.

Chapter 3 — Personal Mobilityin the Urbanized DevelopedWorld

The developed world is generallycharacterized by high incomes, highlevels of urbanization, high mobility,and by populations that are bothaging and stable. (By “developedworld” we mean the countries of theOECD excluding Mexico and Korea.)It also is characterized by very highrates of ownership and use of auto-mobiles and other light-duty vehicles.Indeed, with very few exceptions(Tokyo being the most notable), largedeveloped-world cities are over-whelmingly dependent on automo-biles for motorized personal mobility.

This very high degree of automobili-ty has made possible a reduction inthe population density of mosturban areas. The reduction in popu-lation density, in turn, has undercutthe competitiveness of traditionalpublic transport, reinforcing the useof the private automobile and disad-vantaging those who, for one reasonor another, do not have access to acar. The dependence on the auto-mobile has meant that emissionsfrom these vehicles, as well as fromtrucks that deliver freight to thesame urban areas, account for muchof the air pollution that plaguesmany cities throughout the devel-oped world. Emissions of carbondioxide from developed-world motorvehicles presently account for themajority of transportation-relatedgreenhouse gas emissions, thoughthis is changing as motorization inthe developing world grows rapidly.This vast number of vehicles con-

mobility 2001


gests the roads and is responsible forlarge numbers of injuries anddeaths, not only of the occupants,but also of pedestrians and others.

We describe efforts that are underway to deal with these challenges tosustainability. Improvements inengine technologies and fuels havehelped to reduce per-vehicle emis-sions of many pollutants, thoughincreases in the number and use ofvehicles have served to offset thesereductions to a considerable degree.Vehicle-related accident rates havefallen in many countries, and the“survivability” of occupants hasimproved due to structural improve-ments and the use of seat belts andthe like. These are positive develop-ments. On the negative side, con-gestion seems to be getting worse inthe urbanized areas of most devel-oped countries. Efforts to constructnew transportation infrastructurehave been overwhelmed by demandgenerated in response to construc-tion of more road capacity, and bycommunity resistance to the locationof many urban infrastructure pro-jects. The congestion-reductionpromise of “intelligent highways”remains to be fulfilled. Motor vehi-cle–related greenhouse gas emis-sions continue to rise, as technologi-cal improvements are overwhelmedby growth in vehicle use, though therate of increase has been slowed insome countries. Also, efforts to rollback the tide of private automobilesin a major way by luring drivers toconventional public transport havelargely failed. Public transport rider-ship has been increasing in manycities, but public transport’s share oftotal urban personal transportationhas not. In sum, many challengesexist to making personal mobilitysustainable in the urbanized areas ofthe developed world.

Chapter 4 — Personal Mobilityin the Developing World

The developing portion of the worldis characterized by low but generallyrising incomes and by rapidly grow-ing and relatively young popula-

tions. The most important develop-ing-world phenomenon is theextremely rapid rate of urbanizationin many countries. “Megacities” —large urban agglomerations some-times containing tens of millions ofpeople — are springing up through-out the developing world, especiallyin Asia and Latin America. These tensof millions of people have to get towork, get to school, and shop. Thegoods they produce and consumehave to be transported from theirfactories and to their stores. Thewaste they generate must be collect-ed and disposed. All this requirestransportation.

The number of vehicles — from bicy-cles to motorized two-wheelers tocars to trucks and buses — is grow-ing even more rapidly than the pop-ulations of many of these urbanareas. A large share of the trips insuch locations, however, is still madeon foot, and the intermingling ofpedestrian traffic with self-propelledand motorized vehicular traffic gen-erates massive congestion and veryhigh accident rates. Traffic-relateddeaths and injuries in developing-world cities are very numerous, espe-cially among the poor. The motor-ized vehicles spew out pollutants thatcan make air in these cities virtuallyunbreathable. Many of these vehicleshave no emissions controls, andthose that do are often poorly main-tained. In contrast to the urbanizedareas of the developed world, vehi-cle-related air pollution in the devel-oping world is clearly getting worse.The same is true of transport-relatedemissions of greenhouse gases. Ifpresent trends continue, transporta-tion-related developing-world green-house gas emissions will pass thoseof the developed world within thenext 25 years.

Given this situation, it should not besurprising that we conclude that per-sonal mobility in the developingworld is poor in many regions and isdeteriorating in many areas where ithad been improving in the past.

Chapter 5 — Trends in IntercityTravel

There is much more intercity andintercontinental passenger travel inthe developed world than in thedeveloping world. But even in thedeveloped world, intercity and inter-continental passenger travel accountsfor a very small share of total trips(though a somewhat larger share ofpassenger-kilometers traveled). In thedeveloped world, the principal modesof intercity travel are the private auto-mobile, rail (increasingly, high-speedrail), and commercial aircraft. In thedeveloping world, the travel that doesoccur is by bus, by conventional rail,and to a small but rapidly growingextent, by air. We concentrate most ofour attention on rail and air.

Rail passenger traffic is important inseveral countries, especially Japan,China, India, the countries of the EU,and Russia. Many passenger rail sys-tems, such as India, China, and Russia,are poorly maintained and have anti-quated rolling stock. As these coun-tries continue to develop, intercitypassenger rail is likely to face increas-ing challenges from other modes.Other passenger rail systems — Japan,much of the EU, and, to a smallextent, North America — are beingupgraded to enable them to competenot so much with road vehicles butwith airlines. These high-speed rail sys-tems are meeting with some success,especially when distances are relativelyshort and the quality of air service rel-atively low.

Indeed, considering the problems wefind facing air transportation, it maybe that rail’s competitiveness will growsubstantially in the years ahead. Airtransportation has been growingextremely rapidly and is generallyforecast to continue to do so for thenext several decades. But it facesmajor sustainability challenges. Oneof the most important but leastappreciated is the significance of itsgreenhouse gas emissions. At present,air transportation is responsible forbetween 8–12% of transport-relatedcarbon emissions. It is becoming

introduction


understood, however, that theseemissions are responsible for a muchgreater share in terms of globalwarming potential, because of wherethey occur — not at the earth’s sur-face, but high in the atmosphere.This is believed to lead to an approxi-mate doubling of their impact.Moreover, given the rate that air trav-el is projected to increase, aircraft-related greenhouse gas emissions willtake on an even greater importancein the years ahead.

Another important sustainability issuefacing air transportation is the rapidgrowth of airport and airway conges-tion. In spite of significant advancesin the reduction of aircraft noise, air-ports are still noisy facilities. They alsoare major sources of conventionalpollution, both from the aircraft thatuse them and from the vehicles thatservice these aircraft and that trans-port passengers to and from them.Expanding existing airports or findingsites for new airports is very difficult.

Chapter 6 — Freight Mobility

Freight mobility is absolutely essentialto the modern world. The ability totransport large volumes of goodslong distances at very low costsenables cities to exist, farmers to findmarkets for their crops, firms to reapthe advantages of specialized produc-tion, and consumers to have accessto a vast variety of goods at afford-able prices. The importance of freightmobility is not confined to the long-distance movement of goods. Theefficient movement of freight withinan urban area, or over regional dis-tances (100–500 kilometers) is a keyto competitiveness.

There are several important sustain-ability concerns with respect tofreight. One of these is the amount ofenergy used. Although much freighttransportation is relatively energy-effi-cient, the sheer volume of freightmoved means that the total energyrequirement of the world’s freighttransportation systems is quite large.Freight transportation uses an estimat-

ed 43% of all transportation energy atpresent. Vehicles transporting freightalso contribute in an important wayto emissions of conventional pollu-tants as well as greenhouse gases.Freight vehicles also contribute to traf-fic congestion, noise, and accidents.Freight handling facilities are majorusers of land, especially in and nearcities. As in the case of personal motorvehicles in the developed world,improvements are being made in theemissions characteristics of freight-hauling vehicles, especially trucks.However, the continuing shift infreight traffic from less-polluting rail tomore-polluting trucks is serving to off-set these improvements. This trendtoward increasing volumes of truckfreight traffic is also offsettingimprovements in truck energy effi-ciency. The growing use of air freightto move small packages is a trend thatis increasing the energy used (and thegreenhouse gas emissions) of the airtransportation system.

Chapter 7 — Worldwide Mobilityand the Challenges to ItsSustainability

In this final chapter we bring togetherthe pictures presented in the previoussix chapters to summarize what wehave learned about the state ofworldwide mobility and the majorchallenges to its sustainability as weenter the twenty-first century. Wepresent a summary picture of thestate of mobility in the developedand developing world. We then iden-tify the major cross-cutting challengesto the sustainability of mobility andindicate where things stand both asto the level and the rate of change ofthese challenges. Finally, we translatethese findings into their implicationsfor various transportation modes.

With regard to the automobile andother personal-use light vehicles, wefind that the major developed-worldchallenge is to preserve (and, if possi-ble, enhance) the desirable mobilitycharacteristics of automobile-basedmobility systems while reducing (or,preferably, eliminating) the nonsus-tainable characteristics of these

mobility systems. The nonsustainableaspects include: the adverse conse-quences on certain groups in society(especially the poor and the elderly)that the growth of automobility hashad on their ability to obtain accessto aspects of life now consideredcommonplace in most developedcountries; the light-duty vehicle’scontribution to various environmentaland ecological problems; the auto-mobile’s significant contribution todeath and injury due to occupantsand accidents; and the automobile’scontribution to congestion.

The major challenge in the develop-ing world is to avoid being choked —literally and figuratively — by therapid growth in the number of pri-vately owned motorized personal-transportation vehicles. This growth iscausing the same environmental,safety, and congestion problems asexist in the developed world, but inmuch of the developing world, theyare worse, and becoming more so.

With regard to air travel, the majorchallenge is to avoid the disadvan-tages of success. Some way needs tobe found to increase the ability of theworld’s airports and airway systems tohandle the projected growth in airtraffic in a manner that the public willfind acceptable. And looming on thehorizon is the formidable challenge ofdealing with the energy requirementsand greenhouse gas emissions of thistransport mode.

With regard to passenger rail sys-tems, the challenge is to find waysof attracting the number of passen-gers needed to realize their favorableemissions and energy-use character-istics. Siting problems will also loomlarge if many countries do indeedundertake major programs toupgrade their passenger rail systems.The sustainability challenges facingmotorized freight have much incommon with those facing the auto-mobile — emissions, congestion,and safety.

mobility 2001


www.wbcsdmobility.org1-18

introduction

There is one additional major sustain-ability task facing all modes in allparts of the world — the job of devel-oping sufficient institutional capacityto enable the other challenges to bemet. Technology offers hope in solv-ing (or at least mitigating) many ofthe challenges to achieving sustain-able mobility. But technology cannotdo this on its own. Transportationsystems are very complex, very long-lived, and affect large numbers ofpeople in many different ways.Building consensus about what needsto be done to make mobility sustain-able, and then implementing whatthis consensus implies, will be atremendous challenge, especially indemocratic countries where everyonewith a stake in something candemand to be heard. This may be thegreatest challenge of all to achievingsustainable mobility — and one inwhich business will have an impor-tant role to play.


This chapter reviews several trends that influence the demand for and supply of mobility around the world.The first is the growth of population, especially the urban population, in both the developed and developingworld. In the developed world especially, this growth in urbanization is being accompanied by a decline inaverage population density — a phenomenon we refer to as “suburbanization.” The second is the surprisingstability over at least the past 50 years in the average amount of time that individuals spend traveling eachday and the average share of their disposable income that they spend on transportation. Increases in averagedistances traveled have resulted from the use of faster and more flexible modes, not increased travel time.The third is the developments in vehicle and propulsion technologies that have improved the productivityand performance of transportation systems. The fourth is the transportation sector’s almost total reliance on asingle, nonrenewable fuel — petroleum. This final trend also means that the transportation sector is inevitablya focus of attention in the debate over global climate change, since the combustion of petroleum producescarbon dioxide.

Mobility in the twenty-first century has many faces: the Boston businessmancommuting to his “streetcar suburb” in a light-rail vehicle (i.e., trolley); theDublin mother driving her children through new suburbs west of the city; theKenyan village woman walking several kilometers to fetch water each day; theBangkok manufacturer ferrying her goods to market in a three-wheeled, motor-ized cart; and the Yokohama longshoreman discharging Saudi Arabian oil fromNorwegian tankers. Despite the vast differences of means and motive for travelaround the world, past patterns of mobility share certain characteristics that arelikely to persist into the foreseeable future: people travel daily, to obtain food, tofind work, to play and relax. As people’s incomes rise, they travel farther andfaster, and they purchase more and more goods — an appetite that the increas-ingly cheap and efficient system of global freight works to satisfy. More andmore people live in cities, or in the suburbs that spread inexorably around them,and the majority prefer automobiles above all other means of transport — achoice that has wide and profound consequences for their neighbors and theirenvironments. Perhaps the most important result of more motorized travel is theworld’s increasing dependence on one source of energy, petroleum-based fuels.These trends pose challenges to both the operational sustainability of mobility, aswell as to its economic, social, and environmental sustainability, and must beaccounted for in planning for a healthy and prosperous future.

Notes are gathered at the end of each chapter.

patterns of mobility,demand, technology, and energy use

The most obvious commonality is thatall people travel. Even people at thevery bottom of the world’s economicladder must travel for survival — forfood or water or work — perhapsusing the most basic means of travel,walking or bicycling or animal trans-port. Therefore, when world popula-tions grow, total travel grows. Andpopulation is growing, more thandoubling in the last 50 years andincreasing by about 75 million peopleper year. More than 95% of thisgrowth is in developing countries,whose networks of roads, trains, andairports are barely able to accommo-date the present demand for mobility.The lack of finances to invest in addi-tional infrastructure further inhibitsfuture potential for growth.

Many of the urban areas in whichthese growing populations areincreasingly concentrated are nowmegacities, which pose special prob-lems of congestion, pollution, andland use while still needing to provideopportunities for growing passengerand freight mobility.1

Compounding the mobility demandsof an increasingly large and moreurban population is the traveldemand created by rising income.Data from all regions of the worldover the last 50 years demonstratethat travel (the average number ofkilometers traveled per person, perday) increases as income increases —and income, however unevenly dis-tributed, is increasing around theworld. As income rises, peopleincreasingly take trips for reasonsother than survival. For example, inthe industrialized world, only about20% to 25% of all travel is now work-related.

Another noteworthy historical obser-vation is that people travel farther astheir incomes rise, but they do nottravel for longer periods of time. Onaverage, they spend roughly an houra day traveling, regardless of dis-tance. That means, of course, thatpeople shift to faster means of trans-portation, from walking to bus, trainor two- and three-wheeled vehicles,then to cars, and ultimately to high-speed trains and airplanes. This moveto faster vehicles is not only more

expensive but consumes more energyper passenger-kilometer traveled.

Almost all of the motorized vehicles(except for electrified trains) shareone crucial characteristic: they aredriven by a combustion engine. Noother transportation power plant canmatch the compactness, cost, flexibil-ity, and reliability of the two widelyused versions of this engine — thegasoline spark-ignition and the dieselcompression-ignition engine. Duringthe past century, technical advancesin these combustion engines, and thevehicles they power, have yieldedsteady improvement in the perfor-mance, convenience, and safety of allmotorized vehicles. Current trendssuggest these engines will continueto improve, forming a powerful com-petitive barrier for new technologicalentrants to the marketplace.

A similar situation holds for large air-craft: they are propelled by gas-tur-bine-based jet engines. This propul-sion technology provides superiorperformance at lowest cost, and ittoo has developed substantially over

patterns of mobility, demand, technology, and energy use


the past several decades and contin-ues to improve.

The fuels these engines use formanother crucial characteristic of trans-port technology: 96% of all the ener-gy used for transportation, for bothpassengers and freight worldwide,comes from a single raw material —petroleum. Fuels derived frompetroleum have attractive technicalcharacteristics and historically havebeen available in adequate supply ata reasonable price, despite steadyincreases in demand. Even thoughworld demand for transportationenergy is projected to double in thenext 25 years, an adequate supply ofconventional petroleum or other fossilfuels, at a competitive price, is likelyto be available for decades. However,market disturbances are possible,since most known reserves of conven-tional petroleum are located in theMiddle East, currently a politicallyunstable region.

A key issue of sustainable transporta-tion is that fuels derived from fossilresources, petroleum or alternatives,result in large CO2 emissions duringfuel manufacture and consumption.As policies emerge to constrain CO2and other greenhouse gas emissionsfrom the transportation sector, morefuel-efficient vehicles can make animportant contribution to sustainablemobility. However, ultimately it maybe necessary to harness cleaner, alter-

native sources of energy, such as bio-fuels or the carbon-free production ofhydrogen and electricity.

TRENDS IN POPULATION ANDURBANIZATION

The most significant factors drivingdemand for mobility in the twentiethcentury are the rapid growth in thenumber of people in the world, theirsteady migration into cities, and thedecline in the population density(inhabitants per square kilometer) ofthese cities. At the beginning ofindustrialization in the mid-nine-teenth century, world population wasaround 1.2 billion. Between 1900 and1950, it grew from 1.7 to 2.5 billion.Between 1950 and the end of thecentury, it more than doubled, reach-ing 6.1 billion in 1998. In the earlytwenty-first century, world populationis expected to continue to grow, butat a declining rate. Most projectionsforesee a combination of low fertilityand low mortality leading to a peakof about 10 billion people in the mid-dle of this century. Although this levelis still below the higher range ofrecent estimates of the earth’s carry-ing capacity of 12 billion people(Cohen 1995), such growth in popu-lation imposes increasing pressure onthe earth’s resources.

Urbanization and itsConcentration in the DevelopingWorld

Two trends that have dominatedpopulation patterns in the last half-century — urbanization and the con-centration of population growth inthe developing world — are expectedto extend into the coming decades.

Though the extent of urbanizationvaries widely across the globe — only37% of Asians live in cities, as opposedto 77% of North Americans — thetrend across the globe has been, andcontinues to be, toward increasedurbanization.2 Figure 2-1 shows thatlast century’s trend of populationgrowth in urban regions is expected tocontinue through 2030. Indeed, it isexpected that after 2015, growth inthe world’s urban population willexceed total growth, implying a netdecline in the world’s rural population.

The industrialized world is alreadylargely urbanized: About 75% of itspopulation is currently concentratedin urban areas, and this share is pro-jected to increase to nearly 85% by2030. By contrast, only 40% of thepopulation in the countries of thedeveloping regions lives in urbanareas, though there are regions thatare highly urbanized — e.g., LatinAmerica, where 75% of the popula-tion is urbanized (UN 2001). By2030, urban areas in the developingworld are expected to house about56% of the entire population of thoseregions. Globally, 60% of the worldpopulation is projected to reside inurban areas in 2030, up from approx-imately 47% in 2000.

The other trend dominating popula-tion trends is the gradual stabilizationof population growth in the devel-oped world, and a consequent con-centration of growth in the develop-ing world. As Figure 2- 2 shows, inthe period between 1950 and 2000,the population of the developedworld grew by 46%, from 810 millionto 1.19 billion. In contrast, the popu-lation of the developing worldincreased by nearly 200%, from 1.7

mobility 2001


Medians Don’t Tell the Whole Story

It helps to understand the past and likely near future of mobility by looking at broad

aggregate trends such as median travel growth, times, distances, or expenditures in an

entire region. But those aggregations disregard the facts that travel behavior of individ-

uals is widely dispersed around the medians, many higher and many lower. Some data

from passenger travel in the United States during 1995 vividly illustrate how wide this

dispersion is for time spent traveling, money spent on travel, number of trips per day,

and average distance of a trip.

Here are a few numbers from the data: Median travel time is about 45 minutes a day,

but 20% of people travel more than 100 minutes a day; median household expendi-

tures on travel are about 12% of disposable income, but 20% of households spend

more than 25%; the median person makes about 2 ½ trips a day, but 20% of people

make more than five trips a day; and the average trip length is about four kilometers,

but 20% of trips are at least 15 kilometers. At the other end of the spectrum are the

people that travel much less than the medians — the old, the infirm, and the poorest.

billion to 4.9 billion. These trends areexpected to continue, and most ofthe population growth in the comingdecades will be in the developingworld. As noted above, it is estimatedthat the population of the world willincrease by about 2 billion people to8.1 billion by 2030. The developingworld — particularly the urbanregions — is expected to be responsi-ble for virtually all of this growth.Already today, developing countrieshost 80% of the world population,and this share is projected to rise to85% by 2030.

The consequence of these two trends —the process of urbanization, and itsincreasing concentration in the devel-oping world —is most strikingly illus-trated by the increase in the numberof megacities. As Table 2-1 shows, in1950 New York City was the world’sonly megacity, with a population of12.3 million. By 2000, 19 citiesworldwide had grown to that size —only four of them were in the indus-trialized world. According to projec-tions by the United NationsPopulation division, the number ofmegacities will increase to 23 by2015, and 18 of them will be indeveloping countries. The sheer num-ber and size of these cities imposesignificant challenges, ranging fromefficient energy and transportationsystems to health and social con-cerns, including sanitation, safety,and housing.

Suburbanization

The population “explosion” in theworld’s cities has been accompaniedby a contemporaneous process ofsuburbanization: an expansion of theurban region and a trend toward alower density of activity than evidentbefore the middle of the twentiethcentury. Though suburbanization hasprogressed at different rates acrossthe world, and has taken on differ-ent characteristics in different places,there has been a near-universaltrend toward redistributing theurban population across a greatergeographic area.

Transportation has played an impor-tant role in facilitating this trend.Starting in the mid-nineteenth centu-ry, urban residents have taken advan-tage of the introduction of ever-fasterand more flexible means of trans-portation to move farther away fromthe city center. The electric trolleys ofthe late-nineteenth century made thefirst waves of European and NorthAmerican suburbs accessible to dailycommuters. Compared to walkingand horse carriages, the trolleyoffered a fourfold increase in speed.This allowed people to double thedistance between their suburban resi-dence and their city-center office,and still make the same number oftrips in the same amount of time. Thewidespread use of automobiles after1950 increased the range that can becovered per unit time by almost one

order of magnitude, and allowed sub-urbs to expand dramatically.

Although proliferating in size andnumber across the globe, suburbsare especially popular in the UnitedStates. American suburbs grew forseveral reasons, including the expan-sion of interstate and ring-road high-ways to facilitate automobile travel;the flat-rate fare scheme of manymetro and train systems (allowingpeople living farther out to pay thesame fare that other commuterspaid for a shorter trip); abundantand cheap land; low interest ratefinancing schemes for home buyers(in the past often offered by the trol-ley companies); and the quicklyerected (often self-assembled) bal-loon-frame house (Jackson 1985). Asa result, urban areas grew muchfaster than their populations.Between 1970 and 1990 alone, pop-ulation in the New York Citymetropolitan area grew by only 8%,while the urban area itself increasedby as much as 65% (Doyle 2001).

Urban expansion in the developingworld is also accelerating, often inways similar to the expansion takingplace in the industrialized world. And,as in the developed world, the realestate market has a large role in facili-tating urban outgrowth in developingcountries. For example, in Prague,large real estate companies have in



recent years been purchasing largetracts of peripheral lands for residen-tial and commercial megaprojects.

Another feature distinguishing subur-banization in the developing worldhas been the preponderance of theurban poor on the periphery. In citiesranging from New Delhi to theColombian cities of Bogotá and Cali,the urban poor forced out of the citycenter either by high rents, or occa-sionally by diktat, inhabit large tractsof the periphery. Facilitating themobility of this segment of the popu-lation is a particularly significant and

important challenge to the sustain-ability of the developing world city.

PATTERNS OF TRAVEL BEHAVIORAND DEMAND

The Effect of Income on TravelBehavior

Rising incomes are driving traveldemand across the globe. As peopleearn more, they can afford faster,mechanized travel, and travel fartherin a shorter period of time. The firsthumans roved through forests, grass-lands, and waters, searching for food.After settling down, they cultivated

land and herded animals, using farmanimals if they were wealthy enoughto buy them. Still, their movementswere determined by mainly one pur-pose: survival. Not much changeduntil the beginning of industrializa-tion, when real incomes began risingin many parts of the world, morepeople could afford to make tripsbeyond those necessary for survival,and motorized transport made thosetrips feasible. Even today, low-incomeresidents in the cities of the develop-ing world typically take only one ortwo trips per day. One trip is dedicat-ed to a combination of work (short-term survival) and education (longer-

mobility 2001


Table 2-1. Population of cities with 10 million inhabitants or more — 1950, 1975, 2000, and 2015 (in millions)

1950 1975 2000 2015

City Pop. City Pop. City Pop. City Pop.

1. New York 12.3 1. Tokyo 19.8 1. Tokyo 26.4 1. Tokyo 26.4

2. New York 15.9 2. Mexico City 18.1 2. Mumbai (Bombay)

26.1

3. Shanghai 11.4 3. Mumbai (Bombay)

18.1 3. Lagos 23.2

4. Mexico City 11.2 4. São Paulo 17.8 4. Dhaka 21.1

5. São Paulo 10.0 5. New York 16.6 5. São Paulo 20.4

6. Lagos 13.4 6. Karachi 19.2

7. Los Angeles 13.1 7. Mexico City 19.2

8. Kolkata (Calcutta)

12.9 8. New York 17.4

9. Shanghai 12.9 9. Jakarta 17.3

10. Buenos Aires 12.6 10. Kolkata (Calcutta)

17.3

11. Dhaka 12.3 11. Delhi 16.8

12. Karachi 11.8 12. Metro Manila 14.8

13. Delhi 11.7 13. Shanghai 14.6

14. Jakarta 11.0 14. Los Angeles 14.1

15. Osaka 11.0 15. Buenos Aires 14.1

16. Metro Manila 10.9 16. Cairo 13.8

17. Bejiing 10.8 17. Istanbul 12.5

18. Rio de Janiero 10.6 18. Bejiing 12.3

19. Cairo 10.6 19. Rio de Janiero 11.9

20. Osaka 11.0

21. Tianjin 10.7

22. Hyderabad 10.5

23. Bangkok 10.1

Source: UN (2001).

term well-being), and sometimesanother is taken for personal business(usually shopping at local markets).With rising income, people continueto dedicate one trip to the combina-tion of work and education, but thentake additional trips associated withpersonal business (e.g., shopping fora variety of goods, health care, andreligious services) and leisure (includ-ing holidays).

People also tend to increase the dis-tances they travel roughly in propor-tion to increases in their incomes,particularly as they start to accessfaster modes. That pattern has beenremarkably constant in all areas of theworld over the last 50 years, rangingfrom regions with an average annualgross domestic product (GDP) as lowas $500 per capita up to regions witha GDP as high as $20,000 per capita(Figure 2-3). Other factors can comeinto play. For example, the higherpopulation density (shorter distancesto travel between places) and greatertransport prices in Europe (comparedto North America) decrease demand,so Europeans travel about a third lessdistance than North Americans at thesame GDP per person. Still, incomeremains the dominant factor in set-

ting overall travel demand for thevery large populations of peopledescribed in this report.

In the richer industrialized world inthe last 50 years, higher expenditureson travel increased the total daily triprate to more than three trips per per-son, and the average trip distancerose by a factor of 2-3. Meanwhile,work-related travel declined to only20% to 25% of all travel, and sometravel became an end in itself, oftenjust for the sake of experiencing thefreedom provided by driving an auto-mobile. Traveling to survive no longerdominates the demand for mobility.

Although the total distances traveledincreased over the last 25 years, it issomewhat surprising to note that thetime spent traveling remained rough-ly constant in many different coun-tries over many different time peri-ods. For example, Americans andDutch who traveled 40 to 60 kilome-ters per person per day spent aboutthe same time traveling, a little overan hour a day, as Tanzanians andGhanians, who traveled only about 5kilometers per day (Figure 2-4). Asexpected, within the overall average

for any particular region, there can belarge differences among groups; forexample, in the UK people over 70years of age spent only about half asmuch time traveling as people intheir 30s and 40s.

Another pattern is that people inindustrialized regions spend roughly11% to 16% of their disposableincome on travel, regardless of theaverage daily distance traveled —whether they are Americans whotravel over 60 kilometers a day orBritons who travel about 30 kilome-ters a day (Figure 2-4). Densely popu-lated, with fewer cars and moredeveloped commuter trains, Japan isan exception at 7% to 8%. People innondeveloped regions spent a smallershare of their income on travel, butthat is likely to rise as industrializationprogresses.

Considering the wide range of placesand circumstances around the world,it is remarkable that people’s traveltime is so consistent. There is nowholly satisfactory explanation of theresults. One could argue that onlyabout an hour or so for travel is leftafter typical time expenditures of



eight hours for sleeping, nine hoursfor work and free time, four hours fordomestic obligations and child care,and two hours for eating and person-al care. But all those “typical” timeallocations can be higher or lower,leaving less or more time for travel.

The fixed amount of time that peo-ple budget for travel means that anyincrease in daily travel distance mustbe satisfied by a faster means oftransportation. Rising income andtransportation expenditures enablethe use of ever-faster means of trav-el, and these in turn expand the dis-tance that can be covered within afixed travel time. As income anddaily travel distances rise, the per-centage of trips made by automobilealso tends to rise. While it is nowbelow 10% in the developing world,it has risen to roughly 50% inWestern Europe, and to nearly 90%in the United States.

Travel Growth: From Walking toCars to Planes

The broad patterns of travel be-havior — increasing trip frequency,trip distance, and travel expenditureas incomes rise — become evident inthe statistics of passenger transporta-tion around the world. Between

1950 and 1997, the total number ofkilometers traveled each year byeach person then on earth went upmore than threefold. The total trans-portation system, accommodatingboth that per capita increase andpopulation increase, provided overeightfold more passenger-kilometersin 1997 than in 1950.

The average world growth rate ofkilometers traveled annually has beenrising at an impressive rate of 4.6%per year. The growth rate in somepoor regions is even larger. China isthe premier example, growing at9.4% per year, although from anadmittedly low base. Table 2-2 listssome statistics of growth, in bothabsolute and percentage terms, by allmeans of transportation over the1950-1997 period. Total passengertravel in industrialized regions of theworld is now roughly equal to totaltravel in all other regions; it wasalmost four times as large in 1950.Nondeveloped countries closed thetotal-travel gap and will move ahead,perhaps far ahead, in the future.Although there is equality in totalpassenger miles traveled, annual percapita travel is still about six times ashigh in industrialized countries aselsewhere.

In addition to overall growth mea-sured by total distance traveled, therehave been major shifts among meansof transport. As people earn moreand travel more, they use faster ormore convenient (and less energy-efficient per passenger-kilometer)vehicles, automobiles in particular.The greatest loser is therefore travelby rail, worldwide. In fact, since1950, rail travel has decreased dra-matically as a share of the total travel,especially in nondeveloped regionswhere it was the dominant form ofmotorized travel (see Figure 2-5).

In industrialized regions over the last50 years, automobiles accounted fora roughly stable 70% to 75% of thepassenger-kilometers traveled, withhigher percentages in North Americaoffsetting lower percentages else-where. By contrast, in nondevelopedregions, automobile travel rose fromless than 20% of the total in 1950 toabout 40% now, and that share iscontinuing to rise.

Bus travel in industrialized regionsdeclined steadily to a share wellunder 10%, while it has risen else-where to about 45% — providing thepreferred method of public trans-portation as railway use declines.

mobility 2001




Table 2-2. Growth in passenger-kilometers traveled

1950 1997 AAGR*, %/yr

Per

Capita Total

(billions) Per

Capita Total

(billions) Per

Capita Total

(billions)

Industrialized Regions

4,479 2,628 16,645 14,951 2.8 3.8

Other Regions 373 717 2,627 12,998 4.2 6.4

World 1,334 3,345 4,781 27,949 2.8 4.6

Specific Segments

United States 11,205 1,706 24,373 6,530 1.7 2.9

Western Europe 1,668 542 12,631 5,658 4.4 5.1

Former Soviet Union 705 127 4,152 1,250 3.8 5.0

China NA NA 1,313 1,634 NA NA

India 348 125 1,457 1,392 3.1 5.3

Source: Updated database based on Schafer (1998). *Average Annual Growth Rate, 1950 to 1997. NA–Data not available.

The share of travel by air or high-speed rail has grown rapidly in indus-trialized regions. Air travel is expectedto grow faster, measured as an annu-al percentage growth rate, than anyother travel mode in all regions dur-ing the next 20 years.

Focusing on motorized transportmakes it easy to forget how much ofthe world’s population travels on footor by bicycle. Walking or bicyclingaccounts for more than half of alltrips made in a number of Indiancities, and 60% to 90% of all trips inmany Chinese cities. In poorer ruralareas, the dominance of nonmotor-ized transport is even stronger.Although roughly one-third of all“trips” are made on foot in OECDcountries, the short trip lengths (gen-erally well below one kilometer) resultin an almost negligible traffic volume.Travel surveys suggest that walkingaccounts for less than 5% of totalpassenger-kilometers in WesternEuropean countries and merely 1/2%in the United States.

Implications for the Future

In the earliest years of industrialdevelopment, bus and bicycle travelincreased to supplement walking andanimal transport. With further devel-opment, automobiles began makinginroads to the extent that money andtraffic would bear. At the highest lev-els of industrialization, the share ofautomobile travel peaks and maydecline as higher-speed, higher-costoptions are used more often.

Changes in travel demand during thelast 50 years in developed countriesgive us a clue about likely futuretrends in other developing countries.Since 1950, the Western Europeantransportation system has been com-pletely transformed. While buses andrailways accounted for 70% of totaltraffic volume in 1950, their sharewas only 15% in 1997, a declinecaused primarily by competition fromthe automobile, with its flexibility ofschedule, comfort and convenience,and higher door-to-door speed.Between 1950 and the early 1980s,

the automobile increased its share intraffic volume from 30% to 74%.Since then, it has begun to declineslightly because of the more rapidlyincreasing traffic volume of aircraftand high-speed rail. Experience in thePacific OECD region, mainly Japan,was similar. The share of conventionalrailway traffic dropped from 80% in1950 to some 30% in 1990.

Some centrally planned economieschecked the growth of automobilesby making it difficult or expensive toacquire private vehicles, yet even inthose countries growth persisted,driven by the almost universal desireto have full control over personalmobility.

If the patterns of the developedworld repeat themselves in develop-ing nations, concerns about environ-mental sustainability will increase.Large new capital investments ininfrastructure will be needed, bothCO2 and other emissions will riserapidly, and the urban congestionthat is nearly ubiquitous will chal-lenge the very operability of theroad system. In the highly densecities of China, India, and elsewherethat depend heavily on pedestrianand bicycle travel, substantial land-use changes would be necessary torelocate urban residents to lessdense neighborhoods and suburbs,with required road and public trans-port links.

One particular outcome of growingmobility in the developing world willbe an increase in the use of energyfor transportation, and consequentCO2 emissions, in a proportiongreater than the increase in total pas-senger-kilometers traveled. In theaggregate, developed countries nowuse about twice as much energy asdeveloping countries per average pas-senger-kilometer traveled. With thedecline of railroads, the option ofusing electricity for transportationenergy has also declined, thusincreasing the almost-exclusivereliance on liquid fuels.

These trends raise concerns aboutthe prospective growth of automo-bile travel in developing regions.Between 1950 and 1997, the worldautomobile fleet increased from 50to 580 million vehicles — a fivefoldincrease in vehicles per capita. Butthe nondeveloped regions, despitehaving about 85% of the world’spopulation, now have only about25% of those vehicles. Developingcountries with low motorization rates(less than about one vehicle per 10inhabitants) but rapid economicgrowth may add vehicles to theirfleets at very high rates — as high as10% to 30% per year, compared totypical rates below 5% for fullydeveloped countries. Rates ofincrease that rapid would make espe-cially heavy demands for new infras-tructure and result in sharply higheremissions and congestion.

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY

Some Vehicle Fundamentals

It takes energy to move mass — peo-ple and goods. In all vehicles, energyis consumed to produce mechanicalpower in the engine. That powerdrives the wheels of land vehicles, thepropeller for a ship, or provides thrustfor a jet aircraft. This driving powerovercomes the resistances to vehiclemotion: the air (or water) resistanceor drag, the rolling resistance of thetires on the roadway, the vehicle’sinertia as it accelerates, the incline ofa hill, and the high altitude to whicha plane must ascend. Generally, thepower required to accelerate vehiclesat rates that match drivers’ needs andwants is much larger than the powerrequired to drive at steady speed on alevel road. Air resistance is propor-tional to vehicle frontal area; theother resistances are proportional tovehicle mass. Thus vehicle size andweight are critical parameters indetermining vehicle energy use.

In wheeled vehicles, the efficiencywith which the engine and drive trainconvert fuel to power at the wheelsobviously also affects energy use.Efficiencies vary between the differentengine and transmission technologies

mobility 2001


used in wheeled vehicles, and withthe type of driving practiced. Inurban settings with frequent low-speed driving and significant timespent idling, these efficiencies arelower. Under higher-speed highwaydriving conditions, these efficienciesare higher. Table 2-3 illustrates theseenergy conversion efficiencies for typ-ical engines and drive trains.Reducing the energy consumption ofa vehicle thus requires some combi-nation of reduced vehicle weight,size, or drag, or improved engine ortransmission efficiency.

Historical Perspective

Today’s transportation technologiesoriginated in the discovery ofpetroleum in 1859, the invention ofthe four-stroke spark-ignition engineby Nicolaus Otto in 1876, the com-pression-ignition or diesel engine byRudolf Diesel in 1892, and the jetengine by Frank Whittle in the 1930s.The high power per unit weight andsize of these engines, their compati-bility with high energy density fuelsderived from petroleum, and the lowcost of both engines and fuels, havebeen the key requirements for large-scale use of motorized transportationvehicles.

The most ubiquitous transportationvehicle is the automobile. In 1950,there were about 50 million cars onthe world’s roads, 76% of them inthe United States. The global auto-mobile fleet (including all four-wheelpersonal vehicles) is now about 600million. On average the fleet grew bymore than 10 million vehicles peryear over this period. Simultaneously,the truck and bus fleet grew by about3.6 million vehicles per year.Although the growth rate has slowedin the highly industrialized countries,population growth and increasedurbanization and industrialization areaccelerating the use of motor vehicleselsewhere. Outside the United States,the growth in automobiles is especial-ly high, more than 8% per year.There are also approximately 100 mil-lion powered two-wheelers (two-wheeled motorized vehicles) aroundthe world, and they have increased

by about four million vehicles peryear over the past decade.

In parallel with this growth in thetotal market, vehicles have evolved,as well. The engine, transmission,and body technologies are makingsteady strides in sophistication andperformance. The key vehicleattributes — performance, efficiency,ease of starting, driveability, range,reliability and durability, convenienceand comfort, emissions, safety —have all improved significantly. At thesame time, the diversity of modelsavailable to the public — vehicle size,configuration, style, purpose — hasincreased substantially, too. Thisdiversity is fueled by increasing afflu-ence in the developed world, and bythe increased flexibility of modernproduction processes.

The oil crises in 1973 and 1979 pro-vided a strong impetus for vehicleefficiency improvements. In the fol-lowing decade, the fuel economy ofnew US passenger cars doubled.Since then, established technologies,such as gasoline spark-ignition anddiesel engines and transmissions, con-tinue to improve steadily throughincremental changes and the intro-duction of new technologies andmaterials (e.g., engine power andtorque per unit of displaced cylindervolume have been and are increasingabout 1% per year).

New materials with better perfor-mance and lighter weight, or lowercost, continue to be introduced (e.g.,aluminum and plastic replacing steel

in selected body panels, plastic intakemanifolds replacing aluminum, andrubber bumpers replacing chromedsteel). Manufacturers are also contin-uously introducing and refining newtechnologies. Exhaust catalyst systemsfor emissions control, introduced inthe 1990s are now extremely effec-tive at reducing emissions.Computers, sensors, and controlsimprove the functionality of enginesand transmissions, and provide newopportunities, such as anti-lock brak-ing systems and traction control, andsuch new convenience features asautomatic vehicle interior environ-ment control and navigation systems.Improving vehicle features throughthe use of new and improved tech-nology is an important marketingtool in an increasingly competitiveindustry.

Major improvements have also beenseen in heavy-duty trucks and aircraft.The former have been equipped withmore fuel-efficient engines and morestreamlined tractor units. The latterhave seen higher-bypass jet engines,the greater use of lighter materials,and the development of energy-sav-ing technologies such as winglets.Aircraft technology is discussed morefully in Chapter 5.

Current Technology Status

This historical evolution of vehiclesand technologies continues. As far aslight-duty personal vehicles are con-cerned, the trend is for more choicefor customers along all dimensions,and improved performance and func-tionality, often at reduced cost.Although there is increasing diversity



Table 2-3. Typical engine and transmission efficiencies

Technology

Urban Driving

Highway Driving

Gasoline engine 10%–15% 25%

Diesel engine 15%–22% 35%

Automatic transmission 70%–80% 85%

Manual transmission 85%–90% 90%–95%

Source: Weiss (2000). Note: These efficiencies are energy flow out/energy flow in. For engines, energy flow out is the power, energy flow in is the fuel.

in vehicle types, the technologiesused in these different types of vehi-cles are remarkably uniform. Smallerland vehicles (motorcycles, cars, lighttrucks) mostly use the cheaper gaso-line engine. Larger vehicles (buses,heavier trucks, rail) use the more effi-cient but heavier and more expensivediesel. In countries where fuel costsare high and taxes on diesel fuel arelower than taxes on gasoline, dieselengines are increasingly the buyer’schoice in light-duty vehicles (e.g., inFrance and Germany between 33 and50% of new cars are powered bydiesels). Both types of engine aresteadily improving in terms of perfor-mance, efficiency, emissions, weight,smoothness, and reliability. Severalmanufacturers recently put into pro-duction the direct-injection engine, anew, more efficient type of gasolineengine. Diesel engines are similarlyimproving, especially by increasingtheir power with more efficient tur-bochargers, and decreasing theiremission of pollutants. In light-dutyvehicles, diesels now provide perfor-mance that is as good as that withgasoline engines.

Due to current pressures to reducefuel consumption, air pollution, andCO2 emissions, substantial develop-ment efforts directed toward theseobjectives are under way within theautomotive and allied industries.Efforts to improve engine efficiencyby variable valve timing, cylinderdeactivation to reduce engine dis-placement during normal driving,reductions in engine friction andaccessory loads, and more sophisti-cated engine management, all showpromising potential. Some of theseapproaches, in their simpler form, arealready in production. Improved effi-ciency transmissions are being devel-oped with more gears, and new con-cepts, such as continuously variabletransmissions and clutched automati-cally shifted manual transmissions arebeing introduced. Vehicle weightreduction, through material substitu-tion and improved design, continues,as does the reduction of dragthrough more streamlined bodydesign and improved tires.

New propulsion system concepts arealso emerging. Most auto manufac-turers are planning a transition to 42-volt electrical systems to improve theefficiency of many on-board, electri-cally powered components.Significant improvements in fuel con-sumption can be achieved by switch-ing the engine off during idle.Integrated starter/generator systemsthat provide rapid engine restartappear promising. Various types ofhybrid electric propulsion systems —an internal combustion engine cou-pled with a battery and motor/gener-ator — are the focus of intensiveindustry efforts. Toyota and Hondahave recently introduced hybrid sys-tems into the passenger car market inlimited but significant numbers.Other automotive manufacturershave announced plans to start intro-ducing hybrids in cars, light trucks,and SUVs in the next couple of years.In low-speed, stop-and-go urban driv-ing (e.g., in Japan), these hybridsoffer large improvements in fuel effi-ciency, albeit at a significant increasein initial vehicle cost. The fuel efficien-cy benefits are still substantial but lessunder higher-speed driving condi-tions such as in the United States.One benefit of these more sophisti-cated hybrid systems is the recoveryof some of the vehicle’s kinetic energynormally dissipated in braking.

Another class of road vehicles widelyused in developing countries and inparts of Europe where the climate isfavorable comprises the relativelyinexpensive motor scooters, smallmotor bicycles, and “three-wheelers.”These provide significantly greatermobility (and goods-moving capaci-ty) than walking or bicycling, at costsfar below those of cars and lighttrucks in industrialized countries.Since these vehicles largely (but notexclusively) use inexpensive two-stroke gasoline engines, they havehigh emissions of air pollutants (espe-cially VOCs) and noise. Their numbersare substantial, some few hundredmillion, and they are an importantlow-cost component of transportationsystems in developing countries. Theyare, however, much less safe in anaccident than standard cars, and are

a significant contributor to the rela-tively high levels of traffic-accident-related fatalities in the parts of thedeveloping world where they areprevalent.

There have been parallel but moremodest technological developmentsin public transportation. Initiativesinclude a new generation of light-railvehicles (the Boeing Vertol LRT) in theUnited States, rubber-tired guidedsystems built in Japan and France,and several monorails, constructedmainly in Japan. By and large theseinnovations have had limited success;new systems and wholesale replace-ment technologies have thus farlargely failed to supplant traditionalregimes. Where public transportshares automobile technologies, it hasbenefited from manufacturers’improved fuel efficiency, reducedemissions, the increased use of moredurable and lighter materials, andelectronics in vehicles for communica-tions and control.

Buses have also benefited from tech-nological innovations, but rarely arethese given the public attentionfocused on modern light rail, thenewly arrived aristocrat of urbantransportation. The most importantinnovations have to do with theinfrastructure used by buses. Thereare many instances, especially in LatinAmerican cities and most Braziliancities, of buses being provided withexclusive rights of way. Automaticbus priority at intersections —widespread in Europe — is also a sig-nificant advance. Electronically guid-ed buses have recently been devel-oped but have yet to be proven inextended passenger service.

The main change in passenger rail-way technology since the 1970s isthe spread of electrification and theintroduction of high-speed rail.Automatic vehicle operations and“moving block” signaling have beenintroduced, but have not yet pro-duced much improvement over thebest conventional technology.Despite the application of advanced

mobility 2001


technology in Western Europe, Japan,and North America, the traditionalMoscow Metro still sets the worldstandard with its 40 trains per trackper hour and 99% reliability whilecarrying more passengers than all theurban rail systems in the UnitedStates put together.

Technological innovation in publictransport has been limited, partlybecause of issues of scale comparedwith that of the automobile, andbecause the technology is fragment-ed among countries, regions, andmanufacturers. A few global groupsemerged in the bus and, especially,rail industries, where the economiesfrom consolidation are greater. Ifhealthy competition is maintained,this should allow both enhancedtechnological innovation and lowerequipment purchase and mainte-nance costs. This trend is propelledby the privatization of public trans-port operations. Private operatorshave had to take a more commercialapproach to purchasing, with less ofthe customization and “buy local”policies that contributed to this frag-mentation in the past.

Sustainability Challenges Posedby the Technologies ofMotorization

Chapter 1 highlighted several disrup-tive impacts of motorization, such asinjuries and fatalities from traffic acci-dents, local air pollution, globalwarming, noise, access for the non-motorized, and long-lasting effects onecosystems through habitat interrup-tion and destruction. A subset ofthese sustainability challenges arerelated directly to the technologiesused to manufacture and operatemotor vehicles. The operation ofcombustion engines produces efflu-ents and CO2 emissions that increasethe concentration of greenhousegases in the atmosphere; consumeoil, which is a nonrenewableresource; and generate noise pollu-tion. The manufacture of vehiclesrequires the use of large volumes ofmaterials ranging from iron, steel,and aluminum, to lead, platinum,and palladium.

Air quality impact of automotivetechnology. As has been noted inChapter 1, motor vehicles account fora large share of the air pollution inour cities and surrounding metropoli-tan regions. Gasoline and diesel-fueled engines are the major sourceof hydrocarbon (HC), oxides of nitro-gen (NOx, reacting in the atmo-sphere to form ozone, which is dam-aging to human health, materials,and vegetation), carbon monoxide(CO), particulate matter, and (inmany urban regions outside theOECD) lead.

Significant technological strides havebeen made in automotive technolo-gy, with emissions from new vehiclesin the most strictly controlled regions90% to 98% lower than they wereprior to control. Expectations are thatemissions of air pollutants from vehi-cles will continue to decrease asstricter regulations are imposed, pri-marily through the development ofmore effective exhaust catalyst sys-tems. Important issues to beaddressed in reducing emissions arethe durability of these systems (solv-ing the high emitter problem), theirincreasing cost, and noble metalrequirements. Also of concern are theconstraints emissions requirementsimpose on developing more efficientgasoline engine technologies (exhaustafter-treatment technologies typicallyreduce a vehicle’s fuel efficiency). Fordiesel-engine vehicles, the develop-ment of effective exhaust treatmenttechnologies for particulates and NOxis a very high priority. Implemen-tation of such technologies, however,require simultaneous reduction in thesulphur content of the diesel fuel.Expectations are that such technolo-gies are likely to be developed andimplemented over the next decade.However, it will take time for them tobecome robust enough for extensiveuse in the market.

Global climate change impact ofautomotive technology. In addi-tion to the consumption ofpetroleum, a nonrenewable resource,the combustion of petroleum-basedfuels produces CO2, which is thought

to contribute to global climatechange. Indeed, transportation’simpact on the global climate goesbeyond the impact of vehicle emis-sions. Producing and distributingautomotive fuel, and producing, dis-tributing, maintaining, and recyclingvehicles in themselves can producesignificant greenhouse gas emissions.Analysis of such a “wells-to-wheels”impact of petroleum-based gasolineand diesel fuels suggests that thecombined energy production anddistribution efficiency is about 83%and 88%, respectively (Weiss et al.2000). For some other fuels, theenergy losses and hence CO2 emis-sions are significantly larger. In addi-tion, the energy required in the vehi-cle manufacturing process is equal toabout 10% of the total energy thatwill be used by the vehicle over itslifetime.

Aside from a dramatic change infuel — such as replacing petroleumfuels with biomass-derived fuels —reducing CO2 emissions from trans-portation requires a reduction in theamount of fuel consumed. Bettertechnology helps accomplish thatreduction by reducing vehicle resis-tance to motion, and by convertingfuel energy more efficiently tomechanical energy at the wheels.

Vehicle resistances (mass or inertia,aerodynamic drag, tire-rolling resis-tance) have decreased and engineand transmission efficiencies haveincreased over the past two decades,following the oil crisis of the 1970s.However, in the developed world thebenefits of these changes have beenpartly offset by increases in vehiclesize and performance. New types ofvans and sport utility vehicles, whichenjoy wide popularity in NorthAmerica and more recently in Europe,exacerbate the trend to increasedvehicle size, weight, and fuel con-sumption.

In the near future, it is anticipatedthat vehicle fuel consumption couldpotentially be reduced significantlythrough evolutionary improvements



in engines, transmissions, and vehiclematerials and design. Technologyimprovements such as material substi-tution and other weight reductionmeasures, development of increasing-ly higher power and more efficientengines, and changes that improvetransmission efficiency and use moreefficient engine operating regimes,are all continuing. In turn, vehicleswill steadily become more efficientover the next decade and beyond asthese technologies are refined.

There are, however, some trade-offsbetween fuel consumption improve-ments that can be achieved and themandated emissions reductionrequirements. In the United States, atleast, it has been claimed that thecontinued tightening of NOx stan-dards will make it impossible to usediesels in passenger cars, even withimproved NOx exhaust treatment.Very strict emissions standards inCalifornia are set for the next decadeto continue to achieve reductions intotal fleet emissions. Future standardsfor the United States nationwide,Japan, and Europe also tighten sub-stantially. The use of the more effi-cient diesel engine in light-duty vehi-cles could well be restricted by someof these requirements, until effectiveexhaust emissions treatment technol-ogy for diesels is developed.

Beyond these anticipated evolution-ary improvements in vehicle fuelconsumption (reduction by aboutone-third in 20 years, at constantvehicle performance), incorporatingnew technology (e.g., lighter materi-als such as aluminum and hybridpropulsion systems) can provideadditional fuel consumption reduc-tions (a further reduction of up toone-third below the anticipated evo-lutionary improvements).

Challenges posed by vehiclemanufacturing processes. Themanufacture of motor vehicles raisessustainability questions related toenergy use in the manufacturing pro-cess, CO2 emitted in the productionand fabrication of these materials,

and, in some isolated cases, to theavailability or cost of sufficient natu-ral resources. Iron and steel remainthe primary structural materials, butincreasing amounts of plastic, alu-minum, and fiber composites areused. Vehicle manufacturers regularlychange the materials they use as partof ongoing efforts to reduce cost,reduce weight, and to accommodateregulatory requirements. Advancedhigher-strength steels are permittinga reduction in the weight of steelused for the same strength.

A critical consideration is the abilityto recycle the materials in vehicles atthe end of their lifetimes. Producingvirgin material usually consumesmore energy than using recycledmaterials. A conspicuous example isaluminum. About 220 Megajoules(MJ) of energy are needed to pro-duce one kilogram of virgin alu-minum; about 40 MJ are needed forrecycled aluminum. This particularexample is important, as well asbeing conspicuous, since more alu-minum is likely to be used in futurevehicles in order to reduce weightand fuel consumption.

At present, a considerable percent-age of all ferrous metals are recycledin the automotive industry (about95% in the United States), althoughnot all of it is reused in vehicles(about 25% to 30% in the UnitedStates); much goes to less demand-ing applications. Smaller fractions ofother materials are recycled. Asmandatory recycling becomes morecommon around the world to con-serve energy, resources, and landfillspace, vehicle manufacturers areexpected to respond with materialsand recycling technologies thatincrease the levels and efficiency ofrecycling. For instance, it is likelythat uses will have to be found forthe less recycled plastics and shred-der residue materials where currentlyrecycling economics are unfavorable.

Although availability of traditionalmaterials is not a major issue, avail-ability of new materials could be. If

fuel cell propulsion systems becomecommon, the platinum-group metalsused for catalysts in fuel cell systemswill have to be almost entirely recov-ered and recycled; known naturalresources are insufficient for completevirgin supply.

mobility 2001


The Rise and (Partial)Fall of Lead in Gasoline

Awareness of the environmental

and health woes stemming from

exposure to lead has resulted in its

phaseout from gasoline in most of

the industrialized world and in

increasing parts of the developing

world. Compounds of lead were

first added to gasoline in the 1920s

in order to increase octane number

and thus allow engines to operate

at higher compression ratios and

higher efficiencies. However, the

lead was discharged into the atmo-

sphere with exhaust gases from the

engine. Because of increasing

awareness of lead’s toxicity, espe-

cially to children, steps to reduce

lead discharges were taken, first in

the Soviet Union in 1967, when

the sale of leaded gasoline was

banned in some large cities. In the

United States, significant phase-out

of lead in gasoline began in 1974,

when fuel suppliers were required

to offer at least one grade of

unleaded gasoline. The motive was

not only to reduce human expo-

sure to lead, but to make possible

the use of catalytic converters on

vehicles to reduce other pollutants

in exhaust gases. Lead in gasoline

poisoned the catalysts in the con-

verters, making the converters inef-

fective, as well as poisoning peo-

ple. The phaseout of lead contin-

ued, and was completed in the

United States in 1996, when all use

of leaded gasoline in highway vehi-

cles was banned. Similar phaseouts

have occurred, usually more slowly,

in other industrialized countries.

However, lead is still widely used in

many developing countries

because it is a cheaper and more

efficient way of increasing gasoline

octane number than the alterna-

tives available.

A final sustainability issue in recyclingis preventing escape of harmful mate-rials into the environment. For exam-ple, lead is a toxic material whose usein gasoline is being eliminatedaround the world, but whose use in

batteries cannot realistically be elimi-nated in the near future. Likewise forrefrigerants in vehicle air conditioningsystems; the CFCs (or HFCs) havepotent greenhouse effects if allowedto escape into the atmosphere ratherthan being safely recovered.

ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION

That petroleum-based fuels are farand away the leading source of ener-gy for transportation is the centralfact that dominates all discussion ofenergy and transportation. Everyvehicle requires energy to move. Inorder to supply that energy, morethan one liter of petroleum is con-sumed each day, on average, for eachof the six billion humans on earth. Inthe industrialized countries, trans-portation consumes more than half ofall petroleum used for all purposes. Indeveloping countries the share is lessthan half, but it is rising and isexpected to be at least half within adecade.

Not only does transportation need agreat deal of oil, it needs very littleenergy except oil. Fuels derived frompetroleum (crude oil) now accountfor more than 96% of all the energyused in transportation, a trend that isnot expected to decrease (IEA2000b). Other sources of transporta-tion energy — coal, natural gas, alco-hols, electric power — have been sig-nificant in particular places or times,but all have been minor fractions ofthe total. For many years, mobilityhas relied almost entirely on the avail-ability of petroleum fuels — gasoline,diesel fuel, jet fuel, and bunker (ship)fuel. There is little likelihood of great-ly reducing that dependence formany years to come even thoughconsumption of these fuels indefinite-ly at the expected levels of demand isunsustainable.

Petroleum Supply, Price, andTrends

The birth of the oil industry datesfrom the discovery of oil by “Colonel”Drake while drilling a well inPennsylvania in 1859, but it wasn’t

until the expansion of road infrastruc-ture and vehicles in the first half ofthe twentieth century that petroleumproduction expanded dramatically.Production during the second half ofthe century increased even morerapidly as a result of economic devel-opment around the world and thediscovery of large new low-costsources of petroleum in the MiddleEast (Table 2-4).

The price of crude oil, traditionallyexpressed around the world in USdollars per barrel, has not followedproduction in a continuous upwardpath. Average prices experiencedlarge and sometimes rapid fluctua-tions during the past quarter century.Since 1973, the price of crude oil(expressed in constant 1998 dollars)has ranged from a low of $12 to ahigh of $63 (EIA/US DOE 2000).Prices fluctuate within that range overshort time intervals. For example,they tripled between December 1998and August 2000 — provoking publicdemonstrations in Western Europeand the United States. Price instabilityis likely to continue, since the pricesbuyers are willing to pay for crude oilare highly sensitive to their expecta-tions about imbalances between sup-ply and demand — both of which aresensitive to changing economic andpolitical forces. Therefore, predictionsabout future oil prices are uncertainat best; there has been little “trend”for guidance about the future.

About 41% of all current oil produc-tion originates in the 11 membercountries — Venezuela, Nigeria, andIndonesia, plus eight countries in theMiddle East and North Africa — ofthe Organization of PetroleumExporting Countries (OPEC). OPECcountries also hold 77% of theworld’s reserves of crude oil (BP2000). OPEC members meet periodi-cally to agree on the total amount ofoil they will produce in an attempt tokeep market price in some targetrange that responds to the expectedbalance of supply and demand. Theprice at which large producers selltheir crude oil may have little to dowith the cost of production. In the



Vehicle EmissionsReduction — A QualifiedSuccess

Emission standards for cars were first

introduced in the United States and

Japan around 1970, followed shortly

thereafter in Europe. These require-

ments have been steadily made

more stringent every few years. The

state of California, with its severe

smog problems in Los Angeles, has

forced the pace with the strictest

standards for emissions of non-

methane hydrocarbons or organic

gases (NMOG) and oxides of nitro-

gen (NOx), the critical ingredients in

forming photochemical smog.

Today’s California emissions stan-

dards for these pollutants are about

1% and 6%, for NMOG and NOx,

respectively, of the precontrol grams-

per-mile vehicle emission rates.

These large reductions have been

achieved in part by reducing the

emissions from the conventional

gasoline-fueled internal combustion

engine but primarily by developing

catalysts, sensors, and control sys-

tems, that get rid of all but a few

percent of the emissions leaving the

engine. This per-vehicle emissions

reduction is an impressive success

story. However, its impact on urban

air quality is partly offset because it

takes some 15 years for the older,

higher-emitting cars to be retired

from the in-use vehicle fleet because

of steady growth in vehicle miles

traveled, and due failures in the

emission control technology in a

small fraction of vehicles. On-the-

road surveillance indicates that

5%–10% of the cars in use are

responsible for half the total fleet

emissions. Future regulations — both

stricter emissions standards (five

times stricter than today’s) and the

requirement for extensive on-board

diagnostics to identify failures — are

intended to offset growth and deal

with the “high-emitter” problem.

spring of 2001, Saudi Arabia, theworld’s largest crude oil producer,sold oil for about $25 per barrel; itcosts about $1 to $3 per barrel tofind, develop, and lift that oil to theterminal (IEA 2000c).

Assuming a crude oil price of $25 perbarrel, countries that import crude oil(most countries in the world) transferabout $350 billion a year to thecountries that export crude oil —about 30 countries with significantexports — for the 38 million barrels aday they buy. In addition, consumingcountries import and pay for about16 million barrels a day of refinedproducts. That total transfer of fundscan be a burden on poorer countriesand motivates the effort to useindigenous fuels, if possible. Even theUnited States, the world’s secondlargest crude oil producer, currentlyspends about 1% of its GDP onimported petroleum and products.

The cost of fuel to consumers is madeup of four elements: the cost of crudeoil to the refiner; the cost of refiningthe crude oil to final product fuels;the cost of distributing that fuel fromthe refinery to the vehicle tank; andthe taxes (or subsidies) imposed bygovernments on the fuel. For exam-ple, assuming crude oil prices of $22per barrel, Table 2-5 shows the com-position of the ex-tax cost of the fuelin the United States.

Although the ex-tax cost is 23 to 26cents per liter in the United States,taxes may increase the consumer costto as much as $1.00 per liter, as inthe UK. Consumer cost may be evenless than 23 cents in those develop-ing countries where fuel costs to con-sumers are subsidized by the govern-ment; in Nigeria the recent pumpprice of gasoline was 18 cents perliter (Economist 2001a). Fuel taxes orsubsidies are instruments of publicpolicy that may have multiple objec-tives, such as raising revenue orencouraging one fuel versus anotherthrough lower taxes; for example,France and Germany tax diesel fuel atonly about half the rate of gasoline.

Many analysts expect that the domi-nance of petroleum fuels for trans-portation will have to begin decliningat some time in the future, but thereal debate is about when. Thatexpectation is driven by two mainconsiderations of sustainability: cli-mate change through greenhousewarming and resource availability.

In addition to the CO2 emissionsfrom burning petroleum fuels in thevehicle, there are additional sourcesof energy consumption and CO2 thatcan be attributed to transportationfuels. One source is the energy used,and accompanying CO2 emitted, inproducing petroleum, refining it, anddelivering finished fuels to the vehicletank. As already noted, that energy isequal to about 10% to 15% of theenergy of the delivered fuel. Anothersource is the release or flaring of nat-ural gas that is unavoidably producedalong with petroleum in some oilfields, gas that cannot be used at the

site. Natural gas is largely methane, agas with about 21 times the potencyof CO2 as a greenhouse gas, andtherefore its release unburned can bea significant contributor to globalwarming.

Resource availability is a concern, asthere is a continuously rising demandfor crude oil that cannot be satisfiedindefinitely and economically byexploiting the currently estimatedresources of petroleum in the earth.Some other sources of transportationenergy are believed to be necessaryeventually, with a serious transitionbeginning in the next 20 to 50 years(e.g., Economist 2001b; US DOE2001). Linked to “availability” is thefact that 65% of the world’s knownreserves of conventional petroleumare located in the Middle East (BP2000), and there is concern about therest of the world being so dependenton such a politically volatile region.Natural resources other than conven-

mobility 2001


Table 2-4. World production of crude oil

Year

Production (million

tonnes/year)

1875 1

1900 21

1925 149

1950 525

1975 2,635

2000 ~3,700

2020 ~5,600

Sources: BP (1977), EIA/ US DOE (2001).

Table 2-5. Ex-tax consumer cost of fuels in the United States

Gasoline

Diesel Fuel

(cents per liter)

Crude Oil 14 14

Refining 8 5

Distribution _4 _4

Total 26 23

Source: Weiss (2000).

tional petroleum can also be used tomake transportation fuels (see featureboxes), and that somewhat eases con-cerns about “running out” of oil.

The possibilities of moving awayfrom petroleum-like fuels based onany fossil raw materials are widelydebated and analysts are not likely toreach a broad consensus in the nearfuture. In the meantime, oil usegrows apace. Both the InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA 2000b) and theUS Department of Energy (EIA/DOE2001) project that world demand fortransportation fuels (almost entirelypetroleum) will grow at 2.5% and2.8% per year respectively for thenext 20 years (see Table 2-6). Thosegrowth rates result in a doubling ofdemand in 25 to 28 years. Futureworld oil prices are seen somewhatdifferently by the two agencies, at$27 per barrel and $22 per barrelrespectively. It is no criticism of theseagencies to note that historically,most predictions of long-term priceshave been less than accurate.

IEA’s most recent World EnergyOutlook (IEA 2000b) expresses con-cern about the CO2 impacts resultingfrom the increase in transportationenergy demand in the “business-as-usual” reference case reflected inTable 2-6. In an alternative scenario,IEA concludes that a combination oftaxes, regulations, better technology,and demand restraint could stabilizeCO2 emissions after 2010 — but withunspecified effects on mobility.

Refining and Quality ofPetroleum Transportation Fuels

Before crude oil can be used fortransportation, it must be refined intoproducts suited for particular types ofengines, such as gasoline spark-igni-tion engines or diesel compression-ignition engines. Most refineries arelocated in oil-consuming countries,and crude oil is carried to those coun-tries from oil-producing countries inpipelines or large oil tankers.

Crude oil is a natural mixture of avast number of individual chemicalcompounds; most of them are hydro-carbons (compounds containing onlycarbon and hydrogen), but othercompounds contain additional atomssuch as sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.It is the objective of refining technol-ogy to sort out and modify the natu-ral petroleum compounds intogroups that function best in their enduses as fuel and other products.Refineries produce many products,including the main transportationfuels. The nature and volumes ofthose products depend on the typeof crude oil refined, the refineryequipment available, and thedemand from customers. Over theyears, refiners have had to accommo-date not only overall growth indemand but differences in growthrates among fuels and among coun-tries. Large changes in demand arenot easy to accommodate rapidly.Refineries are complex and capital-intensive, so lead time is required forboth design and construction of newequipment.

Table 2-7 shows that, parallelingrecent trends, there will be increas-ing demand for highway fuels(gasoline and diesel fuel) during thenext 20 years or so, and that therates of increase will be more thantwice as fast in developing countries(4.7% to 4.8% per year) as in indus-trialized countries (1.3 % to 1.7%per year). Furthermore, there is anespecially rapid rise in the demandfor air mobility, which should causeworld jet-fuel consumption to riseby 4% per year compared to 2.4%and 3.2% per year for gasoline anddiesel fuel respectively. All of thesechanges will require not only addi-tional crude oil production but alsonew refining capacity.

Highway fuels — gasoline for spark-ignition engines and diesel fuel forcompression-ignition engines — willremain dominant, with a totaldemand three to four times the totaldemand for non-highway fuels.Gasoline is more volatile than dieselfuel. It has a median boiling point ofabout 70°C to 125°C compared toabout 240°C to 300°C for diesel; theranges reflect the fact that optimumboiling points depend on climate,with lower boiling points preferred incolder climates. The two fuels also dif-fer in average chemical composition,which largely controls the ignitioncharacteristics of the fuel. Better gaso-lines have higher octane numbers thatpermit combustion to occur smoothlyand in a controlled way in the engine.Better diesel fuels have higher cetanenumbers that permit the fuel to ignite



Table 2-6. World oil demand and price, 2020

Units

IEA (OECD, Paris)

EIA (US DOE,

Washington)

Oil price 1999 US$ 27.04 22.41

Total oil demand Total growth, 1998–2020

MB/day %/year

114.7 1.9

119.6 2.3

Transport oil demand Transport oil growth, 1998–2020

MB/day %/year

57.8 2.5

~63* 2.8

Source: EIA/ US DOE (2001). *Assumes 96% of EIA transportation energy is oil.

as quickly as possible after injectioninto the engine. In general, the typesof molecules that have high octanenumbers also have low cetane num-bers, and vice versa.

Over the years, the quality of manytransportation fuels has changed,sometimes because of new require-ments for operating improvedengines, but often because of newenvironmental requirements toreduce emissions resulting from theuse of those fuels.

A current example is the requiredreduction of sulfur in both gasolineand diesel fuel over the next tenyears, with the objective of reducingemissions from vehicle exhaust, pri-marily by reducing the deteriorationof catalysts. New regulations in theUnited States will reduce sulfur ingasoline to 30 parts per million(0.003%) and in diesel fuel to 15parts per million (0.0015%). In theEuropean Union, the limit for bothfuels will be 10 parts per million(0.001%). Similar changes are

expected in most other industrializedcountries.

It is possible that more changes in thequality of petroleum fuels will berequired in the future to satisfy newenvironmental regulations. These mayrequire new refinery investments. It isalso likely that quality will eventuallybe upgraded in the developing coun-tries, where requirements are current-ly less demanding than in the indus-trialized countries. The case of remov-ing lead from gasoline, cited earlier, isan example.

Nonpetroleum TransportationEnergy

The overall role of nonpetroleumfuels in supplying energy for trans-portation can be illustrated byInternational Energy Agency data for1998 (see Table 2-8). The tableshows world consumption of gas,electricity, and coal — the threemajor nonpetroleum fuels — as apercentage of world consumption ofpetroleum for transportation.

Although petroleum dominatesworldwide, other transportation fuelscan be significant locally. Examplesare ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil,and ethanol from maize in theUnited States. Fuels derived fromnatural gas, such as hydrogen ormethanol or dimethyl ether, havealso been proposed (e.g. IEA 1999)and tested. None has yet command-ed a commercially significant market,but hydrogen is clearly a leadingcontender for the “ultimate” fuelfrom an environmental point of view,if technical and economic barrierscan be reduced sufficiently.

Past and existing uses of non-petroleum fuels are often motivatedby particular national circumstancesthat cannot be applied to many othercountries. For example, cheap indige-nous coal is used to power railroadsin countries in mainland Asia wherethere are limited supplies of indige-nous oil, and where spending foreignexchange on oil imports is avoided ifpracticable. Another example is usingethanol from sugar cane in gasolineblends in Brazil in order to reduceimports of oil and to provide employ-ment in a massive sugar-cane grow-ing and conversion industry.

Natural gas (NG) is used moreextensively for transportation. Mostof this natural gas is used to powercompressors on pipelines rather thanin vehicles. A recent status review(EIA/DOE 2001) states that there arenow more than a million NG vehi-cles on the road worldwide, with the

mobility 2001


Table 2-7. Recent and projected world transportation fuel demand (million barrels/ per day)

Industrialized Countries Other Countries Fuel 1990 1999 2020* Growth* 1990 1999 2020* Growth*

Gasoline 11.2 13.1 17.3 1.3% 3.8 4.9 12.5 4.7%

Diesel fuel 5.2 6.6 9.5 1.7% 3.0 4.5 12.0 4.8%

Jet fuel 2.5 3.0 5.6 2.9% 1.1 1.2 4.3 6.1%

Bunker fuel 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.5% 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.6%

Source: EIA/US DOE (2001). Notes: “Industrialized Countries” include North America, Western Europe, Japan, and Australasia. Growth = % per year from 1999 to 2020. * Indicates estimate.

Table 2-8. World transportation energy use, 1998

Energy Source

Consumption as % of Petroleum

Natural Gas 2.4

Electricity 1.2

Coal 0.4

Source: IEA (2000b).

largest fleets in Argentina (600,000)and Italy (345,000). Natural gas isalso used to fuel buses where localauthorities believe it will improve airpollution. Vehicles built to use natu-ral-gas fuel cost more than gasolinevehicles, have shorter driving ranges,and are less convenient for cus-tomers during refueling; as a result,government-subsidized programsaround the world have had mixedsuccess.3 Despite these cost issues,programs to reduce air pollution incongested urban areas have encour-aged the use of CNG-fueled vehiclesin recent years.

CNG is not an option for vehiclessuch as heavy trucks, railroad locomo-tives, towboats, and ocean-goingships, which require engines that arelarger than those capable of using100% natural gas. Natural gas cannotself-ignite; used alone, it can be usedonly in a spark-ignition engine.However, the thermodynamic proper-ties of spark-ignition engines put anupper limit on their power output.Most larger and heavier vehicles musttherefore use some type of compres-sion-ignition engine. Progress hasbeen made in developing “dual-fuel”compression-ignition engines, whichhave virtually the same power charac-teristics as “conventional” diesels, anduse a relatively small amount of dieselfuel as an igniter, but obtain most oftheir energy from either CNG or liq-uefied natural gas (LNG).

As noted above, alternatives topetroleum fuels are often proposed inorder to achieve superior environ-mental performance. Whether or notthat objective will be achievedrequires a life-cycle assessment of thetotal system, i.e., consideration of notonly how the fuel behaves in thevehicle — how much energy is usedand how large the emissions are —but also how much energy is con-sumed and how much pollutionresults from producing the fuel anddelivering it to the vehicle.

The type and quality of fuel alsoaffect the composition of exhaust

gases (other than greenhouse gases)from vehicle operation, gases thatcontain pollutants such as NOx andparticulates. Technologies for newvehicles and fuels should be able toreduce those pollutants to sustainablelevels. However, emissions of pollu-

tants from operating existing vehiclescan be high and can have significanteffects, especially in congested urbanareas around the world. Changes inquality of the petroleum fuel alonecan have only modest effects onemissions from the existing fleet.



Developments in Fuel-Cell Technology

Major efforts are underway to develop fuel-cell propulsion systems for land transporta-

tion vehicles. With hydrogen as fuel, this technology has the potential for increasing

propulsion system efficiency with very low levels of air pollutant emissions. Most of the

major auto manufacturers, joined by companies in the supplier industry and major

petroleum companies, are working to develop fuel-cell technology for light-duty vehi-

cles and buses. Fuel-cell systems and concept vehicles (cars and buses) are being

aggressively developed and tested with steadily improving performance. Although lim-

ited numbers of fleet vehicles may be available within the next five years, these efforts

are largely focused on the longer term, where the very low emissions and high efficien-

cy of direct-hydrogen-fueled fuel cells may become important. Many technology issues

involving cost, size and weight, practicality, and hydrogen storage must still be

resolved. An overriding issue is the feasibility of introducing a hydrogen fuel production

and distribution infrastructure. A critical unanswered question is whether hydrogen can

be efficiently enough produced, distributed, and stored on the vehicle, without pro-

ducing significant CO2 emissions.

Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energy carrier and not a primary energy source.

Electricity has been hampered as an automotive energy source because of poor battery

technology and high cost. Hydrogen is of interest because it may be easier to store

onboard a vehicle than electricity; today, much frontier research is focused on

improved hydrogen storage technologies. Long term, electricity may be generated

without fossil energy use (or with sequestration of carbon emissions), and hydrogen

may be generated from fossil sources with sequestration of emissions or from electroly-

sis of water. In the latter case, conversion of electricity to hydrogen for transportation

use will depend on issues like cost and the competitive advantage of hydrogen storage

over battery storage.

Petroleum-Like Fuels without Petroleum

Traditional liquid transportation fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel, are usually

produced by refining the natural fossil resource of petroleum (crude oil). From time to

time, as crude oil prices have increased or as questions have arisen about the adequacy

of crude oil supply in the long term, other fossil resources have been considered for

making fuels. Among those resources have been tars and natural gas, both with the

potential to provide large additions to fuels available from conventional petroleum. For

example, Canada’s National Energy Board states that more than 300 billion barrels of

recoverable tar exist in Alberta. Suncor Energy, a company now producing oil from that

tar, claims it can be produced for less than $10 per barrel (NY Times 2001a). That

amount of Alberta tar exceeds Saudi Arabia’s reserves of 264 billion barrels (BP 2000),

which constitute 25% of the world’s conventional petroleum reserves. As another

example, Shell is planning to construct a plant in Egypt to convert natural gas to diesel

fuel at a cost that would be competitive with crude oil priced at $15 per barrel (World

Fuels Today 2000). World reserves of natural gas are about equal in energy content to

world reserves of conventional petroleum, so the potential supply is very large. The

prospective use of alternative fossil resources like tar or natural gas may help reassure

us about long-term fuel supply. However, CO2 emissions from manufacture and use of

fuels from those alternatives will be no lower and are likely to be higher than from

crude oil.

Beyond environmental considera-tions, an alternative fuel must becompetitive in cost and have no char-acteristics that would cause it to berejected by customers and otherstakeholders in the automotive sys-tem: fuel and vehicle producers anddistributors, and governments at alllevels. For example, there can be realor perceived problems with fuel safe-ty or toxicity, and time and conve-nience of refueling. Most expertsagree that there will be large barriersto the widespread use of alternativesto fuels derived from petroleum orother fossil resources. Nonetheless,those barriers will have to be over-come eventually in order to have asustainable transportation system.Therefore, work on such alternativesas biomass-derived fuels and carbon-free production of hydrogen andelectricity deserves high priority.

CONCLUSIONS

If past is prologue, the patterns ofmobility demand, technology, andenergy use that emerged in the twen-tieth century are bound to repeatthemselves in the twenty-first. Theglobal population is rising, especiallyin the developing world, and peopleare migrating to cities and their sub-urbs at a steady pace. Incomes arerising, fueling more demand for fastertravel. The overwhelmingly mostpopular means of transport is theautomobile, which indicates that itsunfortunate side effects — accidents,congestion, air and noise pollution,environmental damage, and increas-ing reliance on finite reserves ofpetroleum — will proliferate on aglobal scale. Evidence from Chinaand other rapidly motorizing regionsstrongly suggests that this will be thecase, with adverse consequences forthe operational, social, economic,and environmental sustainability oftheir citizens’ mobility.

Yet it is not certain or preordainedthat all of these glum predictions willcome to pass, and that the new cen-tury must repeat all of the errors ofits predecessor. The industrializedcities of Europe and North America

offer lessons on the costs and bene-fits of motorization, and how toavoid the most deleterious costs.Whether the developing nations canlearn from those lessons depends ona delicate balance of technologicaladvances and political will power.Corporations are racing to producemore efficient engines that will bepowered by cleaner, renewable fuels.Yet it is unclear that commerciallyviable alternatives to petroleum-powered internal combustionengines can be mass-produced inthe near future. Until they are, theurban leaders, especially those of therapidly growing megacities likeShanghai, Bangkok, Mexico City,and Johannesburg, need to plan andbuild neighborhoods and commer-cial districts that will not be totallydependent on the automobile.

NOTES

1. There is no agreed-upon defini-tion of “megacity.” Somesources define it as a city with apopulation of 5 million. TheWorld Resources Institute uses acutoff point of 8 million. Thisreport will adopt the definitionused by the United Nations, i.e.,any city with a population ofover 10 million.

2. Some of the variation in urban-ization levels across countriesstems from differences in thedefinition across countries ofwhat constitutes “urban.” Wehave used data developed bythe UN Population Division(UN 2001).

3. One barrel, the traditional unitof measure in the oil industry, isequal to 42 US gallons. Thereare 7 to 8 barrels per ton formajor crude oils. Crude oils pro-duced from different locationscan differ greatly in quality, andprices per barrel reflect thosedifferences in quality; pricescited here are averages.

3. Experiences vary, but a reportpublished by the US GeneralAccounting Office in December

1999 compared the relative pur-chase, maintenance, and oper-ating costs of diesel- to natural-gas-powered buses in theUnited States. The GAO deter-mined that public transport sys-tems that operate full-sizedCNG (compressed natural gas)buses pay approximately 15%to 25% more for them, on aver-age, than for similar dieselbuses, though some of this dif-ference may be due to thelower volume of CNG buses.Maintenance costs for many(but not all) CNG bus operatorsexceeded those for diesel buses(GAO 1999).

mobility 2001



In virtually all urban areas of the developed world, the automobile plays the dominant role in providing urbanmobility. Public transport is still very important, especially in Europe and Japan. But its share of total devel-oped-world passenger miles has been falling almost everywhere. Auto ownership and use has grown substan-tially over the last 50 years throughout the developed world. This, in turn, has enabled urban areas to declinein average population density, further damaging public transport’s competitiveness. Technology has enabledsome reduction in the total transportation-related emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatileorganic compounds; however, slow fleet turnover, lack of proper maintenance, changes in the mix of light-duty vehicles, and increased driving has kept the reduction in total emissions well below the reduction in newvehicle emissions. Transport-related emissions of carbon dioxide have not declined. Improvements in fuel effi-ciency of new vehicles have been more than offset by increases in the total number of vehicles, changes invehicle mix, and increases in vehicle utilization. Accident rates have decreased as vehicles and roads haveimproved. Congestion appears to be increasing, though truly comparable cross-national data on congestionare difficult to find. A range of strategies is being tried in different urban areas to offset the adverse impactsof motor vehicles. These include restrictions on central city auto use, traffic “calming,” the promotion of car-pooling, and various approaches to promoting the increased use of public transportation. Technology isshowing how to increase the capacity of existing highway infrastructure, and interest in the use of congestioncharges and pollution charges seems to be growing.

For the purposes of the discussion in this chapter and the next, we have distinguished between the “developed” and the“developing” world. By the former, we mean primarily the 25 countries that constituted the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development prior to 1994: North America (except for Mexico), Western Europe with Scandinavia andTurkey, Japan, and Australasia (except for New Guinea).

Of course, the broadly similar indicia of economic development that distinguish these countries from the rest of the worlddo not necessarily imply a comparable degree of homogeneity in their urban development patterns or their transportationcharacteristics. The urbanized regions of these countries encompass a wide spectrum of cities, ranging from such mega-lopolises as Tokyo, New York, Osaka, Los Angeles, London, Istanbul, and Paris, down to much smaller, less dense, andmuch more disparate metropolitan areas. Even that short list of major urban agglomerations spans quite a diversity ofphysical and economic development patterns. In many ways, no two cities in the same country are alike, let alone twocities across the world from each other. Can one validly speak of Ankara, Barcelona, Cork, New York, San Francisco, Venice,Wellington, and York in the same breath?

mobilityin the urbanized regions of the developed world

Nonetheless, despite our inevitablyoversimplistic division of the worldinto two domains, there are a num-ber of major, relevant consistenciesacross the developed world — inconsumer aspirations and behaviors,in passenger transportation trends,and in the structure of the problemswith which transportation plannersand policymakers must grapple. Aswe shall see, not all of these similari-ties are qualitatively different fromthe situation in the developing world,but there do tend to be sharp differ-ences of scale, social and politicalconstraints, and financial resourcesthat justify speaking separately aboutthe two domains.

With respect to mobility, the mostcharacteristic feature of countries inthe developed world is the high levelof ownership and use of privatemotor vehicles for personal travel, aphenomenon we will characterize as“automobility.” These countries arefurther characterized by extensivesuburban development and the gen-erally declining role of public trans-port. These shared mobility trendshave produced shared concernsabout whether comparable levels of

mobility can be sustained in thefuture. Although the details of theseconcerns may vary somewhat acrossthe different countries of the devel-oped world, the scope of the prob-lem, the history of its evolution, theoptions that have been considered,and the current state of play arebroadly similar across these nations.

In this chapter, we will highlight theimportant mobility trends, the relatedsustainability issues, and comment onthe approaches that have been sug-gested and tried. A major focus of oureffort is to develop some understand-ing of the important commonalitiesacross the developed world, as well asthe significant differences relating tomobility and sustainability.Developing such an understanding iskey to determining how useful andapplicable different approaches maybe.

TRENDS IN URBAN MOBILITY INTHE DEVELOPED WORLD

Figure 3-1, which provides anoverview of the contribution of themajor modes of transport to mobility

in a selection of cities across thedeveloped world, clearly indicates thedominant role of the automobile inproviding urban mobility. In thedeveloped world, the private vehiclehas become the most common formof motorized transportation, account-ing for about 40% of passenger-kilo-meters traveled in Tokyo and over95% of passenger-kilometers traveledin the cities of the United States.Public transport has a smaller role,albeit a very significant and impor-tant one, especially in WesternEurope and Japan.

Urban Decentralization andAutomobility: Two MutuallyReinforcing Trends

Two interrelated urban trends areobserved almost universally in thedeveloped world. First, the popula-tions and economic activities of thecities have tended to disperse to out-lying areas and, consequently,metropolitan areas have spread out,with lower-density development atthe fringes. Second, ownership anduse of automobiles within andaround urban areas have increased.At the individual level, these trendshave been driven by a strong aspira-

mobility in the urbanized regions of the developed world


tion of city dwellers toward bothlower-density living and increasedpersonal travel as their incomesincrease in real terms, and their

trip-making opportunities expandthrough the construction of newroads.

Rising auto ownership and use.Combining complete route andschedule flexibility with comfort,

mobility 2001


privacy, and speed, automobiles sym-bolize to their users a very high levelof mobility, significantly superior tothat offered by any competing meansof travel. In the decades followingWorld War II, rising incomes and thewidespread availability of affordableautomobiles produced sharp increas-es in the number of automobile own-ers in the cities of the developedworld. The United States is the mostextreme case of this trend, with aregistered motor vehicle for nearlyevery licensed driver. As Figure 3-2shows, however, automobile owner-ship levels are high all across thedeveloped world, and have been ris-ing steadily in the last four decades.Further, as Figure 3-3 shows, automo-bile use, as defined by annual passen-ger-kilometers traveled per person, isalso high and has been increasingacross the entire developed world.

A drive toward the suburbs. Therise in automobile ownership and useparallels, and is deeply intertwinedwith, the growth of suburbs around

the cities of the developed worldafter World War II. Table 3-1 detailsthe population shifts in a number ofcities as residential suburbs blos-somed and inner-city neighborhoodswilted. A few cities have enjoyedsome population increases, due tothe redevelopment of their urbancores, but these renewals have almostnever been enough to offset theoverall decreases in population anddensity.

Urban residents seeking more spaceand privacy began to move to thesuburbs as soon as urban train sys-tems and affordable housing madethat possible. Beginning in London inthe 1850s and spreading acrossEurope, people followed the newtrain systems out of the urban core.By the early twentieth century,“streetcar suburbs” were widespreadas people sought to leave the crowd-ed, noisy, malodorous, and frequentlyunhealthful housing conditions of theinner city for cheaper housing inmore peaceful surroundings.

In the early 1900s, the fixed patternsand limited capacities of the streetrailways limited the expansion of sub-urbs, but the growth of automobileownership, and the suburban roadnetworks built to accommodate it,accelerated the growth of suburbsdramatically.

The suburban migration was rein-forced in some countries by nationalpolicies encouraging home owner-ship. As people moved to the sub-urbs, their employers and retail mer-chants followed. Cheap land was alsoa factor in drawing many businessesto the suburbs, where they could eas-ily offer ample and free parking. In anenvironment characterized bywidespread auto ownership, publictransport accessibility is no longer asignificant factor in the location deci-sions of these firms.

The dispersal of residences and jobsaffected the geographic pattern oftravel demands. Instead of the very



Table 3-1. The growth of selected metropolitan areas, 1960–1990

Data for 1990 Annual Rate of Change, 1960–1990 Metropolitan Area

Population (thousands)

Area (km2)

Density (persons/km2)

Population

Area

Density

Tokyo 31,797 4,480 7,097 +2.4% +3.1% -0.6%

New York 16,044 7,690 2,086 +0.4% +1.5% -1.1%

Paris 10,662 2,311 4,614 +0.8% +2.1% -1.3%

London 6,680 1,578 4,232 -0.6% +0.9% -1.4%

Detroit 3,697 2,900 1,275 0.0% +1.4% -1.4%

San Francisco 3,630 2,265 1,602 +1.3% +1.4% -0.1%

Washington, DC 3,363 2,449 1,373 +2.1% +3.5% -1.3%

Melbourne 3,023 2,027 1,491 +1.4% +2.5% -1.0%

Hamburg 1,652 415 3,982 -0.3% +1.5% -1.8%

Vienna 1,540 225 6,830 -0.2% +0.8% -1.0%

Brisbane 1,334 1,363 978 +2.6% +5.2% -2.5%

Copenhagen 1,153 333 3,467 -0.5% +0.7% -1.2%

Amsterdam 805 144 5,591 -0.3% +1.6% -1.9%

Zurich 788 167 4,708 +0.4% +1.2% -0.8%

Frankfurt 634 136 4,661 -0.2% +1.9% -2.1%

Source: Demographia (2001).

high-density commuting flowsbetween a limited number of areas (a “few-to-few” pattern of trips fromthe suburbs to downtown) that char-acterized urban areas in the earlytwentieth century, there are increas-ingly scattered trips between manygeographically dispersed origins anddestinations, with no origin-destina-tion pair or corridor attaining particu-larly dominant traffic flows (a “many-to-many” pattern). And this is thecase for all trips, not just the journeyto work. Nonwork travel (shopping,personal or family business, recre-ation, etc.) is also likely to involvedestinations that are geographicallydispersed in the urban fringes andthe core, and so require either indi-vidual trips to scattered locations orcomplex trip chains that accomplishmultiple purposes with one trip.Conventional public transport is notefficient in serving these kinds of tripsand travel patterns.

Provision of highway infrastruc-ture. All across the developed world,the trends described above in landand automobile use have been facili-tated in large part by the concomi-tant development of high-quality,extensive highway infrastructure.They include the United States’41,000-mile Interstate HighwaySystem, the 10,300-kilometer net-work of French autoroutes, the8,900-kilometer system of Italianautostrada, the 11,400-kilometer net-work of German autobahn, and the6,100-kilometer network of motor-ways in Japan (IRF 1999). From 1975to 1995, the European motorwaynetwork as a whole grew 116%, from23,600 kilometers to 51,100 kilome-ters, while the entire road systemgrew by 586,000 kilometers to a totalof 3.69 million kilometers (Table 3-2).Integral to achieving this expansionof inter-city and urban highway net-works was the establishment of effec-tive construction funding and financ-ing mechanisms, such as the gas-tax-funded dedicated Highway TrustFund in the United States.

Although some of the motorwaysconstructed in these network expan-

sion programs served freight andpassenger movements betweencities, many were designed to serveurban traffic in and around cities. Aspeople moved to the suburbs, high-capacity radial urban expresswayswere built to facilitate travel betweenthe suburbs and the urban core.Similarly, as the amount of trafficbetween suburban locationsincreased, many cities developed cir-cumferential roads to facilitate suchmovements. Often, the provision ofroad infrastructure seemed to accel-

erate the outward relocation ofhouseholds and businesses. It wasnot unusual to find such roads, with-in a few years of being opened, car-rying traffic levels that (on the basisof prior land-use patterns) had notbeen forecast to occur until 20 ormore years of service.

At the turn of this century, there areindications that new road construc-tion in the urban areas of the devel-oped world is likely to be more limit-

mobility 2001


Table 3-2. Motorways and road network in developed countries, 1970–1997

Motorways (km)

All Roads (thousand km)

1970 1997 1970 1997

Australia 1,027 1,388 885 931

Austria 488 1,613 94 129

Canada 4,789 17,119 755 908

Belgium 488 1,679 94 146

Czech Republic — 485 56 56

Denmark 198 929 63 71

Finland 108 444 72 78

France 1,553 9,900 793 893

Germany 4,100 11,309 464 656

Greece 65 529 35 41

Hungary 171 438 98 211

Iceland — — 11 13

Ireland 0 94 87 96

Italy 3,913 6,505 284 308

Japan 638 6,117 1,015 1,153

Luxembourg 7 118 5 5

Netherlands 975 2,225 98 126

New Zealand 100 144 92 92

Norway 41 100 72 91

Poland 139 264 295 377

Portugal 66 797 42 69

Spain 203 9,063 139 163

Sweden 403 1,324 125 139

Switzerland 651 1,613 60 71

Turkey — 1,560 59 62

United Kingdom 1,057 3,362 322 399

United States 53,701 88,962 6,003 6,315

Source: OECD (1999a), tables 10.1B, 10.1A.

ed than in the last five decades. For avariety of reasons, building new roadsis not as easy as it used to be. Somemetropolitan areas are simply run-ning out of land, necessitating costlyunderground construction, as in thecase of the Paris periphèriqueexterieure (A-86). Even when suffi-cient land is available, the high costof right-of-way acquisition serves as apowerful impediment to urban roadconstruction. But primarily, increasedenvironmental and social sustainabili-ty concerns relating to roads (dis-cussed in detail in coming sections)have greatly slowed down new high-way construction projects in theurban areas of the developed world.

Extent of and prospects forthese trends. Many of these trendsfirst became evident in NorthAmerica and only later in other partsof the developed world. There wereseveral reasons for this: the fact thatthe United States and Canada sur-vived World War II with their infras-tructure and productive capacityintact; the aggressive highway con-struction programs begun in the1950s; the relatively high personalincome levels that led to near-univer-sal auto ownership; fiscal policies thatsubsidized home ownership; cheapgasoline; and a relative lack (com-pared with other developed coun-tries) of strong land-use controls atthe metropolitan and regional level.

However, the forces of urban decen-tralization are at work in Europe aswell. Between 1970 and 1990, theshare of metropolitan population liv-ing in the central city has declined invirtually every European city. It wentdown from 32% to 23% in Paris;from 41% to 38% in London; from38% to 30% in Zurich; and from80% to 67% in Amsterdam. Suchdeclines occurred despite the factthat local governments in Europehave more control over land use, thatpublic transport service is far moreextensive, and suburban home own-ership is not subsidized by the taxcode. A striking example of an exo-dus to the suburbs is the former EastGermany, where people are moving

out of central cities in droves, asincomes and auto ownership rise. InLeipzig, a city of 500,0000, about20% of city apartments are vacant,their owners having chosen to moveto the suburbs — an option that wasdenied to them during the commu-nist regime. Europe’s middle class hasmoved to the suburbs — where theyshop in malls, live in low-density sub-divisions, and drive on traffic-cloggedhighways. The city as a compacturban area with clearly delineatedboundaries is a thing of the past inEurope, no less than in NorthAmerica. These developments aresummarized in Table 3-1.

In the absence of major economicupheavals, the trends describedabove — those of urban decentral-ization and increased automobility —are likely to continue in the foresee-able future. In the developed nations,where the market is mature and carownership levels are already high,growth in demand for cars has lev-eled off and consists primarily ofreplacement vehicles and additions ofsecond and third household cars.However, there appears to be no sim-ilar leveling-off in the growth of traveldemand. Because of declining urbandensities and a dispersal of travel ori-gins and destinations, cars are beingused more intensively, i.e. for moretrips and over greater distances.Between 1970 and 2000, urban auto-mobile travel per capita increased by30% to 35% per decade in Europe,and by about 45% per decade in theUnited States (see Figure 3-3 on page 3). With rising incomes, auto-mobile use is expected to continue toincrease, as our society becomes ever

more mobile. Future growth in percapita automobile travel is expectedto be especially pronounced inmetropolitan areas, whose outwardboundaries continue to expand, andwhose declining population densitiesand increasingly dispersed travel pat-terns preclude an extensive use ofalternative means of transportation.According to OECD forecasts, vehicle-kilometers of travel (VKT) in OECDcountries are expected to grow overthe next two decades (2000–2020) at2% per year (OECD 1995a, chap. 3).

The Role of Public Transport

Public transport is an importantmeans of mobility in the developedworld, particularly in the larger anddenser urban settlements. Publictransport accounts for a significantshare of all trips in most large cities inJapan and Western Europe and manyof the cities of the United States.However, the role of public transporthas been decreasing in most cities ofthe developed world, in large mea-sure as a result of the trends towardautomobility and suburbanization dis-cussed above.

The extent of public transportin the developed world. Table 3-3shows that the different regions ofthe developed world provide differentlevels of public transport. Though theregions listed do not include theentire “developed world,” they give agood indication of the range of situa-tions found. As always, at this highlevel of aggregation, the reliabilityand comparability of statistics arequestionable, and the figures for theworld are very broad estimates



Table 3-3. Some indicators of public transport system capacity

Source: European Commission (2000). *Includes local and intercity travel. �Another 570,000 buses are dedicated to conveying students.

Region

Urban Rail

(thousand km)

Buses and Coaches*

(thousands)

European Union 6.8 500

United States 1.8 30�

Japan 0.8 257

intended only to provide a means ofgauging scale.

All three regions have urban rail sys-tems in their major cities, althoughthe EU heavy urban rail networks areby far the most extensive. Buses arethe most important means of localpublic transport in Europe and theUnited States, but in Japan, they areless important than the railways.

In all developed countries, there areextensive taxi systems. It is difficult toobtain reliable statistics on the levelsof provision because of the differenttypes of licensing systems (or theabsence of licensing). However, if alltypes of private-hire passenger vehi-cles are included, it is not uncommonto find provision levels reaching ashigh as one vehicle per one hundredpopulation.

Trends in the use of publictransport in the developedworld. Table 3-4 shows the differ-ences in the use of different modes ofpublic transport across different partsof the developed world. As the datain Figure 3-1 illustrated, public trans-port in the United States makes, inaggregate, only a minimal contribu-tion to mobility, while in Japan andWestern Europe, public transport is avery important contributor to mobili-ty. There are some significant differ-ences in transit use, even betweenJapan and Western Europe: Europeansuse rail almost ten times as much asAmericans, but only a quarter as

much as the Japanese. In the UnitedStates, most urban rail use in theUnited States is concentrated in thelargest cities, and New York Cityalone accounts for over a third of theurban public transport ridership inthe United States. Rail is heavily usedfor commuting in the large Japanesemetropolitan areas. It is noteworthythat the number of daily rail journeysin the Tokyo/Yokohama regionexceeds that in all of the Americas(that is, the area stretching fromPatagonia to Alaska).

In most countries of the developedworld, the role of public transport isdiminishing even though absolutelevels of use continue to rise slowly.For instance, in the European Union,public transport use has grown by40% since 1970, though the popula-tion it serves grew by only 10%.Western Europeans therefore usemore public transport today than in1970, with buses leading the way,followed by rail, then urban rail.Private vehicle use has grown evenmore markedly, however, and conse-quently, public transport’s share oftotal trips has fallen from 22% to14%. In the United States, publictransport has also grown (albeit veryslightly) since 1970, following a dra-matic two-thirds reduction in rider-ship between the end of World War IIand 1970. However, with automobiletraffic growing by almost 90% overthis period, public transport's marketshare has declined substantially. Ofmajor metropolitan areas, New Yorkhas the largest share of person tripsby public transport (7.7%), followed

by Philadelphia (5.5%) and Chicago(4.2%). These shares decrease to0.7% in Houston. Nationwide, publictransport serves 1.8% of person tripsand 2.1% of person-kilometers (USDOT FHWA 1990, 1995).

Over the period since 1970, bus usein Japan has stayed more or less con-stant, but railway use has grown by40% despite the very rapid growth inautomobile ownership from fewerthan 100 automobiles per 1,000 pop-ulation to almost 400. However,automobile use in Japan is low, beingbarely two-thirds of that in theEuropean Union countries and verymuch lower than that in the UnitedStates.

Public transport operations.Across most of the developed world,local public transport is managed bypublic institutions. Sometimes thegovernment provides a public trans-port system on its own initiative, andother times the public sector takesover financially troubled private oper-ators. The latter was particularly com-mon in the United States, where pub-lic transport services (initially domi-nated by streetcar operations) wereprovided by private enterprise. InFrance, local public transport services(outside of Paris, Marseilles, and afew other cities) have long been pro-vided by private operators franchisedby local government agencies. Inrecent years the rest of Europe hasbegun to emulate the French exam-ple, and the privatization of publictransport is expanding rapidly.

The degree of privatization, andwhether it extends to both train andbus systems, varies widely among different countries. In the UnitedKingdom, outside London, bus ser-vices are fully deregulated, with thepublic sector's role confined to ensur-ing the provision of services deemedsocially necessary. But the more gen-eral model for bus operations is for apublic-sector client to specify the ser-vice requirement and then procurethis competitively from private opera-tors. Securing private competition for

mobility 2001


Table 3-4. Some indicators of public transport mobility (km/capita/year)

Region

Urban Rail

Bus and Coach*

European Union 110 1,100

United States 75 250/845�

Japan 254 755

Source: European Commission (2000); US DOT, BTS (1999). *Includes local and intercity travel. �The higher figure includes dedicated school bus services.

rail transport is more difficult, but ithas been achieved in Sweden and theUnited Kingdom. The evidenceregarding the success of privatizationefforts thus far is mixed. In mostinstances, costs to the public pursehave been reduced. In someinstances service levels have alsoimproved, but there are conspicuousexamples of the opposite havingoccurred. Certainly the effects havenot been uniform, and concernsrelating to safety and long-term eco-nomic viability remain. In the UnitedStates, conditions on the use of federalgrants have made the introduction ofcompetition more difficult. Most localpublic transport operations (otherthan school buses) remain in thehands of public operators, althoughthe contracting out of public trans-port management functions is quitecommon in medium-sized and smallmetropolitan areas.

Nonmotorized Transport (NMT)

In almost all cities, walking is themost prevalent mode of transport fortrips less than 1 kilometer or so inlength. In gentle terrain, bicycling is

generally agreed in principle to be acompetitive mode for trips up to 5kilometers or more; however, bicycleusage varies considerably from city tocity. Figure 3-4 shows data for a num-ber of European cities that suggestthat walking and bicycling togetheraccount for a significant share of totaltrips in a number of cities. Availabledata suggest nonmotorized transportis less important in the United States,accounting for about 6.5% of tripsand 0.5% of trip-kilometers for localtrips — i.e., trips shorter than 100miles — in the country as a whole(US DOT BTS 1999).

There are many reasons for the variedpopularity of walking and bicycling.Some of the differences can beattributed to local topography andclimate, but tradition and culture playa role, as do transport and land-usepolicy.

SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS

Though the widespread ownershipand use of private automobiles pro-duce widespread benefits at many

levels — increased personal mobility,regional development, and greateraccess to social and economic oppor-tunities — they are also responsiblefor a number of negative develop-ments that raise serious sustainabilityconcerns. An automobile-dominatedtransport system leaves some mem-bers of the society behind becausethey are too poor to own a car, phys-ically incapable of driving, or too oldto handle a car safely. Urban motor-ways, built to accommodateincreased traffic, divide and disrupturban neighborhoods. The rising useof motor vehicles and rising traveldemand can lead to deteriorating airquality and greater emissions ofgreenhouse gases, accelerated deple-tion of fossil-fuel reserves, higher acci-dent rates, and mounting traffic con-gestion. Public opinion everywhereviews traffic congestion as the conse-quence of motorization that mostseriously affects the environment andthe quality of life. Congestion anddelay not only waste time and are amajor irritant to individual travelers;they also burden businesses and theeconomy with higher costs. Indeed,the vitality of national economies is



intimately linked to a smoothly func-tioning transportation system.We now summarize the nature ofthose concerns at the beginning ofthe twenty-first century. We will firstreview those aspects most closely tiedto vehicle technology (accidents,emissions, noise, etc.), then look towider social impacts, includingincreased levels of traffic congestion.

Road Safety

The cost in human lives, injuries, andsuffering attributable to highway androad crashes is enormous. Toward theend of the 1990s, around 42,000 people were killed each year in roadaccidents in Western Europe, andbetween 40,000 and 45,000 in theUnited States. In some countries, roadaccidents are the primary cause ofdeath in the 15- to 30-year-old agegroup. The number of people serious-ly injured in road accidents is typicallymore than ten times higher. Roadaccident victims are not just motor-ized vehicle drivers and occupants,but also include pedestrians and bicy-clists. In developed countries, thesegroups account for roughly 10% to15% of the total number of road fatal-ities. Between half and three-quartersof the highway fatalities in developedcountries occur outside of urbanareas; however, even one-quarter ofthese totals attributable to motorvehicle accidents in urban areas is alarge amount.

There are various ways of estimatingthe monetary costs to society of roadaccidents; the different methods varyin the way they account for pain andsuffering and economic losses. Estimates of accident costs in mostdeveloped countries are typically inthe range of 1% to 3% of GDP.

During the last decade, all industrial-ized countries have made importantstrides in reducing highway fatalities —down 25% in Western Europe and30% in the United States — a trendattributable to a combination of safervehicles (dual air bags, mandatorysafety belts, antilock brakes, etc.),safer highway designs, faster incidentresponse, and better post-accidentcare. All of these trends are expected

to continue into the foreseeablefuture.

Nonrenewable ResourceConsumption

Current vehicle propulsiontechnologies are based on thecombustion of petroleum-based fossilfuels. Transport is not only the major,but also the most rapidly growingsector of oil consumption in OECDcountries. Between 1973 and 1988,transport’s share of total oilconsumption in OECD countries grewfrom 43% to 60%. Light- andheavy-duty road vehicles —passengercars, light trucks, motorcycles, andheavy trucks — use approximately75% of all transport fuel. Through

the effects of stricter governmentstandards, higher fuel prices, andvoluntary efforts by vehiclemanufacturers, there have beennotable improvements in vehicle fuelconsumption and carbon dioxideemission rates over the past severaldecades. Much of the initial impetusfor these efforts was provided by theoil crisis in the 1970s. The greatestinitial reductions in fuel consumptionpredictably occurred in the countrieswith the most fuel-inefficient fleets,i.e., the United States, Canada, andAustralia. In the United States, thefuel consumption of new light-dutyvehicles (automobiles and lighttrucks) declined by an average of 3%per year between 1978 and 1987.

mobility 2001


Integrating Sustainability Concerns into the TransportationPlanning Process: The US Experience

In the United States, as in other developed countries, the battlegrounds on which the

initial skirmishes over highway development were fought in the 1960s and 1970s were

proposals to build high-speed, limited-access highways through already-developed

metropolitan area corridors. Often, the planned routes would require taking over land

already used for residential or commercial purposes. Critics pointed to the likely dis-

placement of established homeowners and neighborhoods, to increased local noise and

noxious emissions, to greater congestion and decreased pedestrian safety on nearby

local streets, and to the sometimes adverse social and aesthetic consequences of new

urban highways. And in the highly charged racial climate of the times, the debate took

on racial overtones, too, sometimes characterized as “building white folks’ roads

through black folks’ bedrooms.”

A legal avenue through which the opposition to further urban highway construction

could be channeled was provided by the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA), which required “environmental impact statements” to be prepared for all pro-

posed “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-

ment.” The courts’ interpretations of NEPA provided an effective weapon in the oppo-

sition to the urban highway plans: Many of the proposed links were abandoned within

metropolitan areas, while others were restricted or rerouted in some way.

With the battle joined primarily over limited access highway construction plans, it was

inflamed by two other issues or developments: automotive emissions (for which the

legal catalyst in the United States was the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments) and the

OPEC-driven oil shortages of the early 1970s. Public policy focused on cleaning up the

exhausts of private vehicles and making them more fuel-efficient. While the Clean Air

Act amendments did pay some attention to modifying vehicle usage patterns (calling

for “transportation control policies” in major metropolitan areas), by far the most

attention was placed on encouraging technological adaptations of the internal combus-

tion engine to reduce noxious emissions and improve fuel economy. The US federal

government has found it considerably less risky to promote a policy of salvation

through technology — by placing pressure on the automotive manufacturing and fuel

production industries to adapt their products — than to pressure drivers into changing

their behaviors through sharply increased prices or driving restrictions.

In the United States, average newlight-duty vehicle fuel consumptionreached its low point of 9 l/100 kilo-meters in 1987. Since then, it hasbeen increasing, in large part becauseof growing sales of light trucks, mini-vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs).While engine efficiency is continuous-ly being improved, consumers oftenprefer to exchange some or all of thepotential fuel efficiency gains forincreased performance characteristics,such as increased power and torque.Moreover, changes in safety regula-tions sometimes lead to increasedvehicle weight, resulting in higherlevels of fuel consumption. By 1999,the average fleet new vehicle fueleconomy had risen to 9.6 l/100 kilo-meters (US DOT, NHTSA 1999a).

Due to the slow rate of fleet turnover,the fuel consumption of the on-roadfleet is higher than that of the newvehicle fleet whenever the latter isfalling. In 1995 it is estimated thatthe fuel consumption of the on-roadlight-duty vehicle fleet was 9.5 l/100kilometers in OECD Europe, 11.4l/100 kilometers in OECD NorthAmerica (the United States andCanada), and 10.0 l/100 kilometersin OECD Pacific (Australia, NewZealand, and Japan). Including theother road vehicle types (motorcyclesand heavy trucks) raises these figures

to 10.1 l/100 kilometers for OECDEurope, 13.5 l/100 kilometers forOECD North America, and 13.3 l/100kilometers for OECD Pacific (OECD1995a, Annex).

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

In the developed world, transport isone of the few industrial sectors forwhich CO2 emissions are growing. Ithas been estimated that transportactivities account for roughly 28% oftotal worldwide CO2 production byhumans. The share of transport intotal CO2 production is slightly high-er in North America (roughly 33%)and slightly lower in Western Europe(roughly 24%). The United Statesalone accounts for roughly 24% oftotal global CO2 emissions,1 so theUS transport sector emits roughly 8%of the total world output of CO2.

In 1998, the auto industry in Europesigned a Voluntary Agreement withthe European Union to reduce corpo-rate CO2 emissions of the new carfleet from an average of 186 g/km in1995 to 140 g/km in 2008 (DEFRA2000). It is likely that manufacturerswill rely heavily on sales of dieselengines and smaller cars to reach thetarget. However, total transport-relat-ed CO2 emissions are closely con-nected to the total amount of fuel

consumed. This depends, in turn,upon the number of transport vehi-cles, and the intensity of use of thesevehicles in addition to the in-use effi-ciency of the average transport vehi-cle. Transport-related CO2 emissionsare expected to rise in all OECDcountries at least through 2015.Average vehicle fuel consumption isexpected to decline, but this declineis projected to be overwhelmed byincreases in the number of vehiclesand in the intensity of their use(OECD 1995a, chap. 2).

Noxious Emissions

Concern about local air pollutioncaused by automobiles was one ofthe original sustainability concernsrelated to automobile use in most ofthe developed world. During the last30 years, most industrialized coun-tries have adopted vehicle emissioncontrol measures in an effort to con-trol and abate deteriorating air quali-ty in urbanized areas. Preventivemeasures include exhaust emissionstandards, evaporative emission con-trols, fuel quality requirements,inspection and maintenance pro-grams, and refueling controls. Thesecontrol measures have resulted insubstantial reductions in vehicle emis-sions (see Table 3-5), and in an over-all improvement in air quality as mea-sured by the declining number of



Table 3-5. Changes in emissions of atmospheric pollutants

European Union 15, 1990–1996

United States, 1990–1997

Total Change

Highway Transportation

Total Change

Highway Transportation

Current Status

Carbon monoxide

-20% -26% -4% -11% Primarily an infrastructure design issue in the construction of tunnels, etc.

Oxides of nitrogen

-10% -14% +3% +11% Concerns abated to some degree with development of advanced technologies.

Sulfur dioxide -43% -21% -17% -41% Expected to decrease to marginal levels.

Volatile organic compounds

-13% -25% -10% -16% Role in ozone production a serious concern.

Lead n.a. n.a. -21% -95% Phased out of use in most of the developed world.

Sources: European Commission (2000); US EPA (2000a).

days that pollutants in the air exceedrecommended levels.

According to OECD estimates, HCand NOx emissions in OECD coun-tries will fall substantially during theperiod 2005–2010 (OECD 1995a).Beyond that point, however, theOECD forecasts suggest if presenttrends continue, emissions of HC andNOx will start increasing as vehicle-kilometers traveled increase, and willbe above their 2000 levels by 2030.For CO, if present trends continue,levels will fall until 2010, level off,and then start increasing again.

Vehicular Noise

Most developed countries have hadvehicle noise emission regulationssince the 1970s. Technologicalprogress in engines and exhaust sys-tems has made new vehicles consid-erably quieter. For example, the EUallowable noise level of a moderntruck is approximately equivalent tothat of the typical car in 1970(European Commission 2000).Nonetheless, according to a state-ment issued in June 1999 byEuropean Health, Environment andTransport ministers, transport — andin particular road traffic — remainsthe main cause of human exposure toambient noise. The proportion of thepopulation in the European Regionexposed to “high” noise levels (equiv-alent to 65 dBLAeq over 24 hours)

increased from 15% to 26% between1980 and 1990. And about 65% ofthe European population is estimated(WHO 1999) to be exposed to noiselevels leading to serious annoyance,speech interference, and sleep distur-bance (55–65 dBLAeq over 24 hours).

Besides vehicle engines and exhausts,much of the noise produced by vehi-cles today, particularly in highwayoperations, results from the move-ment of vehicles through the air, andthe contact of tires with the road.The former can be reduced by aero-dynamic vehicle body designs (whichalso have the effect of improving fuelefficiency and reducing emissions).The latter can be reduced throughtire tread designs and improvementsin pavement surface textures (whichalso have the effect of draining watermore effectively and so reducing acci-dent risks). Noise barriers can alsominimize the impact of vehicle-gener-ated noise on nearby activities.

Economic Viability of PublicTransport

The inability of local public transportacross most of the developed worldto recover costs raises a concernabout its economic sustainability.Most local scheduled surface publictransport operations in developedcountries are unable to meet theiroperating costs from commercial rev-enues. Table 3-6 gives an indication

of the extent to which public trans-port operating costs are covered byfares in a number of large cities.

Differences in accounting practicesmake direct comparisons difficult.The London costs, for example,include depreciation, renewals, andprivate financing charges as well asdirect operating costs. Not all ofthese charges are necessarily includedin the cost totals used to calculate thefarebox ratios for other nationalagencies. However, the necessity ofsubstantial external funding for urbanpublic transport operations is quiteclear. In the United States, passengerfares cover just less than 40% ofoperating costs; in Europe, this ratiois closer to 50%, and in Japan the figure is probably somewhat higherthan this. In addition to operatingcosts, capital expenditure is frequent-ly aided by public grants, althoughmany agencies also use loans andbond issues to finance capital pro-jects, and these have to be fundedfrom their revenue accounts.

The total sums involved can be con-siderable. The United Kingdom, withperhaps one of the least subsidizedpublic transport systems in the devel-oped world, receives about US$3.5billion per year in external funding,2

which is equivalent to US$0.50 perjourney or US$0.04 per passenger-kilometer. Elsewhere, subsidy rates

mobility 2001


Table 3-6. Farebox recovery ratios for selected cities in developed countries

City

Agency

Type of

Organization

Operating Costs Covered by Fares

London LT Transport authority 90%

Tokyo Toei Transport authority 86%

New York NYC Transit Transport authority 63%

Tokyo TRTA Rapid Transit authority 75%

Munich MVV Transport authority 51%

Paris RATP Transport authority 43%

Milan ATM Municipal authority 37%

New York PATH Transport authority 48%

Berlin BVG Municipal authority 33%

Source: London Transport (1998); US figures updated using US DOT FTA (1999).

are usually significantly higher thanthis. In the United States, for exam-ple, governmental funding for publictransport exceeds US$8 billion peryear, giving support rates in excess ofUS$1.00 per journey and US$0.13per passenger-kilometer.

In effect, public transport needs sig-nificant public subsidies to operate.There are certainly many reasons toprovide public transport with publicsupport, and there is little risk thatthe inability to recover operatingcosts would force the suspension ofpublic transport service in any majormetropolitan region in the developedworld. However, subsidies and theresulting levels of service are oftenvulnerable to the vicissitudes of pub-lic opinion and varying levels of polit-ical support for public transport.Consider, for instance, the example ofGO Transit, the public transport sys-tem serving the Toronto metropolitanarea. Long heralded as a leadingexample of an effectively governed,well-managed system with high rider-ship in North America, GO (despitefairly high, mandated farebox recov-ery ratios) has been so starved of cap-ital expenditures in recent years thatit now faces serious service and main-tenance problems (IBI 1999).

Creation of Transport-Disadvantaged Social Groups

Because of the great reliance on pri-vate vehicles for transport in devel-oped societies, people who cannotafford to buy or lease a vehicle, aswell as those who, because of physi-cal or mental handicaps, cannotoperate one, may find themselvesseriously disadvantaged in their abili-ty to get to jobs or services, or totake care of other needs. Childrenand teenagers as well as elderlyadults may also suffer from the auto-mobile-orientation of the transportand land-use systems.

This effect is particularly perverse inthe case of people kept by povertyfrom owning a private vehicle. Thesystem limits their access to the veryjob opportunities that could provide

the means of improving their eco-nomic situation and rising out ofpoverty.

Although many public transport sys-tems are adapting vehicles and sta-tions to accommodate the needs ofriders with disabilities, the originsand destinations of these riders maynot be conveniently served by thepublic transport system. Problems ofaccess to, and egress from, the sys-tem are even more dissuasive forthese riders than for the general pub-lic. Special-purpose, often door-to-door demand-responsive systems can

meet some of their needs but gener-ally require significant advance book-ing and do not provide tight sched-ule guarantees, so they may be lessconvenient in some ways than con-ventional public transport.

Increasing suburbanization and theliving patterns of older adults suggestthat the automobile will be of grow-ing importance to the next genera-tion of retirees. However, many olderpeople have special transport needsthat may not be well met by an auto-mobile-dependent system. Countriesin the European Union as well as



Ambivalent Public Attitudes to the Social Impacts ofPrivate Vehicle Use

As a result of the debate and attention to these matters over the last third of the twen-

tieth century, there is now a widespread public awareness in the industrialized coun-

tries that private vehicle use contributes significantly to air quality problems, global

warming, petroleum depletion, accidental deaths, and so on. Surveys frequently

express significant public concerns about these matters, and concerns about the social

costs of private vehicle use have led to a quite remarkable shift in governmental trans-

port investment policies over this time period.

Yet for the great majority of the population, expressed concerns rarely translate into

modifications of personal behavior. The same public continues to use private vehicles

profligately, and shows very few signs of adjusting the values by which personal trans-

portation decisions are made. In particular, consider the use of public transport over

the automobile. A study analyzing the effect of zero fares on public transport ridership

in selected cities in the United States found that even free public transport had only a

modest impact on ridership (Domencich and Kraft, 1970, p. 85). To attract a signifi-

cant number of riders away from the automobile, the study concluded that travelers

would need to be paid not to use their cars and instead use public transport. In other

words, the provision of public-transport capacity at a highly subsidized price does not

guarantee its use, even when roads are congested and it is shielded from such conges-

tion. There is little relationship between improved service and lower fares on public

transport, and private use of automobiles. People like driving their cars, and there is lit-

tle that democratic governments can do to lure them to public transport. Restrictions

on parking availability and high charges for auto use may be required for people to

switch from driving to taking public transport. What is sometimes characterized as the

public’s “love affair” with the automobile might be described more accurately as a

“love-hate relationship.” Altschuler (1975) has convincingly rationalized this paradox in

a US context:

The consumer does not want government to interfere with his life. He is

receptive to having government provide improved service — e.g., public

transport — but he will oppose having government disrupt his neighborhood,

harm his environment, or make it difficult for him to drive. The status quo is

the thing. Citizens oppose new highways because they disrupt existing neigh-

borhoods, social patterns, and natural ecologies. They oppose programs to

reduce auto travel because such programs would disrupt established life styles

and travel habits. They can adjust to inconvenience if they have to, but they

are angry if they feel that their elected representatives could have averted the

need — or, even worse, deliberately created it.

Japan and the United States willexperience significant populationgrowth, both in real numbers and inthe proportion of older people. Thenumber of people in Europe over 60is expected to grow by 66% to 116million in 2025, from a 1996 base of77 million. In Germany, France, andthe United Kingdom, between 15%and 17% of the population is over60, with trends indicating rapid agingover the next two decades. Italy hasthe distinction of being the oldestnation within Europe — defined asthe proportion of people over 60coupled with the lowest fertility rate.Italy now has more people over age 60 than people 20 and younger.Similarly, Japan's population leadsmost of the world in the number ofolder adults. The number of Japaneseover age 60 is expected to grow by65% over the next 25 years, from 26million to 40 million. The US baby-boom population totals nearly 80million people. As this group ages,the number of people over 60 willnearly double in 25 years. There aremore than 44 million people over age60 today in the United States; theirnumber is projected to increase towell over 80 million in 25 years.

As the population grows, cars drivenby the elderly will constitute anincreasing proportion of traffic, espe-cially in the suburbs and in ruralareas, where many elderly peopletend to reside. Addressing the issueof millions of drivers in their late 70sand beyond involves a tough trade-off between safety and mobility,between the risk to life and the risk toquality of life. Overall, older driversspend far less time on the road thanyounger drivers and have fewer acci-dents. On the basis of accidents permiles driven, however, they have ahigher rate of crashes. The rate risesafter age 75 and increases significant-ly after 85. The driver fatality rateshows that drivers over 75 years ofage are more vulnerable than anyother age group except teenagers.Factors like vision and hearing impair-ment, disorientation, memory disor-ders, and side effects from medicinesare largely responsible.

Understandably, most elderly peoplewant to hold onto their cars and driv-er’s licenses as long as possible. Avalid driver's license is as much a cer-tificate of continued vitality and inde-pendence as it is a mobility necessity.To have to give up driving is viewedas a step toward dependency and isolation. While some countries haveadopted stringent procedures aimedat identifying unsafe elderly driversand getting them off the roads, pub-lic attitudes toward the treatment ofelderly drivers are shifting, as theyounger generation confronts thereality of sustaining the mobility oftheir own elderly parents. There is agrowing sentiment that it is bothunreasonable and unfair to expectelderly people to give up their cars,since doing so would be tantamountto sentencing them to a life of impris-onment in their homes. Instead, oneincreasingly hears demands that soci-ety must find ways to make it safe forolder people to continue driving. To asignificant extent, that is why thefocus of debate has shifted in the lastfew years. While there still are calls toget unsafe older drivers off the road,far more attention is being paid tohelp elderly persons stay on the road.

Community Disruption

Although more difficult to quantify,the increasing orientation of theurban transport system toward pri-vate vehicles can have additionaleffects on the quality of communitylife. As we have seen, the more fla-grant cases of this provided the initialrallying call for the “freeway revolt”against urban highway expansion inthe United States. Urban motorwayswere sometimes built through themiddle of established communities(most frequently those with insuffi-cient political power to oppose thatalignment), in effect dividing thecommunity and constructing a physi-cal barrier between the two halves.

More generally, in a communitydominated by private-vehicle travel,there are relatively few opportunitiesfor serendipitous interactionsbetween residents, because whenpeople leave their homes they isolate

themselves in cars. This can lead to aloss of sense of community andsocial cohesion. To attribute suchdevelopments entirely to automobili-ty would be a gross distortion, yetthere is a palpable, if inchoate sensethat the increased use of cars overlonger commutes has led to a moreharried, less friendly society.

Traffic Congestion

The general public views traffic con-gestion as one of the most vexingdrawbacks of a widely automotivesociety. Moreover, though highwaytraffic congestion is a subject that issometimes sensationalized, there isgrowing evidence that congestion isincreasing in intensity, duration, andgeographic coverage across thedeveloped world. According to the2001 Urban Mobility Study publishedby the Texas Transportation Institute(TTI 2001), the average annual delayper person in the United States hasclimbed from 11 hours in 1982 to 36hours in 1999.3 An OECD study thatuses average daily vehicle-kilometersper road-kilometer as a proxy mea-sure of congestion concludes thatcongestion is also increasing inEurope (OECD 1999b).

Further, there is evidence that con-gestion has gone from being essen-tially a localized peaking problem —stemming from too many drivers try-ing to use a limited number of criticalroad links at critical times; i.e. “rushhours” — affecting a few drivers, tobecoming a more widespread phe-nomenon that affects most drivers.For instance, a 1992 study of US con-gestion found that the percentage ofpeak-hour urban interstate travel thatoccurred in congested conditionsincreased from 40% in 1975 to closeto 70% by 1990 (TRB 1994).Changing urban travel patterns, par-ticularly the increasing role of suburb-suburb trips, are responsible for manyof these trends. Congestion resultingfrom suburb-suburb trips has a differ-ent pattern from the localized severe“rush-hour” congestion on radiallinks to central business districts; ittends to spread in time and space.

mobility 2001


The consequence of these trends, asthe Texas Transportation Institute(2001) and OECD (1999b) studiesdemonstrate, is that urban residentsare spending double and triple theamount of time in congested trafficthat they did only 20 years ago.Wasting hours each week in congest-ed traffic is a deeply frustrating andfruitless use of time for adult urbanresidents. The economic, social, andenvironmental costs to society ofthousands of drivers driving slowly oncongested highways and major thor-oughfares are considerable; thedrivers are unable to perform produc-tive economic endeavors, or toengage in beneficial recreationalactivities with family and friends,while their automobiles produce sub-stantial amounts of airborne pollu-tants. Unfortunately, because of thegrowth of suburbs and the inability ofpublic transport to serve them, thestaunch opposition to new highwayconstruction, and individuals’ visceralattachment to driving in their owncars, an equitable, politically palat-able solution to urban congestionremains elusive.

MITIGATING STRATEGIES

Every industrialized nation hasworked to develop policies to miti-gate the adverse effects of motoriza-tion without impairing the continuedgrowth of mobility. In this section wedescribe the most common of thesestrategies, highlighting best practicesand particularly successful applica-tions. The mitigating strategies canbe classified under six broad cate-gories: (1) reducing the demand forautomobile use; (2) improvements —both physical and operational — inthe provision of highway and publictransport infrastructure; (3) improv-ing the transport options available fortravelers; (4) using innovative land-use and urban-design strategies toreduce travel demand; (5) integratedapproaches that combine multiplestrategies; and (6) “civilizing” themotor vehicle by modifying its designto increase safety and crashworthi-ness and reduce emissions and fuelconsumption. The discussion that fol-lows will address all but the last strat-

egy, which is covered at length inChapter 2.

Each of these broad categoriesincludes multiple strategies. Forinstance, the demand for automobileuse can be reduced in a number ofways: automobiles can be priced toreduce demand; more environmen-tally sound paradigms of vehicleownership and use can be encour-aged; and automobile use can berestricted. Similarly, supply-sideimprovements could include buildingnew infrastructure, as well as operat-ing and managing existing infrastruc-ture more efficiently.

Reducing the Demand for Auto Use

Over the last three decades, the neg-ative effects of the auto have spurredthe creation of several strategies toameliorate these effects by reducingthe demand for automobile travel.They include direct restrictions onauto use as well as a number of inno-vative ideas that are more nuanced intheir approach.

Transportation DemandManagement. TransportationDemand Management (TDM) is a setof techniques that aim to reduce orredistribute travel demand, curtailsolo driving, and decrease autodependency. Typical TDM techniquesinclude promotion of carpooling,flexible working arrangements,telecommuting, road pricing, andtime-saving high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes. In recent years,metropolitan regions in several devel-oped countries have adopted TDM aspart of their transportation plans. Inthe early 1970s, several US corpora-tions initiated voluntary carpool pro-grams in response to appeals to con-serve fuel during the energy crisis.More recently, corporations haveoffered flexible working hours,telecommuting, and other actionsaimed at reducing or redistributingcommuter travel demand. Californiaand certain metropolitan areas of theUnited States mandated ridesharingprograms during the 1980s, but later



“Foregone Travel” Dueto Telecommuting orHome-Based Work

Telecommuting is often promoted

for its potential to reduce demand

for automobile travel. This has been

especially so in the last decade, as

the use of such communication

technology as mobile telephones,

email, and the Internet has prolifer-

ated. Working full time at home and

telecommuting have become practi-

cal options for many workers.

Workers now regularly go online to

access information, transfer work

documents, communicate with

other project staff, and make elec-

tronic purchases of business supplies

and services from in-home offices.

However, this technology revolution

has thus far not been accompanied

by any noticeable decrease in travel.

Some analysts suggest that non-

technology-related constraints limit

the potential of telecommuting to

reduce travel demand. The choice

of whether to telecommute

depends on both external con-

straints such as lack of job suitabili-

ty, management willingness, or

appropriate technology, and inter-

nal constraints such as desire for

workplace interaction, insufficient

self-motivation to work alone at

home, and concern about visibility

for advancements.

Further, data from the US

Nationwide Personal Transportation

Survey as reported by Eash indicate

that home-based workers tend to

travel roughly the same amount as

traditional commuters, but differ in

how their travel is distributed

among trip purposes.

Telecommuters generally reduce

their travel by approximately 30%

on days when they do not com-

mute to a work location. However,

shifts in trip purposes and departure

times are the more likely travel

impacts of information technology

than reductions in vehicle-kilome-

ters traveled.

Source: Eash (2001).

terminated them in the face ofwidespread public opposition.Modest TDM programs also havebeen implemented in Australia,Canada, and the Netherlands.

Evidence over the past two decadesreveals that demand managementhas a limited influence on travelbehavior; not unusual are the resultsof an evaluation of efforts in the SanFrancisco Bay Area which estimatedthat “conventional” TDM (excludingroad pricing options) had the poten-tial to reduce total fuel use and emis-sions by about 7% to 8% (Harveyand Deakin 1991).

City center automobile restric-tions. Automobile restrictions havewon acceptance as a legitimate tech-nique of congestion managementand as an instrument of achievingsustainable mobility in crowded citycenters. They are employed in morethan 100 cities of Europe, North andSouth America, and Asia as docu-mented by OECD surveys (OECD1984). Center-city restrictions vary induration, scope, and severity, rangingfrom temporary traffic prohibitions incommercial districts during shoppinghours to permanent closure to vehic-ular traffic in entire historic town cen-ters (“car-free zones”), as in Vienna,Austria; Munich and Bremen,Germany; and Bologna and Turin,Italy.

More drastic restrictions, involvingoutright bans on automobile use incenter cities, have been institutedwhen pollution reaches unhealthfullevels. In Athens, Mexico City, andduring a September 1998 pollutioninversion incident in Paris (cool airtrapped by warm air above it, whichkeeps pollution from dispersing),authorities banned cars from enteringthe city center on alternate days,according to whether license platesended with an odd or even number.

Traffic calming. In residential areas,there are a variety of regulatory andphysical “traffic-calming” measures

used to slow down and discouragethrough-traffic. The roots of themovement to reduce or “calm” vehic-ular traffic can be traced to WesternEurope, where concern about trafficand the political will to act upon itsurfaced in the early 1970s. TheNetherlands pioneered the concept ofthe Woonerf — protected residentialareas in which pedestrians had abso-lute priority over vehicular traffic; andGerman cities introduced the conceptof Verkehrsberuhigung (the origin andliteral translation of the term “trafficcalming”) — a policy of limiting theuse of autos in residential areas usingan array of techniques, such as divert-ing through-traffic, limiting parking todesignated areas, installing physicalspeed restraints and declaring certainareas off-limits to the automobile. Inthe last decade, many regions in theUnited States have adopted physical

design measures to dissuade motoristsfrom cutting through residential areasen route to and from work.

The rebirth of the city car. Thelaunching of Renault’s Twingo, Fiat’sCinquecento, Volkswagen’s Lupo, andDaimlerChrysler’s A-class and Smartmodels in the late 1990s marked arebirth of the ultra-compact “citycar” compatible with the crowdedurban environment. Unlike their1970s precursors that were spartan inappearance and aimed at young,budget-conscious drivers, the currentgeneration of “minis” are designed toappeal to more affluent customers.Sales figures over the past severalyears, and the interest stimulated bythe launching of DaimlerChrysler’sSmart, suggest that the city car hasfound a market niche amongEuropean car buyers who want asmall, maneuverable, and fuel-effi-cient car but also desire style, fun,and a good driving experience. Thisfavorable market reception is beingreinforced by government/industry-sponsored field tests of small electricand hybrid city cars such as Renault’sPraxitèle at Saint Quentin-en-Yvelinesnear Paris, Fiat’s Elettra Park in Turin;and Honda’s City Pal in Motegi,Japan.

Car sharing: Separating owner-ship from use. Leasing cars on ashort-term basis, otherwise known as“car sharing,” is another strategyaimed at reducing the impact of carsin cities. Car sharing gives urban resi-dents access to cars without requiringthem to own one. The concept worksbecause members of car-sharingorganizations do not depend on carsfor everyday use. The typical memberof an auto cooperative is a young,single, city dweller who needs per-sonal transportation only occasionally.Car-sharing projects can generally bedivided into three types: single-portsystems (where users return the vehi-cle to the place where it came from),dual-port systems (to commutebetween two stations), and multiportsystems (where the user can leave itat any other port). Most existing car-sharing cooperatives are single-port

mobility 2001


Traffic Calming — A USExample

In Montgomery County, Maryland,

a prosperous suburb adjacent to

Washington, DC, that has experi-

enced rapid growth in the last two

decades, county authorities

responded to complaints from resi-

dents and neighborhood groups

about growing commuter cut-

through traffic by installing “speed

humps.” These are raised mounds

in the pavement that force drivers

to slow down to 15–25 mph,

depending on design. Other tech-

niques used by Montgomery

County include “chokers” and small

traffic circles (also known by the

British term, “mini-roundabouts”).

The former create an illusion of a

narrower street and act as a psycho-

logical deterrent to excessive speed;

the latter oblige motorists to slow

down at each intersection as they

negotiate the tight turns of the traf-

fic circle. In the last three years the

Montgomery Transportation

Department has installed about

1,000 speed humps and a few

dozen intersection mini-circles in

residential neighborhoods through-

out the county.

systems. Multiport systems remaintechnically challenging to implementbecause of the difficulty associatedwith keeping the vehicle offer in bal-ance over the various ports given dif-fering levels of demand across timeand location.

Auto cooperatives have been multi-plying rapidly in Switzerland,Germany, Austria, and theNetherlands. While early auto cooper-atives appealed primarily to environ-mentalists and community activistswishing to declare their indepen-dence from the automobile, the cur-rent clientele is motivated more bypersonal convenience and cost sav-ings than by ideological convictions.Car-sharing efforts in North Americaare still in their infancy, thoughfledgling car-sharing initiatives havesprung up in several cities in theUnited States, including Portland, theSan Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, andCambridge, and in Quebec City,Montreal, Toronto, and Victoria inCanada.

Though car sharing is an interestingand innovative experiment, it is notcurrently expected to make a large

reduction in the demand for personalautomobiles in the industrializedcountries. A study commissioned bythe Swiss energy office estimates amarket potential for car sharing ofnot more than 1.5% of the drivingpopulation (Hormandinger 1997).

Fuel taxes: Pricing automobileuse appropriately. Appropriatepricing of the automobile as a tooltoward achieving sustainability is along-cherished goal of manyeconomists. They argue that sustain-ability concerns arise because autousers capture all of the benefits oftheir trips, but pay only a fraction ofthe costs. In particular, drivers don'tpay for the pollution, noise, and CO2they produce, the congestion delaysthey impose on other travelers, or therisks of accidents associated with theirdriving. Economists theorize that ifdrivers were asked to pay these coststhrough appropriate ownership anduse charges, they would be more dis-cerning in their travel choices. Lowerand more sustainable levels of autouse in the aggregate would follow asa consequence.

Economists promote fuel taxes as agood (though not perfect) proxy fora “use” charge on gasoline use andconsequently, for various pollutantemissions. The theory is that highergas taxes influence consumer behav-ior in a myriad of complex ways. Inthe short term, consumers react bycurtailing automobile use. The empiri-cal evidence suggests that short-termeffect is relatively minor — a 10%increase in fuel price translates to a2% to 3% reduction in total automo-bile travel (Graham and Glaister2001).

However, such automobile use differ-ences understate the total impact offuel taxes on sustainability. As the costof gasoline consumption increases,consumers buy lighter, more fuel-effi-cient cars, thus reducing their gaso-line consumption per kilometer trav-eled (though doing so causes some-what of a rebound effect, as theimpact of a higher fuel charge is

reduced on a per-kilometer-traveledbasis), and organize their lives(including where they live) in orderto drive less. In turn, smaller andlighter cars make less of an impact ifthey are involved in accidents(though conversely their ability toprotect passengers from other heavyvehicles is also reduced), and organiz-ing housing decisions to drive lessproduces more compact suburbs andcities.

Indeed, empirical analyses of theeffects of price on gasoline consump-tion in the OECD countries indicatethat price increases have a very signif-icant effect on gasoline consumption(and thus CO2 emissions). Thoughthe range of estimates varies signifi-cantly across studies and across differ-ent countries, the evidence suggeststhat a 10% increase in gasoline pricehas the effect of reducing total gaso-line consumption by 6% to 8%, withmuch of the reduction a conse-quence of consumers choosing to userelatively fuel-efficient automobiles(Graham and Glaister 2001). Indeed,an analysis of the impacts of gasolineprice changes between 1960 and1985 suggests that among the OECDcountries and in the United States,Canada, Ireland, and Finland, a 10%increase in gasoline prices would beaccompanied by at least a similarreduction in total gasoline consump-tion (Sterner and Dahl 1992).

Wide variations in fuel taxes acrossthe industrialized countries facilitatesome understanding of the aggre-gate effects of fuel taxes on gasolineconsumption. Gasoline prices inWestern Europe are between two tothree times the price of gasoline inthe United States, and prices inJapan, Australia, and Canada areabout 65% higher than in theUnited States (OECD 1999a).Further, analysis of 1995 data sug-gests that average fuel use per kilo-meter in the United States is about50% to 80% higher than in WesternEurope, and about 10% to 20%higher than in Japan, Australia, andCanada. Fuel use per capita in theUnited States is more than twice the



Japanese Experimentswith Shared-Use Cars

In October 1997, Honda Motor

Company launched the Intelligent

Community Vehicle System (ICVS)

at their Motegi site. The ICVS pro-

vides several lots from which users

(Honda employees) can select four

different types of electric vehicles

for short-term rental. Smart cards

unlock and start the car. User fees

are calculated automatically and

deducted from the users' stored

value cards. The lots and vehicles

are outfitted with AVI technology,

which allows the ICVS management

center to monitor vehicle location in

real time. Vehicles are equipped

with an auto-charging system that

instructs the vehicles to dock at a

charging terminal when batteries

are low.

per capita use in Western Europeand Japan, and about 70% higherthan in Canada and Australia(Schipper and Marie-Lilliu 1999).

In other words, there is some evi-dence that where they have beenimplemented, high fuel taxes play arole in reducing gasoline consump-tion. However, increasing fuel taxes isa political challenge; such taxes arewildly unpopular with voters andhave a regressive effect on poor andelderly drivers who live on fixedincomes. In most European countries,fuel taxes are already very high, andincreasing them even more would behighly unpopular. This is also true inthe United States, where fuel taxesare relatively low.

Congestion pricing. Congestionpricing, or peak-period pricing, is aspecific pricing scheme that chargesauto users a premium for using roadcapacity when it is scarce, i.e., atpeak periods. Singapore's “arealicensing scheme,” which has been incontinuous operation since 1975, isoften cited as an example of thepotential effectiveness of congestionpricing as a tool to relieve conges-tion. Under this scheme, feesimposed on cars entering the citycenter during rush hours have result-ed in roughly a 40% decrease inpeak-hour traffic. Variable tolls imple-mented on several French autorouteson approaches to Paris and in threecities in Norway (Bergen, Trondheim,and Oslo) have likewise had a signifi-cant impact, by spreading traveldemand to “shoulder” periods.However, efforts to introduce conges-tion pricing more widely have, thusfar, met with only limited success.Until recently technology was a hur-dle: The technologies needed toimplement efficient tolling on high-speed, high-capacity roadways havebecome available only in the lastdecade. Furthermore, for a number ofreasons, citizens and their politiciansin most places have resisted the useof pricing to restrict peak-period driv-ing. In the United States, attempts bythe federal government to promotecongestion pricing in the 1970s and

again in the 1990s were rebuffed.Under a Congressionally authorized“Congestion Pricing Pilot Program”enacted in 1991 and reauthorized in1996, a number of communities car-ried out “pre-implementation” stud-ies, only to conclude that there is notenough political support to proceedwith implementation (Orski 1992).Congestion-pricing initiatives inSweden and the Netherlands havelikewise met with opposition. Anattempt to implement a congestion-pricing scheme in London has alsomet with significant opposition (seefeature box).

Nonetheless, there are some indica-tions that the future of congestionpricing is likely to be brighter than itspast. First, technology is no longer ahurdle; the development andwidespread experience withadvanced electronic fare collectionmechanisms renders the actualimplementation of a congestion-pric-ing program relatively straightfor-ward. Second, there are some recentexperiences where congestion-pric-ing schemes have been successfullyintroduced without significant oppo-sition. Politically, the best prospectsfor wider adoption of this strategyappear to be in connection with theintroduction of new roadway facili-ties where the tolled facility offers a

mobility 2001


London Considers Congestion Charges — For Four Decades

London has long considered charging drivers for the use of congested roads in its cen-

tral and inner areas. As early as 1964, The Smeed Committee reported on the

Economic and Technical Possibilities of Road Pricing, concluding that it was the most

efficient form of congestion control and was within technical reach (UK Ministry of

Transport 1964). No action was taken on the findings of this study. In 1974, the

Greater London Council initiated public consultation on a Supplementary Licensing

Scheme for central/inner London (GLC 1974). This scheme was not implemented

because of concerns about administrative complexity and problems of enforcement.

In 1979, a simplified scheme was devised which applied only to car drivers and was

aimed principally at keeping out through-traffic (GLC 1979). Again, concerns about

enforcement and the adequacy of the peripheral routes led to a quiet end for conges-

tion pricing in London. In 2000, London began a new form of administration, headed

by an executive mayor whose platform included the introduction of congestion charg-

ing in the Capital. After a thorough study, the British government enacted legislation to

permit direct charging for road use, creating the Greater London Authority (ROCOL

Working Group 2000). This plan is now being prepared with the aim of implementa-

tion by the end of 2002 (Greater London Authority 2001).

The current plan will cover the ten-square-mile Central Business District, and charges

will be levied between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. The daily charge of £5

will apply to both cars and commercial vehicles. Public transport, some other public

service vehicles, motorcycles, vehicles of people with disabilities, and electrically pro-

pelled cars will not be charged. License plates will be checked against a list of vehicle

numbers with a valid warrant to travel (automatically entered into a computer database

on payment of the charge), and a number of traffic-management and public-transport

improvements are to be introduced concurrently. The scheme is predicted to reduce

traffic in central London by 10% to 15% and reduce congestion by 20% to 30%, and

should generate net revenue of £190m a year, which must by law be spent on improv-

ing transport in London.

Prime Minister Tony Blair joined with the Conservative Party in opposing the London

congestion-charging scheme. Together, they pledged to block the proposal in London’s

governing body, the Greater London Assembly. It will be interesting to see whether

Mayor Livingstone, who made the congestion-charging scheme one of his central elec-

toral pledges, will succeed in making the 40-year-old dream of British transport

economists come true.

high level of service alternative toolder, unpriced, competing facilities.In Southern California in the 1990s,implementations of this sort includedthe opening of a privately fundedand operated SR91 Express Lanessystem, allowing drivers of single-occupant vehicles to pay a fee toaccess a time-saving lane previouslyrestricted to high-occupancy vehi-cles.4 Drivers still have the option ofstaying on the old, slower, butunpriced facility.

Enhancing the Capacity andEfficiency of the Existing Roadand Public TransportInfrastructure

Enhancements in the capacity or effi-ciency of infrastructure can addressthe economic sustainability of publictransport and the operational sustain-ability of the road system.

Expanding the physical capacityof the highway system. One wayto relieve road congestion is toexpand the capacity of the highwaysystem by building new motorways,widening and improving existingarterial highways, and eliminatingbottlenecks caused by inadequateroadway design. Building new roadsis the traditional approach to reliev-ing congestion (or keeping conges-tion within tolerable limits).

However, it is clear that building newroads is not a foolproof “solution”for congestion. Building new roadsis not always possible; it is almostalways expensive; and the newcapacity is regularly swamped bytraffic growth induced in part by theanticipated easier travel conditionsand changes in land use.5 Althoughit is difficult to measure “induceddemand” — trips that would nothave been taken but for the con-struction of the new roads — ana-lysts agree that new roads inducesome new traffic. Estimates ofinduced traffic’s share of total trafficrange widely, with estimates rangingfrom 10% to 100% of all traffic (e.g.,SACTRA 1994, Hansen and Huang1997, Fulton et al. forthcoming).

Building new roads is not as easy as itused to be. There is little reason tobelieve that opposition to new high-ways will lessen in the future.Although new roads will be built,concerns about environmental andsocial sustainability will slow the paceof expansion of new infrastructureand widen the gap between traveldemand and highway capacity tomeet that demand. Hence, by itself,expanding road infrastructure doesnot seem to offer a valid strategy toachieve an operationally sustainabletransport system.

Moreover, even discounting for newroads that will not be built because ofcommunity opposition, the demandfor highways often exceeds the finan-cial resources available. Thus new andinnovative sources of financing areoften key to successful infrastructureprojects. The most prominent andpopular of these new financing meth-ods are new twists on an old idea —toll roads. Many new roads and high-ways in Europe, and some in theUnited States, are being built as tollfacilities and are financed by the rev-enue from their tolls.

Innovation to increase the oper-ational and economic efficiencyof public transport. There are anumber of initiatives afoot thatpromise to increase the operationaland economic efficiency of publictransport systems. Some are based ontechnological developments, such asthe use of smart cards as a fare medi-um; the development of real-timepassenger information systems thatimmediately inform passengers ofdelays in the system’s extensive use ofGlobal Positioning Satellites (GPS)-based automatic bus location sys-tems; and dynamic scheduling androuting of paratransit to meet excessdemand or make up for delays. Stillother innovative operational initia-tives include door-to-door publictransportation service.

Other initiatives involve more vigor-ous and imaginative management bypublic authorities and institutions.

These include an increase in tracksharing, i.e., joint use of mainline raillines by intercity, regional, andmunicipal public transport system-wide; regional integration of publictransport schedules and fares; thedevelopment of regional transporta-tion associations; and the widespreadoutsourcing of public transport ser-vice operations to save money andimprove service.

Among the most important globaltrends in public transport manage-ment are efforts to improve the eco-nomic viability and efficiency of pub-lic transport by turning the operationof public transportation systems overto the private sector. Known in itsvarious forms as deregulation, privati-zation, outsourcing, contracting, fran-chising or competitive tendering, the



UndergroundMetroroutes

With surface rights-of-way through

densely populated areas virtually

exhausted, the Paris regional trans-

portation authorities are planning

to build underground routes as the

most efficient — and often the

only — way to relieve surface traf-

fic congestion. The Paris regional

plan for 2015 envisions a 100-kilo-

meter network of high-capacity

underground highways or metro-

routes. The plan calls for a low-

clearance, two-level roadway, each

three lanes wide.

The first application of the metro-

route concept is a 10-kilometer seg-

ment of the A86-West autoroute,

which would complete a missing

link of an outer beltway in the

Versailles area, west of Paris.

Engineers estimate that about 90%

of traffic in the Paris region would

qualify for the low-clearance dou-

bledeck tunnels. By excluding heavy

vehicles, the design can accommo-

date steeper entrance/exit ramps

and tighter curves. Estimated cost

of the project, which is currently

under construction with a projected

opening date of 2003, is $2 billion,

or $320 million/mile.

aim is always the same: to improvethe service quality and performanceof public transport by injecting com-petition and entrepreneurialapproaches into service delivery.

Deregulation and outsourcing areparticularly popular with govern-ments trying to improve public trans-port service. No longer associatedwith any particular political ideology,deregulation and outsourcing do notnecessarily imply complete privatiza-tion. In many cases, the governmentretains policy-making functions (deci-sions about routes, fares, schedulesand service standards) and contractswith private providers for serviceoperation. Service contracts areawarded competitively to the lowestresponsible bidder. In some cases,employees of a public transport agen-cy may themselves compete for con-tract awards.

Operational highway improve-ments using intelligent trans-portation systems technology.New and innovative managementtechniques and technology are help-ing improve the operations and effi-ciency of existing highways.Operational improvements are partic-ularly effective in reducing unpre-dictable disturbances in the trafficflow caused by collisions, vehiclebreakdowns, special events, and roadrepair. These improvements are madepossible by recent advances in a setof communication and informationtechnologies known collectively asIntelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) technology. The most significanttechnologies that have emerged aftera decade of research and experimen-tation include:

● Sensing and communication tech-nologies. Three kinds of tech-nologies are proving to be par-ticularly important. The first aretechnologies that provide ameans to detect disturbances intraffic flow quickly, enablinghighway operators to clear acci-dent scenes and restore normaloperating conditions more

rapidly. The second are vehicle-based emergency response sys-tems using Global PositioningSystems (GPS) satellite technol-ogy, which can pinpoint a car’slocation even if the driver isinjured or cannot accuratelydescribe his or her where-abouts. A third application alsouses GPS technology along withautomatic vehicle identificationtechniques to monitor and con-trol the movement and regulari-ty of vehicles.

● Advanced traveler informationsystems. Traveler informationsystems enable shippers, fleetoperators, and individual travel-ers to make more informedtransportation decisions basedon real-time information abouttraffic conditions. For instance,real-time traveler informationsystems alert motorists to inci-dents and special events andadvise drivers about alternativeroutings. Real-time parkinginformation systems guidemotorists to parking facilitiesthat still have vacant spaces.Sophisticated roadway weathermonitoring systems alertmotorists to unfavorable roadconditions and road hazardsahead.

● Advanced payment mechanisms.Electronic toll collection (ETC)reduces bottlenecks at tollplazas, and makes possible theuse of congestion-sensitivehighway tolls that can increasecharges during rush hours.Smart cards enable more effi-cient fare collection from trans-port riders.

● Advanced traffic managementtechnologies. Computer-con-trolled, traffic-responsive signalsystems are used to smooth outtraffic flow. Improved equip-ment and techniques shortenthe time required for routineroad repairs and reduce disrup-tions caused by work zones.

It remains to be seen whether intelli-gent transportation systems will havean impact on traffic congestion. Sofar, there is only limited anecdotalevidence of a positive impact of ITSon congestion as measured byimproved traffic flow and reducedtrip time.

ITS programs in the United States,Western Europe, and Japan have ben-efited from sustained governmentsupport. As these technologiesdemonstrate success and prove theirworth, the need for continued gov-ernment developmental support isbeing questioned. In the UnitedStates, there is an emphasis on trans-ferring primary responsibility forimplementing ITS systems to stateand local governments. In Europe andJapan, national governments areexpected to continue playing a cen-tral role in deploying ITS infrastruc-ture.

Improving the AvailableTransport Options

Planners suggest two strategies tofacilitate sustainable mobility in thiscategory. First, reduce auto depen-dency by increasing non-auto trans-port options. Second, provide mobili-ty and accessibility options for thosewho do not have access to autos.

mobility 2001


Real-time PassengerInformation Systems

Signs that tell riders precisely when

the next train will arrive are a com-

mon sight in the rail public trans-

port systems of Germany,

Switzerland, Austria, and Japan.

Radio receivers installed in the signs

receive up-to-the-minute informa-

tion from the train control center

and computers on board the trains,

and post the information almost

instantly on bright electronic dis-

plays in subway stations and at

light-rail stops. Such real-time pas-

senger information systems are used

widely by public bus systems

throughout Europe and Asia. They

are now increasingly being used in

the United States as well.

Provision of public transport. Inthe last three decades, the cities ofthe developed world have significant-ly enhanced their public transport. Inthe EU, the bus and coach fleet hassteadily grown and is now 50% largerthan in 1970. The total number ofbuses in the United States has grownby over 80%, although most of thisgrowth is in the number of schoolbuses. In Japan, the bus fleet grew byabout a quarter during this period.There has also been an expansion inurban rail in the last quarter century,with new systems constructed in anumber of US and European cities. Insome cities (for example, Atlanta,Miami, Naples, Bilbao, and Kyoto),this has taken the form of metros,while in other, generally smaller cities(such as Portland, San Jose, Nantes,Rouen, and Manchester), it has takenthe form of light rail. Most of theestablished metro systems outside theUnited States have been extendedover the last two decades, and higherdegrees of automation are beingintroduced. However, though theseenhancements in the provision ofpublic transport have been accompa-nied in most cases by increases inabsolute levels of patronage, publictransport's share of total trips andtotal kilometers traveled has actuallydeclined almost universally across thedeveloped world in this period.

Improving nonmotorized trans-port. Among the OECD countries,Denmark and the Netherlands are theleaders in promoting NMT. The sec-ond Dutch Traffic and TransportStructure Scheme (SVV2), coveringthe period 1990–2001, identifies thebicycle as the ideal mode for trips ofup to 5–10 kilometers (in fact 40% ofall automobile trips in the Netherlandsare less than 5 kilometers in length).At the same time, the SVV2 recog-nizes a number of issues associatedwith bicycle use, including the needto provide direct, safe, and attractivebicycle routes between residences andtrip destinations; the need to providebicycle parking facilities; and theproblems of safety and bicycle theft.Within the framework of the SVV2,the government developed a nationalBike Master Plan (BMP), covering the

period 1990–1997, to promote andimprove bicycle use. Roughly 575 mil-lion guilders (US$230 million) wasspent by central, provincial or localgovernment on bicycle projects.Despite this substantial public invest-ment, BMP research concluded thatbicycle policy alone was not sufficientto increase bicycle use and restraingrowth in car use (ECMT 2001).

Denmark has some of the mostaggressive pro-NMT policies in theworld. Copenhagen has roughly 300kilometers of separated bicycle trails,

roughly half the total length of thecity’s road network. Bicycles sharingthe roadway with cars are given prior-ity over turning vehicles at intersec-tions, and a public education pro-gram inculcates a “culture of respect”by drivers for pedestrians and bicy-clists. Such initiatives have resulted(EU 2001) in Copenhagen’s havingone of the lowest rates of transporta-tion-related fatalities per person in theworld (1.3 deaths or serious injuriesper year per thousand residents).Copenhagen also runs a City Bike pro-gram, which in 1997 provided rough-ly 2,500 free bikes at key locations



Transport Deregulation Around the Developed World

In the United Kingdom, public bus service in London was deregulated in 1984. A

public authority, London Transport, determines routes, timetables, and fare structures,

and sets service and vehicle specifications. In the mid-1990s, 40 companies provided

service under competitively awarded contracts.

In 1986, public transportation in the rest of the UK was deregulated, giving private car-

riers complete freedom to determine fares and schedules. At present, more than 75%

of public bus services are operated commercially. An assessment ten years after the

deregulation of bus services in Britain found that bus lines in London had gained rider-

ship, while those in other parts of the country had registered a marked decline.

Operating costs declined by 23.5% in London and 30% outside London during the

period 1986 to 1995. For the same period, total subsidies decreased by 48.3% in

London and 28.8% outside London.

Beginning in 1989, a wave of legislation transformed Scandinavian public transport,

with 16 of Sweden’s 24 counties now awarding contracts competitively. In Stockholm,

private operators provide approximately 80% of metropolitan bus and rail services.

Similarly, under 1989 Danish legislation, Copenhagen Transport was required to con-

vert its bus service to competitive contracting. And Helsinki, Finland, completed con-

version of all bus services to competitive contracting in 1995.

Although Switzerland’s Postbus Service is owned by the Swiss government, 80% of

its bus services are now contracted. The 20% that are operated directly by Postbus are

subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as the contract carriers.

Switzerland's new Railway Act aims to bring competition to regional public transport.

In Tokyo and Osaka, Japan, private subway lines have been operating for many years

on a fully integrated basis with municipally owned systems. Most major cities through-

out Australia — Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and Perth — have converted or intend

to convert to competitive bidding. This includes bus as well as rail services. In New

Zealand, a 1990 act of Parliament required that all public transport services be provid-

ed commercially or under a “competitive pricing procedure,” and the reforms were

completed in 1996.

In the United States, private provision of public transport service is rare, although

examples exist. Las Vegas has converted its entire public transport system to competi-

tive contracting. Indianapolis runs about 70% of its bus service under private contracts,

and Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Diego also contract significant portions of

their bus services.

around the city. The bikes are paid forby advertising, and are maintained bythe Municipality, using prisoninmates. There are plans to increasethe number of bikes in the program.Copenhagen has also taken measuresto make the use of cars undesirable;for example, it has reduced the avail-ability of parking and convertedstreets to pedestrian zones. The cityhas also pursued a public transport-oriented urban development plan (theso-called finger plan, based on radialrail corridors). At the national level,

automobile ownership in Denmark isdiscouraged through very high vehi-cle registration fees (105% to 180%of the vehicle purchase price),although the gasoline tax is in themiddle of the range of Europeanrates. Roughly one-third of the city’shome-to-work trips are made by bicy-cle (Newman and Kenworthy 1999).

Providing transport options forthose without autos. There aremany programs and policies to pro-

vide mobility for those without accessto autos. Effective solutions frequentlyfocus on particular groups, such asthe poor, those with disabilities, orthe elderly. Policymakers typicallyfocus on three kinds of strategies:

● Ensuring that mainline publictransport services are sensitive tothe needs of those without accessto autos. Often agencies provideminimum levels of off-peakpublic transport service toensure that service is availablefor so-called captive riders, evenwhen such service would not bejustified on strict economicgrounds. Also, there has been aconcerted effort across thedeveloped world to ensure thatpublic transport service is acces-sible to those with specialneeds. For instance, in theUnited States, the 1990Americans with Disabilities Actlaid out a minimum set of phys-ical design standards for publictransport vehicles and stationsthat public transport servicesmust meet to serve those withspecial needs.

● Paratransit services. In severalregions, there are trips that con-ventional public transport isunable to serve. In many cases,local authorities provide dedi-cated demand-responsive para-transit services to help peoplewith special needs completethose trips. Such programs areoften targeted at the disabledand the elderly. (Examplesinclude “The Ride,” offered bythe Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority in theBoston metropolitan region.)These services have both advan-tages and disadvantages relativeto conventional public trans-port. Being demand-responsiveand door-to-door, they oftenoffer a high level of service, andas a result there is disagreementabout what constitutes fair andefficient pricing for the service.On the other hand, these ser-vices usually require significantadvance planning. Also, many

mobility 2001

3-21●www.wbcsdmobility.org

Advanced Traffic Information Systems in Tokyo, Japan

In the Tokyo metropolitan area, motorists can access one of two traveler information

systems. The first system, launched in February 1994, is operated by the for-profit ATIS

Corporation, a partnership of the Tokyo Municipal Government and several private

companies. The company’s traveler information center receives traffic data from various

sources, merges it and sends updates to the subscribers’ terminals (personal computers,

in-vehicle devices, etc.) every five minutes. The second service, VICS (Vehicle

Information and Communication System), established as a cooperative venture

between Japan’s Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, the National Police Agency,

and private industry, began operation in the Tokyo metropolitan area in April 1996.

VICS provides drivers with real-time information on traffic conditions, travel time, high-

way incidents, lane closure, construction updates, and parking availability using an FM

multiplex broadcasting system and roadside microwave and infrared beacons to com-

municate with motorists. The beacons can superimpose traffic data on digital road

maps displayed on the car’s video screen and provide more detailed information in the

form of text messages. As of 1998, about 3,600 microwave beacons and 18,000

infrared beacons installed along the expressway network served nearly three million

equipped autos throughout Japan. The chief source of revenue for VICS operation is a

fee imposed on manufacturers of VICS in-vehicle devices.

Traffic and Incident Management, Melbourne, Australia

Since 1989, Melbourne’s freeways have been equipped with an electronic congestion

and incident detection system (ACIDS) using detection loops at approximately 500-

meter intervals. The loops send signals every 20 seconds to a traffic control center indi-

cating speed, volume, and lane occupancy data. Should the rate of change be signifi-

cant over several consecutive intervals, an alarm is sounded in the traffic control center.

Once the central computer raises an incident alarm, operators view the area by video

surveillance and take appropriate action to inform motorists of the congestion ahead

and dispatch an incident-clearing team.

Drive Time, an extension of the incident detection system, uses the same detection

loops to calculate travel time for each 500-meter section of the road. Times in adjacent

segments are totaled and converted to times between freeway exits. The information is

presented on electronic variable message boards, showing estimated travel times from

the sign location to various freeway exits. A color-coded strip shows traffic conditions

on segments between each major exit. Other variable message signs at freeway entry

ramps alert drivers of traffic conditions on the freeway, giving them an opportunity not

to enter (or exit) the freeway if conditions ahead are “red.” Information about travel

times between specific freeway exits and about incidents is also available over the

telephone.

citizens with disabilities arguethat as a matter of dignity theydeserve to be integrated withmainstream society as much aspossible, and being able to usepublic transport is an importantelement of this effort. Many citi-zens with disabilities and theiradvocates decry targeted para-transit services — even thoseoffering higher levels of servicethan conventional public trans-port — as humiliating.

● Direct user-side subsidies to helpthose without autos either getthem (in the case of the poor)or buy alternative transport ser-vices (such as taxi service)directly.

Land-Use and Urban DesignStrategies

In the last three decades, some urbanregions in the developed world havesuccessfully employed land-use policyto facilitate a pattern of developmentin which public transport can play asignificant mobility role, and limitsprawl. Before discussing alternative policyregimes, it is important to note thatland-use policy works best in rapidlygrowing residential and commercialdevelopments where existing struc-tures can be easily reused over time.In established regions, the durabilityof existing housing stock limits theeffectiveness of land-use measures. Inthe United States and the UnitedKingdom, for example, annual con-struction of new housing representsonly around 1% of the existing stock.

Public transport-oriented devel-opment. This policy encourages resi-dential, employment, and recreationbuildings to cluster around rail publictransport stations. The goal is to buildcompact, pedestrian-friendly commu-nities where many trips can be madeon foot or by bicycle, and longercommutes are made by train.

This approach has been followedwidely — and successfully — inEurope, Canada, and Japan. Examplesinclude Stockholm’s satellite towns

along commuter rail lines radiatingfrom the city; the French villes nou-velles on the outskirts of Paris;Toronto’s high-rise developmentsalong the Yonge Street subway;Japan’s public transport communitiesat the termini of private rail lines; andGermany’s transit-oriented suburbancommunities such as Munich’sPerlach and Frankfurt’s Neustadt. Inthe United States, on the other hand,only a few examples of public trans-port villages exist. In a great manysuburban locations, community

opposition to high-density develop-ment makes public transport-orienteddevelopment difficult to implement.Spatial location policies: TheDutch ABC policy. TheNetherlands, one of the smallestdeveloped nations in Europe, has acomprehensive approach to land-useplanning: the ABC policy. Dutch plan-ning focuses not only on curbing traf-fic growth and urban sprawl, but alsoon developing compact cities andprotecting open areas. ABC explicitlyseeks to reduce automobility through



Portland, Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundary — The Rigorsof Land-Use Planning

The experience of Portland, Oregon, has been widely cited as an example of using

land-use policy to guide new development into public transport-friendly high-density

growth. Though Portland has indeed achieved much by way of compact, public trans-

port-friendly development, a closer look at the city's experience reveals the tensions

and controversies associated with such land-use planning, and identifies some of the

costs that accompany the sustainability benefits.

The current planning regime owes its origins to legislation passed in the 1970s, which

required every city to delineate an urban growth boundary. The initial goal was to

identify enough vacant land to accommodate projected long-range urban population

growth. New development outside of the growth boundaries was regulated to protect

existing farms and other rural uses from leapfrog development. More than one-third of

the land included in the original growth boundary for the Portland metropolitan area

was vacant, and only around 10% of the vacant land was unfit for development.

Almost all of the original vacant land available for development has now been filled in.

Metro, Portland’s directly elected regional government, which is statutorily responsible

for verifying the availability of adequate land for 20 years of future growth every five

years, resisted pressures to expand the boundary during its first 20 years. It instead pre-

ferred to accommodate growth by encouraging local governments to adopt higher

density zoning standards, with limited success.6 Although more than 30 boundary

adjustments were made during this period, each involved less than 20 acres. However,

pressures on Metro have mounted, bolstered by significant increases in housing

prices.7 In 1998, Metro authorized an expansion of around 3,500 acres, creating

enough room for approximately 23,000 housing units and 14,000 jobs.

There remains considerable disagreement in Portland about the effectiveness and bene-

fits of the urban growth boundary; supporters argue that it has controlled sprawl and

encouraged public transport use, while detractors argue that it has provoked land and

housing price increases by creating artificial scarcity. Neither of these claims appears to

be entirely accurate. On the one hand, development in the vacant areas frequently

exhibits the typical characteristics of sprawl; it is probably true, however, that the

boundary limited the spatial extent of the sprawl. On the other hand, land and housing

prices in Portland are still not particularly high compared to similar areas in the region.

Some argue that price increases in the 1990s can be entirely explained by traditional

market forces. In summary, Portland's apparent “success” in managing land use is con-

stantly being put to the test. Though the current regional government seems to be

committed to a sprawl control policy, it needs to remain responsive to its local con-

stituents and is also required by statute to ensure that land shortages do not persist.

Sources: Newman and Kenworthy 1999, Knaap 2000, Portland Metro 2000, Patterson n.d.

programs such as the one encapsulat-ed in its slogan for business location:“the right business in the rightplace.”

The ABC policy classifies businessesinto three categories based on theimportance of their need for publicaccess and road transport. Businessdevelopment sites are similarly classi-

fied in terms of their public transportand road accessibility. The policyattempts to encourage businesseswith a high number of employeesand visitors to locate on sites withgood public transport accessibility,such as near centrally located publictransport or rail stations (“A” sites) ornear major public transport nodes inless central locations (“B” sites). “C”sites, with good road access, are pri-marily intended for businesses thatdepend on road transport for theiroperations. Associated with each typeof site are restrictions on the numberof parking spaces that can be provid-ed there: “A” sites are limited to 10to 20 parking spaces per 100employees and “B” sites to 20 to 40parking spaces per 100 employees.These rules are sufficiently restrictivethat businesses have a strong incen-tive to locate in accordance with theintentions of the policy.

Overall, the Dutch accept the ABCpolicy, though objections to the high-ly restrictive parking limits, alongwith economic pressures at the localor provincial levels, have led to arelaxation of the parking rules insome areas of the country.

Integrated Approaches

The most successful examples ofcities controlling automobility andimproving the sustainability of theirtransport system use combinations ofthe policy options above. Isolatedpolicy responses are unlikely to havea significant impact.

Copenhagen, for example, combinedpublic transport-oriented land-useplanning, high automobile ownershipcharges, priority treatment of bicy-cles, and numerous improvements tocenter-city social life. Portland appliedspatial growth controls, developmentof a light-rail public transport systemand, again, many enhancements toimprove the quality of center-city life.

As another example, Zurich upgradedits tramways into a modern, high-quality, and reliable public transport

mobility 2001


The Public Transport Metropolis

A study of 12 metropolitan areas where public transport successfully retained a

prominent mobility role found three common trends across the cities. First, a

vibrant city center, such as in Zurich and Melbourne, where public transport is an

important means of circulation. Second, an ability to adapt settlement patterns to

be conducive to public transport — such as in Stockholm, Copenhagen, Tokyo,

and Singapore — by concentrating offices, homes, and shops around rail stations

in attractive, well-designed, pedestrian-friendly communities. Third, an ability to

adapt public transport technologies to serve spread-out, low-density patterns of

growth, efficiently using a combination of institutional (such as an innovative track-

sharing agreement between the municipal rail system and the regional railways in

Karlsruhe, Germany) and technological (such as the track-guided buses that pro-

vide transfer-free feeder and line-haul functions in a single vehicle in Adelaide,

Australia) innovations. Key additional lessons include:

ÅThe need to lay out a well-articulated vision of land use to direct transport planning

for the future. Examples include Ottawa’s 1974 master plan that defined an

east-west axis for channeling growth, which led to North America's largest and

most successful busway network.

ÅAn effective champion to articulate the vision, win others over to their vision, and

translate the vision into reality. Many successful public transport metropolises

have benefited from inspired leadership, such as Sven Markelius’ stewardship of

the Stockholm regional plan, or mayor Jaime Lerner’s 20-year governance of

Curitiba, Brazil.

ÅEfficient institutions and governance that promote close coordination of trans-

portation and land use. One exemplary model is the Verkehrsverbund found in

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, which ensures that problems commonly

plaguing regional public transport services — such as a multitude of different

fares, uncoordinated timetables, and excessive transfers — are eliminated.

ÅCompetition and an entrepreneurial ethos to contain costs, reward efficiency, and

spur service innovations. For instance, in Munich, Karlsruhe, Curitiba, and

Adelaide, the public sector retains control over how service is provided (level,

quality, frequency, routing) and lets market forces and competition determine at

what price the service is provided.

ÅGiving public transport priority and discouraging car use. Ottawa, Copenhagen,

and Zurich give priority to public transport vehicles. These measures are supple-

mented with restraints on automobile use by a combination of pricing and physi-

cal design.

ÅDesigning the city for pedestrians. An overarching design philosophy of most

public transport metropolises is that cities are for people, not cars. For exam-

ple, in Copenhagen, Munich, and Curitiba, large parts of the historical

core are given over to pedestrians. In other cities, trams and light-rail vehicles

blend nicely with auto-free zones. In addition, through conscious design, pub-

lic transport is made part of the community's physical and symbolic core.

Source: Cervero 1998.

system operating on separate rights-of-way obtained by removing trafficlanes from general use. A computer-based signaling system ensures thattrams do not have to stop at trafficintersections. Seasonal “Rainbow”passes reduce riders’ cost per trip tovery low levels. Intensive marketingand information campaigns promotethe use of the tram system, and spe-cial maps show people how to get toparticular destinations such as restau-rants and cultural attractions via thepublic transport system. These publictransport system improvements wereaccompanied by complementaryland-use and urban improvementpolicies. Large shopping centers weredeveloped around major stations.Urban public transport villages weredeveloped around the public trans-port lines, including Tiergarten, apublic transport village built in anabandoned quarry in central Zurich.As a result of these and related mea-sures, the automobile mode share forthe journey to work fell by 9%between 1980 and 1990.

In the mid-1990s, in a major study ofurban travel and sustainable develop-ment, the OECD concluded that suc-cessful treatment of the problems ofsustainable mobility will require inte-grated approaches that combinemutually reinforcing measures (OECD1995b). It recommended approachesthat were classified into three inte-grated “strands”:

● Best practice — the wider useof known successful methods inland-use and transport plan-ning, traffic management, andpublic transport provision.

● Policy innovations — appli-cation of research into land-useplanning and traffic manage-ment. Innovative land-use plan-ning policies would widen travelchoices by influencing the loca-tion of homes and jobs, whiletraffic management measureswould include congestion pric-ing, telecommuting, and invest-ments to improve public trans-port performance.

● Sustainable development —recommendation of a progres-sively increasing fuel taxdesigned over time to make asignificant reduction in theamount of automobile travel.The study recommended a 7%annual increase in the real priceof fuel, applied continually overthe next 20 years.

Several years after issuing its recom-mendations, the OECD (2001) statedthat “the practical application of evenone, let alone all three strands of thispolicy package, faces formidableimplementation barriers. Coherentintegration of environmental, trans-port, and land-use policy has provento be extremely difficult.” While theOECD was perhaps overly optimisticwith regard to the timetable of imple-menting their recommended mea-sures, the example stands as a warn-ing of the dangers of extrapolatingmeasures (or even coordinatedgroups of measures) that haveworked in particular cities to a nation-al or supranational level.

CONCLUSIONS: A STRATEGY FORSUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

This assessment of existing issues andtrends associated with the search forsustainable mobility suggests the fol-lowing general conclusions:

● The need for mobility willincrease in the future. The chal-lenge is to develop strategiesthat accommodate futuremobility needs while controllingand mitigating potential harm-ful side effects, i.e., to create“sustainable mobility.”

● Automobile-based transporta-tion will continue to be the pre-ferred means of personal mobili-ty in the urbanized regions ofthe developed world. To pre-serve the automobile as a sus-tainable means of transporta-tion, policies governing its usewill have to undergo significantmodification. Automobile man-agement techniques such as

travel-demand management,the use of variable pricing, andcar sharing have shown a poten-tial for somewhat reducing ourreliance on automobiles. Whileindividually the impact of automanagement measures may besmall, collectively they can be auseful element in an overallstrategy for sustainable mobility.

● Innovative policies and tech-nologies have shown promise inalleviating many of the harmfulside effects of motorization. Inparticular, the technology ofIntelligent TransportationSystems (ITS) may increase theefficiency and productivity ofthe transportation system with-out requiring politically unten-able new highway construction.

● The influence of public trans-port as an instrument of sus-tainable mobility is expectedto decline if cities spread outand their populations continueto disperse. However, publictransport will remain essentialfor the future mobility andeconomic viability of largemetropolitan regions in theindustrialized world.

● Private financing may offeralternate sources of capital forhighway infrastructure.

● Environmental concerns willseriously constrain future high-way construction in urban andenvironmentally sensitive areasof the developed countries.

● Case studies of exemplarymetropolitan mobility systemssuggest that several factors fos-ter a favorable sustainablemobility environment:

● Enlightened political leadership — a commitmentto achieving sustainable mobilityat the highest levels of localpolitical leadership.



● Supportive policy environment — an explicitpolicy to support public trans-portation. This policy may beaccompanied by limiting theuse of automobiles in the citycenter and traffic-calming mea-sures in residential areas.

● Stable fiscal environ-ment — a dedicated source offunding to support operation ofthe transportation system, andadequate capital to ensure asteady program of improve-ments and expansion of trans-portation infrastructure.

● Supportive land-use policies — a deliberate effortto concentrate development intransportation corridors andcontrol the rate of developmentoutside designated urbanboundaries.

● Receptivity to innova-tion — a willingness to intro-duce new technology andexperiment with new service-enhancing innovations.

● Interagency coopera-tion — close coordinationamong various administrativeunits in charge of transportationand physical interconnectionsbetween light rail, metros, andbuses.

NOTES

1. The 15 EU countries account forroughly 13% percent of world CO2emissions, China for another 13%,and Japan for roughly 5% of thetotal.

2. These numbers exclude compensa-tion for concessionary fares, whichis treated as a user rather than anoperator subsidy.

3. The change in levels of delay areprobably more useful than absolutelevels themselves, since traffic stud-ies usually measure delay relative tothe time required to make a trip infree-flow conditions. In reality, build-ing infrastructure with sufficientcapacity to allow free-flow condi-tions under all levels of traffic wouldnever be economically justified.

4. The location is remarkable. Prior tothe SR91 lane, there were no tollhighways at all throughoutCalifornia, and Southern Californiais widely regarded as the worldwideepitome of automobility. In the1970s, attempts to dedicate anexisting freeway lane in the LosAngeles region to high-occupancyuse had to be withdrawn in the faceof strong driver opposition.

5. London’s orbital motorway (theM25), completed in 1986, is oftencited as the most compelling exam-ple of this phenomenon.

6. The average lot size of newdetached housing decreased from13,200 to 8,700 square feet, andthe percentage of attached housing(row- and townhouses) in the stockincreased from around 3% toaround 12% during the period.Such changes take a long time toproduce their full effects and, ofcourse, some of these changes maybe attributable to factors unrelatedto the growth boundary. Residentialdensities generally remained lowerthan originally planned.

7. Median home sales price increasedby 91% between 1990 and 1997,compared to 21% for the nation asa whole.

mobility 2001



The developing world is urbanizing and motorizing at a very rapid rate. Cities in the developing world aregrowing and motorizing so rapidly that they have not had the time or the money to build new infrastructureor to adapt to new technologies. The growth in the geographic spread of urban areas in the developingworld is undermining the ability of public transport systems to provide the services on which most urbandwellers rely for the bulk of their mobility needs. In short, mobility, already poor for most developing-worldurban dwellers, is declining.

Pollution, much of it transport-related, is at extremely high levels and is growing worse. Developing-world,transport-related carbon dioxide emissions are growing rapidly and will surpass transportation-related carbondioxide emissions in the developed world in little more than a decade if present trends continue. Deaths andinjuries from transport-related accidents occur at substantially higher rates than in the developed world.

Some developing-world urban areas are achieving some measure of success in dealing with these problems.But, even more than in the developed world, replicating these successes is proving extremely difficult.

4-1

The mobility picture in cities of the developing world is much more variablethan in the developed world. Great variations in mobility result from levels anddistributions of incomes in the cities, their histories of economic and administra-tive development, and many variables that defy easy categories. Yet many citiesof the developing world share similar patterns in their mobility. Rising incomes,increasing motorization, congestion, and the growth of cities outward into suburbs — trends that are ingrained in the developed world — are clearlyemerging in developing cities. Motorization is occurring so quickly in develop-ing cities that not only is it overwhelming the operational sustainability of thosecities’ infrastructure systems; it is also causing social, economic, and environ-mental imbalances and inequities.

four

personal mobilityin the urbanized regions of the developing world

Most of the citizens of the developingworld are suffering from poor ordeteriorating mobility conditions. Inmany cities, average vehicle speedshave declined to 10 kilometers perhour, and commute times of over anhour or more, with correspondinglosses of productivity, are common.Cities suffer the most severe environ-mental impacts from motorizationbecause of the added congestion andbecause the motor vehicles tend tobe in poorer condition than those indeveloped countries. Governmentsare loath to impose regulations thatwould raise the cost of auto purchaseand use. There is a tendency to keepalready aging vehicles on the roadmuch longer, and environmental reg-ulations governing emissions arepoorly implemented. Developingcities also suffer such high rates ofserious traffic accidents, principallyinflicted on pedestrians and bicyclistsby untrained or reckless drivers, thataccidents are a serious public healthissue.

At the root of these problems is thefact that cities of the developingworld are growing and motorizing sorapidly they have not had the time orthe money to build new infrastruc-ture or to adapt to new technologies.The cities house and transport toomany people, on insufficient numbersof poorly maintained roads and rails,and lack the money and institutionalvigor to fix the problems.

To put the problem in perspective,note that in 1950, less than 30% ofthe world’s population comprisedurban dwellers. By 2005, that num-ber will be 50%. Indeed, “megaci-ties” of more than 10 million peopleare now a defining characteristic ofthe developing world. In 2000, 15 ofthe 19 megacities were in developingnations. By 2015, 18 of the 23megacities will be in the developingworld.

The cities have large proportions oftheir populations below the povertyline, people who in many cases can-not afford even the fares of transit

vehicles. Survey research atOuagadougou (Burkina Faso) foundthat people in the lowest-incomequintile spend over 20% of theirincome for transportation, and theaverage over the entire urban popula-tion is more than 15%. Typically thepoorest, most recent arrivals in a cityare isolated on its fringes, living invery modest dwellings and lackingmany of the most basic services, suchas sewerage and trash removal. Manyof the “street people” of south Asiaand Africa indeed have homes; it isjust that they are unable to reachthem — because of the cost and/ortime involved — between work days.

Many thoughtful critics seek toreverse this trend toward urbaniza-tion, and cite Western capital, globaltrade, consumer marketing — all thedisparate forces of “globalization” —for despoiling formerly rural societiesand drawing people into cities.Although the global economy hascertainly accelerated urban growth, itis not the root cause. The naturalhuman desire to escape the drudgeryand labor of subsistence farming, andseek greater income, mobility, andcomfort is irresistible. Even China’srigid controls on internal migrationare unable to prevent the rapidgrowth of “undocumented” citizensin Beijing and Shanghai.

This seemingly inexorable trendtoward urbanization has seriousimplications for the developingnations themselves, and for the glob-al community at large. If developingnations are able to raise theirincomes, to improve their educationand health care, and build sociallyjust, economically strong societies,then such advancements will origi-nate in their cities. It is in cities thatfinancial capital, economic expertise,and ambitious labor accumulate, incities that politicians, bureaucrats,and media debate, universities teach,hospitals heal, and where students,artists, and citizens of energy andvision congregate, clash, and create.It is in the cities, as sprawling, con-gested, and unruly as many develop-ing cities currently are, that the new

social and economic fibers of theirnations will grow and flourish.

But the rapidly deteriorating mobilityconditions of developing cities hindertheir progress on several fronts. Forinstance, Bangkok includes only 10%of the population of Thailand, butaccounts for 86% of the country’sGNP in banking, insurance, and realestate, and 74% of its GNP in manu-facturing. The World Bank estimatesthat Bangkok loses up to 6% of itseconomic production due to conges-tion (Willoughby 2000a). Indeed,Bangkok suffers far more burdensomecongestion than any US city, despitemotorization levels of about 200autos per thousand population in1990, compared to the US average ofabout 675 autos per thousand at thatsame time.

Most developing cities are simply toodense to handle motorization.Chinese cities average 200 to 250persons per hectare, compared to 50persons per hectare in WesternEuropean cities. This incredible densi-ty creates great pressure for develop-ing cities to grow, to sprawl outward,a trend that automobile ownershipencourages and accelerates. As con-gestion gets worse there is, in fact, anincreased advantage to using a pri-vate car. In the absence of transitwith exclusive rights-of-way, conges-tion is likely to be the worst on themain arteries, which are used forpublic transit routes. Auto users canavoid this in some measure by choos-ing routes or destinations that avoidthe main arteries.

Although automobiles improve themobility of their few, wealthy owners,they increase congestion and delaysfor the many who cannot affordthem. Automobiles are a particularlyheavy burden on those whose travelis limited to slow-moving publictransport vehicles, which cannotescape the congestion of major thor-oughfares. That is not the auto's onlycontribution to social inequity. On alarger scale, the outward growth ofcities widens the gaps between those

personal mobility in the urbanized regions of the developing world


able to afford cars and those thatcannot by moving economic andsocial opportunities beyond the reachof non-auto owners.

To examine the mobility of develop-ing cities in one chapter is a dauntingtask. Conditions in such a broadgroup, and the data available tostudy them, vary widely. Neverthe-less, mobility in developing cities is acrucial topic for the WBCSD and itsreaders to examine. For it is in itscities that the future health and vigorof the developing world rest.

URBAN MOBILITY ANDMOTORIZATION: A GROWINGCHALLENGE

Rising incomes have led to a surge inthe use of automobiles in the majorcities of the developing world. Thistrend is increasing the short-termmobility of individuals with theincome to afford cars. Yet few cities inthe developing world have the roadsand highways to sustain widespreaduse of automobiles. The result isincreasing congestion, air pollution,and rapid, yet haphazard land devel-opment. As more offices and jobsshift to locations accessible only bycar, the income differentials andsocial inequities between automobileowners and the rest of their societiesare exacerbated. Public transport andnonmotorized transport (NMT), prin-cipally walking and bicycles, remainthe principal means of mobility formost citizens of the developingworld. The challenge for policy-mak-ers is to integrate automobiles, publictransport vehicles that range fromsmall minivans to large buses, andNMT, in a manner that decreasescongestion and increases mobilitywhile minimizing other costs to theexternal environment.

Fundamentally, much of the rise inmotorization is driven by risingincomes for a section of the popula-tion in the cities of the developingworld. Rising incomes lead toincreased levels of trip-making,motorization, and shifts from publictransportation to private

automobiles.1 In places as diverse asSantiago, Chile, and Jakarta,Indonesia, higher-income residentsmake 30% more trips than lower-income residents. In São Paulo, thehouseholds from the highest-incomesextile have more than double thetrip rate of households from the low-est (Companhia do Metropolitano deSão Paulo 1999, table 17). Also, aswas observed in Chapter 2, wealthierpeople tend to travel using faster andmore expensive modes. Figure 4-1illustrates the effect of income onmode choice in Santiago and SãoPaulo — as people seem to movefrom foot to public transport andthen to auto.

Table 4-1 illustrates that auto owner-ship, and the rising incomes accom-panying it, often result in a dispropor-tionate increase in the use of autos.The table shows that a 50% increasein auto ownership in the period 1977to 1991 led to a 61% increase in theuse of automobiles in the same peri-od in Santiago.

Despite this growth in motorization,the auto remains only a bit player asa facilitator of mobility for most peo-ple of the developing world. Adetailed look at mode shares acrossthe cities in the developing world(see Figure 4-2 and Appendix TableA-1) shows that public transportationstill dominates trip-making in almostall cities. Indeed, the principal excep-tions to this rule are some cities inAsia and Africa — such as Tianjin andMarrekech — that still have a heavyshare of walking and/or nonmotor-ized vehicle trips.

The Rapid Growth ofMotorization

Motorization — the growth in motorvehicle fleets — is the major forceaffecting mobility in almost all areasof the developing world. More cars,motorcycles, buses, trains, and trucksmean that more people and goodscan potentially travel more placesmore rapidly. This is especially truewhen motor vehicle fleets increasemore rapidly than population. Themotorization rate — which measuresthe number of motor vehicles perperson — provides a gross indicatorof vehicle ownership levels, suggest-ing, for example, what percentage ofthe population has access to someform of motorized transportation. Theterm motorization typically refers toroad vehicles, although rail-basedforms of transport are also motorized.

In the short run, motorization pro-vides improved individual mobility,but the rapid pace often overwhelmsinfrastructure, urban structures, andinstitutions. Building infrastructure is alengthy and expensive process, onethat can rarely keep pace with rapidmotorization, so short-term systemimbalances and high congestion levels often result. Perhaps equallyimportant, institutional structures maybe even less suited to deal with rapidmotorization, as regulatory structuresand standards, public finance systems,and cultures change much more slow-ly than the growth rate in motor vehi-cles. This often further exacerbatescongestion as well as motorization’sother negative impacts, like accidentsand air pollution. In the short run, therate of change in motorization posesthe greatest challenge, while in the

mobility 2001


Table 4-1. Greater Santiago — evolution in motorization, auto mode share, trips

1977

1991

Change Annual Growth

Autos/thousand persons 60 90 50% 2.9%

Auto mode share 9.8% 15.8% 61% 3.4%

Trips/capita 1.14 2.12 86% 4.4%

Motorized trips/capita 0.95 1.7 79% 4.2%

Source: SECTRA (1991).

long run the challenge comes fromthe total overall number of motorvehicles.

Empirical analysis suggests that motorvehicle ownership increases roughlyin step with income growth (see, for

example, Ingram and Liu 1999);across countries, per capita incomeexplains 70% to 80% of a nation’smotorization rate (IIEC 1996). Notsurprisingly, high motorization hasusually accompanied high rates ofeconomic growth, as in certain Asiancountries in the recent past. In China,

the vehicle fleet is increasing at 15%a year, automobiles by 25% a year. Incountries such as Philippines,Thailand, and Cambodia, the averageannual rate of motor vehicle fleetgrowth from 1991 to 1996 was high-er than 20%. As a result of continu-ous growth in the last 30 years —



including an annual growth rate of23.7% in the period between 1985and 1992 — in 1996 South Koreahad motor vehicle ownership of over200 per thousand people.

Further, motorization is overwhelm-ingly concentrated in the urbanareas of the developing world (seeAppendix Table A-2 for detailedmotorization rates), for several rea-sons. First, national wealth concen-trates largely in the urban areas ofthese countries. As a result, themajority of people with incomesover the threshold of auto owner-ship live in cities. Second, technolo-gy import (e.g., through joint ven-tures), foreign direct investments,infrastructure improvement, andindividual life-style changes mostlyoccur first in urban areas.

In India, for example, the fourmetropolitan areas of Delhi, Mumbai,Calcutta, and Bangalore account forabout 5% of the nation’s populationbut 30% of the total registered vehi-cles (TERI 2001, World Bank 2000). In

Iran, South Korea, Kenya, Mexico,Thailand, and Chile about 50% of thecountry’s automobiles are in the capi-tal city (WRI 1996). Similarly, themotorization rate in Bogotá — over100 cars per thousand people — istwo times higher than the nationallevel (DAMA 2001a). In 1998, Hararereportedly concentrated 45% ofZimbabwe’s vehicles, a share that hadclimbed from 37% in 1994.

Beyond the low motorization ratesand generally rapid growth in motorvehicle fleets, there are some impor-tant differences between motoriza-tion in the developing world andthat in the developed world. First,there is the astonishingly rapidspeed with which motorization isoccurring — a speed, as we will dis-cuss later, too fast for infrastructureprovision to keep up with. Second,although enough to overwhelm the

mobility 2001


There is Significant Variation in the Motorization RatesAcross the Developing World

By 1996, the average motorization rate in the developing countries was about 30

vehicles per thousand people, with the majority having less than 50 vehicles per

thousand people (compared with 400 or more per thousand people in the devel-

oped world).

Over a dozen wealthier developing countries, such as Malaysia, Argentina, South

Africa, Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile, Panama, Uruguay, Thailand, and Belarus, had

exceeded the motorization rate of 100 vehicles per thousand people. Lower-income

countries, on the other hand, have one-tenth the per capita fleet levels, leading to

the possible characterization of “two tiers” of developing countries. Over the spec-

trum of the motorization rates in the developing countries, the Latin American coun-

tries are largely at the higher end, the African countries are at the lower end, and the

Asian countries fall in between — average motorization rates in 1996 were around 80,

20, and 40 vehicles per thousand people, respectively (see Table 4-2).

existing road infrastructure, motor-ization in developing countries is stilllow in absolute levels compared tothe developed world. Perhaps mostimportant, however, are the stagger-ing differences in vehicle ownershipacross income groups. In otherwords, though growth in auto own-ership has done much to improvethe mobility of the few in the devel-oping world who have directly bene-fited from it, it has not necessarilyenhanced the mobility levels of thevast majority, who continue to relyon nonmotorized travel and motor-ized public transport. Indeed, ourdiscussion will illustrate that this

rapid motorization may in manyways actually decrease the mobilityof those who do not have access toautomobiles.

The overall motorization growth inthe developing countries simplymeans that more people are on themove. The demand for mobility maybe even larger in developing coun-tries than in developed countries,given that the magnitudes of boththe total urban population and itsgrowth in the developing world arenearly ten times larger than those inthe developed world during the past

decade. Inequality of mobility in thedeveloping city is worse when sizableportions of the urban population arein both motorized and nonmotorizedcategories. When employmentopportunities migrate to areas thatare accessible only by auto, thedilemma is that people withoutaccess to automobiles becomeexcluded from new economicgrowth. Thus while motorization is inrelatively early stages but increasingrapidly, inequality also increasesrapidly.

Nonmotorized Transport (NMT):Still a Dominant Means of Travel

NMT is the dominant means of trans-port in the developing world becausethe majority of citizens cannot affordaccess to motorized transport. AcrossAfrica, Asia, and Latin America, stud-ies show walking to be the majortransport mode among the poorestcity residents (see, for example,Barrett 1991, Heierli 1992, Hathway1996, and Figure 4-1 in this report).Even in relatively motorized LatinAmerica and Central and EasternEurope, walking still accounts for20% to 40% of all trips in manycities. In Warsaw, for example, walk-ing accounted for 30% of all trips in1993 (Malasek 1995, p. 177).

The widespread use of walking by thepoor, explains, in part, the long aver-age travel times seen in developingcountry cities. Although walking can



Table 4-2. Motorization rates in developing nations, 1998

Upper Middle Income

Motorization (vehicles/ thousand

inhabitants)

Lower Income

Motorization (vehicles/ thousand

inhabitants)

Argentina 176 Egypt 30

Brazil 77 Honduras 37

Hungary 268 India 7

Libya 209 Indonesia 22

Malaysia 172 Kenya 14

Mexico 144 Mozambique 1

Averages 174 18.5

Source: World Bank (2000).

Motorization is Not All Autos — The Role of Two-Wheelers

Although the data in Table 4-2 refers only to automobiles, two-wheelers are an

important element of motorization in parts of Asia and Africa. Including two-wheel-

ers, most Indian cities have private motor vehicle ownership rates similar to the

wealthier cities of Latin America (which are nearly all due to four-wheeled vehicles),

while doing the same for Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok pushes those cities’ motoriza-

tion levels close to those of western European countries. Reasons cited for the motor-

cycle motorization phenomenon in many countries include: lower capital and oper-

ating costs than automobiles, coupled with lower levels of real purchasing power;

superiority in time and door-to-door convenience relative to autos in congestion;

superiority to an often deteriorating public transport system. All lead to widespread

acceptance of the motorcycle among the middle class (Akinyemi and Medani 2000).

Despite their prevalence, until recently motorcycles have been ignored both in plan-

ning and infrastructure implementation (including traffic counts) as well as in pollu-

tion control efforts. This is changing. The motorcycle may well be serving as a step-

ping-stone for private vehicle users, who will move from bicycles to motorcycles and

perhaps eventually to automobiles. For example, in Hanoi the number of bicycles per

thousand people increased from 143 in 1955 to nearly 500 by the end of the 1980s.

Since 1985, however, motorcycles have increased sharply, growing from just 7.5% of

the two-wheeled fleet to 33% by 1992. Bicyclists have, reportedly, registered a con-

comitant decline — an estimated 10% annually (Hai 1995).

be burdensome and unsafe in thepresence of dangerous traffic condi-tions, it also has some benefits: nocost, flexibility of schedule, and norisk of vehicle damage. The mainproblems with walking are the poorprovision of adequate infrastructure(i.e., sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.),which contributes to the high inci-dence of pedestrians being hit bymotor vehicles; barriers posed bymajor road projects and inconvenientpedestrian overpasses; and the longdistances many poor residents musttravel for daily trips. The poor typical-ly live far from quality employment,and educational, shopping, andrecreational opportunities. Theirdependence on walking clearly ham-pers their accessibility.

While walking may predominateamong the poor, it is not exclusive tothe poor. Even the highest incomegroups in São Paulo, for example,take over 10% of all their trips onfoot. In addition, it must be remem-bered that most public transport tripsalso start with a walk trip — inSantiago, for example, between 70%and 80% of Metro trips start or endwith walking (Metro 2000).

For the poor in the developing world,private vehicle ownership is typicallyconfined to nonmotorized vehicles —such as bicycles, animal carts, or cyclerickshaws. In the poorest regions,ownership of such vehicles alreadyindicates some level of economicachievement. Indeed, in some placessuch as China and Vietnam, owning abicycle is considered middle-class,although motorization is quicklychanging that reality. Generally, inmost countries where bicycle use ishighly prevalent, it is not exclusively amode for the poor, but rather is morewidely spread across the populationat large, suggesting the presence of abicycle “culture.” For example, arecent study of bicycle use in fivedeveloping-country cities in India,China, Central and South America,and Africa found that the Chinese cityGuangzhou, despite having the high-est per capita income, also had by farthe highest bicycle ownership rates

(500 per thousand population). Thisis more than double the rate in thenext highest city, Delhi, and repre-sents the highest bicycle usage ratesin the sample (Tiwari and Saraf1997). Guangzhou also had an evensplit between male and femalecyclists, while in the rest of the citiesmen comprised by far the largershare (90% and higher).

In some cities, primarily in Asia, non-motorized cycle rickshaws offer aform of paratransit (see the followingsection), providing important mobili-ty services to the poor and lowermiddle class. Many cities in India,Bangladesh, Indonesia, thePhilippines, Vietnam, and China usecycle rickshaws extensively. Thesevehicles offer employment opportuni-ties to the drivers, eliminate the riskof vehicle theft for the user, and alsoeliminate the up-front capital coststhat an individual would otherwiseface to make a bicycle purchase.

In general, bicycle and other nonmo-torized vehicle use is highest in Asiancities and parts of Africa; in LatinAmerica (with the exception of Cuba)and Central Eastern Europe it is nor-mally less prevalent. Nonetheless,even in the traditional bike cities ofChina, usage seems to be on thedecline due to rapid motorization,unsafe travel conditions, and anincreasing negative public perceptionof bicycling as a way to travel.

Public and Paratransit Systems:The Crux of Developing-CityMobility

Road-based public transport still car-ries the brunt of passenger transportduties in the cities of most develop-ing countries. The structure and levelof provision of road-based publictransport varies considerably acrossthe developing world. A commontrend across the globe is that formalpublic-sector bus transit is increasing-ly overwhelmed by nimbler, informal“paratransit” competition, which isloosely regulated by the public sector.Private paratransit operators range

from large minibus companies withseveral vehicles in their fleets, to indi-vidual taxi and rickshaw operators.

While the bus may be the traditional“workhorse” of developing cities’transportation systems, most citiesoffer a rich menu of vehicle typesproviding some form of public orparatransit transportation service.Paratransit’s share in urban transportvaries from a low of about 5% ofmotorized trips in Dakar, Taipei, andTel Aviv, to some 40% in Caracas andBogotá, and as high as 65% inManila and several other SoutheastAsian cities (Cervero 1997).

There are many different types ofparatransit and public transport vehi-cles in the cities of developing coun-tries, ranging from nonmotorizedthree-wheelers (becaks) plying thenarrow streets of Surabaya to the250-passenger, bi-articulated buseson the high-capacity segregatedbusways of Curitiba, with almostevery two-, three-, and four-wheelvehicle imaginable in between. Byone estimate there were 16 modes ofpublic transport on the city streets ofIndia (Darbera and Nicot 1986).

Latin America. In Latin America,private-sector operators prevail undervarious forms of public “manage-ment,” ranging from competitivelytendered route franchises in, forexample, Santiago and Buenos Aires,to the loosely regulated situation inLima. The operating “companies”also run the gamut, from a handful ofprivate operators in Brasilia to literallyhundreds, if not thousands, of owner-operators in places like Mexico City.In some places the public sector stillplays a service provision role, while inothers some form of subsidy to pri-vate operators is provided.

“Informal” operators have become animportant force in much of theregion, grabbing market share fromunwieldy larger operators, while alsobecoming political powers stronglyshaping policy and a government’s

mobility 2001


ability to implement that policy. Forexample:

In Mexico City, colectivosevolved from government-toler-ated shared sedan taxis, serving5% of trip demand in the early1980s, to a massive fleet ofminibuses today, effectively sup-planting bus service in the cityand likely also cutting into thecity’s Metro ridership.

In cities such as Recife (Brazil)and San José (Costa Rica), infor-mal van services and minibusesare successfully competing withformal bus services for trips inoutlying areas of the city (deAragão et al. 2000).

Africa. In Africa, formal bus service isprovided using different combina-tions of public and private operation.For instance, in Egypt, South Africa,and Tunisia, bus service is predomi-nantly provided by the public sector,while in Nairobi it is privatized.However, as in Latin America, theeffectiveness of such formal systems isincreasingly being undermined bycompetition from the informal sector.In Nairobi, the fully private, unsubsi-dized system has witnessed a drasticdecline in the mode share of largebuses since the legalization ofminibuses (matutus) in the mid-1970s. Some 6,500 12- and 25-seatermatutus currently capture 70%(700,000 passengers per day) of thepublic transport market; their domi-nance reportedly led to the with-

drawal of the British company,Stagecoach, from its partnership inoperating Kenya Bus (Koster and Hop2000). According to an analysis ofseveral bus and matutu routes, thematutus completely dominate bussystem operations in every respect,providing passengers service withnearly half the waiting and total triptime, at two-thirds the price (seeTable 4-3).

Similar cases of paratransit domi-nance appear in Harare, Zimbabwe(see Mbara 2000), and in SouthAfrican cities, where minibuses (kom-bis) dominate. In metropolitanJohannesburg, for example, 35,000kombis — nearly 60% of which oper-ate illegally — account for over 50%of all public transport trips, causing adecline in the bus services providedby government and private operators(Vorster et al. 2000).

Eastern and Central Europe.Eastern and Central Europe andcountries of the former Soviet Unionstill display residual characteristics ofthe former state-owned systems,although central government’s divest-ment of financial and vehicle respon-sibility to local governments threwmany systems into rapid deteriora-tion. At the same time, declines inreal income combined with higherunemployment reduced passengerdemand, so many systems experi-enced important declines in revenues(Gwilliam 2000a). Not all systemsfaced massive declines, however.

From 1988 to 1992, public transportridership in Hungary went down by33% and in Poland by 13%, while inthe Czech Republic the decline was amodest 2% (Pucher 1999). Currently,several forms of private participationare being pursued, such as the so-called joint stock company and,increasingly, sub-contracting andfranchising of services.

Informal operators are also on therise, but not universally. For example,in Riga, the capital of Latvia, publiccompanies still dominate, despitepoor operating performance; the pri-vate sector is apparently not growingas rapidly as in other countries of theregion. In the Ukraine, on the otherhand, up to 50% of service is nowoperated by the private sector, typi-cally in minibuses; however, a poorregulatory environment persists(Gwilliam 2000a).

Asia. Finally, the large and diverseregion of Asia has a high share ofpublicly operated (and, typically, low-quality) services in India, Bangladesh,Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, each ofwhich has experimented — to vary-ing degrees — with allowing formalforms of private operations. China’spublicly run systems underwentimportant changes in response toeconomic liberalization, varying cityby city and including state enterprisereform, service contracting, commer-cialization, and some degree of fran-chising and competitive route tender-ing (Gwilliam 2000b). In Kuala



Table 4-3. Overall average travel speeds in Nairobi — bus versus matutu

Bus

Matutu Matutu

Advantage

Average wait time (min) 24 14 44%

Average trip time (min) 65 38 42%

Average travel time (min) 90 52 42%

Average fare ($/km) 0.03 0.02 28%

Average trip speed (km/hr) 13 18 42%

Average travel speed (km/hr) 9 13 41%

Source: Koster and Hop (2000), p. 311. Note: Overall average based on AM/PM Peak and Off Peak.

Lumpur and the major cities ofIndonesia, private operations arestrictly regulated.

Again, paratransit seems to be play-ing a larger role in many parts of theregion. In Bangkok, a state-ownedmonopoly, BMTA, took over the ailingprivate bus companies in 1979; a fewprivate companies remain operatingas partners under BMTA’s control.Filling BMTA’s service gaps are some3,000 unlicensed minibuses offeringsuburban commuter services, nearly8,000 three-wheeled tuk tuks, and100,000 unlicensed motorcycle taxis.In the Central Asian Republic ofUzbekistan, bus availability by thestate-owned enterprises has sufferedseverely from the fallout from post-Soviet era reform, declining at anaverage of 10% to 15% per year.Owner-operated minibuses havestepped in to fill the gap, with 7- or11-seat minibuses now accountingfor anywhere from 20% to 50% ofpassenger trips (Gwilliam et al. 2000).

Urban Rail Transit

Due to high capital costs and a lackof flexibility to adapt to changingtravel patterns, fixed rail public trans-portation systems — metros and sub-urban rail systems — have beenmuch more the exception than therule in most cities of the developingworld. Most existing suburban railsystems date to earlier eras, oftenoperating on links in the national railnetwork. Today, significant suburbanrail services exist in Buenos Aires,Mumbai (Bombay), Chennai(Madras), and several Brazilian,Central/Eastern European, and SouthAfrican cities. Overall contribution tototal urban trips remains low — 7%in Johannesburg, 4% in Chennai, andless than 3% in São Paulo.

Since the 1970s, many developingcountries have been investing heavilyin metros, sometimes through jointpartnership with the private sector,but more often through public invest-ments alone. The historic role of tech-nology vendors and foreign govern-

ments has been pivotal. For example,the French have been active in sellingmetro technology through the provi-sion of loans for construction andother significant capital outlays.

The principal aim and success of met-ros is their ability to increase mobility.In central travel corridors with heavilyburdened roads and buses, metrosprovide by far the most able methodof transporting large volumes, capa-ble of carrying up to 60,000 passen-gers per hour per direction at operat-ing speeds of 30-40 kilometers perhour. Theoretically, they can increasepassenger-carrying capacity in a corri-dor by a factor of three, although inpractice the range varies greatlydepending on system configurationsand actual demand levels.

High-passenger capacity comes at acost, however. Depending on con-struction methods and managementand system alignment (i.e., above-ground, at-grade, or underground),costs can range from $40 to $150million per kilometer. This highexpense typically relegates metrodeployment to the upper-tier cities inthe developing world, with theexception of China, where metrosexist in Beijing (44 kilometers), Tianjin(7 kilometers), and Shanghai (16 kilo-meters), because of very high urbandensities and demand requirements.Beyond China, metros and light railcan be found in many of the majorcities of Latin America, Central andEastern Europe, and Southeast Asia(see Appendix Table A-3).

Despite their importance in servingheavily traveled corridors, metros’role in satisfying total urban tripsremains marginal — 5% in São Paulo,7% in Santiago, and 14% in MexicoCity (note, also, that the Mexico Citysystem’s share is only motorized trips,meaning that its share of total trips iseven lower). Even where extensivesystems do exist, metros still makefewer daily passenger trips than road-based public transport. In fact, inMexico City, which boasts one of theworld’s largest systems, ridership has

been declining in recent years,despite fares two to three timescheaper than competing public trans-port modes. The city’s populationsimply continues to grow beyond thesystem’s reach. There and in the restof the developing world it is likelythat the average person’s mobilityneeds will continue to be fulfilled pri-marily by road-based public transit.

Metros rarely, if ever, recover theirconstruction and other capital coststhrough operating revenues. Manysystems’ revenues do not even covertheir operating costs, although othersdo. For example, a 1990 study (Allportet al.) calculated the “farebox ratio”(the ratio of revenues to operatingcosts) for 10 systems and found that:

● Five systems had a farebox ratioof less than 1.0 (Mexico City,Cairo, Porto Alegre, Rio deJaneiro, São Paulo).

● Two had a ratio in the range of1.0 to 1.5 (Pusan, Seoul).

● Three had a ratio above 1.5:Santiago (1.6), Manila (1.8),and Hong Kong (2.2).

These results can be a product ofdeliberate public policy (i.e., fareskept low for political purposes), poorsystem planning (overestimateddemand projections), and/or ineffi-cient operations.

A final note is that metros do providesignificantly greater mobility, butthey do not relieve congestion. Fewmetro riders are former auto users,and any who are are quickly replacedby new auto users. As a result, foralmost all metros in the developingworld, the question remains whetherthe significant initial capital outlayswere reasonable.

Land Use and Transportation:The Architecture of Cities

At the metropolitan level, the distri-bution of residences, offices, schools,

mobility 2001


etc. defines a city’s accessibility anddetermines virtually all transportationactivity. As in the developed world,the structure of developing-countrycities and their growth patterns playa critical role in the mobility of citi-zens and their access to employmentand other opportunities. In develop-ing cities, however, land use and citystructure are more critical to resi-dents’ accessibility than in developedcities, because the individual mobilityof citizens is much lower.

While it is impossible to generalize,there are many characteristics thatthe cities in developing countriesshare to some degree, which pro-foundly influence transportation pat-terns and system performance:

● A historical concentration of tripattractions in the city center.

● Generally higher densities thancities in industrialized countries.

● Socioeconomic segregation,forcing long trips for the poor,who are usually isolated on theurban fringe.

Fast economic growth and urbaniza-tion, and increasing suburbanization,are driving rapid changes in citiesacross the developing world. Perhapsthe most important characteristic dif-ferentiating developed and develop-ing country suburbanization is thatboth the rich and the poor are foundin the urban fringe of the latter, insegregated swaths of housing. Thepoor often settle there as “squatters”or are relocated by government hous-ing programs; the rich move there toenjoy suburban amenities. In themiddle, typically, lies the middle class,living in or closer to the inner cities.

Developing-country cities, like theirdeveloped counterparts, have beenundergoing rapid urban expansion,many for several decades. The urbanarea of Santiago increased by morethan sixfold during the second half ofthe twentieth century, while in thecase of Mexico City, the urban area at

the end of 1995 was 13 times greaterthan in 1940. In large part, this urbanexpansion was fueled by populationgrowth, particularly due to ruralmigrants. Expansion was also fueledby the depopulation of more centralcity areas. Today, perhaps the great-est changes to urban structures areoccurring in the former socialistcountries of Eastern and CentralEurope, as well as in the cities ofChina (see feature box), where mar-ket forces have been increasinglyintroduced to the existing planned-economic systems.

As in the developed world, suburbsare preferred by those wealthyenough to buy homes and accessthem in automobiles, but theyimpose costs and problems onmetropolitan communities as awhole. The first challenge is similar towhat developed cities face: suburbscannot be adequately serviced bypublic transport, thereby forcing arise in the use of automobiles or para-transit, which add to the air contami-nants and the congestion problemsof the central city. The second prob-lem is possibly more acute to thedeveloping world: suburbs aredevouring valuable agricultural land.The significance of this issue dependson the locality. Egypt, for example, ismostly desert; only 3% to 4% of itsland is suitable for agricultural use.The cities are located almost entirelyin this small quantity of agriculturalland, and consuming it at an alarm-ing pace. Likewise, the cities of India,Peru, China, and many other devel-oping countries are facing the sameloss of agricultural land.

Today, urban expansion in the devel-oping world may well be accelerat-ing, not unlike the “sprawl” beingseen in the industrialized world.Many transportation-related factorsfeed into this process, such as: theconstruction of ring-roads and high-speed radial highways; underpricedhighway travel; congestion; and flatpublic transport fares (a vicious circle,since flat fares are critical to ensuringaffordable mobility for the peripheralpoor, while also continuing to make

the periphery affordable to the poor).Other factors relate more closely tothe real estate market. For example,in Prague, recently identified trendsinclude the formation of large realestate companies purchasing largetracts of peripheral lands for residen-tial and commercial megaprojects(i.e., hypermarkets and shoppingmalls); the difficulty in redevelopingurban lands due to contamination(i.e., brownfields); competitionamong local jurisdictions for landuses; and private pressures forchange to public land-use plans (see,for example, Garb 2000). In his oft-cited book on “edge cities” in theUnited States, (Garreau 1991) indi-cated that the edge-city phe-nomenon was already underway inplaces like Bangkok and Budapest,with Mexico City, Santiago, andmany other cities close behind.

In the developing world, while poten-tially alleviating the heavy central-cityfocus of current trip flows, urbansprawl may well produce suburb-to-suburb travel patterns that burdenmany cities’ existing transportationsystems even more heavily. The prob-lem will be particularly acute for boththe peripheral and central-city poorwithout autos — a problem that will



Shanghai Expands

Shanghai is evolving from a

densely populated city with one

predominant core to a less com-

pact urban area with multiple

centers, resulting in significant

changes in the distribution of

travel patterns. The 1984

Shanghai Master Plan added 252

square kilometers of land area

east of the Huangpu River to

Shanghai for major urban expan-

sion. The core development pro-

ject is a 30-square-kilometer

financial district on the east bank

of the river (Pudong New Area),

across from the existing Central

Business District (CBD) on the

other side of the river. The new

area is planned to house two mil-

lion people and to provide 1.2

million jobs by 2020.

only be exacerbated by theunplanned nature and inadequateinfrastructure of many poor settle-ments, and the lack of finances toimprove them.

CONSEQUENCES: CHALLENGES TOSUSTAINING MOBILITY

The growth in motor vehicle useacross the developing world raisesseveral troubling issues and begs thequestion of whether current growthrates are sustainable. It is clear thatmany cities cannot currently build oreven maintain the infrastructure nec-essary to support their growing levelsof motorization; their operational sys-tem is simply overwhelmed. Equallysignificant is the impact currentgrowth rates have on the three pillarsof sustainability — the economic,social, and environmental health —that societies need to flourish.

The growth of private automobiles inthe developing countries hasundoubted benefits for their users:Increased economic, educational,shopping, and recreational opportu-nities are now within their grasp.Furthermore, for those who canafford them, private motor vehiclesoffer status and prestige: “The auto-mobile is used to communicate mes-sages to other people — makes theowner visible, indicates socioeconom-ic standing, indicates tastes” (Thynell2000). Some analysts suggest thatauto ownership actually plays animportant socioeconomic role in mid-dle-class formation (Vasconcellos1997). Japanese commentatorsdubbed the 1960s the “Decade ofthe Three Cs,” to mark their compa-triots’ widespread purchase of thethree new indicators of middle-classstatus: color televisions, air-condition-ing, and most importantly, cars.

The increase in mobility and socialstatus that auto owners enjoy, howev-er, comes at a price for the majorityof their fellow citizens who cannotafford cars; the use of cars oftenimpinges on the mobility/accessibilityof other system users (bus, otherpublic transport, and nonmotorized

users). In fact, it is clear that in manycities the ownership of autos by theupper class is worsening many socialinequities. Auto infrastructure con-sumes space for other uses and push-es cities farther out, making nonautomodes less convenient, less viable,less attractive, and less safe. Mostdeveloping cities are growing at sucha rapid pace that not only is newinfrastructure not being built, the cur-rent systems are deteriorating at analarming pace.

Congestion levels clearly affect thefragile economies of the developingworld. The vast majority of the mid-dle and working classes in developingcities must endure long commutes oncrowded public transportation.Motor-vehicle-related accidents andfatalities present a serious publichealth problem whose principalimpact is on lower-income pedestri-ans and bicyclists. Airborne pollutionand the loss of wetlands and specieshabitats attributable to changing landuse are on the rise, as well.

In short, mobility in developing citiesis not achieving its purpose ofincreasing accessibility. Current trans-portation means are not increasingthe majority of citizens’ access toincreased economic benefits, greatersocial interactions, and higher quali-ties of life. This section details andassesses the consequences of deterio-rating mobility; congestion; air andnoise pollution; damage to the envi-ronment, and their effects on socialequity.

Safety

Traffic accidents are a serious healthhazard in many developing-countrycities, where traffic fatalities are amajor cause of death among eco-nomically active individuals (Ross andMwiraria 1992).

Table 4-4 shows fatality rates in aselection of developing-country envi-ronments. Traffic safety in the devel-oping world poses a problem propor-

tionally larger than its “cause.” TheWorld Bank (1996) shows that low-income countries suffer some 80times more traffic fatalities per vehiclethan high-income countries (althoughthe fatalities-per-capita figure isapproximately one-half), indicating ahigh level of traffic risk, and poorquality of emergency health care.Motor vehicles are almost alwaysinvolved in traffic fatalities; whetheror not they are the “cause” is mostoften difficult to establish in theaggregate because of problems withreporting and data collection. Alsosimilar to the case of air pollution, itis difficult to understand the overall“size” of the traffic-safety problembecause of data problems.

At issue is not the number of motorvehicles, but rather the lack of institu-tional, engineering, and infrastructureinterventions, combined with a highdegree of mixed and often conflictingroad users. For example, there isoften a lack of driver training, publiceducation or sufficient enforcementof traffic laws. Driver error is responsi-ble for the majority of accidents; andpenalties for offenses such as drunkdriving are often low (see, for exam-ple, Oladiran and Pheko 1995). Evenin places with laws on the books,social patterns often negate theireffects. In Kuala Lumpur, for example,despite mandatory seat belt use laws,a small survey of taxi drivers foundthat 60% did not use their seatbelts(Hauswald 1997).

There is a widespread lack of respectfor nonmotorized users (pedestriansand cyclists), and these users bear anundue accident burden. In Delhi, forexample (see Table 4-5), cyclists,motorcyclists, and pedestrians wereall disproportionately represented in1994 traffic accident fatalities. Thedanger to nonmotorized users inDelhi also directly affects the use andsafety of buses, since all bus trips startand end as pedestrian (and some-times bicycle) trips (Mohan andTiwari 1999). Pedestrians in São Pauloare also highly vulnerable; althoughthey are involved in only 6% of acci-

mobility 2001


dents, they represent 54% of all traf-fic fatalities (Wright 2000).

Congestion

One of the immediate consequencesof rapid motorization is traffic con-gestion. Although data are rarelyclear or comparable, downtownweekday traffic speeds in developingcities are dismal. They reportedlyaverage:

9 kilometers per hour or less inSeoul and Shanghai.

10 kilometers per hour or less inBangkok, Manila, and Mexico.

17 kilometers per hour or less inKuala Lumpur and São Paulo.

Partially as a result, average commutetimes are high and increasing. Theaverage one-way commute in Manilais 120 minutes. In Jakarta it is 82 minutes. Indeed, of the 19 develop-ing cities with journey-to-work timesreported in the World DevelopmentIndicators, 12 have an average one-way commute time of 45 minutes orlonger (World Bank 2000).

Of course, without data on triplengths or relevant data over time, itis difficult to comment comparativelyon congestion levels and/or their evo-lution in the cities of the developingcountries. It is clear, however, thatwhile all vehicles suffer in congestion,public transport bears a dispropor-tionate burden, with average peak-period bus speeds up to one-half asslow as those of automobiles.Estimates from several Brazilian citiesoffer evidence: Buses’ travel speedsare 30% to 40% lower than autos inpeak congestion (see Table 4-6).

Infrastructure decay and institu-tional weakness. The rapid growthin motor vehicle fleets across the

developing world is creating massivepressures for infrastructure expansion,but developing-country cities oftenfind themselves unable to maintainexisting infrastructure, much less ableto finance the new. The problem is inpart an institutional one. Poorlydesigned and inadequately fundedpublic finance systems hamper themaintenance and construction ofinfrastructure across the developingworld. Further, infrastructure develop-ment must always compete withother public policy objectives such asthe provision of health care, educa-tion, and other public works. Even ifan urban transportation system gen-erates sufficient revenues to sustainitself (i.e., through vehicle registrationfees and dedicated fuel taxes), the



Table 4-5. Mode share and road accidents in Delhi, 1994

Mode

Mode Share

(%)

Fatalities

(%)

Ratio

(fatalities/ mode share)

Car/taxi 5 2 0.6

Bus 42 10 0.2

Motorized two-wheelers 12 27 2.3

Bicycle 5 14 2.8

Pedestrian 32 42 1.3

Source: Mohan and Tiwari (1999).

Table 4-4. Traffic fatalities in selected regions

Year Traffic

Fatalities Fatalities/

100,000 People Fatalities/

10,000 Vehicles

Brazil 1995 27886 18.3 11.0

Bombay 1986 NA NA 11.6

Bogota 1996 1073 16.8 18.9

Mexico City 1993 2179 12.8 6.1

Santiago 1994 394 7.2 6.3

Bangalore 1995 678 16.1 10.4

Delhi 1993 1783 21.3 8.55

Durban 1996 637 29.7 16.0

Johannesburg 1991/92 524 33.3 NA

Harare 1998 391 23.0 9.8

Sources: Vasconcellos (1999); Vasconcellos (1996); COMETRAVI (1999), vol. 1; Zegras and Litman (1997); Sachdeva (1998), p. 508; Chakravarty and Sachdeva (1998), pp. 60–61; Durban Metro (2001); Mbara (2000), pp. 10–11; Guruprasad (2000), p. 478; Granne et al. (2000), p. 906. Notes: For Mexico City, Delhi, and Santiago, the fatalities per vehicle includes all vehicles; for other cities not entirely clear in source.

money often leaks into other sectors,is allocated to a higher level of gov-ernment, is poorly managed, and/oris used as a means of, for example,income redistribution. Finally, the fail-ure to introduce real marginal costpricing (or a rough proxy) createsexcess infrastructure demand andhampers “rational” planning. Whileby no means unique to the develop-ing world, these problems arearguably more dire there, whereresources are more constrained andequity impacts are potentially larger.

Perhaps the greatest short-termimpact is on maintenance of existinginfrastructure. The state of road main-tenance in developing countries isparticularly poor. Analysts estimatethat from 1964 to1984, US$45 billionworth of road infrastructure assetswere lost in 85 developing countriesbecause of inadequate maintenance(Gwilliam and Shalizi 1996). In theearly 1990s, the European Bank ofReconstruction and Development(EBRD) estimated rehabilitating exist-ing roads and upgrading convention-al railways in Central and EasternEurope would require US$44 billion(EBRD 1993). South Asia and Africahave suffered disproportionateneglect: South Asia in particular hasunder 20% of paved roads in goodcondition (See Table 4-7; disaggre-gate data on the conditions in indi-vidual cities is not readily available).

The costs of annual maintenance areestimated to be a fraction of the costof rehabilitating a badly maintainedroad that has deteriorated. Also, reg-ular maintenance generates signifi-cant benefits in the form of lowervehicle operating costs and generalproductivity gains. It is estimated thaton balance maintenance expenditurescan generate returns in the range of30% to 35% (World Bank 2001a).However, the tendency to underfundmaintenance persists, with significantinvestments made in the 1960s and1970s crumbling through the 1990s.At an aggregate level, roads in devel-oping countries are managed almostwithout exception by local govern-ments and national agencies sufferingfrom a large backlog of maintenanceprojects. More so than their counter-parts in the developed world, theseagencies are insulated from politicalpressures for better maintenance, andsuffer from low irregular revenue.

Beyond the need for maintenancecomes the heavy pressure to satisfyprojected future demand, with subse-quent requirements placed on gov-ernment coffers. For example, to helpalleviate Bangkok’s notorious conges-tion, 30 to 40 transport “megapro-jects” were in some stage of consider-ation, planning, or construction bythe mid-1990s — the estimated pricetag for which was $35 billion! Again,however, weak (if any) transportation-

financing mechanisms are typically inplace. Furthermore, planning andinvestment decision-making processesare often unclear. Finally, the questionremains: Will developing-countrycities ever be able to “build their wayout” of the problem? Major roadexpansions in several large Chinesecities have barely managed to keeppace with motorization: Guangzhouhas a new orbital expressway andinner ring road; Beijing constructedtwo ring roads and has a third underconstruction; Shanghai’s road areagrew by 42% in the first half of the1990s; Shenzen has completed con-struction of 139 kilometers of high-ways — and yet in all of these cities,average peak-period traffic speedsremain below 20 kilometers per hour(Mohan and Tiwari 1999).

Local Air Pollution

Transportation air pollution problemsin developing-country cities generallyfollow the path taken by the industri-alized world, with problems reachingcrisis point before being confronted.The pollution problem in many casesis “cruder,” as cities confront grosslevels of contamination due to leadedgasoline, or excessively smoky vehiclesemitting high levels of particulates.These problems are relatively “easily”addressed with technical fixes, such aseliminating lead from gasoline andadequately tuning and maintainingengines, then moving toward cleanerfuels such as lower-sulfur diesel.However, as these “gross” problemsare addressed, more tenacious prob-lems often arise — those attributableto ongoing motorization, such as theground-level ozone formation as seenin Santiago, Chile.

Transportation often accounts for amajority share of criteria pollutants —although not all of these cities con-front the same levels of pollution andthus the same degree of “problem” —despite the low motorization levels inmost cities relative to the industrializedworld. For some cities in the earlierstages of motorization (i.e., Beijing),the motor vehicle contributionappears to be growing, as would be

mobility 2001


Table 4-6. Average, evening peak auto and bus speeds in Brazilian cities

City Auto Bus

Belo Horizonte 23 16

Brasilia 45 27

Campinas 24 17

Curitiba 22 19

João Pessoa 26 18

Juiz de Fora 30 21

Pôrto Alegre 29 20

Recife 24 14

Rio de Janeiro 26 19

São Paulo 16 11

Source: Vasconcellos et al. (2000), p. 628, fig. 1.

expected (see Table 4-8). The avail-able evidence suggests thatSantiago’s relative transport contribu-tion may be improving, while MexicoCity’s record appears mixed.

In many cases, the problem derivesfrom particularities of developing-country vehicle fleets: long-lastingvehicles with deteriorated emissions

profiles; low technological require-ments for new vehicles; poor mainte-nance practices for public and privatefleets; institutional/political challengesto inspection and maintenance; vehi-cle tampering; and a lack of publicawareness of the scope of the prob-lem. In the places with some of theworst chronic pollution, importantstrides have been made and pollutionhas often been the impetus for such

draconian measures as vehicle-userestrictions and “no drive” days.

Noise Pollution

Transport is a major cause of this oft-neglected urban policy problem forwhich the data are scarce. InSantiago, research in the late 1980sindicated that 80% of the population



Table 4-7. Condition of main roads by region

Paved Unpaved Region

Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor

Eastern and Southern Africa 42 32 26 42 30 28

Western Africa 52 23 25 20 36 44

East Asia and Pacific 20 59 21 41 34 25

South Asia 19 45 36 6 39 55

Europe, Middle East, and North Africa

41 35 24 30 46 24

LAC 44 32 24 24 43 33

Average 32 42 26 31 36 33

United States 31 57 12 — — —

United Kingdom 85 12 3 — — —

Source: World Bank (1988). — Indicates not applicable.

Table 4-8. Motor vehicle contribution of total air pollutants in selected developing-country cities

City Year CO HC NOx SO2 SPM

Beijing 1989 2000

39 84

75 NA

46 73

NA NA

NA NA

Bombay 1992 NA NA 52 5 24

Budapest 1987 81 75 57 12 NA

Cochin, India 1993 70 95 77 NA NA

Delhi 1987 90 85 59 13 37

Lagos, Nigeria 1988 91 20 62 27 69

Mexico City 1990 1996

97 99

53 33

75 77

22 21

35 26*

Santiago 1993 1997

95 92

69 46†

85 71

14 15

11 86‡

São Paulo 1990 94 89 92 64 39

Sources: WRI (1996); West et al. (2000); CONAMA (1998); Fu and Yuan (2001). * PM10. † Does not include evaporative emissions from refueling. ‡ PM10, includes fugitive road dust. NA: Data not available

living or working along the city’sprincipal transportation arteries suf-fered some risk of hearing loss, andnearly 70% of residential or mixed-residential land is, according to inter-national standards, considered inade-quate for these uses due to noise lev-els (Intendencia 1989). On Lima’sprincipal avenues, measurementstaken by the municipality indicatednoise levels almost two times higherthan recommended norms. Someintersections recorded levels highenough to pose a serious risk of per-manent hearing damage (Iturregui1996). In the Slovak Republic, over7% of the urban population suffersexposure to road transport noise lev-els considered dangerous for humanhealth (Slovak Republic 2001).

Traffic noise is a particularly acuteproblem in the warmer cities of thedeveloping world, where the climateencourages open architecture andopen windows in dense residentialneighborhoods. The problem is com-pounded by the abundance of aging,large vehicles such as diesel buses,and a plethora of small, shrill vehicles,such as mopeds, small-engine motor-cycles, stick-shift automobiles withinadequate mufflers, and hybrid vehi-cles like Bangkok’s ubiquitous tuk-tuks. Along major thoroughfares inHo Chi Minh City, average noise lev-els exceed the standard by 26% to40% (Nguyen Duc 1996).

Transport noise may actually increaseurban decentralization trends becauseof the reduced quality of life in innercities. A major point is that publictransport is often the culprit — busesare noisy — which in itself is often animportant policy dilemma.

Other Environmental Impacts

The diverse range of urban transport’sdeleterious effects on the environ-ment —such as induced consumptionof open space, the disruption of deli-cate ecosystems by highway con-struction, runoff from pavement,vehicle disposal, fuel leakage, etc. —all exist in the developing world in

patterns similar to what we have seenin the developed world. They havenot yet been widely studied or docu-mented, however, and therefore anal-ysis and comparison are difficult.Nonetheless, concern is on theincrease. For example, in PanamaCity, local and international NGOshave blamed several environmentalimpacts — on areas of important bio-diversity and on coastal water pollu-tion levels — on a toll highway built40 meters off the coast and relatedreal estate development projects(Wing and Saladin 2000). Road-build-ing and associated developments inthe Andean foothills of suburbanSantiago have been linked toincreased incidences of flash flooding,and may be inducing microclimaticchanges due to loss of vegetation(Romero et al. 1995).

Developing cities’ consumption ofpetroleum and subsequent contribu-tion to global climate change is cur-rently minor, but growing. Althoughindustrialized countries currentlyaccount for 75% of transportationenergy use and greenhouse gasemissions, estimates suggest that thedeveloping countries could generatethe majority of transportation-relatedemissions by 2025 (IPCC 1996).Nonetheless, their emissions in percapita terms will likely remain lowerthan those of the industrializedcountries.

Social Equity

The poor. Throughout the develop-ing world the poor are faced with dis-appointing choices concerning mobil-ity. Because they cannot afford cars,they are increasingly unable to gainfull access to the changing spatialopportunities in their societies. Thislack of mobility has a disproportion-ate and regressive effect. The poorare often located at the periphery ofthe city, in informal settlements thatare far from public transportation andat a substantial distance from thecentral city. They have to endure longcommutes in inadequate public trans-port, high levels of urban air pollu-tion, and unsafe conditions for

cycling and walking. In addition, thepoor disproportionately suffer fromthe “barrier effect” of being isolatedby major highway construction, andfrom outright dislocation due toincreased land values and the confis-cation of land for transportation pro-jects. In addition, transportation pro-jects are a major public expenditure.In economies where many basicneeds such as water, sanitation, andeducation are not met, it is importantto recognize that there is an opportu-nity cost to the funds invested intransportation projects.

Often, transportation policy in devel-oping countries is based on the ideathat the best way to help the poor isto promote economic growth. Thus,investments in growth-inducingtransportation projects are justified asaiding the poor. Though the benefitsof general economic growth do often“trickle down” to the poor, it is abun-dantly clear that the poor also sufferdisproportionately from transporta-tion strategies that focus on motor-ization as their primary goal.

Women. Women in the developingworld face additional hurdles to fulland free mobility because of the gen-der-based division of roles andresponsibility in the family and thecommunity. Men are the traditionalbreadwinners who typically make oneround trip to and from work per day,at peak hours of service. Women, onthe other hand, to fulfill a variety oftasks and responsibilities, typicallymake multiple trips throughout theday, paying several different single-trip fares, waiting through non-peakservice, and carrying heavy physicalloads. Personal safety and comfort arecritical factors that deter women fromusing public transportation. Womenare vulnerable to sexual harassment,attack, and abuse while traveling inthe public transportation system.Finally, there is the issue of income:One study found that almost 30% ofwomen’s incomes each month wasspent on transportation (Shrestovaand Barve, 1999).

mobility 2001


Another study of rural women whocommute into Calcutta for employ-ment found that “54% of the respon-dents spend more than twelve hoursoutside their homes every day. Only5% stay away for less than eighthours. Time is wasted waiting tochange from one mode of transporta-tion to another; on average 55 min-utes per day. In addition, women walkfor part of their journey, on averagefor 90 minutes, but in some cases150-180 minutes” (Mukherjee, 1999).

If a family is able to afford a car, usu-ally the man drives it to work. Thesame holds true for bicycles. A studyin Havana, Cuba, where bicycleswere the most popular mode oftransport, found that womenaccounted for only 13% of all bicycleriders (Peters, 1998). There are alsosocio-cultural deterrents that preventwomen from riding bicycles. Bicycleriding is considered unsafe and“unladylike.” In many countries inAfrica, if a woman rides a bicycle sheis considered “loose” or overly inde-pendent (Peters, 1998). In Iran, the

cultural taboo about women ridingbicycles has been institutionalized ina law that bans women from ridingin public places (Peters, 1998). Theunfortunate result is that in manyplaces where bicycles would helpsolve women’s transportation needs,they are left to walk or rely on publictransport to be able to carry out theirdaily tasks.

There is a significant lack of data onwomen’s mobility throughout thedeveloping world, but what is clear isthat women have different needs andrequirements that have not tradition-ally been met by transportation plan-ners. Fulfilling those needs is criticalto the social and economic equity ofdeveloping cities.

Assessing the Impacts

Despite the individual and social ben-efits of modern transportation sys-tems, it is widely recognized thattheir negative impacts imply real eco-nomic costs. The data on developing

cities are meager, and there is noconsensus on the methods of analy-sis. Nonetheless, most estimates sug-gest that transportation systems canhave external costs in the range of5% to 7% of Gross Regional Product(GRP; see Table 4-9; Willoughby, p.3,2000a), comparable to results in theindustrialized world.

Other recent World Bank estimatessuggest that the total economic costsof air pollution alone represent up to10% of GRP in polluted cities such asBangkok, Kuala Lumpur, and Jakarta.For six developing country cities witha total population of over 50 million(Mumbai, Shanghai, Manila, Bangkok,Krakow, and Santiago), the costs ofparticulates and other vehicle emis-sions are estimated as equivalent to60% of the import cost of gasoline,and over 200% of the import cost ofdiesel (World Bank 2001).

The estimates in Table 4-9 help shedlight on the relative magnitude of thevarious problems posed by trans-portation externalities in developing-country cities. In general terms, con-gestion, air pollution, and accidentsseem to impose roughly equal bur-dens, although firm conclusions aredifficult to draw. Again, this is due tothe fact that the estimates are oftenbased on uncertain data and unclearmethodologies (i.e., are pollution costestimates based on willingness-to-pay, human capital costs, how valueof life is calculated, etc.), and do notall cover the same cost categories.

For Asian cities, one recent estimateshowed that air pollution costs fardominate congestion costs (Shah2001), although again details on thedata and methodologies underlyingthese estimates are unavailable.

Accurate external cost estimatescould, in theory, help better under-stand transportation improvementpriorities, by including them in eco-nomic analyses and subsequent pro-ject selection based on internal ratesof return. An equally significant step



Trade in Used Vehicles: Opportunities and Dilemmas

Often vehicles rendered obsolete get eliminated from a country or region, without

necessarily leaving the world’s roads. After all, motor vehicles are durable goods that

can, with great resourcefulness on the part of their owners, sometimes last up to 30

years or more. Since there seems almost always to be a demand for cheap vehicles,

used vehicles that have lost their usefulness to one owner can bring value to another.

In recent years, the reduction of barriers to global trade has opened up a large mar-

ket for used vehicles, taking those vehicles across borders to where demand is high.

For the original owner, typically in an industrialized country, the trade in used vehi-

cles offers financial reward for a good that has otherwise lost its value. For the buyer,

the used vehicle offers motorized mobility, at a relatively cheap price.

Despite the apparent market efficiency behind the trade in used vehicles, this issue

raises certain questions and dilemmas. For example, might the benefit of a used

vehicle’s low up-front cost be offset by the higher life-cycle costs associated with

operating and maintaining an older vehicle? Many of the worst-polluting vehicles in

developing cities are old, secondhand vehicles “passed down” from developed

nations after they were no longer desirable, or were unable to pass US or European

emissions tests. Is the trade in used vehicles increasing air pollution and energy con-

sumption (and greenhouse gas emissions) in recipient countries? Is the trade in used

vehicles bringing unsafe, inadequate or inappropriate motor vehicles to recipient

countries? Is the trade in used vehicles accelerating motorization rates in recipient

countries, thus exacerbating congestion, pollution, and public expenditures for road

infrastructure in recipient countries?

These are challenging questions, with no clear answers at present.

Source: Zegras (1998).

mobility 2001


Mobility as a Force for Economic Development in Developing Countries

Transport infrastructure is an important factor in regional and national economic development. The availability and efficiency of the avail-

able transport infrastructure influences economic development in at least three different ways.

First, both the size of an urban area and the efficiency of urban economic activity depend on the quality of the transport infrastructure.

Higher speeds and reduced travel times lower production costs and raise productivity by reducing fuel, labor, and land costs. Improved

accessibility makes more land available for building and reduces the cost of land. Reduction in travel delays leads to higher labor produc-

tivity. There is significant evidence linking the quality of transport infrastructure to firms’ location decisions. Studies of Seoul and Bogotá

have found that city centers with good infrastructure facilities promote the growth of new industrial enterprises, particularly small and

medium-sized firms (Lee, 1985; Lee, 1989). Cities with inadequate transport infrastructure are unable to provide this impetus, thus con-

straining industrial and economic growth. Severe limitations imposed by a highway and urban street system that never anticipated

today’s rapid increase in number of motor vehicles have left China with one of the world’s most severe infrastructure shortfalls. This

problem is widely recognized by the government in China as a threat to continued economic growth. In China’s Pearl River Delta, new

industrial development is increasingly located in low-density settings in the province of Guangdong, away from the congested cities of

Guangzhou and Hong Kong, to ensure high mobility. In Thailand, a study of Bangkok has shown that poor transport infrastructure con-

strains the growth of small firms in the city, and there is evidence that that recent trends to locate industrial establishments on Thailand’s

eastern shore are in response to congestion problems in Bangkok. The adverse impact of the lack of adequate transport infrastructure is

most evident in places such as the low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa, where producers’ need to provide private transport infras-

tructure damages their competitive edge.

Second, an efficient and safe transport infrastructure facilitates labor market participation and is a necessary component to an efficient

labor market. A study of city center residents in Mexico City has found that advantageous location, which implies better transport and

accessibility, contributes significantly to the success of these residents in the formal and informal labor sectors (Eckstein, 1990). Studies

by Rémy Prud’homme are in the course of showing that major cities with better access systems expand the potential labor market for

given locations, thereby improving city productivity. Indeed, there are several examples of industrial and residential development that

have been systematically located to take advantage of access provided by new transportation facilities. In Curitiba, Brazil, industrial cen-

ters accessible by high-speed bus access corridors were systematically located at the outskirts of the city. In São Paolo, Brazil the substan-

tial new public housing sites were developed in the outskirts of São Paulo once the metro system made them accessible to the city cen-

ter. The development of new metropolitan centers around Chinese cities, such as Nanjing are also examples of this phenomenon.

Third, direct expenditure on construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure is an important source of employment for many

regions. In particular, government spending on infrastructure is often used as an important employment-generating policy tool to pro-

vide economic stimulus during recessions. Labor-based approaches to transport projects are also an effective instrument for economic

growth in developing countries with abundant labor forces. Many governments in developing countries have pursued domestic produc-

tion of automobiles as a way to promote their local manufacturing industries. It is widely known, of course, that the automotive industry

stimulates a great deal of “upstream” industrial development because of its multisectoral requirements for many components — elec-

tronics, sheet metal, foundry work, plastics, rubber, glass, textiles, and so forth. The eventual result is new products in all these sectors,

which generate other markets and more employment.

There has long been a debate as to whether infrastructure precedes development or vice versa. This debate is not very productive for

our purposes, since development and transport infrastructure clearly depend on each other and inch along, each supported by the

other. As a result, there is a strong association between the stock of transport infrastructure and national level of income; countries with

higher GDP per capita tend to have more paved roads. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the share of transport sector in overall infras-

tructure investment increases with income levels. The World Bank reports that a 1% increase in per capita GDP means a 0.8% increase

in paved roads.

In all, there is evidence that, as a public investment, transport infrastructure yields a high rate of return. For example, the estimated rates

of return of investment in transport infrastructure are 77% in Taiwan and 51% in Korea (Uchimura and Gao 1993). Another study has

also estimated the returns on transport investment in developing countries to be as high as 95% (Canning and Fay, 1993). The high

rates of return are not entirely unexpected, considering that many of these projects are in regions where existing networks are limited.

These figures may have been overestimated, due to other variables that affect output growth and infrastructure investment but are not

included in the studies. The average economic rates of return on transport projects supported by the World Bank are reported to be

lower at about 18% (1974–1982) and 21% (1983–1992) (World Bank 1994). Even accounting for inaccuracies, however, these figures

are still higher than other types of basic infrastructure. In this context, it is important to note that adequate transport infrastructure is

necessary but not sufficient to facilitate economic growth. Economic development depends also on other favorable economic conditions

and appropriate government policies. Transport infrastructure can contribute significantly to economic development only when it pro-

vides services that respond to effective demand.

would be for transportation plannersto expand their definitions of costs,and try to put an appropriate valueon the costs of such burdens aspedestrian safety, noise pollution, andenvironmental and community dis-ruption.

THE CURRENT POLICY AND STRATEGY ENVIRONMENT

Current Conditions and Needs

The developing world is meetingmixed success as it struggles to con-front transportation problems. In theabsence of central, long-range plan-ning, haphazard or uncoordinatedgrowth is common. Many state agen-cies are unable to monitor, let alonemanage or improve, their con-stituents’ transportation needs.Indeed, a frequent hurdle throughoutEastern European and former Sovietnations is confusion about whichgovernment agency is responsible fortransportation, and in which regions.Poorly funded municipal agenciesmay be expected to maintain roadspreviously built by a national authori-ty. All of the former Communistnations are suffering from severe cut-backs in their subsidies of publictransport.

The results of this vacuum of govern-ment authority are that motorizationand congestion are mounting, publictransport service is deteriorating, andalready precarious pedestrian andcyclist conditions remain unad-

dressed. Loosely managed, some-times completely unregulated, para-transit operators have moved swiftlyto fill their cities’ transportationneeds; but as private entrepreneurs,they respond only to the mostdemanding market pressures insteadof their society’s needs as a whole,which does not always produce anequitable transit solution (seeVasconcellos 2000). Nonetheless,some developing cities have achievedmodest success in meeting their citi-zens’ transportation needs, and in afew notable cities, most notablyHong Kong and Singapore, trans-portation policies have worked inconcert with economic developmentprograms to drive substantial gains ineconomic growth, rising incomes,and social equity.

The readily available, affordable solu-tions include small, yet significant,steps such as vigorous enforcementof the rules of the road, increased useof signals, safer sidewalks and bikepaths, and rational regulation of park-ing. A more significant hurdle is man-aging the private operators who nowdominate public transportation inmany developing cities. Infrastructuremaintenance also looms large. Finally,rationally planning and deployingnew infrastructure, roads, and insome cases rail, will prove critical inmany circumstances.

Perhaps the greatest challenge is tostrengthen the institutions that plan,

manage, and finance urban growthand transport. Government agenciesneed to be able to perform suchbasic and necessary steps as regulat-ing their public transport concession-aires; collecting and analyzing themeaningful traffic data needed tounderstand their city’s problems andplan appropriately; and creating thekinds of networks and urban struc-tures that will enhance accessibilityand improve mobility for all of theircitizens.

Despite the daunting nature of thechallenges and the current lack offunds for large-scale infrastructureinvestments, there are reasons foroptimism. Some countries, mostnotably China, have strong centraland local governments that canstreamline the planning and execu-tion of new transportation solutions.The cost of labor is cheap comparedto capital costs, which can result insome useful solutions, e.g., cities candeploy more police for traffic control.Also, there are often fewer regulatoryand legal barriers to developmentand innovation. The freedom that lesslitigious societies provide, such as theability to test new technologies incars and buses without the threat oflawsuits, must, however, be balancedagainst a frequent lack of detailedenvironmental reviews and publicinput to the process. Moreover, in thebest of cases there is widespread pub-lic acknowledgment of the issue, anda corresponding willingness to be



Table 4-9. Road transport externality estimates for developing-country cities (as % of GRP)

City

Year

Land and

Parking

Congestion

Accidents Net

Insurance

Noise

Air

Pollution

Subtotal

Road

Revenues

Net

Mexico City

1993 0.1 2.6 2.3 0.6 5.6 5.6

São Paulo 1990 2.4 1.1 1.6–3.2 5.1-6.7 5.1–6.7

Buenos Aires

1995 3.4 0.5–2 1.0 5.6–7.1 1.0 4.6–6.1

Bangkok 1995 1.0–6.0 2.3 2.6 5.9–10.9 5.9–10.9

Santiago 1994 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.2 2.6 8.3 1.64 6.7

Dakar 1996 3.4 0.2–4.1 5.1 8.7–12.6 8.7–12.6.6

Source: Willoughby (2000a), p. 5.

more bold and innovative in seekingsolutions.

Let’s examine the record.

Infrastructure Maintenance andExpansion

Key questions for the developingworld include in which existing infras-tructure should countries invest pre-cious maintenance resources; and inwhich types of infrastructure shouldthey invest, and where should theybuild it? Yet, few if any infrastructurefinance mechanisms exist, and theyare weak and poorly structured. Evenignoring the issue of externalities dis-cussed in the previous section, it israrely clear whether or not users arepaying more or less of “their ownway” for infrastructure provision andmaintenance in urban areas. Thisproblem is not unique to the devel-oping world per se, but is perhapscompounded there because of thelack of money and institutional exper-tise, more potential inequities, andmore possibilities for corruption (seeGwilliam and Shalizi 1996).

A lack of money constrains most localefforts to build new roads and bridges.Few local governments can float bondissues or engage in other means ofcapital formation, and private investorsare likely to be hesitant in the face ofgovernment instability. As a result,planners are likely to shoot for ambi-tious large-scale projects in the hope offinding some external lender to sup-port the project — however dim thatprospect may be. This tendency, whileentirely understandable, is disruptivefor developing nations that should beaiming for fiscal responsibility as aprincipal goal. Grandiose, if fiscallyuntenable, projects are most preva-lent in the currently or formerlyplanned economies, where the lack offiscal discipline and budgeting experi-ence often reduces transportationplanning to a wish list.

Transport sector “accounting” isnotoriously difficult, particularly at the

urban level, since revenue sourcesand expenditures — which ofteninvolve significant transfers amonglevels of government — are rarelyclear. Isolating costs imposed by andcharges paid for by urban infrastruc-ture users is also difficult, since subur-ban commuters and out-of-town visi-tors, particularly freight trucks, areheavy users of a city’s roads. By atleast one account the road transportsector in Buenos Aires, in general,pays costs specific to road use thatmore than cover road infrastructureand maintenance costs. There are,however, cross subsidies from auto-mobiles to heavy freight trucks andamong users of different fuel types(i.e., subsidies to CNG vehicles)(Libonatti et al., 1996). Similarly, inSantiago in 1994, road users paid$220 million more in related road-user fees than direct governmentroad expenditures (Zegras andLitman, 1997). It can be argued thatpart of these resources went tofinancing the city’s metro construc-tion during this period, althougheven considering this expenditureleaves a surplus. If this is indeed thecase, then road revenues in Santiago(Zegras and Gakenheimer 2000):

● Are implicitly used for incomeredistribution.

● Serve as a proxy for transportexternal costs.

● And/or show a general under-funding of investments in roadmaintenance and new con-struction.

Irrespective of the situation of trans-port sector “accounts,” most indica-tions are that the sector is dominatedby tendencies for infrastructureexpansion at the cost of mainte-nance. One tool to help deal with thesituation is the creation of road-sectorfunds. A wave of “first-generationfunds” designed to deal with failedbudgetary systems was established inthe 1970s and 1980s under periodsof fiscal stress in several developingcountries. These funds centered onensuring that maintenance actuallyoccurred. However, the lack of an

overarching vision for institutionalreform, loose earmarking subject tosiphoning, and the failure to imple-ment marginal cost pricing resultedin widespread failures (Heggie andVickers, 1998). Some signs of arenewal in the use of road funds spe-cific to the urban sector exist. Historysuggests that their success will hingeupon transparent institutional over-sight, detailed management of theaccounting procedures, and vigorousprosecution of inappropriate or cor-rupt transfers of funds.

International financial institutions playan important role in developingtransportation infrastructure and inleveraging policy reforms in thedeveloping world. The World Bankwields perhaps the most influence ofany institution. A review of Bank lend-ing from 1983 to 1993 (IIEC 1996)showed that most of its loans weredirected at intercity transportationinfrastructure, particularly roadways.During the same decade, the Banklent roughly $2.5 trillion to the urbantransport sector across the globe;60% of this went to road building ormaintenance, 17% to bus and railsystems, 10% to traffic management,and 14% to technical assistance. Themajor share of nonroad lending wasin Latin America. Important fundingwas dedicated to urban ring roadconstruction in, for example,Budapest, Hungary, parts of Asia (i.e.,China), and in Latin America. TheBank also played an important role infinancing busway development — forexample, it made a series of loans toBrazil during the 1970s.

For urban areas, a major problemrelates to financing new local infras-tructure development to support thetravel demands brought about byurban expansion. Again, institutionalbarriers often crop up. In MexicoCity, a major challenge to adequatehighway provision lies in the need forcoordination between city, state, andnational institutions and the oftenvague allocation of responsibilityamong them. In many cities, landdevelopers are responsible for devel-oping all local infrastructure — which

mobility 2001


can lead to several problems if theydo not coordinate their efforts.Furthermore, development of region-al-level infrastructure to connect newdevelopments to the rest of theurban area can prove problematic tofinance, although in a limited numberof cases, real estate developers havebeen charged impact fees to financesuch roadways.

The private sector to the res-cue? The role of infrastructure con-cessions — broadly defined as grant-ing rights to levy user fees to cover

construction and/or operationalexpenses, usually for a fixed period oftime, to an entity outside the publicsector (often a for-profit private sec-tor entity) — in the development ofnew infrastructure and the rehabilita-tion/upgradation of existing infras-tructure, is on the rise. A noteworthyearly entry into this arena wasBangkok, which turned to the privatesector to fund a series of proposedmegaprojects beginning in the mid-1980s, with limited success to date.At the end of the 1990s, private-sec-tor concessions were involved in anestimated 15 urban transport infras-

tructure projects under developmentor operation in developing Asia(including eight in Bangkok) andanother 20, at least, in Latin America(including 14 in Buenos Aires) (seeMenckhoff and Zegras 1999).

Concession projects usually focus onroadways, although Buenos Airesembarked on an aggressive privatiza-tion of its subway and suburban railsystem as well. Through its conces-sions program, Buenos Aires upgrad-ed 840 kilometers of subway andsuburban railways, as part of projectscosting some $1.4 billion. The conces-sions encountered some political oppo-sition and recent challenges to trans-parency in their renegotiations, butthey also coincided with an increase inpublic transport ridership — whichactually exceeded projections in mostcases. The subway no longer requiresoperating subsidies. The city’s conces-sion program also leveraged over $1billion in private-sector investments toupgrade and expand over 300 kilome-ters of motorways. Several Braziliancities followed Buenos Aires into theprivate capital markets to finance theirinfrastructure. The city of São Paulo’sattempts at concessioning 240 kilome-ters of exclusive bus corridors werethwarted by lack of financing availableto the private-sector concessionaires,although the State was able to con-cession the upgrade and completionof a 33-kilometer trolleybus line(Rebelo 1997). In Rio de Janeiro, the41-kilometer Metro was “conces-sioned” to the private sector in 1997,with the suburban rail line followingsoon after in 1998 (Rebelo 1999).

Ultimately, incorporating concessionssuccessfully requires several condi-tions: economic stability; a clearurban transport policy and overallstrategy; a reliable and competentgovernment; proper institutional,legal, and regulatory frameworks;and a strong, effective, accountableregulatory body with enforcementcapability. The key is to preventurban transport investment decisionsfrom falling to market forces; other-wise coherent urban transport pro-



Urban Road Funds

To date, most road funds have been for inter-urban road networks that carry the

bulk of national traffic. Urban funds are variants put forth by some policymakers as a

way to assume financial control of the high costs of building urban roads. Current

examples include:

Kyrgyzstan: The capital city Bishkek of this small central Asian country is fac-

ing a maintenance crisis. The recently established National Road Fund is per-

mitted by law to allocate up to 10% of its funds to urban areas, but in practice

it allocates much less because the needs of the national network are perceived

as more pressing. The city government receives some transfers from the central

government, but almost all of it is earmarked for health and education services.

It also has limited revenue-raising authority. As such, the city has resorted to ad

hoc lotteries and festivals to fund road finance. A working group of city and

central government is working on ways to increase central road fund revenues

so that urban areas get a higher share. The consultative process is an essential

component of road fund management. Urban road finance is thus part of the

wider national system.

Honduras: The city of San Pedro Sula set up a road fund in 1996 under a

municipal decree. The nine voting members on the board consist of represen-

tatives from the business community, the engineering profession, organized

labor, the road transport industry, and even the press. The revenue stream

includes local improvement taxes, vehicle registration fees, traffic fines, parking

charges, and other income channeled through the municipal budget, totaling

about US$2 million per year. Maintenance is the road fund’s priority, although

it can finance other road expenditures. It is subject to an annual audit. Here,

urban finance is quite detached from the national system.

South Africa: The national system for urban road support in South Africa

shows that although urban costs are higher, user charges cannot always be dif-

ferentiated according to location, as this is costly to implement. Urban roads

are financed through local government rates and grants from a national Urban

Transport Fund administered by a subcommittee of the South African Roads

Board. Although the original plan was to support the Fund in part through

congestion pricing, as with many first-generation road funds, this was never

introduced. Instead, the Fund receives money from the national road fund and

a central government grant. The long-term aim is to devolve the fund to the

provincial level, as in the Honduras example, but this has not been possible in

the short run.

Source: World Bank (2001), Heggie and Vickers (1998).

grams are unlikely (Menckhoff andZegras 1999).

What future for the busway andurban rail? Compared to its invest-ment in urban roads and railways, theprivate sector expresses little interest inbusways, yet they are among the mostcost-effective means of improvingurban mobility. The great benefit ofdedicated busways is their ability tomove large numbers of passengers —typically up to 25,000 passengers perhour per direction — at relatively lowcost, typically $1 to $3 million perkilometer, 50 to 100 times cheaperthan subways. Despite such a com-pelling economic case, the use ofbusways remains limited. One reasonis that busways lack the technologicalluster of subways, which often gainfavor among politicians and the gen-eral public looking for a modernhigh-tech solution. Another reason isthat busways must overcome severalpractical engineering challenges, suchas the need to integrate with auto-mobile traffic, avoid road conflicts,and protect passengers coming andgoing from stops.

Latin America is a pioneer in dedicat-ed busway deployment, led by Braziland the storied example of Curitiba(see feature box). Today, buswaysexist in Quito (Ecuador), Bogotá (seefeature box), Lima, Santiago, and theBrazilian cities of Recife, Porto Alegre,Goiania, São Paulo, and BeloHorizonte. Beyond being relativelycheap, busways can be deployedquickly, which makes them popular incities enduring difficult political andfinancial conditions.

Regarding metros, the internationaldevelopment community has onlyrecently come to support their newconstruction as a way to increasemobility. International agencies longheld the view that metros were fartoo expensive to be reasonable solu-tions for urban transportation prob-lems in developing cities. For exam-ple, the World Bank’s transportationpolicy papers of 1976, 1986, and1996 scarcely mention metros. After a

1973 project in Tunis and a 1980project in Porto Alegre, Brazil, therewas a 13-year hiatus at the Bank inwhich no metro projects were under-taken. More recently, since the early1990s, the World Bank has expresseda renewed interest in metros aspotential development projects(Mitric 1997). The Bank’s currentconsultation draft (World Bank2001a) for a new urban transportpolicy gives metros considerableattention and presents an encourag-ing picture of the experience of newmetros.

Many developing-country cities willcontinue to pursue construction ofmetros, despite their high costs. Ascities’ wealth increases, the cost ofthe technology becomes more acces-sible and the economic benefit oftravel-time savings (a major justifica-tion for metro construction) grows —and so too demand for metros maywell increase. Plans exist to expandSantiago’s metro, as well as those inseveral Brazilian and Indian cities. Theprivate sector has contributed tometro system development inBangkok, though the financial viabili-ty of the investment remains to beseen. Kuala Lumpur and Manila havealso garnered private-sector support,although the government may actual-ly be assuming most of the financialrisk. There are signs that the privatesector may also play a growing role inupgrading and operating existing sys-tems, as in Buenos Aires and Rio deJaneiro. In the case of suburban railsystems, most emphasis will beplaced on maintaining and upgradingexisting systems.

Public transport service buses.Road-based public transport is theprincipal travel mode for most devel-oping-country urban residents, whichmakes enhancing the quality of ser-vice provided the key challenge.Cities understand that, on one hand,service must remain affordable to thepoorest users; on the other hand, ser-vice quality must be high enough inorder to maintain public transporta-tion as a viable option for those witha choice. Efforts at improvement have

aimed at enhancing overall servicequality (wait time, reliability, traveltime, safety, etc.); finding and main-taining the appropriate role for “para-transit” operators and vehicles; imple-menting effective mechanisms to tar-get subsidies to relevant users; andimproving the overall status and pub-lic perception of the system. Ensuringreliably competitive travel timesthrough bus priority in infrastructure(i.e., bus lanes, busways) is vital, andexamples of implementation indicategood results.

As we saw earlier, a growing private-sector role is the general, though by

mobility 2001


Mexico City’sRoadways: ChasingUrban Expansion?

During the last 20 years, the pro-

vision of highway infrastructure

has struggled to keep pace with

Mexico City’s massive population

expansion. During the early to

mid-1970s, major accomplish-

ments included the construction

of the “Circuito Interior” (first

ring road) as well as several feed-

er roads toward the west. An

important development was the

implementation of the ejes viales

in 1979–80, which created a sys-

tem of high-capacity boulevards

through downtown. The early

1990s saw the completion of the

Pereferico, the Federal District’s

beltway. Other modernization

projects focused on introducing

grade separations to improve traf-

fic flow on key routes. Recent

construction includes a new toll

highway in the west/northwest

(La Venta-Lechería), highway

expansion in the north

(Cuautitlán-Tlalnepantla), and

expansions and new construc-

tion in the east. As of 1995, the

entire northern half of the third

ring was completed (as a toll

highway), with the southern half

under construction. In general

terms, future highway construc-

tion is most restricted in the

north and northwest, due to

topography. Source: COMETRAVI

(1999), SETRAVI (1999).

no means exclusive, trend in road-based public transport. The greatestobstacles to overcome include:

● Ensuring competitive route bidding.

● Service and fare integration.

● Adequate enforcement of ser-vice conditions (frequencies,fares, etc.).

● “Formalization” of companies.

● Reducing “incumbents’ advantage.”

Some progress has been made.

The current wave of formal privateprovision of public transportation ser-vices finds its roots largely in the earlyto mid-1970s. One of the first coun-tries to embark on this path wasChile, as part of general neo-liberaleconomic reforms brought on by themilitary regime. After 1975, the gov-ernment completely liberalized thebus systems in the nation’s cities,allowing virtually anyone with a vehi-cle to operate a bus route. The policydid significantly expand the coverageand frequency of road-based publictransport services, but by the late1980s it also manifested a darkerside: excess supply and dangerous,competitive driving conditions; pollu-tion and congestion; as well asincreasing bus fares due towidespread collusion among opera-tors (see, for example, Correa 1991,Thomson 1993). In the early 1990s, anew democratic regime came intopower and began to address some ofthese excesses of deregulation. InSantiago the first step was outrightstate purchase of the oldest vehicleson the streets — 2,600 buses at acost of US$14 million to the govern-ment. Later, the governmentlaunched a transparent and apparent-ly effective route-bidding process thatproduced remarkable results: The sizeof the bus fleet was reduced from13,500 to 9,000, and average agereduced from 14 years to 4 years,implying a private-sector investment

of US$500 million in vehicle stock;service quality improved (uniform sig-nage, more comfortable vehicles,etc.); vehicle emission characteristicsimproved (more than half the fleetcomplies with EPA-91or 94 standard);bus companies were modernized;and, importantly, bus fares were sta-bilized (Dourthé et al. 2000) with nodirect subsidies to the companies.

Many cities remain dependent onunregulated private markets for theirtransport. Santiago illustrates theproblems — political, institutional,and technical — produced by com-pletely deregulating the public trans-port market as well as the challengesto and potential for overcomingthese problems. Other cities, particu-larly in Brazil, offer a different model



Privatization: Concessions of Transport Infrastructurein Bangkok

Since the mid-1980s, the Thai National Economic and Social Plans have relied heavily

on the private sector for transport infrastructure development. The government is

attempting to solve Bangkok’s world-renowned traffic congestion through conces-

sions for the construction and operation of several expressways and mass transit sys-

tems. So far, three expressways and one mass rail transit line are complete, and one

subway system is expected to open in 2002. Over the past decade, concessions have

been able to attract private-sector funds of about US$3 billion from both foreign and

local sources to finance transport infrastructure in the city. If all projects under con-

struction are completed, the city will have a rail transit network of 45 kilometers and

an expressway system of 355 kilometers .

Despite the impressive amount of capital assembled and construction completed, all

of Bangkok’s megaprojects faced major problems. All suffered substantial delays,

from problems with some basic designs to contractual and legal conflicts between

the government and private concessionaires. In fact, several of the originally planned

projects were scrapped or suspended.

The most controversial project was the Second Stage Expressway. In 1993, serious

conflicts erupted over the appropriate toll level and revenue sharing between the

Thai government and Kumagai Gumi, a Japanese construction contractor. The con-

tractor simply refused to open the expressway to the public after its completion.

Later, the Thai government forced the opening of the road, and convinced Kumagai

Gumi to sell their stake to local investors.

Some of the other megaprojects have been abandoned or converted into publicly

owned and operated enterprises. The ambitious Hopewell Project, which was to

build a US$3.1 billion multilevel structure for an expressway and a rail transit system,

was abandoned. The viability of the project was closely related to the associated

property development, and the bust of the local real estate market and the financial

crisis of 1997 were mortal blows. As of March 2001, the Thai government and

Hopewell Holdings of Hong Kong, the project contractor, continued to wrangle over

compensation for losses on the project. On the other hand, the new subway system,

the concession for which was first awarded to SNC-Lavalin of Canada in the late

1980s, is now under the control of a new public agency, and scheduled to open in

2002. SNC-Lavalin backed out when it could not secure financing commitments

from its equipment suppliers.

Several institutional weaknesses must share the blame for Bangkok’s disputes with

its concessionaires. The lack of well-established legal, regulatory, and investment

frameworks hampered the projects, as did the absence of an effective dispute reso-

lution mechanism to resolve contractual difficulties. Jousting between government

agencies competing for control of the concessions confused matters, and above all,

the absence of a comprehensive transport plan and policy — managed by one

agency — doomed many of Bangkok’s dreams for new development.

Source: Menckhoff and Zegras (1999).

of regulation and payment, one inwhich the public sector has a moreprominent role. For example, inCuritiba, ten private bus companiesoperate services for the entire city,under concession to the Municipality.The concession controls the numberand type of vehicles and the frequen-cy of trips on each route. An impor-tant aspect of the system is the wayrevenues are distributed to eachcompany. Instead of being deter-mined based on the number of pas-sengers carried (which often pro-duces dangerous on-street competi-tion for passengers), companies arepaid according to kilometers trav-eled, with payment based on a finan-cial analysis that includes a 12%return on capital. The user pays a sin-gle fare, which allows for transfers.Five service types are offered —including express and executivebuses, providing differentiated“products” for public transport “mar-ket segments.” The Curitiba scheme

also includes bus-only transitwayswith prepayment stations and otherfeatures that enhance service (seefeature box). Curitiba’s busways offera sophisticated model of public-pri-vate partnership, one that is beingcopied by dozens of Latin Americancities, most notably Bogotá.

Ultimately, public transport dependson a city’s history, topography, andcurrent structure, its goals, and thepolitical management and willpowerto achieve them. Experience suggeststhat balancing buses, cars, and met-ros in a manner that is equitable to allcitizens is easier with only a few oper-ators and a Curitiba-style revenue dis-tribution system. Maintaining afford-able service requires well-managedcompetition. Effective public-sectormanagement is key: service planningseparated from provision; strongtechnical capacity; and enforcementabilities (World Bank 2001a). In the

end, the critical question is whetherpublic transport can be a viable com-mercial business in the face ofincreasing use of private automobiles,and the concurrent changes in landuse and real estate development thatrarely favor public transportation.

Managing the private operators.Managing competitive bids and city-wide service by private bus compa-nies is a difficult exercise for publicauthorities. The terms of competitionamong bidders are problematicbecause the terms of service are all atfixed levels — the fare, the seat-milesrequired, the service schedule, thevehicle type, and so forth. And at theend of a contract, the private compa-nies often collude to ensure that theirown contracts are renewed. Politicalties and lobbying by the operatorsalso distort the bidding system.

An equally thorny political problem islocal governments’ reluctance to raisetransit fares, since they are a very visi-ble part of the cost of living to theordinary citizen. Governments andtransit systems sometimes face violentrevolts when they attempt to raisefares. Additional problems result fromthe lack of personnel or leverage toenforce contractor responsibilitiesadequately. Often, a concessionairewill bid on an unprofitable low-densi-ty route segment at the outer end ofhis own normal route, to keep a newconcessionaire from becoming acompetitor when bringing passengersinto the city. As soon as he gets thecontract for the extended route, how-ever, he reneges on serving it becauseit is not profitable. Some renege onserving the central business areabecause the congestion slows thebuses down.

The problems of transit managementbasically arise because:

● It is very difficult to make theservice self-supporting at agood level of quality, thoughlow-quality, self-supporting

mobility 2001


The Shifting Tides of Policy: The Vehicle Size andParatransit Debates

It is useful to note the historical shifts among transportation analysts for and against

small transit vehicles offering paratransit service. In the 1970s, some analysts con-

cluded that small vehicles were the most effective form of transit. A.A. Walters of The

World Bank was the most prominent and vigorous advocate of this view. More gen-

erally, proponents argue that paratransit services, usually served by small vehicles,

often serve areas not covered by formal, speedy, flexible, and affordable service.

Small vehicles can provide accessibility to the areas where larger vehicles would be

unprofitable or physically impossible, and they provide mobility for those in outlying

neighborhoods who cannot afford private cars. In effect, paratransit sustains collec-

tive mobility for the poor who are left behind in the motorization process. Restricting

paratransit would reduce the mobility of the poor while enhancing automobility of

the middle-class and the rich.

But paratransit has several external costs. The additional small vehicles on the street

add to congestion. Many of the private transport vehicles are the biggest contribu-

tors to urban air pollution because they are old, poorly maintained, and have aging

or nonexistent pollution controls. Paratransit vehicles are often driven in an unsafe,

even reckless manner. (Deaths and serious accidents from automobile injuries are dis-

proportionately high in developing cities.) Because of overcrowding and a lack of

stewards and conductors, many women are loath to ride public or paratransit alone

for fear of harassment, robbery or rape. In several developing cities, most notably

Mexico City, public institutions are unable to manage or regulate effectively the

entrepreneurs who run paratransit.

As a result the vigorous interest in small-scale public transport has yielded to a broad-

er concern for system-wide support of public transit. On balance, it appears that

small vehicle paratransit operators are part of long-term, sustainable mobility in

developing cities. Policy-makers need to find ways to integrate the small vehicle

operators into a more efficient system that includes larger public transport vehicles

while retaining the speed and flexibility that make small vehicles attractive.

transit systems survive in mostdeveloping cities by default.

● Adequate management requiresa complex arrangementbetween private contractorsand public authority that is diffi-cult to achieve.

● The service is highly political,both in terms of the govern-ment’s relation to the public,and the relation between thegovernment and private con-tractors, who are likely to bestrong and combative.

Enhancing urban rail ridership.Irrespective of future investments inmetros, it is clear that many existingsystems could better manage theirroutes and stations and the land usesaround them. For example, in bothMexico City and Santiago, less than40% of the system accounts for 70%of all passengers. A challenge is toincrease ridership on the underusedmetro lines. One possibility is to pro-mote attractive retail and residentialdevelopment around metro stations.Hong Kong, for example, conces-sioned station development rights toreal estate developers. The Singaporegovernment, enjoying strong controlsover land development, focused asignificant portion of housing andretail activity around its mass railtransit. Nonetheless, widespreadexamples of deliberate “transit-orient-ed development” in the developingworld do not yet exist.

Nonmotorized Transport (NMT):From the Foot Path to the BikePath and Beyond

NMT’s dominant role in much of thedeveloping world’s cities poses apolicy dilemma. On the one hand,walking and bicycling are part of anenvironmentally and economicallysustainable transport policy. They arecheap, they have almost no environ-mental impacts, and they requirevery little investment to make themsafe and attractive. On the otherhand, nonmotorized travel can beextremely burdensome — not anoption of choice for travelers, rather

one of necessity. NMT trips can beexcessively long and dangerous — afact that automobiles exacerbate, bylengthening trip distances (pushingout urban area origins and destina-tions) and producing pollution andsafety risks that only further discour-age NMT use.

The efforts a few cities are making toimprove options for pedestrians andcyclists are vital; otherwise, thesemodes of transport will continue tobe relegated to “second-class-citizen”status. The challenge for policy-mak-ers has been to recognize the NMTtrips that most travelers would prefernot to make — typically walk tripsover 1 kilometer and bike trips over3 to 5 kilometers. Recognizing this,there are four general areas for inter-vention in which some progress canbe observed:

● Attempt to plan land use andreal estate development thatcan accommodate short trips.

● Ensure that people can easilywalk or bicycle to public trans-port stations for longer trips.

● Improve the safety, comfort,and convenience of walking orcycling by building adequatesidewalks and bike lanes,adding bike racks at publictransport stations and othercommon destinations, and edu-cating drivers to respect pedes-trians and cyclists.

● Make bicycles more affordablethrough technological improve-ments and innovative financingschemes.

For pedestrians, the primary hurdle isthe lack of sidewalks, or theirencroachment by parked vehicles andvendors. In Bogotá, Mayor EnriquePeñalosa targeted the sidewalks ofcertain business areas, widening themsubstantially, planting them withtrees, and forbidding customary park-ing on them. Abutting businesses atfirst complained, fearing they wouldlose customers for lack of nearby

parking, but they soon realized thatthe improved pedestrian environmentenhanced sales. The city now has anearly 1 kilometer long pedestrianstreet. Wealthier cities and neighbor-hoods have high-quality pedestrianfacilities — including pedestrian-onlyzones in downtown Santiago andBuenos Aires. Lower-income urbanenvironments also sometimes havequite functional pedestrian ways, oftenself-created and self-enforced aspedestrian concentrations slow downand crowd out motor vehicles. Thetraditional market district of Cairo’sKhan el Khallili is an example.Elsewhere, however, in dense down-towns with multiple types of roadusers and little available space (i.e.,Bangkok), people walk at their ownrisk. Furthermore, pedestrians are oftenpushed aside by efforts to ease con-gestion for automobiles and buses —traffic signals timed for high-speedtraffic, multi-lane high-speed motor-ways, and other schemes for motorvehicle priority leave pedestriansbehind. Cumbersome pedestrian over-passes or dimly lit, uncomfortable, andexpensive underpasses offer littlerespite.

Bicycle infrastructure — bike lanes,segregated bike paths, and secureparking facilities, for instance — cangreatly enhance the cycling experi-ence, improving safety and comfortand promoting bicycle use. However,as noted earlier, there are some indi-cations that widespread bicycle userequires something of a bicycle “cul-ture” (such as in the Netherlands,China, or Vietnam). These are oftenplaces where there have beenenough bicycles initially to create asustained presence in the streets.Nonetheless, there are examples thatpolicy can play an important role increating such a culture; in Germany,for example, public policy has beencredited with producing a bicycling“renaissance” in many cities over thepast 20 years (see Pucher 1997).Some developing nations are follow-ing Germany’s lead. In Poland, forinstance, the Parliament passed anational traffic code aimed at improv-ing cycling conditions. Cyclists nowhave the right of way when crossing



small streets. They are also allowed touse the sidewalks when the speedlimit on the road is more than 50kilometers per hour. NGOs alsostaged a successful No Car Day with500 cyclists, and involved local gov-ernments in planning for NMT. Thecity of Wroclaw plans to build 100kilometers of bike paths, and Cracowaims for 350 kilometers. In Bogotá,the Mayor’s office launched theBicycle Master Plan (BMP), whichaims to build over 320 kilometers ofbicycle paths, provide bicycle park-ing, integrate cycling with otherforms of transport, and provide linksto municipalities near Bogotá.Another important part of creating abicycle “culture” has to do with over-coming societal biases and customsthat in some countries virtually pro-hibit women from using bicycles.

At the same time, there is consider-able room for improving existingnonmotorized vehicle technologies aswell as improving people’s ability toaccess these vehicles (financing).Unfortunately, improvements to vehi-cle design (such as lighter cycle rick-shaws with gears) typically come withconsiderable relative cost increases,rendering them out of reach formany. An affordable, lighter, moderncycle rickshaw has been introduced inseveral Indian cities over the past fewyears, however, and affordable, pro-ductive trailers have met with consid-erable success in parts of Africa. In aneffort to increase low-income earners’access to nonmotorized vehicles, theWorld Bank introduced a revolvingloan fund in Lima, through whichworkers can finance bicycle purchas-es, with repayments made throughmonthly pay checks in agreementwith industrial employers. The pro-gram was poorly promoted and mar-keted, however, and has met withmodest success to date.

Traffic and InfrastructureManagement

Many cities in the developing worldare aware that management of trafficand infrastructure is fundamental toimproving mobility. The high cost of

roads and busways, and the lack ofmoney to pay for them, suggest thatthe first priority should be to maxi-mize the use of existing facilities. Keysteps include establishing a clear net-work hierarchy, an adequate mainte-nance system, well-functioning sig-nals and clear traffic signage, strongtraffic enforcement capabilities givingpriority to public buses, and ensuringthat bus stops are convenient, well-maintained, and easy to use. Beyondgains in traffic efficiency, such stepscan reduce traffic accidents (Raglandet al. 1992).

Again, Brazil is something of a rolemodel for public transport priority ininfrastructure, starting with Curitiba’sbusway efforts in 1974, later to befollowed by other cities (São Paulo in1975, Goiânia in 1976, and PôrtoAlegre in 1977). In Brazil today,“there has been a clear tendency forpolicies that give privileges to publictransport by bus. It is assumed by alllevels of government that it is possi-ble to improve bus transport capaci-ty through different measures, such

as a high level of travel ways segre-gation, operation of trunk and feed-er systems, better on-board or off-board automatic fare collection sys-tems, improved layout and opera-tion of bus stops, implementation ofbus-actuated traffic-signal systems,and improvement of bus qualitydesign, comfort and performance”(Meirelles 2000).

If successful, results can be impressive.Kunming, China, introduced a dedi-cated bus lane in 1999, including stopislands and bus priority at traffic lights,connecting the airport and dense resi-dential areas with the city center.Initial results have been impressive: a13% increase in ridership, a 60%decrease in passenger boarding time,a 70% increase in average travelspeeds, and a 50% reduction in thenumber of buses required to provideservice (Joos 2000).

mobility 2001


Bogotá: It is Never Too Late to Start Improvements

Bogotá’s “Transmilenio,” which started operation in December 2000, was built upon

the concept of “Troncales” (busways) drawn from Curitiba. Bogotá’s first “troncal”

was actually built in the 1980s on Caracas Avenue. Although never operated as origi-

nally designed, this two-lane-per-direction busway was used by nearly 500 buses and

carried, under difficult conditions, an estimated 35,000 passengers per hour per

direction — astounding levels for a busway, surpassing the practical ridership levels

often obtained by metros. The Transmilenio project modified the infrastructure and

operational standards of Caracas Avenue and implemented busways on two other

main arteries. Current costs of busway development are estimated at $5 million per

kilometer, with financing coming from a 20% increase in the gasoline tax as well as

from national government transfers. Currently, 20 additional corridors for busway

development are being considered to expand the system. The stated goal of the city

government is eventually to have 85% of the city population within 500 meters of a

bus stop.

Bogotá has also taken important steps toward building a “car-free” culture. For

example, “Pico y Placa” restricts the use of 40% of the private autos during weekday

peak hours. To date, Bogotá has avoided many of the negative consequences that

plague a similar program in Mexico City. In addition, the city implemented two car-

free days (in February 2000 and 2001), aimed at educating the population about

alternative ways to move in the city. Building on the relative success of these initia-

tives, the city government put its policies to the test in a public referendum, which

the voters approved. The referendum includes the “celebration” of a “Car-Free Day”

the first Thursday of every February, and the restriction of all private autos during

weekday peak hours starting in 2015. The government has also embarked on an

aggressive program to link the entire city by nearly 200 kilometers of bike lanes.

Demand Management

As is the case in the developed world,economists advocate charging autosfor the social, environmental, and con-gestion costs they create, and arguethat this would help foster lower, moresustainable levels of traffic. Howeverpersuasive such proposals may be intheory, the use of such fees is limited inpractice, either because of practical

politics, institutional barriers, and tech-nical challenges, cost considerationsrelated to implementing a congestionpricing scheme or a lack of widespreadunderstanding of full-cost pricingamong politicians, technocrats, andthe general public.

Instead, cities often resort to anotheralternative — the use of physical traf-

fic management measures for purpos-es of demand management. Theseare also subject to criticism and politi-cal resistance, but actions of this sortare in place in many cities. Theyinclude improved conditions forpedestrians, parking restrictions andcharges, limits on the use of trucks ortwo-wheeled motorized vehicles inparts of the city or time of day, andother more widespread vehiclerestrictions. For example, MexicoCity, São Paulo, Santiago, and Bogotáeach uses some version of automobileuse restrictions, based on the lastdigit of a vehicle’s license plate.Mostly geared toward reducing airpollution (typically used during thepollution “high season”), these vehi-cle restrictions have proven to behighly imperfect. In Mexico City, forexample, the measure is criticized forseveral reasons, one of which is thatit promotes the purchase of addition-al vehicles (to avoid the ban), andthat these vehicles tend to be sec-ondhand and more polluting. Themeasure is also criticized for beinginequitable (since the wealthy couldavoid the ban with second vehicles);inducing additional overall travel(freeing up a second vehicle for dayswith no restriction); and drainingpolitical and administrative resourcesfor ban enforcement. In Bogotá, onthe contrary, where somewhat differ-ent limits on the peak-hour use ofvehicles are in place, observers widelyagree that they have been effective.

Another alternative to charging roadusers full prices is to subsidize publictransportation operations directly, amove that can be justified for themany social and environmental bene-fits it generates. Yet subsidizing pub-lic transport operations to offset theuncharged “external” costs of autouse is a less-than-desirable approach,particularly since those subsidiesthemselves may create perverseincentives and inefficiencies in opera-tions. Furthermore, the overall cli-mate favoring privatization of bus ser-vices and the general bias againstmaintaining public transport subsidieswhere they exist (i.e., Central andEastern Europe) makes their long-term viability questionable.



Curitiba, Brazil: Bus-Based Public Transport That Works

Curitiba, Brazil, is a city of a million people in southern Brazil, in the province of

Parana. For over 30 years Curitiba benefited from the leadership of Jaime Lerner as,

alternately, mayor and director of planning. Lerner constantly supported the same,

simple principles of transportation and land-use planning, and he had the sagacity

and political capital to advance his policies with notable success.

The Curitiba “model” is based on four fundamental principles:

● Land use and transport integration — focus urban expansion along busways

and promote dense land use along them through zoning, regulations, and fis-

cal incentives.

● Public transport priority in infrastructure — busways on major roads, segregat-

ed bus stops with preboard ticket payment.

● Service integration -— use transfer stations and terminals, include circumferen-

tial and feeder routes, and use an integrated fare.

● “Affordable” innovation —articulated and bi-articulated (locally built) buses,

express buses with specialized boarding tubes, public services and other activi-

ties located at terminals.

Not only did Curitiba benefit from the vision of one man, but also from the institu-

tional framework he helped create. At the same time Curitiba’s plan was drawn up in

1965, Municipal Law created an urban research and planning institute, IPPUC, which

has broad responsibilities for integrated planning in the city. In 1980, a newly creat-

ed public transport authority, URBS, began administering bus stops and stations,

parking meters, the taxi system, and traffic enforcement. URBS also administers the

distribution of the Urbanization Fund, which comes from bus fare collection, as fol-

lows: 90% returned to private-sector bus operators; 6% to infrastructure develop-

ment; and 4% to financing URBS.

Lerner’s plans and oversight made Curitiba a widely hailed model. Bi-articulated

buses whisk up to 250 passengers along their commutes at 90% the speed of autos,

the smallest differential between auto and bus peak travel speeds of all the major

cities in Brazil. Many of the negative consequences of motorization, such as acci-

dents, pollution, and noise, are greatly ameliorated by the use of high-speed corri-

dors with appropriate buildings abutting them, which buffer residential and retail

areas from the unpleasant side effects of traffic.

It is noteworthy that Curitiba owes its transportation system largely to the vision,

energy, and political power of one man. Few urban areas anywhere are led so vigor-

ously, for so long, by one farsighted leader. Lee Yuan Kew’s leadership of Singapore is

one of the few political tenures to match Lerner’s. Considering that most cities will

not have a Jaime Lerner or Lee Yuan Kew to lead them for a generation, it is impor-

tant that planners build as much political and social support for their visions as possi-

ble, so that their plans may survive the vicissitudes of partisan politics and shifting

urban leadership.

Ultimately, the most effective demandmanagement tools may come fromtechnology. For instance, electronicroad pricing allows time- and place-specific congestion fees via advancedtelematics, without the burden anddelay of toll booths. Technologies formore accurate pricing have nowbecome viable, but area-wide applica-tion exists only in Singapore. TheWorld Bank began advocating roadpricing for Asian cities like Bangkokand Kuala Lumpur in the 1970s.Legislation allowing for congestionpricing has been languishing in theChilean Legislature since 1990.Implementation seems no closer inmost places than it does in the indus-trialized world. However, the poten-tials for implementation should notbe ignored, if only because the politi-cal equation theoretically still stacks inits favor — most of the voting publicstill does not own automobiles andthese people, plus potentially powerfulpolitical allies such as bus operators,would stand to benefit greatly.

Mobility and Land Planning

The current rapid urban expansionand transformation gripping manydeveloping-country cities poses botha major challenge and a great oppor-tunity to enhance mobility. Whileurban growth creates demand fornew transportation infrastructure andservices, it also offers the chance todirect real estate development indense clusters and corridors. Suchland planning can, for example, helpmaintain and promote public trans-port usage. Unfortunately, land plan-ning in the interest of mobility has adismal record in most countries —developing or developed. The appro-priate tools of land planning, growthboundaries, impact fees and exac-tions, density guidelines, and housingsubsidies are used in some develop-ing cities, but rarely have they beenpursued with specific mobility goals.Again, the case of Curitiba stands outas a model, with land developmentstrategies linked closely to the con-struction of its busways. Recent plan-ning for Bangkok includes land-useplanning for improved mobility.Based on a plan prepared by an MIT

team, a series of new neighborhoodsand business districts is plannedabout 20 kilometers from the centerof the city, beyond the wave of cur-rent development. These centers areto be developed through the use of arevolving fund with which the gov-ernment acquires minimal land forurban services and installs basicinfrastructure. The cost is thenrefunded to the government by arriv-ing developers. Land has alreadybeen acquired for the first of thesecenters at Lot Krabang, near the siteof a new airport.

Hong Kong and Singapore offer otherexamples of mobility-oriented land-use planning. Neither of these can becharacterized as a developing areaanymore, but they were both low-income areas not many decades ago.Their strict attention to land develop-ment is one of the cornerstones oftheir ascent into high-income, highlydeveloped cities. However, thesecities have benefited from relativelystrong centralized authority, withbroad powers for land acquisition anddevelopment controls. The reality ofmost developing countries is muchdifferent — the relevant tools willoften be spread across several institu-tions with different goals in mind,with varying ultimate impacts onmobility. A recent analysis of the toolsfor managing urban growth inSantiago sheds light on these compli-cations (see Table 4-10); in few casesare transportation authorities directlyinvolved.

Transport Planning andInstitutions: Daunting TasksAhead

Urban transportation involves multi-ple institutions, some of which havecompeting interests and responsibili-ties. Institutional difficulties are fre-quently the principal barrier to imple-menting coherent policies in the sec-tor, in both developing and devel-oped countries (Anderson et al. 1993,Gakenheimer 1993). Even establish-ing an overarching authority does notguarantee success, because of themultiple political and economic inter-

mobility 2001


Singapore: TheParagon of Land-UsePlanning and TrafficManagement

Singapore is a success story of

how to achieve mobility through

the effective use of travel demand

management. Of all the high-

income countries, most of whose

cars-per-thousand population fig-

ure ranges from 350–550,

Singapore’s figure remains as low

as 120 cars, above only Hong

Kong at 55 (World Bank 2000).

Due to its rapid economic growth

over the last 40 years in a con-

fined physical space, Singapore

has had to promote innovative

transportation policies to prevent

excessive congestion. Through

use of the pricing mechanism in

particular, Singapore has experi-

mented with successful policies

including the Area License

Scheme (1975), the Vehicle

Quota System (1990), and the

Electronic Road Pricing Scheme

(1998). Despite inevitable imper-

fections in policy design, the

overall outcome is that motoriza-

tion restraints have had no major

negative side effects on economic

growth or the improvement of

social welfare (Willoughby

2000b). In addition, price-mecha-

nism-generated revenues have

resulted in large funds that have,

in turn, been used to invest in

social improvements well beyond

the realm of traffic management

and transportation infrastructure.

The geographic and political par-

ticularity of Singapore, as an

island-state with a strong-willed

leader, Lee Yuan Kew, provided

perhaps the impetus and condi-

tions for its innovative policies.

And it is questionable if other

societies would accept such

sweeping oversight of their

mobility. Yet the lessons

Singapore learned have much to

inform policy-making in most

areas of the developing world.

This is particularly true given the

phases of development from poor

developing country to rich devel-

oped country that Singapore

went through in these years.

ests involved, not to mention the sec-tor’s inherent complexity. The futureholds a great deal of uncertainty,making it hard to picture technology,demand, and economic conditions asa platform for proposals.

Developing countries, however, faceadditional challenges related to short-ages of human and financial capital,institutional flux (often linked todecentralization), and weak regulato-ry frameworks. The presence of inter-national assistance — in the form ofdonors, consultants, internationalagencies — often is a mixed blessing.

Foreign expertise often comes illequipped to deal with local prob-lems, and foreign aid often comeslinked with particular technologicalsolutions in mind. The result can be aconstantly rotating team of experts,each with a different technical andmethodological style, harboring dif-ferent unexpressed expectationsabout the future, and leaving a differ-ent legacy of professional beliefs andoperational models. In the case oftransportation planning in Cairo overthe last two decades, for example,there have been at least 10 differentnational professional cultures partici-pating in the planning of various

components of the urban transporta-tion system. This situation is clearlychanging in many industrializingcountries — particularly those mid-dle-income countries with growingcadres of technically savvy experts inthe field.

Nonetheless, as technical capacityincreases, so do the number and typesof challenges, such as effective regula-tion of privately owned public trans-portation; a legal and regulatoryframework for managing and enforc-ing infrastructure concessions; model-ing complex travel supply and



Table 4-10. Differing responsibilities and goals in transport and land planning in Santiago

Instrument

Responsible Institution

Objective

Practical Transport Effects

Land-Use Plans Municipal governments, National Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Ensure land development meets public needs — zoning, adequate infrastructure, etc.

Historical disconnect between responsible authorities; no serious transport analysis behind land plans.

Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)

Municipal governments, National Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Control urban expansion.

Somewhat slowed urban outgrowth, but likely led to uncoordinated/poorly equipped suburbanization.

Low-Income Housing Subsidies

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Providing housing to low-income residents.

Have exacerbated transport conditions by fueling urban expansion.

Urban Revitalization Subsidies

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; Municipality of Santiago

Revitalize center city neighborhoods with residential development.

City center residential revitalization has likely reduced some travel demand.

Roadway Impact Studies (EI/ST, EFVs)

Municipal governments, Ministry of Transport

Ensure that real estate projects and land plans have adequate transport provision.

Have improved project and plan development recently; continued emphasis on infrastructure.

Environmental Impact Studies

National Environment Commission

Ensure real estate projects comply with environmental norms.

Currently have produced nil transport effects.

Transport Exactions and Impact Fees


Ensure that real estate projects “pay” for their transport impacts.

Have increased developers’ transportation infrastructure responsibility.

“New City” Regulations


Regulate the widespread suburban “megaprojects” under way.

May create more self-sufficient communities, but also longer net travel distances.

Source: Zegras and Gakenheimer (2000).

mobility 2001


Rural Transport in Developing Countries

Rural citizens use means of transportation very different from that of their urban cousins. In general, rural dwellers experience very lim-

ited mobility and accessibility to the most basic services, such as local and regional markets, health clinics, and schools. Transport con-

ditions are often difficult, and traveling takes up a large amount of time and physical effort. Most rural, peasant communities have lim-

ited accessibility to areas outside their immediate vicinity. It is not entirely clear, however, how much rural dwellers suffer low-mobility

levels because of their rural settings or their economic conditions. For example, at least one study finds a strong similarity between

factors explaining urban and rural travel trip generation — income and household characteristics dominate (Deaton et al. 1987). In

fact, controlling for income, rural households in the developing world are more likely to own vehicles than urban households (Deaton

et al. 1987). So, the transportation problem in rural areas of the developing world derives, in part, from their very rural nature: dis-

persed activities make accessing various opportunities difficult, particularly given the low-income levels and lack of vehicular alterna-

tives. (Indeed, rural migration to urban areas focuses specifically on improving access, particularly to employment and educational

opportunities.)

Thus, in rural transportation, the question arises: How much are poor levels of accessibility in rural areas a transport problem or a devel-

opment problem, and what role can transportation play in improving rural development?

Although each rural area in developing countries experiences different transport problems and situations, some common characteristics

of rural transport can be observed.

● The rural population of many developing countries moves mainly by walking and undertakes very few motorized trips. For exam-

ple, in Kenya, pedestrian trips account for 92% of the traffic volume on community roads (Gaviria 1991). Another study has

shown that 87% of trips in rural Africa take place on foot (Barwell 1996), while bicycles make 81% of vehicle trips on some main

roads in Uganda (Grisley 1994).

● The lack of ownership and access to means of transport constrain the mobility and accessibility of rural people. Again, low

incomes prevent all but very few households in rural areas from owning any form of motor vehicle transport. Walking, cycling,

and animal-traction are therefore the common modes of transport. The most common ways of transporting goods are head-load-

ing and/or other forms of physical porterage.

● The majority of the trips are within and around the village, with the purpose of collecting basic necessities, such as fuel and water,

and to cultivate farms and fields for subsistence needs.

● The gender division of labor is a key determinant of transport demand and use of transport services. Women are often exhausted

from meeting transport needs, a task that can consume most of their day. This is particularly true in most African societies, where

women are responsible for the bulk of cultivation tasks. Women spend more than 65% of the household time and effort on trans-

port in rural Africa (Barwell 1996).

● The poor are worst located when it comes to accessing services. They make shorter and fewer trips than the rich, but take a

longer time doing it. For instance, in a rural area in Tanzania, a household with five persons undertakes more than 1,600 trips

annually, which in total require more than 2,500 hours. The procurement of energy and water requires annually more than 1,000

hours (Sieber 1996; et al.).

As transport conditions are closely related to poverty in the rural areas in developing countries, the focus of rural transport planning has

been on how to improve transport accessibility and mobility. The objective is to increase opportunities for income generation through

improving access to labor and product markets, which are important for the poor. Improving rural transportation serves to evolve the

rural economy from subsistence to market economy. An inefficient transport system is a significant constraint on the agricultural sector

in rural areas, both by raising the costs and effectiveness of production inputs and by delaying the sale of harvested crops. In fact, allevi-

ating this problem has been the rationale and justification for road projects in rural areas in developing countries since the 1960s.

A study of the impact of 56 rural roads projects funded by the World Bank in six African countries found a close relationship between

the performances of the agricultural and transport sectors (Gaviria 1991). Another evaluation of a World Bank road project in Morocco

found that the project helped increase agricultural activity by improving the volume of production, productivity of land, and monetary

values of output. Rural roads could also lead to the development of off-farm employment opportunities (Khandker et al. 1994).

In the case of healthcare, a study shows that new rural roads have made it possible for hospitals to attract more patients who live farther

afield (Airey 1992). In education, the presence of a paved road in the community significantly increased the school participation rates of

children in rural areas in Morocco (Khandker et al. 1994).

Nevertheless, many argue that the conventional rural transport planning approach has overwhelmingly focused only on paved roads,

conventional motor vehicles, and marketable agriculture. Many women spend their days collecting water and crops instead of selling

their crops. The focus on conventional motor vehicles does not serve their needs (Ahmed 1997).

demand interactions and air qualityconditions; and developing and imple-menting adequate vehicle inspectionand maintenance programs.

Progress requires the political will todevelop an adequate understandingof reality through data collection, andthen develop the analysis toolsappropriate for local conditions.Without quality baseline informationon transportation and land uses, it isdifficult to make the necessary evalu-ations and analyses of potential solu-tions. Nonetheless, even with suchtransport analysis capabilities, theneed to estimate environmentalimpacts requires another level ofdetail, including the wide variety ofvehicle types and their emissionscharacteristics, operating conditions,and so forth. Developing mechanismsto reduce the range of transporta-tion’s other external effects (conges-tion, accidents, noise pollution, etc.)requires data management systems,decent monitoring, and efforts ateconomic valuation of these externalcosts. This requires close collabora-tion between vehicle inspectionauthorities, environmental authorities,traffic police, planners, etc. — never asimple task in any political-institution-al setting. More widespread citizeninvolvement, though not yet a“requirement” in transportation plan-ning in developing countries, is onthe rise. Certainly a welcome move-ment in helping to make planningprocesses more transparent, not tomention ensuring all needs are heard,“public participation” also can furthercomplicate the process.

The rapid pace of change in devel-oping countries suggests somethingof a “state of emergency.” The natu-

ral response to such a condition is tomake large infrastructure invest-ments — to “show” that somethingis being done about the problem.Nonetheless, despite the short-termpolitical profitability of launchinglarge infrastructure projects, thegreatest long-term return may welllie in investing time and resourcesinto adequate information and prob-lem-solving tools and skills — “soft-ware” over “hardware.” The factremains that transportation policy isan inherently political process.Successful policy prescriptions at thetechnical level may be hampered bythe nature of the institutional andpolitical arena. Pricing in particularhas achieved a highly contentiouspolitical status when people perceiveof roads and transport services aspublic goods in the hands of thestate. As a result, pricing for full-costrecovery has met with limited suc-cess in all countries except thosewilling to take the political risks toenforce it.

Some observers suggest that it is nosurprise that Curitiba and Singapore,two widely cited examples of goodplanning and management, weredeveloped in periods of unitary gov-ernment under strong leadership.Others point out that strong unitarygovernments with definite visions notmodulated by a participative plan-ning process are at least as likely toproduce planning disasters as theyare to produce role models. Giventhe political complexity of individualnations and cities, it should be nosurprise that the experience in devel-oping countries has been incrediblydiverse, and it is important toremember that there is “no singletransposable solution” from one

country to another (Godard and DiazOlvera 2000).

NOTE

1. Contrary to the general trend ofincreasing trip rates with increas-ing incomes, trip-making seemsto be stagnating/declining despiteapparent increases in income in atleast one, possibly two document-ed cases. Beyond the possibilitiesof some inconsistencies in datacollection, these apparentlydeclining trip rates could comefrom a variety of factors, includ-ing: deteriorating travel times,declining public safety, orchanges in urban form.



Furthermore, there is the complex problem of the impacts road construction in rural

areas has had on ecosystems and traditional cultures. Roads have been blamed for

contributing to the loss of tropical forests, by opening previously inaccessible areas

to logging and agriculture. One of the most notorious examples is Brazil’s

Polonoreste highway project; because of poor planning and implementation, the

project induced large-scale migration to the area, and widespread environmental

degradation. Such projects highlight the need to be able to quantify the impacts of

rural road-building on development and the environment in order to assess the

tradeoffs adequately (Chomitz and Gray 1996).

www.wbcsdmobility.org 5-1

Intercity passenger travel accounts for a relatively small share of total trips but for a much larger and growingshare of total passenger-kilometers. In the developed world, intercity passenger travel is by automobile, air,and rail. In the developing world, intercity passenger travel is less common. What intercity travel there is usesbus, rail, and to a small but rapidly growing extent, air.

Although the automobile accounts for a large share of all developed world intercity trips, the use of the autofor intercity travel is usually a byproduct of travelers’ decisions to own an auto primarily for local use.Likewise, most road systems have been developed primarily to meet local or regional rather than intercitytravel needs. The German Autobahns, Italian Autostradas, British Motorways, French Autoroutes, andAmerican Interstates make up a small part of each country’s road system, though they carry a disproportion-ate share of the road traffic.

Intercity bus travel is very important in the developing world, as is “conventional” rail. Bus travel is growingas a share of total developing world passenger kilometers, though it is uncertain how much of this growthreflects urban travel and how much reflects intercity travel. The shares of both “conventional” rail and bus aresubstantially smaller in the developed world and are shrinking.

In Japan and Europe, high-speed rail plays a significant and growing role in intercity travel. (In Japan, high-speed rail accounts for approximately 4% of all passenger kilometers; in Europe, the figure is approaching1%). Even in the United States, high-speed rail has shown it can be an effective competitor to air under theright circumstances.

Air accounts for a large and growing share of intercity travel in the developed world. However, air travel isprojected to grow especially rapidly in the future in the developing world. Air travel, especially in the devel-oped world, faces a number of significant challenges. Many airports are becoming overcrowded, and citizenopposition prevents their expansion or the construction of new airports. Airport noise is a perennial concern,but airport-related emissions pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, are attracting growing attention in manyurban areas. So is the traffic congestion associated with airport passengers, employees, and transporters ofcargo. Air transport is an inherently energy-intensive mode of transportation. Jet fuel is the fastest growingtransport-related petroleum product. This by itself would tag air transport as an important source of green-house gas emissions. However, air transport’s role in greenhouse gas emissions is believed to be significantlyamplified by the fact that these emissions occur at high altitude, where their influence on the climate isbelieved to be greater pound for pound.

trends inintercity travel

This chapter focuses on intercity pas-senger travel.1 Travel between citiesaccounts for a relatively small portionof trips, but a much larger and grow-ing portion of total person-kilome-ters. US data suggest that while inter-city travel accounted for only about0.25% of the total trips made by resi-dents in 1995, it accounted for about19.5% of total person-kilometers trav-eled. This is up from 17% in 1977(US DOT, BTS 2000). Between 1975and 2000, intercity travel, especiallytravel by air, grew at explosive rates,making it one of the most notewor-thy aspects of global mobility.

Although this distinction — travelbetween cities versus travel withinand around urban areas — is intu-itively easy to understand, it is diffi-cult to define. What would be consid-ered a short intercity trip in a particu-lar place at a particular time may beconsidered just a long urban trip in adifferent place, or sometimes even inthe same place at different times.

One way to distinguish betweenintercity and urban travel is to look athow the two categories of travel fitwithin a typical individual’s dailyactivity patterns. Trips that are madeevery day, or as part of one’s normaldaily routine (e.g., a daily commuteto work) are part of urban travel.Indeed, information on commutingpatterns plays a prominent role inmost formal definitions of what con-stitutes a metropolitan area (USCensus Bureau 2001). In contrast,intercity trips are atypical and madeinfrequently. An example would be afamily’s annual summer vacation, or a trip to an extended family gather-ing at a remote location.

This distinction highlights an impor-tant fact: intercity trips are infrequentbecause they are costly, both in termsof time and out-of-pocket expense.Intercity trips could be defined interms of thresholds of either time(trips longer than some amount oftime) or distance. Each definition hasits own advantages. A focus on triptime could potentially circumvent

wide differences in the travel optionsthat are available or in the quality ofthe available infrastructure. A trip of100 kilometers might in one settingbe regarded as a reasonable dailycommute, and in another as an ardu-ous and infrequently made trip to aremote location. On the other hand,a distance-based measure is moreconsistent over the range of availablemeans of transportation. Certainly, itis easier to comment on, since muchof the data on intercity travel acrossthe world use distance-based defini-tions.2

In the next section, we present somedata on trends in intercity travel as awhole. This is followed by a discus-sion of the nature of demand forintercity trips. We then review mobili-ty trends and associated sustainabilityissues related to the use of fourmodes of transport that account forvirtually all intercity passenger travel:auto, bus, rail, and air.3

TRENDS IN THE VOLUME OF INTERCITY TRAVEL

Because of the way in which travelstatistics are maintained, it is difficultto assemble a clear picture of trendsin the volume of intercity travel.Some of the difficulty stems from thefact that autos, buses, and trains areused for trips between cities and alsofor trips in and around them.Available statistics often describe theoverall level of demand or usage forautomobiles or buses without specify-ing how that usage is dividedbetween the two categories of travel.

Further compounding the problem isthe fact that all four modes, and thetrips one takes in them, differ sub-stantially in terms of speed, distance,travel time, and vehicle occupancy.The American Travel Survey is ahousehold-based survey that providesan overview of intercity travel in theUnited States (US DOT, BTS 1997b).Although the US experience is notfully representative of mobility trendselsewhere, it is representative of inter-city travel in the developed world.The abundance and consistency ofthe US data offer a rich tableau foranalysis and projections. In theUnited States, most intercity travel ismade via auto (or other personalvehicles), or via air. Table 5-1 shows abreakdown of domestic intercity tripsand passenger-kilometers by mode.The figures reflect only trips to USdestinations, and so exclude interna-tional journeys. A large majority ofthese trips are made by auto.Considered from the perspective ofpassenger-kilometers, however, thedominance of the auto is consider-ably diminished. Air is more impor-tant in passenger-kilometer termsthan in trip terms because air tripsare much longer than trips by auto.By either measure, however, bus andrail play relatively minor roles in theUnited States. Canadian figures showa similar pattern, with over 90% ofCanadian domestic intercity tripsmade using automobiles (TransportCanada 1996, slide 21).

Although they are marginal in theUnited States and Canada, rail andbus are more significant elsewhere.Rail travel remains important in

trends in intercity travel


Table 5-1. Distribution of 1995 US Domestic Intercity Trips and Passenger-Km, by Mode

Distribution by Mode (percent)

Trips Passenger km

Average Trip

Length

Auto 81.3 54.6 894

Air 16.1 43.0 3549

Bus 2.0 1.6 1048

Rail 0.5 0.5 1404

Source: US DOT, BTS (1997b); US Census Bureau (1977).

Western Europe, Japan, and someparts of the developing world. Figure5-1 shows the composition of interci-ty travel in the United Kingdom andthe Netherlands. Unlike the US data,these figures include internationaltravel. Although the data for theNetherlands do not allow us to differ-entiate between bus and rail, otherdata suggest about 70% of the Dutchpublic transport travel is on rail. In

sum, the figures indicate that themost significant difference betweenintercity travel trends in the UnitedStates and those in the two Europeancountries is the role of rail. Railaccounts for about 7% of the passen-ger-kilometers traveled in Britain,most of which seems to come at theexpense of air. Bus travel is increasingin the developing world, especially inregions not served by rail.

The volume of intercity travel isgrowing at a remarkable rate, evenafter adjustment for increases in pop-ulation. The relevant figures areshown in Table 5-2, which againreflects only domestic travel. Theperiod from 1977 to 1995 saw sub-stantial increases in the number oftrips per capita, in the length ofthose trips, and hence also in thetotal number of passenger-kilometersper capita. These rates of increaseexceeded by a large margin theincrease in real per capita incomeover the same period, which grew ata rate of 1.6% per annum (USCensus Bureau 2000).

One of the most significant develop-ments in global mobility over the lastfew decades is the rapid growth in airtravel. As Figure 5-2 shows, passengerair travel measured by revenue pas-senger-kilometers has grown at anaverage of over 5% annually world-wide and at as much as 12% annual-ly in the last 15 years in places likeChina (Airbus 2000, p. 12; Boeing2000, p. 23).

These same trends are visible in datafrom the United States. As Table 5-3shows, in the 18 years between 1977and 1995 air trip rates in the UnitedStates more than doubled, and aver-age trip lengths increased by 15%.As a result, annual air passenger-kilo-meters per capita increased by 132%in this period, an average of 4.5%annually.

These figures raise the issue ofwhether air travel is diverting passen-gers away from other means of travel,or if it represents a new, independentsource of travel demand. Table 5-4,which shows the growth of intercityauto travel in the period, sheds lighton this issue. The data indicate thatalthough the number of intercity tripsmade by auto increased substantiallyover the period (52%), the averagelength of intercity auto tripsremained almost unchanged, atapproximately 850 kilometers. Tripsvia air are substantially longer. Thesedata suggest that although some of

mobility 2001


Table 5-2. Change in US Domestic Intercity Trips and Passenger-Km Per Person, 1977 and 1995

1977 1995 Annual Growth

Annual Trips per Person 2.5 3.9 2.5%

Annual Passenger-km per Person

2,982 5,038 3.1%

Average Trip Length (km) 1,182 1,330 0.7%

Source: US DOT, BTS (1997b), US Census Bureau (1977).

Table 5-3. Change in US Domestic Air Trips and Passenger- Km per Person, 1977 and 1995

1977

1995

Annual Growth

Annual Air Trips per Person 0.30 0.61 4.0%

Annual Air Passenger-km per Person

937 2,175 4.5%

Average Air Trip Length (km) 3,093 3,549 0.8%

Sources: US DOT, BTS (1997b); US Census Bureau (1977, 1979, 1997).

the increase in air travel may havecome at the expense of auto (primar-ily by way of substitution of longer-distance air vacations for short-dis-tance auto vacations), a majority ofthe growth in air travel reflects thecreation of and growth in an inde-pendent travel market comprising dif-ferent and longer-length trips.

The figures shown in Table 5-4 indi-cate that a substantial portion of thegrowth in auto trips is related togrowth in auto ownership. Given therelatively small fraction of auto userepresented by intercity travel, it isunlikely that such travel plays a majorrole in auto purchase decisions.

Trips from the United States to otherdestinations account for a relativelysmall fraction of intercity trips byAmericans. Table 5-5 shows thatinternational trips accounted for only4% of the total number of intercitytrips made by US travelers in 1995,although this was a 20% increasefrom 1977, when international tripsconstituted only 3.3% of total trips. Itis worth noting, however, that thesetrips are likely to be considerablylonger than most domestic trips.Thus, on a passenger-mile basis, they

represent a more significant elementof intercity travel by US travelers.

In many respects the role that inter-national travel plays in the lives ofresidents of the United States is atypi-cal. With its large land area and pop-ulation, the United States is moreself-contained than many othernations. One can travel much fartherwithout crossing national boundariesthan is the case for many other coun-tries. Hence, international travel con-stitutes a correspondingly smallerfraction of the intercity travel of USresidents.

One aspect of international travelthat the United States does sharewith other countries is its rate ofexpansion. Such travel is among themost rapidly growing components ofintercity passenger travel.

THE DEMAND FOR INTERCITYTRAVEL

Intercity travel is both a reflection ofgeographic patterns of social andeconomic interaction, and a factorshaping the evolution of those pat-terns. The two must really be consid-ered simultaneously. A trip by a

European national to an East Asiandestination may be motivated by adesire to meet with a business part-ner or associate based there.However, it is highly unlikely that aEuropean national would have suchrelationships at all in the absence ofsophisticated transportation andtelecommunication infrastructure.Myriad business and personal rela-tionships stimulate travel betweencities. Businesses relying upon distantsuppliers or maintaining a far-flungnetwork of production facilities willneed to visit them. Internationalmigrants will return to their homecountries to visit family and friends.Scientists and researchers will travelto confer with professional col-leagues.

Intercity travel depends to an impor-tant degree on accessibility, i.e., howfar the destination is, the cost andquality of traveling there, and thecosts of travel alternatives. How oftenpeople travel will be strongly influ-enced by how much a trip costs,both in money and time. Which rela-tionships are formed, which aremaintained or abandoned, and howstrong specific relationships becomewill all be influenced by how easy ordifficult it is to communicate andinteract.



The role of institutional factors indefining the level of social and eco-nomic interaction between regionsmerits discussion. Perhaps the mostimportant factor is the internationalborder. Studies show that passengertravel demand between two cities inthe same country is seven to tentimes greater than what it would be ifthe two cities were located in differentcountries. Obviously, a shared lan-guage, culture, and history can driverelationships and travel. However,other institutional barriers such astrade restrictions and national immi-gration policies also play an importantrole in shaping international travel. Inthe coming years, considerablechange is anticipated in the structureof this global institutional framework.Three related trends — two economicand one demographic — are worthhighlighting.

First, a variety of international organi-zations (such as the World TradeOrganization) and regional tradingblocks (such as the European Unionand Mercosur) are working to reducetrade restrictions across national bor-ders. These efforts range from elimi-nation of tariffs to allowing freemovement by citizens of memberstates, or unification of standards forthe conduct of business in the freetrade area.4

Second, the role of internationalinvestments in the global economy,particularly those made by multina-tional corporations, is increasing.Globalization in economic activitycreates a demand for travel: markets

are now global, creating multination-al firms that operate all over theworld, and production networks nowspan the world. A multinational mar-ket has emerged for an array of prod-ucts ranging from most consumergoods (cars, Pepsi®, CDs) to special-ized services such as technical consul-tancy (McKinsey, URS).

Not only do finished products sell allover the world, but products areincreasingly manufactured withinglobal production networks. Therehas long been extensive internationaltrade in raw materials and finishedgoods. The rapid expansion of tradein components and subassemblies isa more recent phenomenon. Autosand computers are increasinglyassembled in locations and countriesdifferent from those where the partsare manufactured. This trend nowextends to businesses such as com-puter programming and customerservice. A significant percentage ofthe computer programming in theUnited States and Europe is out-sourced to India (Business Week2000), and many global firms areconsolidating customer call servicesto Asia (NYT 2001b). A key feature ofthis phenomenon is a dispersion ofproduction activity away from the

industrialized OECD nations tonations in Asia, Eastern Europe, andLatin America.

The implications of global sourcingfor passenger travel are noteworthy.Manufacturers and suppliers mustoften collaborate closely over ques-tions of design or performance speci-fications, or to resolve technicalproblems. Such economic relation-ships generate a higher number offace-to-face meetings, and a corre-sponding rise in international busi-ness travel. For example, estimatessuggest that international travel wentfrom a share of about 6% of total UScorporate business travel in 1994 toabout 20% in 1997 (Johnson andSherlock 1998).

Finally, an important demographictrend — increases in the amount ofinternational migration — underliessome of the recent growth in interna-tional travel. In absolute terms, theUnited States and Germany are theprincipal receiving countries,although migration to these countriestended to decline somewhat towardthe end of the 1990s. During thesame period, the upturn in migrationthat began earlier in the decade in

mobility 2001


Table 5-4. Change in Domestic Intercity Auto Trips and Passenger-Km per Person, 1977 and 1995

1977

1995

Annual Growth

Annual Intercity Auto Trips per Person 2.0 3.1 2.5%

Annual Intercity Auto Passenger-km per Person 1,713 2,768 2.7%

Annual Intercity Auto Trips per Registered Vehicle 3.2 4 1.2%

Annual Intercity Auto Passenger-km per Registered Vehicle 2,660 3,679 1.8%

Average Auto Trip Length for Intercity Trips 840 894 0.3%

Source: US DOT, BTS (1997b); US Census Bureau (1977, 1979, 1997).

Table 5-5. International Trips of US Residents, 1977 and 1995

1977

1995

Annual Growth

International Trips Per Capita 0.1 0.16 2.6%

Percent of All Intercity Trips 3.31 4 1.1%

Sources: US DOT, BTS (1997b); US Census Bureau (1977, 1979, 1997).

most other countries of Europe andin Japan and Australia was sustainedand increased. Migration creates anetwork of personal ties betweensending and receiving countries thatin turn stimulates subsequent interci-ty travel.

The Role of Telecommunications

At least to date, telecommunicationsappear to be a complement to, ratherthan a substitute for, intercity travel.To some degree, developments intelecommunications substitute fortravel in the short run, but ultimatelyresult in enlarged spheres of opera-tion, more extensive networks ofbusiness and personal relationships,and ultimately, more travel.

There have been significant develop-ments in worldwide communicationtechnology deployment in recentyears. Estimates suggest that thenumber of Internet users globallyincreased from 49.8 million in 1996to about 258.2 million in 2000(PulseOnline 2000). The installation ofsubmarine fiber-optic cables has alsoexploded and is expected to grow40% annually for the next few years.For instance, a group called GlobalCrossing recently reported that itcompleted construction of a high-speed fiber-optic network linking 27countries in Europe, the Americas,and Asia in less than four years(Global Crossing 2001). In otherwords, ubiquitous, high-capacity,low-cost telecommunications tech-nologies are fast becoming part ofthe environment in which intercitytravel is conducted.

The development of such technologynetworks can, in principle, either sub-stitute for some travel or spur thedemand for new travel by facilitatingthe development and maintenance oflong-distance social and economic rela-tionships. The empirical evidence sug-gests that the latter effect seems todominate the former. A 1997 empiricalstudy on the impact of telecommuni-cations on travel by Mokhtarian andSalomon (1997) found that “the pre-ponderance of evidence suggests that

the net impact is one of complemen-tarity, and continued growth in bothtelecommunications and travel shouldbe expected.”

This suggests that for the foreseeablefuture, telecommunications is likely tostimulate the growth of intercity trav-el. Current expectations based on sys-tems and technologies being devel-oped and deployed are for telecom-munications services to continue tofall in price and grow in bandwidth.Barring some major shift in humanbehavior and expectations regardingface-to-face contact, such trends canbe expected over the long term tolead to more communications overlonger distances, and eventually alsomore long-distance travel.

Intercity Trips — Various Kindsfor Various Reasons

In order to go beyond these basictrends in the volume of intercity trav-el and gain insight to the nature oftravel demand, it is necessary to con-sider the goals of different trips.

Business travel. The 1995 AmericanTravel survey conducted by the USDepartment of Transportation foundthat 23% of all intercity trips and 47% of air trips in the United Stateswere made for business travel. Thisshare is consistent with estimates ofbusiness travel by air and on high-speed rail from other parts of theworld: on the Tokaido Shinkansen linelinking Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka,about 59% of the travel is for business(Doi and Shibata 1996). In develop-ing countries, the share of businesstravel is even higher; business travel-ers are estimated to constitutebetween 70% to 75% of total air traf-fic in China (Airfinance Journal 2001).

Business trips tend to be shorter induration than nonbusiness trips; alarge number of them are completedwithin a day. Also, a large fraction oftotal business trips are made by a fewtravelers who travel frequently.Estimates from the United States, forexample, suggest that 8% of passen-

gers making more than 10 trips ayear accounted for 44% of the busi-ness travel in the United States in theyear 1993 (ATA 1993).

Business travelers are generally moreconcerned with ease of travel — fasterand more conveniently scheduledtrips — than cost. Destinations forintercity business trips are usually pre-determined. Decisions regarding howto travel, what time of day to travel,and (to the degree it is discretionary)the duration of the trip, are generallymade to favor convenience over costs.Costs influence the level of travel inthe long term but have little impacton the level of travel in the shortterm. Business travelers tend topatronize the fastest, most convenientmode of travel, usually air or high-speed rail, and they generally choosethe fastest, most convenient, andmost flexible of the options available.

Nonbusiness travel. Discussions ofintercity travel often draw a distinctionbetween trips made for business andtrips made for other reasons. Althoughboth subcategories undoubtedlyinclude a variety of different types oftrips made for a variety of differentreasons, nonbusiness travel is likely tobe especially heterogeneous. Tounderstand the factors driving non-business travel growth and the ways inwhich this element of intercity traveldemand is likely to respond to envi-ronmental or economic constraints, itis useful to draw a distinction betweentrips made for recreational purposes,and trips taken to visit distant friendsor family members.

Vacation and recreational travel cur-rently accounts for a large share oftotal intercity travel generated fromthe OECD countries. In the UnitedStates such travel accounts for abouta third of total intercity travel and20% of air travel. Although data forvacation/recreational (V/R) travel aredifficult to obtain, indications are thatrising incomes and demographicscontribute to sustained high growthin V/R travel. V/R travel is directlyrelated to levels of disposable



incomes, and aggregate demand forV/R travel is related strongly to levelsof prosperity. Societies that are moreprosperous, such as those of theOECD, generate more V/R trips thanless prosperous developing countries.Further, within any particular region,V/R travel booms in good economictimes and suffers in recessions.

In addition to rising incomes, thegreying of the population in theOECD countries also contributes tohigh growth in V/R travel. The retir-ing baby-boomer generation — asubstantial population with ampledisposable income and free time —will create the perfect market for V/Rtravel.

V/R travelers exhibit a very differentset of behaviors from business travel-ers. Fundamentally, they are moreresponsive to changes in costs thanare business travelers. Costs oftenaffect the choice of mode for V/Rtravel: cheaper, slower modes may befavored over faster, more expensivechoices, although segmentation ofairfares has allowed airlines to serveboth recreational and business travel-ers. V/R travelers even exhibit consid-erable flexibility in destination choice.Vacation destinations do competewith each other. Paris competes withRome and they both compete with abeach resort in the Caribbean or a skiresort in Switzerland. Transportationcosts influence these decisions. Manyvacations formerly taken at the localbeach resort were replaced by trips toEurope following the emergence ofpost-deregulation cheap fares in theUnited States. As incomes increase,people spend a greater proportion oftheir income on leisure, and V/R trav-el is no exception; travelers makechoices in favor of faster, farther,more comfortable leisure travel astheir incomes increase.

V/R travel tends to be highly season-al, with peaks corresponding to com-mon vacation times such as the sum-mer. These strong seasonal peaksoften push against the capacity of thetransportation system. Anyone who

has attempted to fly from New YorkCity to Miami at Christmastime, ordrive on the usually free-flowing mainA6 route between Paris and Lyon onthe days that the traditional Frenchsummer vacation begins and ends, isfamiliar with this phenomenon.

Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) is amajor component of nonbusinesstravel across the world. US estimatessuggest that such travel constitutesabout one-third of all intercity trips(US DOT, BTS 1997b).5 VFR travelshares some characteristics with busi-ness travel and some with leisure trav-el. First, as with business trips, desti-nations are usually predetermined.However, costs do affect the mode oftravel — driving versus flying or tak-ing the train — and the frequency oftrips. VFR travel follows in the wake ofmigration/change of residence: everyimmigrant generates a continuingflow of VFR travel to friends and rela-tives left behind. Current labor trendsthat are leading to increasing global-ization of labor markets — free labormarkets in the EU, the importation ofprofessionals into the Middle East,and large-scale immigration of IT pro-fessionals from Asia to the UnitedStates and Europe — are leadingdrivers of demand for increased airtravel.

AUTO

Although the auto accounts for alarge proportion of total intercitytrips, its use for intercity travel is usu-ally a byproduct of a person’s deci-sions to own an auto primarily forlocal use. Intercity travel is rarely theprimary factor driving auto purchasedecisions by households. Availabledata from the Netherlands indicatethat intercity travel accounted for lessthan 5% of total auto trips and about10% of total auto travel (measured inpassenger-kilometers) in that country.Similarly, data from the United Statesindicate that intercity travel accountedfor 8% of auto passenger-kilometers(US DOT, BTS 1997b; ORNL 1995).

Much of the world, especially thedeveloped world, enjoys extensiveintercity roadway networks. Theextent to which residents of devel-oped countries rely on the auto tomeet their intercity travel needs obvi-ously depends not just on the avail-ability of a highly developed roadnetwork but also on the availability ofautos to use on it. Thus, the demandfor intercity auto travel has grownwith the level of motorization of thepopulation.

Just as intercity travel is rarely the pri-mary motivation for household autopurchase decisions, intercity passen-ger travel needs have rarely been theprimary motivation for intercity high-way construction. The extensive inter-state highway system in the UnitedStates was originally proposed as anetwork of strategic high-capacitylong-distance connections, justifiedby national defense considerations. Inother countries, the construction pro-grams were more frequently basedon economic and national integrationmotives. The United States, WesternEurope, and Japan built extensiveintercity motorway networks in thedecades following World War II, aconstruction program motivated inpart by the need to replace orupgrade roadway infrastructure thathad been destroyed during the waror had deteriorated in the yearsimmediately following. In the devel-oping world, freight considerationsfrequently drive construction of inter-city highway networks.

Trends in intercity auto travel raisemany of the same sustainability con-cerns as do local auto travel, withregard to safety, energy use, and CO2emissions. However, there are someimportant differences. For instance,since much of intercity auto traveltakes place in regions with sparsepopulation and (generally) low abso-lute levels of traffic, local air pollutionand noise pollution are of less con-cern except at the points where theseintercity trips begin and end. Thereare other significant differences relat-ed to disruption in the natural habi-tat, congestion, and financing.

mobility 2001


Because of significant differences inmobility trends, these concerns differbetween the developed and develop-ing worlds. In the following sectionswe highlight the mobility trendsrelating to intercity auto travel in thedeveloped and developing world sep-arately, and discuss the most signifi-cant sustainability concerns that arise.

Intercity Auto Travel in theDeveloped World

Intercity motorway links in the devel-oped world generally do not sufferfrom capacity problems once travel-ers drive beyond the congestion oflarge cities. There are some importantexceptions, however, such as theheavily urbanized Northeast corridorin the United States. Although manyintercity links carry a significantlyhigher portion of truck traffic than dotypical urban links, for the most partthey are adequately dimensioned tohandle prevailing traffic levels. Unlikemany urban roads, intercity motor-ways have not had to confront signif-icant travel demand growth inducedby unexpectedly strong landuse–transport interactions.

Congestion may occur on selectedfacilities that are heavily used for vaca-tion or recreation trip purposes, par-ticularly in countries where such trafficexhibits extremely sharp peakingcharacteristics. In France, for example,intercity links between Mediterraneantourist destinations and major popula-tion centers are highly congested inAugust because many people takevacations at that time. Similarly,capacity can be an issue at times ofpeak demand in particular corridors atthe interface between urban andintercity networks. For example, it iscommon for residents of Greece tovisit their ancestral villages duringmajor holidays such as Easter. At theend of the holiday, the large numberof people returning to Athens at near-ly the same time create very longvehicle queues on both the urbanmotorways and the intercity facilitiesthat connect to them.

In general, significant new additionsto the intercity networks of devel-oped countries are becoming rare.These networks are mostly built out,providing a connection betweenmajor population and economic cen-ters. In small and densely populatedcountries (e.g., Belgium), there isvery little available land left on whichto build major new intercity roads.Finally, groups opposed to new high-way construction are adept at apply-ing political pressure to stop suchprojects, although such pressures aregenerally felt more strongly in urbanthan in intercity settings, because ofthe significantly larger numbers ofpeople affected.

Intercity Auto Travel in theDeveloping World

The situation with regard to intercityroads and automobile use is quite dif-ferent outside the developed world.Roadway networks are generally lessextensive and of lower quality thanthose found in the developed world.

Important population or economiccenters are often poorly connected tothe rest of the country. In some cases,bridges are lacking, and ferries servein their place. (The connectivity ofthe highway network in EasternEurope and the former Soviet Unionis somewhat better than in the rest ofthe developing world.)

The intercity road infrastructure thatdoes exist is frequently of poor quali-ty. Design and construction are oftendeficient, and management of trafficis often inadequate, resulting in poorcontrol of trucks with excessive axleloads. Maintenance and upgrades areoften neglected because of fundingconstraints. For example, on roads inhilly or mountainous terrain withinadequate climbing lanes, under-powered trucks may cause temporarybackups of traffic.

More generally, the roads are rarelydesigned to be high-speed or high-capacity. Congestion is more likely tobe an issue than in the developedworld. Although intercity traffic vol-umes are generally low, they areclimbing with economic developmentand rising motorization levels. Onmany links traffic is increasing to lev-els that cannot be served adequatelyby existing networks. For instance,travel times on the 97-kilometerMumbai Pune highway in Indiareached approximately four hours bythe 1990s because of congestion.

Accordingly, many developing andemerging countries have a backlog ofintercity road construction projects,the cost of which far exceeds localfinancing capabilities. In some cases,countries rely on overseas develop-ment assistance through bilateralagreements or loans from internation-al lending agencies such as the WorldBank. Private financing is increasinglyseen as an attractive option, throughbuild-operate-transfer (BOT) or similarschemes. For instance, a new six-laneexpressway financed on a BOT basisusing a 30-year toll concession isbeing constructed to enhance capaci-ty in the Mumbai Pune corridor in



Intercity HighwaysAffect the Cities they Link

In most places the intercity road

network merges directly into the

urban road network, providing a

seamless route for intercity auto

and bus travelers. As a result, at

their beginning and end, intercity

auto and bus trips are susceptible

to all of the congestion of urban

travel. Autos and buses making

intercity trips both contribute to

and suffer from problems such as

congestion and air pollution.

Usually intercity trips constitute

only a small proportion of total

trips — thus suffering more than

they contribute to congestion —

in major urban regions. However,

intercity travel may well consti-

tute a significant proportion of

total traffic passing through small

towns and villages. In situations

when the road system is not lim-

ited-access — as is common in

the developing world — such

traffic is often a significant safety

and environmental concern.

India mentioned above. Some coun-tries (e.g., Mexico) have constructedsignificant lengths of intercity road-way under private financing schemes.The conditions required for such pro-jects to be both financially interestingto a private group and economicallyinteresting to a national governmentare not always met, however (Gómez-Ibáñez and Meyer 1993).

Among the most significant sustain-ability concerns related to intercityauto travel in the developing worldare the social and environmentalcosts of road construction. In thepast, the few road projects in devel-oping countries were designed andbuilt almost exclusively on the basisof engineering and cost considera-tions, with minimal weight given toenvironmental and social impacts.Under pressure from internationallending agencies and some nationalgovernments, these concerns arereceiving increased attention. It is fairto say that this attention is still not asinstitutionalized as it is in the devel-oped world, but progress is beingmade. Road planning is becomingmore participatory, for example,including inputs from the local popu-

lations living near the planned con-struction. Environmental impacts ofroad construction are being morewidely recognized and more thor-oughly studied and mitigated. Theseinclude, among others, disruption oflocal human populations, damage tonatural wildlife habitats, and physicalconsequences associated with theconstruction itself. Although environ-mental impacts are probably mostsevere when new highways penetratehitherto rural regions, virgin forests,and remote mountain areas, they canalso be a concern even in moredeveloped areas.

One example is the city of Baguio,located in the mountainous north-central area of Luzon Island. It is thesecond largest city in the Philippinesnorth of Manila. Road connectionsbetween Baguio and the rest of thecountry have long been a problembecause of the combination of steepand unstable terrain through whichthe roads must pass. Road construc-tion disturbs the natural compactionof the soil and accelerates the defor-estation of the surrounding areas.During the rainy season, eroded soilis washed down to the coastal areas,

where it fills the riverbeds and leadsto extensive flooding and damage.

BUS

Bus travel, combining low speeds andminimal privacy with low cost andwidespread access, is widely consid-ered an “inferior good.” Buses areused extensively when incomes arelow and replaced by other means —autos that offer privacy and flexibility,and rail and air that are faster — asincomes increase. Thus the bus is nota very important means of intercitytravel in the developed world. Bus’sshare of trips in Western Europe hasdeclined by close to 50% in the last20 years (European Commission2000). In the United States andCanada, bus’s share of intercity trips ismarginal (US DOT, BTS 1997b; Leore1991). Unfortunately, outside thedeveloped world, a systematic studyof trends in bus use is undermined bythe paucity of data. Indeed, even inthe developed world, available datado not separate urban bus travel fromintercity travel. Figure 5-3 showstrends in bus use across the world,using what data are available.6

mobility 2001


The majority of all intercity passen-ger-kilometers traveled by bus areoutside the developed world. Muchof this travel is concentrated in China,India, and the countries of Africa andLatin America, which do not havehigh incomes, widespread auto own-ership, or well-developed passengerrail systems. The bus remains animportant source of mobility, espe-cially for the poorest, everywhere inthe developing world. The drop intotal bus travel in the countries of theformer Soviet Union over the last 10years reflects a drop in overall interci-ty travel. In Russia, it is estimated that60% of all intercity trips are presentlymade using buses (Nikoulichev1998). It is expected that the bus willcontinue to play an important role inLatin America, India, China, andAfrica in the coming decades, despiteforecasts of rising motorization andincreasing incomes.

Most (if not all) intercity buses operateon diesel fuel. When well designed,efficiently maintained, and operatingat high load factors, buses have thepotential to be among the most ener-gy-efficient means of intercity trans-port. Indeed, buses can be as emis-sion-efficient as the most efficient pas-senger trains; however, the buses usedoutside the OECD are likely to beolder, badly maintained (with bothfactors leading to lower fuel efficien-cies), and more polluting. As a conse-quence, intercity buses in the develop-ing world often operate with relativelyhigh CO2 intensity, even though theyoperate at generally high load factors.Indeed, upgrading the entire bus fleetin the developing world to modernfuel-efficient OECD standards wouldbe a relatively inexpensive (thoughinstitutionally challenging) and signifi-cant step toward global sustainablemobility.

RAIL

Well-managed passenger rail systemshave the potential to be a very effi-cient provider of sustainable mobility.At its best, rail is far more energy-effi-cient than the auto or aircraft andslightly more efficient than the bus.

Currently, passenger rail is an impor-tant source of mobility in Asia andEurope. Figure 5-4 shows that about70% of global rail travel takes placein non-OECD countries, most of itconcentrated in India, China, and thecountries of the former Soviet Union.In the developed world, rail is con-centrated primarily in Japan andWestern Europe. There is little interci-ty passenger rail travel in Africa, theAustralian continent, or the Americas.

The level of mobility that rail pro-vides, and its implications for sustain-able mobility, vary widely across theglobe. In non-OECD countries, railplays a crucial role in promotingmobility but faces critical economicand environmental sustainabilitydilemmas. In the OECD countries, railprovides an environmentally sustain-able and important source of mobili-ty, but its financial sustainability isoften in doubt even in the OECDcountries.

Rail in the Developing World

Trains provide 871 billion passenger-kilometers of intercity transportationin India, China, and Russia alone, andserve a vital social and mobility rolein many countries in the developingworld. Rail is a dominant source ofintercity mobility in India, with a

share of 25% of passenger-kilometersin 1997. Rail had a market share of20% in China and 18% in the formerSoviet Union. Trains are still an impor-tant source of mobility in EasternEurope and many countries of theformer Soviet Union, though theirrole has diminished in the lastdecade. Low incomes place autoownership and air travel out of reachfor a majority of the residents ofthese societies, and for them rail isthe superior form of available intercitytravel. In addition, rail serves animportant social role in terms ofemployment: World Bank data sug-gest that the railways (including boththe freight and passenger divisions)of India, China, and Russia provideemployment for about 6.3 millionworkers (World Bank 2001b).

However, the level of mobility provid-ed by rail across the developingworld is not uniform. For instance,1997 data indicate that speeds onIndian Railways average between 18kilometers per hour for the slowestpassenger trains and 48 kilometersper hour for the fastest trains (IndianRailways 2001). In addition, most ofthese rail systems are operated bynational governments, and are noteconomically self-sufficient. Thoughpassenger rail covers operatingexpenses in Russia and China, passen-



ger fares in India are heavily cross-subsidized by high freight rates.7

High staffing levels are partiallyresponsible for this subsidy require-ment: Indian Railways incurred awage bill of US$2.6 billion in 1997for their 1.58 million employees,which was equal to about 43% oftheir gross revenue (Indian Railways2001). World Bank data measures ofproductivity indicate that the biggestrailways are also among the least pro-ductive. For instance, the Indian,Chinese, and Russian railroadsemployed 25, 33, and 12 employeesper kilometer of track compared to 8 per kilometer in Japan and between6 to 8 per kilometer of track in mostWestern European countries (WorldBank 2001b).

In the entire developing world, railinfrastructure is old, undercapitalized,and inadequately maintained, result-ing in immediate implications for sys-tem safety. The most high-profile caseis that of Indian Railways. Though dif-ferences in reporting and classificationstandards make it difficult to compare

across rail systems, Indian Railwayshas experienced a number of veryserious accidents in the past decade,including several collisions with casu-alties in the hundreds (Fry 2001).

Old infrastructure and equipment,combined with inadequate mainte-nance, can severely affect the energyefficiency of rail and increase pollu-tion. Partially full trains, sleeper anddiner cars needed to accommodatelong-distance journeys, frequent loco-motive idling, poor maintenance oftrack and locomotives, and poor aero-dynamic design, all reduce energyefficiency. Although precise data arenot available, anecdotal informationsuggests that, in many instances, railin the developing world operates atenergy-efficiency levels that are signifi-cantly higher than what is technologi-cally possible.

Finally, though the highest-densitylines are electrified, much of the railsystem still runs using diesel technol-ogy. For instance, though Indian

Railways operated 42% of its passen-ger-kilometers in 1997 under electrictraction, only about 21% of theIndian Railway network is electrified.Diesel systems are heavier and lessenergy-efficient than electricity(though transmission losses in elec-tricity transmission can obviate muchof this advantage). Further, electricityoffers at least the possibility of zerocarbon generation.

Rail in the Developed World

Japan and the countries of WesternEurope together account for over95% of the total passenger-kilometerstraveled by rail among the OECDcountries. Figure 5-5, which presentstrends in rail ridership across thedeveloped world, suggests that thisconcentration is consistent with rider-ship trends in the past 10 years.Market share of rail in these countrieshas remained constant between 6%and 10% in Western Europe and at33% in Japan.8

mobility 2001


One of the most interesting elementsof rail in the OECD is that it is increas-ingly powered by electricity. Europeanstatistics suggest that 48% of the trackin the 15 EU countries is electrified(ranging from 2% in Ireland to 75% inFrance). In a few cases much of theenergy is even generated using emis-sion-free sources, such as nuclear ener-gy in France.9 Though this is not truebroadly, and although most of theelectricity for rail travel is still generat-ed using coal (in Germany, Italy,Japan), rail in the OECD is more envi-ronmentally benign than air and auto.

Rail in the United States andCanada

In contrast to Western Europe andJapan, rail ridership in the UnitedStates and Canada is insignificant,both in absolute terms and as a shareof total intercity travel: estimatesfrom the 1995 American TravelSurvey suggest that less than 1% ofintercity trips in the United States ismade on rail. It is worth noting thatthis is true despite the fact that boththe United States and Canada havewell-developed rail networks thatused to be a significant source of pas-senger mobility. Indeed, rail ridershipin these countries has fallen signifi-cantly from the high levels of about50 years ago: it is estimated that in1939, rail had a market share of 15%of all intercity trips in the UnitedStates (Eno 1994). In the UnitedStates these trends have coincidedwith others discussed elsewhere inthis chapter: development of a high-quality road network, post-WW IIprosperity that saw a steady rise inincomes and auto ownership, and thedevelopment of the domestic US airnetwork. Cheap gas and high levelsof auto ownership favored the autoover rail for short-distance trips and awell-developed, efficient, and relative-ly cheap air transport system has dis-advantaged rail for long-distancetrips. As a consequence, in the UnitedStates, the relevance of rail is limitedalmost solely to the congestedNortheast corridor.

The US and Canadian experiencemerits attention, and it is worth con-

sidering its implications for currentlysuccessful rail services elsewhere,especially in Europe. If the deregula-tion of the markets for air travel inEurope currently underway leads tolower airfares — as was the case inthe United States — there is a possi-bility that air travel will be able tocapture some market share awayfrom rail in the longer rail markets.Similarly, in the unlikely case thatprices of gasoline — currently kept athigh levels in most of Western Europeby taxation policies — fall, autos maytake some of rail’s market away, especially for the shorter trips.

Rail’s Link to Cities

Rail stations usually are located in theheart of the central city. This is thecase in cities as diverse as New York,Paris, and Delhi. Downtown stationsthat are conveniently located forlarge numbers of travelers can bevery significant assets — both interms of facilitating mobility general-ly, and specifically the ability of rail tocompete with air and auto.

On the other hand, when new railconnections are being planned, the“last mile” into a city can be a signifi-cant issue. The costs of right-of-wayin urban settings have deterred manyrail projects. (The rail networks inChicago are not connected, andBoston’s two rail stations — Northand South — have never beenlinked.) The cost of building rail linesand stations in cities limits the poten-tial for significant new rail networkdevelopments.

The magnitude of the advantageoffered by a downtown stationdepends, however, on the structureof the urban region — the denser it isand the more important the down-town is, the bigger the significance ofa rail station downtown. Thus, in low-density cities where the downtown isnot the focus of business activities,such as newer US cities like Phoenixand Los Angeles, the downtown sta-tion is not a very significant advan-tage. Indeed, in the sprawling LosAngeles metropolitan area served by



New High-Speed RailTechnology

The technology underlying cur-

rent high-speed rail (HSR) sys-

tems is little different from that

used in conventional electric-

powered trains. The most signifi-

cant advance in rolling-stock

design involves the use of tilting

car bodies to increase passenger

comfort on high-speed turns.

Other design changes are aimed

at reducing weight or lowering

air resistance. A more significant

difference between high-speed

and conventional rail relates to

track requirements. Operation at

speeds greater than 240 kilome-

ters per hour often requires spe-

cially designed track with con-

crete foundations, and wider

track spacing and broader

curves than those required by

conventional trains. Thus opera-

tion at speeds greater than 240

kilometers per hour usually

involves construction of new

track on new rights of way,

though slower services can also

run on such tracks.

From a technological stand-

point, the most interesting

development in high-speed

ground transportation is the

emergence of magnetic levita-

tion or maglev technology.

Maglev technology uses mag-

netic forces to provide noncon-

tact suspension, guidance, and

propulsion at speeds up to 500

kilometers per hour. No maglev

systems are currently in opera-

tion, but two systems based on

the technology have been tested

extensively. One has been devel-

oped by the Magnetschnellbahn

GmbH group as part of the

TRANSRAPID program in

Germany; another has been

developed by Japanese Railways

as part of the Linear Express ini-

tiative in Japan. It is possible

that an operational maglev sys-

tem will be built in the coming

years. At present there is interest

in both the United States and

China in developing an opera-

tional maglev line.

as many as six commercial airports,rail serving the region predominantlyfrom downtown Los Angeles faces a

competitive disadvantage relative toair in terms of ease of access.

High-Speed Rail Services

A significant development for the railsystems in the developed world is theemergence of high-speed rail (HSR)services that are competitive with oreven superior to air and auto. Theseservices are in operation currently inWestern Europe and Japan, and thereis interest in developing HSR servicesin other locations, including severalcorridors in the United States andAsia (e.g., Korea, Taiwan, and China).

Services using “conventional” railtechnology operate as fast as 300kilometers per hour. The last twodecades have seen progress towardthe development of an alternativetechnology based on magnetic levita-tion (maglev technology), which intests shows promise of achievingspeeds of as high as 500 kilometersper hour (see feature box).

The most significant impediments tothe establishment of HSR corridorsare likely to be related more to ques-tions of demand than to technology.HSR systems are very expensive to

mobility 2001


What Is the Potential of HSR?

Evidence suggests that the markets in which HSR systems are likely to be the most

effective are characterized by:

Rail travel times that are competitive with both air and auto. Auto usually dom-

inates rail for trips shorter than 150 kilometers. Air travel usually dominates rail

for trips over 650 kilometers (see Figure 5-6). HSR has the potential to be com-

petitive for trips of intermediate distance.

A large number of center-city-to-center-city trips. For such trips, rail, which

usually serves central cities directly, is often significantly superior to air in terms

of terminal access.

Relatively expensive/inconvenient air and road travel.

In addition, HSR is economically most attractive in circumstances when:

Right-of-way is inexpensive.

The terrain is friendly, requiring little or no bridging or tunneling and permit-

ting wide-radius curves.

Network effects exist. A segment that is part of a larger system can generate

traffic in addition to the origin-destination traffic between its two ends.

build and operate. For instance, the412 kilometer Seoul-Pusan HSR sys-tem in South Korea is estimated tohave cost about US$14.5 billion dol-lars — i.e., about $34 million perkilometer (KTX 2001). In addition,almost all HSR lines need operatingsubsidies. Evidence from existingHSR networks, as well as researchacross the globe, suggests that HSRrequires a particular set of geograph-ic and economic conditions to beeffective (see feature box). Corridorswhere such a favorable set of condi-tions exists are limited at present,though it is possible that some ofthe features of the economic andcompetitive environment willchange over time.

AIR

Air travel is the fastest growingmeans of travel in every part of theworld, and every indication suggeststhat it will continue to grow atimpressive rates. For instance, fore-casts of air travel made by AirbusIndustrie and Boeing, the two majormanufacturers of commercial jet air-craft, indicate that global air travelalone will continue to grow at a rateof just under 5% a year for the next20 years (Airbus 2000; Boeing 2000).These numbers are consistent withthe official planning estimates devel-oped by US and European authorities(e.g., US DOT, FAA 2000).

The air transportation system makesa unique contribution to globalmobility. No other mode of trans-portation offers comparable range orspeed. It would be difficult to imag-ine the global economy existing inanything like its present form with-out the support of the air transporta-tion system.

This section addresses a wide rangeof issues relating to the evolution andfuture growth of the air transporta-tion system. We consider the regula-tory framework for the airline indus-try, the evolution of the hub andspoke system, the role of air cargo,trends in aircraft size and technology,

the environmental impacts of airtransportation, aviation’s effects oncities, and infrastructure constraintson future growth.

Regulatory Environment

The airline industry is profoundlyinfluenced by the regulatory structureunder which it developed. In mostcountries this regulatory structuredates back to the infancy of theindustry and reflects a perception atthat time that the industry needed tobe protected and fostered. The desireto support the growth of a nationalairline industry was based largely ona sense of its importance to economicgrowth and national security.National pride also played a role, asdemonstrated by references to acountry’s “flag” air carrier. The regu-latory regimes that emerged out ofthese concerns often subjected deci-sions regarding where a carrier couldfly and what fares it could charge tothe review of regulatory authorities.Firms seeking to enter the industrywere required to seek regulatoryapproval. Existing carriers wereshielded from competition in aneffort to assure their stability and eco-nomic security. In exchange, theywere required to provide services thatwere unprofitable, or only marginallyprofitable, but that were thought tobe important for economic, social, orpolitical reasons. A nearly universalregulatory feature was a prohibitionagainst the provision of domestic airservice by foreign-owned carriers. Theability of a foreign carrier to transportpassengers between two points with-in the boundaries of another countryis referred to as “cabotage.”

In 1978, the United States decidedto end regulation of its domestic air-line industry, although it retainedthe prohibition against foreign own-ership. Over the next few years thestructure of regulatory controls overpricing and entry was eliminated. Asubstantial restructuring of theindustry ensued. Many new airlineswere launched. Few survived. Somesmall carriers grew substantially.Mergers reduced the number of car-

riers in the market. The survivingcarriers established hub and spokenetworks, whose structure isdescribed below. Average fares fellsubstantially relative to inflation andthe volume of air travel grew enor-mously. Competitive pressuresforced carriers to reduce costs.

Regulatory authorities around theworld watched developments in theUnited States with cautious interest.Although the general trend aroundthe world is toward a loosening ofthe regulatory restrictions on airlineconduct, few nations are willing togo as far as quickly as the UnitedStates. Most have opted for a moremeasured pace of liberalization.

The international framework for theregulation of air travel was estab-lished in the 1949 ChicagoConvention. Signatories refrained atthat time from setting up a multilat-eral system for the regulation of airtravel between nations, specifyinginstead that air services between anypair of countries would be governedby a bilateral agreement betweenthose countries. The system of bilat-eral agreements that emerged wasthe result of extensive negotiationsaimed in each instance at assuring anequitable division of benefits betweenthe residents, businesses, and flagcarriers of the two countries. The out-comes of these negotiations werehighly variable, reflecting the domes-tic and foreign policies of the variouscountries and the relative bargainingpositions of the two nations.

Following the deregulation of itsdomestic airline industry, the UnitedStates adopted an international policypromoting “open skies,” a system inwhich carriers would be free to estab-lish new services and to vary frequen-cies and later fares, unhindered bythe regulatory restrictions of the bilat-eral system. Over the succeedingyears the United States succeeded inliberalizing the provisions of many ofits bilateral agreements.



In 2001, a number of changes to theinternational regulatory regime arebeing discussed that could have pro-found implications for the structure ofthe world’s air transportation system.One such change would involve theemergence of multilateral agreementsas a replacement for the present bilat-eral system. Such agreements couldgrow out of negotiations between amultinational trading block such asNAFTA or the EC and either individualcountries or other trading blocks. Asecond potential change couldinvolve removal of prohibitionsagainst cabotage. A third and stillmore radical possibility would be adecision to end the special treatmentof air transportation and instead treatit simply as another service to fallunder the provisions of the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT).

Although it is impossible at this pointto say with confidence that any ofthese changes is likely to occur, allare currently being discussed, andany could result in a restructuring ofthe international air transportationsystem as profound as that whichoccurred in the United States follow-ing deregulation.

Evolution of Hub and SpokeOperations

A distinguishing feature of modernairline operation is its reliance on thehub and spoke system. This systeminvolves the scheduling of a largenumber of flights within a short peri-od of time into a centrally located air-port. After a short period of timedesigned to allow passengers to dis-embark and connect to other flights,a large number of flights is scheduledto depart to a variety of different des-tinations. The central airport is thehub, and the routes between the huband other points are the spokes. Sucha collection of incoming and outgo-ing flights is called a “bank.” Manysuch banks of flights will be sched-uled at a hub airport over the courseof a day. This system is familiar tomost people who have traveled by airwithin the United States and else-where.

The efficiencies associated with a huband spoke operation arise from thefact that any particular spoke routeout of a hub will carry not just pas-sengers traveling between the huband the spoke airport, but also alarge number of other passengerstraveling between the spoke airportand other spoke airports. Theincreased passenger volumes on thespoke route make it possible for thehubbing carrier to offer more fre-quent service with larger aircraft thanwould otherwise be possible. Acrossthe entire system, it is possible byusing a hub and spoke operation toconnect efficiently a far, far largernumber of routes than would be pos-sible with direct point-to-point ser-vice. The economics of this systemare so compelling that it has becomethe dominant form of operation with-

in the United States and in manyplaces around the world.

Hub and spoke operations existed inthe United States before deregulationof the airline industry, but theyreached their full state of develop-ment only after US carriers acquiredfreedom to enter and exit routes.Hub and spoke operations requirecoordinated scheduling across a largenumber of routes, and such coordina-tion is easier to achieve when carriersare free to choose which routes theywill serve and how often.

Relationship between intercityair passenger and cargo opera-tions. Many of the aircraft in sched-uled commercial air passenger ser-vice also transport cargo. This is

mobility 2001


General Aviation

General aviation (GA), the term applied by the US Federal Aviation Administration to

privately operated aircraft, is the aerial equivalent of the personal-use auto. This cate-

gory encompasses a number of different aircraft types, including single-engine pis-

ton-powered aircraft, twin-engine piston-powered aircraft, and smaller turboprops

and turbofans.13

Globally, the general aviation market has declined in recent years. From 1990

through 1997 there was a 10% reduction in aircraft operating hours (GAMA 2000,

p. 14). During this period, North American aviation hours fell by approximately 8%.

In contrast, however, the Asia Pacific region saw a doubling of aviation hours.

North America accounts for a disproportionate share of global GA activity. In 1997 it

represented 64% of total general aviation hours flown (41,990,000). On average in

the 1990s, North America had five times the aircraft and logged 4.5 times the avia-

tion hours logged by Europe. Europe had three times the aircraft and logged 1.2

times the aviation hours logged in the Asia Pacific sector.

General aviation has evolved to fill a number of significant niche roles in business

use, including provision of high-end corporate transportation, ferrying personnel and

materials to remote production sites poorly served by scheduled air service, support-

ing overnight package delivery service, and agricultural operations.

As a source of mobility, general aviation plays a minuscule role overall. The passen-

ger-kilometers logged on general aviation aircraft are dwarfed by those logged on

the scheduled air transportation system. Because of their smaller size and more limit-

ed carrying capacity, however, they account for a disproportionately larger fraction

of total aircraft movements.

There is little evidence of a major trend in aviation away from mass transportation

and toward personal-use aircraft. The evolution occurring in surface transportation

seems unlikely to take place in the air anytime soon. Despite advances in technology,

aircraft continue to have ownership and operating costs that place them beyond the

reach of most individuals.

especially likely to be the case withwide-body aircraft, for which thebelow-passenger deck cargo capacitytypically exceeds passenger luggagerequirements by a large margin.Most major passenger airlines thushave sizable air cargo businesses.Although such businesses often makenoticeable contributions to the carri-ers’ bottom lines, they are a byprod-uct of their main business of provid-ing passenger transportation, and aregenerally managed accordingly.10

For the most part, scheduling andoperational decisions are dominatedby the requirements of the passengeroperation.

For a long time, there has been a lim-ited number of aircraft dedicatedexclusively to cargo service.Historically these have been older air-craft that have been retired from pas-senger service and converted forcargo use, although this is by nomeans exclusively the case. Somehave been in the hands of carriersspecializing in air freight. Others havebeen operated by passenger airlinesas part of their cargo operations.11

One noteworthy trend in air freighthas been the rapid growth of inte-grated carriers such as FederalExpress, UPS, and DHL that operateboth air and ground networks in acoordinated manner to provide expe-dited door-to-door delivery ser-vices.12 Although their combinedfleets are small relative to those of themajor passenger airlines, they aregrowing rapidly and can be expectedto become a significant element ofthe commercial airline industry in theyears ahead.

Trends in Aircraft Technologyand Fuel Efficiency

Since their introduction in the late1950s, jet-powered aircraft havecome to dominate the fleets of theworld’s commercial airlines. By the1980s virtually all of the large aircraftin commercial fleets relied on turbojetor turbofan propulsive technology.Turboprop propulsion was limited tosmaller aircraft with capacities rang-

ing from 15 up to perhaps 50 seats.Recently, with the introduction of so-called regional jets, turbofans havebegun to replace turboprop aircraftat the lower end of the commercialaircraft size range. Thus, in discussingchanges in aircraft technology andfuel efficiency, it is appropriate tofocus on turbofan-powered aircraft.

Using energy intensity (EI) as the fig-ure of merit relative to total emis-sions, the most convenient unit oftechnology for discussion purposes isthe system represented by a com-plete aircraft. A combination of tech-nological and operational improve-ments has led to a reduction in the EIof the entire US fleet of more than60% between 1971 and 1998, aver-aging about 3.3% per year. In con-trast, total revenue passenger-kilome-ters (RPK) have grown by 330%, or5.5% per year over the same period.Long-range aircraft are approximately5% more fuel-efficient than short-range aircraft, because they carrymore passengers over a flight spentprimarily at the cruise condition.

Lee et al. (2001) have presented aphysical model and historically basedstatistical models that togetherexplain the relationships among tech-nology, cost, and emissions perfor-mance. Their analysis suggests that57% of the reductions in energyintensity during the period1959–1995 were due to improve-ments in engine efficiency, 22%resulted from increases in aerody-namic efficiency, 17% were due tomore efficient use of aircraft capacity,and 4% resulted from other changes,such as increased aircraft size. Theauthors combined an understandingof historical trends and of the pace offuture changes in technology andoperation to estimate the impacts ofthese changes on operating and capi-tal costs. These historically based pro-jections indicate that typical in-useaircraft energy intensity can beexpected to decline at a rate of 1.2%to 2.2% per year, a pace of changethat is not sufficient to counter theprojected annual 4% to 6% growthin demand for air transport.

Trends in Aircraft Size

The past two decades have seen twocontradictory trends in aircraft size.On the one hand, manufacturershave introduced increasingly largeraircraft with ever-increasing seatingcapacities. The upper end of the sizerange has increased steadily over theperiod from 1960 to the present,with the proposed Airbus A380 capa-ble of seating about 550 passengers.On the other hand, for at least thepast 20 years the greatest growth inthe commercial aircraft fleet hasoccurred at the lower end of the sizerange, with the result that over timethe average number of seats per air-craft in commercial service hasremained stable or tended to decline.

The relative growth in the use ofsmaller aircraft in domestic serviceresults from efforts by air carriers tomeet the service demands of theirpassengers. Airline scheduling deci-sions are often driven by the require-ments of the lucrative business travelmarket. Business travelers are lessprice-sensitive than nonbusiness trav-elers, but more exacting in theirdemands for conveniently scheduleddeparture times and a wide range ofreturn options to accommodate last-minute changes of plan. In addition,the general movement in the UnitedStates toward hub and spoke opera-tions led to growth in service on rela-tively thin spoke routes connectingsecond-tier metropolitan areas to air-line hubs. The net results of these fac-tors favor the operation of smaller air-craft at higher-service frequenciesrather than larger jets at the lowerfrequencies that would be needed toaccumulate sufficient passengers tofill them.

The evolution of the international airtransportation system followed a dif-ferent path. Frequency of service isless of a consideration on theseroutes. As trips become longer, thelikelihood of being able to make asingle-day round trip decreases. Forsuch trips, the possible advantages offrequent service become minor com-pared to the overall duration of thetrip, the schedule disruption caused



by time-zone changes, and theinconveniences of international travelformalities. Traveler preferencesregarding arrival and departure timesmay interact with required flighttimes and noise-related restrictions onlate-night or early-morning arrivals tolimit feasible departure times to oneor two limited intervals during theday. In such circumstances, airlinesrarely offer the frequencies one seesin short-haul service.

The international air transportationsystem was traditionally organizedaround a limited number of gatewayairports, typically located in largecities that were centers of internation-al business and trade. Internationalflights from a variety of different ori-gin points would converge on theselocations; arriving passengers woulddisembark and clear customs, andthose destined for other domesticpoints would then transfer to thedomestic air system for the remainderof their journey. The resulting opera-tion resembled in some ways that ofa hub and spoke system, althoughwith significant differences. Traveland departure time constraints limit-ed the opportunities for scheduling ofmultiple banks connecting flights.The necessity of clearing customs andpossibly resting after a long journeymeant that the connection processoften proceeded at a slower pacethan in most domestic air hubs.Concentration of passengers on alimited number of routes betweenthe origin and destination countriesfacilitated the use of high-capacity,long-range aircraft.

More recent trends in internationalair service have been away from gate-ways and toward greater provision ofpoint-to-point service to multiple des-tinations. Presumably this shiftreflects an effort on the part of inter-national airlines to respond to theirpassengers’ service demands, and ajudgment that point-to-point servicerepresents the most profitable inter-national air service expansion oppor-tunity. It is facilitated by the introduc-tion of twin-engine aircraft such asthe B-767, B-757, and A-330, which

have the range and reliability fortransoceanic operation. As a result,growth in the international air fleethas shifted to some extent towardsmaller aircraft.

Some observers express concern overthe greater use of smaller aircraft.Generally, energy use and operatingcosts per seat decline as the size ofthe aircraft increases. Moreover,many potential constraints of thegrowth of air travel, such as noiseexposure or overcrowded airports,are more closely related to the num-ber of aircraft movements than to thenumber of passengers transported.For these reasons some critics see themovement toward smaller aircraft asa sign of short-sighted market forces.Though consumer preferences andcurrent prices favor such high-fre-quency services on relatively smalleraircraft, these services activelyincrease the two greatest operationalchallenges to the airline industry:noise complaints and overcrowdedairports.

Impacts of Air Transportationon the Global Environment

The environmental effects of air travelare highly significant because of acombination of many factors. First,aviation accounts for a significantfraction — estimates range between8% and 12% — of transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions (UN2000; IPCC 1999). Further, the rapidgrowth forecast for aviation activitymakes it among the fastest-growingsources of transportation-related CO2emissions.

Second, significant though it is, avia-tion’s share of CO2 emissions under-states the impact of aviation activityon global climate change: emissionsfrom aviation activity have a dispro-portionately large impact on globalwarming relative to comparable sur-face emissions. Much of this impact isrelated to the high altitude at whichaircraft emissions are injected into theatmosphere, typically 9 to 13 kilome-ters above sea level into the uppertroposphere and lower stratosphere.

At this altitude the effect of aircraftexhaust on global warming is two tofour times greater than if the exhaustwere CO2 alone. In contrast, theoverall contribution from all fossil-fuel–based activities is estimated tobe about 1.5 times that of the effectof the CO2 alone. In other words, theimpact of burning fossil fuels at highaltitudes is approximately twice theimpact of burning the same fuels atground level (IPCC 1999).

Two related factors are responsiblefor exacerbating the impact of emis-sions at high altitudes:

First, high-altitude emissionsand surface emissions interactwith climate in different ways.In particular, water vapor emit-ted by aircraft combined withcertain other components ofaircraft exhaust contributes tothe formation of contrails (visi-ble line clouds that form behindaircraft flying in cold weather)and high-altitude clouds. Theseproduce a cloud cover thatinhibits the radiation of groundheat back into space. High-alti-tude emissions can also alteratmospheric chemistry andozone levels.

Second, aircraft engines emitmany pollutants besides CO2and the altitude at which theseother pollutants are releasedaffects the dynamics of theirpassage through the atmo-sphere. In contrast to CO2,which can circulate within theatmosphere for 100 years ormore regardless of where it isemitted, the residence times ofother pollutants such as sootand sulfur mass particles can bemuch longer when emitted athigh altitudes than on theearth’s surface. In the case ofsoot and sulfur particles, forinstance, the longer residencetimes contribute to theenhanced formation of contrailswith global warming properties.

mobility 2001


Little attention has been paid thus farto mitigating the impacts of green-house gas emissions from air trans-portation. Though the prospects ofreducing the impacts of aviationemissions through technology are asyet uncertain, it is clear that there aretrade-offs. For instance, CO2 and H2Oare produced by hydrocarbon fuelcombustion and are directly relatedto aircraft fuel consumption.Emissions of CO2 and H2O can bereduced through improvements infuel efficiency. However, increasingengine fuel efficiency enhances theprevalence of contrails, which alsocontribute to global warming.14

Similarly, NOx emissions becomeincreasingly difficult to limit as enginetemperatures and pressures areincreased — a common method forimproving engine efficiency. NOxemissions can alter ambient ozonelevels.

Furthermore, even if it were possibleto achieve dramatic improvement inthe emissions characteristics of newaircraft, the relatively long life spanand large capital cost of individualaircraft, and the resultant lag in theadoption of new technologiesthroughout the aviation fleet, neces-sarily imply that a considerable periodof time would be required before theeffects of these changes would be felton a large scale. Also, the impact ofany efficiency improvements in flightis diminished by fuel wasted in air-borne or ground travel delays or inflying partially empty aircraft. Further,we do not know the financial cost ofchange.

Aviation’s Effects on Cities

Many of the most significant environ-mental sustainability concerns aboutair travel arise because most airportsare located in or near major cities.Large numbers of urban residents areaffected not only by the noise andpollution from airplanes, but also bythe ground traffic generated by trav-elers coming and going from airports.In the following sections we discussthe effects of airports on nearby resi-dents and their environments.

Ground access. In order to boardan aircraft one must first travel to theairport. And it is almost always neces-sary at the other end of the trip totravel from the airport to one’s finaldestination. Thus airports are signifi-cant traffic generators.

Airports typically offer a rich menu ofpublic transportation services, includ-ing public and private buses. Airportsare favorable environments for high-quality public transportation sincethey have high densities of travelers.Most ground transportation to andfrom airports is connected to theregion’s public transportation system,although these linkages often provideonly limited service. The trip from aremote airport location to a city cen-ter can be long and slow, especiallyon a public transportation vehiclemaking local stops. The trip is likelyto be even longer and more arduousfor travelers destined for points out-side of the urban core. Increasingly,such trips involve personal-use vehi-cles — vehicles either owned by thetraveler, rented, or hired for the par-ticular trip (i.e., taxis).

Impacts of air transportation onthe local environment. In addi-tion to its impacts on the globalenvironment, air transportation hassubstantial localized impacts. Airlinetraffic is highly concentrated, withthe result that a relatively small num-ber of airports account for a verylarge fraction of all commercial airtraffic. There are emissions from air-craft that are idling on the runway,taxiing, landing, or taking off, andfrom those circling while waiting toland. There are also substantial emis-sions from the ground transport ofpassengers, freight, fuel, and food,and from other related ground activi-ties, all of which combine to make amajor airport one of the most signifi-cant point sources of pollution in themetropolitan area it serves. Airportsexpose surrounding neighborhoodsto high levels of noise, which havesignificant effects on health, qualityof life, and real estate values.Historically these localized impactshave been the primary focus of con-

cern over the environmental impactsof air transportation.

Local air quality issues are focused onthe regional ozone production relatedto emissions of NOx, CO, and HC. Inaddition, soot emissions contribute toambient particulate levels and SOxemissions can contribute to acid rain.While contributions to acid rain areconsidered small, particulate emis-sions are gaining more importance asregions focus on ambient levels ofsmaller-size particles, and on contri-butions by airports to this problem.Airport NOx, HC, and CO emissions,which are primarily a combination ofaircraft-related and other groundoperations, are important contribu-tors to regional ozone levels. Figure5-7 compares the contributions ofKennedy and La Guardia airportsaround New York City to other majorpoint sources in the region. Figure 5-8 shows current and projected con-tributions from regional airports tocities across the United States. LosAngeles airport is the second-largestindustrial smog source in the LosAngeles region.

Regulation of aircraft emissions.Nonbinding international regulationsdeveloped through the InternationalCivil Aviation Organization (ICAO)control fuel venting, smoke, HC, CO,and NOx for several classes of sub-sonic aircraft engines. ICAO standardsare formally instituted in US regula-tions as emissions standards. TheEuropean Union also conforms toICAO standards. Controls were (andstill are) based on a landing-takeoff(LTO) cycle that extends to an alti-tude of ~915 meters (3,000 feet), asrepresented by specified times inoperating modes defined by enginepower setting. Emissions above 915meters, where aircraft spend mosttime in flight, were not (and still arenot) controlled.

Local, state, and federal agenciesaround the globe are all pushing forimprovements in the environmentalperformance of aircraft, driven byconcerns over local air quality and



global climate issues. Elements of theICAO Committee on AviationEnvironmental Protection (CAEP), aninternational regulatory body, havepressed for further stringency in NOxregulations. The proposed PM-2.5regulations promulgated by the USEnvironmental Protection Agencyconstitute a potential restriction on

aircraft particulate emissions. Theproposed Kyoto Protocol to theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Changespecifically requests that industrializedcountries reduce emissions from avia-tion bunker fuels. Further, localactions also have an impact on emis-sions decision-making. For example,

Sweden and Switzerland have insti-tuted landing fees based on aircraftNOx and HC emissions performanceat national airports.

Aircraft noise. A recent survey bythe US Government AccountingOffice (GAO 2000) found that noise

mobility 2001


is the single greatest environmentalconcern facing air carriers today (seeFigure 5-9). Noise remains a majorconcern in spite of the fact that tech-nological advances and regulatoryactions have substantially decreasedthe number of people affected by air-craft noise. Noise restrictions contin-ue to increase in both number andstringency, constraining aircraft oper-ation and leading to reduced mobility(flight delays and capacity con-straints), increased operating andcapital costs, and increased ticketprices. Further, noise is often a princi-pal focus for community groups andlarger nongovernmental organiza-tions that act to oppose airport con-struction and expansion.

A variety of technological and opera-tional advances have reduced theaverage perceived noise from aircraftoperation. There was a large reduc-tion in noise levels in the late 1960sand early 1970s as a result of theintroduction of the turbofan engine.While the primary motivation for theuse of turbofan engines was reducedfuel consumption, lower noise was animportant ancillary benefit. In the1980s and 1990s, changes have beenslower and more evolutionary, withincreased bypass ratio engines, betteracoustic liner technology, and thegradual introduction of other engi-neering changes. However, over thesame period the average capacity ofaircraft models introduced has tendedto increase. Larger aircraft requirehigher-thrust engines that producemore noise, offsetting some of thetechnological gains made. At thesame time, however, the averagenumber of engines per aircraft in thefleet has dropped from 3.2 to 2.3,which tends to reduce overall noiselevels (averages are weighted by num-ber of aircraft in service in the fleet).

To assess the impact of noise from aspecific airport, it is more useful toconsider an appropriate average ofthe noise produced by the flightoperations from that airport over a24-hour period. One such measure isthe Day-Night Noise Level (DNL), ametric adopted by the FAA for assess-

ing annoyance from aircraft noise. Itis assumed in forming this measure,for example, that operations occur-ring between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. aretwice as annoying as those occurringat other times of the day, due tosleep disturbance and lower back-ground noise at night. It is currentlybelieved by many that a DNL of 55dBis an “acceptable” intrusion on dailylife and is consistent with current EPAguidelines for acceptable noise expo-sure for outdoor activities requisite toprotect public health and welfarewith a reasonable margin of safety.Note however, that the World HealthOrganization recently suggested that50dB DNL is an appropriate level toensure no adverse impacts of noise.15

Further, as has been apparent inrecent history, public perception ofaviation noise impacts can change,and is not always consistent with theguideline cited above.

Federal assessments of noise impactstypically concentrate on those areaswith DNL greater than 65dB.However, although the number ofpeople highly annoyed is 4 timeshigher for 65dB relative to 55dB, thenumber of people living within the55dB contour can be 5 to 30 timesthe number of people living withinthe 65dB contour. (Note that theland area within 55dB is typically onlydouble that within the 65dB contour.However, the airport itself occupiesmuch of the space within 65dB,

whereas the land between 55dB and65dB is typically used for other com-mercial and residential purposes.)

As shown in Figure 5-10, the numberof people affected by aircraft noise inthe United States has significantlydecreased over the last 25 years. Thefigure shows an estimate of the num-ber of people living within 55dB and65dB DNL areas around airports inthe United States as a function oftime. The noise exposure estimatesfor 65dB DNL from 1975 to 1996 arefrom various sources the FAA used totrack people who were affected dur-ing that time. The estimate of thepopulation exposed to 55dB DNL isbased on scaling from current popu-lation distributions around airports.The estimates and projections from1998 to 2020 were calculated usingthe FAA MAGENTA model. The largereductions in affected populationshown in this figure resulted primarilyfrom three factors: 1) improved tech-nology; 2) low-noise aircraft opera-tions enabled by advanced aircraftcontrol, navigation, and surveillancetechnology and advanced air trafficmanagement technology (CNS/ATM);and 3) phase-out of high-noise air-craft as a result of regulatory action.The noisiest aircraft made a signifi-cantly disproportionate impact onnoise, and regulation that helped tophase them out of service in theUnited States made a significantimpact on lowering the level of noise



around airports in the 1990s. Whenthe US Congress enacted the ANCA(Airport Noise Control Act) in 1990,phased-out aircraft accounted for55% of the US fleet but contributedto more than 90% of the total DNLlevels at airports. The phase-outsmandated by the 1990 legislation arenow complete in the United States,and over the next 20 years, estimatesby the FAA suggest that reductions inaffected population in the UnitedStates will be small, since the currentfleet is relatively young and furtherphase-outs are not currently planned.The roughly constant number ofaffected people results from a balancebetween projected improvements intechnology and projected increases inflight operations.

Infrastructure Constraints

Inadequate infrastructure capacity ispresently both an immediate and along-term threat to air travel in NorthAmerica, Europe, and the Asia-Pacificregion. Capacity constraints at air-ports and in the airways are causingincreasing levels of delay.

In the United States, delays havebeen receiving high attention. The

number of flights delayed by morethan 15 minutes of scheduled gatedeparture and arrival times increasedby 11% between 1995 and 1999, aperiod in which aircraft movementsgrew by only 8% (Mead 2000).Cancellations during this timeincreased by 68%. Overall, one infour flights was either canceled ordelayed in 1999, with each delayaveraging 50 minutes. Available datafor the years 2000 and 2001 suggestthat all of these trends have grownsteadily worse.

The statistics are similar in Europe. Inits 1999 Annual Report on Delays toAir Transport, the Central Office forDelay Analysis of the EuropeanOrganization for the Safety of AirNavigation reports that a 6% increasein traffic between 1998 and 1999was accompanied by a 54% increasein the number of flights delayed over15 minutes (EUROCONTROL 2000).

Much of this delay is attributed toairport congestion. Airports are limit-ed in the maximum number of oper-ations they can handle in an hour. Inaddition, noise concerns limit night-time operations at many airports,

especially in the United States andEurope. One result of the rapidgrowth in air travel described abovehas been that many of the busiestairports worldwide are presentlyoperating at close to capacity, atleast at peak periods and oftentimesthroughout the day. The hub andspoke structure that increasinglycharacterizes most airline operationsexacerbates this by concentratinglarge flows of aircraft in and out ofhub airports.

Much of the delay experienced in theair transportation system is concen-trated in the busiest airports. The FAAfound that 10 large US airports thataccounted for 31% of total enplane-ments in 1999 accounted for 64% ofthe flights delayed (US DOT, FAA2000).16 Similarly, the 10 busiestEuropean airports (in terms of opera-tions) accounted for 42% of the totalflights delayed in the top 48 airports(EUROCONTROL 2000).

The problem is expected to worsen.A survey conducted by the GeneralAccounting Office of the 50 busiestUS airports, depicted in Figure 5-11,found that 13 of the airports werealready operating at capacity and allbut five of the 50 expect that theywill be operating at full capacitywithin 10 years (GAO 2000).

Given present growth trends and thecapacity constraints outlined above,a key question is whether the capac-ity of the airport system will expandto keep pace with demand. Thereare reasons to doubt whether thiscan be done. As a practical matter, itis often very difficult to build newcapacity at congested airports. First,there may just not be any space.This is true of airports such asWashington’s National and NewYork’s La Guardia. Most often, how-ever, local community groups active-ly oppose airport expansion becauseof noise and/or environmental con-cerns. Though noise concerns arethe basis for the most significantopposition to airport expansion,they are not the only reasons.

mobility 2001


Runway projects at other airportssuch as San Francisco Internationalface significant opposition from envi-ronmental groups concerned aboutthe airport’s effects on San FranciscoBay.17 Figure 5-12 shows that envi-ronmental issues, including noise-related concerns, have led to indefi-nite postponement or cancellation ofplans to expand airport capacity at12 of the 50 busiest US airports sur-veyed by the GAO. Indeed, of the10 large US airports, accounting for64% of the delays in 1999, only fourhave any definite plans currently toexpand their airside capacity beforethe year 2005.

Building a new greenfield airport isnot much easier. Proposals for con-structing a new airport encounter thesame strenuous local opposition gen-erated by expansion plans. In addi-tion, new airports face the difficultyof identifying a suitable site. New air-ports require a lot of space. Considerthe new Denver International Airport,built in 1994 on a 137-square-kilome-ter site located a 50-minute drivefrom downtown Denver; such spaceis rarely available close enough tomajor metropolitan regions to be use-ful. It is instructive in this context thattwo of the significant new interna-tional airports completed in the last

decade — Kansai airport in Japan,and Inchon airport in Korea — werebuilt on expensively constructedman-made islands.

These constraints on new airportdevelopment have resulted in a trendtoward the building of ever-largerfacilities located at ever-greater dis-tances from the center of themetropolitan region. Knowing thatnew airports may have to serve for avery long time, developers havesought sites that allow ample roomfor subsequent capacity expansion.The need to provide a buffer zone to

limit exposure of surrounding resi-dents to aircraft noise furtherexpands land requirements. To findsuch sites, one must search far fromexisting development. There is everyreason to believe that these trendswill continue.

In time, the growing difficulty of get-ting to the airport may limit growthin demand for air travel. Growingcongestion in urban areas, combinedwith the increasing remoteness of air-port sites, is likely to make the non-air portions of a journey increasinglyburdensome and time consuming,



offsetting in a growing number ofcases the travel time advantages thatair travel offers.

Air traffic control issues. The airtraffic control (ATC) system, anothercritical component of the infrastruc-ture supporting the air transportationsystem, is a source of growing con-cern. As travel delays and disruptionsbecome increasingly common, manyhave begun to question whether theair traffic control system is capable ofreliably handling its current workload,much less the greatly expandedworkload expected in the future.

The ATC system in developed coun-tries is made up of a network of navi-gational aids, communication sys-tems, and manned control centersand towers that work together todirect and coordinate the safe move-ment of aircraft. ATC personnel willgenerally remain in communicationwith commercial aircraft throughouttheir flights. A particular aircraft willfly under the direction first of the air-port tower; then of a terminal centercharged with coordinating the move-ment of aircraft into and out of themetropolitan region; and then of oneor more en route flow control cen-ters, before passing through an anal-ogous process at its destination. ATCpersonnel control aircraft movementsby specifying altitudes, heading, androutings.

When congestion or disruption at anypoint chokes the flow of traffic, theATC system must manage the result-ing queue. ATC personnel willattempt to manage the flow of air-craft to make sure that each facilityreceives no more than the number itcan safely handle. This is accom-plished through a variety of mea-sures, such as metering the flow ofaircraft into the system throughground holds, rerouting, increasingthe separation of en route aircraft,diversion of flights to secondary air-ports, or ordering an aircraft to circleuntil the system clears.

Growing airport congestion results ingrowing ATC congestion and delays.As more and more airports spendmore and more time operating at thelimits of their maximum feasiblecapacity, the system becomes more“brittle,” and more prone to turnsmall problems into large ones. Atemporary disruption at one airportcreates a queue of aircraft. Once thatairport resumes normal operation,there may be so little excess capacitythat it can take a long time to elimi-nate the queue. When such a queuepersists, it can cause problemsthroughout the system. Aircraftdelayed on the ground because ofcongestion at a destination airportcan cause additional problems at thefacility where they are held. Aircraftdelayed at the start of the day maynever get back on schedule, resultingin missed connections and passengerinconvenience.

In the developing world, air trafficcontrol problems can take differentforms. Air traffic demands are gener-ally lighter in relation to populationand land mass, and so congestionmay be less of a problem. Facilitiesare sometime less well developed,however, and the system is less ableto warn aircraft of hazards andimpending danger. In some regionspilots may be forced to rely heavilyon onboard navigational systems andradio communication with other air-craft to guide their craft safely to itsdestination.

A variety of technological solutions toimprove the capacity, reliability, andperformance of the ATC system havebeen proposed. Over time, the elec-tronic infrastructure of the system inmost parts of the world has beenreplaced and improved. New equip-ment frequently offers a higherdegree of automation and better sup-port for controller activities. Newcapabilities have been added, such asdirect data links between aircraft andair traffic control computers. Satellite-based navigational systems havecome into widespread use. Proposalshave been made for scrapping theexisting system of ground-based navi-

gational aids in favor of an entirelysatellite-based system. Together,these various developments offer thepotential for “free flight,” in whichaircraft are freed from the require-ment to follow fixed routes, andinstead are permitted to fly their owncourse, relying on satellite-basedpositioning systems, onboard routeguidance, and direct aircraft-to-air-craft communication to maintain sep-aration and safety. Proponents of freeflight argue that it will reduce costsand increase the effective capacity ofthe airways. The extent to whichthese advances will facilitateimproved management of crowdedterminal areas is unclear.

A number of institutional issues haveshaped the development of the ATCsystem. In many parts of the world,large areas of airspace are reservedfor military use. In many countriesthe military shares responsibility withcivilian authorities for airspace man-agement. Concerns over nationaldefense and national sovereigntyhave at times inhibited efforts toimprove operations and efficiencythrough international coordinationof policies and procedures. The tech-nological underpinnings of the ATCsystem are complex, and the historyof efforts by ATC operators toreplace and upgrade aging equip-ment is characterized by delays andoverruns. Some major initiativeshave been abandoned after theexpenditure of significant sums ofmoney. In parts of the developingworld, financing the system hasproven to be a challenge, whichaccounts for the underdevelopedstate of ATC in some regions.

Whether the ability of ATC systems tohandle growing volumes of traffic willprove to be a binding constraint onthe growth of air travel is unclear.Many knowledgeable observers arguethat a large majority of ATC problemsactually can be traced to shortages ofairport capacity, and to the frequentbackups of traffic that these shortagescause. As long as such shortagesexist, however, the performance of

mobility 2001


the ATC system is likely to remain atopic of debate and concern.

CONCLUSION

Intercity travel both reflects geo-graphic patterns of social and eco-nomic interaction and shapes theevolution of those patterns. A num-ber of significant social, political, eco-nomic, and technological trendsincrease and strengthen the long-dis-tance relationships of people aroundthe world, and stimulate the demandfor international travel. These trendsinclude:

● Efforts to lower barriers to inter-national travel and trade.

● Increasing globalization of theworld economy.

● International migration.

● Increases in the availability andreductions in the cost oftelecommunications.

● Increases in the quality andquantity of information avail-able about people, cultures,economic opportunities, andrecreational possibilities in distant locations.

As such travel has become faster andless expensive, demand for interna-tional travel has grown enormously.

Available evidence suggests thatintercity travel is a superior good inthe sense that an increase in incomeleads to a disproportionate increasein the demand for travel. Growth inincome makes it easier for travelers touse faster but more costly modes oftravel (auto, and especially air), there-by easing the considerable timerequirements of intercity travel. Atthe same time, growth in income alsoincreases the demand for high-qualityrecreational experiences, stimulatingthe demand for nonbusiness travel.

Four modes account for the bulk ofall intercity passenger trips: bus, rail,auto, and air. The general trendaround the world has been awayfrom the low-cost, low-impact, lowerlevel of service of buses and trains,and toward the higher cost and high-er level of service of autos and air.This general trend, however, hasmanifested itself in different waysaround the world.

In the developing world, bus and railconstitute the backbone of the inter-city passenger transportation system.Although autos and airplanes are present, their roles are limited, andair transportation is too costly formany of the residents of these coun-tries. Low levels of auto ownershipand the underdeveloped state of theintercity highway network limit theavailability and the convenience ofauto travel. Bus and rail are the low-cost alternatives that most intercitytravelers in these countries rely upon.

In developing countries without well-developed rail networks, and in theunserved portions of countries withsuch networks, bus is the primarysource of intercity mobility.

In the developed world, most interci-ty travel is by auto or air, although inEurope and Japan rail plays an impor-tant role.

Aided by widespread auto ownershipand a highly developed intercity roadnetwork, the use of auto for intercitytravel by residents of developedcountries has grown substantiallyover the past several decades. Tosome extent this growth is a by-prod-uct of the growing use of automo-biles for urban travel. Intercity travelaccounts for only a relatively smallfraction of overall auto use, and doesnot appear to be a significant factorin most auto purchase decisions.Once an auto becomes available,however, it is likely to be used forlong-distance trips.

Air travel is growing rapidly through-out the world, typically exceedingthat of the overall economy. Forecastsof air travel made by Airbus Industrieand Boeing, the two major manufac-turers of commercial jet aircraft, suggest that global air travel alonewill continue to grow at a rate of justless than 5% a year for the next 20years. These estimates are consistentwith the official planning estimatesdeveloped by US and Europeanauthorities.

A critical question from the point ofview of the long-term sustainability ofthe intercity transportation system isthe extent to which the modal choic-es of the developing world come tomirror those of the developed world.

Although air travel accounts for onlya relatively small portion of trans-portation-related greenhouse gasemissions, its significance is largerthan its current size would suggest.Unlike other modes of transportation,aircraft emit the vast majority of theirgreenhouse gases in the upper tropo-sphere and lower stratosphere. Theimpact of burning fossil fuels at thisaltitude is approximately double thatof burning the same fuels at groundlevel. Moreover, air travel is one ofthe fastest growing segments of theoverall transportation system. Thus,whatever its current impact may be,trends suggest that the effects willincrease substantially over time.

In addition to its impacts on theglobal environment, air transporta-tion has substantial localized impacts.Airline traffic is highly concentrated,with the result that a relatively smallnumber of airports account for a verylarge fraction of all commercial airtraffic. This necessarily results in ahigh concentration of activity at theselocations. Emissions from aircraft thatare taxiing, landing, or taking off andfrom related ground activities com-bine to make major airports one ofthe most significant point sources ofpollution in the metropolitan areasthey serve. Airports generate largevolumes of ground traffic. They also



expose surrounding neighborhoodsto significant noise.

Over the past four decades, techno-logical improvements have substan-tially reduced the adverse impacts ofair transportation, and the energyefficiency of the world air fleet hasimproved markedly. Emissions perpassenger mile of the principal green-house gases have declined in stepwith this improvement in energy effi-ciency, although some of the techno-logical trade-offs have increased out-put of other emission components.Major strides have been made inreducing the noise associated withaircraft takeoffs and landings, but thereductions achieved in impacts perpassenger mile or per operation havebeen offset in whole or in part bygrowth in the total volume of airtravel. Although improvements inenergy efficiency are likely to contin-ue, they are unlikely to be of suffi-cient magnitude to offset projectedgrowth in traffic. As a result, energyuse in air transportation — and theassociated greenhouse gas emissions— are likely to increase. Similarly,projected improvements in noise sup-pression technology are unlikely tooffset growth in the number of oper-ations or in the number of people liv-ing near airports.

As the volume of air traffic hasgrown, it has proven difficult toexpand the capacity of the airportsystem proportionately. The noise,traffic, and pollution associated withmajor airports have in many casesgenerated strenuous opposition totheir expansion. Such opposition hashalted airport expansion in manylocations. In others it has slowed thepace of expansion and increased itscost. Another issue constraining thepace of airport expansion is the hugeamount of space required for new air-port construction, and the resultingdifficulty of locating suitable sites thatare accessible to the population thefacility is intended to serve.

In short, air travel is the fastest-grow-ing means of transportation in the

world. But it faces severe environ-mental and operational sustainabilityproblems, with no technological orinfrastructure solutions on the hori-zon. There is little margin to improveairplane emissions at this time. Theimprovements achieved in noisereduction are being overwhelmed bythe overall growth of air traffic. Majorairports are frequently so crowded asto cause severe delays throughoutthe air transport system. Yet localopposition to airport expansion andto the construction of new airports isso fierce that the building of newrunways and airports is rarely a viablesolution.

NOTES

1. Intercity passenger and freighttransportation are linked becausethe systems providing these twotypes of transportation serviceshare common facilities, and attimes even common vehicles. Thischapter focuses on passengertransportation. Freight transporta-tion is discussed in Chapter 6.

2. Not surprisingly, though, the defi-nitions used to define and reportdata on intercity travel differacross the world. In the UnitedStates, for example, travel surveysuse a distance threshold of 100miles to define an intercity trip; inthe United Kingdom, the thresh-old is 50 miles. Though thenature of the available dataframes much of our discussion, inthis chapter we define intercitytravel to include all trips of over100 miles (161 kilometers) inlength.

3. Although cruise ships represent avibrant industry, such vessels arebetter regarded as floating resortsthan serious modes of travel.Apart from a few locations (e.g.,China), intercity travel by water-based modes is not a significantfactor.

4. The two largest trading blocks arethe European Union (EU) and theNorth American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA). Otherprominent blocs include theAssociation of South East AsiaNations (ASEAN); the Asia PacificEconomic Cooperation forum(APEC); and Mercosur, a tariffunion comprising Argentina,Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay,with Bolivia and Chile as associat-ed members.

5. About one-third are explicitly tovisit friends and relatives. Another15% were for “personal business,”which in all likelihood also has todo with friends and relatives.

6. Though it is often possible toobtain bus travel data for manycountries, it is difficult to isolateintercity travel. Further, in thecase of most regions outside ofthe OECD countries, little or noreliable data is available and manyof the figures presented are esti-mates. In all cases, intercity andurban travel bus data are com-bined, so trends are less likely toreflect actual levels of use.

7. “To reduce the burden on thecommon man, IR has deliberatelykept passenger fares and freightrates for items of mass consump-tion less than the cost of opera-tion” (Indian Railways 2001,finance). IR estimates that inputprices have increased 2.2 timesthe rate of increase in receiptsbetween 1970 and 1997.Available at http://www.indianrail-way.com/railway/overview/finance.html. Last visited March 2, 2001.

8. Many of the data issues raisedwith intercity bus data are alsotrue of rail. In particular, urban railstatistics are often combined withthose for intercity rail.

9. This is not to say that nuclearenergy is environmentally benign.At the very least there are consid-erable safety issues associatedwith generating nuclear fuel anddisposing of waste safely.

10.Carriers differ in the extent towhich they actively manage andoptimize their cargo operations.

mobility 2001


Some regard it as a major profitcenter, market it aggressively,and strive to meet shipper expec-tations. Other adopt a more pas-sive role.

11. There have also been a limitednumber of “Combi” aircraft. Theseaircraft carry both passengers andfreight, but devote a larger frac-tion of their capacity to cargothan do typical configurations.

12. Traditionally air cargo serviceshave been offered on an airport-to-airport basis. Responsibility forarranging ground transportationat the two ends of the trip wasleft to either the shipper or anagent such as a freight forwarder.

13. General aviation is defined on thebasis of mode of operation ratherthan aircraft type. But the eco-nomics of aircraft ownership andoperation are such that generalaviation aircraft as a group aredramatically smaller than com-mercial aircraft considered as agroup. The upper end of the gen-eral aviation size spectrum does,however, overlap the lower end ofthe range of aircraft types used incommercial service.

14. As engine operating efficiencyincreases, reductions in the tem-perature of the exhaust streamare greater than the correspond-ing reduction in water vapor con-centration. This leads to increasedcontrail formation.

15. “To protect the majority of peopleagainst moderate annoyance dur-ing the day, exterior sound levelsshould not exceed 50 dB LAeq.”(WHO 2001).

16. US DOT, FAA 2000, fig. I-1. The10 airports are Chicago O’Hare,Newark International, AtlantaHartsfield, New York La Guardia,San Francisco International, DallasFort-Worth, Boston Logan,Philadelphia International, John F.Kennedy in New York, andPhoenix Sky Harbor International.

17. San Francisco International Airport’srunway reconfiguration project, ifimplemented, would need to fill inup to 1400 acres of the SanFrancisco Bay. This would requirespecial dispensation from theCalifornia state legislature, given a1965 Law that prohibited any fill ofthe Bay (San Francisco 2001).

18. US DOT, FAA 2000, fig. I-2.Runway projects are planned orunderway at Newark, Atlanta,Dallas–Fort Worth, and Phoenix.Though the table lists Boston asan airport with definite runwayexpansion plans, other informa-tion suggests that these plans arestill not final and face consider-able community opposition.




The ability to move goods easily and inexpensively over long distances makes modern life possible. Yet discus-sions of sustainable mobility often ignore freight. Freight transportation consumes about 43% of all fuel usedin transportation and is responsible for a major share of transport-related emissions of nitrogen oxides,unburned hydrocarbons, and fine particulate matter. Trucks delivering their loads compete with cars for spaceon city streets and on intercity expressways. Rail operators often must choose between optimizing their sys-tems for the hauling of freight or for the hauling of passengers. Terminals where freight is collected,exchanged between modes, and distributed require large amounts of land in urban areas and are majorsources of congestion and noise.

Freight mobility must be preserved and enhanced if society is to grow and prosper. But the challenges tofreight mobility will not be easy to solve. Considering the importance of freight movement, attacking theseproblems must rank high on the scale of priorities for achieving sustainable mobility.

Freight transportation is one of the major underpinnings of modern society.Freight transportation systems bring water and fuel to our homes, food to ourstores, and allow the economic and social specialization that enables cities togrow and modern societies to flourish. Cheap freight rates promote internation-al trade and allow countries and regions to benefit from their comparativeadvantages in the world economy. Freight mobility has allowed many countriesto achieve dramatic improvements in their incomes, standards of living, andquality of life. All of the exporting nations of Asia — Japan, Hong Kong,Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea — are based upon the inexpensive, reliablemovement of freight. Freight can even save societies from starvation. The abilityto distribute grain over India’s railways has played an important role in eliminat-ing the fear of famine for millions. Indeed, the worldwide grain market createdby the ability to move huge amounts of grain virtually anywhere in the world isa crucial safeguard against the famine and misery that would otherwise accom-pany local crop failures.

freightmobility

Freight mobility is not without itscosts, however. The movement offreight consumes approximately 43%of all transportation energy. Freight-hauling trucks clog highways andemit large volumes of pollutants.Even freight transportation’s role asan enabler of globalization has itsdownside. Low-cost, reliable freighttransportation has opened up vast,hitherto untouched regions of theworld to economic development, butthis development has often beenaccompanied by environmental dis-ruption related to the dredging ofharbors and the building of roadsand railways. Some developing coun-tries have used their new access toworld markets to engage in destruc-tive agricultural practices or to selltheir valuable raw materials for pricesthat may not reflect the true costs oftheir production.

Modern railways, highways, ports,and airports are essential for integrat-ing a nation’s economy and forreaching world markets. Goodregional freight systems support eco-nomic growth and world trade bygiving manufacturers and consumersbountiful and cheap choices of mate-rials and products. In most cities,local and regional movements pre-dominate, and trucks — of all shapesand sizes — are the most visible ele-ment of the freight transport system.Trucks are frequently viewed as a nui-sance by commuters on congestedcity streets, but they are the lifeblood of the city. They carry fuel forhomes and businesses, resupplystores and markets, distribute foodand other goods to households,restock inventories and inputs forlocal businesses, and remove garbageand waste. Trucks are also the typicalmeans of moving freight to the ports,airports, and rail terminals that pro-vide links to regional, national, andinternational markets. Pipelines arecritical mobility systems for the sup-ply of water and natural gas, as aresewer systems for the removal ofwastes. Where such services do notexist, households and small business-es are often forced to spend largeamounts of time obtaining water andfuel and disposing of waste.

The systems that provide internation-al and intercity freight mobility willlikely continue to grow, both becauseof their efficiency and because of theneeds they fulfill on a daily basis.Regional and urban freight mobilityfaces greater problems, becausefreight in general is moving on thesame roads as automobiles (prone tocongestion), in the same urban areas(where air quality is a concern), andusing fossil fuels (contributing to CO2emissions). Environmental problemscould therefore be quite importantfor the small shipments and automo-bile movements (e.g., grocery shop-ping) that typify urban goods move-ments. The land-use patterns ofmetropolitan areas might have to berevised if substantial limits to freightmobility emerge. Congestion is animmediate concern for freight mobili-ty; restrictions based upon eitherenergy use or emissions (as opposedto payment of higher prices for fuelor emissions) will be a concern forbusiness and development.

Components of the FreightSystem

This section provides an overview ofthe components of the currentfreight system, highlighting averagecapabilities, major trends, and issuesrelated to networks, performance,and capacity.

Urban freight movements.Within urban areas, the primaryfunction of the freight system is tosupport the local population by dis-tributing food, water, energy, infor-mation (mail, newspapers, maga-zines, catalogs, etc.), clothing, andother essentials to individual house-holds and businesses, along with thecollection and removal of trash andwastes. These are the most complexand costly elements of the freighttransportation system, as the freightmust be delivered or picked up invery small units and everybody mustbe served. For cities to exist at all,these services must be provided. Forcities to prosper, they must be pro-vided effectively.

freight mobility


What Does “FreightMobility” Mean?

“Freight mobility” is not a wide-

ly discussed issue. Some of the

concepts of personal mobility

may also apply to freight, e.g.,

the cost and time required to

move freight between various

locations in a city, a region, or

the world. Without trying at this

point to define freight mobility,

we can at least suggest that it

should incorporate the following

considerations:

● Manufacturers’ ability to

obtain raw materials from

distant sources.

● A city’s ability to obtain

food, energy, construction

materials, and other goods

at costs that do not dis-

courage development and

growth.

● The ability for manufactur-

ers to consolidate produc-

tion so as to achieve

economies of scale and sell

to a larger market.

● Ability to achieve lower

density within metropolitan

areas (because it is easy to

transport goods within the

region) while the metropoli-

tan areas themselves grow

(in part because economies

in freight movements make

it possible to achieve

economies of scale and den-

sity in public services, pro-

duction, housing, and other

areas of the economy).

● Individuals’ ability to

obtain groceries, energy,

and other goods without

increased costs, disrup-

tions in service (e.g., of

natural gas delivered to

customers through

pipelines), or greater

expenditures of time.

● Producers and individuals

being able to send and

receive packages or other

shipments of many differ-

ent sizes without excessive

cost or time.

This clearly is an area where personalmobility is related to the require-ments placed upon the freight sys-tem. The size and location of stores isrelated to the time and expense thatpeople are willing and able to devoteto traveling. In cities, if people mustwalk to the grocery store, then therewill be numerous small stores, requir-ing relatively complex and expensivedeliveries. If people can drive severalmiles to stores, then they will, in gen-eral, find larger and more efficientfacilities, with a larger selection ofgoods and lower prices. When peopledrive to centralized facilities, the com-plexity of the freight system has shift-ed from the carrier and the supplierto the consumer.

A second function of the freight sys-tem is to provide materials for thedevelopment and maintenance ofurban infrastructure. It is necessary toobtain lumber, sand and gravel, steel,and other construction materials andsupplies to build housing, other struc-tures, roads, ports, and so forth. For alarge city, these movements will besubstantial, requiring special terminalsand outlets. As with food, there is alink between freight and personalmobility. Construction firms or indi-viduals can drive many miles to buybuilding supplies; they are not depen-dent upon local suppliers nor do theyrequire a nearby rail terminal.Increasing mobility for individuals andsmall businesses again leads to largerdistribution centers.

A third function of the freight systemis to provide logistics support for localbusinesses. The urban freight systemallows local businesses to assembleraw materials and supplies from localsources and — more commonly —from remote locations via local ware-houses, storage facilities, local freightterminals, or local connections to theintercity freight networks. Likewise,the urban freight system must sup-port the distribution of local productswithin the metropolitan region or toother regions via local sources.

Trucks dominate urban freight.Distances are usually too short forrail or water transport to be viable,although a few highly specializedmovements do exist. As the demandfor specialized goods and servicesgrows, the demand for smaller,more specialized trucks increases. InJapan, restaurants often want deliv-eries of fresh fish twice daily.Consumers buy many differentitems from catalogs or from on-lineoutlets — and these will be deliv-ered to their door by a specializedtruck. In Bangkok, many small man-ufacturers move their day’s produc-tion to a market or a storage facilityin a truck smaller than most cars.

Small-package delivery is an increas-ingly significant element of urbanfreight mobility, for individuals and

for businesses. Many new retail (ande-tail) services depend upon the postoffice or specialized carriers like UPSto deliver their products to con-sumers. In some industries, parceltransportation is the mainstay of thelogistics system. For example, in theUnited States, over 75% of oph-thalmic or opticians’ goods move byparcel, postal, or courier services (USDOT, BTS 1997a, p. 203).

Of course, in large urban areas,freight transportation becomes animportant activity in itself, and it isimportant to consider the nationaland international networks that passthrough the city. Ports and majorfreight terminals become a focus forregional, national, and internationallogistics activities. Through freightmovements may be an important

mobility 2001


Importance of Freight Transportation to the LocalStandard of Living

“Household freight services” is another aspect of freight transportation that is inti-

mately tied to personal mobility. Local in scope and usually overlooked, household

freight is surprisingly important for quality of life and essential to sustainable city life.

Household freight services support three requirements for healthy living:

● Obtaining sufficient quantities of water suitable for consumption,

cooking,bathing, cleaning, and other household functions.

● Obtaining food and other supplies for the family.

● Removing wastes.

Most of the developed world takes these services for granted. Hot and cold water

runs within the home, gas lines or routine oil deliveries heat houses, and — most

importantly — electricity is there at the flick of a switch. Other household essentials

are a quick trip away or, increasingly, available for home delivery. Indeed, household

trash is taken to the curb, toilets are flushed, bottles recycled, and urban residents

seldom give a moment’s thought to the disposal of these wastes. The ease with

which urban residents of the developed world can acquire essential supplies, buy

new goods, and dispose of their wastes defines “household freight services.” In rural

areas of the developed world, household freight may involve slightly more cumber-

some tasks and longer trips, but it is still managed with relative ease.

In the poorest areas of the world, however, the situation is dramatically different.

Lack of access to cheap, clean water and the inability to dispose of wastes are funda-

mental problems affecting large portions of the population; 15% of the world’s pop-

ulation live in conditions where lack of sufficient quantities of clean water and insuffi-

cient sewerage systems are constant threats to health (Potter et al., 1999, pp.

245–46). Moreover, the time and labor spent acquiring water and firewood are

major drains on household budgets and time. Residents of those regions, usually the

women of the household, spend much of their day manually acquiring essential sup-

plies and are unable to engage in more rewarding economic, educational, or leisure

pursuits.

component of highway traffic, and alarge portion of the local economymay benefit from freight activities.Hong Kong, Singapore, Rotterdam,and the other large ports derivetremendous benefits from interna-tional trade. Chicago’s locationenabled it to become the gateway tothe American West and a natural cen-ter for production and distributionthroughout the Midwest.

Regional freight movements.Regions are areas that may include adominant city, several other cities,numerous smaller cities and towns,and a rural hinterland. The distancesinvolved in regional freight move-ments are in the 100- to-500-kilome-ter range. Regions are best defined interms of economic geography, whichseldom follows political borders. Anappropriate region might be a stateor a province within a large country,an entire country, or several smallcountries.

At the regional level, moving foodand other essentials directly to orfrom households and small businessesis no longer a prime concern. Instead,the issue is moving goods to, from,and between production facilities,warehouses, storage facilities, andregional connections to the nationaland international networks. Thoughshipments are generally larger andhauls longer than is the case forurban movements, trucks dominateregional freight movements, much asthey dominate urban movements.The difference is that the most eco-nomical trucks will likely be largerthan the myriad small trucks seen inthe city. At this scale, the use of rail isusually limited to the movement ofbulk commodities such as coal orsand and gravel, depending upon thelocation of the mine or the gravel pitrelative to the power plants or themajor construction sites.

The highway network is the key toregional mobility for freight. If a townhas restricted load limits because of

the quality of local streets or bridges,then it will not be an attractive site fora shipper wanting to use the largesttrucks. On the other hand, if a townhas good access to the highway, thenthe entire world is open to it.

In most countries, water transport isuseful primarily for specialized move-ments of bulk commodities. In coun-tries without a good road network,water transport remains valuable forgeneral freight. And in countries orregions with exceptional access togood waterway systems, such asGermany and the midwestern UnitedStates, water transport plays a majorrole in the location of economicactivity and in freight transport.

National or continental freightmovements. There are two strategicfreight-related concerns at thenational level, where the distancesare in excess of 500 kilometers. The

freight mobility


The Lunch Box Carriers of Mumbai

Mumbai, India, is home to one of the most labor-intensive yet efficient personal

freight systems in the world. Every day 4,500 dabbawallahs, as the delivery men are

known, pick up thousands of hot lunch boxes (dabbas) from customers’ homes,

transport the boxes to the customers’ offices, and then return the empty dabbas in

the afternoon. In the morning, the first team of dabbawallahs fan out across Mumbai

and its suburbs, picking up an average of 30 dabbas each from customers’ homes.

They pick up and transport the dabbas by motorcycle or bicycle and deliver them to

the second team at local train stations. The second team delivers the dabbahs by

train to central train stations, where the third team sorts through the thousands of

lunch boxes in less than 10 minutes and delivers them to their lunch customers by

noon. After lunch, the process is repeated to bring the dabbas home.

This legendarily popular and efficient system depends on the hard work of the dab-

bawallahs and their simple coding system. For instance, Shomik Bhakelar’s dabba is

coded 3MC4; 3 for the carrier who delivers in the Nariman Point business district,

MC for Bhakelar’s office building, and 4 for the floor where his office is. The cost to

Bhakelar? A very affordable 150 rupees per month. The dabbawallahs contribute the

money to their local cooperatives, such as the Nutan Mumbai Tiffinbox Suppliers’

Charity Trust, which pays them a monthly salary of 3,000 rupees.

The dabbawallahs have weathered recessions, changes in work patterns, widespread

mill closings in the 1980s that robbed them of thousands of customers, and the pro-

liferation of office canteens and food courts in the 1990s. Adept at new marketing

opportunities, the dabbawallahs now offer their services online, at

www.webrishi.com. And lest one doubt their efficiency, Forbes Global recently con-

ducted an in-depth study of the dabbawallahs and awarded them a 6 Sigma perfor-

mance rating, a quality assurance rating indicating a percentage of correct deliveries

of 99.999999 or better. (Unnithan, 2001)

The Role of Rail inRegional FreightMovements

The railway network is no longer

critical for regional mobility. Once

it is possible for a truck to move

15 to 20 tons of freight at 20 to

40 mph over reasonable roads,

then the truck will be cheaper and

often more energy efficient than

the railroad for general freight.

Trucks do not need a high-speed,

interstate highway to take most of

the short- and medium-length

shipments of general merchandise

from the rail. Thus, the extensive

regional rail networks that were

critical for nineteenth-century

development were really not a

factor for development in the lat-

ter half of the twentieth-century.

The decline of the railroad around

the world was to a large extent a

slow, painful adjustment of the

transport system and of economic

geography to the development of

a superior mode of transport.

There were simply too many rail

lines for a world with paved roads

and large trucks.

first is the ability to move goodsthroughout the country or continentat low cost, so as to allow economiesof scale in production and distribu-tion. The second is the ability to serveexport and import markets. Lowertransport costs allow a country tocompete in international markets fora broader variety of goods.

Ubiquity of service is not important; itis not essential that every city haveimmediate access to the best freightsystem — or even that most citieshave reasonable access. For long-dis-tance trips, by road or rail, there willbe many alternative routes to follow;going an extra 50 kilometers to getto a good route is not the problem itwould be for urban or regional trips.But it is critical that there be efficientways to cover the continental dis-tances and suitable sites for locatingnew industrial or other economicactivity.

As distances get longer, the costadvantage of rail becomes moreattractive. Railroads are well suited tohauling large shipments of coal,grain, and other bulk commodities.For container traffic, the line-haul costsavings on the railroad becomeenough to offset the costs of movingtrailers or containers on or off railcars. As a result, intermodal trans-portation linking rail and truckbecomes an option. However, suchintermodal movements require spe-cialized facilities and minimum levelsof traffic to be economical. For themost part, they are concentrated inNorth America and Western Europe,e.g., the dedicated double-stack con-tainer trains that are common in theUnited States and Canada. In Europe,trucks are moved under the SwissAlps using a single, articulated rail carthat has room for 10 to 20 trailers,with an easy way for truck drivers todrop their trailers on the platform (orto park their entire truck and traileron the platform). Appendix A-4describes the operational characteris-tics of the most significant kinds ofrail technologies used for inter-regional freight transport.

Historically, inland waterways arelinked to the development of citiesand trade routes. The major river sys-tems have long been critical formovement of grain, lumber, coal, anduntil the development of the railways,everything else. These systems canmove very large shipments with aminimal expenditure of energy.Where the rivers are reasonablystraight, barge transport is muchmore fuel-efficient than rail. Thoughwaterway transportation is slowerthan rail (and much slower thanhighway transportation), it remainscost-effective for the movements ofagricultural products, coal, ores, andother commodities that are relativelycheap and shipped in high volume.

For instance, the Paraná River inSouth America allows shipment of soybeans and grain from the fertile inte-rior of Brazil and Bolivia through theport of Buenos Aires. Although theriver does not yet support largebarges or large tows, the costs are solow that they are competitive withshorter rail moves to closer ports. Ingeneral, when rivers are broad anddeep, as in the lower MississippiRiver, 40 or more 10,000-tonnebarges can be lashed together into asingle tow for movement down theriver. Such an operation is both cheapand energy-efficient. This is no longertrue when rivers are narrow, or iflocks need to be built. Locks and

mobility 2001


Air Freight

Air freight is the newest, fastest, and most expensive freight mode. The speed and

reliability of air service allow dramatic innovation in business practices and open new

markets for certain types of commodities. The expense of air freight limits the ton-

nage that is handled, but the high value of shipments makes air freight an important

factor in international trade.

There are three types of air cargo services: freight moving in commercial passenger

aircraft (“belly” cargo), freight moving in aircraft specially dedicated to freight, and

express services for small packages. The first two services compete with surface trans-

portation for high-value shipments.

Every air freight move is an intermodal move, as a highway move is required at each

end of the shipment. Businesses that depend upon air freight often locate at or next

to airports to minimize the time and expense of the local move. For example, large

companies may keep inventories of expensive parts at a warehouse next to an air-

port; when need for the parts arises, they can be dispatched by the next available

flight. The expense of air freight is justified by the savings from consolidating inven-

tories at one location; it may even be quicker to deliver the parts by air freight than

by using highway transport from a closer warehouse.

Express services are decidedly different, as the focus is on small shipments, including

many shipments direct to consumers or end users of the product. Typical shipment

weights are 2 kilograms for domestic services in North America and 20 kilograms for

intercontinental shipments. Door-to-door service is key for express services, and carri-

ers offer customers a variety of options, e.g., next morning, next afternoon, or sec-

ond-day delivery. For such services, the cost of the air transport is actually secondary

to ordering and billing costs. Once the packages have been picked up, the key is to

minimize the amount of sorting required and to minimize the time required to make

the delivery. Using aircraft for moving the packages to and from a central sorting

facility allows overnight deliveries to be made across an entire continent. The speed

of air transport is essential for these express services; the cost, at well under $1 per

kilogram, is inconsequential. As traffic volumes rise beyond the capacity of a single

sorting facility, carriers may open additional sorting hubs, and they may begin to do

more preliminary sorting at the local terminals in order to allow some use of trucks

for deliveries to regions that can be reached in an overnight drive. A highway-based

system will work fine, but only if the maximum distances are less than 500 miles and

if there is enough volume to support the added cost of the truck.

dams are both expensive and envi-ronmentally disruptive.

Though they do not dominate thelongest moves, even here, trucks playan important role. Large trucks onhigh-quality highways are key tointercity trucking movements. Betterhighways increase service and theuse of resources, while larger trucksreduce the unit costs of transporta-tion. Limited-access highways allowtrucks to travel more than 800 kilo-meters per day or 100,000 kilome-ters per year. If two drivers are usedfor each truck, these distances can bedoubled. The larger the truck, thelower the cost for equipment anddrivers, whether measured in termsof cost per unit weight or cost perunit of capacity. For bulk commodi-ties, the carrier desires heavier pay-loads; for many other commodities,the carrier and the customer wantmore space.

Air freight, which requires a combi-nation of truck and air transporta-tion for the complete trip, accountsfor a small, but valuable portion ofnational and international trade (seefeature box).

International freight move-ments. Ocean shipping is the domi-nant mode for overseas freight ton-nage, although air freight can be sig-nificant in terms of the value of

freight shipped. Ocean shipping ishighly efficient. Extremely large ships,operated with remarkably smallcrews, move great tonnages vast dis-tances at minimal costs. Competitionis fierce, keeping prices low andencouraging international trade.While almost any commodity can anddoes move in ocean shipping, threedominate: oil, grain, and containers(Table 6-1).

In terms of value of freight shipped,containers have come to dominate

(Figure 6-1). The maritime sector pro-vides a critical backbone to globaleconomic sustainability. For example,according to the World Bank (2001c),seaborne freight accounts for 80% ofdeveloping countries’ trade as mea-sured by tonnage shipped. In theEuropean Union, approximately 90%of trade with third countries and 35%of intracommunity trade occurs viathe oceans, with EU ports handling2.3 billion tonnes annually (ESPO2001). The English Channel exempli-fies the importance of sea trade toEurope — with approximately 47 ves-

freight mobility


Table 6-1. Ocean shipping demand (trillions of tonne-km)

Year

Crude Petroleum Plus

Petroleum Products

Dry Bulk Cargo*

General Cargo†

Total

Containerized

Share of General Cargo

1975 15.7 5.0 4.5 25.2 Nil‡

1980 14.7 6.6 6.0 27.3 20.7%

1985 8.3 7.2 5.6 21.1 30.1%

1990 12.6 8.5 6.5 27.6 35.1%

1995 15.0 9.4 8.1 32.5 43.7%

Source: WEC (1998). *Materials shipped unpackaged — coal, grain, ores, fertilizer material. †Materials and goods shipped packaged. ‡Containerized shipping did not exist as a mode until the mid-1950s and was not significant until the 1970s.

sels, over 40,000 deadweight tonnes(DWT) crossing every day, theChannel has some of the highest traf-fic densities of any stretch of water inthe world (Owen 1999). In the U.S.,waterborne trade exceeded 1.1 bil-lion tonnes in 2000, with goods val-ued at US$740 billion (AAPA 2001).

The Merchant Fleet. In recentyears, the world’s ship fleet, in termsof total DWT, has been increasing,albeit slowly — at a rate of 1.3%from 1998 to 1999 and 1.6% from1997 to 1998 (UNCTAD 2000). Thelargest fleet types — oil tankers, bulkcarriers, and general cargo ships —have been increasing at the slowestrate (1.1%, 0.2%, and 0.2%, respec-tively), while container ships andother types of ships — each less than10% of the global fleet — have beenincreasing at 4.1% and 5.7%, respec-tively (UNCTAD 2000).

Of the various vessel types, dry bulkcargo ships are often called the“workhorses” of the world’s fleet(IMO, 1999), comprising 33% of theall vessels. Oil tankers comprise analmost equal share. Both of these ves-sel types are among the largest plying

the oceans, although container shipsare also increasing in size. The contin-uous growth in tanker and bulk cargoships has paralleled growth in tradeof their respective commodities (i.e.,oil and grains). Container ships are amore recent addition to the globalfleet, with the first purpose-built ves-sels entering service only in 1965.They have grown substantially inboth numbers and average size.

This growth in the number and aver-age size of container-hauling shipshas paralleled the growth in globalcontainer movements. The number ofcontainers handled in world portsincreased from 39 million TEU (20-foot-equivalent units) in 1980 to 185million TEU by 1998 (Drewry 1999).Growth in container movements inNorth America, West Europe, the FarEast, and Southeast Asia has beenparticularly rapid (see Figure 6-2).

Marine architecture has successfullyincreased the size and strength ofships so that infrastructure, not tech-nology, limits ship size. For manyyears, the largest ships were designedto slip (barely) through the locks ofthe Panama Canal. Today, with many

ships deployed within the Atlantic orwithin the Pacific, the Panama Canalno longer caps the size of ships. Forinstance, the largest container shipswere once the “Panamax”-class shipscapable of carrying 4,000 20-footcontainers; today, Post-Panamax shipscan carry 6-8,000 TEUs. The size ofthese behemoths is now limited bythe ports, as only deep-water portscan handle the largest ships. Thesetrends are also true of tankers andgrain ships.

The economics of ocean shipping arecharacterized by low line-haul costs,ship costs that get lower per unit ofcapacity as the ship gets bigger, andsignificant costs of port operations.Taken together, these three factorscause the costs of international ship-ping to be dominated not by theocean voyage but by the land sidecosts — the rail or truck movementto the port and the handling at theport. As a result, if it is possible to getbulk commodities or containers to amajor port at a reasonable expense, itis then possible to ship those com-modities or containers to any othermajor port in the world at a modestadditional expense (on the order of

mobility 2001


freight mobility


$100 per thousand kilometers percontainer).

WHAT IS BEING MOVED ANDWHAT IS MOVING IT?

Freight transportation can be distilledto a few key concepts: tonnages,shipments, and tonne-kilometers.Tonnages reflect the level of produc-tion and consumption of the econo-my. Shipments reflect the vehicles,vessels, and technologies available tomove the freight, as well as theamount of freight produced and con-sumed at specific locations. Tonne-kilometers reflect the distances ofshipments as well as the tonnagesand are used to indicate effortrequired to move freight. Costs are afunction of all three factors, with therelative importance of each factorvarying by vehicle, technology, andthe characteristics of the commodity.

To understand freight transportation,it is important to begin with thefreight itself. This section starts with abrief discussion of the commoditiesthat constitute the large majority ofglobal freight movements.

The Commodities thatConstitute Freight Movements

A small selection of primary com-modities, food, fuel, and ores domi-nates the total tonnage of freightmoved globally. In 1994, coal, farmproducts, chemicals (and allied prod-ucts), nonmetallic minerals, metallicores and stone, and clay and glassproducts constituted over 70% of thetonnes transported by US railroads,and 64% of the tonnes shipped in USdomestic waterborne commerce in1994. (WEC 1998).

Grain is the key agricultural commod-ity requiring transportation. In someform it is basic to the diet of everyculture, both as food and as feed forlivestock, and it is easy to store andtransport. China is the largest produc-er of grain in the world, growingapproximately 100 million tonnes of

wheat, 200 million tonnes of rice,and 250 million tonnes of othergrain. Canada is a major exporter,with a vast rail network linking theproduction areas in the westernplains to ports on the Great Lakesand the Pacific. The United States andBrazil are the world’s biggestexporters of soybeans. Brazil is note-worthy because its soybean produc-tion has grown significantly in recentyears as new lands are opened toagriculture in the fertile western por-tions of the country. With more fertilesoil, more efficient farms, and animproving transport infrastructure,Brazil is challenging the United Statesfor soybean exports.

While annual production varies withthe weather and other factors, thedemand for grain is driven by thedemand for food. Figure 6-3 showsthat the per-capita production ofgrain is just over 300 kilograms peryear worldwide. This may seem to bea large amount (i.e., two loaves ofbread a day per person), but itincludes feed grain for livestock,which is converted to meat. Figure 6-3 shows that grain dominates agricul-tural production: per-capita produc-tion of meat is about 40 kilogramsper year, and the numbers for soy-beans and fish are lower. To put thestatistics for food production in per-spective, the figure also shows thatper-capita production of paper isabout 50 kilograms per year. Foodindeed is the primary product for theconsumer society. But, as shown onthe right side of Figure 6-3, the pri-mary product of the consumer soci-ety may be waste. The United Statesproduced over 700 kilograms of solidmunicipal waste in 1996. Picking up,consolidating, transferring, and dis-posing of the waste is a major freighttransport activity.

Different forms of fuel constituteanother primary freight commodity.Figure 6-4 shows that the productionof perhaps the two most importantfuels, coal and oil, is highly concen-trated across a few countries.Production and transportation of fuelis on the order of 500 kilograms of

coal and 10 barrels of oil per personper year; this exceeds agriculturalproduction, but is considerably easierto manage as freight, because pro-duction and consumption are highlyconcentrated.

Coal is the most important commodi-ty shipped by railroads, usually trans-ported directly from mines to powerplants and large industrial users. Themajor producers are China and theUnited States, with substantial pro-duction in India, Australia, Russia,South Africa, and Poland. In additionto being the single largest commodi-ty transported in North America, coalis also estimated to be one of themost profitable commodities shippedon the North American railroads. It isa major export commodity as well,and significant technologicaladvances in rail and ocean transportallow worldwide distribution.

How Freight is Moved inDifferent Parts of the World

Freight can be moved by many differ-ent transport modes, includingnumerous combinations of tanker,rail, and truck. Figure 6-5 shows howmuch freight moves on rail, truck,waterway (inland and coastwise), andpipeline, in a selection of countriesand regions. This figure shows boththe quantity and modal share offreight tonne-kilometers as of theearly 1990s.

The differences among the countriesand regions shown in Figure 6-5 arestriking. The United States had themost balanced distribution as well asthe highest total amount of freighttraffic. In Russia, rail and pipelinescarry higher volume but little use ismade of trucks. China had some bal-ance among rail, road, and waterway,with rail by far the most important.Western Europe and Japan hadalmost no rail freight and were highlydependent on road freight.

The split across different modesreflects several factors. First, geogra-

mobility 2001


phy plays an important role in deter-mining how freight is moved.Countries need coastlines to conductocean shipping; suitable rivers areneeded to facilitate inland watermovements. For instance, an island-country like Japan has a very highproportion of freight moving in

coastwise shipping. However, beingsmall and mountainous, it lacks thelong hauls that are most suitable forrail. Infrastructure investments andpolitical factors also play an impor-tant role. For instance, the UnitedStates, Russia, China, and WesternEurope are all large regions with

extensive rail networks. However,only the United States and WesternEurope have an extensive network ofgood highways. Similarly, althoughWestern Europe is large enough forlong-haul rail service, it has not devel-oped as an integrated economy. As a

freight mobility


result it still does not have a unifiedheavy-haul rail-freight network.

Across the world, rail’s share offreight is generally declining, eventhough the total magnitude of trafficmoved on rail may well be increasing.For instance, Figure 6-6 shows thatrail tonne-kilometers continued togrow in China, Russia, and the coun-tries of North America. However,Figure 6-7 shows that in all of thesecountries, the growth in road trafficwas even greater. China, with rapideconomic expansion during the1990s, experienced more than a 10-fold increase in road tonne-kilometersas the railways struggled to handle atripling of traffic.

In Western Europe, rail traffic actuallydeclined about 10%, while road traf-fic doubled between 1970 and theearly 1990s. Not surprisingly, Figure6-8 shows that rail share declinedthroughout the region over the lastquarter of the twentieth century fromabout 30% of tonne-kilometers in theearly 1970s to only about 15% in theearly 1990s.

SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS RELATED TO FREIGHT MOBILITY

Freight transportation raises a num-ber of complex questions for sustain-able mobility. The movement offreight contributes greatly to manyof the problems associated withmobility — fatalities, air pollution,environmental degradation, conges-tion, and noise. Yet freight is abso-lutely essential for modern life. In acrisis, most citizens could reduce theamount they drive or fly and stillconduct their lives. Modern societiescould not function without regulardeliveries of food and fuel and dis-posal of wastes. The old cry of therailroad men that “The freight mustget through!” remains essentiallytrue. Because of the importantnature of freight, and the volume ofgoods transported, the operationalsustainability of the freight system isa paramount concern.

Yet the operations of the freight sys-tem impose increasing burdens onthe social, environmental, and eco-nomic fabrics of society. Each link inthe transportation network carriesindividual costs and benefits, depend-

ing on its capacity and characteristics.Ocean tankers are silent and invisibleto the majority of ordinary citizens,yet they generate air pollution. Trucksare the crucial beginning and endlinks in most freight transportation.Their ubiquity makes them the mostvisible and vexing elements of thecongestion conundrum, and the mostdangerous to their operators and toother drivers. Airplanes are thefastest, and also the loudest links inthe system. Rail and barge are themost energy-efficient means offreight transport, and contribute theleast to noise and congestion. Yetbecause they must operate on fixedroutes, transport by rail and barge isdeclining worldwide. Three enormousnational rail systems, those of Russia,China, and India, have barely begunto rationalize their passenger andfreight operations and adjust to com-petition from trucks. The transitionaway from rail in any of those nationswill mean painful adjustments for mil-lions of workers, and expensive infras-tructure investments for their fellowcitizens.

To complicate matters, freight facili-tates and highlights the complex,

mobility 2001


interdependent nature of the globaleconomy. One reason so many deliv-ery trucks clog the streets of cities isthat goods can now be shipped toand from almost any market in theworld — and they are, in increasingnumbers. Managing national andinternational trade and freightrequires the attention of governmentsat every level, from heads of statenegotiating global pacts on trade, tocounty councils regulating the hoursin which trucks can rumble throughtheir streets.

The challenge of freight transporta-tion is to maintain operational effi-ciency yet minimize the many delete-rious side effects of the system. Thismeans freight operators must navi-gate political interests, public con-cerns, hazards to safety and tranquili-ty, land-use limitations, environmen-tal problems, yet still make their pick-ups and deliveries on time. Becauseof the volume and importance offreight, it poses some of the mostdemanding and acute challenges tosustainable mobility.

Operational SustainabilityConcerns

Capacity and congestion.Capacity and congestion are generalproblems for trucking, especially inand around cities. Congestionreduces mobility and increases fuelconsumption and emissions.Congestion and the high costs ofhome delivery also threaten to limitWeb-based retail commerce, wherethe final delivery of products tohomes and small businesses can bevery costly. Alliances are developingamong the major express carriers andthe national postal services to dealwith this issue. Congestion is also aconcern at the regional level, espe-cially where choke points limit flowthrough a region.

Infrastructure availability.Ground- and air-based freight trans-portation face infrastructure limits inseveral regions of the globe. High-speed, high-capacity, limited-accesshighways are primarily available onlyin North America and Europe. As aconsequence, trucking costs are high-er in other parts of the world,although the opening of even a dirtroad provides access to new regions.

freight mobility


Cheap Freight Rates as the Key to the Global Economy

The costs of high-volume transportation between essentially any two ports in the

world are very low. For manufactured goods, costs are on the order of $0.01/tonne-

kilometer. For comparison, a 1000-kilometer movement of a container costs about

10 times this by truck and about 5 times this on the best rail intermodal service. The

modal comparison shows that ocean transport is cheaper than ground transport, but

fails to convey how cheap that service really is. Consider what it means to the con-

sumer for companies to be able to ship a container halfway around the world for,

say, $3,000. A container can hold about 20 tonnes of merchandise, so the cost per

tonne would be on the order of $150 and the cost per kilogram would be less than

$0.15. Compare these two figures to the cost of, say, a $40 book marketed in the US

by a European publisher or a $200 electronic device manufactured in Japan. The

value of other manufactured goods can be higher, about $20,000/tonne for automo-

biles, much more for computers and consumer electronics. Shipping products like

these internationally adds less than 1% to their cost, which is why international ship-

ping is growing so rapidly, and consumers can enjoy a global variety of goods and

products.

The successful transition from the tra-ditional to the modern heavy-haulrailroad system that has been madein the United States and Canada, hasalso occurred in portions of SouthAfrica, Australia, and Brazil. China andIndia also have extremely high-densi-ty rail networks, but they have notyet faced intensive highway competi-tion. Both these countries haveworked with the World Bank and oth-ers to develop strategic plans forincreasing system capacity andimproving rail efficiency. In EasternEurope, the rail system was designedfor an economy that once faced east,but now must now also face west. InAfrica, there never was an integratedcontinental rail system, as the rail net-

works were designed to link cities,mines, and regional economic activityto the ports.

Major projects may also be needed toincrease the connectivity of the sys-tem. In Latin America, for example,the Andes provide a formidable barri-er to transportation. Although thereare roads and railroads across themountains, these are difficult, low-capacity routes that would be inade-quate for major freight movements.Argentina and Chile are consideringconstruction of new highways or rail-ways over or through the Andes.Bolivia is evaluating the potential forwhat they call the “Interconnection,”

a new rail line that would link the rail-roads in the eastern and westernparts of the country.

The Panama Canal is operating nearcapacity and can no longer serve thelargest ships; an additional set oflocks will be needed to provide along-term solution. However, such aproject will require more water(which is periodically in short supplyalready) or a redesign of the lock sys-tem to allow reuse of water.

It is unclear whether there will be suf-ficient space within major metropoli-tan areas to sustain the growth trendsin freight transportation. Ports havelimited space, and there is strongcompetition for waterfront property.According to the World Bank(2001c), global port containerthroughput will reach 270 millionTEUs by 2005, 55% greater than1998 levels. This projected growthwill require between 200 and 300new container terminals. At the sametime, trends indicate a growing con-centration of traffic within a smallsegment of ports — a phenomenonstrengthened by the growth in trans-shipment (akin to airport hubs in theairline hub and spoke system). Theresult is an increase in port conges-tion, both on the sea-to-land side aswell as on the land side, as space forunloading, storing, and ultimately,transporting freight by land to itsfinal destination becomes increasinglyscarce. The trend toward larger shipswill only exacerbate this problem, aswell as continue to increase pressuresfor dredging port sea bottoms toallow for deeper berths. The greatestproblems lie in the megacities in thedeveloping world, where there is littlehistory in dealing with large andsophisticated freight transportation,and where present land-use patternsand real estate development cannotaccommodate intermodal freight.

System concerns: secure traderoutes and stable financial mar-kets. Security of trade routes hasbeen an essential national securityconcern since ancient times. Indeed,

mobility 2001


Timescales of Change

In economics and in transportation, theoretical analyses often refer to systems in

which price mechanisms cause an equilibrium between supply and demand. The

concept of an equilibrium is perhaps worthwhile for educational purposes, as it

allows very elegant theories to be postulated. Nevertheless, we must recognize that

in economics, as in the physical sciences, the timescale is important. Though systems

might ultimately reach equilibrium, this can take a long time.

With transportation systems, the timescale for changes must be measured in decades

(or centuries) for some systems, while other systems can be changed quite quickly.

New vehicle technology can be introduced in a matter of months or years, but the

new vehicles themselves will likely be introduced slowly as older vehicles wear out or

as demand justifies fleet expansion. A motor carrier might change over its entire fleet

of tractors in 5 to 10 years, but a railroad will take 20 years or more to change over

its fleet of locomotives or freight cars. Public outcry and strict legislation, such as the

US Oil Pollution Act of 1990, passed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster,

can hasten change, but such instances are rare. Adjustments in the route structure

are much slower; it is not difficult to add or delete a few links in the network or to

upgrade a few terminals, but it takes generations to adjust the nature of the net-

work. The major transportation routes may last, in one form or another, for hundreds

of years.

Railroad rationalization is an example of a process that requires a long time to reach

equilibrium. In the United States and Canada, the railroads took approximately 70

years (beginning in about 1925, when the network reached its route-mile peak) to

rationalize their networks from what was suitable when rail was dominant for both

freight and passenger to what is appropriate for a modern heavy-haul railroad devot-

ed to freight transportation. This sounds like a long time, but the transition has not

yet taken place on a large scale anywhere else in the world.

The freight systems in China and India are a good example. In these large countries,

the railroads still handle vast amounts of passengers and freight. Powerful political

forces would like to see the railroads maintain their dominant positions and continue

to employ millions of laborers; however, these countries have yet to deal with the

capabilities of motor carriers. It is one thing for the railroads to handle vast amounts

of freight because there are no options; it is another for the railroads to handle the

freight because they are in fact the best option. As China and India plan for the

future, they must consider not only the best transportation systems, but also the

financial means to pay for their development, and the political obstacles to change.

much of history can be interpreted ascompetition for new markets, newsources of supply, and secure traderoutes. Since the conclusion of WorldWar II, there have been few sustainedthreats to international shipping lanesand air freight.

Stable, well-managed financial mar-kets are also important for thesmooth flow of freight. Trade flour-ished hundreds of years ago withoutthe benefit of computers or electronicbanking. Trouble in the financial mar-kets could easily disrupt growth andreduce freight transportation, but thecapability of financial institutions todeal with international shipments willbe easy to sustain.

Economic Sustainability

The key concerns regarding econom-ic sustainability are whether freightcosts will remain low enough fornational and international trade tocontinue to prosper, and whetherfreight transportation will remain suf-ficiently mobile to allow continuedgrowth, development, and improve-ment in the quality of life worldwide.

Freight transportation has enjoyedtremendous productivity growth overthe last 50 years. Better roads, betterrailroads, larger vehicles and termi-nals, improved communications andcontrol, and cheap oil helped reducetransport costs, despite increases inthe costs of materials and labor. Inmany regions and markets the pro-ductivity gains and low prices are atribute to the vigor of free markets;freight transportation is one of themost competitive industries, with thelowest margins in the world. Howlong these trends can continue isuncertain. Symptoms of potentiallong-term problems include risingfuel prices, public antagonism tovery large trucks, the difficulty inhandling the largest ships at mostports, and the driver shortages expe-rienced in the United States over thelast 10 years.

Throughout much of the world, greateconomies remain to be achievedthrough the development of modernhighways, railways, ports, and inter-modal terminals. Fuel availability andcost are ongoing concerns. Laborshortages are a growing problem inthe developed world, although forthe foreseeable future, driving a truckwill continue to be a relatively high-paying job in the developing world.

Financing major infrastructure pro-jects is a challenge everywhere.Theory suggests that if the service isworthwhile and provides economicbenefits, then somehow these eco-nomic benefits can and will betapped to finance the service.

However, a common problem is thatcarriers cannot afford to expand,because of competitive forces thatkeep rates low. Where this is true, aslong as the low rates translate intobroad public benefits, then the pub-lic and their governments need tofind a way to deal with the financingproblem.

Addressing OperationalSustainability Concerns

For the most part, the freight systemis driven by cost, not by the utility ofindividuals. If costs change, then thesystem adjusts. Increases in fuel costs,taxes for emissions, restrictions onland use, and requirements for noise

freight mobility


Freight’s “Public Relations” Problems

Freight transportation and regional economic activity are generally intertwined —

and the relationships are easily understood at a local level. The employees of the

paper mill know the importance of the trucks and railroads that deliver pulpwood

and chemicals and pick up the newsprint and paper products. The workers, their

neighbors, and their friends and relatives live with the noise of the local freight yard,

the large trucks lumbering through their streets, just as they live with the smell of

the paper mill. As the developed world becomes less dependent upon manufactur-

ing and extractive industries, however, fewer people are financially dependent on,

and tolerant of, the activities that generate the freight traffic. Moreover, people tend

to view the supermarket and the mall as the source of the goods that they buy —

they do not make a clear connection between the truck traffic and the goods they

acquire.

As cities develop, and particularly as they shift from manufacturing to information

economies, their residents are less tolerant of the disruptions that result from freight

operations. The most widespread conflict is related to the treatment of trucks in traf-

fic congestion. Capacity and congestion are general problems for trucking, especial-

ly in and around cities. Congestion reduces mobility and increases fuel consumption

and emissions. Congestion and high costs of home delivery could also limit Web-

based retail commerce, where the final delivery of products to homes and small busi-

nesses can be very costly. Alliances are developing among the major express carriers

and the national postal services to deal with this issue. Congestion is also a concern

at the regional level, especially where choke points limit flow through a region.

Cities across the world — from New Delhi to New York City — impose restrictions on

truck activity, including prohibitions of large trucks and the limiting of truck activity

to certain zones or to off-peak times. There are many more automobile drivers than

truckers, and as the link between personal well-being and local freight becomes less

appreciated, the initial political pressure is to restrain truck traffic, without consider-

ing the consequences to local economies and personal freight distribution. Around

major intercity freight facilities, truck traffic may be perceived as a nuisance, particu-

larly as residential areas expand and come into closer contact with the freight termi-

nals. Noise, aesthetics, and night lights all become greater concerns. Similarly, ports

around the world are under great pressure to release land for residential or office

development. Areas once covered by port facilities, rail yards, and warehouses are

now viewed as prime spots for expanding the real estate development in major ports

around the world.

control will change the relative costsof the system and the system will,over time, adjust. The freight will stillmove, possibly at a higher cost.

Because of the size of the vehicles and — compared to automobiles — the relatively small number of vehi-cles, conversion to other energysources is an option. Railroads origi-nally ran on wood or coal, and ifpressed, could do so again, eitherthrough conversion to coal- or wood-fired locomotives or through electrifi-cation. Depending on the energysource and the technology used inthe power plant, electrification mightor might not help with emissions.Trucks can also be converted to runon alternative fuels, although theexpense could be quite high. Both

fuel efficiency and emission levels canbe improved through replacement ofthe older, most inefficient vehicles.

Productivity improvements infreight transportation. Techno-logical improvements such as stream-lining trucks to minimize air resis-tance, maintaining proper tire pres-sure, and keeping the engine in tune,help fuel efficiency somewhat,though not as much as operationalimprovements that minimize emptymiles and maximize the use of atruck’s cargo space.Historically, improvements in freightmobility occurred for three reasons:

● Government and, to a lesserextent, private investments intransport infrastructure resulted

in more extensive networks thatprovided more direct routescapable of handling larger vehi-cles moving more safely atfaster speeds.

● Technological innovations forvehicles and rights-of-wayresulted in faster, cheaper,more reliable, and safer trans-port of larger and more diverseshipments.

● Institutional, regulatory, andpolitical innovations improvedthe availability, service, safety,security, and cost of freighttransportation.

Technological innovation made rail-roads possible, and support fromgovernments and private investorscreated extensive networks.Regulatory and institutional develop-ments allowed shipments to moveacross several systems, whether thosesystems were owned by differentcompanies competing within thesame region (the case in NorthAmerica) or spanned several countries(the case in Europe). Likewise, pavedroads and diesel engines make trucktransportation possible, but govern-ment support and investment is nec-essary to create national and interna-tional highway networks capable ofhandling heavy trucks. Regulatory,institutional, and political innovationsare needed to deal with the complexissues related to international truckshipments. Wherever trucks are usedfor international shipments, there areconcerns about driver qualifications,truck condition, truck size andweight, empty backhauls, and otherissues. These concerns have little todo with the technology or the net-work, but they must be dealt with tomaintain or enhance mobility. TheEuropean Union’s efforts to dismantlethe regulatory hurdles to freightmovement between its memberstates is probably the most importantcurrent example of deregulation. Thelessons that the EU learns from lower-ing barriers to the free and rapidmovement of freight will be closelywatched.

mobility 2001


When Is a Truck “Too Large”?

In North America, regulations governing size and weight limits for trucks remain a

source of lively, often virulent debate. Truckers argue that larger trucks are more fuel-

efficient (in tonne-kilometers per liter of fuel) and more economical than smaller

trucks. Further, they argue that fewer larger trucks would relieve congestion on busy

urban highways. However, strong countervailing arguments exist.

First, there are safety concerns. The public is concerned about the safety of large

trucks — especially trucks pulling multiple trailers — and highways where the num-

ber of trucks impedes freedom of movement for automobiles. In some locations at

certain times of the day, trucks fill up an entire lane (or more) on major highways,

making it particularly difficult for some drivers to enter or exit the highway. Trucks

pulling multiple trailers can also have stability problems. In response, the motor carri-

er industry argues that larger trucks operated by experienced drivers on appropriate

infrastructure at reasonable speeds are no riskier per truck-kilometer and are less risky

per tonne-kilometer than a greater number of smaller trucks.

The potential damage to pavement and bridges from heavy trucks is another con-

cern, and a very complicated one. Maintenance costs and the physical load limits on

a roadway are a function of its initial design, the quality of materials used, and the

quality of the maintenance. Poorly designed roads can never survive heavy loads, nor

can poorly maintained roads; however, better roads with stronger bridges can han-

dle heavier trucks, especially when the trucks are designed with adequate axles and

large enough tires to limit the stress on pavement and bridges. Many analysts argue

that the economic and environmental advantages of large trucks are very consider-

able, so that it is well worth building roads and bridges that are sufficiently strong to

carry heavy loads.

In summary, technologically it is possible to design highways to handle larger and

heavier trucks, but it is not as clear whether the institutional case for heavier trucks

will be won. At present, indications are that it will be easier to consider special truck

lanes, or designs that allow larger and heavier trucks, when new highways are being

developed rather than in cases where a well-developed highway link already exists.

In the context of environmental andpolitical sustainability, the same threeforces are relevant. Technology canimprove fuel efficiency, reduce emis-sions, and extend the life of materials.Better infrastructure facilitates opera-tions that are inherently more fuel-efficient, result in fewer emissions,and reduce wear and tear on bothvehicles and the roadways. Legal andregulatory guidelines must balancethe environmental and economic

concerns, and political activity will ofcourse play a role in this.

Privatization and deregulationof the railroad industry. The pri-vatization and deregulation of rail-roads in the United Kingdom,Argentina, and the United Stateshave received a large amount ofattention in the past 20 years. Thisreport is not the forum to debate thesuccess of those regulatory changes,and both sides still wage a vigorousdebate. However, it does seem clearthat the declining rail market sharesrelate much more to fundamentalchanges in the freight market — i.e.,the clear advantages of trucks for somany shipments — than they do toinadequacies of regulation or of man-agement. A more important, longer-term question is how to developmore systems around the world thatprovide efficient services in the mar-ket segments best served by rail:

● High-density, heavy-haulfreight operations for bulkcommodities.

● Containerized intermodal ser-vices for general merchandisefreight.

● Specialized commodities likeautomobiles.

Efforts to boost the long-term viabili-ty of rail face many obstacles, not theleast of which is the paucity of landto develop large intermodal facilitiesin and around cities, especially portcities. The operational sustainability ofthe system again clashes with issuesof economic and social sustainability.Buying and developing land for inter-modal facilities is a substantial invest-ment of financial and political capital.Public assistance is generally neededto claim land by eminent domain andmake the necessary infrastructureinvestments. Citizens in many citiesresist new freight facilities because ofthe air pollution, noise, and conges-tion they generate. Opponents cancite a variety of other land uses thatpay more visible dividends to citydwellers than freight facilities.

Operational Sustainability: KeyIssues and Challenges

From this overview of freight mobili-ty, we can identify the followingissues and challenges:

● Can we maintain urban andregional freight mobility inareas of increasing congestion?To what extent will politicalpressure favor auto over truckmobility? Can we design betterways to move freight in cities?A starting point would be tobuild cleaner and more fuel-effi-cient trucks for urban areas.

● How can we promote rational-ization of the rail industry toreflect a proper balancebetween and coordinationamong rail and trucking opera-tions? One step would be tosecure adequate amounts ofland and build better inter-modal systems for moving con-tainers and trailers.

● We need to build more mod-ern, heavy-haul rail corridors,and to develop modern high-way systems that allow effectiveuse of heavy trucks, perhaps byisolating trucks in their ownlanes or highways. Both stepswould reduce highway conges-tion and increase the safety andcomfort of auto drivers.

These issues are large and complex.Their resolution would require sub-stantial amounts of financial andpolitical capital, and involve a greatdeal of institutional and public effort.Solutions would also have substantialimpacts on the surrounding socialand natural environments. Theseimpacts are the subject of our nextsection.

Environmental and SocialConcerns Related to FreightTransport

Energy use and CO2 emissions.Freight is the “elephant in the cor-ner” in energy-use and carbon-emis-sions debates. Overlooked in most

freight mobility


Freight andInformationTechnology

“Intelligent Transportation

Systems” (ITS) are technologies

aimed at improving traffic man-

agement and coordination

among providers and users of

highway and intermodal trans-

portation. ITS includes numerous

applications that improve certain

aspects of highway performance,

e.g., automatic monitoring of

traffic, quicker response to acci-

dents and other emergencies,

automated toll collection, weigh-

in-motion scales for heavy trucks,

and expedited customs proce-

dures. For freight, ITS offers some

hope of reducing congestion in

cities and administration delays

on highways. While the technolo-

gies have yet to play a major role

in reducing congestion, the state

of the art is advancing rapidly.

The Internet is becoming a critical

factor for freight transportation.

An obvious example is the rise in

package deliveries due to online

shopping. But more importantly,

by providing new capabilities for

exchanging data, facilitating busi-

ness-to-business exchanges, and

hosting supply-chain and inven-

tory-management programs, the

Internet serves as a platform for

new types of business transac-

tions that will affect freight flows,

prices of commodities, and prices

for transportation. These changes

will improve the efficiency of the

markets and reduce costs both

for commodities and for trans-

portation.

public discussions, freight transporta-tion is responsible for 43% of bothitems. Outside the OECD, trucks con-sume twice as much energy as light-duty and passenger vehicles (UN2000). And the amount of freightthat is carried on rail and domesticwaterborne transport, the two meansof freight transportation that use theleast energy, is steadily decliningworldwide. Overall, ocean freightaccounts for approximately 6% oftransportation fuel use and transport-related carbon-dioxide emissions.

Energy use in the freight industry isdriven by the combined effect of twostrong economic forces: cutting costsand increasing speeds. Reduction intransport cost is the dominant consid-eration for the vast majority of thetonnage that is shipped. The mostpowerful technological trend in costreduction is the growth of larger,more efficient vehicles that are man-aged more effectively over wider net-works. Per unit of freight carried, larg-er vehicles are inherently cheaper,lighter, and more energy-efficient.With larger vehicles, crew costsdecline, line and terminal capacityincreases, and the number of tripsrequired to move the same volume offreight declines. This is true bothacross modes — trains have largercapacities and are more fuel-efficientthan trucks, and barges more so thaneither — and for alternative choicesavailable within a single mode.

Larger trucks are significantly moreenergy-efficient than smaller trucks,and the emergence of bigger trucks isclear, at least on American highways.Between 1977 and 1992, the largesttrucks (Class 8 trucks, with averagegross vehicle weights of more than15,000 kilograms) grew from 29% to41% of the total US medium andheavy truck fleets. And Class 8 trucksused 74% of the fuel used by trucksin Classes 3-8 (WEC 1998). The impe-tus to use larger vehicles is strong:although the main intent is not nec-essarily to reduce energy costs, that isthe result. The long-term trend is toreduce the energy requirements per

ton transported, for each mode andfor each type of service.

Significant countervailing forces alsoexist, however. For more highly val-ued commodities, trip time and relia-bility are critical. The desire for speed,in particular, is driven by the possibili-ty of reaching new markets for per-ishables, reducing inventory costs forhighly valued commodities, and sim-plifying supply chains. This forcetends to shift some freight towardsmaller, more frequent shipmentsusing the faster modes, from barge torail, from rail to truck, from largetrucks to small trucks, and from sur-face transport to air freight. Unlikethe forces promoting cost reduction,this trend increases energy consump-tion and dependence upon oil.

These opposing trends are both evi-dent today. Improvements in enginesand in vehicle design have reducedfuel consumption in trucks. Largetractor-trailer units hauling 20 tonnesof freight typically consume 40 to 50liters per hundred kilometers of dieselfuel, and the best trucks may con-sume 30 to 35 liters per hundred kilo-meters. The use of larger, high-adhe-sion locomotives greatly improvedfuel economy for heavy-haul rail-roads. At present, freight moving inlarge trucks, trains, barges, or shipsdoes not consume a great deal ofenergy per tonne-kilometer shipped,because large, fully loaded, wellmaintained vehicles are reasonablyfuel efficient. At the same time, thegains in efficiency are more than off-set in aggregate by growth indemand and the shift to more ener-gy-intensive modes. The result is anincreased use of energy in freighttransport.

At the urban and regional levels, theuse of energy by freight varies withthe nature of the demand and withgeography and street patterns. Forinstance, choosing the appropriatesize of truck for local movementsoften involves a trade-off betweenenergy consumption and congestion:a medium-sized truck is likely to use

less fuel and road space than two orthree smaller trucks but is also lessmaneuverable. The location of ware-houses, the location and size of truckterminals, and the number of specificsites that require service, all affect thenature of trucks that will be used. Asthe number of sites to be visitedincreases, multiple smaller trucks willbe required, as there may not be timefor a single larger truck to make allthe deliveries. Thus, concentration ofretail outlets allows larger trucks tomake deliveries and reduces the truckmovements within a region. In a soci-ety in which most people have auto-mobiles, the burden of local freightdistribution is shifted from the freightcarriers using small trucks to con-sumers driving their cars.

Essentially, freight moves on systemsthat offer the most appropriate mixof speed and cost. Attempts to forceor encourage greater use of the moreenergy-efficient modes will fail if thetotal logistics costs and businessopportunities truly favor faster trans-port. When options that are more

mobility 2001


Energy Use of OceanFreight

In ocean shipping, vessel speed

capability trends have mirrored

trends in fuel prices, since, as is

true for other vehicles, higher

speed requires more fuel. For con-

tainer ships, from the 1970s

through the mid-1980s, as fuel

prices generally increased, average

speed of new vessels declined.

From the mid-1980s onward,

speeds have steadily increased

(Drewry 1999) — a trend likely

mirrored for other ship types. The

higher speeds offer greater sched-

ule flexibility — in addition, the

larger ships require faster speeds

to make up for the increased port

time these ships require. The

smallest container ships (1,000 to

1,200 tonnes) average between

36 to 51 tonnes of fuel per day,

while the larger ones (2,900 to

3,100 tonnes) consume between

74 and 157 tonnes of fuel per day

(Drewry 1999).

energy-efficient can also compete ona cost or service basis, however, themarket will respond quickly. A goodexample is the rapid growth in the

use of double-stack container trains inNorth America; these efficient rail ser-vices attract traffic directly from themotor carriers because their cost is

very attractive and their serviceacceptable.

Air-quality impacts. The variousfreight modes have significantly dif-ferent impacts on the local environ-ment. Data from the United States(Figure 6-9) suggest that per unit offreight moved, trucks emit muchmore hydrocarbon, CO, or NOx thaneither trains or barges. Once suitablechannels exist, barges are significantlycleaner than either trains or trucks.

In general, heavy trucks account for alarge share of certain elements of airpollution. Figure 6-10 illustratesresults from a 1987 study of emis-sions in the Federal Republic ofGermany. The total emissions in eachcategory are shown as an index of100. The middle bar in each clustershows the contribution from traffic,including heavy vehicles (trucks andbuses), automobiles, and light trucks.Transport is the major source forNOx, hydrocarbons, and carbonmonoxide. Heavy vehicles are mostimportant in terms of NOx and soot,accounting for close to 20% of thetotal emissions in each case. Newertrucks are cleaner, but a continuingproblem is that many very old, poorlymaintained trucks remain in service.Estimates from the American TruckingAssociation suggest that diesel-oper-ated heavy-duty trucks and buseswere responsible for 18.5% of all USNOx emissions from mobile sourcesand for 27.5% of other particulateoxide emissions from mobile sources(ATA 1998).

The effects of trucks are particularlysevere in urban environments.Analysis of air quality in Mexico Cityindicates that trucks, though consti-tuting just over 10% of the vehiclefleet (Zegras et al. 2000), contributebetween 35% (for carbon monoxide)and 81% (for PM10) of all transport-related pollutants. (See Table 6-2).

In the United States, theEnvironmental Protection Agencyrecently released rules for implement-

freight mobility


How Much Energy Does it Take to Get Cereal to the Breakfast Table?

Consider the energy consumed by freight transportation related to producing and

delivering boxes of breakfast cereal to families in a developed world city. For simplici-

ty, assume that there are three main freight movements between the farm, the local

grain elevator, the production plant, and the supermarket. We can estimate the fuel

consumed by each leg of the move using typical trip lengths, vehicles, and fuel effi-

ciency:

Movement of grain in 10-tonne truckloads from the farm to a local grain eleva-

tor (50 km @ 3.4 km per liter for the truck => 15 liters for the trip or 1.5 liters

per tonne).

Movement of the grain in 90-tonne hopper cars from the grain elevator to a

production facility (750 km @ 5 liters/1000 net tonne-kilometers => 3.9 liters

per tonne).

Movement of the grain in 20-tonne truckloads from the production plant 75

kilometers to a local supermarket (75 km @ 2.1 km per liter => 1.8 liters per

tonne).

If we assume that it takes a tonne of grain to make 2000 boxes of cereal and that

grain is in fact the only component of the cereal, i.e. no sugar and no preservatives,

we find that it will take about 7 liters of fuel to get 2000 boxes of cereal to the

supermarket. Since cereal sells for about $3 per box, the entire shipment is worth

$6,000 and the cost of the fuel is inconsequential, whether the cost is $0.5 or $3 per

liter (or more).

After the cereal is delivered to the supermarket, many individual shoppers will buy it

and bring it home. If 1,000 people go shopping by car, traveling an average

roundtrip distance of six kilometers to the supermarket, and if they each buy two

boxes of cereal and the cereal accounts for only 5% of what they buy, we can also

estimate the fuel that they use to bring the cereal home:

Bring the cereal home from the supermarket (1000 6-kilometer roundtrips at

8.5 km per liter => 6000 automobile-kilometers and 700 liters of fuel con-

sumed, of which 35 liters are attributable to the cereal).

In this simplified case, the amount of fuel used by consumers in going to the store to

pick up the groceries is five times as great as the fuel consumed by trucks and trains

to get the groceries to the store. The 2000 boxes of cereal in this example required

the equivalent of just 5 kilometers of travel in the farmers’ trucks, 8.3 kilometers in

the railroad’s covered hopper, and 3.8 kilometers in the delivery truck, but 300 kilo-

meters in the shoppers’ automobiles. The forces that created the supermarket have

created an extremely efficient system for moving goods to the stores, but at the time

required an increase in personal travel to buy the goods.

This example could be repeated for countless commodities, from clothing to kitchen

supplies to consumer electronics. Economies of scale in production allow mass pro-

duction and national or global distribution that produce great savings for customers.

Concentration of retail outlets eliminates the neighborhood stores, but allows further

economies in distribution and storage for the retailer and access to a wider variety of

products for the consumer. We are less likely to walk to the neighborhood markets,

even if we have them, and we are more likely to drive to the mall, where we can buy

whatever we want. Energy consumption and emissions related to freight transporta-

tion in most urban areas may be dominated by how we make our grocery trips.

mobility 2001


ing more stringent controls for emis-sions from heavy-duty vehicles. Thenew standard calls for a 50% reduc-tion in nitrous oxides, along withreductions in hydrocarbons fromdiesel trucks and buses. The EPA esti-mates the new standards will increasethe purchase price of a truck by $803(US EPA 2000b).

Big ships are more energy-efficientthan trucks or trains, but they are alsoleading emitters of nitrogen, sulfurdioxide, and diesel particulate. Oiltankers, container and cargo carriers,and cruise ships typically run onbunker oil, the dirtiest and leastexpensive form of fuel. Bunker oil, theresidue of high-grade fuels, containshigh concentrations of toxic com-pounds banned from use in manyother industries. The fuel is 5% sulfurand contains up to 5,000 times moresulfur than diesel fuel. According tothe US Environmental ProtectionAgency, large ocean vessels emit273,000 tons of nitrogen oxide peryear in the United States alone.

Overall, shipping contribution to totalemissions remains relatively low — anestimated 4% to 6% of sulfur emis-sions (4.1 to 5.9 million tonnes peryear), 7% to 14% of global nitrogenoxide emission (4.5 to 9 milliontonnes per year), 1% to 3% of CFCs(2,700 to 5,400 tonnes), and 10%(272 to 363 tonnes) of halon emis-sions (IMO 1998b; Corbett andFischbeck 1997). However, in 1997 anew Annex (VI) to MARPOL on air

pollution prevention was added, par-tially due to increasing concern aboutemissions close to population centers(i.e., at ports) and in area’s of denseship traffic (i.e., the English Channel,the South China Sea, and the Strait ofMalacca). When it comes into force,Annex VI will set limits on sulfur andnitrogen oxide emissions (including4.5% m/m on the sulfur content offuel oil) and prohibit the deliberaterelease of ozone-depleting sub-stances. The Annex also allows for theestablishment of special “SOxEmission Control Areas” where thesulfur content of fuel oil used onships must not exceed 1.5% m/m(alternatively, ships may adopt othertechnologies to limit SOx emissions).Currently, the protocol designates theBaltic Sea Area as a SOx EmissionControl Area.

Social and environmental dis-ruption to communities. Theexpansion of highway or railway net-works can bring substantial econom-ic opportunities to a region. Yet theyalso cause significant disruptions ofnatural and social environments. Thedisruptions vary in effect and magni-tude depending on the previous con-dition of the region. The expansionof a highway around an alreadybustling city will have much lesseffect than building a new highwaythrough a formerly pristine rain for-est. Construction of a highwayinevitably involves degradation anddivision of ecosystems, runoff, andother pollutants, and the resultingtraffic produces substantial amounts

of noise and air pollution. Highwaysand railways not only facilitate eco-nomic development at their endpoints, but also lead to peripheraleconomic development along theirfringes, which can have further dele-terious effects on the environment.

Similarly, human populations differ intheir ability to absorb and managethe arrival of traffic and freight.Communities with agriculture andretail businesses may welcome newroads and rail lines, and the opportu-nities they offer to access new marketsand new products. Communities thatare more nomadic, or that survive bysubsistence farming, may opposefreight infrastructure for the disrup-tion it brings to their ecosystems.

An issue of considerable complexity isthe role of freight in extractive indus-tries that do little to add enduringvalue to the regions that host them.Freight transportation is not thecause of these activities, but it doesenable them to exist. Examplesinclude Africa, which has never had atranscontinental rail system. Rather,railroads developed to serve minesand other inland economic endeavorsand deliver their products to oceanports. Similarly, Western timber, min-ing, and energy companies devel-oped freight roads into the rainforests of Latin America andIndonesia to extract the valuableresources in those regions. Theseindustries and the freight infrastruc-ture they build can cause tremendous

freight mobility


Table 6-2. Transport contribution to total emissions — by vehicle type in Mexico City (1996)

PM10 SO2 CO NOx VOCs

Cars and pickups 2.3% 7.8% 43.9% 19.6% 12.7%

Colectivos 0.2% 1.0% 10.7% 3.7% 3.3%

Taxis 0.5% 1.8% 10.2% 4.6% 2.9%

Buses 1.8% 0.4% 0.2% 3.2% 0.3%

Trucks 20.8% 9.2% 34.3% 46.3% 13.5%

Transport share of total 25.7% 20.2% 99.3% 77.3% 32.8%

Trucks as % of total transport

81%

46%

35%

60%

41%

Source: CAM (1999).

disruptions to the natural and socialenvironments they enter. Moreover, itis unclear what long-term value orreward the majority of the inhabitantsof those regions reap from hostingthese activities, all of which are non-renewable and face resource deple-tion end dates. Some industries man-age the social and environmentalimpacts of their operations betterthan others. Unfortunately, the poorlymanaged ones generate the mostattention and have the greatest effecton public opinion regarding futureoperations.

Building infrastructure in developingregions often has unintended effectsand consequences. For instance, aroad built to accommodate timbercompanies may open a region tosmall farmers or ranchers who fre-quently engage in unsustainable agri-cultural practices.

As a result of such complex, oftenunintended consequences, plans fornew transportation networks inremote regions often trade off likelyeconomic benefits versus the envi-

ronmental effects of (1) constructionof the new link, (2) disruption ordestruction of particularly importantenvironments, (3) the fragmentationof the natural environment, and (4)the attraction of further develop-ment along the right-of-way. Thefirst three issues also arise with theconstruction of pipelines in remoteareas, where habitat destruction andinterference with species’ migrationpatterns are also concerns.

Environmental concerns relatedto domestic waterborne trans-port. Although barges on inlandwaterways are very fuel-efficient andlow-emission modes of freight trans-port, the engineering projectsrequired to make a river navigableand swift for commercial barges —the dredging and dams, levees, andlocks — all have disruptive effects ona river’s ecosystem and species.Perhaps the most notable effect is thateliminating thousands of acres of wet-lands and marshes along a river’s bankcan make a river flow faster andstraighter, but also leave the sur-rounding areas vulnerable to flooding.

Environmental concerns relatedto ocean shipping. Ocean shippingraises some of the same concerns asinland navigation: to facilitate theloading and unloading of large ships,ports often need to be dredged, caus-ing significant disruption of the ambi-ent ecosystem. However, the mosthigh-profile and visible environmentalconcerns related to ocean shippingare the possibility of oil tanker acci-dents in the ocean.

The ultimate environmental impactsof shipping revolve around the majortrade networks, which themselvesoverlay across a variety of ecosystems(marine and coastal). The environ-mental risk depends on the ecosys-tem — i.e., polar/subpolar, temper-ate, tropical/subtropical. For example,oil does not easily break down inpolar areas or in fragile tropical envi-ronments (i.e., coastal mangroves,coral reefs), while in temperate areas —with greater variability in weather —the problem is less severe. The overallrisk is proportional to traffic densityand is thus highest in places like thesouthern North Sea and in approach-es to major ports (Smith 1995).

The high-profile Torrey Canyon disas-ter, which spilled 120,000 barrels ofoil into the seas off the British coast in1967, created the momentum for thefirst major international convention todeal with shipping’s environmentalproblems. By 1973, the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) adopt-ed the International Convention forthe Prevention of Pollution fromShips, which was modified by proto-col in 1978 and today is commonlyknown as MARPOL 73/78. As addi-tional environmental concerns fromshipping have become apparentMARPOL has been amended throughseveral annexes, some of which arenot yet in force (annexes come intoforce when they have been acceptedby at least 15 states accounting fornot less than 50% of world merchantshipping tonnage).

While major oil spills continue to gar-ner the most attention related to oil

mobility 2001


Freight and Environmental Trade-offs

Understanding the sustainability concerns related to freight transport requires an

examination of trade-offs between different kinds of environmental and social

disruption.

For instance, large commercial barges are among the most energy-efficient forms of

transportation, and are widely favored for their ability to move large commodity

shipments off roads and highways, thus reducing congestion, air pollution, and

potential for accidents and noise. Nonetheless, their use can cause damage to the

rivers and canals they travel, and in particular, they often require extremely disrup-

tive damming and dredging operations in order to make waterways navigable.

Similarly, if a freight link is being added to a pristine virgin environment, air transport —

being completely localized in its impact — can be much less disruptive to the local envi-

ronment than a road or railroad. However, air is much more expensive and also

much less energy-efficient. There are similar trade-offs in the choice of materials. For

instance, rail ties treated with creosote cannot be recycled. One suggested alterna-

tive is the use of tropical hardwoods used to make very durable ties, avoiding the use

of creosote. However, that promotes logging in tropical rain forests, which is often

not an acceptable alternative.

Clearly, there are also important trade-offs with efficiency. Barges are slower than

trains, and trains are slower than trucks. Trucks are the most energy-intensive of the

three alternatives as well as the most polluting. They are also the most flexible, how-

ever, and offer a level of service significantly superior to that of trains and barges for

the movement of many manufactured goods.

pollution in the seas, the most com-mon source of oil pollution is duringnormal operations — as much as92% of oil that enters the sea doesso as a result of cleaning of cargoresidues and during loading and dis-charge (IMO 1998a). Nonetheless,the tragedy of major oil spills due totanker accidents continues to be aconcern. The current timetable tar-gets the elimination of most single-hull oil tankers by 2015; since 1996,all new oil tankers must be built withdouble hulls. Evidence suggests sig-nificant progress already. The num-ber of major oil spills fell from 36recorded in 1979 to an average ofaround eight per year in the 1980s.In 1994, approximately 71,000tonnes of oil spilled into the sea dueto tanker accidents — 60% of theaverage (IMO 1996).

Concerning water pollution, the IMO(1997) estimates that ships and mar-itime transportation accounts forabout 22% of the wastes dumpedinto the sea each year. Ship dumpingcan have considerable local impacts,since such activity is typically concen-trated in specific marine areas of hightransit.

Of growing concern is the transportof ballast water (used to provide bal-ance for empty vessels). An estimated11 billion tonnes of ballast water istransferred around the world eachyear, carrying at any one time some4,500 marine species and introducinga marine species to a new environ-ment every nine weeks (Pughiuc2001). The IMO is currently draftingregulations covering ballast water aswell as addressing the use of anti-fouling paints on ship hulls.

Another major environmental effectarises from dredging, the majority ofwhich occurs to keep harbors, rivers,and other waterways open for pas-sage. Dredging accounts for some80% to 90% of all material dumped atsea, and approximately 10% ofdredged material contains heavy con-centrations of toxic metals, petroleumcompounds, and pesticides (IMO

1997). Noise pollution related to mar-itime activity is also a concern.Shipping is the largest source of low-frequency, underwater noise, withnoise levels increasing proportional toship size, speed, and load. On busysea lanes, continuous noise levels canbe serious, and dredging can also bean important noise source. The ulti-mate ecosystem and species effectsare not well known, however (Dotingaand Elferink 2000). The IMO has notapparently been active on this front,and there are not widespread experi-ences with options to address aquaticnoise acoustic pollution. One option inparticularly sensitive areas is the estab-lishment of marine protected areas(MPAs) — wholly or partially banningnavigation from certain areas —although history has seen that free-dom of navigation has received priori-ty over environmental concerns in theuse of MPAs (Spadi 2001).

For ports and harbors, recent researchsuggests that the priority issues formanagement have been water quality,dredging, port development, dust,and noise (Wooldridge et al. 1999).As noted above in connection withthe discussion of infrastructure issues,competition for alternative uses ofland in urban-area ports will certainlybe a major issue with ongoing growthin shipping; for the development ofnew ports, concerns over ecosystemeffects will also prove to be a point ofserious contention (see, for example,Kendra 1997).

Safety. The transportation of freightis associated with a variety of safetyconcerns. For example, althoughshipping safety has certainlyincreased over time, accidents, partic-ularly sinkings, continue to pose athreat to those working on ships. Anestimated 1,100 lives are lost at seaeach year due to maritime disasters,with a comparable number dyingdue to other causes (i.e., on-boardaccidents, etc.) (Nielsen and Roberts1999). The threat generally, but notalways, grows with the age of thefleet. For example, according to theIMO (1999), bulk carriers’ safetyrecord began deteriorating in the

1990s — from 1990 to the middle of1997, 99 bulk carriers sank, killing654 people. The age of ships, andsubsequent structural failure, particu-larly in heavy weather, is a majorcause. And, while regulations andstandards can help, they often resultin a shifting of aged vessels fromroutes with strict inspections to thosewhere regulations are not as rigorous-ly enforced (IMO 1999).

Recent analysis of container ship inci-dents (Wang and Foinikis 2001) indi-cates that these account for about7% of total oceangoing incidents.Unlike incidents for most other shiptypes, container ships suffer from ahigh share of incidents caused byshore error, which results in a signifi-cant share of cargo damage effects.Also, in contrast to other ship types,available data suggests that youngercontainer ships have a higher inci-dent rate — a rate that decreaseswith age. This may be due to crewand shore personnel accustomingthemselves to new designs.

Railroad accidents, especially acci-dents involving hazardous cargo, area concern in many places. Much haz-ardous cargo that might otherwisemove by truck moves by rail becauseof the generally good safety record ofthe railroads. However, when a derail-ment does occur, significant volumesof hazardous material may beinvolved.

Although the media often sensation-alize the danger of freight trucks,trucking is a dangerous professionand the fatalities to drivers and autopassengers are rising as more truckscome into service. In the UnitedStates in 1999 there were 758 largetruck-occupant fatalities (US DOTNHTSA 1999b). Public concern overlarge trucks, especially those haulingtwo trailers, is one of the chief obsta-cles to the expansion of their use.

The principal cause of truck accidentsis driver fatigue, a problem that gov-ernments and industry associations

freight mobility


seek to curb with rules on length oftrips and required hours of rest.However, such rules are hard toenforce effectively, and oftentimesfatigue-related accidents are associat-ed with a violation of the rules.

CONCLUSIONS

The image of a tired trucker drivingon a crowded highway is a fitting oneto conclude our discussion of sustain-able mobility and freight transporta-tion. Trucks are the key vehicles thatcarry goods to and from their endusers and link them to the other partsof the freight network. Trucks symbol-ize the economic and operational effi-ciency of freight transportation in2000. Their flexibility enables trucksto penetrate the most remote junglesand, via a port and an ocean tanker,deliver goods directly to a consumer’sdoorstep. That capability allowstrucks to take market share from railand barges, their slower, but moreenergy-efficient competitors. Yet theubiquitous service that truck driversprovide also puts them in the greatestcontact with other citizens. Truckscreate many of freight’s hurdles tosustainable mobility, bringing in theirwake air pollution, accidents, conges-tion, noise, and environmental andinfrastructure degradation, and publicprotests of all of these problems.

Potential solutions for the problemsgenerated by trucks demonstrate thefinancial, political, and technologicalhurdles to sustainable mobilitythroughout the freight system. Moreheavy-haul rail lines can be built, con-necting more intermodal freight facil-ities, so that cargoes can move onrailways, trucks, or ocean tankers asappropriate. Second, new routes fortrucks — either isolated express lanesor entirely new roads — can be built.And third, quieter, more fuel-efficient,less-polluting trucks can be broughtto market. Any one of these solutionswould require substantial investmentsof money to achieve. Quite apartfrom the investment required, com-munity and public concerns relatedto potential loss of land will need tobe addressed, particularly where

scarce urban space is involved. Inmany parts of the developing world,national freight networks are relative-ly immature, although more severeproblems of a paucity of urban landand a lack of financing pose high hur-dles. Russia, China, and India all facethe prospect of massive transitionsfrom rail-based to truck-based freight.There is much to learn from the expe-riences of the developed world in thiscontext.

mobility 2001



Both personal and freight mobility is at an unprecedented level for the great majority of the population in thedeveloped world. However, personal mobility varies significantly by age, income, and location. In contrast,most of the citizens of the developing world suffer either from poor or deteriorating mobility. The centralproblem is that cities in the developing world are growing and motorizing very rapidly. In order to achievesustainable mobility by the middle of the 21st century, at least seven mobility-related “grand challenges” willhave to be overcome. Moreover, an additional challenge going beyond mobility — the creation of the institu-tional capability able to taking on such “grand challenges” — will have to be faced. Indeed, the limited capa-bility of the world’s institutions to deal with the sort of long-term, complex problems reflected in the “grandchallenges” may turn out to be the greatest obstacle of all to achieving sustainable mobility.

At the beginning of this report, we observed that in most cases, mobility is notan end in itself but rather a means to an end — by overcoming distance, mobil-ity makes people and goods more accessible. It can offer every citizen access toemployment, education, health care, leisure activities with family and friends,and all the other economic, social, and cultural opportunities that can enrichmodern life. We identified a number of measures that might be used as bench-marks in judging how well the world’s mobility systems are fostering accessibili-ty. Then we reviewed the performance of the world’s current mobility systems,using our benchmarks in Chapters 2 through 6 to assess worldwide mobilityand the challenges we face in sustaining it. This chapter summarizes the condi-tion of mobility in the developed and developing world at the end of the twen-tieth century.

seven

world mobilityand the challenge to its sustainability


IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD

Personal mobility is at its highest levelfor the great majority of developed-world populations, but mobility (andaccessibility in general) varies signifi-cantly by age, income, and location.High levels of freight mobility areproviding residents of the developedworld with an unprecedented degreeof choice among goods and services.Light-duty vehicles (automobiles andlight trucks) are the major providersof personal mobility, not merely inNorth America but in Europe anddeveloped Asia. The number of light-duty vehicles per capita and theannual per-capita use of these vehi-cles continue to grow.

The share of developed-world popu-lation living in urban areas is highand increasing, albeit slowly. In 1975,the level of urbanization in the devel-oped world was 70%; by 2000 itexceeded 75%, and is projected toreach nearly 85% by 2030 (UN2001). At the same time, populationdensity is declining in and around thecities of most developed countries. InChapter 3 our data showed popula-tion density trends (measured as per-sons per square kilometer) for 15major developed-world urban areasin Europe, North America, Japan, andAustralia. Over the 30-year periodfrom 1960 to 1990, population den-sity fell in all of those 15 areas. Sevenurban areas — Amsterdam,Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg,London, Paris, and Washington —experienced declines in populationdensity of 30% or greater. These con-trasting trends of cities growing larg-er, but at reduced densities, can bedirectly traced to two related causes.First, the widespread availability andgrowing use of the automobile, andsecond, the growth of suburbsaround cities that are created for, anddependent on, automobile-drivingresidents.

Suburbs and low-density urban areaswork against “conventional” publictransport by reducing the number of“high volume” origin and destinationpairs. The consequent reduced avail-

ability of public transport disadvan-tages individuals who do not haveaccess to automobiles because of lowincome or age.

Road construction has not kept pacewith travel growth — indeed, thereare serious doubts that it could oreven should do so. Congestion mightnot be as bad as those who aredirectly affected perceive it to be, butby virtually any measure, it is grow-ing. In some major urban areas, con-gestion is no longer confined to tradi-tional peak commuting periods; itextends through much of the day.

An extraordinarily high share (96%)of developed-world transportationdepends on petroleum-based fuels.Developed-world transport energydemand accounts for about 65% oftotal world transportation energydemand.

Vehicle-related emissions of pollutantsthat contribute to adverse impacts onpublic health have stabilized and aredeclining in many developed coun-tries. Public policy — principallylower vehicle emissions standardsaided by technological improvementsin fuels — has enabled major reduc-tions in emissions per vehicle-mile.Slow fleet turnover and increasedvehicle use have caused actual in-useemissions reductions to be lower thanthe technological improvementsmight suggest.

In contrast, transportation-relatedemissions of pollutants that con-tribute to global warming are increas-ing in virtually all developed coun-tries. The improvements in energyefficiency are more than offset byincreases in the number of vehicles,by changes in vehicle mix, and byincreases in vehicle use.

Air travel is growing rapidly through-out the developed world, especiallyin North America. Even though loadfactors (the percentage of seats filled)have been rising, the average size of

aircraft used in commercial servicehas been declining for at least thepast decade. The increased use ofsmaller aircraft, combined with thegrowth of air travel, has offset tech-nological improvements in energyefficiency. Energy use in air travel hasgrown at rates substantially higherthan the rates of growth in the use ofother transportation fuels, a trendprojected to continue. According tothe US Energy Information Agency,developed-country fuel use for airtransportation will grow at twice therate of fuel use for road transporta-tion over the next couple of decades(3.0% per year versus 1.5% per year).

Air transportation’s contribution to airpollution is surprisingly large andgrowing. Airports are major localsources of emissions of “convention-al” pollutants, which come not onlyfrom idling aircraft engines, but alsofrom passenger ground traffic andfrom the freight, fuel, and mainte-nance vehicles that support an air-port’s operations. In addition, airlinersemit various substances, includingcarbon dioxide, at high altitude,which significantly magnifies theglobal warming potential of theseemissions.

Air transportation is now a crucialmeans of travel between cities of thedeveloped world, but capacity con-straints relating both to airports andto airways are beginning to result ingrowing delays, especially in the“core” of Western Europe and the tri-angle formed by Chicago-Boston-Washington in the United States. Yetthe obstacles to air travel, such ascongested airports and the difficultyof building new runways or new air-ports, and the air pollution thatresults from air travel, are relativelyneglected. Substantial attention isdevoted to achieving reductions inaircraft noise. Technological improve-ments make new planes quieter, andin some cases older planes have beenretrofitted to reduce their noise levels.

High-speed rail is making inroadsagainst both air travel and the auto-

worldwide mobility and the challenge to its sustainability

7-2

mobile in some markets. It is especial-ly popular in high-density, shorter-haul intercity markets in Japan andEurope, and additional high-speedrail tracks and trains are being built inboth regions. Interest in high-speedrail is growing in the United States,but it is still much too early to deter-mine whether this increased interestwill translate into high-speed trainsystems actually being built, and theirbeing popular enough to make ameasurable difference in US intercitytransportation patterns.

Freight systems are moving largerand larger quantities of goods bothwithin the developed world andbetween the developing world andthe developed world. Containerizedsystems are replacing traditional“breakbulk” systems, especially forinternational and longer-haul domes-tic freight movements. The most effi-cient method for moving freight longdistances over land is high-capacity,heavy-haul rail. Such systems are notcommon outside North America,however, and as a result, more andmore developed-country freight isbeing transported by truck.

Developed-country freight systemsconsume a large and growing shareof transportation energy. Excludingmaritime, freight energy demandconstituted 26% of total developed-country transportation energydemand in 1995; this is projected torise to nearly 30% by 2020.

Competition is growing betweenfreight and passenger systems foraccess to existing infrastructure (bothhighways and rail) and for the finan-cial resources necessary to build andupgrade infrastructure.

A Developed-WorldSustainability ScorecardFigure 7-1 shows how the developedworld performs according to the sus-tainability measures that were definedin Chapter 1. The measures are notranked in order of importance. Foreach of them, we use a color key to

show what we consider to be theperformance of the developed worldas a whole. Some areas of the devel-oped world clearly perform betterthan others, but we do not attemptto differentiate. The figure also showsperformance trends in each of themeasures.

IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Most of the citizens of the developingworld suffer from poor and/or deteri-orating mobility conditions. The cen-tral problem is that cities of the devel-oping world are growing and motor-izing very rapidly. They have not hadthe time or the money to build newinfrastructure or to adapt to newmobility technologies. The citieshouse and transport too many peo-ple, on insufficient numbers of poorlymaintained roads and rails, and gen-erally lack the money and institutionalvigor to fix the problems.

In 1950, less than 30% of the world’spopulation dwelt in urbanized areas.By 2005, that share will be 50%, andmost of this increase is occurring inthe developing world. “Megacities”of more than 10 million people arenow a defining characteristic of thedeveloping world. In 2000, 15 of the19 megacities were in developingnations. By 2015, 18 of the 23megacities will be in the developingworld.

Population density trends in andaround the cities of the developingworld are not as unambiguous as inthe developed world. Of six largeurban areas in Asia — Hong Kong,Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila,Singapore, and Surabaya — three ofthem — Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur,and Manila — show steady declines inpopulation density over a 30-yearperiod. Two of the remaining three —Jakarta and Surabaya — show declinesover the 1980–1990 period. OnlySingapore experienced an increasebetween 1980 and 1990, though itspopulation density in 1990 was stillbelow the levels of 1960 and 1970(Demographia 2001).

In many developing countries, motor-ization rates (as measured by thenumber of vehicles per thousand per-sons) are still low compared to thedeveloped world, but they are grow-ing rapidly. Motorization rates are atthe levels typical of Europe in the1950s and 1960s and are growing atsimilar rates.

The majority of individuals in thedeveloping world are unable to affordautomobiles, and public transportremains their principal means ofmotorized mobility. Unfortunately,public transport systems are strug-gling to keep up with growingdemand and to maintain service lev-els as they compete for space withautos and trucks. Congestion causedby the rapidly growing number ofprivate automobiles, various forms of“official” and “unofficial” publictransport vehicles, and freight-carry-ing trucks is causing gridlock condi-tions in many cities of the developingworld. Congestion on the streets,combined with land-use and real-estate patterns that push low-incomeresidents to the physical margins oftheir cities, disproportionately affectspoor people. In addition, congestion,poor driving habits, and inadequatetraffic controls make the search formobility a hazardous endeavor; trafficfatalities and accidents are a seriouspublic health issue in many cities ofthe developing world.

In contrast to the situation in thedeveloped world, emissions of pollu-tants that contribute to public healthproblems are growing in the develop-ing world. The ambient levels ofthese pollutants exceed — often byseveral times — their levels in devel-oped-world cities because of severalinterrelated factors. The extremelyrapid growth in the number of motorvehicles, the slow turnover of motorvehicle fleets, poor-quality fuel, lagsin adopting advanced vehicle pollu-tion control technologies, and poorvehicle maintenance all contribute tothe environmental problems.

mobility 2001


Transportation services are fueling arapid rise in the developing world’suse of petroleum. Total developing-world energy consumption for trans-portation grew from seven millionbarrels per day (oil-equivalent) in1990, to 11 million barrels per day in1999. It is projected to reach 23 mil-lion barrels per day in 2015. Thismeans that the developing world’sshare of total worldwide transporta-tion energy use rose from 33% in1990 to 34% in 1999, and is project-ed to reach 44% in 2015 (EIA2001).1 Transport-related greenhousegas emissions in the developingworld are growing even more rapidlyas a share of the total.

Transportation infrastructure in thedeveloping world is inadequate andsuffers from lack of maintenance. Forexample, China has a road infrastruc-ture of about one million kilometers,but most of this infrastructure is two-lane, with marked side paths forbicycles and tractors. Only about6,000 kilometers can be considered“highway” as that term is conven-tionally understood in the developedworld. China’s rail system, thoughextensive in size, has been comparedin scope (Alberts et al. 1997) to thatof the United States at the time ofthe Civil War.

The construction and maintenance ofroads, bridges, and railways areswamped by the growth in mobilitydemand. Air transportation demandgrowth is projected to be greatest inthe developing world, yet construc-tion of the airports to support thisgrowth is lagging. Developing-worldfreight-transportation systems areheavily dependent on trucks exceptin the few countries with extensiverail networks, chiefly China, India,and Russia. However, these aging railnetworks often are poorly positionedto serve the present freight trans-portation needs of their countries.

A Developing-WorldSustainability ScorecardFigure 7-2 shows how the developingworld is performing with regard to

the measures of sustainable mobilityproposed in Chapter 1, and what thetrends are.

MAJOR CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

With Respect to Light-Duty,Personal-Use, Privately OwnedMotor Vehicles

The developed world relies on per-sonally owned, light-duty vehicles asits principal source of personal mobil-ity in most urbanized areas, and espe-cially in their suburban fringes. Onemajor (perhaps even the major) chal-lenge to sustainable mobility in thedeveloped world is somehow to pre-serve the desirable characteristics ofautomobile-based systems whilereducing (or, preferably, eliminating)their nonsustainable characteristics,which include:

• The adverse consequences ofautomobility for certain groupsin society (especially the poorand the elderly) who often can-not obtain access to essentialaspects of life: work, school,doctors, stores, friends, and rela-tives. In the case of the poor,loss of access to employmentopportunities is a particular con-cern. Meeting this challenge willprobably require either reversingthe declining competitiveness of“conventional” forms of publictransport as urban densities fallor, more likely, developing newand more appropriate “uncon-ventional” public transport alter-natives.

• The light-duty vehicle’s contri-bution to various environmentaland ecological problems. Theserange from emission of sub-stances responsible for globalclimate change, to emissions ofpollutants responsible for localor regional public health prob-lems, to the effect of light-dutyvehicles on other environmentaland ecological problems suchas water pollution and the

destruction of habitats. Of theseissues, the most difficult is likelyto be global climate change.Although improvements in theenergy efficiency of individualautomobiles are certainly possi-ble, achieving major anddurable reductions in green-house-gas emissions from thedeveloped world’s light-dutyvehicle fleet will probablyrequire an eventual shift awayfrom carbon-based fuels.

• The automobile’s significantcontribution to death and injuryof occupants and pedestrians inmotor vehicle accidents.Although the death rate per unitof exposure is down in almostall developed countries — andsharply down in some — theaging of developed-countrypopulations will cause anincrease in light-duty vehicleaccidents and deaths. Muchmore attention will have to bepaid to the particular require-ments of elderly drivers, passen-gers, and pedestrians.

• The automobile’s contributionto congestion in many of thedeveloped world’s urban areas.Although highway infrastructureneeds to be increased and bet-ter maintained, it is not possibleto “build our way out of con-gestion.” Vehicles are going tohave to use roads more effi-ciently. This may mean thewidespread use of intelligenttransportation systems that pro-vide drivers with better informa-tion and permit more vehiclesto occupy a given amount ofspace safely. It may also meanthe widespread use of conges-tion charges or other means ofpricing the use of infrastructure.

The sustainability challenges relatingto light-duty vehicles in the develop-ing world differ both in kind and inmagnitude from those in the devel-oped world. These challenges gener-ally stem from the speed with whichmotorization is occurring in manydeveloping countries.



mobility 2001


Figure 7.1 Sustainability scorecard — developed world

Level Direction

Measures to be increased

Access to means of personal mobility +

Equity in access –

Appropriate mobility infrastructure –

Inexpensive freight transportation +

Measures to be reduced

Congestion –

“Conventional” emissions +

Greenhouse gas emissions –

Transportation noise +

Other environmental impacts –

Disruption of communities –

Transportation-related accidents +

Transportations’ demand for nonrenewable energy =

Transportation-related solid waste +

Figure 7.2 Sustainability scorecard — developing world

Level Direction

Measures to be increased

Access to means of mobility +

Equity in access ?

Appropriate mobility infrastructure –

Inexpensive freight transportation +

Measures to be reduced

Congestion –

“Conventional” emissions –

Greenhouse gas emissions –

Transportation noise –

Other environmental impacts –

Disruption of communities –

Transportation-related accidents –

Transportations’ demand for nonrenewable energy =

Transportation-related solid waste ? Key: the particular measure is at an unacceptable and/or dangerous level

the level is of concern and needs improvement

the level is acceptable or shows signs of becoming so

+ indicates that the situation appears to be moving in the desired direction

– suggests that the situation appears to be deteriorating

= no clear direction is apparent

? available information is not enough to make a judgment

• Motorization in developingcountries is permitting bothurbanization and suburbaniza-tion. This tends to exacerbatethe gap between the poor andthe growing middle classes ofthese countries, with the lattergaining better access to jobsand other amenities because oftheir growing incomes. As inthe developed world, motoriza-tion and suburbanization tendto undercut the viability of“conventional” public transportsystems; more than in thedeveloped world, “unconven-tional” forms of public transporthave been springing up. Thedegree of reliance on publictransport by the poor and theless wealthy in developingcountries, however, means thatthe loss of competitiveness ofpublic transport is an evengreater burden in this part ofthe world. Although the agestructure of the population inmost developing countries isquite different from that indeveloped countries, withyounger people constituting amuch larger share, the numberof poor and elderly means thatdeclining accessibility likely putseven greater strains on urbanlife in developing countries.Those who are both poor andold find the situation especiallydifficult.

• The environmental challengesto light-duty vehicle sustainabili-ty are of a different order. Incontrast to the situation inmany developed-world coun-tries, emissions of “convention-al” pollutants from light-dutyvehicles are increasing, some-times rapidly so, in developingcountries. Pollution concentra-tions of ozone, sulfur oxides,nitrogen oxides, particulates,and even lead are at very highlevels and are rising in manydeveloping-world cities. Theconstruction of roads to accom-modate the growing number oflight-duty and commercial vehi-cles may well be contributingmore to water pollution and to

the destruction of habitat in thedeveloping world than in thedeveloped world. Also, becausethe total number of vehicles inthe developing world is lowerthan in the developed world,greenhouse-gas emissions fromlight-duty vehicles in develop-ing-world countries are not nownearly as large as in developedcountries. But the rapid growthof the light-duty vehicle fleet, ifmaintained into the future, isthreatening to change that pic-ture drastically. Carbon emis-sions from transportation in thedeveloping world (largelyreflecting light-duty vehicle car-bon emissions) are projected toequal carbon emissions fromtransportation in the developedworld by about 2015 (EIA 2001,p. 185). To the extent that in-use energy efficiencies of devel-oping-world, light-duty vehicleslag those in the developedworld, this crossover couldoccur sooner.

• The level of traffic-related acci-dents and deaths is substantialand, in many places, on therise. Though occupant-restraintsystems are sometimes installedin vehicles, they are not widelyused. The vehicles themselvesare less crashworthy than thosein developed countries.Roadside obstructions are muchmore prevalent, and oftenmuch less forgiving whenstruck. Pedestrians and bicyclistsare particularly at risk, especiallywhen they must share the roadwith cars, buses, and trucks.

• Congestion levels have becomelegendary in many developingcountries, especially in LatinAmerica and in developing Asia.The lack of highway infrastruc-ture is acute, and poor mainte-nance of existing highwayinfrastructure contributes tocongestion problems. The costof intelligent transportation sys-tems is likely beyond the reachof most developing countries,so this congestion remedy mayhave much less to contribute

here. But congestion pricingmechanisms might find wideapplication in the developingworld.

With Respect to Passenger RailSystems

Although these systems — especiallythe newer, higher-speed systems inEurope and Japan — are attractinggreater numbers of passengers, theeconomic sustainability of rail passen-ger systems remains a major concern.One can make the case that thesocial benefits of rail systems partially(or even fully) pay back the deficitbetween their revenues and theircosts, but this is open to dispute. Inany event, rail passenger systemsaround the world typically run sub-stantial deficits, representing a drainon the budgets of the governmentsthat support them.

• While rail passenger systems, ifsufficiently patronized, emit farfewer “conventional” pollutantsand greenhouse gases per pas-senger-kilometer than do othermeans of intercity passengertransportation, they are notnecessarily environmentallybenign. If they are powered byelectricity, and if that electricityis generated by methods otherthan hydro or nuclear power,passenger rail systems areresponsible for some level ofgreenhouse-gas emissions. Allrail systems also generate emis-sions of nitrogen oxides, sulfuroxides, and particulates. Also,the construction of railways, likethe construction of roads andairports, may involve thedestruction of habitats and gen-erate water pollution.

• Rail stations are usually locatedin central cities, and when theirtracks are not underground,they may be major sources ofnoise and may divide communi-ties physically. In addition, railterminals need to accommo-date large numbers of people,and they often cause significanttraffic congestion in their imme-



diate locale. Though rail termi-nals are often tied in to existingpublic transportation systems,such as subways, the decliningcompetitiveness of these exist-ing public transportation sys-tems means that they serve lesswell to connect railroads withprospective passengers.

• Locating new passenger railroutes and terminals is in itself amajor challenge. These systemsrequire approximately as muchland for their rights-of-way asdo limited-access expressways.If they use high-speed equip-ment, they have less flexibilityin their routing than do express-ways — they cannot toleratesignificant grades or sharpturns. If electrified, the over-head wires and support postsare considered unsightly, andtheir speed and relative silenceof operation cause safety con-cerns in the communitiesthrough which they pass.

• Where new and dedicated pas-senger rail routes cannot bebuilt, passenger trains mustshare the track with freighttrains. In some countries, wherethe share of freight moved byrail is quite small, this may notpresent much of a problem.However, passenger trains’near-exclusive use of theserights-of-way severely limits theextent to which these countriescan shift freight from theirroads to rail. In other countries,such as the United States, theproblem of coordinatingfreight, intercity passenger rail,and commuter rail is alreadyquite significant and is growingmore so.

With Respect to Air Travel

This mode of transportation may bestrangled by its own success. In thedeveloped world, many airportsalready exceed capacity, and delaysare increasing. Air traffic control sys-tems are heavily overloaded and, insome areas, are burdened with out-

moded, productivity-draining jurisdic-tional arrangements. Opposition tothe expansion of existing airports andthe construction of new airportsmeans that expanding the capacity ofthe air transportation system is likelyto prove quite difficult. In the devel-oping world, these challenges liemore in the future. Levels of air travelare quite low at present, but are pro-jected to grow rapidly. Growth in airtravel is viewed favorably by manygovernments and their populations,so siting airports seems to be less of aproblem.

• The environmental challengesto the sustainability of air trans-portation relate to its growthand to the inherently poorenergy efficiency of this mode.Air transportation presentlyaccounts for about 11% of totaltransportation energy con-sumption. By 2015, this is pro-jected to rise to 13%. Theseconsumption levels alonewould qualify air transportationas a major source of green-house gases; however, it isbecoming understood that airtransportation’s contribution toglobal climate change signifi-cantly exceeds its share of ener-gy use because airplanes releasepollutants at high altitudes.Shifting to non–carbon-basedfuels is less feasible for air trans-portation than it is for motorvehicles.

• Large airports, of which thereare a significant number in thedeveloped world, are a majorsource of emissions for pollu-tants such as nitrogen oxides.These emissions are producednot only by the aircraft, but alsoby the large numbers of servicevehicles at these airports, andby the light-duty vehicles andbuses that bring travelers to andfrom airports.

• Airports are also major sourcesof noise and traffic congestion.Although the noise producedby aircraft landing or departinghas been greatly reduced in

recent years, particularly in thedeveloped world, the numberof aircraft operations has beengrowing rapidly enough to off-set much of the benefit. As faras traffic congestion is con-cerned, the tens of millions ofpassengers arriving at airports,often in single-passenger light-duty vehicles, cause these facili-ties to be major centers of traf-fic congestion.

For Motorized FreightTransportation

Trucks bear the greatest burden inproviding freight mobility and havealways been the principal motorizedmeans of distributing freight locally.Until relatively recently (at least in thedeveloped world), their role in themovement of freight between citieswas secondary to that of the rail-roads. Over the last 50 years, howev-er, trucks have eclipsed railroads inthe movement of intercity freight inthe countries of the developed world.As countries in the developing worldmove increasing volumes of freightfrom their hinterlands to their citiesand ports, it is trucks that haul thebulk of these goods.

• Trucks create several environ-mental problems. First, mosttrucks are powered by compres-sion-ignition (i.e., diesel)engines. This improves their effi-ciency relative to spark-ignition(i.e., gasoline- or naturalgas–powered) engines, butdiesels emit greater quantities ofnitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,and particulates than do gaso-line- or natural gas–poweredtrucks. However, thesenondiesel power plants cannotbe used by the larger trucks forlong-distance intercity freighthaulage. Diesel emissions arebeing reduced in developedcountries through a combina-tion of improved combustiontechnology, particulate traps,and lower-sulfur diesel fuel. Butfleet turnover for diesel trucks iseven slower than for light-dutyvehicles. Most diesel-powered

mobility 2001


trucks on the road today areseveral years old and emit farmore pollutants than theirnewest, most advanced peers.Moreover, these existing dieseltrucks seem particularly proneto poor maintenance, whichdegrades their emissions perfor-mance significantly. The emis-sions gap between aging andadvanced diesel engines is mostpronounced in the cities of thedeveloping world. The truckfleets there are older, theirmaintenance may be less exact-ing, and their contribution toair pollution is significant.

• The sheer number of trucksused to haul freight means thatthese vehicles are major con-tributors to greenhouse-gasemissions. Worldwide, it is esti-mated that trucks emit approxi-mately 30% of all transporta-tion-related carbon emissions, ashare projected to grow to 33%by 2020.

• Trucks are major sources ofnoise, especially in urban areas.Poor maintenance is a majorcontributor to the truck noiseproblem, as are certain drivingpractices, such as the use ofengine compression as an assistin braking.

• Trucks are also major sources ofurban congestion. Some urbanareas have tried to deal withthis problem by banning trucksfrom city streets during certainhours or certain days. Whilethis may help to alleviate truck-related congestion, it canseverely affect the ability offirms to move their goods in atimely manner. To compensate,extra inventory must be car-ried, increasing the totalamount of freight that must betransported.

• In some areas, especially inimportant “corridors” betweenmajor cities, large numbers oftrucks on the road may restrictthe use of highways by passen-ger vehicles. Dense truck traffic

on high-speed motorways alsocreates safety concerns. To besure, much of the safety prob-lem is the responsibility of thepassenger vehicles and theirless-experienced drivers, but theaccidents that occur are a seri-ous concern, whether they arecaused by trucks or cars.

• Trucks also can contribute toinfrastructure degradation. Ifroads are not built to handle high axle loads, truck traffic canliterally pound roads andbridges to pieces. In developingcountries, where road infras-tructure is often poorly con-structed and maintained, highvolumes of truck traffic can beespecially damaging.

For the Transportation ofFreight Over Inland Waterways

Although this mode is extremelyenergy-efficient, diesel exhaust fromtowboats and from self-propelledbarges can be significant in somelocations.

• The greatest challenge to sus-tainability for this mode offreight transportation is associ-ated with the construction andmaintenance of the infrastruc-ture it uses. The damming ofwaterways, the building of locksand canals, and dredging ofchannels to accommodatebarge traffic are especially con-troversial because of the impactof these activities on water pol-lution and wetlands.Competition can be severebetween water releases intend-ed for two different purposes:to help assure that river chan-nels are navigable by bargesand to meet the needs ofdownstream (and sometimesalso upstream) ecosystems.

SEVEN “GRAND CHALLENGES”TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY

We believe it useful to group thesemode-specific and regional-specific

challenges into seven “grand chal-lenges”:

• Ensure that our transportationsystems continue to play theiressential role in economicdevelopment and, through themobility they provide, serveessential human needs, andenhance the quality of life.

• Adapt the personal-use motorvehicle to the future accessibili-ty needs/requirements of thepopulations of the developedand developing worlds (capaci-ty, performance, emissions, fueluse, materials requirements,ownership structure, etc.).

• Reinvent the concept of publictransport — provide accessibili-ty for those lacking personalmotor vehicles in both thedeveloped and developingworlds; provide a reasonablealternative choice for those whodo have access to personalmotor vehicles.

• Reinvent the process of plan-ning, developing, and manag-ing mobility infrastructure.

• Drastically reduce carbon emis-sions from the transportation sector, which may require phasing carbon out of trans-portation fuels by transitioningfrom petroleum-based fuels to aportfolio of other energysources.

• Resolve the competition forresources and access to infras-tructure between personal andfreight transportation in theurbanized areas of the devel-oped and developing world.

• Anticipate congestion in interci-ty transportation and develop aportfolio of mobility options forpeople and freight.

These seven “grand challenges” arenot necessarily independent. Meetingone may help in meeting others. Buttheir successful attainment would go




a very long way to assuring thatmobility is sustainable.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITY —AN OVERARCHING CHALLENGE

Most discussions of the challenges tomaking mobility sustainable tend tofocus almost exclusively on the rolethat technology is expected to play.We imagine energy-efficient “super-cars,” transportation fuel systemsthat are hydrogen- rather thanpetroleum-based, and magneticallylevitated trains that speed peoplebetween cities using comparativelylittle energy. We envision telecommu-nications technologies that tell ushow to avoid congestion as we driveand that automatically charge us forthe full social costs of our personalmobility choices.

As intriguing as these technologicalpossibilities might seem, history sug-gests that something far more mun-dane will actually determine the paceand direction of change in mobilitysystems. That something is institu-tional capability. Political institutionsdetermine which transportationmodes get favored through subsidies,regulations, and protection fromcompetition. They also determine thetype and cost of fuels that will beused to power vehicles. Political andsocial institutions exert enormousinfluence over whether transportationinfrastructure can be built, where itcan be built, how long it takes, andwhat it costs to build. Economic insti-tutions — especially large corpora-tions — can either take the lead inencouraging change or drag theirfeet and make change difficult andexpensive.

Looking ahead 30 years, the mobilityfuture is likely to depend on signifi-cant questions about institutionalcapacity in both the developed anddeveloping nations. Three mattersseem especially likely to affect thesustainability of mobility systems:

• Can governments and the pri-vate sector build and managethe transportation infrastructure

required to meet surging world-wide demand for mobility?

• Can policy-makers and citizenseffectively debate and resolvetrade-offs between demand formobility and demands for envi-ronmental protection, energyconservation, and safety?

• Can nations appropriately har-monize their regulation of trans-portation — on the one hand toassure that environmental andsafety goals are met, and on theother, to permit effective, effi-cient, citizen-responsive provi-sion of mobility capacity by pri-vate and public entities?

A World Bank Urban TransportStrategy Review now in preparation(World Bank 2001a) identifies severalstructural characteristics that distin-guish urban transportation from mostother urban service sectors. By andlarge, these characteristics also applyto transportation in general:

• The separation of decisions oninfrastructure from those onoperations.

• The separation of interactingmodes of transport.

• The separation of infrastructurefinance from infrastructurepricing.

These characteristics lead to what theStrategy Review describes as a funda-mental paradox of transportation —excess demand accompanied byinadequately financed supply. Unlessways are found to address thesestructural deficiencies and therebyresolve this paradox, all the technolo-gy in the world will not make trans-portation sustainable. Either newtechnology will never be adopted, orif adopted, it will generate perverseconsequences that offset much of itsintended benefits.While both developed and develop-ing nations face major challengeswith regard to institutional capability,the nature of the challenge that eachregion faces is somewhat different.

Developed Countries In the United States, the EuropeanUnion, Japan, and other developednations, mobility concerns areincreasingly likely to hinge on meth-ods for providing and maintainingenhanced transportation infrastruc-ture in crowded metropolitan areas,and on the ways in which furtherdevelopment will proceed in the less-settled hinterlands of these areas.Decisions will have to balance desirednew economic development, the illsof traffic congestion, and publicopposition to specific transportationinfrastructure projects on environ-mental grounds.

One key institutional dimension is therelative role of public- and private-sector entities in meeting thesedemands. Many countries are sortingout these relationships in new ways.In the provision of new facilities thatwill be owned by public entities, forexample, there is a trend toward alarger role for private firms in plan-ning, design, construction, and oper-ation of projects, which requires newcompetence among public authoritiesin managing competitive procure-ment processes and overseeing con-tracts. Where new facilities are to beowned by private entities, govern-ment must develop effective meansof regulating safety and, for monopo-listic or quasi-monopolistic services,regulating price — without surrender-ing the financial and efficiency advan-tages that private-service provisionaffords.

Whatever the form of ownership, newfinancing methods are likely toemerge. A key question is whetherroad pricing mechanisms can be usedto accomplish policy goals — such ascongestion reduction — as well as tofinance new facilities or maintainexisting ones. Adequate maintenance of infrastruc-ture to preserve and protect invest-ments and to assure that facilities areused efficiently depends critically oninstitutional capacity. There is a pro-nounced tendency to shortchangemaintenance of infrastructure — amatter of misaligned incentives for

mobility 2001

7-9

both public owners (where the lowvisibility of maintenance encouragesskimping on budget allocations) and,under some forms of private opera-tion, for private entities as well.Institutional capacity also affects therate of adoption and effective imple-mentation of innovative mobilitytechnologies — as clearly evidencedin the slow diffusion of IntelligentTransportation Systems and the back-wardness of the US air traffic controlsystem. In Europe, there are majorquestions of institutional capacity fordealing with mobility problems thatoverspill political boundaries, bothwithin the European Union andacross its boundaries to non-EUcountries.

Another key question with clear con-nection to sustainability is mobilityequity — how transportation serviceswill be provided to low-income indi-viduals. This concerns both thosedependent on public transport,which under current circumstances ofmetropolitan development, travelpatterns, and life styles, is less andless capable of providing adequatemobility; and those who own auto-mobiles but may not be able toafford increased user chargesimposed to ration road space. Willmobility be regarded as a right of citi-zenship, to be guaranteed at somelevel to all through public subsidy,perhaps ingeniously supplied; or willit be seen as another consumer goodto be apportioned only according toability and willingness to pay?

Last, but not least, sustainability iscritically affected by institutionalcapacity for environmental and safetyregulation. Key questions include thelevel of necessary regulation, whethercooperative or adversarial relationswill characterize interactions betweenprivate-sector firms and public regula-tors, and whether regulation willfocus only on industry or fall directlyon consumers (i.e., voters) as well.Beyond national boundaries, thequestion of harmonizing public regu-lation looms large for industry. Lackof harmony will likely increase resis-tance to specific regulatory measures,

reduce voluntary cooperation, andgreatly increase the cost and effec-tiveness of compliance.

Developing Countries

It will be a tremendous challenge tobuild sufficient institutional capacity —in both public and private spheres —to deal with sweeping changes indeveloping nations’ mobility systems.In countries like China or Indonesia —which face the prospect of rapidmotorization and potentially explosivegrowth in private ownership of auto-mobiles — the lack of adequate roadinfrastructure poses an enormousproblem. Sustainability is a criticalissue. Can these countries manage thisprocess effectively? Governments wantthe economic development advan-tages of motorization, and increasingnumbers of individuals desire and willbe able to afford the personal freedomthat vehicles provide. But the dangersof paralyzing congestion, local envi-ronmental degradation, and high ratesof greenhouse-gas emissions that addto the threat of global change loomlarge. Institutional issues in the publicsector include effective national deci-sion-making that balances these con-siderations, as well as implementationcapacity at the regional andmetropolitan level. In the private sec-tor, organizations with the compe-tence to oversee large projects need todevelop.

Adequate financing is another keyinstitutional issue. Many prioritiesother than mobility — includingenterprise investments as well as edu-cation and health — compete for lim-ited private development capital andpublic resources. Access to interna-tional assistance is not likely to besufficient for the full range of mobilityneeds in the developing world. Thesefinancing concerns will affect notonly new facilities but also the main-tenance of existing ones. Also figur-ing prominently in financing are theproblems of providing equitablemobility opportunities to low-incomepopulations. These citizens frequentlylive in areas poorly served by publictransportation, and may lack funds

even for the limited public transportoptions that do exist.

The opportunity to leapfrog the tra-jectory of technological developmentthat developed nations have gonethrough is a potential advantage forsome developing countries if theinstitutional capacity to adopt andimplement these innovations candevelop sufficiently. This will be trueboth for transportation and environ-mental technologies.

Environmental and safety regulationis in its infancy in developing nations.Institutionally, there are issues notonly of capacity but of political will.Harmonization of regulation in thisenvironment is not merely a matterof reconciling the relatively similarnational schemes of regulation pre-sent in the developed countries; it isalso a matter of making basic com-mitments to such regulation in inter-national negotiations and national-level political decision-making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PRESENT MOBILITY SYSTEMS

The list of challenges to the sustainabil-ity of current mobility systems isindeed a long one, but should not leadone to conclude that mobility cannotbe made sustainable. Challenges thatonce appeared nearly intractable areyielding to solutions in some regions ofthe world. Lead has virtually disap-peared from developed-world trans-portation systems except for its use inbatteries, and the vast majority ofthese are now recycled in most devel-oped countries. Conventional pollu-tants such as nitrogen oxides, volatileorganic compounds, carbon monox-ide, ozone, and particulates are well ontheir way to being controlled in thedeveloped world. Moreover, citizens ofthe developed world have already paidthe up-front development costs for thetechnologies that will enable theseemissions eventually to be controlled inthe developing world. Recycling of thematerials used in motor vehicles isalready at high levels in some places,



and programs are in place to increaseit in others. Control of transportation-related global pollutants such as car-bon dioxide poses a much greaterchallenge, but promising approachesto improving vehicle efficiency havebeen identified. Controlling conges-tion, especially in the rapidly motoriz-ing developing countries, is a majorproblem. It may end up being an evenmore difficult challenge than control-ling global pollutants; intelligent trans-portation systems may provide somerelief. Improving equity of access tomobility is also a major problem.Whether it can be addressed indepen-dently from the larger problem ofsocial and economic inequality is anopen question.

This report does not attempt to sug-gest strategies that might be used toovercome these complex problems.Its task has been one of assessment,not prescription. Devising strategiesthat will enable mobility to becomeand remain sustainable sometimebefore the beginning of the secondhalf of this century is the task ofMobility 2030, the follow-up effort toMobility 2001.

NOTE

1. The reason that the number showsso little change between 1990 and1999 is the drop in FSU/EE energyuse — 3.3 mmbd to 2.1 mmbd.Indeed, the 2015 number for theFSU/EE is projected to be only 3.4mmbd, or 0.1 mmbd higher than25 years earlier.

mobility 2001



mobility 2001

a-1

appendix A-1

Table A-1. Mode shares in selected cities

City Year Auto Bus Taxi/

Minibus Train Metro Walk Bicycle Other

Africa

Abidjan (2) 1988 12 30

Dakar (2) 1989 17 50

Durban (1) ca 95 43

24 8

Greater Johannesburg (4) 1995 40

9

26

7

14

1

3

Marrekech (3) 1993 7 9 2 64 8 10

Nairobi (2) 1989 25 50 15

Latin America

Belo Horizonte n.a. 20 38 42

Bogota 2000 12 69 2 12 3 2

Campina Grande n.a. 30

26 44

Cuiaba n.a. 22 38 40

Fortaleza n.a. 22 37 41

Managua 1998 37 35 28

Mexico City (6) 1986 25 42 11 22

Mexico City (6) 1995 22 8 56 14

Puebla (Mex) 1994 19 48 1 27 2

Recife n.a. 31 46 23

Santiago 1977 11

Santiago 1991 16 48 2 6 20 1.6 5

Sao Paulo (5) 1977 29 40.5 2.4 2.5 25 1

Sao Paulo (5) 1987 27 27 3 5 36 2

Sao Paulo (5) 1997 31 25 2 5 34 2

Asia

Bangkok (2) 1984 24 60 16

Bombay(2) 1981 9 65 26

Jakarta (2) 1984 21 39 40

Kuala Lumpur (2) 1984 46

42 12

Shanghai (2) 1986 3.3 24 41 31

Sources: Department of Transport, 1999, p. 26; Wright, 2000; IPCC, 1996, p. 687; Bogota Como Vamos, 2000; Bussiere, 2000, p. 98; Vorster et al, 2000, p. 330; Shoyama & Miyamoto, 2000, p. 442; SECTRA, 1991; Iacobelli et al, 1996; Companhia do Metropolitano de São Paulo, 1999, Table 9 & 11; Puong, 2000; Gerçek, H. and I. Tekin, 1996, p. 191; Midgley, 1994. Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 1. Durban % of peak period trips; 2. Auto trips include other private motorized modes (i.e., MC); 3. Bogota based on market survey of 1,500 persons (margin of error 3.5%); 3. Other is motorcycles; 4. Actually is urban trips for all Gauteng Province (Johannesburg, Pretoria), auto trips include motorcyles; 5. Auto includes taxi; 6. Data on non-motorized trips not available, metro includes light rail. 7. Data on non-motorized trips not available; other is waterborne transport; metro is light rail. Note: n.a., not available.

www.wbcsdmobility.orga-2

appendix A-2

Sources: Lu & Ye, 1998, p. 150; Puong, 2000; Chakravarty & Sachdeva, 1998, pp. 60-61; Ergun et al., 2000, p. 42; Mbara, 2000, p. 10; Barter, 1999, Appendix 2; SECTRA, 1991; Zegras & Gakenheimer, 2000; Zegras et al. 2000; DAMA, 2001a; 2000 Companhia do Metropolitano de São Paulo, 1999; Hai, 1995; Turley and Womack, 1998. Note: n.a., not available.

Africa

Cape Town 1998 170.0

Durban 1998 160.0

Harare 1998 235.0

China

Shanghai 1985 1990 1995

11.5 16.4

32

n.a. 3.2

11.5

India

Kanpur 1993 93.6 7.3 87.0

Pune 1993 128.4 12.0 108.6

Ahmedabad 1993 138.4 14.1 118.7

Bangalore 1993 159.2 22.6 143.9

Hyderabad 1993 121.7 13.8 109.9

Chennai 1993 119.7 23.7 109.9

Dehli 1993 250.6 57.1 224.7 850.0

Calcutta 1993 47.6 17.9 38.3

Mumbai 1993 43.5 14.9 34.5

Asia

Bangkok 1990 199.0 323 3826

Hanoi 1993 7.5 184

Ho Chi Minh City 1992 16 149 490

Jakarta 1990 75.0 173 1508

Kuala Lumpur 1990 170.0 350 4066

Manila 1990 66.0 72 1099

Surabaya 1990 40.0 187 726

Latin America

Bogotá 1999 112 99 3,300

Managua 1998 n.a. 43 620

Mexico City 1976 1986 1996

78.0 91.0

166.0

Santiago 1977 1991 1998

101 146

60.0 90.0

130.0

São Paulo 1967 1977 1987

70 135 141

Table A-2. Urban motorization rates for selected cities

City Year MV/1000 Autos/1000 Autos+2-

Wheelers/1000 GRP (US$)

/Capita

mobility 2001

a-3www.wbcsdmobility.org

appendix A-3

Table A-3: Comparative metro indicators for select cities

Population (Millions)

Income/person

(US$)

Fares

(US cents)

Lines,

Length

Patronage 000s/day/

year

City (Base, Actual)

Base Year

Actual Year

Base Year

Actual Year

Base Year

Actual Year

Actual Year

Actual Year

Cairo (1988, 1998)

10.0

15.0

1,075

1,386

7.8

10.5

(2; 57km)

1,200

(line 1 only)

Hong Kong (1981, 1998)

5.3

6.3

5,498

17,804

31.4

60.8

(3; 43km)

2,326

Manila (1986, 1997)

8.9

10.0

1,020

1,724

17.4

21.9

(1; 15km)

440

Mexico City (1970, 1996)

7.0

8.5

1,800

3,452

4.8

9.7

(10; 178km)

4,750

Pusan (1988, 1998)

3.8

3.9

2,242

8,692

21.8

26.7

(1; 32.5km)

677

Rio de Janeiro (1979, 1995)

n/a

5.5

1,980

3,916

9.7

25.8

(2; 23km)

360

Santiago (1976, 1996)

n/a

4.3

n/a

4,751

17.0

27.8

(2; 27.5km)

595

Sao Paolo (1976, 1997)

9.9

16.7

1,980

3,916

15.0

68.3

(3; 43.6km)

2,123

Seoul (1975, 1995)

8.1

10.6

2,274

9,561

20.0

26.8

(4; 135km)

4,050

Singapore (1988, 1996)

2.6

2.9

7,162

23,863

37.1

49.0

(2; 67km)

927

Tunis (1986, 1995)

2.0

2.0

1,887

2,256

18.3

15.1

(4, 32km)

294

Source: Halcrow Fox (2000).


Characteristics of Rail Freight

Rail freight can be divided into fiveclasses: bulk, intermodal, specializedfreight (e.g., automobiles), generalfreight, and less-than-carload freight.

Heavy-Haul Rail

For heavy haul operation, the rail trackstructure must be able to supportheavy equipment, assembled in longtrains, operating at moderate speeds.Component durability and cost aremore important than high-speed oper-ation; minimizing track cost is moreimportant than minimizing traindelays. Hence, research and develop-ment produced the materials, inspec-tion capabilities, and maintenancetechniques that allow heavier andlonger trains to operate safely and effi-ciently over single-track lines. A single-track line with the following character-istics can carry 40 or more heavy-unittrains per day or more than 100 mil-lion gross tonnes per year.

Only the very highest-density corri-dors in the United States require mul-tiple tracking for bulk trains and thenmost often only for approaches tomajor terminals. This type of opera-tion is extremely efficient, and theoperating costs in North America areon the order of $10/1000 NTM. Thekeys to this type of operation are a)heavy traffic volume and b) modernheavy-haul track and equipment.

Operations similar to this are com-mon in the United States andCanada, and there are heavy-haullines in Australia, South Africa, andBrazil as well — often designed formovements of coal or ore from minesto a port.

Rail-Truck Intermodal

For traffic involving rail and trucks,the most efficient operations are dou-ble-stack trains. A typical double-stackhas 125 platforms carrying 250 con-tainers. The track structure requiredfor these trains is similar to what isneeded for heavy-haul operations;maximum speeds are higher (110km/hour) requiring better trackgeometry, but the axles loads aregenerally lower, so the track compo-nents last a bit longer. The main dif-ference is that higher clearances areneeded. These trains are able to oper-ate over much of the mainline net-work in the United States andCanada, but there are restrictions onthe approaches to many cities, espe-cially on the east coast.

Double-stack trains require terminalswith cranes or front-end loadingequipment. The largest terminals arethose near ports, where peakdemands relate to the arrival of largecontainer ships. The largest terminalis the Intermodal Container TransferFacility in Los Angeles, which can

handle more than 20 double-stacktrains daily for traffic originating orterminating at the nearby ports or insouthern California. Typical terminalsare much smaller, capable of han-dling 6 to 10 trains per day; the idealdesign is to have two long (2 km)loading tracks with overhead cranesfor loading and unloading the trainsand a row of parking along each sideof the terminal. This is a simple lay-out, but it is proving difficult to buildnew ports or expand current onesbecause of the paucity of flat, openareas that are large enough (2+ kmlong by at least 0.1 km wide) andthat are situated close to the highwayand railway networks in urban areas.

With double-stack trains, the cost percontainer drops nearly 50% relativeto traditional trailer-on-flat-car(TOFC) or container-on-flat-car(COFC) service. This productivityimprovement causes a dramatic shiftin the competition between inter-modal and truck transportation. Thecost/km for double-stack is on theorder of $0.20 to $0.30/km, com-pared to $0.40 to $0.60 for TOFC orCOFC and $0.60 to $0.70 for truck.Since the traditional intermodal ser-vices are only slightly cheaper thantruck, they can seldom aspire toeither high profits or high marketshare. With the double-stack capabili-ty, the intermodal option suddenlybecomes dramatically cheaper than

a-4

appendix A-4

Table A-4: Characteristics of rail freight

Axle loads 33 metric tones

Vehicle dimensions 10.25 feet wide, 16-22 feet high

Maximum speed 90 km/hour

Train length 2 km

Train weight 16,000 tonnes

Locomotives 3 6,000-hp diesel-electric units with AC traction motors

Freight cars 110 steel aluminum cars, 108 tonnes of coal, and 33-tonne axle load

Siding length 3.2 km

Siding spacing 16 km

Signal system Centralized traffic control

truck. As a result, in North America,trucking companies have formedalliances with the railroads to usedouble-stack for the line-haul whilethe trucking companies serve the cus-tomers. The railroads have long triedto do this, with spotty success; today,the motor carriers choose to do thiswith widespread success.

The need for high traffic densities,good infrastructure, and high clear-ances are serious obstacles forwidespread use of double-stack out-side of North America. In Europe,where the traffic densities might besufficient, the clearances are difficulteven for TOFC and COFC operations.If lines are electrified, then clearancesbelow the catenary will be insufficientfor double-stack. In less developedcountries, where clearances are not amajor difficulty, traffic density maynot exist to support double-stackoperations.

Hence, we should not place all of ourattention on double-stack intermodalservice. Other options to considerinclude the road railer and variationson the traditional TOFC service. Theroad railer is a system where the rail-road car is reduced to the absoluteminimum, namely a pair of axles witha platform to hold a container ortrailer. The road railer was initiallydeployed behind passenger trains inthe 1950s in the United States; todayit is used by Triple Crown, a sub-sidiary of Norfolk Southern, to pro-vide service in the east. This technolo-gy has line-haul costs similar to thoseof the double-stack trains, along withmuch simpler terminal requirements.The drawback is that it takes longerto assemble a train, and twice asmany trains (and track capacity) areneeded to carry the same number ofcontainers. Another drawback is thatspecialized trailers or containers areneeded, as the equipment must bestrong enough to absorb the lateraland longitudinal forces associatedwith train movement.

The third approach to intermodal istherefore to provide a means of mov-

ing ordinary trucks, trailers, and con-tainers by rail. This approach will bemore expensive than the road railerbecause of the need for substantialrail cars, but it could be more flexibleand well suited to specialized opera-tions. If the terminals are well situat-ed, so that it is very convenient forthe truckers to get on and off thetrain, then this type of operationcould be used to shuttle trucksthrough congested or environmental-ly sensitive areas. In Europe, forexample, this technology is used tomove trucks under the Alps; in NorthAmerica, there are a few applicationsof what is called the “Iron Highway.”

Specialized Services

Automobile transport is the best caseof using specialized equipment totransport a particular type of ship-ment. At one time, automobiles wereshipped in boxcars, and today theyare sometimes shipped in containers,but the most common mode oftransport is the “multilevel autorack.”The autorack is a superstructure thatfits onto the 89-foot flatcar that wasonce the standard for TOFC trans-port. The modern autorack has twoor three levels and is fully enclosed toprotect the automobiles from dam-age. Multilevel cars can be staged atthe assembly plant, 5 to 10 cars to atrack. Automobiles, soon after com-ing off the assembly line, can be driv-en onto a mobile, adjustable ramp tothe first, second, or third level of thefirst car and then driven through oneor more cars until it reaches the spotwhere it is “tied down.” The multi-levels are then assembled into trains,often with other types of freight, andmoved to an unloading ramp wherethe automobiles are transferred totrucks for delivery to customers.Because of the high volumes of busi-ness and the relatively small numberof origins and destinations, railroadsare able to develop train schedulesthat give high priority to this trafficand minimize the number of timesthe cars must be classified.

This is the best example of a special-ized service in which rail and highwayequipment has been developed to

serve a particular type of shipment. InNorth America, the availability ofmultilevel equipment allowed the rail-roads to retain a high market share inthe transportation of automobilesfrom assembly plant to dealers.

Chemicals also require specializedequipment, and safety is a paramountconcern. In most cases, the chemicalcompanies own and maintain theirequipment, which is handled in gen-eral freight service by the railroads.

General Freight

General freight moves in carload ormulticarload shipments in a series oftrains between classification yards. Ateach yard, cars from inbound trainsare sorted, then assembled into out-bound trains for the next leg of theirjourney. The classification yards arethe only way to achieve theeconomies of trainload operation forshipments of, at most, a few cars. Theboxcar is the symbol for moving gen-eral freight by rail, but general freightcould include any different type ofrail equipment.

When the railroad networks weredesigned, they were designed forgeneral freight. Even with the delaysassociated with terminal operations,general freight service was muchfaster than any alternative prior to theavailability of trucks. As the highwaynetwork developed, the time andexpense of rail terminal operationsbecame more and more problematicbecause the truck was much fasterand more reliable.

The best general freight operationsare those where a major customerships high volumes of freight alongmajor corridors to another major cus-tomer. If the shipper and receiver areboth located near a major terminal,then the costs of local delivery areminimized. If the whole route is alonga major corridor, then it will be possi-ble to make the trip while goingthrough only a few yards. Still, thebest that can be expected for generalfreight moving 400–1,000 km over a

mobility 2001

a-5www.wbcsdmobility.org

appendix A-4


widespread network will be trip timesof three to five days with perhaps90–95% on-time delivery. Shortertrips will not necessarily be any faster,as it is the time in the terminals thatdominates. The costs for this servicecan be well under truck costs (per-haps 30–50% of truckload costs), butthe poorer service will lead to higherlogistics costs.

For general freight, the advances intrack structure and equipment size donot offer much. A boxcar is alreadylarge relative to a truck, so that mak-ing the shipment larger will requiredless frequent shipments and higherinventories. The benefits of heavieraxle loads and longer-lasting trackcomponents are minor for this traffic,since axle loads are seldom a con-straint, and train, equipment, and ter-minal costs outweigh track costs.

The key for this traffic is more likelyto be in finding appropriate nicheservices. Examples include shipmentsof paper to publishers, shipment ofmanufactured goods to major distri-bution centers, or shipments ofexports to ports for resorting andtransloading into containers.

a-6

appendix A-4

AAPA 2001. American Association ofPort Authorities. Advisory, July 2, 2001.

Ahmed 1997. Ahmed, F. “RuralTransport Planning in Bangladesh:Towards a Comprehensive andIntegrated Approach.” Ph.D. thesisabstract, http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd/ indexen/framee06.htm.

Airbus 2000. Airbus Industrie.Global Market Forecast 2000–2019.Toulouse: Airbus Industrie, July 2000.Available at http://www1.airbus.com/pdfs/media/GMF2000.pdf. Last visitedJune 12, 2001.

Airey 1992. Airey, T. “The Impact ofRoad Construction on the SpatialCharacteristics of Hospital Utilizationin the Meru District of Kenya.” SocialScience Medicine 24, no. 10 (1992):1135–1146.

Airfinance Journal 2001.“Shanghai and Dry.” AirfinanceJournal (January 2001): 24–26.

Akinyemi and Medani 2000.Akinyemi, E.O. and T.O. Medani.“Investigating the Effects ofMotorcycle Traffic on Air Pollution inAsian and African Cities.” In UrbanTransportation and Environment, editedby O. Díaz, G. Palomas, and C. Jamet,pp. 341–349. Proceedings of theInternational Conference CODATU IX,Mexico City, April 11–14. Rotterdam:A.A. Balkema, 2000.

Alberts et al. 1997. Alberts,Laurence H., Hugh L. Randall, and A.Guy Ashby. “China Logistics: Obstacleand Opportunity.” MMC Views(Spring 1997). Available athttp://www.mmc.com/views/index.html, link Index of PreviousIssues. Last visited June 15, 2001.

Allport et al. 1990. Study of MassRapid Transit in Developing Countries.Contractor Report CR 188, HalcrowFox, TRRL.

Altschuler 1975. Altschuler, Alan A.“The Consumer and Urban Transpor-tation Decisionmaking in the UnitedStates.” Paper delivered to theConference on Public Transportationand People, Paris, France, 1975.

Anderson et al. 1993. Anderson,W., P. Kanaroglou, and E. Miller.Urban Form, Energy, and theEnvironment: A Review of Issues,Evidence, and Policy. Hamilton,Ontario: McMaster UniversityDepartment of Geography, 1993.

ATA 1993. Air Transport Association.Air Travel Survey. Washington, DC:ATA, 1993.

ATA 1998. American TruckingAssociation. “On the Road to CleanAir.” Air & Fuel, no. 1410 (October 2,1998). Available at http://www.greentruck.com/air_emissions/1410.html. Last visited June 14, 2001.

Barrett 1991. Barrett, R. SatisfyingUrban Public Transport Demands (Sub-Saharan Africa). Washington, DC:World Bank, 1991.

Barter 1999. Barter, P. “AnInternational Comparative Perspectiveon Urban Transport and Urban Formin Pacific Asia: The Challenge ofRapid Motorisation in Dense Cities.”Ph.D. diss., Murdoch University,Institute for Sustainability andTechnology Policy, Perth, Australia.

Barwell 1996. Barwell, I. “Transportand the Village. Findings from AfricanVillage-Level Travel and TransportSurveys and Related Studies.” WorldBank Discussion Paper no. 344, AfricaRegion Series. Washington, DC:World Bank, 1996.

Boeing 2000. Current MarketOutlook 2000: Into the Next Century.Seattle: Boeing, 2000. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/index.html. Last visited June 12, 2001.

Bogota Como Vamos 2000.Departamento Técnico Administrativodel Medio Ambiente, 1999. BogotáCómo Vamos, Balance a Diciembre.

Booth et al. 2000. Booth, D., L.Hanmer, and E. Lovell. Poverty andTransport, final report prepared forthe World Bank in collaboration withDFID. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute, 2000.

BP 1977. Our Industry Petroleum,Fifth Edition. London: The BritishPetroleum Company Limited, 1977.

______ 2000. Statistical Review ofWorld Energy. London: BP Amoco.Available at http://www.bp.com/cen-tres/energy/ index.asp. Last visitedJune 14, 2001.

Business Week 2000. “DifferentCountries, Adjoining Cubicles.”Business Week August 21–28 2000, p. 182.

Bussiere 2000. Bussiere, Y.“Demographic Changes andMotorization in the World at theHorizon 2025.” In UrbanTransportation and Environment, edit-ed by O. Díaz, G. Palomas, and C.Jamet, pp. 95–102. Proceedings ofthe International ConferenceCODATU IX, Mexico City, April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

CAM 1999. Comisión AmbientalMetropolitana. Inventario de emi-siones a la atmosfera de la ZonaMetropolitana del Valle de Mexico.Mexico City. Table 6-2

Canning and Fay 1993. Canning,D. and M. Fay. “The Effect ofTransportation Networks on EconomicGrowth.” Columbia UniversityWorking Paper, New York, 1993.

Cervero 1997. Cervero, Robert.Paratransit in America: Redefining MassTransportation. Westport, CT: PraegerPress, 1997.

______1998. Cervero, Robert. TheTransit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998.

Chakravarty and Sachdeva 1998.Chakravarty, A.K. and Y.P. Sachdeva.“Sustainable Urban Transport Policiesfor Developing Countries.” In UrbanTransport Policy: A SustainableDevelopment Tool, edited by P.Freeman and C. Jamet. Proceedingsof the International ConferenceCODATU VIII, Cape Town SouthAfrica, September 21–25. Rotterdam:A.A. Balkema, 1998.

mobility 2001

r-1

references


Chomitz and Gray 1996. Chomitz,K. and D. Gray. “Roads, Land Use,and Deforestation: A Spatial ModelApplied to Belize.” The World BankEconomic Review 10, no. 3 (1996):487–512.

Cohen 1995. Cohen, J.E. How ManyPeople Can the Earth Support? NewYork: Norton, 1995.

COMETRAVI 1999. Diagnóstico delas condiciones del transporte y susimplicaciones sobre la calidad del aire.Volume 1 of the Estudio Integral deTransporte y Calidad del Aire en laZona Metropolitana del Valle deMéxico, la Comisión Metropolitana deTransporte y Vialidad en coordinacióncon la Comisión AmbientalMetropolitana, Mexico City.

Companhia do Metropolitano deSão Paulo 1999. Pesquisa Origem-Destino 1997 — RegiãoMetropolitana de São Paulo: Síntesedas Informacões.

CONAMA 1998. Comisión Nacionaldel Medio Ambiente. Plan dePrevención y Descontaminación de laR.M., 1997. Government of Chile,Santiago.

Corbett and Fischbeck 1997.Corbett, James J. and Paul Fischbeck.“Emissions from Ships.” Science 278(October 31, 1997): 823–824.

Correa 1991. Correa V.“Sobreconsumo energético: un efectode la gestión empresarial del trans-porte colectivo en Santiago.” In Actasdel V Congreso Latinoamericano deTransporte Publico y V EncuentroLatinoamericano de Transporte Público,edited by O. Figueroa, L. Padilla, andI. Thomson. Comisión Económicapara América Latina y el Caribe(CEPAL) y la Red de Estudios sobre losServicios Urbanos de América Latina(REDES), Santiago.

DAMA 2001. DepartamentoAdministrativo del Medio Ambiente.“Informe de Gestión en el D.C. Enero1998 – Diciembre 1999.” Accessedon Web site of the Alcaldia Mayor deSanta Fe de Bogotá, March 7.(www.dama.gov.co/ifweb/ifweb.html).

Darbera and Nicot 1986. Darbera,Richard and Bernard-Henri Nicot. LePlanificateur et le Cyclopousse: LesAvatars de la Politique des TransportsUrbains en Inde. Caen, France:Paradigme, 1986.

de Aragão et al. 2000. de Aragão,J.J.G., C. Contreras-Montoya, and O.Lima Neto. “Coordination andCompetitiveness Levels of TransitServices in the Metropolitan Areas ofRecife, Brazil, and San José, CostaRica.” In Urban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 609–614.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14, 2000. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Deaton et al. 1987. Deaton, A., D.Thomas, J. Neelin, and N.Bhattacharya. The Demand for PersonalTravel in Developing Countries. WorldBank Discussion Paper, Infrastructureand Urban Development Department,August 1987.

DEFRA 2000. Department forEnvironment, Food & Rural Affairs.“Climate Change: Draft UKProgramme.” Available on-line athttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environ-ment/climatechange/draft/sec-tion2/05.htm.

Demographia 2001. Demographia.“Metropolitan Data.” Belleville, IL:Wendell Cox Consultancy, 2001.Available on-line at http://www.demographia.com/db-intlua-data.htm. Lastvisited June 6, 2001.

Department of Transport 1999.Moving South Africa: The Action Agenda.Government of South Africa, 1999.

Doi and Shibata 1996. Doi, T., andY. Shibata. “Analysis of IntercityBusiness Trips Considering the TimeSeries Changes of SocioeconomicFactors.” IATSS Research 20, no. 1(1996): 153–164. Abstract availablefrom http://199.79.179.82/sundev/search.cfm.

Domencich and Kraft 1970.Domencich, Thomas A. and Gerald

Kraft. Free Transit. Boston: CharlesRiver Associates, 1970.

Dotinga and Elferink 2000.Dotinga, H. and A. G. Oude Elferink.“Acoustic Pollution in the Oceans:The Search for Legal Standards.”Ocean Development and InternationalLaw 31: 151–182.

Dourthé et al. 2000. Dourthé, A.,H. Malbrán, and M. Wityk. “Santiagode Chile’s Experience with theRegulation of the Public TransportMarket.” Paper prepared for the 79thAnnual Meeting of the TransportationResearch Board (TRB), Washington,DC, January 2000.

Doyle 2001. Doyle, R. “Sprawlinginto the Third Millennium.” ScientificAmerican 284, no. 3:25.

Drewry Shipping Consultants1999. Container Market Outlook: HighRisk & High Stakes: Where is thePayback? London, 1999.

Durban Metro 2001. “Road TrafficAccidents for the Durban Area —1996.” Report available on city govern-ment Web site (www.durban.gov.za/traffic/trafficstudies/index.htm).

Eash 2001. Eash, W. Ronald. “Home-Based Worker and TelecommuterTravel Behavior Reported in the 1995Nationwide Personal TransportationSurvey.” Presented at the 80thAnnual Meeting of the ransportationResearch Board (TRB), 2001.

EBRD 1993. European Bank forReconstruction and Development.Transport Sector: Issues and Options.London, 1993.

Eckstein 1990. Eckstein, S.“Urbanization Revisited: Inner-CitySlum of Hope and SquatterSettlement of Despair.” WorldDevelopment 18, no. 2: 165–181.

ECMT 2001. European Conferenceof Ministers of Transportation.National Peer Review: ImplementingSustainable Urban Travel Policies. Paris:OECD, 2001.

references

r-2www.wbcsdmobility.org

Economist 1999. Pocket World inFigures. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1999.

______ 2001a. The Economist, 24March 2001, p. 56.

______ 2001b. Vaitheeswaran, V. “ASurvey of Energy.” The Economist,February 10, 2001.

EIA/US DOE 2000. EnergyInformation Administration, USDepartment of Energy. InternationalEnergy Outlook 2000. March 2000.(www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html).

_______ 2001. Energy InformationAdministration, US Department ofEnergy. International Energy Outlook2001. March 2001. Available atwww.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html.Last visited June 14, 2001.

Eno 1994. Eno TransportationFoundation. Transportation in America.Prepared by Transportation PolicyAssociates and Eno TransportationFoundation. Lansdowne, VA: EnoTransportation Foundation, 1994.

ESPO 2001. European Sea PortsOrganization. Environmental Code ofPractice. From Web site(http://www.espo.be/codea.html),accessed July 2, 2001.

EUROCONTROL 2000. Delays to AirTransport. Annual Report 1999.Brussels: Central Office for DelayAnalysis, European Organisation forthe Safety of Air Navigation, 2000.

European Commission 2000.European Commission. EU Transportin Figures. Brussels: EuropeanCommission Directorate-General forEnergy and Transport, 2000.

EU 2001. European Union. UrbanAudit — Assessing the Quality of Life ofEurope's Cities. Available athttp://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/urban/audit/index.html.

Fry 2001. Fry, David. “DangerAhead!” Available at http://danger-ahead.railfan.net/index.html. Last vis-ited June 12, 2001.

Fu and Yuan 2001. Fu, Lixin andYing Yuan. “Beijing’s Recent Efforts onReducing Motor Vehicle Emissions.”Paper no. 10 at Clean Air RegionalWorkshop — Fighting Air Pollution:From Plan to Action. UN ConferenceCentre, Bangkok, Thailand, February12–14, 2001. Bangkok MetropolitanAdministration, 2001.

Fulton et al. forthcoming. Fulton,Lewis, Daniel Meszler, Robert Noland,and John Thomas. “A StatisticalAnalysis of Induced Travel Effects inthe US Mid-Atlantic Region.”Forthcoming in the Journal ofTransportation and Statistics.

Gakenheimer 1993. Gakenheimer,R. “Land Use/TransportationPlanning: New Possibilities forDeveloping and DevelopedCountries.” Transportation Quarterly(April 1993).

GAMA 2000. General AviationManufacturers Association. GeneralAviation Statistical Databook, 2000.Washington, DC: General AviationManufacturers Association, 2000.Available at http://www.generalavia-tion.org/databook/2000/index.html.Last visited June 12, 2001.

GAO 1999. U.S. General AccountingOffice. “Mass Transit: Use ofAlternative Fuels in Transit Buses.”GAO/RCED-00-18, December 1999,pp. 10–12.

______ 2000. U.S. GeneralAccounting Office. “Aviation and theEnvironment: Results from a Survey ofthe Nation’s 50 Busiest CommercialService Airports.” GAO/RCED-00-222,August 2000.

Garb 2000. Garb, Y. “FightingSprawl: Prague on the Edge.”Sustainable Transport, no. 11 (Fall2000). Institute for Transportationand Development Policy.

Garreau 1991. Garreau, J. Edge City:Life on the New Frontier. New York:Doubleday, 1991.

Gaviria 1991. Gaviria, J. RuralTransport and Agricultural Performancein Sub-Saharan African: Six Country Case

Studies. Joint Sub-Saharan TransportPolicy Program/Managing AgriculturalDevelopment in Africa. Washington,DC: World Bank and EconomicCommission for Africa, 1991.

Gerçek and Tekin 1996. Gerçek,H. and I. Tekin. “SustainableDevelopment and Urban PublicTransportation System Planning withSpecial Reference to Istanbul.” InUrban Transport and the EnvironmentII, edited by J.M. Baldasano Recio andL.J. Sucharov, pp. 185–197.Southampton, UK: ComputationalMechanics Publications, 1996.

GLC 1974. Greater London Council.A Study of Supplementary Licensing.London: GLC, 1974.

_______ 1979. Greater LondonCouncil. Area Control: A Scheme forReducing Car Traffic through CentralLondon. London: GLC, 1979.

Global Crossing 2001. GlobalCrossing Limited. “Global CrossingCompletes Core WorldwideNetwork.” Available on-line athttp://www.globalcrossing.com/pressreleases/pr_062101a.htm. Last visitedJuly 20, 2001.

Godard and Diaz Olvera 2000.Godard, X. and L. Diaz Olvera.Poverty and Urban Transport: FrenchExperience in Developing Countries.World Bank Group, TWUTD, PO N7109769. Washington, DC: WorldBank, September 2000.

Gómez-Ibáñez and Meyer 1993.Gómez-Ibáñez, José, and John R.Meyer. Going Private: TheInternational Experience with TransportPrivatization. Washington, DC:Brookings Press, 1993.

Gorissen 1991. Gorissen, N.“Measures for More Environment-Friendly Freight Traffic.” In EuropeanConference of Ministers of Transport,Freight Transport and the Environment,pp. 141–147. Paris: OECDPublications Service, 1991.

Graham and Glaister 2001.Graham, Daniel J., and StephenGlaister. “The Demand for

mobility 2001


Automobile Fuel: A Survey ofElasticities.” Forthcoming in Journal ofTransportation Economics and Policy.Available at http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/ staff/wp9-graham.pdf.Last visited May 30, 2001.

Granne et al. 2000. Granne, Y., B.Hills, E. Peréz, and S. Henao. “RoadSafety in Urban Santa Fé de BogotáD.C.” In Urban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 905–911.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Greater London Authority 2001.“The Mayor's Transport Strategy.”Draft for Public Consultation. London:Greater London Authority, 2001.

Grisley 1994. Grisley, W.“Transportation of AgriculturalCommodities by Bicycles: A Surveyon the Bombo Road in Uganda.”Unpublished paper.

Guruprasad 2000. Guruprasad,D.V. “Meeting the TransportationChallenges of Bangalore in the Year2010.” In Urban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 477–484.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Gwilliam 2000a. Gwilliam, K.M.“Private Participation in PublicTransport in the FSU.” World BankTransport Division Discussion Paper,TWU-40, April 2000.

______ 2000b. Gwilliam, K.M.“Public Transport in the DevelopingWorld — Quo Vadis?” World BankTransport Division Discussion Paper,TWU–39, April 2000.

Gwilliam and Shalizi 1996.Gwilliam, K. M. and Z. Shalizi.“Sustainable Transport: Sector Reviewand Lessons of Experience.” WorldBank, TWU Discussion Paper SeriesNo. 22. October 1996.

Gwilliam et al. 2000. Gwilliam, K.,R. Meakin, and A. Kumar. “DesigningCompetition in Urban Bus PassengerTransport — Lessons fromUzbekistan.” World Bank TransportDivision Discussion Paper, TWU-41,April 2000.

Hai 1995. Hai, Luu Duc. PrivateTransport's Role and its AppropriateRepresentation in MetropolitanTransport Development Strategy inVietnam. Transport andCommunications for UrbanDevelopment. Report of the UNCHSHabitat II Global Workshop onTransport and Communication forUrban Development, Singapore, July,3–5. (www.unchs.org/unchs/english/transpor/content.htm).

Halcrow Fox 2000. “World BankUrban Transport Strategy Review —Mass Rapid Transit in DevelopingCountries: Final Report.” Paper pre-pared for World Bank, July 2000.

Hansen and Huang 1997. Hansen,Mark, and Yranling Huang. “RoadSupply and Traffic in California UrbanAreas.” Transportation Research A 31(1997): 205–218.

Harvey and Deakin 1991. Harvey,Greig, and Elizabeth Deakin.“Transportation Control Measures forthe San Francisco Bay Area: Analysisof Effectiveness and Costs.” Reportprepared for the Bay Area Air QualityManagement District, San Francisco,October 1991.

Hathway 1996. Hathway, T.“Assessing the Costs and Benefits ofCycle Networks.” World TransportPolicy and Practice 2, no. 3 (1996).

Hauswald 1997. Hauswald, M.“Seat Belt Use in a DevelopingCountry: Covert Noncompliance witha Primary Enforcement Law inMalaysia.” Accident Analysis andPrevention 29, no. 5: 695–697.

Heggie and Vickers 1998. Heggie,I. and P. Vickers. “CommercialManagement and Financing ofRoads.” World Bank Technical Paperno. 409. Washington, DC: WorldBank, 1998.

Heierli 1992. Heierli, U.Environmental Limits to Motorisation:Non-Motorised Transport in Developedand Developing Countries. St. Gallen,Switzerland: Swiss Center forDevelopment Cooperation inTechnology and Management, 1992.

Hormandinger 1997.Hormandinger, Gunter. FT Automotive,Maple House, October 1997.

Iacobelli et al. 1996. Iacobelli, A.,J. de D. Ortúzar, and C. Valeze.Estimación de Demanda para unaRed de Ciclovias en la Ciudad deSantiago. Pontificia UniversidadCatólica de Chile, Santiago,December 1996.

IBI 1999. IBI Group. FundingTransportation in the Greater TorontoArea and Hamilton-Wentworth.Toronto: IBI Group and HemsonConsulting, April 1999.

IEA 1999. International EnergyAgency. Automotive Fuels for theFuture. Paris: OECD, 1999.

______ 2000a. International EnergyAgency. CO2 Emissions from FuelCombustion 1971–1998. 2000 Edition.Paris: OECD, 2000.

_______ 2000b. International EnergyAgency. World Energy Outlook 2000.Paris: OECD, November 2000.

______ 2000c. International EnergyAgency. “Oil Prices and Taxes in theYear 2000.” Paris: OECD September20, 2000 http://www.iea.org/pricetax.pdf.

IIEC 1996. International Institute forEnergy Conservation. Washington,DC: The World Bank and Transpor-tation, 1996.

IMO 1996. International MaritimeOrganization. “Tanker Safety: TheWork of the International MaritimeOrganization.” Focus on IMO, March 1996.

_______ 1997. International MaritimeOrganization. “Dumping at Sea. TheEvolution of the Convention on thePrevention of Marine Pollution by

references


Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter(LC), 1972.” Focus on IMO, July 1997.

______ 1998a. InternationalMaritime Organization. “PreventingMarine Pollution: The EnvironmentalThreat.” Focus on IMO, March 1998.

______ 1998b. International MaritimeOrganization. “MARPOL — 25 years.”Focus on IMO, October 1998.

______ 1999. International MaritimeOrganization. “IMO and the Safety ofBulk Carriers.” Focus on IMO,September 1999.

Indian Railways 2001. IndianRailways. Corporate Overview.Available at http://www.indianrailway.com/railway/overview/statcont.html.

Ingram and Liu 1999. Ingram, G.and Z. Liu. “Determinants ofMotorization and Road Provision.”Chapter 10 in Essays in TransportationEconomics and Policy: A Handbook inHonor of John R. Meyer, edited by J.Gómez-Ibáñez, W. Tye, and C.Winston. Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution Press, 1999.

Intendencia 1989. Intendencia de laRegión Metropolitan. Estudio Base deGeneración de Niveles de Ruido enSantiago: Resumen. Santiago, August.

IPCC 1996. Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Climate Change1995: Impacts, Adaptations andMitigation of Climate Change:Scientific-Technical Analyses.Contribution of Working Group II tothe Second Assessment Report.Cambridge University Press, 1996.

______ 1999. IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. “Aviationand the Global Atmosphere.” In IPCCSpecial Report on Climate Change.Geneva: IPCC, 1999. Available athttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm. Last visited June 12, 2001.

______ 2001. IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. In ClimateChange 2000: The Scientific Basis.Geneva: IPCC, 2001.

IRF 1999. International RoadFederation. Motorway Mileage:Highway and Motorway Fact Book.Geneva: International RoadFederation, 1999.

Iturregui, P. 1996. ProblemasAmbientales de Lima. FundaciónFriedrich Ebert, Lima, March 1996.

Jackson 1985. Jackson, K.T.Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanizationof the United States. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1985.

Japan ITPS 1999. TransportationOutlook in Japan ‘99. Japan Institutionfor Policy Studies, 1999.

Johnson and Sherlock 1998.Johnson, Mark A., and Norman R.Sherlock. 1999 Business Travel Fore-cast — Business Travel and CorporateTravel Management: Capitalizing onEmerging Trends. Alexandria, VA:National Business Travel Association,1998. Available on-line at www.nbta.org/basics/Travelforecast.htm. Lastvisited June 12, 2001.

Joos 2000. Joos, E. “Bus RapidTransit Comes to China.” SustainableTransport 11 (Fall 2000). Institute forTransportation and DevelopmentPolicy, 2000.

Kendra 1997. Kendra, J.M. “SeaportDevelopment versus EnvironmentalPreservation: The Case of SearsIsland, Maine, USA.” Marine Policy 21,no. 5: 409–424.

Kenworthy and Laube 1999.Kenworthy, Jeff, Felix Laube, et al. AnInternational Sourcebook of AutomobileDependence in Cities, 1960–1990.Boulder, CO: University Press ofColorado, 1999.

Khandker et al. 1994. Khandker, S.R., V. Lavy, and D. Filmer. “Schoolingand Cognitive Achievements ofChildren in Morocco.” World BankDiscussion Paper no. 264,Washington, DC: World Bank, 1994.

Knaap 2000. Knaap, Gerrit J. “TheUrban Growth Boundary inMetropolitan Portland, Oregon:Research, Rhetoric, and Reality.”

Public Investment (December 2000).Available at http://www.metro.dst.or.us/growth/ ugbursa/apa_arti-cle.html. Last visited June 10, 2001.

Koster and Hop 2000. Koster, J.and G. Hop. “Formal and InformalPublic Transport PerformanceAssessment: Nairobi Case Study.” InUrban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 307–313.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Krag 1993. Krag, T. Cycling in UrbanAreas. European Cyclists’ Federation.Paris: OECD, February 1993.

KTX 2001. Korea Train eXpress.Available at http://www.ktx.or.kr/.Last visited June 12, 2001.

Lee 1985. Lee, K. S. “An Evaluationof Decentralized Policies in Light ofChanging Location Patterns ofEmployment in the Seoul Region.”Urban Development DiscussionPaper, UDD–60, World Bank, 1985.

______ 1989. Lee, K S. The Locationof Jobs in a Developing Metropolis:Patterns of Growth in Bogota and Cali,Colombia. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1989.

Lee et al. 2001. Lee, J. J., S.P.Lukachko, I. A. Waitz, and A. Schafer.“Historical and Future Trends inAircraft Performance, Cost, andEmissions.” Forthcoming in AnnualReview of Energy and the Environment.Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews,November 2001.

Leore 1991. Leore, Robert. Intercity Passenger TransportationData Compendium. Ottawa: The Division, 1991.

Libonatti et al. 1996. Libonatti,O., R. Moya, and M. Salinardi. “UnaPropuesta de Tarificación Vial para elArea Metropolitana.” WorkingDocument No. 49. Fundación deInvestigaciones EconómicasLatinoamericanas, Buenos Aires,September.

mobility 2001


London Transport 1998. LondonTransport. Market Report 1998.London: London Transport, 1998.

London Transport Buses 1999.London Transport Buses. Buses: ACleaner Future. London: LondonTransport Buses, 1999.

Lu and Ye 1998. Lu, X.M. and G.X.Ye. “Situation and Policy ofTransportation in Shanghai at Turningof the Century.” In Urban TransportPolicy: A Sustainable Development Tool,edited by P. Freeman and C. Jamet,pp. 149–155. Proceedings of theInternational Conference CODATUVIII, Cape Town South Africa,September 21–25. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 1998.

Malasek 1995. Malasek, J.“Transport Problems in Warsaw —Possible Solutions. ReconcilingTransportation, Energy andEnvironmental Issues: The Role ofPublic Transport.” Proceedings fromInternational Energy Agency andOrganization for EconomicCooperation and DevelopmentConference held in Budapest,Hungary, May 30–June 1, 1994.

Mbara 2000. Mbara, T.C. “UrbanTransport Challenges of DevelopingCountries: The Case of Harare.” InUrban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 9–14.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Mead 2000. Mead, Kenneth M.“Flight Delays and Cancellations.”Statement before the Committee onCommerce, Science, andTransportation. United States Senate.Report Number CC-2000-356.Washington, DC: US DOT, September14, 2000.

Meirelles 2000. Meirelles, A. “AReview of Bus Priority Systems inBrazil: from Bus Lanes to BuswayTransit.” Paper presented at SmartUrban Transport Conference,Brisbane, October 17–20, 2000.

Menckhoff and Zegras 1999.Menckhoff, G. and C. Zegras.“Experiences and Issues in UrbanTransport Infrastructure Concessions.”World Bank Working Paper, TWU-38,Washington, DC, August 1999.

Metro 2000. Memoria Anual 1999:Anexo Estadístico 1999. Empresa deTransporte de Pasajeros Metro S.A.,Santiago.

Midgley 1994. Midgley, P. “UrbanTransport in Asia: An OperationalAgenda for the 1990s.” World BankTechnical Paper No. 224, AsiaTechnical Department Series,Washington, DC, 1994.

Mitric 1997. Mitric, S.“Approaching Metros asDevelopment Projects.” World BankWorking Paper TWU-28. Washington,DC, March 1997.

Mohan and Tiwardi 1999. Mohan,D. and G. Tiwari. “SustainableTransport Systems: Linkages BetweenEnvironmental Issues, PublicTransport, Non-Motorised Transportand Safety.” Economic and PoliticalWeekly 34, no. 25 (1999): 1589–1596.

Mokhtarian and Salomon 1997.Mokhtarian, Patricia L., and IlanSalomon. “Emerging Travel Patterns:Do Telecommunications Make aDifference?” Invited resource paperfor the 8th Meeting of theInternational Association for TravelBehaviour Research, Austin, TX,September 21–25, 1997.

Mukherjee 1999. Mukherjee, M.“From Dawn to Dusk: Transportationof Rural Women to and FromCalcutta Metropolis.” World BankGender and Transportation ThematicGroup: Case Studies on Gender andTransportation. Presented at theInternational Forum for RuralTransport and DevelopmentWorkshop in Sri Lanka, June 1999.

Newman and Kenworthy 1999.Newman, Peter, and JeffreyKenworthy. Sustainability and Cities:Overcoming Automobile Independence.Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999.

Nguyen Duc 1996. Nguyen Duc,Hiep. “Some Aspects of Air Quality inHo Chi Minh City, Vietnam.” Paperpresented at Seminar on Environmentand Development in Vietnam,Australian National University,December 6–7, 1996.

Nielsen and Roberts 1999.Nielsen, D. and S. Roberts. “FatalitiesAmong the World’s MerchantSeafarers (1990–1994).” Marine Policy23, no. 1: 71–80.

Nikoulichev 1998. Nikoulichev,Michael, “Bus Manufacturing inRussia.” Washington, DC: USDepartment of Commerce, BusinessInformation Service of the NewlyIndependent States, 1998. Available atwww.bisnis.doc.gov/bisnis/isa/9807bus.htm. Last visited June 12, 2001.

NY Times 2001a. The New YorkTimes, January 23, 2001, p. C 1.

______ 2001b. The New York Times.“Hi, I’m in Bangalore (But I Dare NotTell).” March 21, 2001.

OECD 1984. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. Streets for People. Paris:OECD, 1984.

______ 1995a. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. Motor Vehicle Pollution:Reduction Strategies Beyond 2010.Paris: OECD, 1995.

______ 1995b. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. Urban Travel andSustainable Development Final Report.Paris: OECD, 1995.

______ 1999a. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. OECD EnvironmentalData. Paris: OECD, 1999.

______ 1999b. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. Traffic Congestion inEurope. Paris: OECD, 1999.

______ 2001. Organisation ofEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment. Urban Travel and

references


Sustainable Development: Overview ofthe Project. Paris: OECD, 2001.Available at http://www.oecd.org/cem/urbtrav/overview.htm. Last visit-ed June 10, 2001.

Oladiran and Pheko 1995.Oladiran, M. and H. Pheko. “SomeImplications of Driver Training forRoad Accidents in Gaborone.”Accident Analysis and Prevention 27,no. 4 (1995): 583–590.

ORNL 1995. Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory. Nationwide PersonalTransportation Survey. Oak Ridge, TN:ORNL, 1995.

Orski 1992. Orski, C. Kenneth.“Congestion Pricing: Promise andLimitations,” Transportation Quarterly46, no. 2 (April 1992).

Owen 1999. Owen, J. “TheEnvironmental Management of OilTanker Routes in UK Waters.” MarinePolicy 23, no. 4–5: 289–306.

Patterson n.d. “Urban GrowthBoundary Impacts on Sprawl andRedevelopment in Portland, Oregon.”Available at http://academics.uww.edu/geography/ geo-url.html. Lastvisited June 10, 2001.

Peters 1998. Peters, D.“Breadwinners, Homemakers and Beasts of Burden.” HabitatDebate 4, no. 2.

Portland Metro 2000. PortlandMetro. “Background: What Is anUrban Growth Boundary?” Portland,OR: Portland Metro, 2000. Availableat http://www.metro.dst.or.us/growth/ugbursa/ugb.html. Last visit-ed June 10, 2001.

Potter et al. 1999. Potter, RobertB., Tony Binns, Jennifer A. Elliott, andDavid Smith. Geographies ofDevelopment. Singapore: AddisonWesley Longman Singapore (Ptc)Ltd., 1999.

Pucher 1997. Pucher, J. “BicyclingBoom in Germany: A RevivalEngineered by Public Policy.”Transportation Quarterly 51, no. 4(Autumn 1997).

______ 1999. Pucher, J. “TheTransformation of Urban Transport inthe Czech Republic, 1988–1998.”Transport Policy (1999): 225–236.

Pughiuc 2001. Pughiuc, D.“Stopping Ballast Water ‘Stowaways.’”Clearwaters 31, no. 1 (Spring 2001)(http://www.nywea.org/311080.html).

PulseOnline 2000. “The GreatCable Connection of the Asia-Pacific.”PulseOnline, February 2000.http://pulse.tiaonline.org/0200/globe/globart51.htm. Last visitedJune 12, 2001.

Puong 2000. Puong, A. “UrbanTravel Patterns and Traffic Conditionsin Shanghai City.” Paper prepared forWorld Bank, September, 2000.

Ragland et al. 1992. “TrafficVolume and Collisions InvolvingTransit and Non-Transit Vehicles.”Accident Analysis and Prevention 24 (5).

Rebelo 1997. Rebelo, J. “Lessonsfrom São Paulo’s Metropolitan BuswayConcessions Program.” World BankPolicy Research Working Paper 1859,December 1997.

______ 1999. Rebelo, J. “Reformingthe Urban Transport Sector in the Riode Janeiro Metropolitan Region: ACase Study in Concessions.” WorldBank Policy Research Working Paper2096, April 1999.

ROCOL Working Group 2000.Road Charging Options for London —A Technical Assessment. London:Stationery Office, 2000.

Romero et al. 1995. Romero, H., A.Rivera, and M. Ihl. “Land UseChanges, Local Wind Systems and AirPollution in Santiago, Chile.” Paperprepared for the InternationalGeographical Union, RegionalConference of Caribbean and LatinAmerican Countries, Havana Cuba,July 31–August 1995.

Ross and Mwiraria 1992. Ross, A.and M. Mwiraria. “Review of WorldBank Experience in Road Safety.”World Bank Technical Paper,Washington, DC, March 1992.

Sachdeva 1998. Sachdeva, Y.P.“Walk and Bicycle TravelCharacteristics in Indian Cities.” InUrban Transport Policy: A SustainableDevelopment Tool, edited by P.Freeman and C. Jamet, pp. 505–509.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU VIII, Cape TownSouth Africa, September 21–25.Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1998.

SACTRA 1994. SACTRA. “TrunkRoads and Generation of Traffic.”Report of the Standing AdvisoryCommittee on Trunk RoadAssessment, UK Department ofTransport. London: HMSO, 1994.

San Francisco 2001. San FranciscoMagazine. “The Clash over theRunways.” May 2001: 68–88.

Schafer 1998. Schafer, A. “TheGlobal Demand for MotorizedMobility.” Transportation Research A32, no. 6 (1998): 455–477.

______ 2000. Schafer, A.“Regularities in Travel Demand: AnInternational Perspective.” Journal ofTransportation and Statistics 3, no. 3(2000): 1–31.

Schipper and Marie-Lilliu 1999.Schipper, Lee, and Céline Marie-Lilliu.“Carbon-Dioxide Emissions fromTravel and Freight in IEA Countries:Indicators of the Past… and theLong-Term Future?” Backgroundresearch paper presented at IEAWorkshop on Indicators ofTransportation Activity, Energy andCO2 Emissions, Stockholm, Sweden,May 9–11, 1999. Available athttp://www.iea.org/workshop/transind/. Last visited May 30, 2001.

SECTRA 1991. Secretaría Ejecutivade la Comisión de Planificación deInversiones en Infraestructura deTransporte. Encuesta Origen Destinode Viajes del Gran Santiago 1991.Santiago, Chile.

SETRAVI 1999. Secretaría deTransportes y Vialidad. ProgramaIntegral de Transporte y Vialidad1995–2000. 1999 Version, ExecutiveSummary. Government of the FederalDistrict of Mexico.

mobility 2001


Shah 2001. Shah, Jitendra.“Integrated Air Quality Management:From Plan to Action.” Paper no. 6. AtClean Air Regional Workshop —Fighting Air Pollution: From Plan toAction. UN Conference Centre,Bangkok, Thailand, February 12–14,2001. Bangkok MetropolitanAdministration, 2001.

Shoyama and Miyamoto 2000.Shoyama, T. and K. Miyamoto. “TheRole of Land Use Planning inTransportation Planning and EffectiveImplementation: A Case of Managua,Nicaragua.” In Urban Transportationand Environment, edited by O. Díaz,G. Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp.441–447. Proceedings of theInternational Conference CODATU IX,Mexico City, April 11–14. Rotterdam:A.A. Balkema, 2000.

Shrestova and Barve 1999.Shrestova, S. and R. Barve. “My DailyOdyssey: Transportation and the Livesof SEWA Bank’s Clients.” World BankGender and Transport ThematicGroup: Case Studies on Gender andTransport. Presented at theInternational Forum for RuralTransport and DevelopmentWorkshop in Sri Lanka, June 1999.

Sieber 1996. Sieber, N.“Appropriate Transport and RuralDevelopment: Economic Effects of anIntegrated Rural Transport Project inTanzania.” Shortened version of Ph.D.thesis, http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd/indexen/framee06.htm.

Slovak Republic 2001. SlovakRepublic, Ministry for Environmentand Slovak Environmental Agency.State of the Environment Report.Report accessed on February 28, 2001at http://www.envir.ee/programmid/pharecd/soes/slovak/index.htm.

Smith 1776. Smith, Adam. TheWealth of Nations. 1776. Reprint NewYork: Modern Library, 1994.

Smith 1995. Smith, H. “TheEnvironmental Management ofShipping.” Marine Policy 19, no. 6: 503–508.

Spadi 2000. Spadi, F. “Navigationin Marine Protected Areas: Nationaland International Law.” OceanDevelopment and International Law(31): 285–302.

Stenzel et al. 1996. Stenzel, J., J. Trutt, and C. Cunningham. FlyingOff Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports. New York:Natural Resources Defense Council,October 1996.

Sterner and Dahl 1992. Sterner,T., and C. Dahl. “ModellingTransport Fuel Demand.” InInternational Energy Economics, edit-ed by T. Sterner, pp. 65–79.London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.

Switkes and Roos 2001. Switkes,F., and D. Roos. Survey of Telecom-muting Practices in the United States.MIT Cooperative Mobility Program,Working Paper, March 15, 2001.

TERI 2001. Tata Energy ResearchInstitute. Based on data from Website http://www.teriin.org.

TTI 2001. Texas TransportationInstitute. 2001 Urban Mobility Study.College Station, TX: Texas Transpor-tation Institute, 2001. Available on-line at http://mobility.tamu.edu/. Lastvisited June 7, 2001.

Thomson 1993. Thomson, I.“Improving Urban Transport for thePoor.” In CEPAL Review 49 (April1993), United Nations EconomicCommission for Latin America andthe Caribbean, Santiago.

Thynell 2000. Thynell, M. “PhysicalMobility and Lifestyle Changes:Commenting Policies of Transport.”In Urban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 509–514.Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Tiwari and Saraf 1997. Tiwari, G.and R. Saraf. Cycling Promotion andBicycle Theft, Local Background Studies:Synthesis Report. Interface for CyclingExpertise, Ultrecht, July 1997.

Transport Canada 1996. Transport Canada. “An Introductionto Transportation in Canada.”Ottawa: Transport Canada, March1996. Available on-line athttp://www.tc.gc.ca.pol/en/Present/trnsport/slide1.htm. Last visited June 12, 2001.

TRB 1994. Transportation ResearchBoard. Curbing Gridlock: Peak-PeriodFees to Relieve Traffic Congestion.Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1994.

Turley and Womack 1998. Turley,W. S. and B. Womack. “AsianSocialism’s Open Doors: Guangzhouand Ho Chi Minh City.” Articleaccessed on March 21, 2001 atwww.people.virginia.edu/~bw9c/home.html.

Uchimura and Gao 1993.Uchimura, K. and H. Gao. TheImportance of Infrastructure onEconomic Development. WashingtonDC: World Bank, 1993.

UIC 2000. The International Unionof Railways. “Railways and ClimateChange.” Paris: International Unionof Railways, 2000.

UK Ministry of Transport 1964.UK Ministry of Transport. RoadPricing: The Technical and EconomicPossibilities. London: HMSO, 1964.

UN 2000. United NationsEnvironment Program, Division ofTechnology, Industry and Economics.Industry and Environment 23, no. 4(October–December 2000). Paris:United Nations EnvironmentProgram, Division of Technology,Industry and Economics.

______ 2001. United Nations. WorldUrbanization Prospects: The 1999Revision. New York: United Nations,Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, Population Division, 2001.

UNCTAD 2000. United NationsConference on Trade andDevelopment. Review of MaritimeTransport 2000. New York andGeneva, 2000.

references


Unnithan 2001. Unnithan,Sandeep. “Delivering the Goods.”India Today, June 4, 2001. Availableon-line at www.india-today.com/itoday/20010604/offtrack.shtml. Lastvisited June 14, 2001.

US Census Bureau 1977. USCensus Bureau. National TravelSurvey, 1977. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Commerce, USCensus Bureau, 1977.

______ 1979. US Census Bureau.Statistical Abstract of the United States.Washington, DC: US Department ofCommerce, US Census Bureau, 1979.http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html.



______ 2001. US Census Bureau.About Metropolitan Areas.Washington, DC: US Department ofCommerce, US Census Bureau, 2001.Available on-line at www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html.

US DOE 2001. US Department ofEnergy, Office of TransportationTechnologies. “Future US HighwayEnergy Use: A Fifty Year Perspective.”Draft, February 22, 2001. www.ott.doe.gov/facts/ publications/hwyfuture.pdf.

US DOT, BTS 1997a. US Departmentof Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics. TransportationStatistics Annual Report 1997: Mobilityand Access. BTS97-S-01. Washington,DC: US DOT, BTS 1997.

______ 1997b. US Department ofTransportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics. Profile: 1995

American Travel Survey. Available on-line at http://199.79.179.77/programs/ats/. Last visited June 12, 2001.

______ 1999. US Department ofTransportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics. TransportationStatistics Annual Report 1999.Washington, DC: US DOT 1999.

______ 2000. US Department ofTransportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics. The ChangingFace of Transportation. Washington,DC: US DOT, 2000. Available on-line at http://199.79.179.77/transtu/cft/.Last visited June 12, 2001.

US DOT, FAA 2000. US Departmentof Transportation, Federal AviationAdministration. Aviation 2000 AviationCapacity Enhancement Plan.Washington, DC: US DOT, FAA,December 2000. Available on-line athttp://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/00ACE.html. Last visited June 12, 2001.

US DOT, FHWA 1990. USDepartment of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration.Nationwide Transportation Survey:Urban Travel Patterns. Washington,DC: US DOT 1990.

______ 1995. US Department ofTransportation, Federal HighwayAdministration. Nationwide PersonalTransportation Survey. Washington,DC: US DOT 1995. Available on-lineat http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/nptspage.htm.

US DOT, FTA 1999. US Departmentof Transportation. National TransitDatabase 1999. Available on-line athttp://www.ntdprogram.com. Lastvisited May 30, 2001.

US DOT, NHTSA 1999a. USDepartment of Transportation,National Highway TrafficAdministration. Automotive FuelEconomy Program: Twenty-FourthAnnual Report to Congress, 1999.Table II-6. Available on-line athttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/fuelecon/#F24-6.Last visited June 1, 2001.

______ 1999b. Traffic Safety Facts1998. DOT HS 808 98. Washington,DC: US DOT, NHTSA 1999.

US EPA 1994. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Chart based onfigures from “EnvironmentalAdvantages of Inland BargeTransportation.” Final report preparedby the Office of Market Promotion(US Army Corps of Engineers), August1994. Available on-line athttp://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/navdata/eaibt.htm.

______ 1999. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Evaluation of AirPollutant Emissions from SubsonicCommercial Jet Aircraft. EPA 420-R-99-013. Washington, DC: US GAO,April 1999.

______ 2000a. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency. “Latest Findingson National Air Quality: 1999 Statusand Trends.” Washington, DC: US Environmental ProtectionAgency, 2000.

______ 2000b. US EnvironmentalProtection Agency. “Emissions Control,Air Pollution from 2004 and LaterModel Year Heavy-Duty HighwayEngines and Vehicles; Light Duty On-Board Diagnostics Requirements,Revision; Final Rule.” 65 FederalRegister 59896. October 6, 2000.

Vasconcellos 1996. Vasconcellos, E.Reassessing Traffic Accidents inDeveloping Countries. Transport Policy.Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 263–269.

______ 1997. Vasconcellos, E. TheMaking of the Middle Class City:Transportation Policy in São Paulo.Environment and Planning A. Vol. 29,pp. 293–310.

______ 1999. Vasconcellos, E. “UrbanDevelopment and Traffic Accidents inBrazil.” Accident Analysis andPrevention 31: 319-328.

______ 2000. Vasconcellos, E.“National Urban Transport Policy fora Sustainable Development: The Caseof Brazil.” In Urban Transportation andEnvironment, edited by O. Díaz, G.Palomas, and C. Jamet, pp. 557–562.

mobility 2001


Proceedings of the InternationalConference CODATU IX, Mexico City,April 11–14. Rotterdam: A.A.Balkema, 2000.

Vasconcellos et al. 2000.Vasconcellos, E., W.A.P. Aquino, andI.M.O. Lima. “Measuring CongestionExternalities in Brazilian Towns — AnExploratory Study.” In UrbanTransportation and Environment, editedby O. Díaz, G. Palomas, and C. Jamet,pp. 625–630. Proceedings of theInternational Conference CODATU IX,Mexico City, April 11–14. Rotterdam:A.A. Balkema, 2000.

Vital Signs 1999. Brown, Lester R.,Michael Renner, and Brian Halweil.Vital Signs 1999: The EnvironmentalTrends That Are Shaping Our Future.Washington, DC: Worldwatch, May 1999.

Vorster et al. 2000. Vorster, J.C., M.Rademeyer, and S. Burnett. “PublicTransport Levels of Services inGauteng, South Africa.” In UrbanTransportation and Environment, editedby O. Díaz, G. Palomas, and C. Jamet,pp. 329–334. Proceedings of theInternational Conference CODATU IX,Mexico City, April 11–14. Rotterdam:A.A. Balkema, 2000.

Wang and Foinikis 2001. Wang, J.and P. Foinikis. “Formal SafetyAssessment of Containerships. MarinePolicy 25: 143–157.

WEC 1998. World Energy Council.Global Transport and EnergyDevelopment: The Scope for Change.London: World Energy Council, 1998.

Weiss 2000. Weiss, Malcolm A., etal. “On the Road in 2020.” EnergyLaboratory Report No. MIT — EL 00-003, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge, MA,October 2000. http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/.

West et al. 2000. West, J.J., G.Sosa, F. San Martini, M. Molina, L.Molina, J. Steinfeld, G. McRae, D.Baumgardner, T. Castro, A. Martinez,R. Navarro-Gonzalez, and G. Raga.“Air Pollution Science in Mexico City:Understanding Source-Receptor

Relationships for InformingDecisions.” Draft White Paper for theMIT Integrated Program on Urban,Regional, and Global Air Pollution,April 24.

WHO 1999. World HealthOrganization. Charter on Transport,Environment and Health. Copenhagen:WHO Regional Office for Europe,1999. Available on-line athttp://www.who.dk/London99/ transport02e.htm.

WHO 2001. World HealthOrganization. Résumé d'orientation desDirectives de l'OMS Relatives au Bruitdans L'environnement. Geneva: WHO,2001. Available at on-line at http://www.who.int/environmental_infor-mation/Noise/bruit.htm. Last visitedJune 12, 2001.

Willoughby 2000a. Willoughby, C.“Managing Motorization.” WorldBank Discussion Paper, TWU-42,Washington, DC, April.

______ 2000b. Willoughby, C.“Singapore's Experience in ManagingMotorization and its Relevance toOther Countries.” Transport Division,World Bank Discussion Paper, TWU-43, Washington, DC, April.

Wing and Saladin 2000. Wing S.,F. and C. Saladin. “Panama's CorredorSur: Turning the Bay of Panama intoa 'Fecal Swamp.’” Center forInternational Environmental Law,September 2000.

Wooldridge et al. 1999.Wooldridge, C., C. McMullen, andV. Howe. “Environmental Manage-ment of Ports and Harbors —Implementation of Policy throughScientific Monitoring.” Marine Policy 23, no. 4: 413–425.

World Bank 1988. RoadDeterioration in Developing Countries:Causes and Remedies. Washington,DC: World Bank Policy Study, 1998.

______ 1994. World Bank. 1994.World Development Report 1994:Infrastructure for Development. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

______ 1996. Sustainable Transport:Priorities for Policy Reform.Washington, DC, 1996.

______ 2000. World DevelopmentIndicators.

______ 2001a. “Cities on the Move:A World Bank Urban TransportationStrategy Review.” Consultation Draft,November 2000. Available on-line athttp://wbln0018.worldbank.org/transport/utsr.nsf/2b79bdc5680c393a8525684d006393af/e3e251749fa7260d8525697b005fc069/$FILE/UTSR_Draft_C1.pdf. Last visited June 15, 2001.

______ 2001b. World Bank RailwayDatabase. Available on-line athttp://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/transport/rail/rdb.htm. Last visit-ed June 29, 2001.

______ 2001c. Ports and LogisticsOverview. From Web site(http://www.worldbank.org/trans-port/ports_ss.htm), accessed July 3, 2001.

World Fuels Today 2000. WorldFuels Today (October 12, 2000), p. 1.Potomac, MD: Hart Publications.

WRI 1996. World Resources Institute.World Resources 1996–97. New York:Oxford University Press, 1996.

Wright 2000. Wright, C. Modos deTransporte, Utilización del EspacioUrbano y Accidentes de Tránsito. NotaTécnica. Interamerican DevelopmentBank, September.

Zegras 1998. Zegras, C. “UsedVehicles in Perú: Effects onMotorization, Energy and Emissions.”Draft report, International Institutefor Energy Conservation,Washington, DC. May.

Zegras and Gakenheimer 2000.Zegras, C. and R. Gakenheimer.“Urban Growth Management forMobility: The Case of the Santiago,Chile Metropolitan Region.” Workingpaper prepared for the Lincoln Institutefor Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.

Zegras and Litman 1997. Zegras,C. and T. Litman. “The Full Costs and

references


Impacts of Transportation in Santiagode Chile.” International Institute forEnergy Conservation, Washington, DC.

Zegras et al. 2000. Zegras, C., J.Makler, R. Gakenheimer, A. Howitt,and J. Sussman. “MetropolitanMexico City Mobility and AirQuality.” White Paper for the MITIntegrated Program on Urban,Regional and Global Air Pollution,June 2000.

mobility 2001


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

David BaylissSenior Transportation ConsultantDr. Joseph F. CoughlinResearch Associate, Center for Transportation StudiesDr. Elizabeth M. DrakeAssociate Director, Energy LaboratoryDr. Frank R. Field IIISenior Research Associate, Materials Systems LabDr. Ralph GakenheimerProfessor of Urban Studies and DesignDr. John B. HeywoodDirector of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical EngineeringDr. Gail KendallProfessor of Mechanical EngineeringDr. David MarksDirector of the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Goulder Family Professor of Engineering Systems and Civil and Environmental EngineeringCarl D. MartlandSenior Research Associate, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringDr. John B. MillerProfessor of Civil and Environmental EngineeringKenneth OrskiSenior Transportation ConsultantDr. Daniel RoosJapan Steel Industry Professor, Director of Engineering Systems Division, Associate Dean of Engineering SystemsDr. Andreas SchaferPrincipal Research Associate, Center for Technology Policy and Industrial DevelopmentChristopher ShannonEditorDr. Joseph M. SussmanJR East Professor, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering SystemsDr. Ian A. WaitzProfessor of Aeronautics and AstronauticsDr. Malcolm A. WeissPrincipal Research Associate, Laboratory for Energy and the EnvironmentP. Christopher ZegrasResearch Associate, MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment

CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES INCORPORATEDDr. Jon A. BottomSenior AssociateDr. George C. EadsVice PresidentMichael A. KempVice PresidentTerence McKiernanEditorDr. Shomik R. MehndirattaSenior AssociateDr. Kevin NeelsVice PresidentAnnie RossDesigner

© 2001 by WBCSDThe MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment and Charles River Associates Incorporated retain the copyright to all backup materialsand the rights to future use thereof.

contributors C-1

Cover photograph: copyright 2001 Daniela and Michal Kocvara.


4, chemin de Conches Tel: (41 22) 839 31 00 E-mail: [email protected]

CH-1231 Conches-Geneva Fax: (4122) 839 31 31 Internet: www.wbcsd.org

Switzerland

What is the WBCSD?The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a coalition of150 international companies united by a shared commitment to sustainabledevelopment via the three pillars of economic growth, environmental protectionand social equity. Our members are drawn from more than 30 countries and 20major industrial sectors. We also benefit from a Global Network of 30 national andregional business councils and partner organizations involving some 700 businessleaders globally.

Our missionTo provide business leadership as a catalyst for change toward sustainabledevelopment, and to promote the role of eco-efficiency, innovation and corporatesocial responsibility.

Our aimsOur objectives and strategic directions, based on this dedication, include:

Business leadership - to be the leading business advocate on issues connectedwith sustainable development.

Policy development - to participate in policy development in order to create aframework that allows business to contribute effectively to sustainable development.

Best practice - to demonstrate business progress in environmental and resourcemanagement and corporate social responsibility and to share leading-edge practicesamong our members.

Global outreach - to contribute to a sustainable future for developing nations andnations in transition.

What is the Sustainable Mobility Project?

Sustainable Mobility is the ability to meet society's need to move freely, gain access,communicate, trade and establish relationship without sacrificing other essentialhuman or ecological values, today or in the future. The Sustainable Mobility Projectis a member led project of the WBCSD. The project aims to develop a global visioncovering Sustainable Mobility of people, goods and services. The project will showpossible pathways towards Sustainable Mobility that will answer societal, environ-mental and economic concerns.

DisclaimerThis report was prepared with the help of MIT and Charles River Associates. Thereport is released by the WBCSD. Like other WBCSD reports, it is the result of a col-laborative effort between members of the secretariat and executives from severalmember companies. The report was reviewed by all project members to ensurebroad views and perspective. It does not mean, however, that every member com-pany agrees with every word.

AcknowledgmentsThe teams of MIT and Charles River Associates.

Ordering publicationsWBCSD, c/o E&Y DirectTel: (44 1423) 357 904 Fax: (44 1423) 357 900 E-mail: [email protected] are available on WBCSD's website: http://www.wbcsd.orgThe Mobility 2001 report is available online on the WBCSD’s Mobility websitehttp:// wbcsdmobility.orgCopyright © World Business Council for Sustainable Development, August 2001ISBN 2-940240-21-3Printed in Switzerland by Atar Roto Presse

COMPANY CONTACTS:

BP P. Histon, [email protected]

DaimlerChrysler U. Müller, [email protected]

Ford D. Zemke, [email protected]

GM L. Dale, [email protected]

Honda K. Kambe, [email protected]

Michelin P. Le Gall, [email protected]

Norsk Hydro E. Sandvold, [email protected]

Renault C. Winia van Opdorp,[email protected]

Shell T. Ford, [email protected]

Toyota M. Sasanouchi,[email protected]

Volkswagen H. Minte, [email protected]

SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PROJECT

WBCSD CONTACTS:

Project Director: A. Thorvik, [email protected]

Assistant Project Director: M. Koss, [email protected]

Communication Manager: K. Pladsen, [email protected]

Project Officer: C. Schweizer, [email protected]

Documents

world mobility at the end of the twentieth century and its ...web.mit.edu/aeroastro/sites/waitz/publications/WBCSD.report.pdf · Chapter 4 — Personal Mobility in the Developing