and Cycling Could Cut Car Use, Reduce CO2, Save Consumers US$100 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Global High Shift: How More Public Transport, Walking, and Cycling Could Cut Car Use, Reduce CO2, Save Consumers US$100 Trillion, and Boost Equitable Mobility

Lew Fulton University of California, Davis

February 2015 CODATU Conference Istanbul, Turkey

Michael Replogle ITDP

Investment and policy choices shape vehicle ownership, travel activity, and resulting cost, benefits, impacts

NextSTEPS Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways

www.steps.ucdavis.edu

H2

Source: Rand Corporation 2014. The Future of Driving in Developing Countries

Vehicle use is function not just of income, but policy and investment

1970s 1990s

Portland, Oregon: An American Turn Around Story

Portland, Oregon made the land use-transport policy and investment connection

Portland residents now bike more

Portland residents now use public transport more

Portland, Oregon area residents drive less because of changes in transport investment and land use policy

Portlan d

Thus Portland residents emit less CO2

As the world urbanizes cities everywhere face choices: to lock in a low or a high carbon future?

High Shift Study: Inspired by Rio+20 Voluntary Commitments

What would be effect if the 17 Rio+20 transport commitments were taken to scale worldwide including:

• 8 MDBs: US$175 billion for more sustainable transport 2012-2021
• UITP: double public transport mode share by 2025
• ITDP: promote BRT and TOD Standards, national transport policy best

practice

2

Global High Shift Scenario Study

• Analysis led by UC Davis, in cooperation with

International Energy Agency (IEA) supported by ITDP, International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)

• Global travel projected using urban model adapted

from the IEA Mobility Model (MoMo): 33 countries or regions

• More detailed break out of urban travel modes, 2

wheelers, non-motorized transport, equity impacts

• Modal shift based on potential to boost capacity of

transit/NMT systems to allow fewer cars

3

Comparison of Two Scenarios

• “High Shift” Scenario:
• UN Projections of cities by size through 2050
• Increase rapid transit km per million residents (RTR)
• Encourage walking and cycling for short trips
• E-bikes expand in lieu of motor cycles and some cars
• Preserve total projected growth in personal mobility in

low and middle income (non-OECD) countries to 2050

• Cut car travel in cities by half by 2050 from Base Case
• “Base Case” aligns with the IEA 4 degree scenario (4DS)
• Some fuel economy improvement
• No shift away from car growth
• Other modes static or slow growth

6

Rapid Transit per Resident (RTR) to 2050 : combined length of transit systems per capita to 2050

OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD Metro 7.1 1.8 6.8 1.5 6.9 1.4 8.8 4.8 10.7 6.4 BRT 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 4.6 9.0 8.1 13.5 Tram/LRT 11.5 3.0 10.9 2.5 11.1 2.3 13.2 4.0 15.2 4.6 Commuter rail 32.5 1.9 31.0 1.6 31.5 1.4 42.3 10.2 52.6 14.8 2010 4DS High Shift 2030 2050 2030 2050

Combined length of transit systems to 2050

OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD Metro 6,336 4,883 6,970 6,103 7,604 7,324 9,078 18,922 11,820 32,962 BRT 574 1,910 862 3,820 1,149 5,729 4,740 35,781 8,905 69,652 Tram/LRT 10,221 7,983 11,243 9,979 12,266 11,975 13,516 15,896 16,810 23,809 Commuter rail 28,915 4,967 31,806 6,209 34,698 7,450 43,478 40,488 58,040 76,009 2010 4DS High Shift 2030 2050 2030 2050

The Base and High Shift Scenario Doubling of public transport and NMT urban travel and about a halving of LDV travel in 2050 v. Baseline

8

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2010 2050 Base 2050 HS 2010 2050 Base 2050 HS OECD non-OECD annual PKm (trillions) walk cycle e-bike/scooter Commuter rail Tram/LRT Metro Minibus BRT BRT Feeder bus Urban bus ICE 2Ws LDV

High Shift Scenario – travel per capita Total travel in non-OECD preserved, travel reduced some in OECD

9

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 2010 2050 Base 2050 HS 2010 2050 Base 2050 HS OECD non-OECD Thousand PKm per capita walk cycle e-bike/scooter Commuter rail Tram/LRT Metro Minibus BRT BRT Feeder bus Urban bus ICE 2Ws LDV

High Shift Scenario – Spotlight on Asia Rapid growth in urban bus travel, big drop in ICE 2W travel

9 2 4 6 8 10 12 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 HS 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 HS 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 HS 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 HS 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 HS United States Europe China India Other Developing Asia Trillion PKm walk cycle e-bike Commuter rail Tram/LRT Metro Minibus BRT Urban bus Motor 2W LDV

High Shift Scenario: Bus, Rail, Bike, E-Bike, Walk Travel Total Passenger Kilometers Travel (PKT) for bus, rail, walk, bike, and e-bike by year and scenario

8

• 100

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 OECD Non-OECD United States OECD Non-OECD Netherlands OECD Non-OECD China Walking Cycling e-bikes Annual PKT per capita 2010 2050 Baseline 2050 High shift

Non-motorized Km Travel Per Capita By Mode, Region, Scenario

Direct Cost of Scenarios

• Vehicle purchase costs (all modes)
• System infrastructure costs (road, rail)
• Vehicle and system operating costs
• Fuel costs (liquid fuel, electricity)

2

27% Fewer Cars Needed in Cities Under High Shift vs. Baseline Total Urban Cars in 2050 in High Shift nearly doubles from 2010 to 1.1 billion (vs. 1.8 billion in 2050 Baseline)

2

Urban Car Stock by Scenario, Year, Region

Vehicle purchase costs across all modes – costs in specific year Car purchase costs dominate, drop substantially in High Shift

7

Vehicle purchase costs across all modes – zoom-in without cars 2 wheeler and urban bus costs dominate though BRT/Rail car costs rise in HS case toward 2050

7

Infrastructure investment costs across all modes

• Road/parking costs dominate, followed by metros and

side walks (foot paths)

10

Annual Costs

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD OECD non-OECD 2010-2030 2010-2050 2010-2030 2010-2050 Base High Shift Trillion US Dollars Infrastructure Rail Infrastructure BRT Infrastructure Roadway O&M Cycle/e-bike O&M Rail O&M Bus O&M Private vehicle O&M Road-related Fuel Electricity Fuel LDV-2W liquid fuel Purchase Cycle/e-bike Purchase Rail Purchase Bus Purchase Private vehicle

Cumulative Public and Private Direct Costs High Shift Scenario lowers total costs in all categories

3

• Vehicle purchase costs (all modes)
• System infrastructure costs (road, rail)
• Vehicle and system operating costs
• Fuel costs (liquid fuel, electricity)

Cumulative Savings of >$100 trillion 2010-2050

Distribution of Car Ownership by Income Car ownership is lower for all income groups under High Shift, but becomes slightly more equitably distributed than under BAU

3

Impacts on Global Equity of Access to Mobility

3

Under High Shift Scenario vs. Business-As-Usual:

• Public transport mobility of poorest 20% triples
• Public transport mobility of 2nd poorest 20% doubles

Impacts on Global Equity of Access to Mobility

3

Under High Shift Scenario vs. Business-As-Usual:

• Public transport mobility of poorest 20% triples
• Public transport mobility of 2nd poorest 20% doubles

In rich countries`

Impacts on Global Equity of Access to Mobility

3

Under High Shift Scenario vs. Business-As-Usual:

• Public transport mobility of poorest 20% triples
• Public transport mobility of 2nd poorest 20% doubles

And less wealthy countries`

Impact on urban passenger transport CO2 emissions

Compared to baseline scenario for 2050, High Shift scenario would also cut global warming pollution

• Cut annual CO2 emissions 1.7 GT (40%)
• Cut cumulative 2015-2040 CO2 emissions 25 GT (25%)

3

Impact on urban passenger transport CO2 emissions per capita

CO2 per capita from urban passenger transport converges to 0.8-0.2 tons in 2050 High Shift

Global High Shift Needs to Include Adoption of Euro VI Standards to Protect Public Health

Source: ICCT

In Summary

3

More investment in public transport, walking, and cycling now to 2050 could:

• Cut cumulative public and private urban

transportation costs by >$100 trillion,

• Triple public transport mobility of

poorest 20%

• Cut annual CO2 emissions from urban

passenger transport by 1.7 GT (40%) in 2050 (combined with GFEI a 55% cut)

Prioritize & Improve Walking Regulate and price parking, vehicles & road use Prioritize & Expand Public Transport Prioritize and expand public transport Reduce traffic speed Encourage & Improve Cycling Dense, Compact, Connected Growth Clean technology & fuel standards Reform urban design and street codes Supportive national policies

Need full set of building blocks to attain shift towards public transport, walking and cycling with less car use

To obtain these savings and benefits is a challenge

3

• Spending on public transport needs to rise several

fold to boost Rapid Transit per Resident (RTR)

• Policies to curb car use and raise revenues for

public transport are key -- fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, parking & road user charges, low emission zones

• National urban transport policy and financing

needs to enable cities to tackle the challenge

• Set a goal: e.g. shift 20% of what would be spent on

cars/roads under BAU to public transport and NMT

• Need strong UN Sustainable Development Goals,

Targets, and Indicators and UNFCCC climate agreement, coupled to means of implementation

Next Steps for Research

3

More resources and cooperation are needed to --

• Examine net effects on government revenues and

expenditures in different scenarios

• Strengthen data with deep dives in individual

cities, countries and regions, and on non- motorized transport, shared mobility

• Similarly analyze freight & intercity travel
• Prepare policy, technology, and financing

roadmaps to achieve High Shift

Thank you for your attention! Michael Replogle

Managing Director for Policy and Founder www.itdp.org

38