Using Public Policies to Promote Walking, Cycling, and Public Transport John Pucher, Rutgers University http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/
Worldwide Travel Trends Increasing daily travel distances Increasing car ownership and use Increased public transport use, but falling mode share Less walking almost everywhere Low or falling cycling levels except in northern Europe
Growth in Passenger Car Ownership in Europe, 1970-2002 (cars per 1,000 population) 600 Passenger cars per 1,000 population 500 400 300 200 Austria Belgium Denmark Germany France Italy Netherlands Finland Sweden United Kingdom EU-15 100 1970 1980 1990 2002 Source: European Commission, Energy and Transport in Figures, 2004
800 700 Cars and light trucks per 1000 population 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cars and Light Trucks per 1,000 population in USA and Western Europe USA GER UK NL DK 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Passenger Kilometers of Car and Light Truck Use per Inhabitant in Western Europe and North America, 2006 USA Canada Finland France Italy Norway UK Sweden Germany Belgium Denmark Netherla Austria Spain Ireland 11,891 11,833 11,715 11,444 11,359 10,721 10,541 10,456 9,950 9,061 8,698 7,791 6,652 14,697 24,636-4,000 1,000 6,000 11,000 16,000 21,000 26,000 Passenger Kilometers of Car and Light Truck Travel per Inhabitant
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percentage of Trips by Public Transport, Bicycle, and Walking in Selected OECD Countries 11 21 8 9 1 1 5 7 8 8 8 9 10 6 8 2 9 9 4 15 11 8 3 11 17 9 4 2 24 13 16 19 22 22 23 21 23 24 16 9 12 11 35 5 25 22 Transit Bike Walk Australia (2006)* Canada (2001)* Ireland (2006)* Belgium (1999) France (1994) UK (2006) Norway (2001) Denmark (2003) Finland (2005) Germany (2002) Austria (2005) Sweden (2006) Finland (1999) Spain (2000)** Netherlands (2006) USA (2001) Percetage of Trips
Walking and Bicycling Shares of Urban Travel by Age Group in the USA, Germany and The Netherlands 60% 50% Bicycle Walking 11% 7% The Netherlands 40% Germany 25% 24% 30% 20% 10% 9% 39% 48% 30% 19% 22% 10% 0% USA 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 7% 5% 6% 4% 17% 23% 12% 13% 14% 19% 24% Age 16-24 25-39 40-64 65+ 18-44 45-64 65-74 75+ 18-24 25-39 40-64 65-74 75+ Source: Pucher and Dijkstra, Promoting Safe Walking and Cycling to Improve Public Health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany, American Journal of Public Health, September 2003, Vol. 93, No. 9, pp. 1509-1516.
Percentage of Short Trips Made by Walking and Cycling in Germany (2002) and the USA (2001) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Germany Walk Bike 30 20 10 0 USA 0-1 km 1-2 km 2-5 km 0-1 km 1-2 km 2-5 km Source: Ralph Buehler, "Travel Behavior in Germany and the USA"
Consequences of Car Dependence Increasing energy use and Greenhouse Gases Noise, air and water pollution Worsening traffic congestion Scarce urban land used for roads and parking Traffic fatalities and injuries Mobility problems for the poor, the elderly, children, and women Insufficient physical activity and rising obesity
Does auto-dependency make us fat? Obesity falls sharply with increased walking, cycling, and transit use! 30 60 25 20 15 10 Percent of Obesity Percent Walk, Bike,Transit 5 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 USA New Zealand Australia Canada Ireland France Finland Italy Spain Germany Sweden Austria Netherlands Switzerland Denmark Obesity Walk, Bike, Transit
If car-dependence is the problem, then we should improve alternatives to the car: PUBLIC TRANSPORT WALKING CYCLING
Walking and Cycling: the MOST sustainable transport modes MOST environmentally friendly: >Virtually no pollution at all >Almost no nonrenewable resources used MOST equitable: >Financially affordable by virtually everyone >Physically possible by all but the severely disabled MOST economical: >Minimal private and public costs >Although they take more time, they provide exercise that reduces medical costs and greatly extends our healthy life expectancy
Getting around Copenhagen on the perfect Zero Emissions Vehicle: the BIKE! Photo: Susan Handy
Public Policies Crucial to Transit, Walking, and Cycling Pro-car policies in European cities in 1950s and 1960s caused huge decline in walking and cycling Dramatic policy turn-around since 1970s to limit car use and promote cycling, walking, and public transport in Dutch, Danish, and German cities
Bridge in Freiburg BEFORE and AFTER reforms
Typical residential street in Freiburg BEFORE and AFTER traffic calming reforms
Cathedral Square in Freiburg BEFORE transport and urban planning reforms
Cathedral Square in Freiburg AFTER transport and urban planning reforms
German Cycling Boom Engineered by Explicit Shifts in Transport Policy in 1970s City Time Period Change in Bicycle Modal Split Share Percentage Increase in Bicycle Share Munich 1976 to 1996 6% to 13% +117% Nuremberg 1976 to 2001 4% to 9% +125% Cologne 1976 to 1998 6% to 12% +100% Freiburg 1976 to 1998 12% to 19% +58% Stuttgart 1976 to 2000 2% to 6% +200% Bremen 1976 to 1997 16% to 21% +31% Muenster 1976 to 2001 29% to 35% +21% Average for all urban areas in Western Germany 1972 to 2002 8% to 10% +25% Sources: Broeg and Erl, Mobilitaet und Verkehrsmittelwahl. Muenchen: Socialdata, 2003; Deutsches Institut fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Mobilitaet in Deutschland, 2002. Berlin: Bundesministerium fuer Verkehr, 2004.
Overview of Coordinated Policies that Encourage Transit Use, Walking, and Cycling in Europe Expansion and modernization of public transport systems Continual improvement of pedestrian and cyclist facilities Full integration of walk, bike, transit modes Sharp restrictions on car use in central cities High cost of car ownership and use Land-use policies that discourage suburban sprawl
Expansion and Upgrading of Public Transport Systems More metro and light rail service Upgrading of bus services, including some BRT Modernization of transit vehicles and stations Reserved bus/tram lanes and signal priority Coordination of all transit services through a unified regional transit agency (Verkehrsverbund) Attractive monthly and annual passes Expanded bike-and-ride and park-and-ride facilities
Complete Coordination and Integration of Public Transport in Germany Verkehrsverbünde (regional transit authorities) Allocate operating assistance over operators (public and private) Fully integrate all transit services, all modes, all fares, schedules, routes in entire region
Quick and easy transfer between suburban rail, longdistance rail, and light rail transit modes in Germany
Bike and Ride Radstation: Bike parking facility in Muenster, Germany (3,500 bikes) immediately adjacent to main train station and bus terminal
Real Time Information at Light Rail Stops in Freiburg
Continual Improvement of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities Traffic-calmed residential neighborhoods Massive increase in bikeways, bike lanes, intersection modifications for cyclists, priority signals Extensive car-free zones, speed reductions, and other restrictions on thru motor vehicle traffic Improvements in crosswalks, lighting, sidewalks, signals Vast increase in bike parking, including parking garages, especially at transit stations Extensive cycling education and training in all primary schools Full integration of walk/bike facilities with bus and rail transit stops and bike transport on transit vehicles
Most European cities have extensive carfree districts ideal for walking and cycling
Lively, safe, pleasant car-free zone in central Copenhagen
Typical intersection in Copenhagen, with separate crossings for pedestrians and cyclists
Bike-walk Promenade in Muenster, Germany Note exclusive cycle path in middle and completely Note separate exclusive pedestrian cycle path walkways in middle on both and sides completely separate pedestrian walkways on both sides This 6 km beltway encircles central city and connects 16 major bike paths radiating outward toward the suburbs and 26 bike paths and lanes leading to Cathedral Square.
GIVE EMPLOYEES FREE BIKES INSTEAD OF FREE PARKING! The perfect zero emissions vehicles! Troels Andersen, Cycling in Odense, Denmark
Sharp Restrictions and High Taxes on Auto Use, Ownership, Licensing High taxes on petrol and new car purchases Expensive and limited car parking High cost and difficulty of obtaining driver s license Slowdowns in roadway expansion and exclusion of limitedaccess motorways from city centers Tempo 30km/hr (or 7km/hr) in residential neighborhoods Turn restrictions, artificial dead-ends, thru traffic restrictions for cars and trucks Strict enforcement of traffic regulations favoring pedestrians and cyclists, with motorists usually assumed guilty of any crash, especially with elderly or children
Why Traffic Calming Saves Lives Speed Speed kills! kills! Source: World Health Organization (2008) and OECD Transport Research Centre (2006)
Many residential neighborhoods in German, Dutch, and Danish cities are traffic calmed Reduced car speeds increase traffic safety and encourage walking and cycling
Taxes on New Car Purchases in Europe and the USA (percent tax on purchase price in 2005, average car) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Denmark Finland Portugal Greece Ireland Netherlands Sweden Austria Spain Belgium France Italy United Kingdom Germany Luxembourg USA Source: European Commission, Energy and Transport in Figures, 2006 Percent tax on purchase price
Premium Unleaded Gasoline Prices and Share of Taxes in Selected OECD Countries in 2007 (U.S. $ per Liter) Norway Netherlands United Kingdom Belgium Germany Finland Italy Denmark France Sweden Austria Switzerland Canada United States Gasoline Price w/o tax Tax $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 Source: OECD: Energy Prices and Taxes 4th Quarter 2007.
Trends in Gasoline Prices in 7 OECD Countries (in US dollars), 1996-2008 US dollars per gallon 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands UK US
Land-Use Policies that Discourage Suburban Sprawl Strict land use zoning to preserve open space, agricultural areas, forests in immediate proximity to cities Explicit federal, state, regional, and local land use plans that ensure mixed-use, compact development and coordination of land use with transportation Tax preferences for land used for agriculture, open space, nature preserves, in addition to strict prohibitions on commercial and residential use of such land Higher price of legally developable land forces higher development densities in metropolitan areas
Land Use Planning in Germany Top-down, bottom-up coordination of land use planning among all four levels of government in Germany Coordination of land use, transportation, and environment at each level Federal State Regional Local top >>> down bottom >>> up Source: German Federal Office of Construction and Land Use Planning, 2000
Keys to Success in Europe: 1) Improving all forms of public transport, fully integrating and coordinating them with each other, and offering attractive fares 2) Improving cycling and walking conditions and integrating them with public transport services, so that these three modes together can provide a feasible alternative to the car 3) Making car use as resistible as possible by imposing high taxes, fees, and other user charges, restricting car use, limiting parking, and making it both difficult and expensive to get a license 4) Strict land-use policies to keep metropolitan areas compact and trip distances short so that public transport, walking, and cycling remain feasible ways to get around
For any questions or further information, please contact: Prof. John Pucher Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers University 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 363 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 Email: pucher@rutgers.edu Webpage: http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html
Suggested readings and additional slides on travel trends and problems in Asia, Europe, and North America For details, please consult these overview articles: Pucher et al, Urban Transport Trends and Policies in China and India, Transport Reviews, July 2007. Pucher and Buehler, Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, Transport Reviews, July 2008. Pucher, Urban Transport in Germany: How to Provide Feasible Alternatives to Auto Use, Transport Reviews, July 1998. Additional slides follow
Passenger Cars per 1,000 People in China and India, (1991-2006) 14.00 Cars per 1,000 people 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 China India 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China, Year Book of China 2008; Indian Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2008)
Per Capita Income Trends in China and 6000 India (1972 2007) 5000 China India 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Note: Per Capita Incomes for both China and India are expressed here in constant, inflation-adjusted 1996 US dollars, using purchasing power parity for currency conversion
Motorcycles per 1,000 People in China & India (1976 2006) Motorcycles per 1000 people 100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 China India 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Y Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China, Year Book of China 2008; Indian Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2008)
Car Ownership and Economic Growth: Is China just following the trend? Source: Lee Schipper and Embarq, World Resources Institute (2008)
Motor Vehicle Ownership by Selected Region 350 300 2005 2030 Million Vehicles 250 200 150 100 50 0 United States OECD Europe Japan Canada South Korea Russia China India Brazil Source: EIA, IEO2008
Roadway congestion and air pollution are increasingly serious problems in large Chinese cities (Beijing shown here)
Peak hour traffic congestion in Delhi
Percent Distribution of Urban Trips by Means of Travel for Selected Chinese Cities, 2000 100% 80% Walk 60% 40% 20% Non-motorized Vehicles Private motorized Public Transport 0% Beijing (14.81M) Shanghai (18.41M) Tianjin (10.11M) Shi Jiazhuang (9.17M) Hangzhou (6.43M) Nanjing (5.72M)
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent Distribution of Urban Trips by Means of Travel for Selected Indian Cities, 2002 Walk Non-motorized Vehicles Private motorized Public Transport Mumbai (16.3M) Kolkata (13.2M) Delhi (12.79M) Chennai (6.4M) Bangalore (5.68M) Hyderabad (5.53M) Ahmedabad (4.51M) Pune (3.755M) Kanpur (2.69M) Lucknow (2.26M)
Growth of India's Motor Vehicle Fleet by Type of Vehicle (1981-2002) No. of Vehicles (in millions) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tw o-w heelers Cars, Jeeps and Taxis Other Motorized Goods Vehicles Buses 1981 1986 1991 1996 2002
Growth of China's Motor Vehicle Fleet by Type of Vehicle (1981-2002) No. of Vehicles (in m illions) 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tw o w heelers Cars, Jeeps and Taxis Other Motorized Goods Vehicles Buses 1981 1986 1991 1996 2002
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Traffic Fatalities in India and China (1972-2002) India China Traffic Fatalities (in thousands) 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Air Pollution in Chinese and Indian Cities Particulate M atter (PM 10) Sulphur Oxides (SOx) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Beijing (14.81M) Shanghai (13.41M) Chengdu (10.44M) Tianjin (10.11M) Shi Jiazhuang (9.17M) Wuhan (7.68M) Xian (7.41M) Guangzhou (7.25M) Shenyang (7.2M) Hangzhou (6.43M) Nanjing (5.72M) Chongqing (3.1M) Mumbai (16.3M) Kolkata (13.21M) Delhi (12.79M) Chennai (6.42M) Bangalore (5.68M) Chinese Cities (2003) Indian Cities (2000) Pollution concentration in micrograms per cubic meter
Traffic Congestion in Beijing
Severe roadway congestion in large Indian cities Traffic levels exceed road capacity Rapid growth in motorized vehicles Very mixed traffic on roads Improvements in infrastructure have not kept up with sharply rising demand
Rickshaw operation: uncontrolled & poor Road space: minimum for bus Reduce bus speed and increase cost Congestion in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Congestion worsened by mixing of motorized and nonmotorized modes