:
Discussion - March 2011
Is sustainable mobility about changing users' behaviour, or changing transport infrastructure?
29 Comments from our contributors
29 Comments from our contributors
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 28/02/2011
The need for individuals to travel, the means by which they do so and the impacts of travel have evolved considerably over time and will probably continue to do so. In many of the developed nations, we have moved from largely static groups of small, rural populations with smaller groups of travelers moving goods and ideas, through migration and gathering of rural populations into urban clusters around industrial activities with significant increases in transportation of goods through periods of massive disruption through warfare and political upheaval. Layer onto this the economic ebb and flow created by income levels, housing costs and fashion that contribute to suburban development and we have a very complex system of needs, behaviours and infrastructure.
I conclude from my admittedly somewhat limited background in history that much of the UKs transport infrastructure was either developed through the profits derived from moving goods around for export (canals and major rail routes) and to satisfy the desires of the wealthy minority (routes to remote areas, coastal resorts etc.). A combination of speculation, available investment concentrated in a few individuals, more available space and compliant populations and authorities allowed infrastructure to be rapidly pushed through the countryside and cities with limited effective resistance. However, it should be remembered that many projects failed, have been subsequently removed (Beeching) and much investment was wasted through losses or non-compatible technologies (rail gauges etc).
We now have less space, lower profit potential (lower margins and higher impact costs), fewer candidates to invest and public and political increased resistance to major projects. The issue is now about regularly shifting more people at the lower end of the income scale over concentrated time periods to meet basic needs of earning a living.
Few individuals have careers for life let alone jobs for life as the fast pace of economic change now affects the majority of the population rather than the minority. Consequently, we have to be increasingly flexible about where we can are prepared to work and live with resultant travel needs.
All this is in addition to the impact of increased leisure resources.
Our current transport infrastructure is nearing the limits of our current behaviours and adding to current infrastructure is likely to produce diminishing returns e.g. longer/double deck/faster trains, fare subsidies, wider roads etc.
While I believe we will always work to improve existing transport infrastructure, the largest gains will come from changing behaviour. We need to spread our travel activities across time to make more efficient use of infrastructure, implement new infrastructure with the specific aim of changing behaviour for societal benefit e.g. high speed broadband partitioned for social and work purposes rather than simply entertainment and introduce regulatory frameworks to encourage working/education and social services from home. This encouragement could include transport season tickets discounted for a number of travel days rather than a period of time (some that occasional home-workers are not penalized by higher transport costs), prioritized internet traffic (QoS) for services supplied by the NHS or education institutions and for work based activities. Businesses should be encouraged to actively promote remote working amongst the many rather than the privileged few and grants or incentives should be provided to organizations rolling out very high-speed broadband to suburban and rural communities.
By allowing children to learn at home (carrying out structured activities e.g. ICT skills, research etc) and encouraging parents to work from home (say one or two days a week) the next generation will adapt to the concept quickly, current parents will benefit from reduced childcare costs and greater contact with their children and transport needs could be reduced. The sick could be monitored remotely and potentially treated at home using generalist medical staff while experts contribute or supervise over broadband links.
A combination of strategic investment backed up with focused regulatory frameworks and incentives would contribute to positive change over time and mitigate the need for crisis intervention and unintended outcomes. Ancillary benefits should be a greater sense of local community (more time spent active in the home area rather than passing through) and potential to benefit from micro-generation of energy as power from daytime sources such as solar thermal and PV can be directly consumed.
The leisure market is a different issue and oddly enough, since the major variables are economic conditions, destination political stability, flight numbers and aircraft capacity I suspect the market will regulate itself. Personally, I would not be surprised to see a reduction in the number of low cost airlines over time and a gradual increase in the costs of air travel but, that is a whole different system…
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 28/02/2011
Sustainable mobility is a complex and challenging issue.
The first obvious approach is to address necessary improvements in infrastructure. For the US, that means extensive investment in interstate high speed rail, and a major increase in the number of regions adding urban mass transit and light rail systems. However talking about transportation infrastructure without serious discourse about context is missing the mark. Since the days of President Nixon, food production in the US made a major shift from local farm based product to large scale corporate farms. What does this have to do with sustainable transportation? TONS!
The amount of energy consumed to transport beef and produce from large scale factory sources is dramatically higher than local sourced food. Not to mention all the other nutritional benefits of returning to pasture fed animals and locally grown produce.
Now shift this conversation to workers. Since WWII the US has experienced insanely uncontrolled suburban sprawl. This sprawl was fed by President Eisenhower’s national program of construction of interstate highways. Every major population center became just that a center in the middle of an ever expanding ring of new development and more highways. People often commute as much as an hour each way by car to work. Live in remote suburbs that require you to drive to the supermarket, drive to schools, drive, drive, drive, drive, drive.
There are now growing movements to eat local. Buy local. Live, work and shop local. These movements are gaining momentum. Many cities with decayed inner cities are now experiencing return of residents and urban development of cool, high end condos, arts districts and high tech careers.
All elements of society must be engaged to develop a truly sustainable model for mobility.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 28/02/2011
Both. Consumer behavior needs to change more toward group and public transport but yet maintain an option for convenient personal mobility when public transport is unavailable (or unacceptable). Yet the transport infrastructure – including vehicles and fuels – needs adaption away from the long time status quo fuels and individual cars. It’s difficult to generalize because every country is different.
Comparing Europe to N. America, for example, Europeans are way ahead in terms of the public and user friendly transportation system whereas Americans and Canadians can’t have mobility (for the most part, outside large urban centers) without their cars. In emerging economy countries the transportation infrastructures that are more suited to less wealthy citizens typically need major development and/or complete overhaul in both physical structures and procedures (such as how to pay the transport fares).
In the wealthier developed economy countries where status quo diesel and petrol vehicles dominate there needs to be a shift to greater use of alternative fuels; yet the first costs and/or lack of fuelling infrastructures make this a challenge for average income consumers. In any case there is a strong role and need for government involvement to help change the public behavior and to help finance research and development of improved transportation infrastructures and the use of fuel alternatives to petrol and diesel.
Technical Director
Mayer Brown Ltd, Bristol, UK
said: On 01/03/2011
I suggest the answer is a mixture of both changing users’ behavior and changing transport infrastructure.
Behavioral change is key – more flexible working practices are helping this, as is the promotion of healthier lifestyles, and enhancements in computer technology. Escalating fuel and parking prices, plus the costs associated with running a car also affect peoples’ decision making process; as does the cost of using public transport. Travel Plans play a role as well including opportunities to car share and reduce costs. You will never change the habits of everyone, but there is scope to change the thinking and behavior of the majority.
There is also a need to provide infrastructure conducive to using more sustainable modes – provide facilities which are safer, segregated where possible, affordable and reliable, and re-balance some priorities away from the car user. The planning of new developments has to have this agenda as one of its priorities which should include the provision of complementary land uses to reduce the need to travel. Connectivity and accessibility of land uses is therefore paramount, and the need to try and make improvements to existing infrastructure and townscapes. Costs and affordability are even more prevalent at this time of economic downturn.
-
-
said: On 01/03/2011
The anticipated transformation of our mobility system towards more electric based solutions (and I consider this as a move towards sustainable mobility) is not the only transformation process that addresses basic needs of society in face of depleting of oil resources and the CO2 problem. At the same time a radical change in our energy transmission and distribution system (the establishment of a smart grid) that in future has to cope with a high number of distributed and volatile energy sources (e.g. small photovoltaic installations) is under way.
Technology has to serve the human being. It applies for the electric energy supply in our households and for future mobility solutions. Our energy supply system and our mobility system (cars, trains, busses, airplanes and associated infrastructure) have reached a high comfort level. But –as far as the combustion engine driven car is concerned- it is comfort at a high cost (in a general sense), not sustainable and no longer viable.
Do we have to eat humble pie and relinquish of the comfort and advantages that conventional cars and transport system have? I do not think so. Technology has to guarantee the high comfort level and even increase safety. If the user had to change its behavior than towards a direction where he feels more at ease. Likewise as our power network becomes a smart grid, the mobility system and its infrastructure as a whole has to become smart.
An interesting approach hereby is the combination of electric vehicles with super capacitors and contactless power transfer technology with wireless power transfer recharging stations. (for more information visit http://mizugaki.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/)
What are the advantages of this combination?
- Electric vehicles offer from the viewpoint of control more efficient traction control, lateral dynamics, nick, and pitch control, and the possibility to estimate accurately the road condition. It is a consequence of the fact that the torque response of an electric engine is very fast and the torque is measured precisely. This means that apart from being nearly silent and completely exhaust gas free, they have increased comfort and safety.
- Supercapacitors are made of environmentally friendly materials and could substitute batteries. The power density is higher, the number of possible cycles of charging and discharging is 10000 times higher, charging is very fast. However the energy density is not so high, recharging is needed more often.
- And here comes wireless power transfer into play. This technology operating in different frequency ranges, allows to recharge EV without any need for a plug at distances of more than 50 cm with high efficiency. Fast charging is a reality.
There could be addressed a lot of other issues regarding future mobility concepts. For example the possiblity that EVs become energy buffer to sustain the electric network operation combining the two facets of mobility and energy (the so called E2V).
Concluding my short comments;
Electromobility as a sustainable mobility solution
- Demands some change in infrastructure (possibly a gradually conversion like the one we are already witnessing regarding vehicles: combustion engine driven car -> hybrid cars -> plug in hybrid vehicles -> pure electric vehicles)
- Depends strongly on the findings in material science, control engineering, ICT, …
- Through the use of “smart” technology (vehicle dynamics control, charging control, ..) the user feels at ease.
Now it rests to the decision makers, scientists, industry, … to change the user’s mindset towards the many advantages (comfort, safety, noise, high efficiency, sustainability, … of EVs.
President
AVERE - The European Association for Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Brussels, Belgium
said: On 01/03/2011
Concerning the question, “Is sustainable mobility about changing users’ behaviour, or changing transport infrastructure”, I’d say it could be re-written “what is needed first, behaviour changes or a new infrastructure?”, and in fact the time needed for both is long, fairly long and the speed of the two changes will have to adapt to each other.
Just compare what happened with mobile phones: nobody would have bet 25 years ago it would become such a global phenomenon, and though, it works everywhere, as Galileo would have said, even in the most modest developing country, connecting the whole world and translating a change of all the users; behaviour.
So firmly but step by step, decision makers have to plan the mutual adaptation of behaviours and infrastructures as was done in several examples in history with: trains, automobiles, steamer boats etc.
Quoting TS Eliot, I’d say better:
“We wait, and the time is short, but waiting is long”.
General Manager Environment & Energy
Eurostar International Ltd
said: On 01/03/2011
I strongly believe that achieving sustainable mobility is about delivering on both elements.
As a transport service provider, we have a significant role to play in enabling our customers to travel in the most sustainable way possible, whether that is by being a low carbon mode of transport, recycling waste or providing organic food onboard our trains.
The bigger challenge is how customers can be helped to make their whole journey more sustainable from end-to-end. It is clear that customer behaviour can be changed through making improvements to transport infrastructure that will enable more sustainable travel, (e.g. the opening of a new bus route to a railway station that provides a cheaper, faster and lower carbon alternative to using their motor vehicle). What is important to remember is that most customers do not want to pay extra to be more sustainable but they will usually take the more sustainable option if it is the same price or cheaper (or if the cost of using the less sustainable option is increased). A good example of this is through city centre congestion charging which effectively forces sustainable behaviour change through financial penalties.
The fundamental elements therefore for sustainable mobility are for low carbon transport infrastructure that is properly integrated, convenient, easy to use and low cost, all of which will deliver the incentives to drive behavioural change by the consumer.
Managing Director
Wiener Linien, Vienna, Austria
said: On 01/03/2011
Regarding the ”Wiener Linien”, a modern public transport service company that provides quick and safe mobility for everyone in Vienna, this question can only be answered with yes. To place a product or service successfully on the market and make it competitive, and that is also valid for public transportation, it has to fulfil two major points. First, it has to be a good and reliable product and secondly it has to be attractive to the market, potential new costumers and current costumers.
To ensure effective public transport, infrastructure has to be built and improved in a way that it serves as a basis for an attractive service. Good infrastructure is essential in order that people develop the desire to change over to public transports because of the advantages it brings. It’s fast and reliable for their daily use but it also fulfills a matter of public importance: it’s sustainable and eco-friendly.
The Wiener Linien have recently been making a lot of efforts with focus on our costumers – like a 24 hour underground service on weekends, the steady increase of modern vehicles in our transport fleet, or the extension of our passenger services regarding information and cleanliness. Those efforts are crowned with success as our new passenger record shows: 839 Million passengers used the public transports in 2010.
Due to the ecological and economical challenges modern society is facing like climate change or the increase of the oil prices it is absolutely important that we get to change users’ behaviour concerning their mobility.
In Vienna the Wiener Linien are on the right path. 36 percent of all ways in the Austrian capital are covered by public transports, leaving cars with 31 percent far behind. 96 percent of all inhabitants have a bus, tram or underground-stop within walking distance from their home. For good reason the Wiener Linien Slogan says “The city belongs to you”. 75 km underground network, 172 km tram network and about 500 busses provide quick, eco-friendly, easy and cheap mobility through the city.
As the responsible company for this public transports we are very proud of this result that confirms our efforts. Nevertheless we will carry on making Vienna’s public transport system even more attractive. New underground stations are built in the north and in the south of Vienna straight into new growing parts of town – to tie the outer districts even closer to the inner city and make public transport the first choice to move within the city. No traffic jams, short intervals, clean and modern vehicles and costumer proximity in every aspect offer attractive incentives to leave the car at home or in ‘park and ride’ facilities and just board one of the public transports nearby.
Chairman - Country Representatives Committee
NGVA Europe (Natural Gas Vehicle Association), Madrid, Spain
said: On 02/03/2011
NGVA Europe, founded in 2008, has since the start in all correspondence used the tag line ‘for sustainable mobility’.
Why? Well, we have reasoned that continued increased use of oil is not sustainable, neither from an oil supply nor a greenhouse gas perspective, but mankind needs mobility. We believe that there are many different steps which must be taken to secure a sustainable mobility:
Reduce the use of oil (ten out of the eleven largest oil companies already show declining annual oil sales). As a consequence the total supply of LPG is also dropping.
In the short and medium term there is a need to balance the reduced oil consumption, and cover rapidly increasing fuel demands (particularly in fast growing economies in developing countries) via increased use of natural gas, both in the form of LNG and gas supplied via pipeline.
Aim to step by step increase the supply of renewable fuels, but with a focus on fuels which can be produced without detrimental effects on global GHG emissions via indirect land use change (ILUC), optimizing the use of biowaste resources or forest industry residues, and making the most efficient use of land areas available for production of biofuel feedstock. Also use rotational grass crops, necessary in order to keep the land fertile, in an efficient manner. And, consider the most efficient ways of using biomass produced in a marine environment (algae) for supply of hydrocarbon fuel requirements. We believe that biomethane produced via anaerobic digestion, or via gasification of ligno-cellulosic matter, in general is the most efficient fuel choice. Biomethane also offers a the great benefit of no mixing restrictions when blended with natural gas. Methane is methane, whether fossil natural gas, or newly produced biomethane. Another important aspect is the fantastic flexibility of biomethane feedstock. Any biomass can be used, thus no problems related to mono-cultures.
Consider that energy supply is not in general a long term issue, available direct or indirect solar power will meet all needs (production costs is the only issue), but renewable hydrocarbon resources must be used in a manner which preserves the capacity to supply feedstock for the chemical industry, and for transportation demands which cannot be met solved via electric power – aircrafts, shipping and long distance road traffic.
Welcome powertrain efficiency improvements via hybrid technology, but recognize that efficiency gains mainly occur in stop and go traffic, not when cruising along the highways.The benefits of hybridisation will drop significantly when vehicles are mainly used in highway traffic, or when when urban traffic congestion has been reduced thanks to road infrastructure improvements. Fuel consumption per km is presently roughly twice as high in urban traffic as in highway driving. This certainly indicates the enormous fuel saving potential which is possible via investments which would reduce traffic congestion.
Be sceptical about the exaggerated beliefs in the use of battery powered vehicles. Energy requirements are proportional to mass and the square of the velocity. Batteries, unfortunately, add mass (and cost). Providing a longer range means increased mass. Even if renewable electric power in the future could be supplied at a very low cost, we still have the issue of battery cost (and durability). Electric propulsion is fine for a golf-cart travelling 7 km between recharging stops, but perhaps not ideal for a 40 ton truck travelling 1000 km per day. Time required for recharging of the batteries is another issue. When on the road for a long distance trip neither commercial nor private vehicle owners would be prepared to wait for hours to have their batteries recharged.
Sustianable mobility is about (1) securing ways of retaining the mobility, (2) avoiding excessive GHG emissions, (3) eliminating the dependance on oil , and (4) keeping costs within reason.
We believe that vehicles fuelled by methane (in the short term mainly natural gas, in the longer term an increasing share of biomethane), is the best solution of the sustainable mobility issue. The combination of natural gas and biomethane offers an immediately available large scale alternative to oil. In Pakistan, NG powered vehicles already account for more than 80 % of all cars, trucks and buses. What has already been achieved in Pakistan could also be achieved in other countries.
In Europe a large portion of all fuel used in road transportation is related to fuel consumed by heavy duty trucks used in long distance haulage. For these vehicles the use of CNG (compressed natural gas) is, however, not a good solution (too limited range on a full tank). Fortunately there is a cure. Instead of CNG one would use LNG, extending the operating range 4-5 times. To make this option a reality it would, however be necessary to provide an adequare refuelling infrastructure. This means LNG tank trailers delivering gas to truck stops along the major highways.This is completley feasible, but we do not yet have this infrastructure. Thus, in summary, the NGVA Europe position is that the EU should, via legislation, support the creation of an adequate LNG refuelloing infrastructure. Also considering shortcomings concerning the CNG refuelling infrastructure along the major highways (caused by the distance from the nearest pipeline access,) the highway refuelling stations should preferably be so called L-CNG stations, able to deliver both LNG for trucks and CNG for other types of vehicles. Comparing costs of required stations, and national savings in terms of fuel costs and CO2 avoidance, this is really a no-brainer.
The first few L-CNG stations have already opened in Spain, Italy, Sweden and the UK. We do not really need very many of these stations to support the long distance travelling needs. The question is really if the the oil company franchize chains are willing to introduce fuel options which compete with their conventional liquid fuels – in principle diesel and petrol. There may be a need for political pressure.
Consultant and Research Project Manager
German “Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development”
said: On 03/03/2011
Is sustainable mobility about changing users’ behaviour, or changing transport infrastructure? – As other contributors already pointed out, it’s both. But isn’t there more?
Transport (nearly) always serves an aim: goods have to be transported, workers have to reach their factories, students have to visit their schools and politicians need to get to there meetings. The spatial spreading of these destinations defines the distances which have to be overcome and the possible transport modes that can be used. The less these destinations are concentrated the larger distances grow. The more destinations are concentrated the more transport modes people can use.
Have a look at every day traffic needs: families for example need shops, working-places, schools and possibilities for leisure activities near their residence. There are three spatial requirements for such an organisation of a settlement. These are density, fragmentated diversity and viable public spaces.
The first spatial requirement for sustainable mobility is density. This means a relatively, although not to high, concentration of buildings and usage, of possible destinations and of people. But too much concentration will create conflicts – as you may see when you look at Manhattan, London or Frankfurt. The high density of big buildings there makes it impossible for most people and companies to afford space. Therefore density needs to be compensated by the second and third requirements.
Fragmentated diversity is the second spatial requirement for sustainable transport. It is based upon small plots of land and varied ownership. Together they allow diversity: various ages and conditions of buildings, various usages not only residental and comercial, but also rental or non rental. Diverse conditions and various usages will result in manyfold opportunities and people in a relatively small area.
A system of viable public spaces is the third spatial requirement for sustainable mobility. They provide substantial sites for activities as skating or football and calm places to relax with a good book or just to rest in the sun. These free and public spaces may be small squares, parks or public gardens but also the traditional European street, reclaimed for all by traffic control, planting and a robust design.
What does all this have to do with sustainable mobility?
Sustainable mobility is not (only) about another energy source for cars. Mobility is the possibility to get to the places you have to go (to work, to buy goods) or want to go (for leisure, for meeting friends.) Sustainable mobility allows transportation without or with less ressources used (energy and material, time and finances,) for all people (young and old, poor and rich, healthy and disabled.) Settlements characterised by density, fragmentated diversity and viable public spaces are inherent to a high concentration of various people and utilisations. These are the requirements for near-by destinations, for good public transportation and attractive foot paths. That’s sustainable mobility.
Managing Director
TBD America, Inc
said: On 03/03/2011
Here We Go Again – It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, No it’s Oil Prices!
Dateline: February 25, 2011. Headlines across the country read: Gasoline retail prices reached a 2-year high – Regular grade at-the-pump gasoline top $3 a gallon in all regions of America – Los Angeles hits $4 – Oil and gas supplies grow even as demand for gasoline is weak – $5 gasoline predicted by Memorial Day
EIA’s February 21, 2011 petroleum analysis shows regular grade retail gasoline prices in the U.S. increase $0.05 from previous week to a national average of $3.19 per gallon. The Gulf Coast reported the lowest at-the-pump prices around $3.03 per gallon, while the West Coast showed the highest at $3.48. Hawaii and California lead the states with prices at $3.97 and $3.55, respectively.
So why is it surprising that gasoline prices are surging again? We have been there before – many times – since the early 70s. We also know that prices will soon drop again to tolerable levels. Talk of potential shortages due to the unrest in the Mideast is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Price fluctuations are a natural market phenomenon that will readjust in due course. Why then be concerned?
The question is will complacency ultimately rule again? Sure we will take measures to curtail use of our beloved car. Maybe even lower our thermostats for the rest of the winter. The answer is probably “Yes.”
So if the price of petroleum falls to reasonable levels, then why spend more for something that may have little near-term payback?
In all fairness, there has been increasing awareness of the need to reduce our appetite for fossil fuels and cut our dependence on foreign oil. This awareness is translated into real practices that in mass will have a major effect on our reliance of petroleum.
The value of having stable oil markets with price points reflective of the true cost of petroleum is simply the ability to develop a cohesive long-term energy policy that stays the course. Stability brings planning and execution. When prices are low, it is political suicide to mandate use of renewable energy and adoption of energy efficient practices in the home and workplace. All are necessary for the U.S. to transition from an oil based economy in order to achieve energy security, economic viability and a cleaner environment. Both the public and private sectors are confronted with business cases that without federal and state incentives are difficult to make financial sense. When prices are high, there is a temporary mass scramble to do whatever is necessary to reduce our reliance on oil.
The current rise in petroleum prices is purportedly due to market projections of potential shortages arising from the civil unrest in the Mideast. This projection presents a dilemma on two accounts.
The first being an atypical market swing toward higher retail prices concurrent with a softening in demand and relatively high supply levels in the U.S. No question, this fluctuation is an obvious reaction toward the unrest in the Mideast, which can impact the flow of oil to the U.S. Confronted with the prospects of higher demand in the upcoming summer months due to higher electrical usage and increased travel, the fear and price increases seem to be a logical reaction. However, in the U.S. petroleum accounts for only 1% of all the fuel sources used for electrical generation. As reported by the EIA, coal (48%), natural gas (18%) and nuclear (22%) are the primary fuels for electrical power in the U.S. This leaves transportation and industrial as the key demand sectors for petroleum at 72% and 22% respectively.
Nevertheless, as more Americans adopt stringent energy efficiency practices (sustainability), replace older fuel-burning cars with new more fuel-efficient means of transportation, purchase electric vehicles and convert their existing cars to natural gas, demand for petroleum should steadily decrease over time. If effective in reducing our reliance on petroleum, this should offset any supply perturbations. Isn’t this what the Department of Energy (DoE) has been funding and planning for with countless billions of dollars since its creation in 1974? On page 1 of the DoE’s FY11 Congressional Budget request, the third line states “Since 2001, the administration has committed $183 billion through the DoE to help drive America’s economic growth, provide for our national security and address the energy challenges that face our nation.” Something seems to be amiss.
The second dilemma stems from the so called impact of reduced supplies from the Mideast. The following chart, derived from EIA’s November 2010 data, looks at those countries that make up more that 4% of the U.S.’s oil imports. Of the potential 123 oil-importing countries in the global economy, only eight (6.5%) fell into this category of supplying more than 4% of America’s oil needs. Combined, these eight countries deliver 76% of U.S.’s oil imports. Of these eight countries, only Saudi Arabia is a Mideastern country. At 10.3%, Saudi Arabia is important to our oil economy, but by no means the major supplier, which falls to Canada and Mexico. Maybe this oversimplifies oil production and trading, but one would think, if possible, that shortages could be made up by any or all of the other seven major importers to the U.S. On a straight-line basis, each country would only have to increase imports by about 1.5%.
Finally, there may be a third conundrum needing reconciliation. This has to do with the premise that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to secure our oil supply lines and also resolve our ideological and terrorist concerns. If so, then what happened to our $1,156,050,845,731 (over $1.1 trillion) spent by the military in that region since 2001? If we spent such huge sums of money to accomplish these goals, why then should these regional disturbances in the Mideast destabilize the oil markets to the point that prices are climbing faster than Superman can fly? The point is that you just don’t get what you pay for. In this respect, dollars spent don’t equate to oil flow. Terrorism appears to be detained at a cost of an apparent increased dislike of America and a bleeding budget deficit. By the time this is published, that $1.1 trillion dollar number will have grown. The current number and flow of dollars for the war can be located at “The Cost of the War Clock” at http://costofwar.com/en.
By allowing the price of oil reflect its true cost, renewable energy and energy efficient practices can finally compete on a level playing field. Under this scenario more taxes can flow back to the government and less has to be expensed for incentives. Taxes constitute about 13% to 14% of the retail price of gasoline. The important point that must be understood is that the price of oil is held lower than it true cost. Contributing factors excluded from oil’s cost include:
• subsidies, which result in oil production being among the most heavily subsidized businesses in the U.S.
• the costs to protect our overseas oil supply lines by the Department of Defense
• the tendency of “the power of oil” to adversely alter the economies and politics of the petroleum producing countries, some of them petro-oligarchs with regimes, which may conflict with U.S. interests
• short- and long-term impact on the environment
• contribution to the trade deficit
• added health-care costs due to environmental pollution.
Additionally, our government is confronted with what would be a win-win long-term strategy with a lose-lose short-term backlash. Federal and state incentives promoting renewable and sustainable energy programs are difficult to justify and pass in times of extreme budget deficits. Why would any public official provide legislation to eliminate the oil industry’s incentives? An even more unpopular move would be taxing the heck out of oil to act as a buffer to maintain a reasonable high level that better reflect petroleum’s true cost much like our European partners do. Why not develop a short- and long-term energy policy that stays the course. This way our elected officials don’t have to stick their necks out and bear a backlash at the polling booth when petroleum prices drop again like some modern day Machiavellian trick. Simply a matter of leadership, vision, trust and courage
To obtain an honest picture of the retail gasoline price fluctuations from 1970 to 2010, the following chart shows the yearly percent change (%) in average retail petroleum price when compared to year 1970, adjusted to 2010 dollars by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Data from the EIA and a CPI calculator that takes a dollar value for any given year and coverts it to another value representative of any other year the user cares inputs. (The calculator can be found at http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.)
You can see the chart the oil crisis of 1973, which other than the huge lines and fear of running out of petroleum by the 1990s, is paltry in comparison to today’s prices. Also, the alarming spike in the early 1980s, which should have been a call to action if not a war against fossil fuels, was followed by a 20-year period of relatively low prices and complacency by the public and private sectors.
So here we are again. The third oil crisis of 2008 dissipated as quickly as it flared up – only to be followed quickly by this year’s dramatic spike back up again.
If we could make The Bomb in a few years, don’t you think we can do something now, four decades after the Arab oil embargo?
When are we going to learn and do something? Here’s what we can do.
The U.S. should shutter most federal agencies purportedly devoted to energy and renewable energy and, like the Manhattan Project, treat the issue like the war it is. Combine all the resources under one roof as a new Office within the Department of Defense.
As Dr. Strangelove said: “It would not be difficult, Mein Führer. Nuclear reactors could – heh, I’m sorry, Mr. President – nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely.” Add to this the modernists’ view: so could wind, solar, moving water and heat from the earth!
And that’s the way it is, today February 25, 2011!
Spokesperson and Head of Corporate Communications
Wien Energie
said: On 03/03/2011
This is not an “either / or” question but for reaching CO2 reductions in the private transport sector, both will be necessary. E-mobility and, especially e-car-sharing are the key technologies for linking public transport with private transport.
Because of that, the personal fossil-fueled transport is not only converted 1:1 in electrically driven transport, but carbon emissions are also being reduced.
For a sustainable development of the private transport sector, it is not only necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, but there are also strategies required to construct a more efficient traffic flow.
The objectives of a combination of e-car sharing and increased use of public transport are being met by Wien Energie. To be able to realise this ambitious project, a change in consumers’ behavior regarding private transport is necessary.
It is also necessary to see vehicle mobility not as a status issue, but as an extended energy service and supplement for public transport and also a way to reduce private transport.
The mix of individual e-mobility and public transport requires an underlying infrastructure, where energy networks play a central role.
Wien Energie can look back on a wealth of knowledge regarding this issue.
Experiences achieved in the 1990’s, when e-mobility was first tested was combined with new technological knowledge to achieve the required energy infrastructure.
If sustainable mobility wants to be successful – even though the alternatives are not very tempting – both changes in infrastructure and users’ behavior are needed. But transport shouldn’t be limited to only one of the two options.
Principal Consultant
TRL (Transport Research Laboratory)
said: On 03/03/2011
To build or to change – is that the question?
Transport is vital in supporting the economic and social wellbeing of citizens in Europe and across the world. At the same time, as one of the largest and fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the sector poses a large challenge in terms of mitigating climate change to within 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Transport now accounts for 19.3% of European Energy Agency (EEA) member country GHG emissions. If international bunker emissions are added, then more than a quarter of emissions are transport related. If the emissions tied to providing transport infrastructure, producing vehicles, exploration of oil and gas etc., are also included, the figure reaches almost one-third of all emissions. Globally, transport currently accounts for about 23% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and this is expected to grow strongly over the next 20 years.
TRL’s approach is based on the ASI framework. A policy could be selected if it has reduced, or has the potential to reduce, CO2 emissions from the transport sector by the following key strategies:
Avoid or reduce unnecessary trips (trip lengths) through e.g. better land use planning;- Shift travel to, or maintain the share of, lower emitting modes (such as non motorised transport and public transport); and
- Improve the carbon efficiency of each mode for example by encouraging the use of small efficient cars and freight vehicles.
The EEA has published TERM (Towards a Resource-Efficient Transport System) reports annually since 2000 with the aim of highlighting transport's impact on the environment. Indicators tracking transport and environment in the EU are reported in the work undertaken by TRL. The reports show that passenger transport by car continues to grow, albeit slower than the economy. During the recent recession passenger transport volumes appear to have contracted at rates similar to the economy but GHG emissions from transport continue to rise steadily. None of the scenarios considered by the EEA would realise the 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels regarded as necessary to keep global temperature increase below 2°C. However, the greatest savings potential arises from a combined package, in which technological improvements that reduce fuel consumption are used alongside measures to shift journeys to lower emission modes and to avoid the need to travel altogether. Achieving the desired reductions requires that we implement a package of policy measures that does not rely solely upon technology. This includes measures such as high density, mixed use land planning, whose impacts may not be felt in the short term. Indeed, because such effects are so distant in time, we need a common vision for sustainable transport and mobility to guide planning.
However, although emissions by EU countries are high, non-OECD countries (most of which are outside of the European Economic Area – EEArea) are likely to be responsible for the vast majority of the growth as their economies develop and motorisation continues rapidly.
In awareness of the above situation, DG-Climate Action of the European Commission (EC), commissioned TRL to undertake a study known as “Transport Measures and Policies to Promote Emission Reductions (T-MAPPER)”, in order to:
This involved two main tasks; undertaking a review of mitigation measures in 20 non-EEArea countries; and identifying channels that the EU could use to support transport emissions reduction in non-EEArea countries.
The review of transport mitigation measures in 20 non EEArea countries showed that:
Through the identification of channels that the EU could use to support transport emissions reduction, it was found that:
Banking Compliance Officer
Société Générale
said: On 04/03/2011
Sustainability means behaviour that saves the environment and permits men to do what they usually do.
The best solution is in the middle: people use cars usually where public transport doesn’t permit to arrive on time or where it is not frequent. If public transport is increased and infrastructure permits to use something else then a car to go to work, people are tempted to let their cars in the box.
Another problem is the fuel for vehicles: technology nowadays permits fuel different from petrol by-products. This is the right way if, increasing R&D activities is considered also the infrastructure needed to make this fuel attractive (i.e place to charge the batteries, feed opening that can be connected to the common wall socket). If technology is developed separately from infrastructure, it is needed to make it attractive and will be difficult to be accepted and used diffusely.
The last point is to increase some behaviours with eco-compatibles like car pooling and this depends on each of us.
National Profession Officer
Environmental Health, WHO Nepal
said: On 04/03/2011
Sustainable mobility depends both on users behaviours, as well as infrastructure. Walking is the only means of mobility in many parts of the world. This mode is sustainable as long as there is life in the body. Any other mobility has some risk towards sustainability. We can make our mobility more sustainable by changing transport infrasturucture or by changing our behaviour towards selecting relatively sustainable mode of transport. Hence, sustaibnable mobility is changing behaviour and/or changing transport infracture. Most natural and more sustainable ways of mobility is the walking and changing behaviour towards this.
President and Founder
Brazilian Pedestrian Association - ABRASPE
said: On 08/03/2011
Is sustainable mobility about changing users’ behaviour, or changing transport infrastructure?
“Changing both”, I would say. The way people move in urban areas is very complex and varies according to economic, social and cultural conditions prevailing in different countries and regions of our shrinking and badly treated earth planet. However, the desire for automobiles and the infrastructure needed for their traffic is so strong around the world that only a day dreamer can think to banish them from our roads. If we want to have a friendly, beautiful and healthy world to live in, our way of living must change in order to reduce the desire and the need of private cars for most of our urban and interurban trips. It is a “conditio sine qua non” for sustainability. The high levels of pollution, casualty and congestion resulting from the adoption of private cars as the principal way of moving people ask for urgent measures to reduce their traffic and to adjust their features and use to make them less harmful. If we think about what is happening around us and what has been done in the last decades to reduce the number of people killed and injured – many impaired for the rest of their lives – in road traffic accidents, we will find good examples of improvement and bad ones of deterioration. On the other hand we know that is useless to think only in transport as the villain when we recognize that a small portion of the world’s population wants to increase their high income per capita continually; forgetting that the levels of depletion of natural resources and of pollution caused by their growth associated to the increasing income of poor countries are not sustainable in the long run. Imagine that China’s and India’s population plan to reach the same level of income per capita of Americans and Europeans, say US$ 30-40.000? What will happen to our planet? This should not be interpreted as a pessimistic remark but as a stimulus for us, transport experts, to find ways to domesticate the transport sector to serve our needs for accessing people, goods and services nicely, friendly, healthily, safely and efficiently. Motorized mobility “per se” generates negative effects on the environment, especially in urban areas where it disturbs, stresses, injures, mutilates and kills people and should be reduced to a minimum. How to achieve this objective which needs the necessary support of the population in our democracies, knowing that most people are already motorized and not willing to give up the intensive use of their cars? This is our challenge.
We should not forget that transport can’t and shouldn’t be planned apart from urban planning. A city should be planned and operated to favor public transport, and not the other way round. Today, home dwellers in most modern cities to go out for work, school or shopping need not only to get dressed but also to encase themselves in a car. At that moment, pedestrians – including users of public transport who have to walk – and cyclists, leave their homes on full alert for the unfair and ignominious war which occurs in public spaces. More than 1.2 million people die per year in traffic accidents around the world. Imagine 16-17 passenger aircrafts crashing everyday with 200 people aboard with no survivors?
Professor and Researcher
Universidad de Costa Rica in San José
said: On 16/03/2011
Sustainable mobility is about both infrastructure and behavioral change, but also about neither of them.
Experts might often be more motivated by discussions about efficiency and technology than by reflections about quality of life and public interest. Some may say that the side of quality and human-scale is implicit in the different discourses about sustainable mobility but without direct inclusion of those concepts the whole discussion is inadequate.
This month’s discussion could be an example of what I mean. I looked at frequencies of different terms in the body of the twenty or so comments to see how a discourse of knowledge is constructed by the different participants. The concept “efficiency” and its related derivations appeared 23 times while “quality of life” appeared none.
The word “decision” appeared 7 times while “happiness” had nil. You can complete the exercise by your own. Just let me add that the concepts of human rights, democratic participation, inclusion, and cooperation have zero appearances in the generally well written and
rational comments.
Decisions about how to convert transportation into a sustainable human activity are not in the technical sphere. Communities have been moving goods and people in a sustainable, cooperative way for thousands of years. The secret was to achieve efficiency by moving goods and people when strictly necessary. It was a social function rather than an individual act. Quality of life, sharing and sometimes survival have been the engine behind mobility for most human evolution. Profit-making for the sake of capital accumulation were not real drivers of mobility for ages.
The question nowadays is different. Today we ask ourselves how to overcome those ancestral forms of organizing mobility in order to get into the logic of mass production and fast consumption in a more or less elegant way. I do not see an easy answer.
One thing is sure. The goal of sustainable thinking will be unobtainable if we, as technicians, fail to notice that it is in the definition of the problems we strive to solve where the real problem is.
What is the real problem we are facing? Is it the mandate of our common needs or rather the manipulation of individual needs by few corporations looking for more profitable ways of selling goods we hardly need?
Why do we need to assume that goods have to be carried in an efficient, low-emissions, and faster way? What if we start thinking about why do goods need to be moved at all? What is wrong with the local scale? Why is more than 70% of World’s population out of this discussion?
With questions like those we could grip in the real problem of a sustainable world, transportation included.
Founder and Managing Director
KRD Vision, New Delhi, India
said: On 21/03/2011
Creating a better world for coming generations
Men have always been passionate about their machines. It is precisely this reason that cars and bikes are pronounced by female adjectives. Nicolas Cage, in the movie ‘Gone in 60 Seconds’ used to fondly call the GT 500, his favourite car by the name ‘Eleanor’. Aren’t we all affectionate about our cars?
If this weren’t true, we wouldn’t have people with vintage car collections. Like our dear ones, we all would like to hold on to our beloved cars till eternity. Sadly, all good things come to an end. Lord Krishna also says this in Bhagwad Gita that ‘Death is a reality that we should realize and embrace’. Doesn’t this hold true for our cars as well?
Old gas guzzlers are responsible for 10 – 30 times more pollution than newer and greener models. We all talk about the need to go green and how governments should take proactive measures to reduce pollution. But we do not dispose our old polluting cars either due to financial or emotional reasons. Should we not leave the same pollution free environment that we received when we were born to our great-grand children?
There is no policy for euthanasia for cars in India. We continue to use cars purchased 10-20 years ago. My neighbour, Mr. Verma still has a car that he purchased at the time of his wedding. Last year we celebrated his silver jubilee wedding anniversary. Even if we do not use such vehicles, letting them sit in our yards or driveways isn’t good either. In addition to being an eyesore and the parking cost that we need to incur on such vehicles, they have negative effects on the environment as there are hazardous chemicals and fluids in a car.
Recycling of cars is the best solution for to the problem that we are facing today. Recycling aged vehicles is a growing market in many countries for example automobiles are the most recycled consumer product in U.S. Each year, the steel industry recycles more than ~14M tons of steel from aged vehicles which is equivalent to nearly ~13M automobiles.
India is currently lagging behind in this initiative with only one auto recycling plant in Chennai that is expected to be launched in Q1-2011. Also, with number of private vehicles in India expected to reach ~600M by 2050, a proper disposal mechanism should be set in place to recycle the aged vehicles.
The owners of these aged cars can be incentivised by paying them for the steel companies receive from their cars and also providing them discounts on purchase of newer models. The car manufacturers can afford this discount from the carbon credits they will receive for using recycled steel. What is required is a policy shift in India so as to ensure that cars are recycled after 10-15 years of usage.
The benefits of such a paradigm shift are enormous:
– Reduction in pollution
– Saving fuel costs as newer models are fuel efficient
– Saving parking space that is occupied by aged cars
– Breather to increasing traffic congestion in cities
– Saving natural resources
Is it not time to start thinking about the future of the coming generations rather than our emotions?
Founder
TideNGen 24/7 - baseload decentralised renewable energy retrofit to tollways carparks highways, Brisbane, Australia
said: On 23/03/2011
Just a little background to get us off to the start which is all relevant to the loaded question posed. If you are into labels then I guess you could put me into the inventor/innovator/real time visionary. If we were both looking at the same thing I wouldn’t see what you see in real time. Here is an example and then I will tie it in with question. I am sitting in a McDonald’s drive through and just next door to it is a petrol station. Again I don’t see a petrol station I just see in this case a constant and consistent flow of cars, which I don’t see as cars, but as mobile energy units. At the same time I am seeing carbon out the exhaust and a concentration of it and they are all in there to fill up with a fossil fuel to continue their carbon emitting ways. All at the same time they don’t even realize or its just the way it is.
Now I have always said primary is fine, but secondary is key, so the car is the primary energy unit source that means anything I create will be the secondary and if it creates a primary even better, because I will have more room to move.
So, here we go connecting with the question. There had to be a way that I could use the car to create electricity, without impacting the car or driver and at the same time mitigating the cars carbon emissions. Now you are probably saying that’s insane, the fuel has already been done epa regs and the motor is as efficient as it gets. That’s fine. Now look at the motion of the car from the time it enters the petrol station driveway to the time it leaves, as an example.
Well it has been a few years now and we have finally finished the R&D on CompressNGen. Now this isn’t a cheap plug, if I could use another example I would. Fact is there isn’t one, just so we are clear. Quick explanation: CompressNGen converts the motion of the car driving over it into electrical energy by way of propriety processes.
What this means is that CompressNGen is out there and it gives very intelligent individuals a true option that they never had before. See when you put “changing users behavior” it comes from a point of dictatorship. I would of posed it – ‘Is it possible that a user may change their behavior if presented with the right circumstances?’ (in relation to sustainable mobility). Now we are on the right track and here is why: let’s take public transport busses for instance. If public buses were free, would that present the right circumstance for people to leave their car at home? Ok, that was an easy one. Countries have already proved that’s the case now lets get to the economics. There is still a cost to the bus operation which the tax payer refuses to pay and that’s fair enough, so lets drop CompressNGen into that equation. The busses as they leave the depot now create electricity and as they enter, they create electricity all stored in CompressNGen storage solution. Now that electricity gets sold to the grid which covers the actual cost of the operation, so its a win all round. Sustainable mobility is the outcome we all want, so we need to create not just the conditions, but the products to open it up.
Lets quickly get to changing transport infrastructure. It’s just not that easy from what I can see right now. At best, we could use CompressNGen to create electricity at the train station car parks. At the end of the day,it’s all about base load power. Without it, there is not a lot you can do.
Here is something that will get you excited. We all agree that EVs are the future. The issue is recharge stations. This is how awesome CompressNGen actually is, we can set them up in shopping center car parks, so cars drive over them in and out and power the recharge station which will recharge the EVs, not 1 watt from the grid. That’s pretty amazing. The CompressNGen module will be re-locatable and there is no infrastructure, you just drop the shipping container off in a car park space and roll out the hose which will have bio degradable fluid in it and then fix it to the ground. See, everyone is looking at the outcome, what we need as a collective is to be concentrating on the solution.
Senior Advisor Business Development and Sustainability
RET - the main public transport company in Rotterdam, Netherlands
said: On 24/03/2011
If I had to choose between the two, I would say that a society where sustainable mobility is the norm is easier achieved through a radical change of transport infrastructure, so people are almost left no choice to change their behaviour. In order to make people change their behaviour and make them choose for sustainable transport modes, I am convinced that transport infrastructure should be aimed at facilitating fast, comfortable, worry-free, environmentally friendly ways for people to travel from A to B at an attractive price. If this is improved, then the behavior of the calculating as well as the indifferent traveler will more often tend towards sustainable transport modes like public transport. I am an example of this myself. I also see opportunities for employers to help change the behavior of their employees through, for example a clean vehicle fleet, sustainable car lease programmes and rewarding public transport use. We do have to keep in mind that employers will only opt to promote sustainable transport modes if it meets their high standard for employee mobility. The ability to meet the employers demands greatly depends on the infrastructure as well.
Principal
C.A. Goudey & Associates
said: On 24/03/2011
Gary, do you really believe that you can power a car by occasionally running over a hose and collecting the energy? This may be a fine way of gathering data on traffic patterns, but it does not generate useful power, as anything coming out of it is at the expense of the forward motion of the car. For the same reason cars get poorer mileage on bumpy roads.
Director of the Advanced Energy and Materials Systems Lab
University of Canterbury
said: On 24/03/2011
In the Transportation Engineering field, there is a growing shift to accessibility rather than mobility as the prime objective. Mobility means that everyone needs to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want. Thus, vast sums of money are spent on roads everywhere, and on networks that can handle the rush hour surge in volume. Of course, the past 60 years have shown that you can never actually win the mobility game and you certainly can’t have sustainable, unlimited mobility fuelled by oil. You can’t build enough infrastructure to keep up with the travel demand, so the question is rather a lost cause.
Accessibility means that people can engage in their work, social and shopping activities, and that goods and services can get to the markets. Until the industrial revolution, urban areas, production and industry were all accessible from residential and market areas by active modes (walking or rowing) and animal-drawn carts. Thus, the transport infrastructure of old cities was “active mode accessible”. The bicycle multiplies the active mode accessible distance by at least four times over walking. Trains and trolleys added a new kind of accessibility where people didn’t have to live within walking distance of factories. Finally, individual automobiles provided accessibility, but only where the road infrastructure was built and could handle the flow of vehicles.
People can make choices that greatly reduce their use of cars if the urban form is accessible by active mode and public transport. If all homes are within biking distance of schools, shops, commercial and industrial work, or the trains that connect to these activities, then the residents of the city can choose sustainable transport behaviour.
In order to understand your capacity to adapt to sustainable transport – we have developed a personal transport energy audit tool. Anyone can sign in and easily evaluate how they use fuel and how they can adapt to sustainable, or low-risk access to their activities. In our research results from the cities in the South Island of New Zealand, over 60% of fuel consumption can be eliminated without people loosing any access to activities. Sign on and assess your adaptive capacity.
http://www.tacasim.aemslab.org.nz/
President
the International Federation of Pedestrians, IFP.
said: On 25/03/2011
Changes in mobility are slow and do not depend only of one factor. The world opinion seem to accept that new mobility patterns are needed for general climate change reasons and for local health and walking needs.
This oblige changes in infrastructure, in management and in human behaviour. A pull and push action must be combined.
The transport infrastructures focus, in the last years, more on public transport for persons (Trans European Rail, High Speed Train, Metro, Tram, bus etc.), but the goods movement seem to be too much under private economic control. Movements of persons are being slightly changed by altering the urban (and interurban) speeds, toll roads and toll areas, and by parking fees. The acceptance of pedestrian priority areas and 30 km/h zones in the urban space have a mayor incidence on sustainable mobility.
High occupancy lanes (HOL) with priority for public transport in access roads to mayor cities explain changes to citizens. More attention to urban bus services with bus lanes and bus priority in light signal regulation help users to make more sustainable decisions.
WHO publish more information on the need of health in the mobility on several branches of action. More physical activity is needed – so walk and cycle. The poor air quality leads to many premature death – so decrease car kilometres.. Risk in mobility shorten expected length of life so control speeds.
Cycling is growing as scope for modern mobility in developed countries. The most sustainable transport mode. This need action in the three directions. Behaviour, management and infrastructure. Walking in the following sustainable mode, but has little priority in the urban, and by near none, in the interurban areas. Pedestrian’s need more rights and better infrastructure. Priority in crossing streets and roads is needed, with an idea of: pedestrian crossings should form an integral part of the pedestrian infrastructure – say pedestrian pavements. Pedestrians need permeability on highways, other rural roads, specially in intersections.
The reduction of road death (EU objective of minus 50 % in the first decade of the 21st century) has changed behaviour – also in more sustainable driving. But, for instance: No overtaking should be permitted – it is not a civil right – and it is too dangerous. Road infrastructure with small medians should come to be normal. Restrictions in driver license (point system) are also helping.
30 km/h streets are being extended as concept and with more clear street construction. The lower speeds give better conditions for pedestrians and cyclists in the urban area.
There is a growing understanding for the need of sustainable quality of the environment when walking. This introduce the idea of sustainable traffic volume in most streets.
It is going slow with the change. Payment for the negative effects of driving is still not generally accepted, and the value of human death due to emissions, noise and unsafe traffic is still underestimated. Even with Eurovignette the goods transport charge too much the environment and the health of the citizens.
We need more respect of the lives of the inhabitants from the political and economic sectors. Cities were built to protect the human beings – not to take their lives and not to poison them.
Therefore, all possible actions are needed. Change in user behaviour and sustainable better transport infrastructures.
Managing Director
SMART (Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research & Transformation), University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, USA
said: On 25/03/2011
Both. Simultaneously.
On the one hand it is ineffective and unfair to implore people to relinquish or diminish use of a particular mode or habit without providing feasible options to fill the need for mobility and accessibility. A feasible option may be another single mode, or even better, a menu of modes, services, technologies and urban design that are customizable to all users’ needs, and connected / connectable to provide convenient, affordable, seamless and pleasant door-to-door (often multi-modal) trips. This new infrastructure is akin to most people’s IT portfolio where laptop connects to desktop connects to iphone connects to google connects to printer and camera and music, seamlessly. (see http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/69252)
On the other hand improving or transforming transport infrastructure without telling people about it (the fact that it’s there, how to use it, why it meets their needs physically, economically, psychologically) and incenting people to use it, will mean fewer people will use it. In an Ann Arbor study asking Ann Arborites what transportation improvements they would envision, over half the responses represented amenities or services that were already in place.
In this rapidly urbanizing and increasingly complex world, there is no either / or. A range of solutions and approaches need to be applied, connected and combined optimally in order to achieve transformation. This includes both behaviour change and infrastructure evolution.
For more on this topic see:
SMART White Paper: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/69252)\
SMART Website: http://um-smart.org
SMART Blog: http://um-smart.org/blog
Upcoming Transforming Transportation Summit in Detroit: http://www.ttrcc.org/Summit/About.aspx
MEP, Committee on Transport and Tourism
European Parliament
said: On 25/03/2011
Sustainable mobility is about both changing users´ behaviour and changing transport infrastructure. The latter influences the former, because changing transport infrastructure will have an impact on users´ behaviour. Passengers’ decisions are amongst others dependent on the existing connections and the price of tickets. Users’ decisions will be influenced by improvements in multi-modal connections as well as more coordinated transport schedules, enhanced online information and the possibility of booking inter-modal tickets.
Incentives should be given to passengers to choose more sustainable modes of transport. Reliable and safe transport alternatives will be attractive to passengers and therefore will be more frequently used. Particularly in cities an efficient public transport service will lead to a reduction in congestion and emissions and therefore enhance sustainable mobility.
MEP, Committee on Transport and Tourism
European Parliament
said: On 25/03/2011
The transport sector is one of the most important elements in the development of the European Union (EU) and its many regions and cities. A well developed infrastructure directly affects the economic competitiveness of the EU and fosters the social cohesion of its regions and cities. It therefore contributes substantially to the completion of the common market. Transportation also has an impact on other policy fields such as social-, health- or security policy. Thus transportation constitutes a cross sectoral issue and must be approached comprehensively. Transportation infrastructure is also a precondition for European citizens to realize their fundamental rights, because mobility is vital as they enjoy their freedom to travel.
Nevertheless, there are numerous challenges to our transportation infrastructure ahead of us which call for a more sustainable approach to mobility. The European transportation infrastructure, for one, is highly oil dependant. It is no news though that oil will become scarcer within future decades. Yet, the EU imported oil in the amount of € 210 billion last year. Altogether 96% of all transport in the EU is oil driven. If we do not address this oil dependency, the ability of the people to enjoy their freedom to travel could be severely impacted.
This situation also affects our import dependency and should alarm us particularly in the light of the current political turbulences in North Africa. I believe the challenge we are facing here is to break the transport system’s dependency on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility.
I believe the answer to this challenge is twofold: On the one hand, we have to provide sustainable infrastructure that offers people a real alternative and simultaneously on the other hand we must work on our communication with the public to achieve real change of behaviour. The adjustment of our transportation infrastructure towards more sustainability is hereby of paramount importance. I think when we change our transport infrastructure a change of users’ behaviour will follow. My colleagues and I have passed a resolution in 2010 that calls upon the EU to improve its communication with the public about consequences of leisure travelling. I am sure that the European population is generally willing to change their ways of travelling when made aware of the consequences for the environment. We must come to a point where one wonders if it is really necessary to fly 800km for a shopping trip just because it is possible.
The resolution on future of transport of the European Parliament also sets a couple of concrete goals to be achieved until 2020. Since cities suffer most from congestion, poor air quality and noise exposure, we suggested that urban infrastructure shall be prioritized and that e.g. the number of bus, metro and train passengers should double. Also, we suggested, that the EU makes at least additional 20% funding available for investments in infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists. We have to be aware that transportation infrastructure takes many years to plan. The choices we make today will determine transport 30 years from now. Hence we have to act wisely and make our decisions carefully. In this regard, it is of the utmost importance that we coordinate our national efforts as best as we can in order to agree on coherent policies. It would be counterproductive if we come to a situation where one member state opted exclusively for electric cars and another only for bio fuels. That would hinder the concept of free travel across Europe and has to be avoided.
Ismail Ertug MEP
Member of the Transport Committee
MEP, Committee on Transport and Tourism
European Parliament
said: On 25/03/2011
The topic of sustainable mobility is a very relevant and important one nowadays.
In the Transport Committee of the European Parliament we have been broadly discussing this topic these days as well.
Sustainable mobility is indeed a complex phenomenon. It is influenced by many objective and subjective factors. Changes in users´ behaviour and changes in infrastructure are certainly major aspects for achieving the goal of sustainable mobility and both of them have to be taken into account. In many ways these factors also influence one another.
Among the main objective aspects influencing transport preferences of its users I would like to mention the quality of transport infrastructure, economic demands of chosen modes of transport and last but not least safety.
Transport behaviour of its users has been significantly influenced by the quality of transport infrastructure. If there is no acceptable infrastructure for a chosen mode of transport, then as a consequence this mode is only used minimally, or is not used at all. On the other hand I would also like to mention that the existence of infrastructure for the chosen mode of transport does not necessarily lead to an increased demand for it, because the preferences of the users can be very different.
The quality of infrastructure is therefore a very important, but not the only major factor influencing mobility of people.
Another aspect that I would like to strengthen and which is connected with transport infrastructure is the aspect of economic and time demand. If we are aiming to create a sustainable system of transport, these two aspects have to be taken into account. There are examples where economic benefits of a particular transport had a strong impact on the final choice of transport mode for the user. The time factor can also be influenced in a similar way, but mainly by changes in transport infrastructure. It can be concluded that transport preferences of the users can be significantly influenced by acceptable combination of economic and time conditions.
The last decision made by the user before choosing the mode of transport, the destination and purpose of his travel is the subjective factor. The user is influenced by his cultural and social conditions, religious and political background, economic situation, gender, age and other aspects. From all the factors mentioned, it is the most difficult to influence these subjective factors. They vary for each user. These can be influenced by education, campaigns etc. By shaping subjective factors significant changes can be reached in the area of sustainable mobility. However, the success of chosen strategies always depends on small details and the success is never guaranteed in advance.
So what would I recommend as an ideal approach to the issue of sustainable mobility? We certainly cannot underestimate any of the factors that I mentioned above. By their effective combination we can introduce a balanced strategy which will lead to more sustainability.
As a conclusion, I would like to say that the answer to the question is both economic and political. We have to ask what price is our society willing to pay for the current and increasing mobility and how much are we able to change the attitude of society towards the aspects of safety, responsibility for the environment etc. All the factors of the transport system, including infrastructure, transport modes and human factor have to be taken into consideration.
Executive Head of Directly Delivered Services
Olympic Delivery Authority, London, UK
said: On 31/03/2011
Sustainable mobility means different things to different people, to some it is about walking and cycling, to others it is about high speed transportation allowing mobility between cities. Both have their part to play in providing a truly sustainable transport solution. Infrastructure acts as an enabler, it provides the means of delivering mass transit across different modes – rail, bus and coach and waterways. Not forgetting of course the cyclists and walkers amongst us. Each of these require infrastructure in one form or another. However, in most cases you need capital investment and long planning frames to deliver such infrastructure. That doesn’t happen without commitment, vision and leadership from the very top. Real change comes from the Board/cabinet room and generally has sound drivers underpinning it – these are equally behavioural changes.
Once the enablers are in place other aspects will influence potential changes in behaviour – price, comfort, service availability and accessibility etc. One aspect not considered in the question is integration. To encourage people to change, you need to make it easy, more often than not transport modes work in isolation and are not integrated, obviously there are pockets of good practice, but these are the exception not the rule.
Therefore both are essential, you need the infrastructure and the behavioural change programmes. I would also add a degree of integration and use of drivers to encourage behavioural change.
Chair
Fund for the Environment and Urban Life
said: On 31/03/2011
The tax code allows for “transit benefits” — company-sponsored programs that pay for employee transit fares, like free parking (which is a very potent negative incentive but darn hard to do anything about). Employers can subsidize employee fares, or allow a pre-tax salary deduction program, which saves both employers and employees. This is so popular in some cities, e.g. San Francisco where about 70% of peak period commuters et some type of program, that some cities (including San Francisco and three other Bay Area municipalities) now require employers to offer the program. See commutercheck.com for more info. A similar though more limited program exists for bike commuters.
We need a mass program for insulation/weatherization. I think we need a nationally-focused business or franchise program that would market these products/projects professionally, and take advantage of scale economies. This seems like an opportunity for a big basket of low hanging fruit; some people have suggested reasons why such a national business hasn’t emerged to take this idea to scale, but I’ve yet to be convinced. This would not require subsidy or government programs, just savvy business people. Maybe a good MBA program could investigate this.