The evaluation of transport public policies on commuters travels environmental consequences

Transcription

1 The evaluation of transport public policies on commuters travels environmental consequences 2 nd EEEN forum Stockholm, 9 th -10 th April 2013 Mihaï TIVADAR (IRSTEA), Odile HEDDEBAUT (IFSTTAR) 9th April 2013 Odile Heddebaut IFSTTAR 21 mars 2011

2 European context of travel congestion research The problem of urban congestion is highlighted for a long time in European urban areas. Since the White Paper on the European policy at the horizon 2010: time to decide published in 2001, the European Union describes the problems due to road traffic congestion concentrated around or in the urban areas. After a mid-term review in 2006, it confirms the necessity to solve the mobility problems in towns respecting the Kyoto agreement. The EU 2007 Green Paper "towards a new culture for urban mobility" gives some key questions to promote sustainable urban mobility. It describes the possibility to enhance public transport by implementing right of way systems. Moreover it shows that urban mobility has a negative impact on environment particularly for road transports that account for 40% of CO2 emissions and 70% of other pollutants due to congestion and this transport mode causes a high number of fatalities and injuries mostly in urban areas. The increase of cars circulation within urban areas leads to a permanent congestion. Its cost is estimated at 100 billions euros per year.

3 French context for urban congestion research In France, in 2007, more than 77% of the population lives in urban areas. This polarisation has contributed to a massive use of cars for daily trips (go to work or study trips) and provoked congestion and pollution phenomena. At French national level the Grenelle de l Environnement programme aims at reducing 20% of green house gas (GHG) by 2020 horizon from the 1999 level. In this perspective, it has launched a right of way public transport call in 2008 to enhance public transport networks with the help of State subsidies. The Climate Plan for France in 2010 foresees a decrease of 11% of emissions of CO 2 between 2005 and But the carbon balance for these travels has registered an increased of 10% between 1990 and 2007.

4 Objectives of the research To analyse and evaluate transportation policies impacts on traffic congestion and pollution by modelling commuting behaviour in our study area with a focus on the Lens region. It also models the impact of these policies on the general cost of transport and environmental cost. To model commuting behavior in the LLHC area, with the basis scenario using the 2007 census data for commuting travels. To model the introduction of a tramway line between the cities of Liévin, Lens, and Hénin-Beaumont. To simulate some transport public policies by adopting push and pull measures for encouraging motorists to reduce private car (PC) use and/or encourage the use of public transport (PT). By calculating the emission and consumption energy linked to the different possible measures to be implemented to evaluate their environmental and economic impacts (congestion level, fuel consumption, transfers towards PT, level and cost of pollution)

5 The area of research: Syndicat Mixte des Transports (SMT) Artois Gohelle Located in the former coal mining area in the Nord Pasde-Calais region in the Northern part of France. This area is well connected to the metropolis of Lille by the motorway A1 and it is also well connected by many roads and the motorway A21 from East to West. The SMT Artois Gohelle is the transport authority. It counts 115 towns within its urban transport perimeter representing around 600,000 inhabitants. Since 2009, there is a project of implementing two new axes of tramway lines.

6 Location of the study area in the Northern part of France

7 SMT Artois Gohelle It counts 4 municipalities agglomerations: Lens-Liévin, Hénin-Carvin, Artois- Com (Béthune) and Noeux-les-Mines et environs in red the tram projects

8 Characteristics of the Lens Liévin Hénin Carvin (LLHC) area travels Compared to Lille Metropolis urban community (LMCU) A multi-polar functioning Number of trips in average per inhabitant less important in LLHC: 3.66 compared to Lille: 3.76 Use of car more important in LLHC: 63% against 54% for LMCU Equivalent motorisation ratio LLHC: 1.08, LMCU: 1.074) PT use less important in LLHC: 4% (and only 2% for urban public transport Tadao) rather than in LMCU: 9% (Source: Household Travel Survey LLHC 2006 and LMCU 2006)

9 Commuting to work travels in the SMT Artois Gohelle (min 100) Source: 2007 census data INSEE, Tivadar, 2012

10 Model structure of simulation Commuting loop Source: M. Tivadar, 2012

11 Basic scenario The Lens Liévin Hénin Carvin research area Simulation and models are made on the LLHC area adding five towns around Douvrin because their travel flows are turned towards LLHC even if they belong to the Béthune Noeux-les-Mines municipalities agglomerations. It represents 55 towns. For these towns the spatial references (surfaces, perimeter and centroïdes) are not the administrative ones but are based on inhabited surfaces. They are obtained using the Corine Land Cover data and the codes 111 and 112 (continuing and discontinuing urban spaces) The centroïdes are then calculated to simulate the origin and destination travels. Centroïdes and main roads on the research area Source: M. Tivadar, 2012

12 Public transport policies for reducing car use Share of commuting travels: PC 81.80%; PT: 4.20%; cycles: 5%; walking or no commuting: 8.95% (INSEE census data) Push measures can be actions that increase costs for car usage in order to modify prices that condition commuters decisions like a raise of fuel prices, a raise of parking charges, tolls by places such as highways or express ways or by time periods such as peak hours. Pull policies are more persuasive communication, improvement of alternative transport modes with better PT (even free PT) with on time information at stops, demand reduction by favouring flexi-time and teleworking, the creation of more better cycle tracks or walking amenities. Here there is a project of tramway

13 Basis scenario without tram project (1) Share of monetary costs in generalised cost by transport modes Total Intra-urban Inter-urban Costs in PT 7.02 % % 6.21 % Costs in PC % % % For PT the cost in time is 92.98%, for PC the cost in time is 74.78% Travel times at peak hours AM (6h45-9h45) PM (16h15-19h15) Annual cost of congestion Total Intra-urban Inter-urban total congestion cost K K K Share in the total transport cost % % % Congestion cost PC K K K Share in transport cost PC % % % Congestion cost PT K K K Share in transport cost PT % % %

14 Basis scenario without tram project (2) Annual emission of pollutants CO2 NOx PM COV CO Total (tons/year) Intra-urban Roads (%) % % % % % Inte-rurban Roads (%) % % % % % Share of congestion (%) % % % % % CO2 Carbon Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxide PM Micro particles COV Volatile Organic Compounds CO Carbon monoxide

15 Tram implementation scenario S1 The bus BULLE route to be replaced by the tram LLHB Tram without traffic congestion (right of way and priority) Commercial speed from 16 km/h to 20 km/h Tram 50% more frequent (8-10 minutes at peak hours) Other bus routes more frequent (+ 25% redistribution of BULLE busses) Average speed of PT in towns directly impacted increase from 10 to 15 km/h

16 Tram implementation scenario S1 Impact of the tram LLHB on the number of PT users Impact on PT users Total Intra-urban Inter-urban - for the whole area % % % - for the towns directly impacted % % % - for the other towns % % % Impact of the tram LLHB on fuel consumption Impact on fuel consumption Total Intra-urban Inter-urban Average consumption - For the whole area % % % - Towns directly impacted % % % - For the other towns % % % Impact of the tram LLHB on pollutant emissions CO 2 NOx PM COV CO Total % % % % % Intra-urban Roads (%) % % % % % Inter-urban Roads (%) % % % % % CO2 Carbon Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxide PM Micro Particles COV Volatile Organic Compounds CO Carbon monoxide

17 Other complementary transport policies S2: Tram + free public transport S3: Tram + Car parking tax 2 per day in Lens, Liévin and Hénin Beaumont S4: Tram + toll on the the A21 of 1 per trips ( 2 per day) S5: Tram + tax on fuel with an increase from 1.5 to 2 per litre S6: Tram + information and advertisement campaigns for PT use S7: Tram + introduction of more strict speed limits for PC

18 Impact of complementary transport policies on PT users Total PT users S2 : T+Free PT S3 : T+Parking tax S4 T+Toll S5 T+ Fuel Tax S6 T+Advertisement S7 T+Speed Restriction - Whole area % % % % % % - Impacted % % % % % % towns - Other towns % % % % % % Intra-urban PT users S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 - Whole area % % 1.09 % 5.70 % % 0.81 % - Impacted % % 1.67 % 7.62 % % 0.95 % towns - Other towns % 0.32 % 0.32 % 3.15 % % 0.63 % Inter-urban PT users S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 - Whole area % % % % % % - Impacted % % % % % % towns - Other towns % % % % % %

19 Complementary transport policies results on PT users S2 Free PT: the modal shift is weak (1/3) because the monetary cost of PT is less important than the time cost. S3 parking tax: Increase of the monetary cost of PC provoke a shift of more than 40% of PT users for the whole area, with a maximum for the impacted towns 66%. S4 toll on A21: greater impact for inter-urban travels that use the A21 rather than the urban travels. S5 fuel tax: per litre, weak impact on commuting travels with short travel distances, the effect on consumption is low. S6 PT advert: it modifies the PT users perception and a modal shift of 42%. It is a non localised measure. S7 strict limit of speed: It limits speed for travels without congestion. Its impact is weak. It works more in the impacted towns because the tram runs on a right of way which influence more the PC speeds.

20 Complementary transport policies results on congestion Scenario Road network Inter-urban Intra-urban Impacted towns S2 : T+PT Free % % % % S3 : T+ Park % % % % S4 : T+ Toll % % % % S5 :T+ Fuel Tax % % % % S6 :T+ Advertisement % % % % S7 :T+ Speed Restriction % % % % The policy measures of implementing parking tax in town centres and toll on the A21 are more effective to reduce congestion.

21 Complementary transport policies results on fuel on environmental efficacy Impact of complementary transport policies on fuel consumption Total S2 : T+PT Free S3 : T+Park S4 T+Toll S5 T+Taxe S6 T+Advert S7 T+ Speed Restriction - Whole Area % % % % % 4.78 % - impacted % % % % % % towns - other towns % % % % 5.72 % Impact of complementary transport policies on pollutant emissions Scenario CO 2 NOx PM COV CO S2 : T+PT Free % % % % % S3 : T+ Park Tax % % % % % S4 : T+ Toll on A % % % % % S5 :T+ Fuel Tax % % % % % S6 :T+ Advertisement % % % % % S7 :T+ Speed Restriction 5.17 % 4.83 % 6.67 % % %

22 Complementary transport policies results Impact of complementary transport policies on economic surplus Scenario Total Consumer Planer S2 : T+PT Free K K K S3 : T+ Park tax K K K S4 : T+ Toll on A K K K S5 :T+ Fuel Tax K K K S6 :T+ Advertisement K K 334,87 K S7 :T+ Speed Restriction K K 189,09 K Maximum impact for monetary policy measures (A21 toll and park tax) Free PT the planer will loose the revenue for the advantage of the consumer In case of speed restriction, the travel time increase for the consumer and the planner increase the number of PT users

23 Impact of the combination of all the complementary policies compared to the basis scenario (1) Impact on the number of PT users Total Intra-urban Inter-urban - the whole area % % % - the impacted towns % % % - the other towns % % % The planer combines the tax on PC (car park tax and A21 toll) and the free PT with advertisement for PT. The PT performance is increased (tram scenario) The gain in PT users is maximised in the impacted towns at intra-urban level (multiplied by almost 10)

24 Impact of the combination of all the complementary policies compared to the basis scenario (2) Impact on transport costs Total Intra-urban Inter-urban Average cost for Public Transport - The whole area - The impacted towns - The other towns Average cost for Private Car - The whole area - The impacted towns - The other towns - 29,87 % - 40,60 % - 21,52 % 15,76 % 10,91 % 15,21 % - 31,90 % - 47,02 % - 21,40 % 12,98 % 32,28 % - 1,69 % - 24,80 % - 32,89 % - 20,99 % 14,84 % 4,21 % 15,88 % Transport costs are reduced for PT users travels and the costs for PC are more important than a reduction of travel time (car taxation/ congestion reduction) Impact on fuel consumption Total Intra-urban Inter-urban - The whole area % % % - The impacted towns % % % - The other towns % % %

25 Impact of the combination of all the complementary policies compared to the basis scenario (3) Impact on pollutant emissions CO 2 NOx PM COV CO Total % % % % % intra-urban roads (%) % % % % % Inter-urban roads (%) % % % % % Impact on economic surplus Total Consumers Planer ,769 K ,48 K ,25 K For consumers the tax amounts are greater than the gains of time trips For the planer the increase is due to taxation (only for commuting travels) Therefore it will be more for all types of travels.

26 Conclusion The need to enhance the PT network in the SMT area is important due to the very low use of PT (2%) +2% in regional trains. The introduction of a tram or a BHLS is a solution to decrease the PT user travel time (right of way and priority). The increase of PC cost (taxes, A21 toll, fuel price increase) is more important than free PT to provoke modal shift to PT. The objectives of the transport policies is to decrease the PC use responsible of pollution (environmental impact) and congestion (economic impact). The results are only for commuting to work travels (25%) The most effective policies for environmental and economic results are parking taxation, A21 toll and PT advertising.

27 Odile Heddebaut Mihaï Tivadar IFSTTAR IRSTEA Site de Lille Villeneuve d Ascq IRSTEA Centre de Grenoble 20, rue Élisée Reclus BP rue de la Papeterie BP VILLENEUVE D ASCQ Cedex St-Martin-d'Hères cedex Tél. +33 (0) Tel: +33 (0) Fax. +33 (0)