transport for sustainability: bogotastatic.iris.net.co/semana/upload/documents/doc-1731... ·...

TRANSPORT FOR SUSTAINABILITY: BOGOTA

RALPH GAKENHEIMER

Professor of Urban Planning, M.I.T. <[email protected]

MARTHA BONILLA

Program Director, Latin American Initiatives, Urban Studies and Planning, MIT <[email protected]>

Bogotá 2038: Sustainable Development

September 10, 2008

2038

• Achievement of substantial reductions in 30 years will require Herculean effort

• The most useful actions are those that • The most useful actions are those that can be magnified as the effort intensifies.

• Beijing reduced air pollution by 36% lower than average of last 8 years

Travel Demand Management

México City Santiago Bogotá São Paulo

Name of the

program

Hoy no Circula Restricción Vehicular Pico y Placa Rodizio

Hours of

operation

5:00 – 22:00 7:00 – 19:00 7:00 – 9:00

17:00 – 19:00

7:00 – 10:00

17:00 – 20:00

A comparison of traffic ban programs:

operation 17:00 – 19:00 17:00 – 20:00

Vehicles that

are subject

Only vehicles built before 1993

Only vehicles built before 1992

All vehicles All vehicles

% of these

vehicles banned

each day

20% 20% 40% 20%

Comments • From 1989

• Relative high cost of new vehicles has incentivated the purchase of old cars

• Fixed schedule

• From late 80s

• Low tariffs and a rotatory schedule (changes once a month) have reduced the incentivs to buy secondary cars

• From 1998.

• Fixed schedule (changed once a year)

• From 1996.

• Only within central area

• Fixed schedule

CONGESTION PRICING -DEFINITION

A charge on vehicle use levied at A charge on vehicle use levied at

points of congestion for the purpose of

reducing the number of vehicles below

congestion level ....... and collecting

revenue.

TYPES OF CONGESTION PRICING

•Area Licensing Zone (ALZ) around

Central Business District

(as in London, Stockholm formerly Singapore,

proposed in New York).proposed in New York).

•Large Perimeter Scheme (as in cities of Norway).

•Area Coverage Scheme (as in Singapore).

•Street or Highway Lane Based Scheme

(as in Houston).

ROAD PRICING --A BROADER AND DIFFERENT CONCEPT

Possible by such means as:

•Gas Taxes•Gas Taxes

•Purchase Taxes on Vehicles

•Licensing, Highway Use or Other Periodical Charges

•Parking Taxes

Not Congestion Pricing because they are

not based on location and time of road use.

INSTITUTIONAL LINKS FOR CONGESTION PRICING

1. Trip makers who will pay the tariff

willingly

2. Trip makers who will take other options

3. Trip makers who are disadvantaged by

the initiative because they have to pay the initiative because they have to pay

tariff

4. Trip makers unaffected by the initiative

5. City center retailers and employers

6. Transit concessionaries

7. Public transit agencies

8. Plans for the use of revenue

9. Responsible elected public officials

PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY:

WHAT TO CALL CONGESTION PRICING?

1. Congestion Pricing

2. Value Pricing2. Value Pricing

3. Rationing

4. Externalities Charges

5. “Fairness” Management

6. Road Pricing

Congestion Pricing SurveyMexico City, January 2004

Congestion Pricing – objectives � Method to manage demand, and allocate road space efficiently between different modes by

charging a fee.

� Improves utilization of present road capacity to reduce need for large investments (such as Segundo Piso)

� Implies that people pay a fee to reflect the “true costs” of car use in congested urban areas.

These include: time delays due to congestion, pollution, fuel costs, road accidents, road

maintenance and operation costs maintenance and operation costs

� Increases efficiency of public transport (buses) � Raises revenues and can reduce fiscal deficit

This was the Introduction at the start of the survey sheet

for those not familiar with Congestion Pricing.

Survey Questions and Responses

Total Mexican Respondents = 50

1) Are you familiar with the concept of “congestion pricing”?

Yes 25 No 6 Not completely19

Familiarity with the issue of congestion pricing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No Not completely

Responses

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Yes

50%

No

12%

Not

completely

38%


2) How serious do you consider the problem of traffic

congestion in Mexico City today?

Still not a problem 0 Reasonable problem 6Problem in a critical stage 44

How serious is the problem of congestion in MC today? Still not a

problem

Reason-

able

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Still not a problem Reasonable

problem

Problem in a critical

stage

Responses

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

problem

0%

able

problem

12%

Problem in

a critical

stage

88%

3) What do you think is the worst impact of traffic congestion in Mexico City? Please rank top 3 options.Loss in productivity/quality of life ____ Travel delays ____

Road accidents _____ Air pollution _____

High fuel/infrastructure costs _____ Other _____

Ranking of Impacts Considered Important

404550

Nu

mb

er o

f resp

on

den

ts

Rank 1Road

accidents

2%

High

fuel/infrastruc

ture costs

6%

Travel delays

Other

0%

05

101520253035

Loss in

pro

ductivity/q

uality

of

life

Air p

ollution

Tra

vel dela

ys

Hig

h

fuel/in

frastr

uctu

re

costs

Road a

ccid

ents

Oth

er

Impacts

Nu

mb

er o

f resp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1Loss in

productivity/q

uality of life

52%Air pollution

29%

Travel delays

11%

Travel delays

Loss in productivity/quality of life

(can be added up)

Best Way to Deal With Traffic Congestion in Mexico City


Top 3 Ranks for Preferred Policy Options

30

35

40

45

50

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Option D Option F Option C Option A Option B Option E

Policy Measures Considered

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 2

Rank 1

OPTIONS KEYA - Reform parking policies, and introduce higher parking charges in congested area

B - Introduce congestion pricing, applicable either during peak hours or on certain congested city roads

C - Use traffic bans such as Hoy No Circula or Pico y Placa

D - Improve public transport, use physical restraints such as bus-only lanes and pedestrian zones

E - Expand infrastructure and increase road capacity

F - Any combination of the above policies (you may suggest combinations)

5) Best Option for Raising Revenue

Which of the following do you think will be best for raising revenues? Please rank top 3 options.Option A _____ Option B _____ Option C _____Option D _____ Option E _____

Ranking of Options Considered Best for Revenues

35

40

45

50

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Rank 1Option C

12%

Option E

2%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Option B Option A Option D Option C Option E

Different Options Considered

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

Option B

44%

Option A

28%

Option D

14%







6) Option Most Acceptable to Public

Which of the following do you think will be most acceptable to people? Please rank top 3 options.

Option A ___ Option B ___ Option C ___ Option D ___

Option E ____

Ranking of Options Most Acceptable to People

35

40

45

50

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 1

Option D

Option C

10%

Option B

2%

Option A







0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Option D Option E Option A Option C Option B

Policy Options

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

Option D

37%

Option E

35%

Option A

16%

7) Stakeholder Group With Most Resistance to Congestion

Pricing

Who do you think will have the most resistance to a “pricing policy” such as A and B above?

Car owners ____ Colectivo / taxi drivers ____ Freight operators ____Businesses ____ Other ____

Stakeholder Group Expected to Have Most Resistance to a Pricing

Policy

45

50

Ranks 1 or 2

Freight

operators

10%

Other

4%Business

6%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Car owners Colectivo / taxi

drivers

Freight

operators

Businesses Other

Stakeholder Groups

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

Car

owners

49%

10%

Colectivo /

taxi drivers

31%

Note: The respondents who chose the option “Other”, specified their choice as “Politicians”

8) Use of Pricing Revenues

How should the revenues from a pricing policy be spent?Please rank options from 1 to 4.

Road and public transport improvements _____ Tax reductions (e.g.tenencia) _____ Improving institutional capacity _____ General fund forhealth, education, welfare projects _____

Prerences for How Pricing Revenues Should be SpentRank 1

Tax

reduction

(e.g.

tenencia)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Road and public

transport

improvements

General fund for

health, education,

welfare projects

Improving

institutional capacity

Tax reductions (e.g.

tenencia)

Options

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

General

fund for

health,

education,

welfare

projects

24%

Road and

public

transport

improvem

ents

60%

Improving

institutiona

l capacity

10%

tenencia)

6%

10) Biggest Challenges

What do think is the biggest challenge in implementing congestion pricing for Mexico City? Please rank options from 1 to 7.

Lack of funds _____ Public resistance _____ Fragmented institutions _____ Poor enforcement _____ Lack of alternatives to driving _____ Vandalism of traffic cameras and other installations _____

Political conflicts ______Biggest Challenge for Pricing in Mexico City

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Public

resis

tance

Polit

ical

conflic

ts

Fra

gm

ente

d

institu

tions

Lack o

f

altern

atives

to d

rivin

g

Lack o

f

funds

Vandalis

m o

f

traff

ic

cam

era

s /

insta

llations

Poor

enfo

rcem

ent

Options

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

CAR SHARING IN BOGOTA?

SHORT-TERM CAR RENTALS, WIDESPREAD LOCATIONS

Relieves many people from having to own cars

Internet for rentals, wireless for data transmission: transaction costs near zero.

Easy as getting cash from an ATM.

Easiest in an environment where public transit service is good

But in the US, where it is not:But in the US, where it is not:

ZIPCAR WAS INTRODUCED IN US

Now largest car share company in the world

225,000 members, 5500 vehicles, 10 metropolitan areas, 70 university towns.

In an exercise

Colombian engineering students found many uses for car share

PRINCIPLES OF THE CITY CAR

Shared-use, two-passenger electric car that folds and stacks like shopping carts.

Omnidirectional robot wheels and drive-by-wire replace traditional engine, drive train, and steering mechanism.

Swipe your credit card, pick up a car from a stack, and deposit at another stack when you are finished – like having valet parking everywhere.

Recharging occurs whenever the vehicle is stacked, so no need for very long range or heavy, bulky batteries. Inductive charging probably makes sense.

FIRST-ORDER ENERGY EFFICIENCIES

Tiny footprint (size of a Smart when extended, half the size when folded) and more agile than a traditional car, so makes much more efficient use of urban infrastructure.

Very lightweight, all electric, digitally controlled, almost silent, no tailpipe emissions.

Shared use principle allows very high utilization rate and transformation of the automobile industry from a low-margin, commodity product business to an innovative service business.

SECOND-ORDER EFFICIENCIES

With large-scale use, car stacks throw enormous battery capacity into the electrical grid.

Effective utilization of inexpensive, off-peak power and clean but intermittent power sources –solar, wind, wave, etc.

A smart, distributed power generation system composed of these sources (the entire city as a virtual power plant) minimizes transmission losses.

This fits nicely, as well, with fuel cells in buildings – where they make much more sense than in vehicles.

Focus on the Two-Wheeler Dilemma

Source: WBCSD—Overview of Main Traits of Developing Country Cities

Plan for Bangkok (1995),

MIT team

Government Proaction in Bangkok

Government Proaction in Bangkok

Plan for Bangkok (1995),

MIT team

Many thanks for your attention,

And especially for your critical responses…..

RALPH GAKENHEIMER <[email protected]>

transport for sustainability: bogotastatic.iris.net.co/semana/upload/documents/doc-1731... ·...

Documents