Targeting TDM Policies Based on Individual Transport Emissions

Transcription

1 Targeting TDM Policies Based on Individual Transport Emissions Yusak O. Susilo, University of the West of England, Bristol, Dominic Stead, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

2 Who has the largest share? 48% 12% 4% 4% 48% 12% Population CO 2 emissions

3 Tales in two countries Transport Domestic Industry Services, agriculture & o the rs Annual energy consumption per capita (GJ) 33% Services, agriculture & o the rs Industry 2 Domestic Transport Annual energy consumption per capita (GJ) 15% Netherlands 25 United Kingdom 25

4 People and their emissions: Car (48%) Annual carbon dioxide emissions per capita (kg) Annual CO 2 emissions from land-based passenger transport: Train (2%) Car Train Bus/tram/metro Motorcycle/scooter Other Bus/tram/metro (3%) Motorcycle/ scooter (1%) Cycle (26%) 9% In the NL: 9% of all CO 2 emissions In the : Who Other are (2%) these guys? Walk (18%) Local bus % of all CO 2 6% 9 s-25: Were they emissions Walk the same group of 26% people? Do they have a same behaviour toward a certain policies? Bicycle 2% 4 th International Car Symposium on Travel Demand Management, July 16-18, 28, Vienna Rail 61% Other 2% 3%

5 Objectives, data and methodology Objectives Explore the profiles and trends of travellers based on their transport CO 2 emissions Differences between two countries The acceptability of various policy measures Data NTS (OVG/MON) - 199, 1995, 2, 25 NTS - 2 & 24 Calculation Method COPERT : mode, distance, fuel type, vehicle age, occupancy, and speed) Attitude: EC FLASH-EUROBAROMETER 27

6 Analysis outline Explore the trends and profiles of travel and CO 2 emissions overtime Cluster and identify the extremist and the extremist who and how Influences overtime (regression analyses) Match the clustered group with their policy acceptability (Eurobarometer)

7 Travel and emissions trends: gender Daily CO2 emissions (kg) CO 2 Emissions Daily travel distance (km) Travel Distance men women all men women all men women all men women all Average of daily journey tim Travel Time Average number of daily journeys Number of Trips men women all men women all men women all men women all () / 25 (NL)

8 Travel and emissions trends: employment Daily CO2 emissions (kg) CO 2 Emissions Daily travel distance (km) Travel Distance Full Time Worker Parttimer Non- Worker Student all Fulltime worker Parttime worker Nonworker Student All Full Time Worker Parttimer Non- Worker Student all Fulltime worker Parttime worker Nonworker Student All Average of daily journey time Travel Time Average number of daily journeys Number of Trips Full Time Worker Parttimer Non- Worker Student All Fulltime worker Parttime worker Nonworker Student All Full Time Worker Parttimer Non- Worker Student all Fulltime worker Parttime worker Nonworker Student All () / 25 (NL) 6

9 Travel and emissions trends: personal Daily CO2 emissions (kg) CO 2 Emissions Daily travel distance (km) Travel Distance high medium low or no Income all high medium low all high medium low or no Income all high medium low all Average of daily journey time Travel Time Average number of daily journeys Number of Trips high medium low or no Income all high medium low all high medium low or no Income all high medium low all () / 25 (NL) 6

10 Extremist vs Extremist Zero emissions travellers In the Netherlands: Percentiles based on daily transport emissions 199: Proportion among travellers Proportion of CO2. emissions Zero CO2 emission travellers Group - 2 % Percentile Group 2-4 % Percentile Group 4-6 % Percentile Group 6-8 % Percentile Group 8-1 % Percentile % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% 1995: Proportion among travellers Zero CO2 emission travellers Group - 2 % Percentile Group 2-4 % Percentile Group 4-6 % Percentile Proportion of CO2. emissions Group 6-8 % Percentile Group 8-1 % Percentile % 2% 4% 6% 8% 1%

11 Extremist vs Extremist (NL) 3% 58% 28% 1% 33% 28% 57% 14% Population CO 2 emissions

12 Extremist vs Extremist () 3% 6% 57% 22% 2% 18% 58% 19% Population CO 2 emissions

13 Socio-economic profile by (NL) zero emissions 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 3% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% age < 24 age > 64 not in work in full-time work received higher education

14 Socio-economic profile by () zero emissions 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 3% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% age < 24 age > 64 not in work low in full-time work

15 Validity test: Regression analyses The most significant variables that influence the amount of CO 2 emissions: car availability, full-time employment, and In the NL: The influences of car availability and being a full-time workers have continuously increased Car availability: + 2.2, +2.3, + 2.4, kg CO 2 Full-time workers: +1.3, +1.4, +2.3, +2.4 kg CO 2 In the : Men: + 1.1, +1.3 kg CO 2 - Full-time workers: +1.9, +1.5 kg CO 2 Consistent with s analysis: No full-time employment, no car, low lower s Full-time employment, car availability, high higher s

16 How about the policy acceptability of these group of people?

17 Mix responses toward various policies Source: EC (27)

18 Who support which? Better public transport (%) Restrictions in city centres (parking, access for private cars or trucks) (%) Speed limits (%) Charges for road use (e.g. city tolls) (%) No need for improvement (%) Other (%) DK/NA (%) Sex: Male Female Age: Introduce Only allow Promote the purchase Promote the DK/NA Age of completing education: restrictions the sale of of fuel efficient purchase of to the use less vehicles by giving fuel efficient of cars (%) 5.7 polluting 5 better information vehicles EU vehicles 5.9 (%) through tax (%) incentives (%) Sex: Male Female Age: Age of completing education: th International Symposium on Travel Demand Management, July 16-18, 28, Vienna EU

19 Roughly speaking zero emissions 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Different attitudes and opinions across the s Better public transport Better public transport Road user charges Road user charges City centre restrictions Restrictions in car use Tolls for congestion Tolls for congestion Tax incentives for cleaner vehicles Mostly agreed: clean car! Based on secondary data, need for further analyses

20 Recent attitude evidences in the 1% 9% 5% 4% 3% 2% % 2 behaviour, even 7% if it would help the environment 59 6% 66 For the sake of the environment everyone should reduce how much they use their cars Agree strongly/agree Disagree/disgree strongly economic growth should be given priority it would be difficult to change my driving bus is the polluter, not car! 22 Anyone who thinks that reducing their car use will help is wrong - one person doesn't make a difference Neither agree/disaagree Can't choose/not answered People 1% will generally not to change their travel 16 behaviour % - unless it is made easy for them to do so AND there is a clear direct benefit from them Environmental awareness: OK! But sustainable transport mode? it s just another trojan horse for taxation People who drive less environmentally harmful cars should pay less to use the roads KEY: help people to understand their proxy benefit from the measurements Source: and understand Lyons et al. (28) their readiness to change their behaviour

21 Summary Trends and differences between two countries Zero emissions group generally not the well-off, welleducated full-time workers High emissions group fastest growth in CO 2 emissions Reduction of emissions in upper by a given proportion will lead to a larger reduction in CO 2 emissions than by the same proportion across all the other s Certain instruments (e.g. fuel pricing, vehicle maintenance programmes) are regressive and may affect the greatest emitters least targeting Groups responsible for high CO 2 emissions less supportive of measures to reduce emissions Key: understanding behaviour and interest of different segment of the population different needs and readiness to change their behaviour

22 Questions?