1
Q
Urban transport impacts:
A
- Motor vehicle production
- Positive socioeconomic impacts (development of technology, employment, etc.)
- Road traffic fatalities + injuries (injuries can exacerbate family poverty)
- Congestion → Time + productivity loss, stress, road rage, energy emissions / consumption
- Resource use (energy consumption)
➔ Energy consumption hasn’t changed over the past 25 years in any other sectors, but it has
in transport (23% → 27%) - Air pollution → Urban smog, acid deposition, ozone depletion, climate change
- Access + mobility losses for disadvantaged groups (can’t afford to own + use motor vehicles)
➔ Distances increase because most have cars → Need for more motorization → Those
without them even more disadvantaged - Land use: Can contribute to loss of agricultural + wetlands
➔ Costs of sprawl (lower densities) → Must lay down far more road, water, and
telecommunication infrastructure (would be less expensive in dense setting)
➢ Who pays for peripheral infrastructure? - Transport waste: Oil spills, antifreeze + automotive fluids, solvents, batteries, tyres
- Speed consumes distance (higher speed → curves on highways need to take up more distance for
safety + more signage since people won’t notice if they’re going fast)
2
Q
Motor ownership per capita + Vehicle kilometers per capita
A
- Japan has high motor ownership but lower vehicle travel (kilometers per capita)
- Canada (relative to USA) has significantly lower kilometers per capita
3
Q
North America
A
- North American cities evolved along with the advent of the car (unlike Western Europe)
- Massive post-war population growth
- Massive amount of land → Go buy land in the middle of nowhere → Government subsidizes
highway infrastructure to make it accessible - Cultural preferences for privacy + single-family homes
- Segregated land use (unlike Europe + Asia)
4
Q
Conventional urban transport planning
A
- Motor vehicle-centered planning has always assigned very high values to time savings
➔ A lot of planning is very narrowly focused (e.g. only focusing on congestion) - High car mode shares are necessary even for short distances (further exacerbated by
free/subsidized parking) → Cars become inevitable → Social trap → Inefficient land use (high
amounts of sprawl)
➔ Urban transport planning contributes to this vicious circle (self-fulfilling + reinforcing)
➢ E.g. By highway planning - Idea that you can ‘build your way out of it’ by just keep on building more + more → Very
expensive + futile
5
Q
Additional roadways:
A
Reduce the rate of increase in congestion
- Growtth rate has to be at a rate slightly greater than travel growth to maintain constant travel times
- But there must aslo be a broader set of solutions
6
Q
Downs-Thompson Paradox (triple convergence):
A
Expanded highway capacity → 3 types of convergence
- Spatial convergence - Many drivers who formerly used alternative routes during peak hours
switch to the highway
- Time convergence - Many drivers who formerly traveled just before/after peak hours start
traveling during those hours
- Modal convergence - Some commuters who used to take public transport during peak hours
switch to driving since its become faster
7
Q
Vehicle usage is sensitive to fuel price (in all countries)
A
- Higher fuel price = Less kilometers on the car
8
Q
why does higher urban density (more people) = Lower per capita private passenger transport energy use (more public transport/walking)
A
Factors: Incomes, vehicle ownership, fuel prices, heavier vehicles, fuel economy
➔ Most activities within short distances → Can walk/cycle everywhere you need to go
➔ Public transit attractive + effective
➔ Fuel + parking policies easier to apply → Less travel in personal motor vehicles
9
Q
From ‘vicious’ to ‘virtuous’ circles
A
- Transportation is fundamentally about people, not motor vehicles
- Minimize need for travel by motor vehicles (problem avoidance, not end-of-pipeline cure)
➔ Buses don’t want to be stuck in traffic, makes roads easier to cross for pedestrians - Discourage excessive car use
- Restrict personal motor vehicles to their most highly valued uses (only when necessary with lots
of people + long distances) - Provide for a wide range of choices for multiple road users (+ uses)
- Provide viable walk/cycle + transit alternatives (low impacts)
10
Q
Barcelona + Atlanta = Around the same population
A
- 60% of Barcelona population is within 600m of a subway line (99km of metro)
- To provide the same accessibility, Atlanta would need to build 3400km of metro line
11
Q
Pricing to curb personal motor vehicle activity
A
- Internalize costs to mitigate impacts + provide funding (e.g. parking costs)
➔ Parking cost crucial in influencing whether or not to drive
➔ The money from parking can be used to fund public transport infrastructure - Fixed costs: Aren’t influenced by the amount of use of the motor vehicle
➔ Insurance costs, lisence fees, vehicle cost, regular servicing, etc. - Variable costs: Depends on the amount of driving that is done in the motor vehicle
➔ Fuel costs, maintenance, parking costs, etc
12
Q
European experience
A
- Significantly higher gas + vehicle ownership taxes than North America
- Provision of cycle infrastructure and public transit
- Significantly lower shares for car
- European experience shows bikes can be competitive with cars up to 5km (take you to your
destination with similar timing as cars)
➔ Only if proper infrastructure is provided
➔ In USA, 50% of car trips are within 5km
➔ In USA, private vehicles account for 60% of trips of a mile or less (potential to convert to
other modes)
13
Q
Motorization in the global context
A
- Southeast Asian countries: Low levels of motorization index (especially India + China) compared to North America + Europe + Pacific
- Context-sensitive policies are important (no one-size-fits-all)
14
Q
Motor vehicle growth
A
- BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China): Large increase in motor vehicles
➔ China went from 2m in 2000 → 18m in 2010 (top motor vehicle producer worldwide)
➔ In India, motorcycles + scooters account for 79% of total motor vehicle production - US + G7 countries: Had a dip in 2009, they continued to increase slowly
15
Q
Road traffic fatalities + injuries
A
- 1.3 million fatalities annually (93% in LICs/MICs)
- High amount in China + India
- Leading cause of death in 5-29 year age group
- Mostly pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists (who are the ones being sustainable)
Also contributes to bad air quality ( → health factors)
16
Q
Contributory factors to rapid motorization
A
- Technological, economic, socio-cultural, behavioural, political-institutional, policy factors
- High levels of mixed land use + densities → Low segregation between high income groups with
high motorization levels + low income groups with low motor vehicle ownership levels - Strong links between poverty, pollution + healthcare
➔ Poor people affected the most + don’t have good health care so can’t address their
problems - Wide range of modes traveling at different speeds
➔ Poor modal separation (fast traffic vs. slow traffic) - Inadequate infrastructure (road length) to account for all the vehicles (especially bad in smaller
regional centers where population is growing rapidly) - Vehicle + fuel technologies improving (lower emissions per vehicle) but high in-use emissions
- Inadequate resources (poor traffic + parking control, inspection + maintenance)
17
Q
Rapidly growing motor vehicle ownership + activity
A
- Urbanization (rising incomes amidst high urban poverty)
- Rising aspirations (buying a dream)
- No longer have multiple families living under one roof → Massive increases in consumer
- Women join workforce → Become financially independent → Get their own vehicles
- Rising urbanization → Land is scarce in city center → People have to go out to suburbs (bad
public transport) → Only option is personal motor vehicle (cheapest option) - Motorized 2 wheel vehicles: Low labor costs but high safety risks
- India is already a capital for diabetes (driven by lack of exercise due to destruction of walking
ability due to intense motor vehicles)
18
Q
Access loss of walking / cycling
A
- Most serious impact of motor vehicle activity + planning for it
- Pedestrians as third-class citizens (hazardous to walk, no space to walk, nowhere to cross)
➔ Damage accessibility → Create needless demand for motor vehicles - Serious equity impacts; but also exacerbates other impacts
- Even short distance trips conducted by motor vehicles, as pedestrian accessibility and public
transit is compromised
➔ Due to motor vehicle activity + motor-vehicle centred “planning”
19
Q
Summary: India vs. the West
A
- North America + West = Low mixed land use, low density = Driven by low transport prices +
high incomes + high MV ownership → Inevitable more MV ownership + use + impacts - India = High mixed land use + high density = Enables high potential (along with low income
levels) for low MV activity + high mode shares
➔ Natural advantage destroyed with planning that accommodates motor vehicle use +
discriminates against non-motor modes (walking, cycling)
➔ Growing urbanization + incomes, comprimised accessibility → Rapid growth in MV
ownership + activity (even for short distance)
➔ Much higher motorization levels at low incomes (relative to countries like Mexico) made
possible by low cost motorized two- and three-wheeled vehicles, despite high fuel prices,
and difficulty of parking control - This rapid growth despite a context of high density and poverty + inadequate resources → high
level of serious impacts, including equity impacts despite low (although increasing) motorization
levels, compared to HICs
20
Q
Urban transport policy imperatives
A
- Challenge: How to cater to rapidly growing mass mobility needs (while minimizing adverse
impacts under resource constraints) - Must make use of what you have (countries like India)
- Choices + decisions shaped by circumstance + institutions (so policy is important)
- Problem isn’t personal motor vehicles + infrastructure for them
➔ Problem is overuse + neglect of pedestrians - Urban transport is about people (should ensure accessibility for all not just privilege mobility for a
few) - Prioritize most sustainable modes (MV function in non-motor environments, not reverse)
- Provide non-motor tranport infrastructure + affordable public transit not merely to minimize
motor vehicle activity, but because the vast majority rely on these modes despite adverse
circumstances - Restore accessibility → Cost-effective transit → Pricing and parking control
- Curb increasing use of motor vehicles
- Allow all modes to operate efficiently, enhance transit effectiveness
- Cost-effectively mitigate urban transport impacts
21
Q
The gap between policy + reality
A
- Pedestrians are third class citizens in a nation of pedestrians (despite context, need, mode shares,
benefits, potential) - Is it lack of knowledge / research/ resources / ability?
➔ No, it is fundamentally about attitudes, politics, priorities - Most people who walk don’t have a say, those who have a say don’t walk (power imbalance)
➔ Chauffeur-driven cars → Don’t need to deal with hassles of lack of pedestrian accessibility - Education + moral suasion vs. intelligent policy making to influence attitudes + choices
- Public perceptions + media representations
➔ If the West can have cars, why can’t we?
➔ Pedestrians cross wherever they want because that’s how they are
➔ It’s not the job of government to stand in the way of people buying cars + using them
22
Q
Environmental economics perspective:
A
How + why we make decisions about resource use (allocation of resources among competing uses, choices + motivations, incorporating environmental concerns)
- Environmental processes essential for life, crucial for economy, yet taken for granted
- Environmental values are intangible + hard to define
23
Q
Environmental economics perspective: How + why we make decisions about resource use (allocation of resources among competing uses, choices + motivations, incorporating environmental concerns)
A
- Environmental processes essential for life, crucial for economy, yet taken for granted
- Environmental values are intangible + hard to define
- Considering environment, human health, etc.
- Environmental values are often intangible + hard to define → So how do we balance these?
- Sometimes people have the knowledge but lack the moral strength (just don’t care)
- Allocation of resources among competing uses, choices about resource use, responsible use of
natural resources (no overexploitation, degradation, etc.) - Decisions can often be a matter of circumstance
➔ E.g. Car use in the suburbs (have kids and must drive to school, soccer practice, etc.) - Main argument that economists make: These problems come about because environmental values
are not captured by + traded on markets / represented in market price terms
➔ Causes overexploitation of resources, environmental degradation, resource depletion, etc. - Institutions structure expectations on socially optimal resource use
24
Q
Externalities:
A
A side effect of an activity (can be negative/positive)
25
Possibility exists when
the welfare of people is affected not only by their own activities, but the
activities of others as well
26
Resource use depends on
property rights → Exclusivity + enforceability
27
➔ Property rights:
Set of norms + rules that state who can / can’t use a resource, rights,
responsibilities, limitations of the resource
28
economically efficient
Anything that maximizes net social benefit
29
Conditions needed for a socially efficient outcome (for net social welfare to be maximized):
➔ Universality = All property is privately owned + all those rules are clearly specified
➔ Exclusivity = All of the benefits + costs associated with the ownership + use of a resource
will flow only to those owning + using the resource + nobody else
➔ Enforceability = Property / resource should be free from from interference + a mechanism
to enforce this (clear way to prevent others from using or accessing it without permission)
➢ E.g. Private farmer: These conditions being met cause high incentive for farmer to
invest in the land → Long-term productivity of land
30
Environmental problems:
Property rights not defined → Exclusivity violated
➔ E.g. Polluting industry on river (+ resort hotel on same river) → Dumping from polluting
plant causes bad business for hotel
➢ Need a way to make sure the steel plant can’t just dump their pollution on others
31
Economist opinion:
There are externalities because environmental issues aren’t captured by markets (i.e. since there is no market value to dirty air / polluted water → no motivation to avoid
these)
32
because common property resources are “non-excludable” + “rival”,
resource use happens on a first come-first served basis
➔ CF. Hardin discusses tragedy of the commons + its inevitability
➔ Common property resources prone to over-use + exploitation due to poorly defined
property rights (exclusivity violated, enforceability difficult)
➔ But under open unrestricted access; sufficient demand + advanced extractive technologies,
common property resources over-exploited, degraded
33
Users motivated only private short-term benefits and costs
→ extract as much as possible, as
quickly as possible, without regard to their own, let alone society’s long-term interests
➔ When users motivated only by short-term gain → “Social trap” at the level of individuals
+ nations
34
Tragedy of the commons =
Actually the tragedy of open, unrestricted access
35
Externalities are also prone to occur in case of public goods
➔ Public goods:
Benefit everyone in society regardless of how they were produced (clean
air, scenic values, public parks) → Nonexcludable, non-rival
36
Zoning:
: Process of dividing land into zones + establishing regulations for each zone
➔ Saying what kinds of activities are allowed, when they are allowed, etc.
➔ Can be done by private groups (buy land + refuse to develop it)
37
Free ride:
Contributing less to the creation of public goods, but still benefiting
38
Effects of externalities:
- Underpricing, excess production, and consumption of polluting commodities + activities → social trap
- Excess consumption of ecosystem services
- Undersupply of public goods, “free rider” effect
- No incentive to reduce pollution per unit output
- Recycling/reuse of polluting substances discouraged since simply releasing them is inexpensive
39
Internalizing externalities -
How do we account for externalities + capture so they are taken account of
in decision making?
40
- E.g. Automobile industry:
Automobile market can be illustrated in demand + supply curves
➔ Price vs. quantity of automobiles supplied + used:
➢ When price is low, there is little incentive for suppliers to put automobiles on the
market → Low supply
★ If the price is high, suppliers would be willing to put much more
automobiles on the market → High supply
➢ Low consumption → Marginal benefit of an additional unit of consumption is high
★ When already consuming a lot of automobiles → Marginal benefit of an
additional unit of consumption is low
➢ Excessive amount of ore mining required to make the automobile → Huge impacts
even before the automobile is produced
Environmental effects do not appear in analysis or in real-world markets without regulations (they
are externalized)
41
User on non-user externality:
Those who don’t even contribute to the externalities (e.g. people
who don’t use cars) still face the consequences of those who do contribute (e.g. air pollution)
➔ More important to address than user-to-user externalities from an equity standpoint
42
Marginal benefit
Additional value a consumer receives from consuming 1 more unit of a
good/maximum amount they’re willing to pay(demand curve)
43
Marginal cost -
Cost of an additional unit of supply, reflecting the cost of production to the
suppliers (supply curve)
44
Equilibrium:
Net social benefit is considered to be maximized
45
Total benefit
q = A + B + C
➔ Total cost of supply at q = C
➢ Net benefit = A (consumer surplus) + B (producer surplus)
C = Under supply curve before q
46
The supply + demand schedules how the marginal benefits + costs for each individual unit
produced
➔ Therefore, the areas under these curves in effect sum up the total benefits + costs for all units produced
47
envr201
flashcards
Decks in class (1)
# Cards
