Download to read offline
Uploaded byManoj Singh
Lecture2
This document provides an overview of a lecture on urban transportation, land use, and the environment in Latin America. It discusses the relationship between transportation, development, and their economic and environmental impacts. It introduces the concept of the "three E's" (economics, environment, equity) as pillars of sustainability. Various challenges to sustainability are explored, including motorization trends impacting public transit ridership, the rise of informal transit sectors, and the environmental impacts of transportation including air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, noise pollution, and induced land use changes. Key issues are summarized, such as dependence on petroleum for energy and challenges around financing transportation systems and pricing external costs.
Lecture2
- 1. Urban Transportation, LandUse, andUrban Transportation, Land Use, and the Environment in Latin America:the Environment in Latin America: A Case Study ApproachA Case Study Approach Lecture 2 1.Urban Transport and City Development in Latin America (Cont’d from Lecture 1) 2. Urban Transportation and Sustainability –– the Three E’s
- 2. Urban Transport’s “Viciousor Vicious” Cycle Transportation – Providing Access • Facilitate movement of goods and services • Improves accessibility to work, education, etc. Development • Increase in Industrial/Commercial Activities • Increase in Personal Incomes Economic/Environmental Impacts • Congestion • Infrastructure Costs • Resource Degradation (i.e., energy, air, land) Transport/Urban Effects • Growth in Trip Rates • Motorization • Changes in Mode Share • Urban Expansion
- 3. Automobility & theForces Against the Bus Increased Income Increased Attractiveness of Autos Increased Attractiveness of Autos Reduced Frequencies Fare Increases &/or Reductions in Service Quality Motorization Reduced Demand for Bus Trips Suburbanization Greater Trip Complexity (Chaining, etc.) Growth in Road CongestionIncrease in Bus Operating Costs
- 4. Bus vs. Auto–– Travel Speeds
- 5. Growth of the“Informal” Sector Minibuses, shared sedans, vans, etc. illegal or licensed but with little regulatory effort or power ― Mexico City, Lima, Recife (Brazil), San Jose (Costa Rica), etc. Combination of initiating factors: ― Liberalization of the public transport market, scarce alternative employment opportunities, public sector employment restructuring (Peru), institutional weakness � Positive Impacts ― Employment, fill demand with “door to door” service � Negative Impacts ― System-wide effects (congestion, pollution), political clout, unsafe on-road competition
- 6. “Informal” Sector Rio ― Kombis:complementary service in inaccessible areas ― 14-seater “luxury” vehicles: competing express service ― Fares 2 to 3 times equivalent bus fare ― Early 1990s, 600 vehicles; today, 6,000 to 9,000 ― Buses have responded to competition, diversifying operations and adding amenities (i.e., A/C)
- 7. The Rise ofthe “Informal” Sector in Mexico City % of All public Transport Trips Colectivo
- 8. Urban Rail Transit Metros,suburban rail, light rail � Typically the exception in developing cities, including Latin America ― High capital costs, lack of flexibility in adapting to changing travel patterns, long construction times ― Still, often highly prized as visible, “modern” solutions to transport problems
- 9. Suburban Rail inLatin America Suburban Rail in Buenos Aires, Santiago, São Paulo, Rio,and several other Brazilian cities Buenos Aires ― 7 lines, 840 kms, 8% of trips Rio ― 264 kms, 2% of trips São Paulo ― 6 lines, 270 kms, 2% of trips Santiago ― 1 line, 85 kms, <<0.3% of trips
- 10. Metros in LatinAmerica LinesLines KmsKms StationStation %Trips%Trips BouenosAiresBouenosAires 55 4444 6767 55 CaracasCaracas 33 4646 4040 NaNa Mexico CityMexico City 1010 180180 167167 ~13~13 Rio (incl LR)Rio (incl LR) 22 3535 3030 ~3~3 Sao PaulosSao Paulos 33 4949 4646 55 SantiagoSantiago 33 4040 5151 ~7~7
- 11. Metros High Capacity –60 Passengers/Hr/DirectionHigh Capacity – 60 Passengers/Hr/Direction High Cost -$40-$150 mn./KmHigh Cost -$40-$150 mn./Km Capital Costs rarely if ever recoveredCapital Costs rarely if ever recovered Operating Revenues/Operating costsOperating Revenues/Operating costs – “– “Farebox Ratio” (in 1990) – Mexico City,Farebox Ratio” (in 1990) – Mexico City, Rio, São Paulo < 1Rio, São Paulo < 1 –– Santiago > 1.5Santiago > 1.5 –– Policy outcome, planning outcome, operationsPolicy outcome, planning outcome, operations outcome?outcome?
- 12. Approaches to Sustainability TheThree “E’s” (or the Three Pillars, Three Dimensions, etc.): ― Economics, Environment, Equity Can Economic Growth (development) be achieved with Ecological Balance and Social Progress? � WBCSD Mobility 2001 adds to the Three E’s ― Operational Sustainability Can our transportation systems continueoperating Others have suggested additional elements ― Particularly Institutions or Governance
- 13. The Three E’s:Compatible or Contradictory?
- 14. Sustainability & Transportation Canthe transportation system itself be sustainable? � Can a sustainable transportation system exist, but contribute to a larger, unsustainable global economic system? � What do we mean by sustainable?
- 15. The Three E’sas Guiding Principles in Urban Development and Transportin Economic/Financial SustainabilityEconomic/Financial Sustainability ―Ensure that cities continue to support economicEnsure that cities continue to support economic development development Environmental/Ecological SustainabilityEnvironmental/Ecological Sustainability ― Generate an overall improvement in quality of lifeGenerate an overall improvement in quality of life Social Sustainability (Equity)Social Sustainability (Equity) ― The benefits should be shared equitably by societyThe benefits should be shared equitably by society How Can These Principles Help Guide Policies,How Can These Principles Help Guide Policies, Strategies, Decisions?Strategies, Decisions?
- 16. Social Sustainability Mobility (providingaccessibility to jobs, education, recreation, etc.) serves as key “lubricant” to sustaining our basic social systems � Mobility “opportunities” are unequally distributed across countries and within countries/cities ― Trip possibilities, trip rates, trip times, travel conditions ― Income, gender, age, race/ethnicity Mobility and its infrastructures produce disparate negative impacts across different groups ― Accidents, noise, “barrier” effect, pollution, etc.
- 17. Equity –– TravelTimes
- 18.
- 19. Accidents –– Social& Economic Impacts Traffic Risk (fatalities per vehicle) ― typically 2 to 10 times higher in developing countries Causes: Lack of institutional, engineering, infrastructure interventions ― High degree of mixed/conflicting road users – Poor driver training, enforcement, low penalties, health care system � Poorest typically suffer the greatest burden ― Most vulnerable road users � Social Impact ― pain, suffering, loss Economic Impact ― Lost productivity, material costs, resource allocation
- 20.
- 21.
- 22. Economic/Financial Sustainability Mobility servesas key “lubricant”(providing accessibility) to sustaining oureconomic systems Limited resources available to dedicate to mobility demands – Individuals and Firms have limited time & budgets – Financing for infrastructure and necessary institutions competes with other public needs – Space for infrastructure is limited – Energy resources are finite
- 23. Congestion and TheThree E’s Economically – lost time for travellers/freight, lost resources (fuel) and often distorted investment decisions, reduced urban agglomeration economies Socially – poor are most often disproportionately burdened (public transport suffers), social networks (families) hampered Environmentally – air pollutant emissions increased, fuel consumption increased, urban expansion (sprawl) accelerated
- 24. Congestion Conditions Reflected inslow travel speeds and – at least partially – in high total travel times in developing country cities – Avg. peak-period travel speed in Bangkok, Manila, Mexico City: 10 km/hr – Avg. trip time in Manila, 120 minutes; Jakarta, 82 minutes – Not necessarily increasing in intensity, but almost certainly in time and space � Anecdotal “evidence” abounds, but accurately comparing congestion levels across developing country cities is difficult due to lack of relevant data
- 25. Congestion Perspectives User –speed reduced due to other road users Engineers – when traffic density reaches point where flow goes below design capacity Administrators – when a relatively arbitrary threshold (i.e., level of service) is exceeded � Economists – individual average private cost exceeds the social marginal costs (externality) Physicists – non-linear, chaotic system in which small, random fluctuations can cause extended flow breakdowns (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/budi ansky.htm)
- 26. Congestion –– theEngineer’s Perspective
- 27. Congestion –– theEconomist’s Perspective
- 28. Economic Sustainability –– Infrastructureand Finance Infrastructure’s Dueling Pressures ―Maintenance and management to make best use of existing infrastructure ―Expansion to satisfy growth in motorized vehicles, travel demand, urban outgrowth Infrastructure “opportunity costs” ―Of urban land ―Of financial resources
- 29. Economic Sustainability andFinance Relevant Expenditures ― Construction, Maintenance, Management, Planning, Service Provision Relevant Revenue Sources ― Vehicle Registrations Fees (buoyant due to motorization), Dedicated Fuel Taxes, Fares, Property Taxes, Other Taxes Challenges ― Other public policy objectives: i.e., Income Redistribution ― Multi-level authorities: national, regional, local ― Unclear financing principles ― Lack of marginal cost pricing, fees not matched with costs: “excess” demand, inability to plan “rationally”
- 30. Environmental/Ecological Sustainability Air/water/land pollutionAir/water/landpollution –– A major source of local air pollution & most rapidly growingA major source of local air pollution & most rapidly growing source of global air pollutionsource of global air pollution –– Groundwater run-off, hydrologic impacts of pavingGroundwater run-off, hydrologic impacts of paving Noise pollution/vibration & aestheticsNoise pollution/vibration & aesthetics –– Disruption and damage in urban/suburban areas and rural & “wild”Disruption and damage in urban/suburban areas and rural & “wild” settingssettings –– Visual “intrusion”Visual “intrusion” Depletion of natural resources and ecosystemDepletion of natural resources and ecosystem changeschanges –– Loss of wetlands, infrastructure-induced land use changes,Loss of wetlands, infrastructure-induced land use changes, partition of habitats, etc.partition of habitats, etc. Vehicle and parts disposalVehicle and parts disposal
- 31. Environment –– LocalAir Pollution
- 32. Transportation % Contribution toLocal Air Pollutants
- 33. Pollution Concentrations/Exposure Determine ultimatehealth impacts � Influenced by – Meteorology – wind, sunshine, precipitation, temperatures (thermal inversion) – Physical characteristics – altitude (combustion), topographical (valleys), buildings (“man-made valleys) – Population and activity locations and densities
- 34. Environment –– GlobalPollution Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions & Climate Change – Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane, Nitrous Oxides, CFCs – Worldwide, transportation accounts for 26% of CO2 (17% road sector) – Transport most rapidly growing anthropogenic source – Transport nearly completely dependent on fossil fuels – Developing countries currently 25% of transportation GHGs, but growing rapidly
- 35.
- 36. Relative Contribution byVehicle Type
- 37. Relative Contribution byVehicle Type
- 38. Index of PollutantContribution perIndex of Pollutant Contribution per Vehicle -SantiagoVehicle -Santiago
- 39. Index of PollutantContribution perIndex of Pollutant Contribution per Vehicle –Mexico CityVehicle –Mexico City
- 40. Index of PollutantContribution perIndex of Pollutant Contribution per Vehicle –InterpretationVehicle –Interpretation Santiago and Mexico City ―Poor emissions characteristics of buses, taxis and trucks, and/or ―their relatively intensive use (high VKT).
- 41. Index of Relative“Work Index of Efficiency” –– Mexico City
- 42. Index of Relative“Work Index of Efficiency” –– Interpretations Colectivos – Despite their large number, these vehicles exhibit a very low index of pollution per passenger trip share, suggesting high passenger utilization rates. Taxis – High relative pollution likely derives from their relatively low occupancy rates and the fact that they spend much time driving without any passengers. Cars – High relative pollution index comes from their relatively low occupancy rates.
- 43. Noise PollutionNoise Pollution Transportationoften major source – Scarce data Santiago, late 1980s – 80% of population living or working on major transport arteries suffered risk of hearing loss. Lima, mid-1990s – On principal avenues, noise levels 2 times higher than norms Affects property values, may accelerate decentralization – Policy dilemma: buses often a major culprit
- 44. Other Environmental Impacts Inducedconsumption of open space ―Again, “does transport cause sprawl?” Infrastructure destruction of delicate ecosystems Runoff from highway pavement Vehicle disposal, fuel leakage, etc.
- 45. Urban Transport Sustainability: SomeKey Issues Energy Systems ― Petroleum accounts for 96% of transportation energy use, likely to remain dominant in medium term ― Price fluctuations, OPEC dominance, add considerable uncertainty/instability to supply conditions ― Imports pose significant hard currency costs on poorer countries ― Projected growth in road transport fuels: 3.7-4.2% in developing world; 1.3%-1.5% in industrialized Environmental Impacts ― Technology has shown to significantly reduce per unit local air pollution impacts – at what cost, especially among the poorer; ― global air pollution problem more elusive due to petroleum dependency; ― additional ecological impacts are less well-understood, due to complexity, but likely significant
- 46. Urban Transport Sustainability: SomeKey Issues Financial Systems ― Mechanisms proven for “sustainable” infrastructure financing (including via privatization) ― Institutional Barriers to implementing effective financing systems ― Persistently difficult issues related to financing public transport operations (and rail transit development) ― Ongoing challenge of charging external costs Broader Social Issues ― Can mobility strategies be deployed to improve equity in distribution of opportunities (accessibility ― Accidents still major public health threat
- 47. How Would You“Measure” the Principles?
- 48. Assignment 2 In classand in the readings we have seen the broad-range of impacts of urban transportation and their implications for sustainability. We have also been introduced to some of the possible interventions for improving transportation system performance as it relates to sustainability. Identify two of the most pressing needs related to urban sustainability in the Latin America context. Justify your selection of these relative to others. What interventions would you recommend to address these needs? Why? No lengthy introductions or conclusions are necessary, rather: Pressing Need. Why? Based on What criteria? Thoughts on Intervention. This can be done in 4 paragraphs. 1.5 pages Max.