COVID, the e-bike city and the dilemma of transport policy making
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ETH Library COVID, the e-bike city and the dilemma of transport policy making Presentation Author(s): Axhausen, Kay W. Publication date: 2022-01 Permanent link: https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000527626 Rights / license: In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection. For more information, please consult the Terms of use.
Preferred citation style Axhausen, K.W. (2022) COVID, the e-bike city and the dilemma of transport policy making, MIT Urban Studies and Planning Seminar, Zoom, January 2022. MIT DUSP 22/01
COVID, the e-bike city and the dilemma of transport policy making KW Axhausen IVT ETH Zürich January 2022
Dilemma of transport policy MIT DUSP 22/01
Transport
is a
Normal (private) good
i.e. it has a negative generalized cost elasticity
MIT DUSP 22/01Travel is a normal good
e.g. in the 2019 Swiss MOBIS study an
short run elasticity ≈ -0.3
with respect to a virtual pricing of its externalities
Duranton and others report
elasticities of 1
with respect to lane miles added
MIT DUSP 22/01COVID19 in Switzerland – Impressions MIT DUSP 22/01
Acknowledgements MOBIS-COVID panel
ETH Zürich
• J Molloy
• C Tchervenkov
• T Schatzmann
• F Becker
Universität Basel
• B Hintermann
• B Schoeman
• N Lustenberger
LINK
• S Frenzel
MIT DUSP 22/01MOBIS COVID Sample
• Earlier virtual mobility pricing study of car and transit users
• French and German speaking Switzerland
• 1100+ started out of about 3700 original ones
• No incentives for COVID19 phase
• Catch-a-day app (motion-tag, Berlin)
MIT DUSP 22/01MOBIS COVID Sample MIT DUSP 22/01
Share of mobiles since September 2019
100% 400
New confirmed hosptialized cases
75% 300
Mobile persons [%]
MOBIS control group
50% COVID19 2020 200
COVID19 2021
Hospital cases 2021
Hospital cases 2020
25% 100
0% 0
0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308 336 364
Day of year
MIT DUSP 22/01Number of trips and size of the activity space
500 5.0
400 4.0
Number of trips/day
Activity space [km2]
300 3.0
200 2.0
100 Weekday - Activity space 1.0
Weekend&holidays
Weekday - Trips
Weekend&holidays
0 0.0
02.03 02.05 02.07 02.09 02.11 02.01 02.03 02.05 02.07 02.09 02.11
Week starting with Monday
MIT DUSP 22/01PKm shares by mode and total PKm since fall 2019
100.00% 50.00
80.00% 40.00 Pre-COVID Bike
- Transit
- Car
PKm mode share
60.00% 30.00 20 COVID Bike
Total PKm
- Transit
- Car
40.00% 20.00 21 COVID Bike
- Transit
- Car
20.00% 10.00 Pre-COVID PKm
2020 PKm
2021 PKm
0.00% 0.00
0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308 336 364
Day of year
MIT DUSP 22/01PKm mode shares of the slow modes since fall 2019
10.00%
8.00%
PKm mode share
6.00% Pre-COVID Bike
20 COVID Bike
21 COVID Bike
4.00% Pre-COVID Walk
- 20 Walk
- 21 Walk
2.00%
0.00%
0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308 336 364
Day of year
MIT DUSP 22/01Homeoffice impact on travel: Daily average pkm
50.00
Average daily person kilometres travelled
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00 Home office distance
Mixture distance
At office distance
0.00
61
82
103
124
145
166
187
208
229
250
271
292
313
334
355
11
32
53
74
95
116
137
158
179
200
221
242
263
284
305
326
347
Day of year
MIT DUSP 22/01Innovation rates in mode+destination packages MIT DUSP 22/01
Innovation rates in mode+destination packages
0.70
0.60
Before
2020
0.50
2021
Weekly innovation rate
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Day of the year
MIT DUSP 22/01Distance to new mode+destination packages in CH
Mean km to new Swiss locations from home 40
30
20 Before
2020
2021
10
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Day of year
MIT DUSP 22/01The dilemma of the given (urban) network MIT DUSP 22/01
Urban network capacity =
Junction density,
Lane miles density
Betweenness centrality,
Bus mileage density
(Traffic control)
MIT DUSP 22/01Example mode allocation for the optimal speed MIT DUSP 22/01
A managed/co-ordinated one? Comparison of MOBIS GC
1.4
1.2
Generalized costs Car/PT
1
No-ST Leisure
0.8
ST - Leisure
No ST - Shopping
0.6
ST - Shopping
No ST - Work/Education
0.4 ST - Work/Education
0.2
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Mean Distance of decile [km]
MIT DUSP 22/01The dilemma remains MIT DUSP 22/01
The dilemma actually becomes sharper
• Higher accessibility improves productivity and social capital
• Underused off-peak capacity due to additional peak capacity to
accommodate for population growth (roads, parking, transit)
• Induced demand due to the lower GC of automated private and
public transport
• Induced sprawl due to lower GC
• CO2 reduction need
• Sprawl avoidance needed
MIT DUSP 22/01COVID19 adding to the dilemma?
• «3 of 5» day weeks
• Less commuting, but more leisure travel
• Residential moves using the new freedoms
• Fewer season tickets and transit pre-committment
• Mistrust of strangers in (small) vehicles
• Financial/political risks to public transport systems
MIT DUSP 22/01Which future did we discuss? MIT DUSP 22/01
Past radical dreams: Le Corbusier’s City radieuse MIT DUSP 22/01
Past radical dreams: Lloyd Wright’s Usonia MIT DUSP 22/01
Dr. Wolf Strache, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
MIT DUSP 22/01
Past radical dreams: MotorwaysWhich future are we discussing? MIT DUSP 22/01
An
• Automated one ?
• Managed/co-ordinated one ?
• A car free/reduced one?
MIT DUSP 22/01A managed/co-ordinated one MIT DUSP 22/01
A managed/co-ordinated one
• Mobility pricing
• Two-part tariffs for infrastructure
• Option price
• Pay-as-you-go for usage
• Congestion pricing
• (Demand responsive) parking pricing
• CO2 pricing
• Local emission pricing
• MaaS
MIT DUSP 22/01An automated one? First robust cost estimates MIT DUSP 22/01
Structure of the pkm full costs for today’s usage levels MIT DUSP 22/01
A car free/reduced one, MIT DUSP 22/01
A car free/reduced one,
• a 15 min city ?
• a net-zero CO2 city ?
• an e-Bike city ?
MIT DUSP 22/01A car free/reduced one: Would an e-Bike city deliver
the current accessibility with?
• 50% of current road space for (shared) micro-mobility
• Improved pedestrian accessibility
• Connectivity for emergency services
• Large vehicle transit plus on-demand small vehicle transit
• Rational pricing of the remaining road use and parking
• P+R for sub/exurban connections
• «Union»-delivery pick-up-locations within walking distance
MIT DUSP 22/01Questions?
• www.ivt.ethz.ch
• ivtmobis.ethz.ch/mobis/covid19
• www.ivt.ethz.ch/en/research/mobis-covid19
MIT DUSP 22/01You can also read
