Скачать презентацию Road user charging building a consensus The objectives Скачать презентацию Road user charging building a consensus The objectives

473c7fc273001d0b6a0ba97bc8ee2781.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 14

Road user charging: building a consensus The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use Road user charging: building a consensus The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

‘sustainability’ Ø Hard choices 4 “meeting our needs without compromising the ability of future ‘sustainability’ Ø Hard choices 4 “meeting our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs” Brundtland Ø Or ‘win-win’? 4 High and stable levels of economic growth and employment 4 Social progress that meets the needs of everyone 4 Effective protection of the environment 4 Prudent use of natural resources ODPM Ø For now: minimising travel; maximising low impact modes Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Achieving greater sustainability ØReducing impact of travel: 4 Lower impact travel modes; 4 Technology Achieving greater sustainability ØReducing impact of travel: 4 Lower impact travel modes; 4 Technology – fuels, emissions, etc 4 Management – traffic calming, etc ØReducing need to travel: 4 Substitution by IT 4 Co-location of uses, inc higher densities, brownfield development (PPS 13) ØReducing propensity to travel: 4 Pricing 4 Changing patterns of activity Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Transport demand growth and land use ØIncreased travel demand 1972/3 -2002/3: 4 Number of Transport demand growth and land use ØIncreased travel demand 1972/3 -2002/3: 4 Number of trips/head: +5% 4 Total travel (person-km): +53% 4 Average trip length (km): +47% 4 Travel by car (person-km): +100% ØImplications: 4 Travel increase not explained by development 4 Road dominance increases locational choices from existing stock 4 Dispersion of patterns of activity has increased dependency on road/car Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

‘land use’ ØPlanning practice: 4‘land use’ = new build 4 co-location reduces need to ‘land use’ ØPlanning practice: 4‘land use’ = new build 4 co-location reduces need to travel ØTransport behaviour: 4‘land-use’ = locational choices in whole stock 4 pattern of activity generates propensity to travel Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Land-use change = new build New building adds about 1% per annum to housing Land-use change = new build New building adds about 1% per annum to housing stock • 1 new house One event: little change Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Land-use change = locational choice (‘churn’) Out of 100 houses, after a year : Land-use change = locational choice (‘churn’) Out of 100 houses, after a year : • 90 have the same household • 10 have changed hands • 4 are vacant • 1 new house Changes in location • 10 have moved house • 4 have left area or died • 5 new households set up 20 events: much change Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Reducing travel: (i) co-location Place B Place A • equal size places 100, 000 Reducing travel: (i) co-location Place B Place A • equal size places 100, 000 jobs • 80% self containment 100, 000 workers 2. Co-location 102, 500 jobs • ‘balanced development’ of 5000 jobs & houses 20, 000 100, 000 workers 20, 000 20, 500 Gross: 40, 000 100, 000 jobs 102, 500 workers 82, 000 Commuting Net: Nil 80, 000’ 08 1. Baseline Net: Nil Gross: 41, 000 102, 500 workers 20, 500 102, 500 jobs 3. Unbalanced 105, 000 jobs 23, 000 • as above, but • all jobs in A, all houses in B 82, 000 (82%) 105, 000 workers 82, 000 (78%) Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com 100, 000 workers 18, 000 Net: 5, 000 Gross: 41, 000 100, 000 jobs “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Reducing travel: (ii) influencing propensity to travel Place A 2. Co-location • 80% self-cont Reducing travel: (ii) influencing propensity to travel Place A 2. Co-location • 80% self-cont • ‘balanced development’ 4. Demand management • as above, but • 85% selfcontainment 5. Demand management • 85% self-cont • unbalanced development Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com 102, 500 jobs Place B 20, 500 82, 000 102, 500 workers 102, 500 jobs 102, 500 workers 20, 500 15, 375 Net: Nil Gross: 41, 000 102, 500 jobs 102, 500 workers 87, 125 Commuting Net: Nil Gross: 30, 750 102, 500 workers 15, 375 102, 500 jobs 105, 000 jobs 18, 000 100, 000 workers 87, 000 (87%) 100, 000 workers 87, 000 (83%) 13, 000 Net: 5, 000 Gross: 31, 000 105, 000 jobs “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Road pricing and sustainable land-use ØPotential of road pricing 4 Influence on large-scale dynamics Road pricing and sustainable land-use ØPotential of road pricing 4 Influence on large-scale dynamics of locational choice 4 Medium/longer term influence on propensity to travel ØBarriers to realising potential 4 Df. T focus on congestion discounts churn 4 Over-pricing political problems (eg fuel protests) and/or 4 damaging concessions (eg revenue neutrality) 4 potentially anti-urban nature of congestion charging 4 ODPM focus on new build discounts churn 4 underplays role of existing stock in meeting needs 4 directs investment towards growth areas, incentivising dispersal 4 ignores potential of road pricing to support urban concentration and regeneration Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Are ‘Sustainable Communities’ sustainable? ØFor: 4‘Balanced’ development 4 Heavy investment in public transport ØBut: Are ‘Sustainable Communities’ sustainable? ØFor: 4‘Balanced’ development 4 Heavy investment in public transport ØBut: 4 Longer distance commuting encouraged 4 Other travel may become more car-dependent 4 Pre-emption of infrastructure investment 4 Regional imbalances reinforced Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Pricing and sustainable landuse: overcoming the barriers Ø Recognise that: 4 Co-location has only Pricing and sustainable landuse: overcoming the barriers Ø Recognise that: 4 Co-location has only weak influence on travel behaviour 4 The short-run effects of road pricing on congestion may be less important longer-run effects on locational choice 4 Urban regeneration also influences locational choice - delivers economic, social and environmental benefits as well as congestion reduction 4 Road pricing addresses regional disparity by sending signals about real costs of location in pressure areas Ø Policy implications 4 Devolve money-raising and spending to improve potential for integrating pricing and urban regeneration 4 Guarantee additionality, and road pricing will help growth areas/regions address their infrastructure needs Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Pricing and sustainability: – a win/win? ØEconomic growth: compact cities, exploiting agglomeration advantages, economic Pricing and sustainability: – a win/win? ØEconomic growth: compact cities, exploiting agglomeration advantages, economic benefit of greater regional parity ØSocial progress: reduce polarisation, counter exclusion, tackle transport poverty ØEnvironmental protection: lower emissions, less greenfield take ØNatural resources: less dependence on fossil fuels Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005

Conclusion ØThe most effective transport policy could be land-use (=concentrating pattern of activity) ØThe Conclusion ØThe most effective transport policy could be land-use (=concentrating pattern of activity) ØThe most effective land-use policy could be transport (=reducing propensity to travel) Therefore (really) integrate! Alan Wenban-Smith Urban & Regional Policy [email protected] com “The objectives of road pricing: sustainable land use” Road user charging: building a consensus London 26 Oct 2005