MAARTEN HAJER, ANCO HOEN AND HIDDO HUITZING CHAPTER 07 | 151 07 Shifting Gear: Beyond Classical Mobility Policies and Urban Planning Maarten Hajer, Anco Hoen and Hiddo Huitzing Mobility is the elixir of modern society. Man has been a travelling species for longer, of course. The quest not only for food, power and wealth, but also for ideas has inspired people to travel for ages. But during the modern era, we have perfected the mobility system. We now have a global economy that is not only functionally highly integrated, but celebrates this interconnectivity as well. This cultural celebration of the sheer endless opportunities is symbolized by the intercontinental holidays of middle class families. Sending images and story lines from faraway places and bringing insights and paraphernalia have become an indicator of social success. Less discussed but increasingly signifi- cant: Modern society thrives on the fuels, food and other resources (from rare earth to phosphates) that we extract or grow at faraway places and ship between different continents. This era of ‘hypermobility’ has long been known to be unsustainable. The metab- olistic dimension, the flows of resources and environmental effects, from oil drilling to CO to spillage of phosphates into the seas, are the flip side of our 2 progress and are something we now urgently have got to come to grips with. The knowledge of ‘limits’ dates back to the 1960s but is now finally giving way to knowledge that focuses on potentials, on transformations and on transition. Interesting is what this shift in emphasis could also mean for the debate on (car) mobility. After all, it was in the 1960 that the initial idea of allowing as many people into the world of car mobility (a car for everyone) started to arouse feel- ings of discomfort, something Phillip Larkin describes so well in his bleak 1972 poem ‘Going, Going’ (Larkin, 1972). The new post-war generations grew to matu- rity holding ‘post-material’ values (Abramson & Inglehart, 1995) and eloquently stated to raise question about the price of progress and growth. 152 | CHAPTER 07 SHIFTING GEAR: BEYOND CLASSICAL MOBILITY POLICIES AND URBAN PLANNING While the occasional faraway holiday is a symbolic marker of success, it is the everyday reality of ‘auto mobility’, which has become the comfortable basis of Western day-to-day life.1 This article focuses on this cornerstone of the system: the car. Cars are no longer a luxury belonging to the middle classes but are within reach of nearly everybody. What is more, the car can no longer be regarded as an individual technological artefact but has evolved into a ‘large technological system’ (Summerton, 1994) that has been perfected to include multilane motorways with giant petrol stations, parking houses in the inner cities, out of town shopping malls and also much of our urban fabric and form, from the cul-de-sac to the very idea of a suburban life styles as a blend between city and country living. This large technological system also comprises a powerful ‘car industrial complex’, that is crucial component of the economy, for instance, in terms of jobs, knowhow and innovation. Car-based mobility is our default option, well embedded into our routines. It is our ‘normalcy’. It is a cultural cornerstone that we cannot simply remove. Organizing mobility on a sustainable footing is a tremendous challenge. But it is one that, somehow, needs to be met. The ‘small’ agenda is one of direct environmental impacts, of health-related effects, of noise, particles and spatial impacts. There we at least know where to find solutions. The ‘big’ agenda is that of climate change and natural resources. Here many options to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport have been identified. But stra- tegic decision makers stare the scientific facts and predictions in the face like a rabbit looks at the headlights of a car approaching. There is a scientific consensus that achieving the 2°C target is technically feasible, for rich countries this would require a stunning effort to reduce emissions with a factor 5 (Rogner et al., 2007). Unfortunately, little progress towards the ultimate goal has been made over the last 15 years. In fact, current policy scenarios predict that the share of transport (which of course is more than merely cars) in greenhouse gas emissions may rise from the current 25 to 50% in the year 2050 (European Commission, 2011a). Hence we simply have to rethink the mobility strategies in a fundamental sense. Hence the question is not if this legitimizes government intervention but what sort of intervention can be envisaged in the first place that may be promising to bring this transition about. Here serious ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking is required, or, in this context perhaps appropriate, ‘gearbox’ thinking, as we need to urgently shift gears. 1 This chapter focuses on the context of the developed world. It is obvious that the car is not within reach of everyone outside the rich countries. The predictions of a growing middle class in the developing world, reaching a stunning 3 billion in 2050, would logically imply a pervasive shift in the degree of car ownership elsewhere, with great environmental and spatial consequences. Such issues are beyond the scope of this paper. MAARTEN HAJER, ANCO HOEN AND HIDDO HUITZING CHAPTER 07 | 153 As experts we need to provide the thinking that may be drawn upon in a new policy making. Yet we have to reconsider the sort of advice we give, as well as the very way in which we relate to the mobility field. The traditional approach would be to turn to governments, seek to persuade them with studies that assess which technical measures are potentially effective. Governments would then have to adopt and enforce these measures through legislation, emission stand- ards and pricing measures. The reality of policy making and politics is that vested interests and lack of imagination stand in the way of even applying those meas- ures that scientists have reason to believe to be powerful policy instruments, road pricing being one of the most well known. The combination of a well-developed large technological system and a strong cultural adherence to the social and cultural practices of car mobility reality is a lethal cocktail. We cannot possibly come up with an alternative, let alone a blue- print. What we aim to do in this chapter is create a perspective that may help to find new strategies that go beyond the results of the thinking of the last 15 years. We start by briefly describing the problem at hand, and the technical solutions that have been identified to meet the challenge of a sustainable mobility. 1. The Problem at Hand The transport sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 25% of global and European CO emissions are transport related, 2 and this share will increase. The bulk of the emissions are caused by road trans- portation and passenger car transport in particular (see Figure 1). In order to meet long-term climate goals, the European Commission has announced that the transport sector should limit its CO emissions to 60% of 1990 levels (European 2 Commission, 2011b). This is a serious challenge, certainly if we consider that in a scenario without policy change passenger transport activity would increase by 51% between 2005 and 2050 while freight transport activity would go up by 82% (EC, 2011a). Consequently, without additional climate policy, the share of CO 2 emissions from transport would continue to increase to 38% of total CO emis- 2 sions by 2030 and to almost 50% by 2050 (EC, 2011a). There are three core elements to the ‘solution’: - use alternative (non-fossil) energy carriers; - use alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and - travel less kilometres. There is a clear distinction between these three elements regarding their emission reduction potential. This is illustrated by Figure 2. The combined potential of alter- native fuels and AFVs is far greater than the potential of less travel. 154 | CHAPTER 07 SHIFTING GEAR: BEYOND CLASSICAL MOBILITY POLICIES AND URBAN PLANNING Other transportation 0,7% Total navigation Total civil aviation 15,3% 12,5% Railways 0,6% Road transportation 70,9% Figure 1. Share by mode in total transport CO emissions, including international bunkers. EU-27 (2007). 2 index (1990 = 100) 300 250 200 or 150 t c e s rt 100 o p s n a 50 r t al t o T 0 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Years CO emission Low-carbon fuels 2 Target according to vision Efficiency Volume/Mode ahift Figure 2. Route towards a low-carbon transport system in the EU in 2050. Feasible CO emission reduction 2 for transport. Schematic representation of potentially feasable emmission reduction for the transport sector, by 2050. Roughly 80% must come from a combination of CO neutral fuels (electricity, 2 hydrogen and biofuels) and vehicle technology (battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles). There is a clear distinction between passenger car transport and MAARTEN HAJER, ANCO HOEN AND HIDDO HUITZING CHAPTER 07 | 155 other modes such as heavy duty freight transport, shipping and aviation in this respect. Freight transport (road, rail, air and navigation) and civil aviation will be dependent on biofuels for large CO emission reductions since alternative (elec- 2 tric or hydrogen) propulsion is not technically feasible. For passenger car trans- port (and light duty freight transport) electric and hydrogen propulsion is a viable option. If hydrogen and electricity are produced with wind or solar energy, this group, which is responsible for approximately 50% of transport CO emissions, can 2 emit up to 95% less CO (Hoen, Geurs, de Wilde, Hanschke, & Uyterlinde, 2009). 2 Reducing travel demand or changing travel behaviour can attribute approxi- mately a 20% emission reduction, mostly through road pricing and increased logistic efficiency in freight transport. The additional effect of spatial planning is limited at this point, not the least because in the developed world 70% of the building stock of 2050 is already there (Hoen et al., 2009, Hajer, 2011). In the next two sections, we will look at some popular measures that aim to increase the use of AFVs and reduce the demand for mobility (amount of kilo- metres driven). The focus is on passenger transport and mostly on car-based travel. We will assess whether these measures can be effective from a techno- cratic point of view and at the same time from an energetic society perspec- tive. We will illustrate that for effective policy making, there is often not only the need to look at technical potential or model-based scenarios but also at societal response to the challenges of sustainable mobility. The extent to which society accepts policies should be included in policy assessment, and this need becomes more pronounced if we take into considerations that modern society is made up of articulate, autonomous citizens and innovative companies. Many want change and are ready to take action. On the other hand, there are also citizens who are sceptical of the need for change. This scepticism often focuses not so much on the need for change itself, but stems from a lack of trust in government initiatives that aim for this change, and the idea that such initiatives will constrain their actions. Here lies the challenge of governments, which is to combine two societal developments: - The need to attune our natural resource use to the earth’s carrying capacity, here in particular the need to curb CO emissions. This is a major challenge that 2 we are faced with for the coming decades. - The emergence of what we call the ‘energetic society’ (Hajer, 2011): A society of articulate citizens and firms, with an unprecedented reaction speed, both in terms of capacity to obstruct and in terms of learning ability and creativity. In the next section, we will start of with a review of some possible measures to reduce demand for transport, or in other words drive less kilometres. In Section 4, we look at measures that aim to increase the use of clean vehicles using clean fuels. 156 | CHAPTER 07 SHIFTING GEAR: BEYOND CLASSICAL MOBILITY POLICIES AND URBAN PLANNING 2. ‘Drive Less’ We find many examples of measures in literature that have the potential to reduce the number of kilometres that people and companies drive. To name a few, road pricing or congestion charging, improving public transport, telecom- muting and teleconferencing, spatial planning to shorten travel distances, Park and Ride facilities to limit car traffic in cities and logistic efficiency in freight transport. With such a wide variety of options, it might be considered surprising that the emission reduction potential in Figure 2 is assessed to be limited. We will elaborate a little on this by looking at the historical development of trans- port. It would be fair to say that in the past 200 years, mobility has ‘exploded’ (Mom & Filaski, 2008). The average distance that a person travels per day has increased with 1-4% each year (van Lint & Marchau, 2011). Apart from the increased travel distance, the population size has also increased dramatically. All in all the combined personal mobility of a growing population is roughly 80 times higher than it was in 1800. To put it differently, the mobility explosion is the result of much more people travelling many more kilometres over the past 200 years. What could be the reason for this massive increase in mobility? The most important reason is that technological innovations in mobility have made it possible to travel much, much faster. Horse and carriage (the main mode of transportation around 1800) reached average speeds of 7 km/hour. Current car travel reaches average speeds of 70-100 km/hour and aviation surpasses that with ease with speeds of up to 900 km/hour. While travel speeds increased travel times remained fairly constant at roughly 1.1 hours per person per day (Zahavi & Talvitie, 1980; Schafer & Victor, 2000). According to Marchetti (1994), the ‘law’ of constant travel time has held for centuries and even applies to inmates who kill time by walking an hour on the prison grounds. We put law in parenthesis because there is also evidence that travel times are not constant. Harms (2008), for example, shows that for the Dutch case, people currently travel longer and more often than 30 years before. Interestingly, we do not find indications in liter- ature that travel times decrease owing to higher travel speeds. Apart from constant travel time, there is evidence that people tend to spend roughly the same percentage (15%) of their income on travel (Schafer & Victor, 2000). As a consequence, since faster travel is more expensive, with increasing income over time, people spend more money (in absolute terms) on travel, choose faster modes of travel and thus travel longer distances. This tells us that there seems to be a ‘natural tendency’ of people to travel and that as long as we increase infrastructure capacity and invent technologies to increase travel speeds, it will be difficult to reduce the demand for travel. MAARTEN HAJER, ANCO HOEN AND HIDDO HUITZING CHAPTER 07 | 157 Moreover, this natural tendency is reinforced by the elements of transport policy that aim to increase accessibility and decrease travel times. Such policies are aimed to facilitate travel, which instead of reducing the number of kilometres travelled, gives an incentive to travel more. It should be noted here that there are differences between the different modes of travel. A kilometre driven by train is from a perspective of CO emission reduc- 2 tion on average better than a kilometre driven by car. So if transport policies are successful in shifting travel demand to more energy efficient or CO inten- 2 sive modes travel demand policies may be effective from an environmental viewpoint. We should also note, however, that car travel is by far the preferred mode of transport. In the Netherlands, the number of passenger kilometres driven with cars is approximately six times as high as the number travelled by train. Train travel can accommodate only a limited part of a reduction in car travel. Moreover, the substitution between modes is limited. New public trans- port links generally attract new travellers instead of car travellers (Hilbers, van de Coevering, & van Hoorn, 2009). Reviewing what we have shown so far might lead one to argue that emission reduction technology (clean fuels and vehi- cles) cannot be only about changing the modal split but should also focus on CO neutral transport. To see if this could be true, and whether the mechanisms 2 described above indeed occur, we will review some successful or promising and some counterproductive measures to reduce kilometres driven. Successful Measures Road pricing and Congestion Charging Use-related charges have been on the policy agenda for several decades. Singapore was the first to implement the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system in 1998. In London, Stockholm and Milan, similar schemes were introduced in 2003, 2007 and 2008, respectively. The main reasons for introducing these use-related charges are to improve accessibility in heavily congested urban area and to improve air quality. Li and Hensher (2012) give an overview of the effects of the congestion charging schemes (CCS) in the aforementioned cities (see Table 1). The reduction in car traffic amounts to 15-20% in all four cities. The use of public transport increased substantially. Results for air quality are less clear. For London, no consistent evidence of improved air quality resulting from the CCS was found (Kelly et al., 2011). For Stockholm and Milan, positive effects on air quality are reported (Börjesson, Eliasson, Hugosson, & Brundell-Freij, 2012; Rotaris, Danielis, Marcucci, & Massiani, 2010). The congestion charging in London presents a watershed in policy action in the UK (Banister, 2008). Although it has been successful in decreasing car use and 158 | CHAPTER 07 SHIFTING GEAR: BEYOND CLASSICAL MOBILITY POLICIES AND URBAN PLANNING increasing public transport use (with little negative spin-off outside the charging area), it was very difficult to get it implemented. Before implementation, 40% of the people were in favour of the measure and 40% were against the measure, illustrating that substantial political commitment was needed to follow through. Interestingly public opinion has shifted since the implementation to 55% being in favour. Increases in public support have also been observed in Norway. Impact of Congestion charging the projects schemes London Stockholm Milan Singapore Reduction in 18% Trial: 22% after 14,2% 40-45% ) traffic (vehicles permanent (23% during Area licensing with four or more implementation: the morning scheme). 15% wheels) entering 18% peak hours (electronic road the zone during pricing) 70% charging hours Reduction in cars 33% Not available Not available 70% entering the zone during charging hours Change in traffic Observed peak Observed peak Observed peak +23% beyond charging traffic after the traffic after the traffic after the hours charging hours charging hours charging hours in the first year, in the first year, normalised in the normalised in the coming years. coming years. Change in -5% +10% -3,6% Not available traffic round the charging zone Change traffic in +4% +5% Not available Not available the inner road Increase in speed 30% (From 14 30-50% (33% in 4% 20% in the inner road km/h to 18 km/h the morning peak Change in speed Not available Not available Not available -20% in the inner road 7,8% Attributed to Not available Increase in bus 6% Not available charging zone in speed inside the combination with charging area bus lanes. Increase in the Above 7% 9% 6,2% Totally, 21% use of public totally, 37% in 9,2% in metro transport bus passengers passengers entering the zone Table 1. Some effects of CCS in London, Stockholm, Milan and Singapore. Source: Modified from Li and Hensher (2012). MAARTEN HAJER, ANCO HOEN AND HIDDO HUITZING CHAPTER 07 | 159 Mobility Budget A measure that seems to become more and more popular among Dutch compa- nies is the so-called mobility budgets for employees with a company car. The traditional finance model for company car is to give the employee a tank card for which (s)he could essentially buy a ‘limitless’ amount of fuel. A mobility budget on the other hand gives an employee a fixed amount of money each month. The employee is free to decide how to spend this budget. Her or she may also decide to work at home if the schedule allows it or use public transport instead of the car. This is an interesting approach since it creates an incentive for the car driver to ‘earn money’ by thinking creatively about his or her mobility behaviour. If by the end of the month, the employee has not fully used his or her budget the remainder can be spent on other things. Pilots show that companies can set the mobility budgets below the average monthly costs of the traditional system so that they too save money. Counter Effective Measures Free Public Transport Public transport is often viewed as the environmentally friendly counterpart of car traffic. It has been put forward regularly by local governments as a means of improving accessibility and livability (better air quality, lower noise levels) of cities. Research on free public transport and also adding new public transport services, however, shows it hardly results in people transferring from car use to public transport (Hilbers et al., 2009). It rather results in people who used to walk, bike or not travel at all to make use of public transport. Moreover, people who already used public transport tend to travel more often and greater distances. In the end, the net effect on accessibility and air quality might well be negative since only few less car kilometres are driven while additional kilometres are driven by bus, tram and metro. This illustrates that good policy intentions of which citizens may benefit may result in the opposite outcome. In this specific case, it is probably the result of people finding the path of least resistance. For many individuals, the benefits of easy travel outweigh the benefits becoming healthier by cycling or walking and living in an environmentally friendlier city. Financial Compensation for Commuters Another example of pricing policy that leads to adverse effects is the ‘commuter compensation’. This is a compensation for people who use their private car for the commute (or business trips for their employer in general) paid by the national government. The compensation amounts to 19 euro cents per kilometre 160 | CHAPTER 07 SHIFTING GEAR: BEYOND CLASSICAL MOBILITY POLICIES AND URBAN PLANNING index (1980 = 100) 100 80 s r a r c 60 e ngre et se sm 40 pao ns of cle kil 20 ohi sie sv mir e Ep 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 Years Carbon dioxide (CO) 2 Nitric oxides (NO) x Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Carbon monoxide (CO) Figure 3. Trend in emission of CO and air pollutants in The Netherlands. Source: CBS, Registration of 2 emissions. in the Netherlands. The measure creates an incentive to either work farther away from home or live farther away from work. In effect, the total amount of kilome- tre’s driven increases by this measure, which in turn leads to more congestion, casualties and emissions. It is interesting to note that in April of 2012, an interest group announced that the commute compensation should be increased owing to rising oil prices. From the perspective of more sustainable mobility, this would be the exact opposite of good pricing policy. In fact in the so-called Green Tax Battle several Dutch experts argued that abolishment of the commute compen- sation would be a very efficient way to reduce CO emission on the short- 2 to-medium term (Stichting Natuur en Milieu, 2011). 3. Clean Vehicles and Fuels Successful Measures Emission Limits for Passenger Cars Passenger cars have a very substantial part in the road towards sustainability. They contribute significantly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It is technically feasible to make (near) zero-emission passenger cars, provided new