PUBLIC THAT WORKS: INSIGHTS FROM

Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA

Rutgers Climate Panel 3: Climate Change and Transport in Change Conference Overview

 Transport, Energy Use, & Climate Change  Demand in Germany and the USA  Policies that Promote Public Transport  Summary – Lessons for the USA Energy Use in Passenger Transport

3

 Mode of Transport  Energy Intensity/Efficiency  Fuel Type  Amount of Activity (number of trips; miles traveled) Consumption of Petroleum by End-Use Sector, 1973–2007 (percent relative to 1973)

4

180

160

140

120

Transportation 100 Industrial Residential 80 Electric utilities Commercial 60

40

20

0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(Sources: ORNL, Energy Data Book, 2008) Relationship between Share of Urban Trips by Transit, Bicycle,

and Foot and Per Capita Annual CO2 Emissions from Road and Rail Transport in Australia, Canada, the USA and the EU 2000-08

6.000

USA

5.000

Canada 4.000

Australia

3.000 Austria Denmark Sweden

Annual Tons of CO2 per capita per CO2 of Tons Annual Norway Emissions per Capita Finland

2 UK 2.000 Germany

1.000

Transport CO Transport Walk, Bike, Transit Share of Trips 0.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 R² = 0.74 Percent of trips by public transport, bicycle, and foot Sources: (Bassett, Pucher, Buehler, Thompson, & Crouter, 2008; BMVBS, 1991-2008; IEA, 2009) USA and Germany: similar trends in ownership….

….but drive less Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Public Transport Energy Use per Passenger Kilometer in Germany and the USA

USA Germany BTU per Passenger Mile Transit Bus 4,200 1,000 Light Rail 2,700 1,200 Heavy Rail 2,500 1,400

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) More sustainable ground passenger

 ~3 times more CO2 emissions per capita in USA

 Co2 emissions of transport sector(‘95-’05):  G:-8%; USA+4%  Per capita: G: -7%, USA: +2%  U.S. households spend more for transport (~$2,700 p.a.)  Higher annual per capita government expenditures for roads and public transport in the USA ($625 vs. $460)  2.3 times higher traffic fatalities per capita in USA

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Trends in Public Transport Demand in Germany and the USA, 1990-2007

p y , Change 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 1990-2007 Tot al Linke d T ransit Trips pe r Year in USA (million) 5,499 4,852 5,852 6,134 6,404 16% Linked Transit Trips per Inhabitant per Year (USA) 22 18 21 21 21 -4% Tot al Transit Trips pe r Year in Germany (million) 9,156 9,265 9,638 11,069 11,203 22% Linked Transit Trips per Inhabitant per Year (Germany) 114 113 117 134 136 20% Tot al Transit Passenger Kilometer in the USA (million) 65,829 63,693 76,266 79,485 85,365 30% Transit Passenger Kilometers per Inhabitant (USA) 265 239 271 269 283 7% Tot al Transit Passenger Kilometers in Germany (million) 77,300 86,700 90,900 97,300 100,300 30% Transit Passenger Kilometers per Inhabitant (Germany) 963 1,060 1,104 1,179 1,220 27%

Public Transport Mode Share of All Trips (Germany I) 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.4 n.a. n.a. Public Transport Mode Share of All Trips (Germany II) 10.0 n.a. 8.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. Public Transport Mode Share of All Trips (USA) 2.0 1.8 1.6 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Factors Influencing Public Transport Use

• Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors

• Spatial Development Patterns

• Transport Policies (towards public transport and other modes)

• Land Use Planning and Policies

• Culture Potential Sources of Divergence in National Travel Surveys and Comparability of NHTS and MiD

Range of NTS* MiD (Germany) NHTS (U.S.) Survey Period 10 weeks to 14 months 14 months (11/01 - 12/02) 14 months (03/01 - 04/02) Collection Rhythm annually to irregularly 76, '82, '89, '02 69, '77, '83, '90, '95, '01 25,848 HH 26,082 HH Sample Size 3,000 to 63,000 HH 61,729 individuals 60,228 individuals 167,851 trips 248,512 trips Survey Method phone, person, mail CATI (95%) CATI (100%) Target Population civilian population civilian civilian Eligibility of HH Members adults, children, age cap adults and children adults and children Sampling Technique RDD to pop. register stratefied rand. sample list assisted RDD Survey Period 1 to 7 days 1 day travel diary 1 day travel diary Response Rates often below 40% of HH 42% of HH 41% of HH HH where at leat 50% of HH Inclusion Criteria HH where at leat 50% of HH members over 18 yearsold members respondend respondend Nonresponse Treatment collection of HH data collection of HH data selection reciprocal, non- selection reciprocal, non-response, Weights response, HH size, weekday, HH size, weekday, month, regional month, regional charactertistics charactertistics Data Level HH, person, trip, or car HH, person, trip, car HH, person, trip, car Representative Country, subsections Germany, States U.S., Census Regions Add-ons Yes Yes *based on 9 recent national travel surveys

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Public Transport Use by Income Quartile

12.0

10.0 9.6

8.0

6.7 6.4

6.0

US Germany Percent ofPercent all trips

4.0 3.1

2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 Lowest income quartile Mid income quartiles Highest income quartile Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Public Transport Use by HH Car Ownership

25.0

21.1

20.0

15.7

15.0

US

Percent ofPercent all trips 10.0

Germany 6.8

4.7 5.0 4.5

2.4

0.5 0.3 0.0 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5+ and light trucks per driver in household Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Public Transport Use by Population Density

25

20.2 20

15.0 15

12.5

9.3 US Percent ofPercent all trips 10

Germany

5.1 5.4 5 4.5 3.6 3.9

1.8 0.9 0.3 0 < 1000 1000 < 2000 2000<3000 3000<4000 4000<5000 5000+ Population per km2

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Public Transport Use by MSA Size

12.0

10.7

10.0

8.7

8.0

6.7 6.4 US 6.0 5.0 Germany Percent ofPercent all trips 4.0 3.4

2.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 not in metro area <500 K 500 - 999 K 1 M - 3 M 3 M plus

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Mode Share by HH Distance from Public Transport

10.0 9.3

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0 5.7

5.0 US

4.0 3.7

Percent ofPercent all trips Germany 3.5

3.0

2.0

1.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 <400m 400m-1000m 1000m+ Household distance from a public transport stop

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Overview of Policies that Encourage Public Transport in Germany

1) Improved, integrated, and coordinated public transport 2) Integration of walking and cycling with public transport services 3) Restrictions on car use 4)Land-use planning that discourages sprawl Disincentives for car use and incentives for other modes

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Differences in Transport Policies and Transit Supply

 Longer history and more efficient use of government subsidies in Germany  More and higher quality of transit supply in Germany  Better regional coordination and integration of transit services, timetables, financing, and tickets in Germany  More multi-modal coordination with walking and cycling in Germany

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Government Subsidies/Spending on Transit

Germany U.S. history of private ownership; long history of subsidies for operation federal government subsidies from local governments; federal foer operation and investments Subsidies (operating and investment) government subsidies for investments since 1970s; steep increase in since the 1960s federal subsidies for transit since ISTEA Average annual transit subsidies since $19 billion $28 billion 2000 Average annual transit subsidy per $230 $94 inhabitant Average transit subsidy per transit $1.70 $2.90 passenger trip Average transit subsidy per transit $0.20 $0.40 passenger kilometer Share of operating expenses covered 70% 35% by farebox revenue

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Trend in Farebox Revenue as Share of Transit Operating Expenditure in Germany and the USA, 1992-2007

80 78% 77% 75

70 69%

65 61% 60 59% 55 Percentage 50 Germany

East Germany 45 43% USA 40

35 37% 33% 30 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Promoting Public Transportation: A Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the U.S.”) Real-time arrival and departure information at public transport stops

Source: Pucher Integration of modes

Heavy Rail

Train Station

Bus Station

Light Rail

Bike Parking Garage

(Source: Google Maps) Regional coordination of services, timetables, financing, and tickets

 Virtually all metropolitan areas have a Verkehrsverbund  Integrate public transport fares and timetables  Seamless transfers across operators and modes  Steep discounts for monthly/annual tickets; students and elderly (average: 60%)  Unified online information systems  State wide public transport coordination and tickets

Source: http://www.oepnv-info.de/dkarte/index.php Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Regional coordination of services and ticketing

 Transferable “Environmental Protection” since1984  Regional monthly transit ticket since 1991  Regional Transit Authority (75 towns, 187 operators, 3,050km of routes)  Annual ticket: 450 Euros  Ticket for students: 69 Euros for 6 months  RegioMobilCard including car sharing etc.  Signal priority for light rail

(Source: City of Freiburg, 2009; Buehler & Pucher, 2009: "Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany") Trend toward monthly region wide tickets in Freiburg, 1974-2007 (in 1,000 passengers)

70000

60000

50000

40000

Monthly regionwide Tickets 30000 Single Tickets and Daily Passes Passengers (in 1,000) (in Passengers

20000

10000

0 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

(Source: Buehler & Pucher, 2009: "Sustainable Transport that Works: Lessons from Germany") Multi-modal coordination with walking, cycling, and the car

Source: author’s picture, City of Muenster, Pucher Restrictions and Taxes on Automobile Use andOwnership

• High taxes on gasoline and new car purchases • Expensive and limited car parking in cities • High cost of obtaining a driver’s license • Tempo 30km/h zones in most residential neighborhoods • Turn restrictions, artificial dead-ends, thru traffic restrictions for cars • Enforcement of traffic regulations

Source: (Buehler, 2009, “Determinants of Automobile Use: A Comparison of Germany and the U.S.”) Unleaded gasoline prices per liter in the U.S. and Germany, 1990 - 2008 (in U.S. dollars, using PPP conversion)

$1.8

$1.6

$1.4

$1.2

$1.0

$0.8 Germany United States $0.6

$0.4

$0.2

$0.0

*preliminary for 3rd Quarter 2007

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Highway user taxes and fees as share of road expenditures by all levels of government in Germany and the United States

3.0

2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2

2.0

1.5 1.4 Road Expentiure Germany = 0.9 Highway User 1.0 0.9 United Taxes and 0.7 0.7 States Fees 0.7 0.6 0.5

0.0 1975 1987 1997 2004 2006

Source: (Buehler, Pucher, and Kunert 2009: “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”) Insights from Germany

1) Regionally integrated, attractive, and frequent transit services 2) Regional tickets with steep discounts for monthly and annual tickets 3) Coordinated land-use and transport policies 4) Integration of public transport, walking and cycling to foster the synergies of these complementary modes 5) Restrictions on car use that make it less convenient, slower, and more expensive in cities 6) Combination of all policies helps leveling the “playing field” for public transport, walking, and bicycling Ralph Buehler, Assistant Professor School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA [email protected], Phone: 703-706-8104, http://www.nvc.vt.edu/uap/people/rbuehler.html