Report Finds That Urgent Changes in Transport Financing Required to Enable More Sustainable Transportation Globally
23 August 2010
Changes in how transport is financed are essential if cities and nations are to deal effectively with the rapid growth in motor vehicle traffic and related environmental and health problems, including climate change, according to a new report by the Transport Research Laboratory released at Fifth Regional EST Forum in Asia by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) and the Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport.
The report, A Paradigm Shift Towards Sustainable Low Carbon Transport, finds that more than $1.5 trillion is spent annually on transport globally, mostly in ways that exacerbate rather than solve the problems associated with traffic growth, including congestion, health-harming air pollution, accidents, energy insecurity, and climate change.
Transportation is central to the social and economic activity of people across the world. Yet current transport patterns, based primarily on private motorised vehicles, generates many social, environmental and economic costs, accounting for more than half of global liquid fossil fuel consumption and nearly a quarter of the world’s energy related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (IEA, 2009).
Transport is also typically responsible for around 80% of developing cities’ local air pollution and more than 1.3 million fatal traffic accidents worldwide, most of which occur in developing countries (WHO, 2009). Furthermore, the chronic traffic congestion caused by excessive motorisation leads to lower productivity and reduced levels of accessibility in many of the world’s urban areas.
These unsustainable patterns of transport are expected to worsen under the continuous and rapid trend of motorisation. There is a growing consensus by experts, policy makers and the general public that these trends cannot continue without seriously affecting the economic viability and environmental quality of their cities and countries.
What is required to reverse this trend is the “leapfrogging” of the paradigm, whereby developing countries fully use the opportunity to develop their transport systems in a sustainable, low-carbon manner, providing enhanced accessibility and communication without committing to the same level of motorisation seen in the developed world, and in particular North America.
A key change will need to take place in how the costs of transport are internalized, as the wider costs to society arising from road accidents, poor health, social impacts and environmental degradation, often described as the ‘external’ costs, are currently excluded from the price that transport users confront.
—A Paradigm Shift Towards Sustainable Low Carbon Transport
The report assigns the blame for much of the observed failure in transport to the financial framework from which policies, programs and projects draw resources. While notable exceptions exist, the report says, the financing framework is often skewed towards supporting the motorization model:
- Domestic public finance is mainly used to build and maintain infrastructure to cater to increasing levels of motorized traffic.
- Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows are directed towards development based on the motorization model, reflecting both the requests of recipient countries as well as the menu of technical assistance provided by donor organizations.
- Private flows are also directed towards the development of goods, services and infrastructure that support the motorization model of transport development, e.g. motor vehicle manufacturing.
- Carbon finance is generally limited in scale and access to these resources is further reduced by the requirements placed upon the transport sector, i.e. a narrow approach to measuring the mitigation potential of policy actions (and the associated incremental costs), together with the lack of data to allow the measurement, reporting and verification of mitigation actions.
The report outlines key steps in financing reform:
- Analyze impacts;
- Shift existing resources towards a sustainable direction;
- Add funding where resources are still lacking; and
- restructure pricing incentives so users Pay for the full costs of transport consumption.
Implementing the requisite changes will require the collective action of various stakeholders, including, but not limited to:
Developing and developed country governments (national and local) that shift their domestic budgets towards a sustainable direction; shape the way in which international support for transport is provided; and provide market signals to the private sector to invest in sustainable ways by applying appropriate pricing mechanisms (such as fuel and vehicle taxes, road pricing, parking charges and distance-based insurance) as well as phasing out fuel subsidies.
Multilateral Development Banks and bilateral development agencies that evaluate the GHG impacts and/or carbon intensity of investments and technical assistance; direct their technical assistance to develop capacities, institutions and knowledge in support of sustainable transport; and align their grant support and lending criteria with sustainability objectives, and catalyze major changes in domestic priorities as a result.
Export credit agencies that shift their focus towards facilitating the diffusion of sustainable transport vehicles and promote sustainable infrastructure investments.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other climate finance institutions/mechanisms that facilitate the development of a Post-2012 climate change architecture and mechanisms, including provisions for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), that would fully allow the transport sector to contribute to mitigation efforts. Further, in coordination with development agencies, these institutions/mechanisms would direct current and future climate financing mechanisms towards capacity building, technology transfer and policy support, to leverage further investments from other sources.
The private sector, given the right market signals, that can invest in and create new technologies and services that support sustainable transport.
Non-government Organization (NGOs) / civil society and academia lead the development of new holistic methods to assess the costs and benefits of transport interventions, and act as advocates for sustainable transport through campaigning, research and public communication.
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy is an international non-profit organization founded in 1985 that promotes environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide.
The Partnership for Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport is a voluntary, multi-stakeholder partnership of more than 50 organizations registered with the Commission on Sustainable Development and which have agreed to work together to advance sustainable, low carbon transport.
Members include the Asian Development Bank; InterAmerican Development Bank, African Development Bank, German Technical Cooperation/GTZ, UITP, ITDP, International Energy Agency, The Energy and Resources Institute, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center, UN Center for Regional Development, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN Environment Programme, Korean Transport Institute, Japanese Ministry of Land Infrastructure Transport and Tourism, Ahmedabad Centre for Environment Planning & Technology, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Philippines National Center for Transportation Studies, and Rockefeller Foundation.
Resources
.
"Urgent"
lol!!! DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN! lol! Things are WAY to urgent for rational thought. Just relinquish your freedom and income to ever expanding, ever more incompetent, governments.
Yes, if we would all simply be as progressive as California - and bankrupt ourselves. Utopia is just one spending spree after another away! Why worry about paying bills when one's motives are to save the planet? Results do not matter.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 23 August 2010 at 08:56 AM
Corporate America has directed transport on four main axis (with very few exceptions) over the last 80+ years:
1) ICE Private passenger vehicles (cars-SUVs-Pick-ups etc)
2) ICE Trucks. buses and slow trains.
3) Jet and Turbo-prop Airplanes.
4) ICE cargo ships.
All four modes rely on GHG producing fossil fuel, 66+% of which is imported.
Accelerated electrification of the first two axis is possible and would reduce liquid fuel consumption used in transportation by up to 80%. Very High speed electric trains could replace many private cars, buses, trucks and airplane trips and reduce GHG, liquid fuel consumption and crude oil imports.
Is America ready or capable to change what was imposed by Corporate America over the last 100 years? The most appropriate answer is NO.
Will the rest of the world follow the old American model based on the above four axis? The most appropriate answer is another NO.
America may soon be the loner with the British measure system and transportation systems based on 19th century liquid fuels. Catching up with the rest of the world could eventually be too costly and USA may have to watch the world go by.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 August 2010 at 09:14 AM
.
Funny, my local government has always "directed transport." The Planning Board, County Councils, and state government have ALWAYS made the decisions regarding the kinds of transportation infrastructure has been and will be built.
This is why the current transportation situation is now perfect. MORE BIG GOVERNMENT NOW!!!!
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 23 August 2010 at 10:38 AM
Can you imagine a country where the majority would be Goracles?
Is that what happened to the Roman Empire?
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 August 2010 at 12:52 PM
.
Horrifying to some... but, yes: the Founding Fathers (USA) created such a country. Many are working tirelessly to destroy it in favor of Cuba-lite. Ahh, Cuba: a pinnacle of public transportation, "free" health care, and little energy usage. If we could only be more like them. SWOOOooonnnn!
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 23 August 2010 at 01:17 PM
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson
This "Report" is a plea for publicly funded mass transit. Which we need - but in carefully planned sectors. The rest is a complain against private transport and dead horse CO2. Look, people WANT their own autos. If trains were faster, more comfortable and accessible (light rail e.g.) and people got tired of sitting in traffic jams - they'd patronize the trains.
The electrification of transport is focused on private vehicles. THAT is what will cut liquid fuel use. Attempting to divert the discussion now will only undermine the move to EVs.
Want less cars and infrastructure?? Get those least able to support offspring to quit reproducing!
Posted by: Reel$$ | 23 August 2010 at 05:12 PM
When too many things have gone astray or outside what the Founding Fathers had in mind, legislators have the obligation and the duty to take appropriate corrective actions. When they don't, we have serious depressions like 1929-1939, foolish oil wars, rising crime rates, high tech bubbles, real estates bubbles, Wall Street Speculators - Banking - Insurance bubbles, 2006 -20xx W type economic crisis, higher pollution everywhere, Gulf of Mexico and Niger Delta major oil spills, accelerated climate changes, huge trade deficits, more deviant (terrorist) groups etc
Worse than all the above is when the majority prefers continued chaos and the on-going Monopoly Game, convinced that they too will reach the top of the pyramid and will be able to buy all others.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 August 2010 at 05:17 PM
(somebody had to say it)
We have somewhere between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens in this country, and an estimated 1 out of 8 babies born here have illegal alien parents. Just change our "jus soli" interpretation of the 14th (Mexico claims all children of Mexican parents as citizens no matter where they're born, so they won't be stateless persons) and we can make our roads a lot less crowded in a hurry.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 23 August 2010 at 07:15 PM
Agree somewhat with the points made by Goracle, Reel$$ and Eng-Poet!!! Please plead the issues to the Big O...the coming massive budget deficits will bankrupt the nation.
BTW, I saw news in Yahoo and MSN today about the massive 9-day traffic jam in Beijing, the picture shows full of private automobiles...far cry from the days of the masses on bicycles, when at least, traffics do move, albeit at cyclists' speeds! And the air pollution in Beijing is the worse, ever...So much for progress!
Lesson learned from this: Industrial progress if one must, but with careful planning to limit the automobiles' presence within the metropolitan and suburban areas. Failure to plan will reap the same result as planning to fail! There is nothing wrong with bicycles or clean, non-polluting electric bikes.
Developing a light-weight carbon-fiber foldable bike that can be carried on one hand to ride from home to the train stop, stowed it inside the train, and use the bike again from the train stop to the final destination will allow a commuter long-distance commute 20-30 miles each way without undue physical hardship nor excessive time wasted. While riding the commuter train, one can read the newspaper or eat breakfast. In the Netherland, France, and elsewhere in Europe, bicycles are used extensively to good effects. Living standards are high in those countries.
No matter how clean and efficient it will be, even BEV automobiles will contribute to massive traffic jams!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 24 August 2010 at 12:24 AM
.
WHAT THE?!?!?... A majority agreement with no name calling?!?! Oh, dear, this is urgent. The world is about to end.
By the way, HarveyD, most scholars agree that the federal government extended, if not created, the Great Depression. And yes, the Reid/Pelosi/Bush (now owned by Obama/Reid/Pelosi - they have had almost two years) crash has been bad. How is it that you exempt government as a cause? Encouraging people to take out loans when they clearly can NOT pay them back is not a model that business will follow - unless forced to by the government. CRASH!...
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 24 August 2010 at 05:09 AM
I thought this was a website about green energy, technologies etc.
Posted by: Brian Connolly | 24 August 2010 at 09:49 AM
"No matter how clean and efficient it will be, even BEV automobiles will contribute to massive traffic jams!"
Words to remember.
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 August 2010 at 09:52 AM
.
"I thought this was a website about green energy, technologies etc."
No, it is Green Car Congress. It is about "Energy, Technologies, Issues, and Policies for Sustainable Mobility." (See the logo at the top, left, for more help)
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 24 August 2010 at 12:15 PM
most scholars agree that the federal government extended, if not created, the Great Depression.
Must see;
http://traderreview.net/archive/2010/08/16/the-secrets-of-oz-movie-money-masters/
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 August 2010 at 01:00 PM
I just keep remembering the line "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Posted by: ai_vin | 24 August 2010 at 01:20 PM
EP:
how does financial instability become "racist?" Are their not millions of impoverished from all races?
Posted by: Reel$$ | 24 August 2010 at 03:54 PM
Here's a nation crippled by coal:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0824/China-traffic-jam-enters-Day-11.-A-tale-of-deceit-and-criminality
Posted by: Reel$$ | 24 August 2010 at 04:34 PM
The need for 4+ gas guzzlers per family is a Corporate America creation, It has nothing to do with governments. They were bystanders. The Corporate plan was to convince Americans that they needed 240+ million heavy gas guzzlers in order to consume 20+ million barrels of crude oil every day.
It worked for a while or until such time as oil producing countries insisted on getting paid a fair price for their crude oil. With crude oil under $3/barrel, huge V-8 gas guzzlers doing about 10 miles per gallon were produced and sold at close to 20 million copies a year.
Peak oil and higher price will force Corporate America to find other ways to pull $100+ week from each of us to satisfy a God given right to drive 3+ tons vehicles around. Since many American can no longer afford to buy and drive such monsters, CA will try its best to create the same need in other countries, like making and selling large Buicks in China.
We have kept our eyes wide shut for a long time but many will start looking for alternate transport solutions soon. Very large countries like China and India will build very high speed e-trains to reduce reliance on personal cars and airplanes. EU has built the first phase (20,000+ Km) and will expand their existing networks. China is also building their first 20,000+ Km phase.
Large cities need better, faster suburban e-trains and subways to reduce downtown car traffic. More city e-buses could be another worthwhile alternative way to avoid downtown traffic jams.
One thing is certain, USA cannot rely on Corporate America to introduce alternative transportation solutions with less personal cars and more high speed public e-transport.
Posted by: HarveyD | 24 August 2010 at 06:59 PM
The solution is simple make driving so expensive only the rich can afford to drive while all the unwashed huddled masses are forced via economic socialism to public transpo, I am old enough to remember that in the USSR they had special lanes on the roads from party officials and people connected "rich" enough to afford the decals that allowed them to use these private motorways. Seriously make petrol ten bucks a gallon, tax registration at 2 grand a year for personal vehicles and tax entry and exit from the cities like London, how i lament for clear roads in and out of Dallas, as I can and would pay ten bucks a gallon and 2 grand a year to drive on roads empty from the unwashed masses how sweet that would be, worth every penny I'm sure.
Posted by: TXGeologist | 24 August 2010 at 07:21 PM
Harvey it was all governments fault.
They wanted the tax revs from overpriced homes and could only get it by limiting hosuing where jobs were thus forcing longer and more dangerous commutes.
They then siphoned off tax rev that would have gone to thier people and took it back into the cities and wasted it on things that in some cases made things even worse.
The cities are addicted to property tax and income tax the states are too. They will screw things up royaly just to enhance thier take.
And now its falling apart.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 24 August 2010 at 07:57 PM
Reel$$, I was pre-empting the inevitable charges (because "people of color" are more likely to be poor, so asking that people who can't support children not have them is considered racist by many on the left).
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 24 August 2010 at 08:03 PM
W-2000. If you look deeper you may find very close links between Corporate America and most of our political leaders. It is getting harder to differentiate who is who. With extremely costly elections every other year, politicians have to knock on doors (of you know who) to finance their campaigns. Pay back time comes shortly thereafter.
There's a big local scandal here when politicians were found selling judge nominations, road contracts, hospital and government building contracts etc to their financial supporters. Our Provincial PM is even getting an under the table extra regular pay from his corporate friends.
When Corporations and Underworld Organisations buy off politicians we can't rightly maintain that governments have done this or that. The real rulers (decision makers) are not always known and are not always politicians or governments.
However, there is an old saying that we eventually get the leaders we deserve. By keeping our eyes wide shut too often we ended up putting the blame in the wrong place. Many of us refuse to see what is going on.
The latest real estates bubble was created by Finance Corporate America + Wall Street vile Speculators five years ago and sent USA into a financial spin for the next 10+ years. Those smart people (that we love so much) had made sure that regulations were relaxed enough to allow the creation of this huge bubble where ordinary people lost $$$$B. When the bubble went out of control, they had the nerves to call on governments (who had relaxed the regulations in their favor) for $$$B to avoid bankruptcy.
Who really rules America?
To elect politicians with free hands, all political contributions should be banned. Elections should be financed with public money ONLY at the rate of $2 to $10 per elector. Campaigners' spending should be closely controlled. Anybody who went over the allowed $$ resources should be kicked out and jailed, if elected or not.
Posted by: HarveyD | 25 August 2010 at 09:20 AM
Yeah that's the system we have here in Canada, more or less. The less is that most of our parties got most of their money this way while one gets most of its money the other way, through political contributions. And a couple of years ago the two faced rat who leads that party tried to change the rules to cut off funding to all the other parties.
Posted by: ai_vin | 25 August 2010 at 11:54 AM
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=95c63336-9f94-4023-a38e-7c8bb9e2ec63
Posted by: ai_vin | 25 August 2010 at 11:58 AM
A lively discussion. It might be best to examine WHY we transport in the first place. Live closer to work, telecommute if you can not, grow food closer to consumption. It may be best to reduce transportation "needs" first while making it more efficient at the same time.
Posted by: SJC | 25 August 2010 at 02:27 PM