Benefits of Transport CO2 Reduction for Transport Costs ... - Eltis

CATCH Fact sheet series
Benefits of Transport CO 2 Reduction for
COST
Transport Costs: Does reducing carbon dioxide mean increasing costs?
To reduce carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from transport, people
understand that more trips should be made by walking,
cycling, or public transport. But, many people also think this
would cost more. Obviously, walking and cycling are practically
free, but comparing public transport and car use isn’t as clear.
Transport costs aren’t straight-forward. Public transport often
seems expensive, while using a car might seem cheaper. The problem
is that we often only consider daily use costs like fuel, parking, or the cost of a bus trip, but
transport costs are much more complex. Indeed many costs are not borne directly by travellers.
Consider the diagram below. We can see that there are many costs associated with transport:
What’s the cost?
The costs of using public transport on a per-trip and per-kilometre (km)
basis have been estimated as half those of using a car 1 . That’s because,
when all the costs are included, travelling by car is about five times the
cost of just the fuel 2 . If external costs such as crashes and health problems
are included, public transport is even better 1 .
Travelling by car is about five times the cost
of just the fuel 2 .
Photo source: Julien Jorge, Wikimedia Commons
Governments may build roads because it may seem cheaper than supplying
public transport, but international comparisons of different
transport systems find that car-oriented cities spend more on transport
related costs 3 . Even so, the costs of infrastructure and public transport
supply are minimal (about 6% of total) compared to personal costs
(about 70%) and societal costs (about 20%) 4 .

Congestion costs are another consideration. The cost of congestion
is related to the value of what is being moved, with freight or
work travel being valued greater than personal travel. Therefore,
one solution to reducing the costs of congestion could better be
solved by shifting personal car trips to other modes 5 . Furthermore,
the costs to society due to crashes are far greater than that
of congestion 6 , suggesting that it is good to have some congestion
that reduces overall speeds. Reducing the need to travel 7 is an important
part of addressing the problems of congestion and many
of the other points in the transport costs diagram.
Car orientated cities spend
more on transport.
=
Car orientated cities consume
more tax money.
Car use is less efficient than bus or rail per passenger km 3 , and assuming the same energy inputs, the
CO 2 emissions will thus be larger by car on a km by km basis. To compound this, the citizens of cities
that are more car-oriented on average typically travel further than citizens of more balanced systems
within nations and across international comparisons 3 .
To answer the initial question, whether reducing CO 2 from transport will reduce costs overall; the car is
both inefficient in terms of energy use and in the resulting land-use requirements.
How can the CATCH project help?
The CATCH project will better inform decision makers so that conclusions
about transport will help reduce both costs to individuals while reducing
CO 2 at the same time. CATCH will accomplish this by bringing to their
attention the wider impacts of transport decisions through informative
sheets such as this, measures related to those shown in the diagram,
highlighting best practices for practitioners, and by improving knowledge
within the general population on transport and its impacts.
www.carbonaware.eu
References:
1
Kennedy, C A. A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area. Transportation 29(4),
459-493. 2002.
2
American Automobile Association. Your Driving Costs. American Automobile Association Report. 2010.
3
Kenworthy, J R and Laube, F B. Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some
implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33(7-8), 691-723. 1999.
4
Delucchi et al. The Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States. Based on 1990–1991 Data, Davis, CA: University of California, Institute
of Transportation Studies. 1996.
5
Goodwin, P. The Economic Costs of Road Traffic Congestion. ESRC Transport Studies Unit: A Discussion Paper published by the Rail Freight Group, London.
2004.
6
Cambridge Systematics, Meyer, M D. Crashes vs. Congestion - What's the Cost to Society? American Automobile Association. 2008.
7
Banister, D. Reducing the need to travel. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24. 437-449. 1997.
This document has been written by partners in the CATCH consortium. For more information, please contact the project coordinator:
Steve Cassidy, MRC McLean Hazel: steve.cassidy@mrcmh.com Tel: +44 (0) 131 226 1045
CATCH is a project co-financed by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme for Research
The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities.
The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.