文章 Articles

Fixing Beijing’s transport nightmare

The benefits of a city toll go far beyond climate-change mitigation, writes Felix Creutzig. Even car drivers will appreciate the advantages of a greener transport infrastructure.

Article image

Transportation is responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide. But compared with the electricity sector, little effort has been put into mitigation. Worse still, transport emissions are growing at a faster pace than emissions in any other sector. Emblematic of this calamitous development has been the motorisation of Chinese mobility. Thirty years ago, Beijing had fewer than 100,000 motor vehicles on the road; now there are more than 3.6 million.

Accumulated responsibility for emissions lies to a greater extent with industrialised OECD countries than with China, and no one wants to deny Chinese citizens the dream of private mobility. Yet there are good reasons for China to act against climate change. The consequences of climate change pose a serious threat; consider, for example, that China’s water supply is crucially dependent upon rapidly shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas. The problems also extend beyond climate change: rapid economic development and motorisation pose other imminent hazards to citizens.

The roads of the Chinese capital carry one-tenth of the country’s cars, but the city is home to only one-hundredth of its population. As a result, Beijing’s arteries are clogged well beyond the morning and evening rush hours. Cars delay not only other cars but also overcrowded buses; it takes hours for commuters to arrive at work. Air pollution causes asthma and lung cancer. More than 1,000 people are killed every year after being hit by cars, further discouraging cycling - the most environmentally sustainable transit mode in Chinese cities, and until recently the most popular one. Pedestrians and cyclists are now encircled by broad arteries, physical barriers that impede their mobility. In short, Beijing is living a transport nightmare.

Many Chinese aspire to car ownership, and mobility is a desirable goal. But how do the economic benefits trade off against the disadvantages? This question can be answered by attempting to monetise congestion and other hazards. Using established methodologies, Dongquan He from the Energy Foundation China and I estimated the time lost in congestion, health costs due to air pollution, stress costs of traffic noise and even the value of lives lost by accidents. Climate-change damage costs can be evaluated by the total carbon dioxide emissions produced by vehicles driven in Beijing.

The damage costs are dramatic. Even using a very conservative estimate, congestion and air pollution each account for around 20 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) each year. The time lost for bus passengers caught in congestion adds another 6 billion yuan (US$877 million), even though bus patrons usually value time less than do car drivers. Accidents and noise pollution are relatively small costs, each around 1 billion yuan (US$146 million). Surprisingly, climate-change damage costs are dwarfed by congestion and air pollution costs for Beijing citizens, and amount to 1.4 billion yuan (US$205 million). Altogether these values, computed for the year 2005, constitute 7.5% of GDP in Beijing. Since 2005, the situation has only deteriorated, with more than a million cars added to the streets of the capital.

However, climate change is certainly not irrelevant when we consider Beijing’s traffic nightmare. Uncertainty about the value of social costs is much higher for climate change than for the other environmental hazards. In the high estimate of motorisation’s social costs (15% of Beijing’s GDP), climate-change costs are as high as those of air pollution and congestion.

So how can Beijing tackle the crisis? As Alex Pasternack has written on chinadialogue, smart growth is the way forward: new satellite towns have to be planned around public transit; land use, work and living need to be reorganised around travelling shorter distances. However, the existing infrastructure of broad arteries, superblocks and commuter towns far away from Beijing’s Central Business District can not simply be undone.

Beijing successfully limited car transportation around the Olympic Games with periodic driving bans, which were extended in a milder version beyond the Games. However, such measures do not help in the long run: new cars fill up the road and car drivers even buy second vehicles to circumvent the driving ban. Air pollution is also improved, in relative terms, by prohibiting the use of older, more polluting vehicles. However, here symptoms are treated while the underlying situation degrades due to increasing motorisation.

To get at the underlying problem in this case, economic theory calls for cost internalisation measures. Traditionally, this means congestion charging. However, I prefer “city toll” as both a name and a concept, since the goal is not only to tackle congestion, but also to mitigate the worst impact of environmental damage and address other concerns. The central idea is that polluters pay a fee that matches mobility demand with the social costs of car transportation.

In Beijing, a city toll would reduce car traffic by one quarter, providing major congestion relief, increasing average speed from 21 to 28 kilometres per hour and reducing air pollution and climate-change impact. Car drivers benefit the most from congestion relief as speed and reliability is increased dramatically. But it is also car drivers who must pay the fee. To realise the benefits, a daily city toll would need to equal or exceed 50 yuan (US$7.30), a considerable amount for most car drivers and hence seen as unattractive to policymakers in the Beijing municipality.

It helps to delve a little deeper into economic theory. “Demand elasticity” describes how people react to price signals. For a city toll, it is beneficial when people are relatively sensitive to price signals and reduce driving accordingly. Higher demand elasticity means that a lower city toll -- one that costs car drivers less -- can achieve higher benefits, a very attractive outcome. The next question is: how can demand elasticity be increased?

The most decisive measure is probably the speed and availability of buses and subways. When these modes of transportation are conveniently available, car drivers can switch easily to public transit. In fact, the ready availability of public transit may reduce the “optimal” city toll by 10 yuan (US$1.50) a day while even further reducing car transportation and its harmful impact.

City planners in the capital understand that Beijing needs more than ring roads and broad arteries, and significant investment is going into an impressive subway network. According to the construction schedule, the subway system will be extended from the current 200 kilometres, to more than 560 kilometres by 2015. This extension will help to avoid pushing additional commuters into cars. But it is insufficient to tackle the current traffic gridlock. To this end, bus rapid transit should be designed with high capacity and implemented at comparatively small costs, re-assigning the road for more efficient mobility. Exclusive lanes for bicycles and electronic bicycles could counter the downward trend in popularity of this individualised but environmentally friendly mode of transport. A city toll, bus rapid transit, subways and an infrastructure friendly to pedestrians and cyclists could together provide a formidable way forward to a sustainable and energy resilient city.

The surprising insight is that mitigating climate change through transport demand management is highly beneficial for car drivers, who can enjoy relatively free roads – and for citizens who will love more “blue sky days”. Of course, political courage is required to take the automobile lobby out of the proverbial driver’s seat, and discourage, if not ownership, at least car usage.


Felix Creutzig is postdoctoral fellow at the Berkeley Institute of the Environment, UC Berkeley and has worked for the Energy Foundation China in Beijing. The complete study was recently published in Transportation Research D. 

Homepage photo by Shazari

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

希望只能放在轨道交通身上

在北京,自行车道往往被汽车占据,自行车无路可走,而且空气污染严重,所以,自行车的生存空间被严重压缩。快速公交系统北京现在还只有三条,未来北京的市内交通只能靠地铁和轻轨等轨道交通。

Rail transit_our last straw

In Beijing, the bicycle lane is often taken up by cars. Bikes have no way of getting through and air pollution is severe. Therefore the existence of bicycle space is being gravely reduced. Beijing's Bus Rapid Transit currently only has three lines. In the future, within the city of Beijing, one will only be able to rely on the subway and light rail transport such as trams.

(Comment translated by Ellen Schliebitz)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

北京地铁

北京的地铁换成相当麻烦,浪费时间,这成了轨道交通的污点,北京正在大力发展轨道交通,如果以后的地铁换成还像现在这样,那就太失败了

The Beijing Subway

The Beijing subway has become quite inconvenient and time-wasting, blemishing the concept of rail-based transportation. The city of Beijing is currently energetically developing this type of transportation, and if the subway of the future is to be just more of what we have today, then that will be a real failure.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

可悲!

一直认为,金融危机发生后,中国政府提出振兴汽车产业的政策是错误的决定,至少在鼓励私家车购买方面。想想,什么政策才是真正代表最广大人民的利益,我想鼓励私家车购买绝对不是代表最广大人民的利益。
我们应该将侧重点投向公共交通的建设,为骑自行车的人开辟道路。
也许汽车产业短期内会带动一些就业和需求,对经济的刺激有所帮助,但是中央政府应该以老百姓长期的利益为根本。
北京的空气污染是自作自受,但有一点我们要说,再也不要因为北京一个地方的空气质量问题而影响到周边地区经济的发展,这不公平。
(YZHK)

Tragic

I was always thinking the Chinese government had made a false decision to promote the prosperity of auto industry after the breakout of the financial crisis, at least in encouraging the purchase of private cars. We should make a reflection on the exact policy that truly represents the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, in my opinion, spurring the buying of sedan cars is definitely not the right one. Perhaps,we should transfer our focus to the construction of public transportation to clear the way for bicycles. Maybe the auto industry could expand employment and demand in the short run, which is of help to stimulating the economy, however our central government must base their decisions on the long-term benefit of the common people. Beijing is stewing in its own air pollution. What's more, another point to make is that we shouldn't let the peripheral areas suffer from the effects of Beijing's air quality problem any more, it's unfair.

This comment was translated by Mingzhu Yao.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

痛苦的出行

参见路透社刊发的关于北京交通问题的文章:http://blogs.cn.reuters.com/blog/2009/03/31/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A%E4%BD%95%E5%8E%BB%E4%BD%95%E4%BB%8E/.
北京可以向伦敦学习,对经过市中心的私家车征收拥堵费,同时鼓励人们多骑自行车、多乘轨道交通。这也是很无奈的办法,关键是政府要做出一个科学、清晰的城市规划。

The painful trip

With reference to Reuters News Agency on the issue of Beijing's traffic: http://blogs.cn.reuters.com/blog/2009/03/31/%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E4%BA%A4%E9%80%9A%E4%BD%95%E5%8E%BB%E4%BD%95%E4%BB%8E/.
Beijing could learn from London to encourage the use of bicycles and public transport (subway system) by imposing "congestion charge" on private cars running in the city centre. This is a way out of no way after all. The government must come up with a scientific and clear urban planning if it wants the problem solved.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

光靠规划/政策是不够的

和北京的年轻人交谈后发现,他们中不少人愿意采用公共交通或是骑自行车来替代私家车上班。然而,当你问他们:“那么当你有孩子的时候呢?”答案立刻就变了。住在北京已经成家的人们希望为其家庭使用私家车。这是他们买车的原因。他们需要停车的地方,住宅区里也就需要较大用于停车的面积,这就提升了住家到公车站之间的步行距离,也降低了人们使用公共交通的倾向。同时,市中心和娱乐场所的停车位不够,这使得私家车驶进自行车道或是开在人行道上,进一步降低了骑自行车的意向。几乎没有人来管理这一问题,就算有人管理,罚金的数目对于一个能够买车的人来说也微乎其微。在我看来,北京有可能自发变成一个低碳生活方式城市的这一观点是行不通的,这就好像问北美人对这一问题的看法,而他们回答:“我会转向低碳生活,但它不能影响我的生活方式。”一样。光靠好的规划和政策是不够的。只有通过数代人在文化意识上的改变才能解决这一问题。

本评论由 Renate ZHAO 翻译

More than just planning/policy needed

Talking to many young people in Beijing, many of them are willing to accept the concept of public transit or cycling to work as an option for mobility.

However, when you ask them, "so what about when you have a baby..." the answer changes significantly. People in Beijing want cars for their families. So they buy the cars. They need places to park their cars, so residential areas need large parking lots, thereby increasing the walking distance between home and a bus station, and reducing any incentive to take public transit.

In the meantime, downtown and leisure areas don't have enough parking, forcing cars into bike lanes and onto sidewalks, further reducing the attractiveness of cycling. There is little or no enforcement of this offense, and even when enforced, the penalty is small for anybody who can afford to buy a car in the first place.

As for the comment that Beijingers might change to a low carbon lifestyle voluntarily, in my opinion, it would be the same as a North American attitude: "I'll change to low carbon, as long as it doesn't affect my lifestyle."

More than good planning and policy is needed. Only cultural change over generations can solve this problem.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

空气污染和气候变化

空气污染对北京来说既是个政治问题也是个经济问题。为了去年的奥运会,限制了公车以及部分私车出行,效果据说非常好,因为报道说首都空气质量明显改善。奥运会是我们的大事,当然个人需要做些牺牲,是政治需要。奥运过去了,一切又回到了从前:还是那样堵车。
就像这篇文章分析的,堵车是有代价的,工作效率的损失,发动机低效运转,对事故的引发作用等等,对北京整个社会和经济是有负面影响的。如果我们把这个问题深入考虑一下,我们会得出个结论:事情不是做不到,不管你是气候变化还是交通问题。我们政府还是有办法暂时解决一些问题,但是问题是如何让这些问题能够持久的缓解,慢慢向好的方向发展。这个确实很难。
咱们这样说,气候变化我承认是很重要。可是如果你是政府的领导,或者是人大代表,你就要考虑现实和未来,近的和远的。我们首都的空气质量问题都得不到有效的改善,沙尘暴还没有消除,这些天天影响北京1千5百多万人民的大事还没有解决,我们干什么要去考虑更加遥远或者看不见的温室气体的问题?
至少目前看来,沙尘暴比气候变化厉害,更有杀伤力。我还不知道哪个发达国家的首都有这样严重的本地空气污染问题。当然了,也许气候变化部分促成了首都空气的问题,这两者的关系目前谁也闹不清楚。理想的状态是一手抓本地的污染,一手抓温室气体,两手都很硬。不过这种可能性不大。我们目前没有这个实力,这个首都的污染搞了这么多年,好像成效不大。这么大一点的地方的空气问题也解决不彻底,况且解决这个问题不是没有现实的办法,不像气候变化历史上无先例可循。
所以,我们古话说得好,“两害相权取其轻”。气候变化嘛,现在看来只能算是“轻”的。等到我们解决了首都的空气问题,蓝天白云比不上华盛顿嘛,也至少像个巴黎,那时候再说吧。
各位看官,你们觉得呢?

Air Pollution and Climate Change

In the case of Beijing, air pollution is both a political and an economic problem. The restrictions on public vehicles and some private cars that were introduced in the run-up to last year's Olympics apparently yielded extremely positive results; reports claimed that there had been a clear improvement in the capital's air quality. The Olympics was an important event after all, so of course it became a political requirement for individuals to make certain sacrifices. But now the Olympics are over, the city has returned to normal: the traffic's as bad as it ever was.

As demonstrated by the article, traffic jams come at a price: work efficiency suffers, engines run at low fuel efficiency, the risk of accidents increases... the end result impacts negatively upon the whole city's economic and social life. If we probe the issue further, we end up with the following conclusion: regardless of whether you come at it from the point of view of climate change or traffic problems, the issue is not an unsolvable one. Our government is quite capable of providing short-term fixes for such problems. The issue is how to turn them into long-term solutions, how to set up a gradual chain of progress in the right direction - that's the tricky part.

It's all very well to say "yes, climate change is a serious issue and I'm very concerned about it," but if you are a government leader or an NPRC representative, you have to think about how you're going to strike a balance betwen current realities and the future, between immediate concerns and distant ones. Beijing's dismal air quality and annual sandstorms, both of which directly affect the daily lives of over 15 million people, continue unabated. In these circumstances, there's precious little room for concern for more remote, invisible problems like the greenhouse effect.
From present perspectives at least, sandstorms pose a more severe, and more deadly threat than global warming. I can't think of any capitals of developed countries that face such severe local air pollution problems. Of course, it's possible that climate change is a contributing factor to this predicament, but no-one is yet clear of the exact nature of any potential link between the two. The ideal course of action would be to grasp a problem in each fist, crushing air pollution with the left, and climate change with the right. However, this remains a fairly unrealistic aim. In a city that's already been fighting a losing battle with pollution for some years now, we just don't have the means. But unlike the uncharted territory of preventing climate change, Beijing's local air pollution problems have definite solutions, even if we haven't got around to pushing them through thoroughly.
As the old saying goes: "When faced with two problems, set the lesser one aside." It looks like climate change is the 'lesser' problem right now. Wait until we've sorted out our air quality, until we have the blue sky and white clouds to rival Washington or even Paris, and then we'll have another look.

What does anyone else think?