Making Urban Transport Sustainable:Insights from Germanyby Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA

2nd international TEMPO Conference on Sustainable Transport, Oslo, 31 Jan – 1 Feb 2011

Outline

Background Germany Sustainability of the Urban Transport System Determinants of Travel Behavior Transport Policies in GermanyFederal LevelLocal Level – Case Study of Freiburg

Conclusion/Lessons

Some Context About Germany

• Federal system of government, tradition of local self-government

• Strong economy, high standard of living

• Important automobile industry

• Highest level of car ownership in the world

• Most adults have a driver’s license

• Extensive road network

• Much urban &suburban (re)development since World War II

First “Autobahn” , 1931, (Source: BMVBS, 2007)Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. 2009. “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany,” Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.

Autobahn (A-5) in 2010.

Cycling, walking, and public transport share of trips in Europe and USA 1999-2008

26 8 10 10

7 95

11

16

19

22 22

16

24

181

83

2 418

1026

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

USA ('08) Belgium ('99) France ('08) UK ('08) Norway ('01) Denmark ('08) Germany ('08)Netherlands ('08)

Perc

ent o

f Tri

ps

Cycling Walking Public Transport

Source: Data collected by author from recent national travel surveys.

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 EU Countries, 2000-08

R² = 0.74

0,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ann

ual T

ons o

f CO

2 pe

r ca

pita

Percent of trips by public transport, bicycle, and foot

USA

Canada

Australia

Netherlands

Ireland

Spain

France

Sweden

Austria

Germany

UKNorway

Finland

Denmark

Belgium

Walk, Bike, Transit Share of TripsTran

spor

t CO

2Em

issio

ns p

er C

apita

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Germany: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-70.

More sustainable ground passenger transportation in Germany than USA

~3 times more CO2 emissions per capita in USA ~3 times more energy use per capita in USA 2.3 times higher traffic fatalities per capita in USA U.S. households spend more for transport (19% vs.14%) Higher annual per capita government expenditures for

roads and public transport ($625 vs. $460) Over two times larger share of U.S. population considered

obese

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. 2009. “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany,” Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.Source: own picture

Source: own picture

Trends in Population Proportions of Walking and Cycling 30 Minutes per Day in the USA and Germany

Source: Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Merom, D., Baumann, A. forthcoming. “Walking and Cycling in the United States, 2001-2009: Evidence from the National Household Travel Surveys,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol.101 and unpublished manuscript..

7,0

0,9

7.7*

1,0

18,2

6,6

21.2*

7.8*

0

5

10

15

20

25

Walking 30 minper day

Cycling 30 minper day

Perc

ent o

f Pop

ulat

ion

* statistically significant change within the country during the period 2001/2002 to 2008/2009 (P<0.05)Note. Respondents 5 years and older

USA 2001 USA 2009 Germany 2002 Germany 2008

Determinants of travel behavior

Socioeconomic and demographic factors

Land use/spatial development patterns

Transportation policies

Land-use planning and policy

Culture/preferences

54

6468

82

88 88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lowest Income Quartile Mid-Quartiles Highest income Quartile

Germany USA

At all income levels Germans drive for a lower share of trips than Americans

Shar

e of

All

Trip

s

Source: Buehler, R. 2011. “Determinants of Mode Choice: A Comparison of Germany and the USA,” Transport Geography, in press.

Americans with limited car access drive as much as Germans with easy car access

37

4651

56

2731

36 36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<0.5 0.5 -1 1 - 1.5 1.5+

Cars per household member at driving age

Car

trav

el d

ista

nce

in k

m

USA Germany

Source: Buehler, R. 2010. “Transport Policies, Automobile Use, and Sustainable Transportation: A Comparison of Germany and the USA,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 30, 2010, pp. 76-93.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

< 1000 1000 < 2000 2000<3000 3000<4000 4000<5000 5000+

Dai

ly T

rave

l Dis

tanc

e

People per km2

USA

Germany

Americans drive more than Germans at every population density

~60% of Americans live here

~60% of Germans live

here

Source: Buehler, R. 2010. “Transport Policies, Automobile Use, and Sustainable Transportation: A Comparison of Germany and the USA,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 30, 2010, pp. 76-93.

Americans drive for most short trips

67

2

90

1

94

0,5

27

15

62

14

69

90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Car Bike Car Bike Car Bike

<1.6 <3.2 <4.8

USA Germany

Perc

ent o

f tri

ps

Source: Buehler, R. 2011. “Determinants of Mode Choice: A Comparison of Germany and the USA,” Transport Geography, in press.

Individuals make the travel choices that ultimately determine the sustainability

of transport

Governments provide the crucial policy framework that influences travel choices

Framework: Federal Policies in Germany

Taxes and regulation make car use more expensive Flexible funds for walking and cycling Dedicated funding for transit investments Regulations that guide land-use planning and require

cooperation among levels of government Strategic leadership in transport and land-use planning Most policies that make transport more sustainable are

developed on the local level In the following: Federal framework plus local policy

examples from Freiburg, Germany’s Environmental Capital

Case Study Freiburg

• 220,000 inhabitants, 120,000 jobs, 30,000 students• Gateway to Black Forest Region (620,000 pop.)• Economy and population have grown faster than German average

• Strong environmental policy since 1970s• Germany’s Environmental Capital• Important Eco-Industry (10,000 jobs, €500m GDP)• Green Party mayor

Thanks to Bernhard Gutzmer, Uwe Schade, Wulf Daseking (all city of Freiburg), Andreas Hildebrandt (VAG Freiburg)

Source: City of Freiburg

Stagnating levels of motorization in Freiburg (cars & light trucks per 1,000)

Sources: (BMVBS, 1991-2008; City of Freiburg, 2009b; FHWA, 1990-2008)

28

248

422 419

13

208

445

546

268

389

613

776

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1950 1970 1990 2006

Cars

and L

ight t

ruck

s per

1,00

0 pop

ulatio

n

FreiburgGermanyUSA

See also: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Germany: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-70.

Declining share of trips by car

Sources: (City of Freiburg, 2007; University of Dortmund, 2001)

38

11

15

3537

1821

24

32

18

27

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Car Public Transport Bike Walk

Perc

ent o

f Trip

s

198219892007

See also: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Germany: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-70.

Freiburg: sustainability trends

VKT Car use declined by 7% from 1990 to 2005 local roads only: -13%

Per-capita CO2 emissions from transport: -13% to a level that is only 29% of U.S. average

Bicycle safety: Freiburg: 1.2; Germany: 1.7 , USA: 5.8 fatalities per 10 million km cycled

Transit operating budget subsidy per year: Freiburg10%, Germany 25%, USA 65%

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Germany: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-70.

1950s 1960s TodaySource: City of Freiburg

COST OF AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE

Unleaded Gasoline Prices per Liter in the USA and Germany, 1990 - 2007 (in U.S. dollars, using PPP)

2,322,60 2,68 2,64

2,94 2,933,10

3,213,07

3,30

3,87 3,92 4,024,22

4,57

5,08

5,575,85

1,35 1,32 1,32 1,30 1,31 1,34 1,41 1,421,25 1,36

1,70 1,66 1,571,79

2,07

2,39

2,692,91

$0,0

$1,0

$2,0

$3,0

$4,0

$5,0

$6,0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007U

S D

olla

rs A

djus

ted

for

PPP

Source: IEA, 2008

Germany United States

See also: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. 2009. “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany,” Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.

Environmental tax reform in Germany, 1999-2003

4,3

8,8

11,5

14,3

18,3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Bill

ion

Euro

s

Source: UBA (2005 a and b), Schlegelmilch (2005)

-0,6%

-1,0%

-1,3%

-1,5%

-1,7%-1,8%

-1,6%

-1,4%

-1,2%

-1,0%

-0,8%

-0,6%

-0,4%

-0,2%

0,0%1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

% R

educ

tion

of S

ocia

l Sec

urity

Tax

R

elat

ive

to E

xpec

ted

Lev

el

Source: UBA (2005 a and b), Schlegelmilch (2005) Gasoline tax increased by 75 U.S. cents per gallon over 5 years

See also: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. 2009. “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany,” Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.

0,9

1,4

2,2

2,6 2,6

0,7 0,6

0,90,7 0,7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

1975 1987 1997 2004 2006

Germany United States

Highway user taxes and fees as share of road expenditures by all levels of government in Germany

and the United States

Road Expentiure=

Highway User Taxes and Fees

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Kunert, U. 2009. “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany,” Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.

Freiburg: Traffic Calming of Neighborhoods

(Source: City of Freiburg)

City Center Pedestrian Zone since

1973

(Source: City of Freiburg & own pictures)

Freiburg: Parking Management

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Current Planned

Muensterplatz 1960sSource: City of Freiburg

Muensterplatz 2000Source: City of Freiburg

MAKING PUBLIC TRANSPORT IRRESISTIBLE

Share of All Trips by Public Transport in Selected German Cities, 2003-2007

10 % 10 % 11 %

14 % 15 % 15 %17 %

18 % 18 % 18 % 18 % 18 %20 % 21 %

23 %

27 %

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

Perc

ent o

f All

Trip

s by

Publ

ic T

rans

port

Note: city population size in 1,000 inhabitants in parenthesis

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Making Public Transport Financially Sustainable,” Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 128-136.

Integrate public transport fares and timetables

Seamless transfers across operators and public transport modes

Steep discounts for monthly/annual tickets; students and elderly

Goal: improving service and connectivity

State Wide public transport tickets About 30 Euros for up to 5 people

Source: http://www.oepnv-info.de/dkarte/index.php

Regional Public Transportation Authorities

Trend in Annual Transit Trips in Selected “Verkehrsverbunds" in Germany, 1991-2006

(in percent relative to 1991)*

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1991

=100

%

*Note Verkehrsverbund Frankfurt relative to 1998 and Verkehrsverbund Berlin relative to 1992

Freiburg

Stuttgart

Rhein-Sieg

Rhein-Ruhr

Hamburg

Berlin

GERMAN AVERAGEFrankfurt

München

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Making Public Transport Financially Sustainable,” Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 128-136.

Trend in Farebox Revenue as Share of Transit Operating Expenditure in Germany and the USA,

1992-2007

61%

78%

59%

77%

43%

69%

37%33%

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Perc

enta

ge

West Germany

Germany

East Germany

USA

Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Making Public Transport Financially Sustainable,” Transport Policy, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 128-136.

Freiburg: Regional coordination of services and ticketing

Transferable “Environmental Protection” since1984 Regional monthly transit ticket since 1991 Regional Transit Authority (75 towns, 187 operators,

3050km of routes) Annual ticket: 450 Euros Students pay 69 Euros for 6 months RegioMobilCard includes car sharing Signal priority for light rail Financial efficiency increased

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Freiburg: Expanding light rail

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Modern, attractive, convenient trams, buses, metros, and suburban rail trains

Source: City of Berlin

Source: City of Berlin Source: author’s pictures if not indicated differently

Freiburg: Integration of modes

Heavy Rail

Light Rail

Bike Parking Garage

(Source: Google Maps)

Train Station

Bus Station

Multi-modal coordination

Source: author’s picture, City of Muenster, Pucher

PROMOTING BICYCLING

Sources: Broeg and Erl, Mobilitaet und Verkehrsmittelwahl. Muenchen: Socialdata, 2003; Deutsches Institut fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Mobilitaet in Deutschland, 2002, Stadt Koeln Berlin: Bundesministeriumfuer Verkehr, 2004.

German “cycling boom” since the 1970s

2 %

4 %

8 %

6 % 6 %

13 %

16 %15 %

29 %

6 %

9 %10 %

16 %

13 %

16 %

21 %

27 %

35 %

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

Stuttgart Nuremberg Gemany Cologne Munich Karlsruhe Bremen Freiburg Muenster

mid/late 1970s late 1990s/early2000s

Federal involvement in bicycling

•Recent national bicycling plan (2002)

•Flexible funding mechanisms (GVFG)•Construction of bike paths along federal roads

•€1.1 billion to doubling the extent of bikeways along federal highways from 1980 to 2000

•Technical expertise (BAST)

(Source: BMVBS)

Cycling training and testing course in Berlin

Most German children take cycling lessons by the 3rd or 4th

grade and must pass a police-administered cycling safety test!

(Source: own pictures)

(Source: Fahrschule24.net)

Freiburg: Regional Bike Network

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Freiburg: Bike Parking

(Source: Swearingen White and own pictures)

Bicycle Infrastructure: Lanes, Streets, Paths, Boxes

(Source: City of Freiburg, Swearingen White, and own pictures)

INTEGRATE TRANSPORT AND LAND USE PLANNING

Federal Level

State Level

Regional Level

Municipal Level

Specialized Planning

(e.g. Transport, Energy, Water)

Top Down Bottom Up

Reciprocal land-use planning in Germany

Source: Buehler, R. 2008. “Transport Policies, Travel Behavior, and Sustainability: A Comparison of Germany and the U.S.” Doctoral Dissertation; E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University.

Freiburg: Complementary Goals of most RecentTransport and Land–Use Plans

Goals of Transport Planning Minimize car travel Move car trips to other modes Make car travel as environmentally friendly as possible

Goals of Land-Use Planning: Improve quality of life “City of Short Distances” Strengthening Freiburg as regional center Preservation of City

See also: Buehler, R., Pucher, J. 2011. “Sustainable Transport in Germany: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital,” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, pp. 43-70.

Freiburg:Public Transport and Land Use

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Accommodating growth within the city limits

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Vauban & Rieselfeld Neighborhoods

(Source: Berkeley and own pictures)

Lessons for Implementing Sustainable Transport Policies

Integrated Land-Use and Transportation Planning

Expand Transit

Complete Bike Network

Traffic Calming

Bundling Car Traffic

Parking Management

(Source: City of Freiburg)

Lessons from Germany and Freiburg

Implement controversial policies in stages Plans should be adaptable over time to changing

conditions Policies must be multi-modal and include both incentives

and disincentives Fully integrate transport and land-use planning Local citizen involvement is an integral part of policy

development and implementation Support from higher levels of government is crucial to

making local policies work Sustainable transport policies must be long term, with

policies sustained over time, for lasting impact

Thank you!

Ralph Buehler

Urban Affairs and Planning

School of Public and International Affairs

Virginia Tech, Alexandria Center

ralphbu@vt.eduhttp://www.spia.vt.edu/people/spiafacultybios/buehlerspiabio.html