Why is MORECO
of interest to you?
Facts
Background
Trends
komobile stadtland
Peak Oil and Energy Prices
Regular
Plus
Diesel
komobile stadtland
Peak Oil
Shortage and
increasing prices
2003 <> 2030
komobile stadtland
Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumption
600.000
Erdölbilanz Österreich 1995 - 2010
e.g. Oil consumption in Austria 1995–2010
500.000
Terajoule// year
Jahr
Terajoule
400.000
300.000
200.000
Traffic & Transport
100.000
Domestic heating, hot water
0
1995
Industry, steam generation, ...
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Jahr Statistik Austria, Energiestatistik, Energiebilanzen Österreich 1970 - 2010
source:
komobile stadtland
Traffic & Transport: Main reason for oil consumption
Preview of main petrochemical demand, Italy 1990 – 2025 (billion tons)
Traffic & Transport
Number of private cars per person, French examples
RHONE ALPES
Traffic & Transport: Energy consumption in France
One third of the total French energy consumption is due to transport
36% of CO2 emissions are due to transport (2008)
RHONE ALPES
Increasing energy prices =
increasing costs for accomodation and mobility!
Private households: course of action
limited usage
of cars
efficient
vehicles
reduction of
other budgets
higher
fuel-efficient
degree
style
efficient
of
of driving
Vehicles
occupation
spatial
reorganisation
choosing
shorter
destinations
switching
transferring
domicile
or place
of work
public
transport
non
motorized
traffic
reduction of
activities
new
media
Unwanted effect: meaning heavy individual constraints causing loss of welfare
Preserving structure: useful option, but dependency on oil remains
Changing structure: option supports independence of oil
Possible short-term and long-term adaptive reactions on rising energy prices
(SOURCE: Gertz et al. 2008 zitiert in Frehn, Dittrich-Wesbuer, Verkehrsfolgenabschätzung der Siedlungsentwicklung, Dortmund, im April 2012)
komobile stadtland
new
kinds of
transport
Settlement Patterns that Leave no Choice!
Necessity to use the car
residence
leisure
social contacts
place of work
supply
others
komobile stadtland
Extensive settlement patterns
Monofunctional residential areas
foto: SAGIS
Disproportionate land consumption compared to population growth
Maximized distances
Low density = bad coverage by public transport
No shops or services, no places of employment
komobile stadtland
Jobs far away from residential areas
Shopping centres on the outskirts of the city
VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg
Far away from residential areas
Inaccessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users
Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites
komobile stadtland
Fragmented residential areas
foto: SAGIS
City: 20 m road / housing unit
Area of single-family-detached houses: up to 150 m road / housing unit
komobile stadtland
Reduced and fragmented agricultural areas
less local high-quality food
Foto: Pascale Margot Rougerie
Far away from residential areas
for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users
Dedicated to car accessibility, vast parking-sites
Purple SIR
Under-utilised central locations
foto: VOGIS (C) Land Vorarlberg
Deserted city and village-centres
Missed chances
komobile stadtland
Good architecture!
Good location?
Architecturally sophisticated, energy efficient, built ecologically!
BUT
High consumption of land, car-dependent, not sustainable!
komobile stadtland
The role of motivations in residential site
and mobility mode decisions
photo: Erika Mahoney
Private / social benefits and costs of choosing housing location
and mode of transport types which motivate travel behaviour
UIRS
Choosing a housing location
in the city
author: unknown
Private benefits
- Physical proximity
to urban amenities
- Working place / living place
in close proximity
- No need for a car
- Good living quality
in high priced areas
photo: Mario Mariordo
Private costs
- Too high density
- Traffic congestion
- Environmental pollution
- Only high priced areas offer
very good quality for living
- Large share of income spent on living expenses
- Less leisure opportunities without a car
UIRS
Choosing a housing location
in suburban areas/villages
P benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
Realized preference for low-density living
Proximity to natural areas, private garden
Lower crime rates
More living area for the same money
No costs for inherited building sites
Quality of life is higher than in urban areas
P costs
photo: Barbara Jordan Dettweiler
Private •benefits
High mobility costs in the long run
- low-density
living
• High
dependency on car
illustration: Kevin H.
Private costs
- High mobility costs in the long run
• areas,
Greater
stress
due to long journeys to
workdependency on cars
- High
- natural
private
gardens
Highrates
time costs for all family members
- Greater stress due to travelling to work
- Lower• crime
• Risk of loss of property value due to
- High time costs
changing travel conditions (energy prices)
- More living space
- No costs for inherited building sites
- Risk of property value loss
- Quality of life is higher
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport
Commuting by car
source: alamy
source: Dealer Refresh
costs
Private•benefits
Long commuting times
- Better• access
to employment
High travel
costs
opportunities
• Health problems
• Psychological
- Combining
trips to workproblems
+ other daily
chores
• Less opportunities to meet people
and get new
- More opportunities
forexperiences
access
to desired or affordable housing
Private costs
- Long commuting times
- High travel costs
- Health problems
- Psychological problems
- Less opportunities to meet and interact
with people
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport
Commuting by public transport
photo: Salvatore Vuono
Source: Photosynth
Private benefits
- Reduction in commuting costs
- Reduction in road accidents
- Reduction in noise and air pollution
- Enhancement in work productivity
- Reduction of stress
Private costs
- Greater time costs
- Forces people to follow precise
timing
- In some areas not all public
transports modes are available
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport:
Walking and cycling
source: Lovingthebike.com
source: Cortina
Private benefits
- Daily physical training
- Lower risk of obesity
- Independency of traffic congestions
- Opportunity to use routes with good
environmental quality
- Stress-less time
Private costs
- Built environment features can affect the
amount of time a trip takes, but also the
comfort, safety and enjoyment of the
walking environment
- Good equipment is needed
- Facilities and time for changing clothes
and washing/showering is required
UIRS
Choosing a housing location
in the city
source: Lovingthebike.com
photo: Mario Mariordo
source: Cortina
photo: Andrej Gulič
Social benefits
- Lower fiscal costs for infrastructure
- Higher density settlements are more
socially sustainable
- High density urban living
for social interaction
photo: Andrej Gulič
Social costs
- Degradation of public spaces
- Inner-city redevelopments
on ‘brownfield’ sites
- Greater health and safety risks
- Presence of supra-local services
- Lack of interest of real estate agents
- High cost of renovation
UIRS
Choosing a housing location
in suburban areas/villages
photo: Andrej Gulič
source: BabyCentre Blog
Social benefits
Social costs
- Suburbanization creates separation of land
uses
- Degradation of public spaces
- Superstores are feasible on the outskirts
- Larger ecological footprint
- Inhabitants bring money to municipalities
- High demands on public infrastructure
- More opportunities for development of
social and welfare nets
- High dependency on car traffic
- Social integration is stronger
- Loss of open space
- Commuting can be considered a huge
social cost
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport
Commuting by car
source: The Ohio State University
Social costs
- Long daily commuting times
- Increased traffic congestion and
environmental pollution
source: EntitySolutions
Social benefits
- Increased productivity and
individual welfare
- Better functioning of labour markets
- Unfavourable socio-physical condition of
commuters; accident costs
- Roads’ construction and maintenance
- Surface taken up by road infrastructure
- Decline and abandonment of city centres
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport
Commuting by publ. transport
photo: Andrej Gulič
Social benefits
photo: Andrej Gulič
- Cost efficiency for the travelers
Social costs
- Environmentally more friendly modes of transport
- Congestion costs
- External benefits of public transport
- Overcrowding in peak hours
- Reduction of social and environmental costs
- Poorly coordinated timetables
UIRS
Choosing mode of transport
Walking and cycling
source: Cortina
photo: Andrej Gulič
source: Grist
Social benefits
Social costs
- Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
- Construction of walking + cycling routes
- Lower consumption of space
- Allocation of local services along the
routes
- Improvement of the
psycho-physical well-being
- Greater equity and solidarity between
traffic participants
- Promotion of tourism and recreation
- Reconversion of roads to walking and
cycling routes
- Introducing new mobility management
tools
UIRS
Broader social impacts on motivations
source: Lipman, B.
- Motivations depend on the prevailing cultural and value system in a given area
(state, region, local community
UIRS
Variables
that influence the development of motivations / preferences
for specific housing location and modes of transport
source: Lipman, B.
source: getty images I corbis
- Social and cultural context
source: The WTM Blog
source: Shirt.Woot
author: Jill Andrews
source: Sergio Pecanha
- Characteristics of labour force / employment decentralisation
- Advancements in communication technologies
- Types of households/ position in the life cycle
- Characteristics of current housing / potential new housing
UIRS
Urban Sprawl / Land Consumption
Increasing land consumption despite stagnant population
foto: SAGIS
komobile stadtland
Development of settlement area per inhabitant
10
9
500
8
population
7
400
6
settlement area
300
5
4
200
3
inhabitants (mio)
settlement area per inhabitant (m² / inh)
600
2
100
1
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
0
2010
source: Umweltbundesamt (UBA), 9. Umweltkontrollbericht, Wien 2010 / data Austria
komobile stadtland
Separation, fragmentation, loss of area
options
food production
recreation
habitat
ecological balance
–
municipality
+
increasing distances
damaged environment
costs
inefficient use of supplies
extensive systems for supply and disposal
komobile stadtland
Infrastructure costs depending on development density
Traffic accessibility, water supply, sewage disposal,
electricity, street lights
Single family
detached houses:
12 housing units/ha
Single family houses
coupled:
21 housing units/ha
Row houses:
34 housing units/ha
Multi-storey
appartment houses:
75 housing units/ha
floor space ratio: 0,23
floor space ratio: 0,40
floor space ratio: 0,61
floor space ratio: 0,88
Infrastructure costs per housing unit in %
100
63
47
komobile stadtland
25
source: SIR
„Infrastrukturkostenstudie
Salzburg,
SIR-Konkret 4/2007
Demographic Change
Fewer children in an aging society!
New demands on infrastructure!
komobile stadtland
Aging society ...
Structure of the population, by age group and sex, EU-27; in % of total population
men
(2010)
women
(2010)
men
(2060)
women
(2060)
> 85 years
80 – 84 years
75 – 79 years
70 – 74 years
65 – 69 years
60 – 64 years
55 – 59 years
50 – 54 years
45 – 49 years
40 – 44 years
35 – 39 years
30 – 34 years
25 – 29 years
20 – 24 years
15 – 19 years
10 – 14 years
5 – 9 years
source: Eurostat
(Online-Datencode:
demo_pjangroup,
proj_10c2150p)
< 5 years
komobile stadtland
Requirements of older people on the living environment
Within walking distance
•
•
•
•
•
safe paths
daily consumer needs (freedom of choice)
public transport
recreation areas
social network
medical supplies
Accessibility of
• mobile services
• regional services and supplies
komobile stadtland
Increasing Health Expenditures
31,4 BIL EUR / year
The cost-share of the health care system exceeds 10 %
of economic output and are continuing to rise!
source: STATISTIK AUSTRIA
komobile stadtland
Health expenditures caused by road traffic
source: VCÖ 2012
komobile stadtland