Suchergebnisse

Die Diskussion um eine nachhaltige Entwicklung stellt auch die Verantwortlichen im Verkehrssektor vor die Aufgabe, Nachhaltigkeitsaspekte, insbesondere den Beitrag des Verkehrs zum Ausstoß von Klimagasen, bei ihren Entscheidungen zu berücksichtigen. Die Spezifik des Verkehrssektors besteht jedoch darin, dass die Kosten des Klimawandels nur einen Teil der durch den Verkehr verursachten externen Kosten ausmachen. Deshalb können Entscheidungen zur Gestaltung der Verkehrssysteme nicht allein im Rahmen von klimapolitischen Strategien getroffen werden. Davon ausgehend diskutiert dieser Beitrag den Stand der Forschung zur Quantifizierung der sozialen Grenzkosten des Verkehrs und stellt die Ergebnisse zweier Fallstudien vor. Diese zeigen, dass insbesondere in den Spitzenzeiten die Staugrenzkosten die quantitativ dominante Kategorie der externen Kosten des Straßenverkehrs werden, und dass auch die durch Unfälle, Infrastrukturabnutzung und Lärm verursachten Grenzkosten quantitativ bedeutsamer als die mit Klimaveränderungen einhergehenden Grenzkosten sind. Dies verdeutlicht, dass Maßnahmen zur Verminderung der Kosten des Klimawandels, so unbestreitbar wichtig sie auch sind, nicht die alleinige Priorität für eine nachhaltige Verkehrspolitik haben sollten. Vielmehr erfordert die Bedeutung der anderen Kostenkategorien wie Stau, Unfälle und Lärm eine adäquate Berücksichtigung in preis- und investitionspolitischen Entscheidungen der Verkehrspolitik. ; The current concern with sustainability rightly requires those involved with transport to consider carefully the sustainability of the transport sector, and in particular its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is important to remember that greenhouse gases are just one of the costs of transport systems, and it makes no sense therefore to take decisions about transport systems based on the impact on greenhouse gas emissions alone. Against this background, the paper discusses the state of research in estimating marginal external costs of road transport and presents the results of two case studies. These suggest that under peak traffic conditions congestion costs are by far the most important externalities of road use. Accidents, wear and tear and noise costs all appear to be more important than global warming. These results stress that reducing global warming costs, important though they are, should not be the sole priority of transport decisions. Our results suggest that other costs are also very important and need to be taken into account in pricing and investment decisions.

The current focus of transportation policy around disruptive events is to adopt an engineering resilience-oriented approach, which focuses on returning assets to good workable order as soon as possible. This will remain critically important in the future to reduce the scale and severity of disruptive events which are likely to become more commonplace in many locations due to climate change. It is, however, only one part of ensuring that such events have more limited impacts on society and the economy. A broader consideration of societal resilience and responses outside the transport sector is needed. People travel in order to take part in activities (work, education, caring and so on), and a smarter resilience response requires us to better understand these activity patterns and intervene accordingly. There is significant adaptive capacity within society that could be better harnessed to reduce the impacts of disruptive events. The work also shows that many of our assumptions about the short and long run impacts of disruptive events need re-examining to get a fuller picture of the true economic effects of disruptive events on society and the economy. Without this it will be difficult to make the case for many types of resilience investment. This briefing paper presents evidence collected from new studies of behavioural adaptation during disruptive events and uses this to identify four areas for action to improve how we plan for resilience and how we assess the worth of different types of investment strategy: 1. The development of Smart Resilience Strategies - which are a combination of transport and non-transport responses which work together to minimize the impacts of temporary infrastructure loss; 2. Measures to improve the usefulness, impact and co-ordination of communications with the public and businesses during disruptions, enabling social adaptation and reducing time wasted in unnecessarily perilous and extended journeys; 3. A continued programme of developing the capacity of travellers and businesses to adapt to different events through greater multi-modality and an increase in smart and flexible working practices; and 4. A reassessment of the approach to understanding the economic impacts of disruptive events which extends well beyond the apparent reductions in flows and increases in journey times observed on the networks and captures the societal and economic impacts in a more holistic way.