Post on 06-Mar-2020
transcript
Capacity development in urban transport sector
Metin Senbil2006.02.14
24th COE Seminar2
Background
• Environmental problems at various scales
• Energy considerations
• Transportation (problem) in developing countries– Future prospects
• Demand for transportation is increasing
• Developing countries
• Income ~ car ownership
– Space consumption
– Stronger Land Use and Transportation relationships
– Duality in space
– Transportation modes
24th COE Seminar3
Background
Transportation (problem) in developing countries
Urbanization
CapacityAdministrative
Institutional
Physical
Individual
24th COE Seminar4
Land use and transportation
Urban density
4003002001000
Dai
ly tr
ips
by f
oot p
er c
apit
a
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar5
Land use and transportation
Urban density
4003002001000
Non
mot
oris
ed m
odes
per
cap
ita
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
-.2
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar6
Land use and transportation
Proportion of jobs in CBD
806040200
Ave
rage
dis
tanc
e of
the
J-to
-W
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar7
Land use and transportation
Proportion of jobs in CBD
806040200
Dis
tanc
e of
the
J-to
-W b
y m
echa
nise
d m
odes
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar8
Transportation
Length of road per 1000 people
1000080006000400020000
Dai
ly tr
ips
by f
oot p
er c
apit
a
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar9
Transportation
Length of freeway per 1000 people
3002001000
Ave
rage
dis
tanc
e of
the
J-to
-W
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar10
Environment
Daily private transport trips per capita
543210
Tot
al e
mis
sion
s pe
r ur
ban
hect
are
30000.0
20000.0
10000.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar11
Environment
Average time of a car trip
6050403020100
Tot
al e
mis
sion
s pe
r ur
ban
hect
are
30000.0
20000.0
10000.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar12
Energy
Daily private transport trips per capita
543210
Ene
rgy
use
per
pass
enge
r km
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar13
Energy
Average time of a car trip
6050403020100
Ene
rgy
use
per
pass
enge
r km
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar14
Policy
Price of fuel per km
120010008006004002000
Pri
vate
tran
spor
t tri
ps p
er c
apit
a
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar15
Policy
Average user cost of a car trip
3000200010000
Dai
ly p
riva
te tr
ansp
ort t
rips
per
cap
it
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Produced from Millennium Cities Database
24th COE Seminar16
Data and preliminary analysis
• PT surveys administered by JICA
• 11 developing cities around the world– Asia Pacific: Chengdu, Kuala Lumpur, Phnom
Penh, Jakarta
– Eastern Europe: Bucharest
– Middle East/North Africa: Tripoli, Damascus, Cairo
– South America: Belem, Managua
24th COE Seminar17
Egypt
Syria
Romania
Lebanon
Cairo
Tripoli
Damascus
Bucharest
Manila
Jakarta
Chengdu
Phnom Penh
Kuala Lumpur
Brazil
Nicaragua
Belem
Managua
24th COE Seminar18
JICA_11
City Population
Survey year
# of Households
# of Persons
# of Trips
Belem, Brazil 1,782,394 2000 6,889 24,043 59,529 Bucharest, Romania 2,150,000 1998 32,888 67,509 143,311 Cairo, Egypt 14,400,000 2001 41,962 136,070 268,360 Chengdu, China 3,090,000 2000 14,537 31,188 70,199 Damascus, Syria 3,078,190 1998 17,202 38,490 81,698 Jakarta, Indonesia 20,964,000 2000 100,864 425,237 1,083,280 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1,390,800 1998 27,331 80,560 218,460 Managua, Nicaragua 1,200,000 1998 8,089 24,854 54,138 Manila, Philippines 9,454,000 1996 60,752 231,889 471,035 Phnom Penh, Cambodia 1,152,000 2000 6,446 18,664 40,369 Tripoli, Lebanon 330,900 2000 1,321 3,608 7,615
24th COE Seminar19
JICA_11_trip modes
• Paratransit– Jakarta: Bajaj/Becak/Ojek
– Manila: Jeepney/Tricycle
• Motorcycles in Asia Pacific
• Age– Tripoli: 75 % of private vehicles are older than
10 years; 40% older than 20 years
– Damascus: 54% of private vehicles are older than 10 years; 22% older than 20 years
24th COE Seminar20
JICA_11_Vehicle age- Tripoli
836 1.00 30.00 17.0730 6.11492
836 1.00 6.00 4.4007 1.16884
836 2 24 6.30 3.889
836
Vehicle age (first car)-dependent varia
Income
Household size
Valid N (listwise)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
24.152 .812 29.743 .000
-1.925 .167 -.368 -11.514 .000
.221 .050 .141 4.399 .000
(Constant)
Income
Household Size
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.
24th COE Seminar21
JICA_11_Commute Trip Mode
• Public vs. Private
.75 .25
.17 .83
.61 .39
.10 .90
.09 .91
.01 .99
.79 .21
.00 1.00
.47 .53
.12 .88
.04 .96
Tripoli
Phnom Penh
Damascus
Manila
Chengdu
Managua
Belem
Bucharest
Cairo
Jabotabek
Kuala Lumpur
Mean
PublicTransport
Mean
PrivateTransport
24th COE Seminar22
JICA_11_Commute Trip Mode
SEX 0.223 0.011 20.742 1.250AGE 0.015 0.001 28.457 1.015Resident worker dummy (weighted) -0.001 0.000 -3.725 0.999
Tripoli -1.810 0.060 -30.315 0.164
Damascus -1.140 0.025 -45.353 0.320
Manila 1.564 0.022 71.308 4.776
Chengdu 1.660 0.082 20.192 5.262
Managua 4.177 0.128 32.739 65.144
Belem -2.014 0.037 -54.943 0.133
Cairo -0.138 0.011 -12.462 0.871
Jabotabek 1.383 0.019 73.567 3.989Kuala Lumpur 2.442 0.028 87.035 11.495
value Std. Error t Exp(B)
24th COE Seminar23
Individual Capacity in urban transport_the case of Jabotabek
Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation
Government policies: priority to transport policies 0 4 3.02 0.871Government policies: priory to environmental protection policies 0 4 2.77 0.846Transport policies: priority to road building 0 4 3.02 0.871Transport policies: priority to public transit 0 4 3.00 0.892Transport policies: priority to transportation management 0 4 3.00 1.106Transport policies: priority to environmental protection 0 4 3.02 0.877
Age 5 97 23.63 14.672Sex 0 1 0.51 0.500Middle Income 0 1 0.22 0.415High educated 0 1 0.21 0.408Employed 0 1 0.25 0.435Private motorized commute 0 1 0.15 0.361Pro-transit 0 1 0.62 0.485Pro-car 0 1 0.25 0.436Transport fee's Share more than 30% 0 1 0.20 0.402No. of Household Members 1 10 3.71 1.576Sample size 10,879
Explanatory variables
Dependent variables
24th COE Seminar24
Ordered probit model
• Five ordered scales yi
• Latent Ui
• P(Ui is in the first range ) = Φ( β′X )• P(Ui is in the second range ) = Φ ( β′X + μ1) −
Φ( β′X )• P(Ui is in the third range ) = Φ ( β′X + μ2) −
Φ( β′X + μ1)• P(Ui is in the forth range ) = Φ ( β′X + μ3) − Φ
( β′X + μ2)• P(Ui is in the fifth range ) = 1 − Φ( β′X + μ3)
• LogL=∑NZjxlog(Pj)• Zj = 1 if individual chooses jth category,0 else.• GAUSS code
24th COE Seminar25
Individual Capacity in urban transport_the case of Jabotabek_results of the ordered probit model_GOVERNMENTPOLICIES
• Demographic variables, i.e., age and sex, are insensitive to both transport and environment
• Middle income individuals attaches positive importance to both transport and environment
• High educated individuals are supportive for transport policies
• High household expenditures for transport cause sensitiveness to transport policies
• Both pro-transit and pro-car individuals attaches negative importance to environmental problems
24th COE Seminar26
Individual Capacity in urban transport_the case of Jabotabek_results of the ordered probit model_TRANSPORTPOLICIES
• Pro-transit individuals strongly devalues policies on road building and transport management; as expected, values transit policies
• Pro-car individuals are supportive for both road building and transit policies
24th COE Seminar27
Individual Capacity in urban transport_the case of Jabotabek_results of the ordered probit model
• Middle classes are supportive for all policies
• High educated are supportive for transport policies (however no conclusive result is obtained for road building)
• Individuals with bigger household sizes devalues all policies
24th COE Seminar28
Structural Equations Model-basic structure
Attitudes
Socio-economic and demographic
Transportation
Land use
24th COE Seminar29
Attitudes
Attitudes
Priority should be given to transport
policies
Priority should be given to transport management and
enforcement
Priority should be given to impacts of transportation on
environment
24th COE Seminar30
Socio-economic and demographic
Socio-economic and demographic
Age
Income Household size
HouseholdIndividual
Sex
Education(highly educated)
24th COE Seminar31
Land use
( )∑ ×−j
jj ppJ
log1
24th COE Seminar32
Transportation
• Long-run– Private vehicle ownership
• Short run– Private vehicle use for commute trip
24th COE Seminar33
Full model
Attitudes
Priority should be given to transport
policies
Priority should be given to transport management and
enforcement
Priority should be given to impacts of transportation on
environment
Soc
io-e
cono
mic
and
de
mog
raph
ic
Age
Inco
me
Hou
seho
ld
size
Hou
seho
ldIn
divi
dual
Sex
Edu
catio
n(h
ighl
y ed
ucat
ed)
=1
=1
=1
=1
24th COE Seminar34
SEM model estimation and goodness-of-fit
• ADF Estimation
• Perform better than baseline models (saturated and independence models)
24th COE Seminar35
Estimation Results-standardized
Attitudes
Priority should be given to transport
policies
Priority should be given to transport management and
enforcement
Priority should be given to impacts of transportation on
environment
0.246 0.038 0.948
0.186
0.936
0.236-0.0910.673
0.734
0.763
0.27
60.
948
-0.1
960.
308
0.567
0.969
-0.528
-0.040
0.332
0.582
0.542
0.11
3
0.288 0. 388
0.315
0.074-0.011
0.3620.074