1. Introduction
Large increases in transport activities are anticipated to occur in the future, especially in underdeveloped countries, and transport is continuously increasing globally [
1]. Several sustainability problems are associated with increased transport activities, for example congestion, increased dependence on fossil fuels, traffic safety issues and increased environmental impacts. Transport contributes 25%–30% of global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO
2) emissions and is therefore a significant contributor to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [
2,
3]. Worldwide transport energy use and CO
2 emissions are projected to increase by nearly 50% by 2030 and by more than 80% by 2050 [
3]. For example, trucking, air transport and car ownership have the potential to increase three- or four-fold relative to current levels. Consequently, transport is a particularly challenging issue for planners and policymakers aiming to achieve a stable, sustainable development.
In order to evaluate the efficiency of measures and activities intended to reduce transport and its negative consequences, systems and methods for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) are required. Established practise is available for measuring transport activities and CO
2 emissions at national, European and global levels, but there is a lack of corresponding systems at the regional and local level. For example, many countries have binding obligations to reduce their GHG emissions within the commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol (initiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC), and report their emissions in National Inventory Reports [
4,
5]. In Europe, the European Environment Agency (EEA) produces an annual report (Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism, TERM) to provide “
a clear overview of current transport demand, the pressures from the transport sector on the environment, and related impact and responses” [
6]. The 2013 report provided an overview by monitoring 12 TERM Core Set of Indicators (TERM-CSIs) of transport activities and environmental impacts for the European Union (EU) and at the Member State level [
6].
The use of indicators at local and regional level involves some difficulties and challenges that are largely related to determining cause and effect of measures and implemented transport policies for the resulting transport demand and development. In particular, measures and policies aimed at shifting travel demand to more sustainable transport modes require parameters that are difficult to quantify and interpret [
7]. Examples of measures and policies used locally and regionally with the aim of reducing transport system problems such as congestion and environmental effects are: Promotion of public transport (PT), bicycle use, use of alternative fuels and/or vehicles, regulations and economic instruments, and development of new infrastructure. Furthermore, there is a need to manage the transport system, understand it, measure it and detect e.g., transport patterns or demands characterising a specific geographical area that are not visible in agglomerated data on the national level.
Evaluations of transport measures and policies are therefore challenging and often require complex sets of data and information about traffic volumes, the relative use of different types of transport modes, vehicles and fuels, and information on shifts in modal split. This paper focuses on defining the concept of local and regional transport indicators based on mapping of available data, using Sweden as a case study. The possibilities and obstacles relating evaluation to local and regional transport policies, measures, and indicators are analysed and discussed. The emphasis is on developing and using road and rail traffic and transportation indicators based on the availability of quantitative data at the local and regional scale, covering both passenger and goods traffic and transportation. The work is a part of a project examining methodologies for MRV of CO2 effects of transport activities.
2. Local and Regional Traffic and Transportation Indicators
The concept of indicators needs to be placed in context in order to be understood and used correctly [
8]. Traffic and transport indicators are a specific example of a comprehensive system with established (when possible) terms and definitions.
Indicators of local and regional traffic and transportation can be based on different types of data and information, depending on the scope and objective of the evaluation. Absolute data, such as complete registry data, are used in the first instance, but when this alternative is not available sample surveys may be an alternative. Combinations of absolute data and sample surveys are frequently used to develop indicators.
In some cases, indicators need to be based on
model calculations. One reason for this may be that the cost of obtaining survey data is too high. Different data and information collection strategies are described in
Section 3, but first some basic concepts of indicators in general, and traffic and transportation indicators in particular, are described below. Also defined here are
performed and
generated traffic and transportation.
2.1. Indicators as a Concept
The concepts and definitions used here are mainly based on the information pyramid (see e.g., [
9]). The information pyramid base is
data, which often consists of huge amounts of data elements that need to be processed and/or aggregated before being interpreted and used to draw general conclusions. This processing or compilation results in
indicators that make up the next level of the pyramid. Indicators describe the data sufficiently well to allow detailed analysis. More extensive aggregation (
i.e., processing or summarising) of the data produces
key indicators, which represent the next level in the information pyramid. The top level of the pyramid consists of the index values, the overall level where further aggregation of the data is impossible. The index can thus be viewed as a first description of information obtained using the data contained in the information pyramid. There are also other definitions of the indicators and the information pyramid. For example, data can be separated into raw data and structured data, databases and/or statistics. Index values, key indicators and indicators can sometimes be collectively referred to as indicators. However, the definition of indicator used in this text is that described above.
The general use of indicators is motivated by the need to aggregate data and information in order to use it in different contexts, such as local and regional planning and evaluation of policies and measures.
2.2. System Boundaries
Local and regional traffic and transportation can be provided on a national, regional, county or local level. The focus here is to propose indicators that can be used at local and at county level (i.e., regional level). However, it is important to consider possible agreement with corresponding indicators of both higher and lower resolution (measure/project and national level, respectively).
Area-specific traffic and transport indicators can in principle be defined in two ways: (i) as the traffic and transportation carried out or performed in the area; or (ii) the traffic and transportation generated by organisations and residents in the area. Thus, local and regional traffic and transportation can be either:
or
Performed local and regional traffic and transportation is commonly used in the conventional definition of local and regional traffic and transportation. A problem with this definition is that no statistics are available for calculating the indicators, because the traffic to, from and through (transit) a region must be allocated to within or outside that region. Thus for this form of allocation, traffic models must be used.
Generated local and regional traffic and transportation is performed by residents and businesses in the area, but need not be actually performed within the region. Indicators can in principle be calculated using only statistical local and regional data, which can be supplemented by simple models. In general practice, the indicators of generated local and regional traffic and transportation are calculated using only statistical data.
The higher the resolution, the greater the differences between the indicators of performed and generated traffic and transportation may be. This is due to the fact that with decreasing area size, the share of intra-area traffic and transportation decreases and the proportion of traffic to, from and through an area increases, but this also depends on characteristics of the specific area.
The type of indicator (performed or generated) most suitable for use in evaluations of effects on local and regional traffic and transportation may depend on the type of measure or policy introduced. To evaluate the effects of infrastructure measures or policies in the form of e.g., improved roads or modified traffic control, indicators of performed regional traffic and transport work are recommended, since the effects include all traffic in the area. However, if the effects of local or regional mobility management are being evaluated, the generated regional traffic and transport work would be preferable for use as a transport indicator. This is because the measure, in this case mobility management, is aimed at all residents and businesses in the region, and the effects may extend outside the region. The best indicator to use needs to be decided in each specific case, but some general guidelines are presented below.
4. Discussion
A wide range of traffic and transportation indicators are used for different purposes. National traffic and transport indicators, which also correspond to local and regional objectives, have been proposed by the EEA [
6]. It suggests using its 12 TERM-CSIs to assess key trends and overall progress (
Table 1).
Table 1.
List of the Transport and Environmental Reporting Mechanism Core Set of Indicators (TERM-CSIs) suggested by the European Environmental Agency (EEA).
Table 1.
List of the Transport and Environmental Reporting Mechanism Core Set of Indicators (TERM-CSIs) suggested by the European Environmental Agency (EEA).
No. | Indicator |
---|
1 | Transport final energy consumption by mode. |
2 | Transport emissions of greenhouse gases. |
3 | Transport emissions of air pollutants. |
4 | Exceedances of air quality objectives due to traffic. |
5 | Exposure to, and annoyance by, traffic noise. |
6 | Passenger transport volume and modal split |
7 | Freight transport volume and modal split. |
8 | Real changes in transport prices by mode. |
9 | Fuel tax rates. |
10 | Energy efficiency and specific CO2 emissions. |
11 | Share of renewable energy in the transport sector. |
12 | Proportion of vehicle fleet by alternative fuel type. |
In addition, the following seven local and/or regional transport indicators have been developed and have been proposed by Statistics Sweden [
24] (
Table 2).
Table 2.
Seven transport indicators that can be applied at municipal or regional level.
Table 2.
Seven transport indicators that can be applied at municipal or regional level.
No. | Indicator |
---|
1 | Car ownership per 1000 inhabitants. |
2 | Cars by environmental category in total or proportion of new registrations. |
3 | Proportion of green cars in stock and relative to new registrations. |
4 | Average mileage per car & year, and average mileage per car & capita & year |
5 | Proportion of heavy/strong and weak/light cars. |
6 | Petrol and diesel consumption, litres per kilometre and for a standard car. |
7 | Petrol and diesel consumption per car & year and per inhabitant & year. |
Some additional common goals evaluated using indicators, besides reduced CO
2 emissions, are accessibility, reliability, comfort, safety and security [
25,
26].
Policies and measures aimed at more CO
2-efficient local and regional traffic and transportation that may need to be followed up using indicators which typically focus on the following areas [
27,
28]:
Modal split (bicycling, walking, use of public transport, car use)
Use of alternative vehicles and renewable fuels
Traffic and transportation energy efficiency and CO2 emissions
Some examples of policies and measures commonly used are mobility management (promotion of alternative transport modes), infrastructure development, economic instruments, improved PT, parking policy, and local and regional planning aimed at sustainable urban development. There is consequently a need for MRV of the effects of a wide variety of policies and measures.
The data availability for MRV of local and regional passenger traffic and transportation is discussed below. Data interpretation in relation to baseline levels and rebound effects [
29] is also addressed. Baseline denotes the traffic and transportation development that would have taken place without the specific policy or measure evaluated. For example, economic growth usually results in increased traffic and transportation that may need to be used as a baseline for evaluation and interpretation of data. Rebound effects are effects that counteract the desired effects of policies and measures. The use of e.g., less energy-consuming cars may lead to longer driving distances, resulting in less energy than anticipated being saved. The availability of freight data on local and regional level is very limited and is therefore not discussed further.
4.1. Modal Split (Bicycling, Walking, Use of Public Transport, Car Use)
As indicated above, there are many types of policies and measures that may be used for promoting modal shift, ranging from mobility management and development of PT to parking policy and infrastructure development. In general, there are no absolute data that reflect transportation by different modes locally and regionally. The most robust method for evaluating modal split is therefore to use LRTS, provided they are based on sound statistics (
Table 3). LRTS provide data about the whole transport system and include all modes, which is important when assessing baseline changes and possible rebound effects.
Table 3.
Main data sources for different categories of indicators. The most suitable data source for each transport indicator is indicated in italics.
Table 3.
Main data sources for different categories of indicators. The most suitable data source for each transport indicator is indicated in italics.
IndicatorData | Absolute Data | Sample Surveys | Modelling |
---|
Modal split | Vehicle registryVehicle inspection Public transport data | Travel surveys Traffic flow data | Passenger traffic and transportation |
Alternative vehicles and renewable fuels | Vehicle registryVehicle inspection Public transport data | Travel surveys | Fuel consumption |
Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions | Vehicle registryVehicle inspection Public transport data | Travel surveys | Fuel consumptionCO2 emissions |
LRTS may be complemented by PT statistics, but the use of such statistics needs to be carefully considered, since it is often not clear whether an increase should be attributed to a modal shift from private cars or from bicycling and walking. Improved PT and increased travelling by PT may also lead to increasing distances between residential and work areas, which is a type of rebound effect [
29]. In addition, economic growth may result in increased PT baseline travelling.
Local or regional use of private cars (generated traffic) may also be evaluated using vehicle registry and vehicle inspection data (driving distances). In order to extrapolate to transportation, however, the number of passengers also needs to be known (and can be obtained from LRTS). This information should also be related to general baseline development.
Vehicle flow counts can be designed statistically to reflect the whole transport system, but this is not very common. Flow counts and modelling are primarily used for evaluating the traffic load on different streets or roads. In order to use flow data for evaluations of policies and measures, the connection to the specific street or road needs to be carefully considered and other causes of possible flow changes need to be analysed.
While LRTS provide data about traffic and transportation generated with vehicles owned locally or regionally, flow counts do not distinguish between vehicles and delivery traffic performed in the area. Modelling may be used for estimating performed modal split, but models are primarily used for developing forecasts. Model-based evaluations are also very uncertain.
4.2. Use of Alternative Vehicles and Renewable Fuels
Information on the vehicle composition in a local or regional area can be obtained from vehicle registry data and on driving distance from vehicle inspection data (
Table 3). Data on the number of cars or vehicles that can run on renewable fuels or electricity, and their driving distances, are available for evaluations of traffic generated by vehicles based in a particular area, but there is still uncertainty regarding the actual fuel use, since the majority of alternative cars are hybrids.
Fuel use or consumption data are not available from these databases, however, and are usually not available locally or regionally, since this is not publically available information. Consequently, assumptions usually need to be made about the actual use of alternative fuels. Again, LRTS are the most reliable source of information about the use of alternative vehicles and fuel use. The use of alternative fuels can possibly be extrapolated from national data, depending on whether the geographical distribution of the consumption is known.
Statistics on the use of alternative vehicles and fuels may be available for publically procured PT, but all the data in question represent generated traffic and transportation. In order to obtain performed traffic and transportation data, modelling is required.
When using alternative vehicles and renewable fuels as an indicator, it is important to consider that rebound effects may influence the trends over time in unknown ways. For example, subsidies for environmental cars may result in lower driving costs, which in turn may result in additional mileage due to increased usage [
29,
30]. Furthermore, with e.g., an actual increase in numbers of vehicles, a baseline needs to be defined in order to distinguish the proportion related to changing from conventional cars and fuels to alternative cars and renewable fuels and the proportion representing an actual increase of the vehicle fleet in the area studied.
4.3. Traffic and Transportation Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions
Traffic energy efficiency can be estimated as fuel consumption per vehicle-kilometre and transportation energy efficiency as fuel consumption per passenger-kilometre. For evaluations of energy efficiency and CO2 emissions from vehicles based locally or regionally, vehicle registry and vehicle inspection data can again be used for determining mileage for different categories of vehicles. Information on numbers of passengers and fuel use needs to be obtained from LRTS.
Emissions of CO2 need to be calculated or modelled from these data in combination with emissions factors for different categories of vehicles. Since the calculations are based on vehicle registry data, the evaluations represent generated traffic and transportation. Possible rebound effects relate to the risk of increasing mileage due to the lower energy consumption (and cost), and a mileage baseline is required for evaluations.
4.5. Baseline and Rebound Effects
In order to distinguish an effect, or additionality, of a specific measure or a certain policy on local and regional traffic and transportation, a baseline needs to be defined. However, this is a delicate task, since there are always multiple transport measures and policies acting on the transport system simultaneously. In addition, there are also measures and policies in other planning sectors that affect the transport system. Moreover, effects occur over time, making it necessary to adjust the baseline in relation to economic growth, as increasing transport is often closely linked with general economic growth.
The need for transport in a region is linked to the regional economy (labour market, businesses, etc.) and infrastructure. In order to monitor trends in transport relative to economic development in a region, total or different modes of (generated) transport relative to the regional gross domestic product (GDPR) can be used. It is important to compare against a given year when studying the changes over time (from year to year) within each region.
However, the relationship between traffic/transportation and economic growth may be weakening. In recent EEA studies, decoupling (
i.e., economic growth will not cause a corresponding increase in transport) has been used to assess freight transport demand (CSI 036/TERM 013) and passenger transport demand (CSI 035/TERM 012) [
31,
32]. On the basis of available data, it should be possible to apply decoupling at local or regional levels.
Rebound effects are the difference between anticipated/projected energy savings and the real energy savings from implemented measures or policies [
33]. There may even be backfire effects of measures and policies when the improved energy efficiency results in an increased total energy demand. It is therefore important to consider and control rebound effects when monitoring or analysing effects in the transport system, e.g., environmental car policies or subsidies may result in increased use of vehicles or transport, yielding a net increase in transport and traffic demand [
29]. The rebound effect may therefore lead to unwanted and indirect effects on travelling behaviour or energy consumption as a result of policies or subsidies implemented to reduce the overall transport demand. However, few studies have analysed rebound effects on local and regional levels and there is a lack of empirical evidence of rebound effects, especially within transport and community planning. Rebound effects for passenger vehicles have been suggested to be around 10%–30% in Sweden, but countries with a large unmet demand for energy may have substantially higher rebound or backfire effects.
5. Conclusions
This paper describes various aspects and challenges of the currently used and proposed transport indicators and MRV available for monitoring and assessment of policies and measures in applications on local and regional scales. All methods referred have some limitations and the design of MRV therefore needs careful evaluation in order to reflect changes in local and regional transport systems and to relate those changes to specific measures and policies.
MRV of “improve” strategies, for example aiming at exchanging presently used cars with more sustainable alternatives, can be based on vehicle registry and inspection data. MRV of the use of alternative fuels and CO2 emissions, however, needs additional survey-based data collection (LRTS). Similarly, “shift” strategies, aiming at a more sustainable modal split, need to be based on LRTS, and consequently the evaluations address traffic and transportation generated in the area under study. Vehicle flow counts and transport modelling are primarily used for planning purposes and the development of scenarios, and have limited value as MRV instruments. We therefore conclude that there are no robust methods for evaluating and validating traffic and transportation performed in a defined geographical area. Further, in all cases referred to, a baseline needs to be defined in order to demonstrate additionality, i.e., effects of specific measures and policies.
In conclusion, evaluation of local and regional transport systems, and transport measures and policies is highly dependent on the design and implementation of LRTS, and there are only robust methods for evaluating “generated” traffic and transportation. However, evaluations using LRTS also need to consider the risk for rebound effects, which calls for the application of a wider systems perspective.