Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (177) (remove)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (177) (remove)
Das Ziel einer urbanen Verkehrswende ist klar definiert: mehr Fläche für städtisches Leben, weniger Lärm und klimaschädliche Emissionen und eine saubere Luft. Das bedeutet weniger Autoverkehr in den Städten und mehr Wege zu Fuß, mit dem Fahrrad, dem Tretroller oder mit dem öffentlichen Verkehr. Dabei reicht es nicht aus nur auf Innovationen und attraktive Alternativen zu setzen - es braucht auch Exnovation, also restriktive und reduzierende Ansätze für den Autoverkehr.
Dieser Zukunftsimpuls zeigt, wie die urbane Verkehrswende durch Exnovation beschleunigt und richtungssicher umgesetzt werden kann, welche Hemmnisse es bei bisher umgesetzten deutschen und europäischen Projekten gibt und welche Strategie- und Handlungsempfehlungen sich daraus ableiten lassen.
The objectives of the urban mobility transition have been clearly set out: gaining more space for urban living, reducing noise and emissions that have a negative impact on the climate and improving air quality. That means less traffic in cities and more trips made using environmentally-friendly modes of transport - i.e., walking, cycling or foot scooters or public transport. In transport policy, the focus is generally on innovative approaches to shaping the mobility transition.
This paper aims to explain the concept of exnovation in the context of the urban mobility transition and to underpin it using specific practical examples. In the course of this process, it is intended to identify the obstacles that stand in the way of rolling out the concept on an area-wide basis in order to deduce strategies and courses of action for expanding the concept in the future.
The transformation of urban mobility systems causes financial costs for the procurement and operation of innovative products and services and for the adaptation of existing infrastructure. While public budgets are limited, investments in infrastructure and transport services compete against other spending priorities, and private investors often are reluctant to invest into sustainable transport projects. Thus, cities need to seek additional funding and financing options and to develop business models to attract private sector investments in the development of the urban transport system. Moreover, financing schemes should cover the entire SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning) cycle, starting from planning, to project implementation and procurement up to the operation and maintenance of services and infrastructures.
This requires the blending of different revenue sources, including:
project related revenue sources such as public transport fares and the lease of advertising space in buses;
the extension of the local tax base, for example through the introduction of road user charges and parking fees or the use of value capture mechanisms;
National, bilateral, and European grants;
Debt financing through loans and other instruments such as issuing green bonds. Finally, a prudential engagement of the private sector in infrastructure development and service provision can reduce the direct burden on public budgets while enhancing service quality. The applicability of specific financing options critically depends on the national legislative environment. Many of the instruments and case examples presented here may not be transferred to other Member States due to the different distribution of responsibilities and powers between the political levels in the Member States. This report, however, can inspire the search for potential funding and financing sources and is therefore aimed not only at local and regional authorities but also at decisionmakers at the national level. Still, whether a specific instrument can be used in a Member State needs to be assessed on a case-by-case base.
What is necessary to reach net zero emissions in the transport sector on a global level? To keep limiting global warming to 1.5° C within reach, the world has to decarbonise by mid-century, with every sector contributing as much as possible as soon as possible. This paper identifies what has to be done in road transport, aviation, and shipping to achieve net zero emission in the transport sector.
For this purpose, it first sets the scene by providing an overview of the origins and impacts of the concept of net zero emissions in international climate policy as well as of the current state and future prospects of global transport emissions using currently available scenarios for low-emission and net zero transport.
While for staying below 1.5° C, the basic approach to reducing transport emissions remains unchanged from what has been suggested in the past, the set, intensity and pace of actions as to shift fundamentally. Without first drastically reducing traffic volume and shifting transport demand to low-emission modes, reaching net zero transport will not be feasible: the amount of additional electricity required to fully electrify the sector with renewable energy is otherwise just too huge.
After portraying key instruments for achieving net zero emissions in land transport, aviation, and shipping, this paper identifies key barriers for net zero transport. Based on this analysis, the authors recommend the following to be able to move transport to net zero:
1. Adapt Decarbonisation Strategies to Different Transport Sub-sectors
2. Prioritise and Significantly Increase Investment in Zero-/low-carbon Infrastructure
3. Massively Invest in the Development and Roll out of Zero-/low-emission Technologies
4. Focus on a Just Transition to Overcome Social and Political Barriers
5. Increase International Support and Cooperation
Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement establishes a new mechanism for Parties to cooperate in achieving their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). One key innovation of the Article 6.4 mechanism is its objective to "deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions" (Art. 6.4(d)). This report develops recommendations on how to implement this objective. A key difficulty lies in the fact that even basics of how the mechanism is supposed to function have so far not been clarified by the Parties. The report therefore first sketches out what has so far been agreed and discussed on the mechanism’s activity cycle. Second, as the concept of overall mitigation has so far also not been clearly defined by Parties, the report derives a working definition from the language that was agreed in the Paris Agreement. In the next step, the report provides a survey of the options to achieve overall mitigation that have so far been discussed in the relevant literature and in the Article 6 negotiations. Many of these options were developed in the context of the Kyoto mechanisms. The report therefore discusses to what extent the options are also applicable under the Paris Agreement or whether adjustments need to be made. In the following, the options that are applicable under the Agreement are assessed on the basis of a number of criteria. The report concludes with a summary of the main findings and recommendations.