Home » Economics (Page 3)
Category Archives: Economics
On micro mobility use of low-income people
We conclude September 2023 with another article share. This time it is about how low-income people use micro mobility.
Wilson, K. (September 20, 2023) “Study: How Low-Income People Really Use Micromobility,” StreetsBlog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/09/20/study-how-low-income-people-really-use-micromobility [Last accessed: 9/30/2023]
To quote from the article:
“Low-income people are using shared micromobility a lot like they use public transit, a new study finds — and researchers think cities should thoroughly embrace (and subsidize) the mode as part of the larger ecosystem of buses and trains.
Researchers at Monash University, using survey data from micromobility giant Lime users across all income levels in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, dug deeper into how low-income people uniquely use the company’s vehicles.
Participants in the Lime Access program, which grants discounts of around “70 or 80 percent” to riders who qualify, were significantly more likely to list essential reasons like “shopping” for groceries (35 percent) and “commuting” (31 percent) than non-Access riders, 11 and 21 percent of whom rode to complete errands or go to work, respectively.
The discount recipients were also highly unlikely to go use bikes and scooters for non-essential reasons like social outings (12 percent), “joy-riding” (9 percent) or exploring (2 percent), quashing the stereotype that all micromobility trips are spontaneously generated. And a whopping 44 perccent of their trips connected to a traditional transit ride, compared to just 23 percent of people who paid full price.ago
Perhaps the most surprising findings, though, were riders’ qualitative responses about what micromobility meant to them, and how their lives were made better by having access to affordable ways to get around without a car. Calvin Thigpen — director of policy research for Lime and co-author of the report — says he was particularly moved by the number of riders with invisible disabilities who said Lime Access helped them get where they needed to go, even when local transit schedules didn’t meet their needs.”
The study was made in the First World (i.e., US, Australia and New Zealand) so while the methodology is sound, the subjects (i.e., what they defined as low-income) are not quite the same as low-income people in low to medium-income countries. The poor in the latter countries have more difficult lives but then these countries may already have the modes for them to be mobile – paratransit. Motorized tricycles, pedicabs and motorcycle taxis have been operating in these countries way before the arrival (or definition) of micromobilities.
–
Article share: On the benefits of sidewalk networks
Here is another quick share of an article by Todd Litman on Planetizen. The article contains a lot of information or data about why we should be investing in sidewalks or pedestrian facilities (i.e., for walking).
Litman, T. (August 6, 2023) “Completing Sidewalk Networks: Benefits and Costs,” Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/124999-completing-sidewalk-networks-benefits-and-costs?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news-08142023&mc_cid=cd3b2e2ba5&mc_eid=9ccfe464b1 [Last accessed: 9/23/2023]
To quote from the article:
“Walking is the most basic and universal travel mode, and sidewalks are the most basic walking infrastructure, but they are often overlooked and undervalued in transportation planning. Completing and improving sidewalk networks can help achieve many economic, social and environmental goals.
Recent case studies indicate that typical North American communities spend $30 to $60 annually per capita on sidewalks, and would need to double or triple these spending levels to complete their networks. This is a large increase compared with current pedestrian spending but small compared with what governments and businesses spend on roads and parking facilities, and what motorists spend on their vehicles. Sidewalk funding increases are justified to satisfy ethical and legal requirements, and to achieve various economic, social and environmental goals. There are several possible ways to finance sidewalk improvements. These usually repay their costs thorough savings and benefits.”
–
Another look at home location choices
I recently shared an article showing the results of a survey conducted in the US. That survey appears to show that Americans prefer sprawl. But that may be due to many factors including political leanings that are actually mentioned in the article. I share another article that appears to be a reaction to the first one.
Lewyn, M. (August 14, 2023) “Do Americans Really Prefer Sprawl?” Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/125112-do-americans-really-prefer-sprawl?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news-08142023&mc_cid=cd3b2e2ba5&mc_eid=9ccfe464b1 [Last accessed: 8/16/2023]
To quote from the article:
“Why do these surveys yield such drastically different results? The Pew survey notes that 3/4 of rural respondents favor the less walkable alternative; thus, that survey was apparently designed to include a representative sample of Americans, including rural Americans who typically do live in very spread-out environments. It seems to me quite natural that rural Americans would prefer rural lifestyles.
But once rural respondents are excluded, the balance between sprawl and walkable communities in the Pew survey becomes almost a toss-up. 57 percent of urban respondents refer houses with smaller yards and more walkability, and an almost-equal percentage of suburban respondents prefer the opposite.”
Again, I wonder what would be the outcomes if a similar survey were done in the Philippines. Will it reveal preferences for single detached homes rather than condos? Who will prefer the latter or the former? What could be the factors affecting home location choices in the Philippines? Cost is definitely a major factor. Commuting times perhaps and even commuting costs? But how do people weigh these factors? And what other influences are there to the decisions to purchase homes?
–
Article share: On the busiest shipping routes
Here is an article on maritime transportation. I don’t get to feature similar topics here as mostly I have written about land and air transport. I thought this article is interesting because it describes maritime transport traffic volume. Statistics like these appear to be trivial but are important especially from the perspective of logistics as well as, if you delve in to it, maritime security.
Piper, G. (July 11, 2023) “The busiest shipping routes in the world by the numbers,” Medium, https://grantpiperwriting.medium.com/the-busiest-shipping-routes-in-the-world-by-the-numbers-c09571ad5af6 [Last accessed: 8/2/2023]
To quote from the article:
“The vast majority of world trade sees Asia as the focal point. Both Europe and North America do heavy volumes of trade with Asia, mostly imports. But three of the five busiest shipping routes in the world are all internal routes. Europe-Europe, North America-North America, and Asia-Asia. That means that vast amounts of global trade are still relatively local.
Large importers like the United States and England drive massive amounts of trade. Large exporters, like China, Korea, and Japan, also drive massive amounts of trade. The areas where these terminuses link up are the busiest hotspots for global trade.”
A while back in 2004-2005, I was involved in an inter-regional passenger and freight flow study in the Philippines. We gathered data on maritime transport and were able to derive the OD tables for inter-regional and inter-island passenger and freight flow. Unfortunately, those studies and surveys had no follow-up or updating afterwards. There is a saying that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” This applies to transport as well so perhaps there are data somewhere and someone’s using them. We hope government agencies are able to collect the data required to analyze and improve maritime transport in the country.
–
On using Google Maps to determine the best route from the pollution perspective
I saw this article on digital maps (i.e., Google Maps) being used to determine the best route for traveling between an origin and destination on land. It is interesting because what we usually use as basis for selecting our routes (assuming we can do so since people taking public transport basically have fewer options due to PUVs having mostly fixed routes) are travel time, travel distance and travel cost. Here is the article discussing the addition of fuel efficiency and emissions to the criteria:
Calma, J. (July 25, 2023) “People are using Google Maps to cut down tailpipe pollution,” The Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/24/23805652/google-maps-fuel-efficient-routes-transportation-emissions [Last accessed: 7/29/2023]
To quote from the article:
“According to Google’s own analysis, many drivers are taking the path of least pollution in their cars. To calculate the tailpipe emissions that prevented, the company compared how much fuel Maps users likely consumed on the routes they drove to how much fuel they would have burned through had they taken the fastest route without its eco-friendly routing tool. The savings amounted to 1.2 million metric tons of avoided CO2 emissions between October 2021, when Google launched the tool, and December 2022.”
While this seems to be a first foray into the including of eco-friendly items in route choice, these items are already and actually included in many travel planners including those used by people selecting which flights to take. We probably just didn’t notice them before or the information were not explicitly stated or posted. Would this really affect or influence the way we travel like how it is reported in the article? Or do we continue to go with the usual and familiar routes?
–
Article on “Fair Share Transportation Planning”
I am sharing this new article from Todd Litman on fair share transportation planning. The content is relevant and very timely in the Philippines considering many people including and especially transport officials are struggling with the thought of allocating resources to provide or improve facilities geared towards more equitable transport systems (e.g., more facilities for active transport).
Here’s the summary as quoted from the article:
“To be efficient and equitable, a transportation system must serve diverse demands. A diverse transportation system allows travelers to use the most efficient option for each trip—safe walking and bicycling for local errands, efficient public transit when traveling on busy travel corridors, and automobiles when they are truly the most cost-effective mode considering all impact—and it ensures that people who cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive receive their fair share of public investments.
Current transportation planning practices are biased in various ways that overinvest in automobile infrastructure and underinvest in more affordable, inclusive, and efficient modes. It is time for planners to reconsider our analysis methods and funding practices to ensure that non-auto modes, and therefore non-drivers, receive their fair share of transportation resources.
This is not anti-car. Motorists have good reasons to support more investments in non-auto modes that reduce their traffic and parking congestion, reduce their chauffeuring burdens and crash risk, and provide better options when their vehicles are unavailable. Everybody wins from a more diverse and efficient transportation system.”
A Serious Critique of Congestion Costs and Induced Vehicle Travel Impacts
Here is a quick share for today. This is an article by Todd Litman critiquing congestion costs and induced vehicle travel impacts:
Quoting from the article:
It is time for planners to rethink the way we evaluate congestion problems and solutions. Vehicle travel is not an end in itself; our ultimate goal is to improve accessibility. Traffic congestion is one constraint on accessibility, but others are more important. For example, the study, “Does Accessibility Require Density or Speed?” found that a given increase in urban density, and therefore proximity, has a far greater impact on overall accessibility than an increase in travel speed, and therefore congestion reductions. This is particularly true of disadvantaged groups who cannot drive or are financially burdened by vehicle expenses.
It is irresponsible for transportation agencies to expand highways in ways that contradict other community goals. If they do nothing, at worst, traffic congestion will maintain equilibrium; people will manage within its constraints. Even better, transportation agencies can invest in resource-efficient alternatives—better walking, bicycling, public transit, and telework opportunities—that improve accessibility, increasing transportation system efficiency.
If we truly want to truly optimize our transportation systems, we need a more comprehensive analysis of impacts and options, including the full costs of urban highway expansions and the full benefits of non-auto mode improvements and TDM incentives. Highway expansion should be a solution of last resort, only implemented when all other solutions have failed and users are willing to pay the full costs through tolls.
It’s time to stop obsessing about congestion and instead strive for efficient accessibility that serves everybody in the community.
Source: A Serious Critique of Congestion Costs and Induced Vehicle Travel Impacts
A brief history of transport strikes – Part 4: impacts and implications
What was supposed to be a week-long transport strike by jeepney drivers and operators was called off yesterday. Frontpage news showed a photo of representatives of protestors with government officials. Government official statements also declare that the government will be talking with the transport sector to sort out issues and to try to address these in relation to the PUV Modernization Program (PUVMP). One day earlier, government was quick to state that the strike had no impact on transport. Were there really no impacts?
I think the fact that schools went back to online mode and offices allowed employees to work from home show the impacts of the transport strike. If you haven’t noticed, the government has been using the tactic of cancellation of classes for quite some time now. To reduce the impacts of transport strikes on commuters, classes on all levels were canceled, thereby reducing transport demand. The only difference now is that there is capacity for online classes due to adjustments made during the height of the pandemic. So instead of cancelling classes altogether, schools reverted to online mode. Meanwhile, for those who needed to go to their workplaces and did not have their own vehicles, there were various free rides (libreng sakay) services provided by national and local government agencies. Cities like Quezon City already operated their own bus services so people could take these instead of their usual PUV modes for commuting.
What are the implications of the shortened strike? The shortened strike has various implications. One is that it showed the protesters did not have enough resources to sustain the strike. It also showed that transport leaders appear to just want some attention from government. A colleague commented about this being something like a show or the strike being part of a game of “bad cop, good cop” among government officials and agencies. If you haven’t noticed, this has been going on for some time now. Government already knows how to reduce the potential impacts of protests like this. Suspending classes in schools significantly reduces the travel demand on a typical weekday. Offices giving their employees the option to work from home during the strike also adds to the reduction in travel demand. And libreng sakay vehicles are easier to deploy as agencies and LGUs have vehicles for this purpose. Meanwhile, the continuing rise in motorcycle ownership also contributed to people being able to still commute (i.e., having the motorcycle taxi option). At least for Metro Manila, once the railway projects are completed, there will be a railway option for commutes. Barring a simultaneous strike with buses and vans, protests from the jeepney sector will surely be diminished.
–
A brief history of transport strikes – Part 2: reasons for a strike
The current transport strike is not about fare hikes or the rising prices of fuel. Those are the most common reasons for jeepney drivers and operators going on strike. It’s quite simple for these reasons: Drivers protest when government refuses to increase fare rates amidst rising costs of operations and maintenance. And they don’t when fares are reduced as fuel prices are going down.
The Department of Transportation (DOTr) through its Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is tasked with evaluating operations and maintenance costs of public utility vehicles and prescribe the minimum and incremental fares for these services. Fare hikes (and reductions) are the consequence of fuel price increases (or decreases) but are not set as dynamic or automatic. Fuel prices, as can be observed, can fluctuate and currently change every week. Fares are not automatically adjusted whether fuel prices are increasing or decreasing and are heavily regulated by government in part to supposedly protect the interests of the riding public. As such, fare matrices or the structured fares according to the various routes and the distances covered by public utility vehicles
The reason for the current transport strike is generalized as a jeepney phaseout. The term ‘phaseout’ actually refers to the PUV Modernization Program (PUVMP) of the government that seeks to replace all conventional jeepneys with ‘modern’ or ‘modernized’ units. The latter include mini-bus types as well as those that retain the conventional jeepney form but usually larger and with newer engines and interior layout. This is not necessarily a phaseout like the one I described in Part 1 along the LRT Line 1 corridor.
Again, much of the opposition cites the high cost (and therefore unaffordable) of a modern jeepney. The financing schemes currently available as well as the requirement for jeepney operators and drivers to be part of a transport cooperative to avail of these financing schemes are still considered unacceptable by many. And yet, government seems unwilling to extend resources in order for operators and drivers to be able to afford a new vehicle. The old jeepneys would still have some value but definitely not near a substantial down payment needed for low monthly payments. These monthly payments cannot be covered by the typical boundary (basically rent) for operators or the daily income for drivers.*
What is the cost of replacing conventional jeepneys with new, ‘modernized’ vehicles? Well, let’s assume that a new vehicle costs 2.4M pesos. Also, perhaps cover only the ones operating in the urban setting (i.e., exclude for now those serving provincial routes especially those used also for freight (e.g., top loads)), say 50% of the estimated 250,000 units need to be replaced. That goes up to 300 billion pesos. If we were to replace only Metro Manila jeepneys, that will be 132 billion pesos. These numbers can be compared to the cost of major projects like the Metro Manila Subway (488 billion), the Bataan-Cavite interlink bridge (175 billion) and the New Manila International Airport in Bulacan (735 billion). Would it be worth it (benefits-wise) to invest in new jeepneys?
–
*Of course, this also indicates a flawed business model for jeepney operations. But that’s another story.
Article share: On a future with fewer cars
Advocates of sustainable transport including those pushing for more efficient public transport and more bike lanes often cite what is supposed to be car ownership data from past studies like the one conducted by JICA for Mega Manila. Most recently, I read an article that mentions only 5% of Filipinos own a car so they shouldn’t be hogging the road space against the rest. It seems so simple yet does not take into consideration geographic and demographic factors. It seems to underestimate vehicle ownership across the country and especially in cities. Also, do we equate vehicle ownership with just car ownership? Many may not have cars per se but own and operate motorcycles or tricycles.
I share the following article from the Washington Post as it presents on initiatives and studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers concerning car ownership in the US. The data is presented in a way that we can clearly understand car ownership from various perspective including income level, household size, age and disability, among others.
Aratani, L. (February 18, 2023) “How a future with fewer cars may change how communities are designed,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/18/automobile-ownership-street-design/ [Last accessed: 2/27/2023]
Here is an excerpt from the article: “There are people who are car-free and those who are carless. The car-free are the people who are choosing not to have a vehicle because they have access to other means of transportation or they work from home. The carless are people who either can’t afford or don’t have access to a car for other reasons.”
It would be nice to have a similar data set and analysis for the Philippines so we can really understand mode choice or preferences with respect to various factors including household income. Among the data sets we can probably use are the census data and the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) that are regularly collected and from which we can ascertain vehicle ownership vs. various parameters.
–
Caught (up) in traffic 