Estrategia de divulgación

Do the constructed scenarios increase the degree to which the sustainability targets are fulfilled? In other words, do they realise a sustainable development for mobility? In figure 5.1, the results are presented.

Lost vehicle hours

Fatalities Area with

noise nuisance CO2 emissions Nox emissions PM10 emissions

Accessibility Traffic Safety Liveability Nature and environment

0 50 100 150 200 250 2050 GE 2050 TT 2050 CC 2050 ECT

Figure 5.1 The sustainable mobility targets under all the scenarios in 2050 (index 2000 = 100)

Overall, one can conclude that all three scenarios contribute to a sustainable development for mobility. Except for accessibility, all pillars show a decrease compared to the current

situation (2000).The lost vehicle hours do decrease compared to the reference scenario, however the measures cannot compete with the traffic growth in the GE scenario. It is also striking that all scenarios reach their targets for liveability and nature and environment, this means no noise nuisance and zero emissions. Furthermore, the scenario with conscious consumers shows some differences in comparison with the other scenarios. In the CC scenario, accessibility decreases most, while traffic safety increases most.

5.2 Benefits and costs

The results of a comparison of benefits and costs on scenario level and per sustainable mobility pillar are presented in figure 5.2.

-6,0 -4,0 -2,0 0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 Average 0,8 4,1 0,8 0,8 -0,1 0,6 0,8 2,8 0,5 2,8 2,8 2,8 -2,2 -1,4 -1,4

TT CC ECT TT CC ECT TT CC ECT TT CC ECT TT CC ECT

Overall Accessibility Traffic safety Liveability Nature and

environment

Figure 5.2 Net benefits in billion euros per sustainable mobility pillar per scenario

Overall

On scenario scale, conscious consumers (CC) shows the highest net benefit range, 2.5 to 5.6 billion euro. Emerging new technologies (TT), has a net range of -0.4 to 2.0 billion euro. Exploiting conventional technologies (ECT) shows comparable net benefits of -0.6 to 2.2 billion euro. The higher value for CC is mainly due to the higher net benefit range achieved for the traffic safety measures. Another striking outcome of the figures is the uncertainties in the nature and environment pillar, where ranges are wider than average benefits. The

measures under the liveability pillar were equal in all scenarios, and thus have no influence on scenario comparison.

Accessibility

In the TT scenario, the automated highway system (AHS) results in the highest net benefits, 0.6 to 1.0 billion euro. A lower net benefit range is found in the ECT scenario, due to a kilometre charge, net benefits range from 0.3 to 0.8 billion euro. The lowest net benefit range was found in the CC scenario. Due to the lowest reduction in lost vehicle hours by low speed automation, a range of 0.0 to -0.2 billion euros is the result. Nonetheless, the range for CC could be higher if all benefits were monetised. In both the TT and the ECT scenario, the most benefits originate from reducing external effects like safety and environmental costs. The automated highway in the TT scenario however, has higher accessibility effects due to the improvement in reliability of travel time, which according to recent studies plays an important role in valuing travel time.

The sustainable safe infrastructure in the CC scenario has comparable benefits to the

automated highways system in the TT scenario. The costs per year however, are considerable lower in the CC scenario, mainly due to a longer depreciation period of infrastructure

compared to in-vehicle technology. This results in a net benefit of 2.5 to 3.1 billion euro in the CC scenario and 1.0 to 1.4 billion euro in the TT scenario. Although the black box in the ECT scenario has the lowest safety effect of the observed measures, the benefits do outweigh the costs.

Liveability

The noise abatement measures are identical in every scenario. By implementing silent asphalt and replacing standard tires by silent tires, costs are low compared to the benefits.

Nature and environment

The optimised conventional vehicles (ICEV) on biofuels in the ECT scenario have a negative cost benefit ratio, however still the lowest net cost range of 2.7 to -0.1 billion euro. The fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) in the CC scenario have a slightly lower net cost range of 2.5 to 0.3 billion euro. The Battery electric vehicles (BEV) in the TT scenario also come close, however with a lower net cost range of 3.7 to 0.6 billion euro. These figures suggest that none of the measures is interesting. If choosing a technology measure is required, optimising the ICEV seems to be the best alternative, although the differences are minimal. There are however, some striking findings in respect of the measures under the nature and environment pillar. They all have the same uncertainties. Moreover, these uncertainties all have

bandwidths wide enough to make a difference in the outcome of the present analysis. First, there is the valuation of CO2. Due to uncertainties about this valuation, the bandwidth is 3.1

billion euro. The same applies for the oil price, with a bandwidth width of 3.0 billion euro. Using the current oil price, which is used as a maximum in the oil price bandwidth, would make all measures close to positive on benefits. As a third uncertainty, all the measures deal with additional car costs. The future developments of these costs have a major influence on the future passenger car. This is not only because the costs are high, but also because of their wide bandwidth. For the BEV, FCEV and the optimised ICEV the width of the bandwidths are respectively 2.1, 4.1 and 2.7 billion euro. These uncertainties are mainly caused by technologic barriers that need to be overcome and related learning potentials. For example, when the additional costs for FCEV develop according to the most positive expectations and the additional car costs of BEVs and ICEVs do not; this would make the FCEV technology the most beneficial. On the other hand if the optimised ICEV or BEV overcomes the barriers this could be decisive too. For the battery vehicle, there is even a fourth uncertainty. The design speed reduction, necessary for action radius reasons, can cause considerable welfare losses. These are not brought into account. However, the speed reduction also improves traffic safety, results in energy savings and reliability improvements of travel time, which are not monetised either.