Elsevier

Transport Policy

Volume 18, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 139-146
Transport Policy

Autos, transit and bicycles: Comparing the costs in large Chinese cities

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This study compares the full costs of seven passenger modes in the large Chinese cities facing the difficult yet crucial choice among alternative passenger transportation systems. The seven modes are evaluated at varied traffic volumes in hypothetical radial and circumferential commuting corridors. Using detailed estimates of private and social costs, the full cost of each mode is minimized by optimizing infrastructure investment and operation plans. On all corridors and across different scenarios, commuting by one or more forms of bus transit or bicycle costs less than automobile or rail. Nonetheless, in circumferential corridors, rail can be almost as cost-effective as bus under certain conditions, and bicycle can be less cost-effective than bus in some cases. Unlike results from similar studies conducted in the US, automobile commuting does not cost less than bus transportation at low traffic volumes.

Introduction

China’s rapid economic growth, urbanization and motorization have placed great strain on its urban transportation system. Urban road systems and automobile ownership have grown so rapidly, that many are worried about the challenges of automobile-oriented development to sustainable development. Despite the high cost, mass rail transit is now viewed by mayors and planners of many large Chinese cities as the answer to urban transportation problems. At the same time, less expensive bus transit is often inadequate to meet the demand of travel, and the future of bicycle transportation is threatened by growing share of road space taken by motor vehicles and their safety threats for cyclists. Urban transport planning and investment decisions are very important to China and the world in that they affect the efficiency and sustainability of Chinese cities, now representing substantial and growing shares of the global population and economy. Unfortunately, no quantitative study on the costs of major transportation technologies and systems in Chinese cities has been conducted.

This study assesses seven modal alternatives by comparing the sum of land, capital, operating, travel time, safety and environmental costs of major passenger modes on hypothetical urban commuting corridors. Large cities with populations between 1.5 and 3 millions (a total of 26 existed in late 2007) are of particular interest to this study for two reasons. First, 12 out of the 14 cities with populations larger than three million have already been operating and/or constructing rail transit systems, while none of the cities with populations of less than 1.5 million have rail transit system plans close to being approved by the state. Second, these cities – generally provincial or sub-provincial economic centers – are among the fastest growing cities in terms of population and motorization. China’s rapid growth is forcing regional-center cities to invest heavily and hastily in transportation systems, often without conducting appropriate assessments of a diverse range of alternatives. This is becoming increasingly important as rocketing housing costs in megacities are incurring the growth of previously less attractive provincial capitals and prefecture-level cities. It is expected that more cities will enter the critical size category of these cities in the near future.

This study builds on a series of studies developed for Western industrialized cities following the seminal work of Meyer et al. (1965). The research of Meyer et al. compared the capital and operating costs of rail, bus and automobile for commute travel in typical US urban corridors. They found the relative costs of these four modes to be dependent on traffic volumes in the corridor. Automobile was the least costly mode in corridors with low volumes, bus the least costly in corridors with intermediate or higher volumes and rail in some situations the least costly in corridors with high volumes. The work of Meyer et al. was followed by a number of others. For example, Boyd et al., 1973, Boyd et al., 1978 added traveler time cost into the comparison between rail and bus; while Keeler and Small (1975) conducted a full-cost comparison of rail, bus and auto with optimized modal investments and operations.1 Relevant studies that are more recent include Pickrell (1990), Kain (1997) and GAO (2001), focusing more on actual versus forecasted system performance rather than abstract comparison. In general, previous studies agree that socially optimal modal planning is dependent on corridor volume. However, the exact volume thresholds between auto, bus and rail remain controversial.

This study extends the existing literature in three respects. First, it provides benchmark cost estimations for the specific socio-economic and spatial contexts of Chinese cities. In addition to radial corridors, circumferential corridors are modeled for the first time. Second, this study includes a wider range of modes not previously considered, most notably the bicycle, a mode with large presence in Chinese cities. In addition to the bicycle, the arterial-street bus, bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT) are included. This study also considers expanded categories of costs, including those from noise pollution and global warming. Third, this study adopts a more sophisticated methodology than previous studies by optimizing vehicle size, train length and the capacity of highways varying along radial corridors.

Section 2 describes the analytical framework in three parts: the representative large Chinese city and corridors; characteristics of the alternative modes, including optimal investment in and operation of these modes; and the allocation of fixed costs. Data sources and intermediary estimates are discussed in Section 3. Section 4 presents the results of intermodal comparisons, including sensitivity analyses. Section 5 concludes the paper with policy implications and study limitations, and contrasts China and US results.

Section snippets

Methodology

The full-cost intermodal comparison accounts for major categories of quantifiable costs, including: capital, operation, user time, safety and environmental costs. It is important to note that the comparison excludes costs related to service reliability and levels of comfort, convenience and privacy, typically reflected by the alternative-specific constants (ASCs) in demand analysis. Costs represented by the ASCs are excluded primarily because of the lack of quality estimates from Chinese data

Data

The different costs required are estimated from a variety of primary and secondary sources. Land costs are calculated according to Wang (2009), which estimates the land price of Chinese cities as a function of distance from urban center, population size and average per capita GDP based on benchmark land prices published by city governments.3

Results

Although the results for all four types of corridors will be discussed, the short radial corridor is used as the primary example because of its increasing importance to commuters in large Chinese cities. Additionally, it is more comparable than circumferential corridors to corridors commonly studied in Western cities.

Different modes vary considerably in the composition of their costs, and these differences affect intermodal cost comparison under different circumstances. Generally, capital costs

Conclusions and discussions

Through comparing the full social costs of different urban passenger modes, this study provides a benchmark evaluation of the social desirability of alternative passenger modes in large Chinese cities with 1.5 to 3 million residents. Policymakers of these cities can draw the following from this study.

First, the bicycle is the most cost-effective option for radial commuting corridors, especially for relatively short trip lengths. However, it is not as competitive as the bus on ring corridors in

References (20)

  • J.H. Boyd et al.

    Nontechnological innovation in urban transit: a comparison of some alternative

    Journal of Urban Economics

    (1978)
  • C.R. Cherry et al.

    Comparative environmental impacts of electric bikes in China

    Transportation Research Part D

    (2009)
  • ALMEC Corp. and Chodai Co., Ltd., 2001. Study for Public Transportation Improvement in Chengdu City in the People's...
  • Bertaud, A., Malpezzi, S., 2003. The Spatial Distribution of Population in 48 World Cities: Implications for Economies...
  • Boyd, J.H., Asher, N.J., Wetzler, E.S., 1973. Evaluation of rail rapid transit and express bus service in the urban...
  • Cherry, C.R., 2007. Electric two-wheelers in china: analysis of environmental, safety, and mobility impacts, Ph.D....
  • Gaubatz, P.R., 1995. Urban transformation in post-Mao China: impacts of the reform era on China s urban form. In:...
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2001. Mass transit: bus rapid transit shows promise. united states general...
  • S.P.S. Ho et al.

    Emerging land markets in rural and urban china: policies and practices

    The China Quarterly

    (2003)
  • J.F. Kain

    Cost-effective alternatives to atlanta’s costly rail transit system

    Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

    (1997)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (43)

  • Environmental impacts of bicycling in urban areas: A micro-simulation approach

    2023, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment
  • The relationships between traffic enforcement, personal norms and aggressive driving behaviors among normal e-bike riders and food delivery e-bike riders

    2021, Transport Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    Studies found that participants rode faster on e-bikes than on conventional bikes (Cherry et al., 2016; Vlakveld et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2018). With all the advantages the e-bike offers (i.e., higher speed, more flexibility, and convenience) (Cherry and Cervero, 2007; Kaplan et al., 2018; Wang, 2011), its disadvantages are also obvious that is their higher speeds and greater weight may cause more serious collisions (Poos et al., 2017). However, e-bike riders travel on the same dedicated lanes as traditional cyclists and are subject to the same regulations.

  • Social cost in construction projects

    2017, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
    Citation Excerpt :

    Yuan et al. (2013) classified social costs in four main categories for residential building constructions, namely impact on the community, impact on the economy, impact on the environment and public property, and these categories consist of eleven social costs such as; the cost of damage on health; the cost of civil damage rights; effect on the transportation costs; decision-making errors costs; loss of income; loss of decreased productivity; loss of revenues; the cost of pollution; resource costs; property damage; and the destruction of the original building by any effect of the adjacent construction. Wang (2011) analyses the urban underground expressway constructions based on social costs and determine specific social costs for these types of constructions. The social costs determined by Wang (2011) are pollution, traffic delays, access restrictions, other costs, safety and pavement damage.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Funding Source: The Harvard China Project, the Taubman Center and the Asia Programs at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences provided partial funds for this research.

View full text