歐盟總部城市之綠色通勤政策

布魯塞爾地鐵Photo by Bruce Chung(2001)

自歐盟總部進駐布魯塞爾，原本就是交通樞紐的比利時，此後既是國家，也是歐洲區域政府總部所在地。

最近歐盟公布比利時政府【從家去工作旅次(HTWT)】綠色運輸研究計畫成果。該計畫收集2005年與2008年計八千至一萬個工作場所的通勤活動當樣本，希望從旅次行為分析找出適合比利時的最佳綠色通勤政策方案。

該綠色通勤政策研究結論建議，若能幫員工補貼薪資、增加自行車相關設施、改進公共運輸時刻表資訊、限縮汽車停車格等方式，並強調整合多種政策比執行單一政策，效果會更好。

要怎麼評論這報告呢? 研究結論完全沒亮點! 全都是綠色運輸常識，重點還是要看執政者怎麼落實吧。 

影響市民選擇通勤的方式，不外乎貨幣成本、時間成本與方不方便等因素，住比利時的人至今通勤方式還是每人開台小客車上班為主，要提出有以立刻可行的政策方案，可不是單一問題而已。有時很難苛求制式官方研究報告有新意，委外或自辦的研究報告只是眾多決策輔助方式之一，畢竟不是純理論的學術產品，政策研究報告就是要能真正對政策執行有幫助才是好報告。

推測該計畫應該是先採問卷方式建立研究資料庫，而受訪者若聽到可以改騎單車就能加薪，除非通勤路線距離遙不可及，或不得不利用汽車順便搭載親人上班上學等因素，一定很樂於承認願意從開車通勤改換成騎自行車。相對於給通勤族吃紅蘿蔔(獎勵誘因)，提供詳細公共運輸時刻表只能突顯城市公共運輸缺陷；至於悶棍政策(間接懲罰)，無非減少汽車停車位，加強取締等手法。至於報告結論提到，替代措施能整合優於單一補助措施，這還真是不知如何評論的結論。

台北公車候車亭與路線圖

我們也必須承認 : 若大眾運輸外部環境與基礎設施能改變，比利時政府早就改了! 不用等到現在才來討論綠色運輸政策研究。至於準確時刻表，看來，只是整體運輸環境中的衍生細節，我倒覺得這是小而不容易作到的重要綠色通勤目標。例如以台北市這麼綿密而方便的公車網路，多數會寫著十到十五分鐘一班取代固定時刻，少數標示為固定班次的路線，代表行車間距長，剛好能搭上是你的運氣與福氣。搭配捷運路網的普及，台北市公車系統雖然不如日本準時，已非常具有可靠度。捷運雖然有準確可方便掌握的通勤旅行時間，興建成本卻偏高，不是大多數開發中國家可以輕易負擔的公共投資。有捷運的歐洲或亞洲國家，捷運路網也都不容易涵蓋並滿足所有不同經濟收入階級的通勤族。

公共制度問題背後，代表著千萬人與人之間的協調工夫，一張看來不起眼的公車時刻表，背後代表著千百個枝微末節的行政溝通動作與執行能力! 準確的時刻表，代表著趨近完善的制度設計與運作機制。

最佳政策方案多半是充滿夢想的臆測場景，放在真實通勤世界，還是每一個人與家戶針對自身利益與便利的選擇問題。

改搭單車就加薪，聽起來很不錯，但加多少錢才願意改騎單車上班，若有幾天來不及改回開車，需要或怎麼調整薪水紅利？有清楚的公車時刻表又如何？在鄉下地方一天只有兩班公車也沒人抱怨，大城市裡一小時有一班公車都可能被嫌不夠方便。

我猜，比利時政府交通規劃單位官員們遇上台灣官員，一定有聊不完的話題。回想首次搭上德國往比利時的火車，一腳踏上布魯塞爾市土地那一刻，感覺還真得很有回到台灣的親切感！路比較沒有那麼平，城市交通紊亂感不輸台灣。布魯塞爾交通之亂，不是南亞國家那種人車大陣的混亂，比較像是披上了換了歐洲城市風貌的外衣，鋪換成連鎖磚石路面與高級汽車的台灣城市。外來客若不熟當地交通，只能接受當地人建議，選擇搭乘昂貴計程車到達目的地。

旅行出差不同於通勤，以前看到這類報告結論，會點頭稱是，現在，習慣用另一角度想想: 

若欠缺可執行的整合目標，與其歸納出多種方案，期待畢其功於一役，或許，審慎挑一個看起來規模小，不容易統合的工作事項(如準時公車時刻表)當標竿，更能刺激綠色運輸的連鎖改變(change)！

【參考資料】http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/298na2.pdf

Greening the commute to work: best practices from company mobility
policies identified

Many workplaces have
developed mobility policies to reduce the number of staff commuting to work
using single occupant vehicles (SOVs). A new study from Belgium reveals
how companies can influence their employees’ choice of transport to work and
looks at the best ways to promote alternative means of commuting.

Greening the commute to
work: best practices from company mobility policies identified Traffic
congestion can threaten the economic competitiveness of cities and create
significant air pollution problems, whereas a successful mobility policy can
reduce the financial and environmental costs linked to employee commuting. A
variety of such initiatives has been developed by workplaces in recent years.

Previous studies into
commuter behaviour reveal that monetary and time costs, as well as convenience,
are the key factors in an individual’s choice of transport. Data were examined
from a large-scale Belgian survey, into commuter practices, conducted under the
home-to-work-travel (HTWT) programme in 2005 and 2008, led by the Belgian
Federal Public Service for Mobility and Transport. HTWT focused on the mobility
measures taken by companies and on the commuting behaviour of their staff,
providing two databases which contain information on 7460 and 9455 workplaces,
in 2005 and 2008 respectively. This represents the commuting behaviour of about
a third of all workers in Belgium.

The results of the
surveys show that the typical Belgian commuter is still highly reliant on SOVs,
with alternative modes of transport used in only a minority of workplaces. The
researchers suggest this may be as mobility policies are mainly based on the
implementation of measures promoting only one specific alternative mode of
transport, which may not suit every commuter. Out of 7460 workplaces, 4093 had
employees that predominantly used cars, whereas staff at 1368 workplaces
predominantly used public transport to commute. Bicycles were an important form
of transport at 1345 workplaces, whilst walking was found to be a ‘minority’
mode of transport.

Strategies that promoted
carpooling appear to have been unsuccessful, suggesting that it is difficult to
convince workers to take up this form of transport. The analysis interestingly
revealed that workplaces with a small number of employees are more likely to
have workers commuting by bicycle, whereas employees at larger workplaces,
located in built-up areas or in the city centres, are more likely to travel to
work by public transport.

In accordance with the
research literature, financial incentives and the provision of facilities both
appear to be good practice in promoting mobility policies. Incentives that
increase the probability of staff cycling to work were found to be additional
payment, whereby employees receive extra money with their monthly salary as an
incentive for adopting ‘greener’ methods of transport, and the loan of bicycles
by the company to staff members. Bicycle racks, sheltered bicycle sheds and
information about cycling routes also increased the likelihood of staff cycling
to work. To encourage use of public transport, the most effective measures were
additional payment and information about timetables. A shortage of car parking
spaces also increases the likelihood of workers using bicycles and public
transport to commute, indicating the potential of parking management to
influence transport choices.

Mobility policies tend to
promote only one specific alternative mode of transport to SOVs. According to
the researchers, mobility policies would therefore benefit from an integrated
vision which promotes several modes of transport.