Win-Win Transportation Solutions

Cost-Effective, Market-Based Strategies To Encourage Efficient Transport

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 27 February 2017

---

Win-Win Solutions are technically feasible, cost effective, market-based strategies that provide a combination of economic, social and environmental benefits. They remove distortions, increase consumer choice, and encourage more efficient travel behavior. They are justified for their economic benefits (reductions in congestion, facility costs, vehicle costs, crash costs) and also help achieve environmental and social objectives. They are particularly appropriate for creating more sustainable transportation systems.

What Are Win-Win Solutions?

Win-Win Transportation Solutions are technically feasible, cost effective market reforms that help solve transportation problems by removing distortions, increasing consumer options, and encouraging more efficient travel behavior. Most Win-Win Solutions require no new institutions or organizations.

Win-Win Solutions (also called Double Dividend and Policy Hitchhiking) help achieve multiple economic, social and environmental objectives, or at least they do not contradict any of these objectives. The table below illustrates this concept. Win-Win Solutions consist of the strategies that have only positive or neutral impacts in all categories.

Table 1          Identifying Win-Win Solutions

	Economic	Social/Equity	Environmental
Strategy 1	Positive	Negative	Negative
Strategy 2	Positive	Negative	Neutral
Strategy 3	Positive	Positive	Positive	Win-Win Strategy
Strategy 4	Positive	Neutral	Positive	Win-Win Strategy
Strategy 5	Negative	Positive	Positive

Win-Win Solutions consist of strategies that have only positive or neutral impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives.

Many conventional transportation improvement strategies solve one or two problems, but exacerbate others (Why Manage Transportation Demand?). For example, adding roadway capacity may help reduce traffic congestion but it tends to increase total traffic volumes and vehicle mileage, which contradicts other economic, social and environmental objectives (Rebound Effect). Fuel efficiency standards help achieve environmental objectives, but by reducing vehicle-operating costs they can increase congestion, crashes and urban sprawl (Litman 2002). Conventional transportation planning tends to undervalue Win-Win Solutions, because it overlooks many of the benefits of increased transportation diversity, and the problems that result from increased motor vehicle traffic. More Comprehensive Transport Planning is needed to identify the full potential benefits of Win-Win solutions.

Win-Win Solutions are “no regrets” measures that minimize such conflicts. They are justified regardless of the value placed on non-market environmental and social objectives. Although their individual impacts may appear modest, their combined benefits can be substantial. If fully implemented to the degree that they are economically justified Win-Win Solutions could reduce motor vehicle impacts by 15-30%, or more if coordinated with other TDM policies. They could meet Kyoto emission reduction targets while increasing consumer benefits and economic development. They are particularly important to help achieve more Sustainable Transportation.

How Win-Win Solutions Work

These are, admittedly, big claims. To understand why such large benefits are possible it is useful to consider some basic Market Principles. Efficient markets have certain requirements, including consumer choice, competition, cost-based pricing, and economic neutrality in public policies. Most markets generally reflect these principles. Consumers pay directly for most costs of producing the housing, food and clothing they use. But transportation markets often violate these principles. Win-Win Solutions tend to correct these distortions, as described in Table 2. This tends to increase Equity and Economic Development.

Table 2 Win-Win Solutions Support Market Efficiency (Market Principles)

Market Requirements	Current Market Distortions	Win-Win Solutions
Consumer options (also called consumer sovereignty). Consumers need viable transport and location options, and information about those options.	Consumers often have few viable alternatives to owning and driving an automobile, and living in automobile dependent communities.	Many Win-Win Solutions increase travel choice, directly. Virtually all increase choice indirectly by increasing demand for travel alternatives.
Competition. Producers must face competition to encourage innovation and efficient pricing.	Most roads and public transit services are provided as public monopolies. There is often little competition or incentive for innovation.	Many Win-Win Solutions remove barriers, and encourage competition and innovation.
Cost-based pricing. Prices should reflect costs as much as possible. There should be no significant external costs unless specifically justified.	Transportation in general, and driving in particular, is significantly underpriced: most costs are either fixed or external. This results in economically excessive levels of driving and automobile dependency.	Many Win-Win Solutions result in more efficient pricing. Some require subsidies, but these are often less than current subsidies for driving, or justified on equity grounds.
Economic neutrality. Public policies (laws, taxes, subsidies, and investment policies) should apply equally to comparable goods and users.	Tax policies, and many transportation planning and funding practices favor automobile traffic over demand management alternatives.	Many Win-Win Solutions help correct existing biases in transportation planning and investment practices.
Land Use. Land use policies should not favor automobile oriented development.	Zoning laws, development practices and utility pricing tend to encourage lower-density, automobile-dependent land use patterns.	Some Win-Win Solutions correct existing land use planning biases. Virtually all encourage more efficient land use by discouraging automobile dependency.

Win-Win Solutions tend to correct market distortions, resulting in a more efficient and equitable transportation system.

This is not to suggest that driving is bad, or that it provides no benefits. But in a more efficient and neutral transport market consumers would choose to drive less than they do now and be better off as a result (Litman, 2007). As an analogy, food is essential for life and therefore provides tremendous benefits. However, this does not mean that more eating is necessarily better, that current diets are optimal, or that society should subsidize all food. At the margin (relative to current consumption) many people would benefit from eating less. If taxes subsidize food, we eat more but have less of things that are taxed, such as jobs, housing and clothes. Food subsidies may be justified for undernourished people, but since over-eating can be as unhealthy as under-eating it is both economically and medically harmful to subsidize all food for everybody.

Similarly, that mobility provides benefits does not necessarily mean that more driving is better, that current levels of driving are optimal, or that driving should be subsidized. Transport underpricing is harmful because it requires subsidies from other economic sectors and results in excessive travel that increases many problems. Public policies that favor roadway investments, and automobile-oriented land use patterns are also harmful overall because they reduce travel choices and result in inefficient use of resources.

These inefficiencies are cumulative, so analysis of just one impact underestimates the total harm that results from price distortions, and the potential benefits from market reforms. For example, underpriced parking not only encourages inefficient use of parking facilities, it also exacerbates traffic congestion, roadway costs, crashes and pollution. Similarly, underpricing road use increases not only congestion and roadway costs, but also parking costs, traffic accidents and pollution.

Win-Win Solutions are a type of preventive medicine, equivalent to putting the transportation system on a healthier diet. This can avert more difficult and expensive measures that would otherwise be required to address the various problems resulting from increased motor vehicle traffic.

Some people are skeptical that Win-Win strategies are feasible, because they require consumers to change their travel habits or support policy changes, such as pricing reforms. Although such changes may be difficult to implement, there are examples of successes, including recycling, smoking reductions and seat belt use. In each case, a combination of public education, policy changes and support services have had a dramatic impact on behavior patterns, indicating that consumers support such changes both individually and politically.

Win-Win Benefits

Most transportation improvements help solve one or two problems, but they often exacerbate others. For example, expanding highways reduces congestion but tends to increase total vehicle traffic, which increases parking, accident and pollution problems. Similarly, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency conserves energy but by reducing vehicle operating costs tends to increase total vehicle travel and therefore congestion, parking and accident problems (Litman 2005). These indirect impacts are often overlooked, which exaggerates highway expansion and fuel efficiency benefits, and undervalues Win-Win strategies. Only by considering all impacts are total Win-Win benefits perceived. Table 3 illustrates this concept. When all impacts are considered, Win-Win strategies often turn out to be the most cost effective and beneficial solutions to transportation problems.

Table 3            Comparing Strategies (Litman 2006a)

Planning Objective	Roadway Expansion	Fuel Efficient Vehicles	Win-Win Solutions
User convenience and comfort	ü	û	ü
Congestion reduction	ü	û	ü
Parking cost savings	û	û	ü
Roadway facility costs savings	û	û	ü
Consumer costs savings	û		ü
Reduced traffic accidents	û	û	ü
Improved mobility options	û		ü
Energy conservation	û	ü	ü
Pollution reduction	û	ü	ü
Physical fitness and health	û		ü
Land use objectives	û	û	ü

Some transport improvement strategies help achieve one or two objectives (ü), but by increasing total vehicle travel contradict others (û). Win-Win strategies reduce total motor vehicle travel, and so support many planning objectives, providing multiple economic, social and environmental benefits.

Consumer Impacts of Win-Win Solutions

Although Win-Win Solutions can significantly reduce vehicle travel, consumers can benefit overall. Most Win-Win Solutions use positive incentives, so consumers only reduce their driving when they consider themselves better off. Motorists who ignore the opportunity to save money can continue driving at current levels and be no worse off, and would benefit from reduced congestion, crash risk and pollution (Criticism of TDM).

For example, Parking Cash Out, Location Efficient Development and Distance-Based Vehicle Insurance simply return to individual motorists more of the savings that result when they drive less. Consumers who continue their current transport patterns pay no more on average, but they have a new opportunity to save money that does not currently exist. Other TDM strategies improve Transportation Options by improving Pedestrian and Cycling Conditions, Rideshare Services, Public Transit, Transit Stations, and Telework. Access Management, Smart Growth and New Urbanism land use policies help reduce the need to travel (for example, by locating more stores and schools in residential neighborhoods) and increases travel options. Many trips would not change, but marginal travel decisions would be affected. Consumers could consolidate trips, choose closer destinations, and use alternatives. Individually the changes would be modest, but their cumulative impacts can be large.

Win-Win Solutions also tend to increase equity. For example, Parking Cash Out means that non-drivers receive employee benefits comparable in value to the parking subsidies given motorists. Location Efficient Development allows non-drivers to avoid paying for parking spaces they don’t need. Distance-Based Vehicle Insurance avoids cross-subsidies from low- to high-mileage motorists. Virtually all Win-Win Solutions increase travel choices for people who cannot drive due to physical or economical constraints.

Why Win-Win Solutions Are Not Being Implemented

Most existing transportation policies reflect older social objectives and technologies. During the early years of the automobile age underpricing may have been justified to achieve economies of scale in vehicle and roadway production. Also, in the past it was more difficult to charge directly for parking and road use using mechanical fee collection, but new electronic charging techniques reduce transaction costs. It is now possible to reform policies and practices to reflect a mature, technologically sophisticated transportation market. Such a market places more emphasis on using existing capacity efficiently and serving diverse consumer needs.

Win-Win Solutions are not widely implemented because most transport planning takes a relatively narrow, reductionist approach to problem solving. Win-Win Solutions tend to provide many modest benefits, but are not considered the best way to solve any major problem (Why Manage Transportation Demand?; Litman 2000). As a result, they are often overlooked, even if they are cost effective and could provide significant benefits.

Win-Win Solutions are often opposed by institutions that would need to change their practices. For example, insurance companies resist Pay-As-You-Drive pricing because it requires changing their current price structure. Municipal officials often oppose more Parking Management because they require additional analysis and management. In such situations the challenge is to develop rewards for institutions that improve their practices. For example, transportation funding can be based in part on achieving TDM objectives, and businesses can retain a portion of the savings that result when they encourage alternative modes.

Because Win-Win Solutions provide multiple benefits, they offer opportunities for cooperation and coordination between interest groups. People and organizations concerned with congestion, road and parking facility costs, road safety, economic development, consumer costs, environmental quality, community livability, and equity issues all have reasons to support these strategies. This creates the potential for broad political support. A first step toward implementation of Win-Win Solutions is to develop coalitions to support reform programs.

Examples of Win-Win Solutions

Specific Win-Win Solutions are described below. How much each is implemented depends on the circumstances. At a minimum they can be implemented to the degree that they provide direct economic benefits, such as reduced congestion, road and parking facility savings, reduced crashes, and consumer savings. Social and environmental benefits are therefore “free.” A greater level of implementation can be justified if social and environmental objectives are given significant value.

Federal

Remove Subsidies To Oil Production and Internalize Costs

The petroleum industry benefits from various tax exemptions and government benefits. These include Petroleum Research and Development program funding, deductions on drilling costs and on oil wells, and royalty waivers on deep-water offshore drilling leases. The cost of programs to benefit petroleum producers and consumers, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, could be charged directly to users through additional taxes or fees.

Tax Exempt Employer Provided Transit Benefits

Offering employees tax-exempt transit passes as an alternative to free parking typically increases transit commuting 5-20%, and is more equitable. This is allowed in the U.S., but requires changing the tax code in other countries.

State/Provincial

Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance and Other Distance Based Fees

Converting vehicle insurance and registration fees from fixed charges to per-mile fees approximately doubles variable vehicle expenses (for example, a motorist who now pays $1,000 per year for insurance and registration would pay 8¢ per mile). This provides a significant financial incentive to reduce driving, while making these charges more fair and affordable. This is predicted to reduce vehicle travel by approximately 12%, reduce crash rates by a greater amount, increase equity, and save consumers money.

Least-Cost Transportation Planning

Least-Cost Planning means that programs to reduce demand are considered equally with programs to increase capacity, that all significant impacts are included in the analysis, and that the public is involved in developing and evaluating alternatives. This allows demand management strategies to receive appropriate consideration and investment. A related strategy is to require individual transportation plans to favor VMT reduction and pollution emission reduction strategic goals (Steinberg 2007).

Prioritizing Transportation

Prioritizing Transportation involves explicit consideration of these impacts, with the goal of giving higher value trips and lower cost modes priority over lower value, higher cost trips. For example, emergency vehicles, transit and freight vehicles tend to have relatively high value per vehicle-mile, and so can be given priority over private automobile travel (Basic Access). Transit, rideshare vehicles, bicycling and walking generally cost society less per passenger-trip than single occupant automobile travel (in terms of road space, parking costs, crash risk imposed on other road users and pollution emissions), and so should receive priority (Transportation Costs).

Revenue-Neutral Tax Shifting

Since governments must tax something to raise revenue, many economists recommend shifting taxes away from socially desirable activities to those that are harmful or risky. For example, a revenue-neutral shift from employment and general sales taxes to resource consumption taxes, such as a Carbon Taxes (a special tax based on fossil fuel carbon content), could reduce pollution and traffic problems while increasing economic productivity and employment. One recent study found that increasing fuel taxes and using the revenues to replace more economically harmful income taxes could increase GDP by 7.7% and average household wealth by 5.5%, while reducing fossil-fuel use by 38%. Such tax shifts provide economic benefits because higher fuel prices encourage energy efficiency and technological innovation, reduce the economic costs of imported petroleum, and encourage employment and investment, which stimulates economic development.

Road Pricing

Road Pricing means that motorists pay directly for driving on a particular road or in a particular area. Road pricing can be used to reduce traffic congestion, and to charge motorists directly for their roadway costs, which is fairer than current practices that result in substantial cross-subsidies.

Reform Motor Carrier Regulations

Many jurisdictions limit transportation service competition and innovation. Private bus, Shuttle and shared taxi services are often prohibited or restricted in order to maintain monopolies for existing service providers. Regulations should be minimized and focused to address specific problems while encouraging competition, consumer choice and innovation.

Regional and Local

Local And Regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs

TDM programs include a wide variety of services, including rideshare matching, transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, parking management, and promotion of alternative modes. These can provide significant financial savings to governments, businesses and consumers, as well as environmental benefits.

More Efficient Land Use

Current development and land use practices tend to create dispersed, automobile-dependent land use patterns that reduce Accessibility and are poorly suited for travel by other modes. Access Management, Smart Growth, Location Efficient Development and New Urbanism all help create more efficient land use patterns that improve Transportation Diversity and Community Livability. A variety of Smart Growth Policy Reforms are justified on both efficiency and equity grounds. Residents of more accessible communities tend to drive less and rely more on alternative modes, helping to solve a variety of transportation problems (Land Use Impacts on Transportation).

More Flexible Zoning Requirements

Parking and road requirements are often inflexible and over-generous. There are many ways to reduce the amount of land devoted to roads and parking without constraining mobility. Local governments can reduce parking requirements for businesses that have travel management programs or that are located in areas with good transit service. Shared Parking allows significant reductions in parking requirements. Parking Pricing tends to reduce demand by 10-30%. Location Efficient Development allows households to avoid paying for residential parking spaces they do not need. These strategies provide direct economic and environmental benefits.

Parking Cash Out

“Cashing out” means that commuters who receive free parking are also offered a cash alternative if they use other modes. This typically reduces driving by 10-30%, and provides non-drivers with a benefit comparable in value to what drivers receive.

Commute Trip Reduction

Commute Trip Reduction (also called Employee Trip Reduction or Vehicle Trip Reduction) programs give commuters resources and incentives to reduce their automobile trips. CTR programs typically include improved transportation options, such as Ridesharing, Flextime, Telecommuting and Guaranteed Ride Home programs, and incentives such a Parking Management, Commuter Financial Incentives and TDM Marketing programs. Commute Trip Reduction programs often reduce automobile commutes by 20-40% at a particular worksite (Success Stories).

Mobility Management Marketing

Mobility Management Marketing involves various activities to improve consumers knowledge and acceptance of alternative travel modes, and to provide products that better meet travelers needs and preferences. Effective marketing programs can significantly increase use of alternative modes, and reduce automobile travel by 5-15% (Cairns, et al., 2004).

The most effective marketing programs promote a variety of travel options rather than just one mode (such as ridesharing or public transit), since this allows consumers to choose the option that best suits their needs. For example, about half of the trips reduced by TravelSmart programs (www.dpi.wa.gov.au/travelsmart) shift to walking, with smaller shifts to cycling, ridesharing and public transit. Individual mode shifts may appear small, typically consisting of just few percentage points, but their total impacts are significant, comparable in magnitude to much more expensive infrastructure improvement programs to encourage use of alternative modes. 

Freight Transport Management

Freight Transport Management includes various strategies of increasing the efficiency of freight and commercial transport. This can include improving distribution practices so fewer vehicle trips are needed, shifting freight to more resource efficient modes (such as from air and truck to rail and marine), improving freight services (particularly of more efficient modes such as marine, rail and bicycle), better siting of industrial locations to reduce shipping distances and allow better coordination among industries, improving vehicle operation and implementing fleet management to reduce impacts such as noise and air pollution, and by reducing the total volume of goods that need to be transported. Because freight vehicles tend to be large, energy-intensive and high polluting, a relatively small improvement in freight efficiency can provide significant benefits.

Transportation Management Associations

Transportation management associations provide services such as rideshare matching, transit information, and parking coordination in a particular area, such as a commercial district or mall. This achieves more efficient use of resources and allows businesses of all sizes to participate in commute trip reduction programs.

Location Efficient Development and Mortgages

Location Efficient Development consists of residential and commercial development in areas with mixed land use and good transportation choices (walking and cycling conditions, transit and carsharing services). These features result in reduced automobile ownership and use (10-30% reductions are typical), which provides transportation and parking cost savings to consumers. Location Efficient Mortgages recognize these potential savings in credit assessments, giving home-buyers an added incentive to choose location efficient residences.

School and Campus Transport Management

These programs help overcome barriers to the use of alternative modes, and provide positive incentives for reduced driving to schools and college or university campuses. School trip management usually involves improving pedestrian and cycling access, promoting ridesharing, and encouraging parents to use alternatives when possible. Campus trip management programs often include discounted transit fares, rideshare promotion, improved pedestrian and cycling facilities, and increased parking fees. These programs give students, parents and staff more travel choices, encourage exercise, and reduce parking and congestion problems. They often reduce car trips by 15-30%.

Carsharing

Carsharing provides affordable, short-term (hourly and daily rate) motor vehicle rentals in residential areas. This gives consumers a convenient and affordable alternative to private ownership. Because it has lower fixed costs and higher variable costs than private vehicle ownership, carsharing encourages users to limit their vehicle use to those trips in which driving is truly the best option, and use alternative modes as much as possible. Drivers who join such organizations typically reduce their mileage by 40-60%.

Transit Improvements

There are many ways to improve public transit service and Encourage transit ridership, including additional routes, expanded coverage, increased service frequency, and longer hours of operation; HOV Priority; convenience and comfort improvements, Improved Stations, reduced and more convenient fares; improved rider information and Marketing programs; Transit Oriented Development and Smart Growth, which result in land use patterns more suitable for transit transportation; Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements that improve access around transit stops; Bike and Transit Integration; Park & Ride facilities; improved Security for transit users and pedestrians; and services targeting particular travel needs, such as express commuter buses, Special Event service, and various types of Shuttle Services. Transit Service improvements are often cost effective when all benefits are considered (Transit Evaluation).

Nonmotorized Transport Improvements

Pedestrian and bicycle improvements are important for developing a more balanced transportation system. Residents of communities with good walking and cycling conditions drive less and use transit and rideshare more. There are many specific methods for accommodating and encouraging non-motorized transport, including improvements to sidewalks, trails and paths, street crossings, Pedways, Bicycle Parking facilities, and Public Bike Systems.

Traffic Calming and Traffic Speed Reductions

Traffic Calming includes various strategies to reduce traffic speeds and volumes on specific roads. Typical strategies include traffic circles at intersections, sidewalk bulbs that reduce intersection crossing distances, raised crosswalks, and partial street closures to discourage short-cut traffic through residential neighborhoods. Traffic Speed Reductions include a variety of design, enforcement and education programs to reduce vehicle traffic speeds. This increases road safety and community livability, creates a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment, and can reduce automobile use, particularly when matched with other TDM measures.

Road Space Reallocation

Road Space Reallocation involves shifting more road space to specific transportation activities, and managing roadways to encourage more efficient and equitable transportation. Road Space Reallocation often involves trade-offs between convenient automobile parking and improved mobility by alternative modes. Reallocating urban arterial parking lanes to transit, HOV or cycling lanes, or increased sidewalk space, tends to help achieve equity and efficiency objectives by improving mobility options for non-drivers and encouraging travelers to shift from automobile to more space-efficient modes such as transit, ridesharing, cycling and walking.

Conclusions

Win-Win Solutions are market-based transportation reforms that help achieve a variety of economic, social and environmental objectives simultaneously. They remove distortions that reduce consumer choice and result in excessive and inefficient travel. They help create a more equitable and efficient transportation system that supports economic development, increases consumer benefits and reduces environmental impacts.

It is virtually impossible to solve most transportation problems using conventional technical solutions alone, because while they can reduce one or two problems, they usually exacerbate others. Transportation professionals increasingly recognize the potential of market-based demand management strategies, but they often treat them as measures of last resort, used to address specific congestion and air pollution problems where conventional solutions are ineffective or infeasible. Win-Win Solutions use the opposite approach – they apply demand management strategies whenever cost effective, and use major roadway capacity expansion as a fallback option when this fails.

Although most Win-Win strategies provide modest individual benefits, affecting just a few percent of total vehicle travel, their impacts are cumulative and synergistic. A comprehensive package of Win-Win Solutions could achieve Kyoto emission reduction objectives while increasing economic productivity and consumer benefits.

Because Win-Win Solutions provide many different benefits, organizations and individuals representing a wide range of interests have reasons to support their implementation. This offers the opportunity for political coalitions to advocate for these reforms. Transportation professionals, local government and taxpayer groups, environmental organizations, economic development and business interests, social equity advocates, and even motorists all have reasons to support Win-Win Solutions.

References And Resources For More Information

Asian Co-benefits Partnership (www.cobenefit.org) is a coalition that supports mainstreaming co-benefits into sectoral development plans, policies and projects in Asia.

Sally Cairns, et al (2004), Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk). This comprehensive study provides detailed evaluation of the potential travel impacts and costs of various mobility management strategies. Includes numerous case studies.

Cambridge Systematics (2009), Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (www.movingcooler.info), co-sponsored by a variety of organizations; report at http://commerce.uli.org/misc/movingcooler.pdf; summary at http://commerce.uli.org/misc/movingcoolerexecsum.pdf.

Charlotte Kendra G. Castillo, Deejay Cromwell Sanqui, May Ajero and Cornie Huizenga (2007), The Co-Benefits of Responding to Climate Change: Status in Asia, Work Assignment No. 417, Co-benefits Coordinator in Asia Project, Clean Air Asia (http://cleanairinitiative.org); at http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/system/files/documents/Co-benefits_of_responding_in_Asia_-_Status_in_Asia_2007.pdf.  

CCAP (2005), Transportation Emissions Guidebook: Land Use, Transit & Transportation Demand Management, Center of Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org/guidebook). This Guidebook provides information on various smart growth and mobility management strategies, including rules-of-thumb estimates of VMT and emission reductions.

Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org) provides information on carbon tax issues.

Climate Works (2014), Climate-Smart Development: Adding Up the Benefits of Actions that Help Build Prosperity, End Poverty and Combat Climate Change, Climate Works Foundation (www.climateworks.org) and World Bank (www.worldbank.org); at http://tinyurl.com/msbxdkk.

Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage and Todd Litman (2005), Promoting Public Health Through Smart Growth: Building Healthier Communities Through Transportation And Land Use Policies (www.vtpi.org/sgbc_health.pdf).

Lawrence D. Frank, et al. (2010), “Carbonless Footprints: Promoting Health and Climate Stabilization Through Active Transportation,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50, Supplement 1, pp. S99-S105; at www.activelivingresearch.org/resourcesearch/journalspecialissues.

IGES (2011), Mainstreaming Transport Co-Benefits Approach: A Guide to Evaluating Transport Projects, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (www.iges.or.jp); at https://pub.iges.or.jp/pub/mainstreaming-transport-co-benefits-approach.

IGES (2015), Transport Co-benefits Calculator, Development Impact Assessment Toolkit, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (www.iges.or.jp); at pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=3209. This is a simple, Excel-based tool to quantify the co-benefits of transport projects and policies.

Todd Litman (1999), “Exploring the Paradigm Shifts Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives,” Transportation Research Record 1670, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 8-12; at www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf.

Todd Litman (2003), “Transportation Demand Management and ‘Win-Win’ Transportation Solutions” Chapter 45, Handbook of Transport and the Environment, Elsevier (www.elsevier.com), pp. 805-814.

Todd Litman (2005), “Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies,” Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129; at www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf.

Todd Litman (2006a), Win-Win Transportation Solutions: Cooperation for Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf.

Todd Litman (2006b), Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies: Smart Strategies Can Achieve Emission Reduction Targets and Provide Other Important Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf.

Todd Litman (2007), Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf. 

Todd Litman (2007), Appropriate Response to Rising Fuel Prices, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/fuelprice.pdf.

Todd Litman (2008), Smart Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/ster.pdf.

Todd Litman (2009), “Evaluating Carbon Taxes As An Energy Conservation And Emission Reduction Strategy,” Transportation Research Record 2139, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 125-132; based on Carbon Taxes: Tax What You Burn, Not What You Earn, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf.

Todd Litman (2011), Evaluating Public Transit As An Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategy, presented at Aligning Environmental and Transportation Policies To Mitigate Climate Change Institute for Policy Integrity, 26 October 2011, New York University School of Law (http://environment.harvard.edu); at www.vtpi.org/tran_climate.pdf.

Todd Litman (2011b), “Can Smart Growth Policies Conserve Energy and Reduce Emissions?” Portland State University’s Center for Real Estate Quarterly  (www.pdx.edu/realestate/research_quarterly.html), Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, pp. 21-30; at www.vtpi.org/REQJ.pdf. Also see, Critique of the National Association of Home Builders’ Research On Land Use Emission Reduction Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/NAHBcritique.pdf.

Todd Litman (2013), “Comprehensive Evaluation Of Energy Conservation And Emission Reduction Policies,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 47, January, pp. 153-166 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.022); at www.vtpi.org/comp_em_eval.pdf.

Todd Litman (2014), Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/vmt_red.pdf. A summary version, titled, “The Mobility-Productivity Paradox: Exploring The Negative Relationships Between Mobility and Economic Productivity,” (www.vtpi.org/ITED_paradox.pdf) was presented at the International Transportation Economic Development Conference (http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/ited2014), 9-11 April 2014, Dallas, Texas.

Marcelo Maciel, Luiz Rosa, Fernando Correa and Ursula Maruyama (2012), “Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation (IMT): A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas,” Energies, Vol. 5, pp. 835-861, doi:10.3390/en5030835; at www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/3/835.

G. F. Nemet, T. Holloway and P. Meier (2010) “Implications of Incorporating Air-Quality Co-Benefits into Climate Change Policymaking,” Environmental Research Letters (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014007); at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014007/pdf/1748-9326_5_1_014007.pdf.

Darrell Steinberg (2007), “SB 375 Connects Land Use and AB 32 Implementation,” The Planning Report (www.planningreport.com); at www.planningreport.com/tpr/?module=displaystory&story_id=1257&format=html.

T&E (2006), Less Oil, More Welfare, European Federation for Transport and Environment (www.transportenvironment.org).

Scott Sharpe and Paul Tranter (2010), “The Hope For Oil Crisis: Children, Oil Vulnerability And (In)Dependent Mobility,” Australian Planner, Vol. 47, No. 4, December, pp. 284-292; summary at www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a930689553~frm=abslink.

WHO (2011), Health Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation - Transport Sector: Health in the Green Economy, Health Impact Assessment, World Health Organization (www.who.int/hia); at www.who.int/hia/examples/trspt_comms/transport_sector_health_co-benefits_climate_change_mitigation/en/index.html.

Lloyd Wright and Lewis Fulton (2005), “Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations,” Transport Reviews (www.tandf.co.uk), Vol. 25, No. 6, November, pp. 691–717; at http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/sites/default/files/articles-70119_paper.pdf.

Lloyd Wright (2009), Win-Win Solutions and Climate Change and Transport, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (www.uncrd.org.jp); at  www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/4EST-P1-1.pdf.

---

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

VTPI Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

#52