Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategies

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

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

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

Updated 25 January 2010

This chapter identifies and evaluates various strategies to reduce transport energy consumption and pollution emissions. These include Transportation Demand Management strategies that affect travel behavior; incentives for more efficient and less polluting vehicles; alternative fuels; methods to identify, repair and scrap high-emitting vehicles; regulations; pricing and information programs. It discusses ways to evaluate and compare these strategies and recommends best practices.

 

 

Contents

Introduction. 2

Factors Affecting Vehicle Energy Consumption, Emissions and Exposure. 5

Comparing Clean Vehicle and TDM Strategies. 11

Demand Management Strategies. 14

Distance-Based Emission Fees. 14

Fuel Tax Increases. 15

Freight Transport Management 16

Aviation Transport Management 17

TDM Programs. 18

Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance and Other Distance Based Fees. 18

Market Reforms. 19

Land Use Management Strategies. 20

Nonmotorized Transportation Improvements and Encouragement 21

Ridesharing. 21

Road Pricing. 22

Transit Improvements and Incentives. 22

High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) Priority. 23

Parking Management and Parking Pricing. 24

TDM Marketing. 24

Traffic Calming and Roundabouts. 24

Car-Free Planning and Vehicle Restrictions. 25

Telework. 25

Speed Reductions. 25

Sustainable Transportation Planning. 26

Other Strategies. 26

Promote Efficient and Low Emission Vehicle Purchases. 26

Emission Standards. 26

Fuel Efficiency Standards. 27

Gas Guzzler Taxes. 27

Feebates. 27

Close Gas Guzzler Loopholes. 28

Efficiency-Based Annual Registration Fees. 28

Transit Emission Reduction Programs. 28

Motorcycle Encouragement 28

Super-Efficient and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives. 29

Low and Zero Emission Vehicle Mandates. 29

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs. 29

Roadside “High Emitter” Identification. 29

Scrapage Programs. 30

Fuel Quality Improvements. 30

Emission Capping and Trading. 31

Fleet Management and Driver Training. 31

Anti-Idling. 32

Neighborhood Vehicles. 32

Resurface Highways. 32

Summary of Emission Reduction Strategies. 32

Policy Reforms and Incentives. 33

Congestion-Reduction Strategies. 33

Flextime. 35

Road Capacity Expansion and Traffic Signal Synchronization. 35

Intelligent Transportation Systems. 35

Evaluating Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategies. 36

Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation. 38

Best Practices. 39

Examples and Case Studies. 39

Vacaville Becomes Voltageville With Electric Vehicle Implementation. 39

Minimize the Air Pollution from Your Consumer Choices with AirHead.org (http://www.AirHead.org) 40

0800 SMOKEY. 40

Other Cities Follow Lead of New York Buses, Without Choking. 40

Trees for Travel (www.treesftf.org/travel.htm) 42

Emission Prices Are More Efficient than Emission Caps. 43

Texas Remote Sensing Emission Enforcement (www.txdps.state.tx.us/vi) 43

Seattle Climate Action Plan (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/climate/report.htm) 45

Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy (www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucft696/vibat2.html) 46

Emission Reductions in Developing Countries (www.pewclimate.org) 46

Emission Reduction Legislation and Strategies (ETAAC, 2008) 46

Urban Transportation Emissions Calculator (www.tc.gc.ca/UTEC) 47

Emission Calculators. 47

Emission Reduction Legislation (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2008) 49

References And Resources For More Information. 50

 

 

Introduction

Motor vehicles are major energy consumers and sources of air, noise and water pollution. Transportation represents about 27% of total U.S. energy consumption and 70% of total petroleum consumption (ORNL, 2001). Transportation energy consumed by mode is summarized below. Personal transportation represents about 60%, and commercial transport about 40%, of total transportation energy consumption.

 

Table 1            Vehicle Energy Use (ORNL, 2001, Table 2.5)

	Trillion BTUs	Percent of Total
Automobiles	9,126	34%
Light Trucks (including vans and SUVs)	6,617	25%
Trucks & Private Buses	4,563	17%
Aviation	2,546	10%
Water	1,300	4.9%
Pipeline	1,009	3.8%
Off-highway (construction and agriculture)	680	2.5%
Railroads	607	2.3%
Buses	207	0.8%
Motorcycles	26	0.1%

 

 

Detailed information on vehicle energy consumption and emissions is available from:

·         Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Guidebook (www.vtpi.org/tca), includes chapters on air, noise and water pollution, and resource consumption external costs.

·         Transportation Air Quality Center, USEPA (www.epa.gov/otaq) provides information on vehicle emissions and emission reduction strategies.

·         Transportation Energy Data Book, ORNL (www.ott.doe.gov) provides information on U.S. vehicle energy consumption and emissions.

·         Annual Energy Review, Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html) provides information on energy production, consumption and prices.

·         TC (2009), The Urban Transportation Emissions Calculator (wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/prog/2/UTEC-CETU/menu.aspx?lang=eng) is a user-friendly, Internet-based tool developed by Transport Canada that estimates greenhouse gas and criteria air contaminant emissions from urban transportation. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts involving different vehicle types (e.g., cars, commercial trucks, buses, light rail), fuel technologies (e.g., gasoline, diesel, hybrid, ethanol, biodiesel, etc.), and planning horizons (2006-2031).

·         European Environment Agency (www.eea.eu.int) provides international information on vehicle energy consumption and emissions.

·         Office of Transportation And Air Quality Modeling Tools, USEPA (www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqmodl.htm) has tools for evaluating the emission reduction impacts of TDM strategies.

·         The Green Vehicle Guide, USEPA (www.epa.gov/autoemissions) reports emissions and fuel consumption rates per vehicle mile for specific model years.

·         For My World Tailpipe Tally (http://209.10.107.169/tailpipetally_v2/index.cfm?synd=fmw) provides motor vehicle fuel consumption, fuel cost and pollution emissions for specific model-years.

·         The USEPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator (www.epa.gov/solar/energy-resources/calculator.html) provides information that compares various units and examples of climate change emissions and emission reduction impacts.

·         USEPA Transportation Tools (www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/tools_transportation.html) provides links to sources of information on transportation activities, emissions and emission reduction strategies. 

·         The Climate Change Cost Calculator (www.climcalc.net/eng/CCCframes.htm) allows users to estimate a person’s air pollution emissions and how these can be changed.

·         “Air Pollution Costs,” Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf), 2002.

·         The Zerofootprint Calculator (www.zerofootprint.net) enables you to measure and understand the impact of your ecological footprint, taking into account both direct and indirect resource consumption. Zerofootprint Cities is an initiative designed for Mayors of the world's cities to engage their citizens around climate change.

 

 

Major vehicle pollutants and their harmful effects are summarized in Table 2 (for more detailed information see appropriate chapters in the Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Guidebook at www.vtpi.org/tca). Some of these impacts are local in nature, so where emissions occur affects the damages they impose, while other are regional or global, and so where they are released is less important.

 

Table 2            Vehicle Pollution Emissions (Litman, 2009)

Emission	Description	Source	Harmful Effects	Scale
Carbon monoxide (CO)	A toxic gas, undermines blood’s ability to carry oxygen.	Engine	Human health, Climate change	Very local
Fine particulates (PM10; PM2.5)	Inhaleable particles consisting of bits of fuel and carbon.	Diesel engines and other sources.	Human health, aesthetics.	Local and Regional
Road dust	Dust particles created by vehicle movement.	Vehicle use.	Human health, aesthetics	Local
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)	A variety of compounds, some of which are toxic, and all of which contribute to ozone.	Engine	Human health, ozone precursor.	Regional
Hydrocarbons (HC)	Unburned fuel. Forms ozone.	Fuel production and engines.	Human health, ozone precursor.	Regional
Volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOC).	A variety of organic compounds that form aerosols.	Fuel production and engines.	Human health, ozone precursor.	Local and Regional
Toxics (e.g. benzene)	VOCs that are toxic and carcinogenic.	Fuel production and engines.	Human health risks	Very local
Ozone (O2)	Major urban air pollution problem resulting from NOx and VOCs combined in sunlight.	NOx and VOC	Human health, plants, aesthetics.	Regional
Sulfur oxides (SOx)	Lung irritant, and causes acid rain.	Diesel engines	Human health risks, acid rain	Regional
Carbon dioxide (CO2)	A byproduct of combustion.	Fuel production and engines.	Climate change	Global
Methane (CH4)	A gas with significant greenhouse gas properties.	Fuel production and engines.	Climate change	Global
CFC	Durable chemical widely used for industrial purposes, now banned due to environmental risks.	Vehicle (especially older air conditioners).	Ozone depletion	Global
Noise pollution	Undesirable noise produced by vehicles.	Engine, tires, wind	Aesthetic, distraction, reduced property values.	Local
Water pollution	Water pollution caused by motor vehicles.	Leaking liquids	Human health, ecological.	Local and Regional

This table summarizes various types of motor vehicle pollution emissions and their impacts.

 

 

Although tailpipe emissions tend to receive the most attention, pollution is also produced during fuel production and distribution (called “upstream” emissions), vehicle refueling, hot soak (i.e., evaporative emissions that occur after an engine is turned off), and mechanical emissions produced from road dust and wear of brake linings and tires. More than half of some types of emissions occur during cold-start and hot soak conditions, and so are affected more by the number of vehicle trips that occur than by mileage. For example, increasing trip length from 10 to 20 miles increases mileage by 100%, but only increases some types of emissions by 35%.

 

Vehicle pollution and energy consumption impose a variety of health, economic and environmental costs on society (Transportation Costs). Several studies have investigated these costs, and some include monetized estimates (USEPA, 1999; Delucchi, 2000; Litman, 2009; Stern, 2006). Delucchi (2000) estimates that U.S. motor vehicle air and noise pollution costs total approximately $100 billion annually. Other studies have investigated external costs resulting from petroleum consumption, including economic, environmental and security costs not directly included in the retail price (Greene and Tishchishyna, 2000). McGranahan and Murray (2003) discuss air pollution impacts and costs in developing countries.

 

 

Factors Affecting Vehicle Energy Consumption, Emissions and Exposure

Several factors described below affect vehicle energy consumption and emission rates, human exposure to harmful emissions, and the costs they impose. Various models, such as URBEMIS (www.urbemis.com) can be used to predict the emission reduction effects of various mobility management and smart growth strategies (Nelson/Nygaard 2005; Mehaffy, Cowan and Urge-Vorsatz 2009). The USDOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting (http://climate.volpe.dot.gov/about.html) provides emission inventory data (the emissions produced by various sectors). Grant, Choate and Pederson (2008) summarize various models that can be used to predict transportation emissions and the effectiveness of various emission reduction strategies.

 

 

Land Use Patterns

Land Use Patterns affect the amount and type of travel that occurs in an area. People who live and work in more compact, mixed, multi-modal communities tend to drive less and rely more on alternative forms of transportation, and so consume less energy and produce less pollution per capita (USEPA, 2002; Sierra Club, 2005; Lawrence Frank and Company, 2005)

 

 

Travel Mode and Vehicle Type

Table 3 summarizes the energy consumption rates of various travel modes and vehicle types. Since the US fleet of personal vehicles averages about 19.5 miles-per-gallon, and a gallon of gasoline consumed produces 19.6 pounds of CO₂, an average vehicle-mile produces about one pound of CO₂ (or a quarter of a kilograms per vehicle-kilometer).

 

Fuel consumption and emission rates per passenger-mile depend on load factors: A bus with 50 passengers uses about one-tenth the energy per passenger-mile as an average automobile, but in the U.S., energy consumption per passenger-mile is little higher for transit systems than for driving, due to low load factors. In other countries, and in U.S. cities with higher levels of transit demand, transit is much more energy efficient than driving. Increasing ridership using existing vehicle capacity consumes little additional energy and produces little additional pollution, so the marginal cost of an additional rider in a motor vehicle (i.e., a Rideshare passenger) can be very low.

 

Table 3            Average Fuel Consumption 2001 (BTS, Tables 1-29, 4-20, 4-23, 4-24; APTA, 2002)

Vehicle Class	Average MPG	Mode	BTU/Pass. Mile
Passenger Cars	22.1	Car	3,578
Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs	17.6	Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs	4,495
Motorcycle	50	Aviation	4,000
Single Unit Truck	7.4	Transit, Bus	3,697
Combination Truck	5.3	Transit, Electric Light Rail	1,152
Buses (all types)	6.9	Intercity Rail, diesel	2,134

This table summarizes average fuel consumption per vehicle, and energy consumption per passenger-mile for various vehicle types.

 

 

A significant amount of energy is used to produce vehicles, called embodied energy. The table below estimates total energy for various travel modes, including both the energy embodied in the vehicle and the fuel used in vehicle operation.

 

Table 4          Energy Use By Mode (MJ/Passenger km) (Lenzen, 1999)

Mode	Embodied	Fuel	Total
Urban
Light Rail	0.7	1.4	2.1
Bus	0.7	2.1	2.8
Ferry	1.2	4.3	5.5
Bicycle	0.5	0.3	0.8
Heavy Rail	0.9	1.9	2.8
Car, Petrol	1.4	3.0	4.4
Car, Diesel	1.4	3.3	4.8
Car, LPG	1.4	3.4	4.8
Private Bus	0.5	1.2	1.7
Non-Urban
Bus	0.3	1.0	1.3
Rail	0.7	1.2	1.9
Private Air	12.4	6.5	18.9
Carter Air	9.1	8.7	17.8
Regional Air	5.4	4.3	9.7
Domestic Air	2.7	3.1	5.7
International Air	0.9	2.2	3.1

 

 

Vehicle Design – Drive Train Efficiency

Energy consumption and emission rates vary significantly due to vehicle design. Drive system design improvements have significantly increased vehicle fuel efficiency, but in recent years consumers have used this increased efficiency to purchase larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles rather than reducing their fuel consumption.

 

It is common to hear claims that automobile emissions have declined by 90% or more over the last few decades, but this is an exaggeration. Engine and fuel improvements have significantly reduced tailpipe emission rates under design conditions, but a large portion of driving occurs under non-design conditions and non-tailpipe emissions such as tire particulates and road dust are not controlled by these technologies. Actual carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions tend to be significantly higher than what standards allow (DeCicco and Delucchi, 1997).

 

Some studies predict that per-mile energy consumption and emission rates could be reduced 30-50% by fully implementing cost-effective vehicle design improvements using available technologies, without significantly changing performance (Greene and DeCicco, 2000), although most researchers consider a 25% reduction more realistic (OECD/IEA, 2001), and this requires that average vehicle size, weight and acceleration not increase. Even modest shifts in vehicle type, for example from a large to a medium-size SUV, or by reducing vehicle weight by a few hundred pounds, can provide significant energy conservation benefits if widely implemented. Greater energy savings and emission reductions are possible by shifting to small, super-efficient vehicles (www.hypercar.com), as indicated in Table 5. But consumers currently have little incentive to choose efficient vehicles due to relatively low fuel prices.

 

Table 5            Fuel Consumption Comparison (Liters Per 100 Kilometers)

Type	Drive System	Seats	City	Highway	Overall
Average SUV	Gasoline	4-6	13.8	9.3	11.8
Average Car	Gasoline	4-5	10.1	6.3	8.4
Toyota Prius	Hybrid-Gasoline	4	4.6	5.3	5.1
Honda Insight	Hybrid-Gasoline	2	3.9	3.5	3.6
Lupo 3L	Diesel	2 or 4	3.7	2.8	3.1

Currently available high-efficiency production vehicles consume less than half the fuel used by conventional automobiles, and less than a third as much as an average SUV.

 

 

It is uncertain how much increased fuel efficiency reduces emissions other than CO₂. Manufactures design vehicles to meet specific emission standards, and so apply more emission reduction strategies in vehicles with larger engines than in vehicles with smaller engines. Some emission control strategies reduce fuel efficiency (for example, catalysts add weight, and tuning engines to minimize NOx emissions increases fuel consumption). Lighter, aerodynamic vehicles tend to emit less non-tailpipe emissions such as tire particles and road dust, but these effects are difficult to quantify. Most emissions decline in proportional to mileage.

 

 

Operating Conditions

Vehicle traffic speed and load affects emission rates. Modern vehicles maintain maximum efficiency in a broad range from about 30 to 60 miles per hour, as illustrated in Figure 1. Fuel efficiency declines at higher and lower speeds.

 

Figure 1          Vehicle Fuel Efficiency By Speed (ORNL, 2000, Table 7.21)

This figure shows how average vehicle fuel efficiency for a typical set of automobiles (cars, SUVs and light trucks) is affected by vehicle speed.

 

 

Per-mile emissions of CO and VOCs also tend to be minimized from about 30 to 60 mph, and increase at higher and lower speeds, but NOx emissions are minimized at 30 mph, and increase with vehicle speeds, as illustrated in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2          Vehicle Emissions By Speed (TRB, 1995)

This figure shows how typical vehicle emissions are affected by speed. Emissions tend to increase at very low and very high speeds.

 

 

Fuel consumption and pollutant emission rates (per vehicle-mile) are much higher for the first few miles of driving, when engines are cold (called cold starts). Older vehicles that lack current emission controls and vehicles with engines that are poorly tuned tend to have very high emissions rates (called super emitters), often more than 10 times greater than the fleet average.

 

 

Fuel Type

A variety of fuels other than gasoline can power automobiles, including diesel, synthetic gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), methanol, ethanol, battery electric, and hydrogen. Table 5 summarizes advantages and disadvantages of different fuels. For detailed information see the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center (www.afdc.doe.gov), the Clean Cities website (www.ccities.doe.gov), and the Centre for Alternative Transportation Fuels (http://catf.bcresearch.com). The US Department of Energy’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model (www.fleets.doe.gov) calculated the lifecycle emission impacts of alternative fuels (also see Delucchi, 2003).

 

Table 6            Alternative Fuels Compared (Pilorusso Research, 1995; Alternative Fuels Data Center; Pickrell)

Fuel	CO2*	Advantages	Disadvantages
Diesel	20%	Widely available and used. Reduces carbon emissions.	Increases emissions of particulates, sulfur and noise.
LPG	10%	Increased efficiency and reduced emissions.	Requires rebuilding engines. Limited availability.
CNG	20%	Increased efficiency and reduced emissions.	Requires rebuilding engines. Limited availability. May reduce methane.
Methanol	60%	Reduces some emissions.	Poisonous. Increases some emissions.
Ethanol	0-60%	Reduces some emissions.	Increases some emissions. Energy savings depend on fuel source.
Electricity	20-70%	No tailpipe emissions. May be generated from renewable sources.	Reduced vehicle performance. Vehicles are currently expensive. Energy savings depend on how electricity is generated.
Hydrogen	20-70%	No tailpipe pollutants.	Not currently available. Energy savings depend on how hydrogen is produced.

* Estimated reduction in lifecycle CO₂ emissions per vehicle-mile compared with gasoline.

 

 

Alternative fuels tend to reduce some types of emissions, but in most cases their total benefits (including “upstream” emissions during production and distribution) are modest, and many increase some types of harmful emissions (Pickrell, 2003; Koplow, 2006; Bourne, 2007). For example, current diesel engines reduce CO₂ emissions but increase sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, and noise compared with a gasoline engine, although these differences are declining due to improved engine design and fuel quality. Emission standards for heavy diesel engines are becoming more stringent, and special programs are retrofitting existing buses with cleaner engines. However, although these engines reduce particulate emissions by weight, they increase the number of very fine particulates (smaller than 1 micron), which are considered most harmful to human health (USEPA, 2000). Some transit systems are converting to alternative fuels, such as CNG. About 15% of current transit bus fuel consumption consists of clean fuels (CNG, LPG or alcohol), and more than 20% of new transit buses purchased are designed to operate on such fuels (APTA).

 

The energy conservation and emission reduction benefits of some fuels depend on how they are produced. For example, one study concludes that alcohol from cellulosic feedstocks offers the best lifecycle reduction in greenhouse gases, and in some countries could account for as much as a 7.5% of vehicle fuel production, reducing net carbon emissions by as much as 5%, but alcohol produced in other ways provides little benefit, or even increases greenhouse emissions (OECD/IEA, 2001, p. 135). The lifecycle emissions of electric vehicles (including battery-powered cars, electric trolleys and trains) depend on the marginal source of electricity they use: renewable and nuclear generation reduces total emissions, but coal generation tends to increase CO₂ and sulphur emissions (Delucchi, 2003).

 

 

Exposure

Several studies indicate that automobile occupants are exposed to more harmful air pollution than people traveling by other modes (Chertok et al, 2004). Air pollution costs (per ton of emission) are higher where population densities are high, and in areas where geographic and climatic conditions trap polluted air and produce ozone. Emissions in areas such as Southern California, where air pollution problems are severe, impose damages estimated to be about three times greater than the same emissions in less vulnerable locations (Small and Kazimi, 1995).

 

 

Emission Reduction Impact Summary

Below are some factors that affect how transportation changes affect energy consumption and pollution emissions.

 

·         Changes in the number of vehicle trips tend to cause a proportional reduction in energy consumption and emissions.

 

·         Because emission rates are high during the first few minutes of vehicle operation (i.e., cold starts), reductions in average trip length provide relatively modest pollution emission reductions. For example, reducing average automobile trip lengths from 10 to 8 miles represents a 20% reduction in mileage, but might only provide a 10% reduction in pollution emissions.

 

·         Reductions in the number of short vehicle trips can provide relatively large pollution emission reductions. For example, shifting 5% of automobile trips to bicycling and walking might reduce total automobile mileage by just 2% (since these are short trips), but emission impacts may decline by 4-8% due to the relatively high emission rates of the vehicle mileage foregone.

 

·         Older vehicles (greater than 10 years) produce relatively high emissions per mile, although they tend to be driven relatively few miles per year. Programs that reduce driving by older or out-of-tune vehicles may provide relatively large emission reductions.

 

·         Non-tailpipe emissions such as road dust, brake linings and tire wear are affected by vehicle mileage and weight.

 

·         Reducing emissions with localized impacts (CO, VOC, NOx, toxics, particulates) in geographic areas with limited air circulation and inversions provides greater benefits than reductions of the same emissions in other areas.

 

·         Changing from stop-and-go to moderate-speed traffic flow increases fuel efficiency and reduces air pollution emissions, but changing from moderate speeds to high speeds increases some emissions. As a result, strategies that reduce extreme congestion reduce emissions (e.g., Level of Service F changing to C), but strategies that reduce moderate traffic congestion (e.g. LOS C to A) can increase energy consumption and some types of pollution emissions, particularly if it induces additional vehicle mileage.

 

 

How Transportation Is Measured Affects Analysis Which units are used to Measure Transportation can affect energy and emission evaluations. For example, increasing land use density may increase emission rates per acre and per vehicle-mile, because it increases the number of people per acre and results in shorter and more congested vehicle trips, but reduces total vehicle ownership and annual mileage, so emissions decline per vehicle and per capita. Congestion reduction strategies reduce energy consumption and emissions per vehicle-mile, but may increase per capita energy consumption and emissions if they result in increased vehicle mileage, as discussed later in this chapter.

 

 

Comparing Clean Vehicle and TDM Strategies

There are two general ways to reduce vehicle air pollution emissions: reduce emission rates per vehicle-kilometre (called Clean Vehicle strategies), or reduce total vehicle travel (called Transportation Demand Management or TDM, or Mobility Management). Table 7 lists common examples of these strategies. One study (Tight, et al. 2007) suggests that feasible, cost-effective strategies could reduce household transportation energy consumption about 40% in the U.K. (and probably much more in the U.S., where per capita transportation energy consumption is much higher), about half due to cleaner vehicles and half due to vehicle travel reductions.

 

Table 7            Summary of Emission Reduction Strategies

Clean Vehicles (Reduce Emission Rates)

TDM (Reduce Vehicle Travel)

Anti-Idling Emission-Based Annual Registration Fees Emission Standards Feebates Fuel Efficiency Standards Fuel Quality Improvements Inspection And Maintenance (I/M) Programs Low And Zero Emission Vehicle Mandates Neighborhood Vehicles Promote The Purchase Of Cleaner Vehicles Resurface Highways Roadside “High Emitter” Identification Scrapage Programs Super-Efficient And Alternative Fuel Incentives Transit Emission Reduction Programs

Aviation Transport Management Car-Free Planning And Vehicle Restrictions Distance Based Fees Distance-Based Emission Fees Freight Transport Management Fuel Tax Increases Land Use Management Strategies Market Reforms Nonmotorized Transportation Parking Management And Parking Pricing Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance Ridesharing Road Pricing Speed Reductions TDM Marketing TDM Programs Telework Traffic Calming And Roundabouts Transit Improvements And Incentives

This table identifies various types of emission reduction strategies, including those that reduce emission rates, and those that reduce total vehicle travel.

 

 

Range of Benefits

Clean Vehicle and TDM strategies can both reduce transportation energy consumption and emissions, but they differ in important ways. Clean Vehicle strategies tend to provide just one or two types of benefits and impose one or two types of costs. For example, stricter emission control standards reduce emissions, increase vehicle production costs, and sometimes reduce vehicle performance. There are few other impacts to consider.

 

On the other hand, TDM strategies tend to provide multiple benefits, and may impose multiple costs. For example, parking pricing can help reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, traffic crashes, and urban sprawl, as well as pollution emissions. It imposes financial costs on motorists, provides revenue to parking facility owners, and adds transaction costs for collecting fees and dealing with violators. From some perspectives it increases equity (i.e., motorists pay directly for what they use), but from others it reduces equity (i.e., if it is regressive).

 

Table 8            Comparing Strategies (Litman, 2006)

Planning Objective	Efficient and Alternative Fuel Vehicles	TDM Solutions
Congestion Reduction	-	+
Parking Cost Savings	-	+
Facility Costs Savings	-	+
Consumer Costs Savings		+
Reduced Traffic Accidents	-	+
Improved Mobility Options		+
Energy Conservation	+	+
Pollution Reduction	+	+
Physical Fitness & Health		+
Land Use Objectives	-	+
Community Livability		+

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

 

 

TDM strategies are often justified based on their economic and social benefits, providing environmental benefits at essentially no additional costs. On the other hand, because of their multiple costs, TDM strategies often face a variety of political and institutional barriers.

 

 

Implementation Requirements

Clean Vehicle and TDM strategies also tend to differ in how they are implemented. Clean Vehicle strategies tend to rely on vehicle design changes implemented in response to government regulations or consumer incentives. TDM strategies often involve planning and pricing changes, or special programs implemented at the regional or local level. TDM implementation can involve many stakeholders, and require new institutional relationships and responsibilities. For example, many TDM strategies involve cooperation among various levels of government, businesses, community organizations and individual people. They may require transportation agencies to become involved in new types of programs and services.

 

Most Clean Vehicle strategies can be implemented individually, and their impacts are relatively easy to predict. TDM strategies tend to be most effective if implemented as part of an integrated program, and their individual impacts may be difficult to quantify. For example, parking pricing tends to be most effective at reducing automobile travel if implemented in conjunction with walking, cycling, ridesharing and transit improvements, and other pricing and land use management strategies.

 

Various public policies and Institutional Reforms can help implement TDM strategies (Leotta, 2007). The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP, 2003) identifies the following major categories of TDM implementation policies:

• Shift funding toward more efficient options (Least Cost Planning).
• Promote Location Efficient Development.
• Encourage the use of more efficient options (TDM Marketing).
• Develop diverse Freight networks.
• Create efficient options for intercity travel.

 

Most individual TDM strategies have modest impacts, affecting a small portion of total vehicle travel, but their impacts are cumulative and synergistic. An integrated TDM program can often reduce 20-30% of automobile travel where it is applied. Some studies suggest that comprehensive implementation of TDM strategies to the degree that they are economically justified could reduce total vehicle travel by more than a third.

 

Some people are skeptical that TDM strategies are feasible, because they require consumers to change their travel habits, and 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 can support such changes both politically and individually.

 

Accounting For Vehicle Travel Changes

Most TDM strategies reduce total Vehicle Kilometres Traveled (VKT), while some Clean Vehicle technologies increase VKT. For example, a pricing or land use management strategy might reduce vehicle mileage by 5-10%, while shifts to more fuel-efficient or alternative fuel vehicles may increase total vehicle mileage by the same amount, by reducing per-kilometre vehicle costs. As a result, the TDM strategy will reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes, urban sprawl and traffic noise, while Clean Vehicles can increase these costs.

 

It is important to account for these mileage changes when evaluating and comparing emission reduction options (Litman, 2002; CBO, 2002). These mileage-related costs and benefits are generally greater in total value than emission costs, as indicated in Figure 1. A strategy that reduces energy consumption or pollution emissions by 20% but increases mileage-related costs by just 5% may harm society overall. On the other hand, an energy conservation or pollution reduction strategy becomes far more valuable to society if it also reduces mileage-related costs.

 

 

Demand Management Strategies

The following TDM strategies tend to be particularly effective at reducing energy consumption and pollution emissions.

 

Distance-Based Emission Fees

Distance-Based Emission Fees are mileage-based charges that reflect a vehicle’s emission rate (USEPA, 1998; Sevigny, 1998). For example, an older vehicle that lacks current emission controls might pay 5¢ per mile, while a newer vehicle might pay 1¢, and an Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle might pay 0.2¢. This gives motorists with higher polluting vehicles a greater incentive to reduce their mileage, and conversely, gives motorists who drive high mileage a greater incentive to choose low polluting vehicles. Fees can vary depending on when and where driving occurs, with higher charges at times and locations where pollution impacts are greater (Pricing Methods). A more advanced system uses electronic sensors to measure actual tailpipe emissions when a vehicle is driven, giving motorists an incentive to minimize emissions in a variety of ways: choosing less polluting vehicles, reducing mileage, keeping engines well-tuned, and driving more smoothly.

 

Such fees result in relatively large emission reductions and relatively modest mileage reductions. For example, one study predicts that a fee based on measured tailpipe emissions, which averages about 1¢ per vehicle-mile (but higher for more polluting vehicles) would reduce mileage by about 2%, but energy consumption would decline by 7% and air pollution emissions would decline by almost 20%, as indicated in the table below.

 

Table 9            Impacts of Emission Charges, in Year 2010 (Harvey and Deakin, 1998, Table B.10)

Region	Fee Basis	VMT	Trips	Delay	Fuel	ROG	Revenue
	Vehicle Model	-2.2%	-1.9%	-3.5%	-3.9%	-5.4%	$384
Bay Area	Vehicle Use	-1.6%	-1.4%	-2.5%	-6.6%	-17.7%	$341
	Vehicle Model	-2.6%	-2.3%	-4.5%	-4.0%	-5.7%	$116
Sacramento	Vehicle Use	-2.3%	-2.1%	-5.0%	-7.4%	-20.2%	$102
	Vehicle Model	-2.5%	-2.2%	-3.5%	-4.1%	-5.5%	$211
San Diego	Vehicle Use	-1.9%	-1.7%	-3.5%	-7.1%	-19.5%	$186
	Vehicle Model	-2.5%	-2.3%	-5.5%	-3.9%	-5.5%	$1,106
South Coast	Vehicle Use	-2.1%	-1.9%	-6.0%	-7.2%	-18.9%	$980

Vehicle Model Fee Basis = a per-mile fee based on vehicle model and year. Vehicle Use Fee Basis = a fee based on measured tailpipe emissions of each individual vehicle, using electronic instrumentation.  VMT = change in total vehicle mileage. Trips = change in total vehicle trips. Delay = change in congestion delay. Fuel = change in fuel consumption. ROG = a criteria air pollutant. Revenue = annual revenue in millions of 1991 U.S. dollars. See original report for additional notes and data.

 

 

Fuel Tax Increases and Carbon Taxes

Fuel Taxes are often considered a road user fee, which can be increased to recover more roadway costs. Carbon Taxes are taxes based on fossil fuel carbon content, and therefore a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Fuel tax increases are an effective way to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, but is less effective at reducing other emissions or other mileage-related costs. Raising fuel price has two effects, it causes modest reductions in vehicle mileage, and over the long term encourages motorists to choose more fuel-efficient vehicles. A 10% price increase typically reduces fuel consumption by about 3% within one year and 7% over a five to ten year period (Elasticities). About one-third of the long-term energy savings result from reduced driving, and about two-thirds results from consumers shifting to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

 

It is uncertain how much increased fuel efficiency reduces emissions other than CO₂. Manufactures design vehicles to meet specific emission standards, and so implement more control strategies in vehicles with larger engines than in vehicles with smaller engines. Some emission control strategies reduce fuel efficiency (for example, catalytic converters add weight, and tuning engines to minimize NOx emissions increases fuel consumption). Reducing vehicle weight and wind resistance tends to reduce non-tailpipe emissions such as tire particles and road dust, but these effects are difficult to quantify. Most emissions decline in proportional to mileage. For example, one study estimates that a fuel tax increase of 50¢ per gallon (US 1991 dollars) would reduce mileage by about 4%, energy consumption by about 9%, and other emissions by about 3.5% (Table 10).

 

Table 10          Fuel Tax Increase (Harvey and Deakin, 1998, Table B.8)

Region	Tax Increase	VMT	Trips	Delay	Fuel	ROG	Revenue
	$0.50	- 3.6%	-3.4%	-8.5%	-8.8%	3.5%	$1,332
Bay Area	$2.00	-11.7%	-11.3%	-25.5%	-30.6%	11.6%	$4,053
	$0.50	-4.1%	-3.9%	-7.0%	-9.3%	4.0%	$414
Sacramento	$2.00	-13.2%	-12.7%	-22.0%	-31.8%	13.0%	$1,245
	$0.50	-3.9%	-3.5%	-8.0%	-9.1%	3.8%	$747
San Diego	$2.00	-12.5%	-12.0%	-23.0%	-31.1%	12.3%	$2,257
	$0.50	-4.2%	-3.5%	-9.5%	-9.3%	4.1%	$3,724
South Coast	$2.00	-13.0%	-12.5%	-28.5%	-31.6%	12.8%	$11,235

Tax Increase = additional fuel taxes applied in addition to current taxes. VMT = change in total vehicle mileage. Trips = change in total vehicle trips. Delay = change in congestion delay. Fuel = change in fuel consumption. ROG = a criteria air pollutant. Revenue = annual revenue in millions of 1991 U.S. dollars. See original report for additional notes and data.

 

 

Since taxes represent about half of total fuel prices in North America, a 20% tax increase is required to produce a 10% price increase. Fuel prices can be increased through Market Reforms such as a revenue-neutral tax shift (increasing fuel taxes and using the revenue to reduce other taxes that are considered more economically harmful, such as taxes on employment and business activity). Such tax shifts can provide Economic Development benefits by reducing employment and investment costs, reducing the economic costs of imported petroleum, stimulating energy efficiency technological innovation, and encouraging consumers to shift their expenditures to goods that generate greater regional employment (Goldstein, 2007). Shapiro, Pham and Malik (2008) used the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to evaluate the economic impacts of a carbon tax that begins at $14 per ton of CO2 equivalent and increases to $50 per ton, with 90% of the revenues returned to households and businesses in tax relief and the remaining 10% of revenues used to support energy and climate-related research and development, and new technology deployment. They conclude that this can reduce climate change emissions by 30% while only reducing 2010-to-2030 GDP growth from 33.6% to 33.4%.

 

 

Freight Transport Management

Freight and commercial transport represents about 40% of transportation energy consumption, and a somewhat smaller but still significant portion of pollution emissions. Diesel freight vehicles tend to produce high particulate and sulphur emissions, although, as described earlier, these are declining as more rigorous emission control standards are implemented. Some studies estimate that freight energy efficiency can realistically increase by 15-30% over a 10-20 year period (OECD/IEA, 2001, p. 157). The specific strategies described below can increase freight efficiency and reduce pollution.

 

·         Increase freight vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce emissions through design improvements and new technologies. These include increased aerodynamics, weight reductions, reduced engine friction, improved engine and transmission designs, more efficient tires, and more efficient accessories.

 

·         Encourage shippers to use more energy efficient modes, such as rail and water transport rather than trucking for longer-distance shipping.

 

·         Improve rail and marine transportation infrastructure and services to make these modes more competitive with trucking. (Note that by reducing shipping costs this may increase total freight traffic volumes, resulting in little or no reduction in energy consumption, emissions or other externalities.)

 

·         Improve scheduling and routing to reduce freight vehicle mileage and increase load factors (e.g., avoiding empty backhauls). This can be accomplished through increased computerization and coordination among distributors.

 

·         Organize regional delivery systems so fewer vehicle trips are needed to distribute goods (e.g., using common carriers that consolidate loads, rather than company fleets).

 

·         Reduce total freight transport by reducing product volumes and unnecessary packaging, relying on more local products, and siting manufacturing and assembly processes closer to their destination markets.

 

·         Use smaller vehicles and human powered transport, particularly for distribution in urban areas.

 

·         Implement fleet management programs that increase system efficiency, use optimal sized vehicles for each trip, and insure that fleet vehicles are maintained and operated in ways that minimize pollution emissions.

 

·         Encourage retrofit or scrapping of older, higher-polluting freight vehicles.

 

·         Increase land use Accessibility by Clustering common destinations together, which reduces the amount of travel required for goods distribution.

 

·         Pricing and tax policies to encourage efficient freight transport.

 

·         Improve vehicle operator training to encourage more efficient driving.

 

 

One estimate of potential truck energy efficiency strategies is listed below (www.fuelmasterlogistics.co.uk):

Aerodynamics             28%

Driver training             19%

Strategic measures       14%

Vehicle selection         12%

Improved maintenance            11%

Fuel management         10%

 

 

Aviation Transport Management

Aviation is a major source of energy consumption and pollution emissions, is one of the fastest growing transportation sectors, has relatively high fuel consumption rates per passenger-mile (see Table 2), and tends to stimulate increased travel. High altitude air pollution emissions by jets tend to impose particularly high greenhouse impacts, and aircraft cause local air and noise pollution problems. Aviation represents about 10% of current transportation energy consumption.

 

Although some air travel is relatively inelastic (which is why airlines can sell high-priced business-class seats), much air travel is highly price sensitive (which is why airlines offer discounted fares), so even modest price increases can reduce air travel. One study estimates the price elasticity of aviation fuel at –0.1 in the short run and –0.3 over the long run (Hagler Bailly, 1999). Since fuel represents about 10% of total air travel costs, this suggests an elasticity of air travel with respect to total operating costs of about –1.0 or greater. Various policies and management strategies can encourage more efficient, less polluting air travel, and shifts to other modes, particularly to rail and bus for medium-distant trips (200-800 miles). These include:

 

·         Eliminate airport infrastructure property tax exemptions, and increase aviation fuel tax rates. Eliminate duty-free shops at airports.

 

·         Increase airport user fees to provide full cost recovery of airport infrastructure investments, air traffic controls and security services.

 

·         Support development of fast and efficient rail transport on busy corridors to compete with air transport for medium-distance journeys.

 

·         Upgrade and replace older aircraft with newer models that reduce fuel consumption, noise and air pollution emissions.

 

·         Improve air traffic management systems to increase operational efficiency.

 

 

TDM Programs

Various types of programs implement specific TDM services within a particular geographic areas or group. Many TDM strategies need such a program to be implemented. Such a program has stated goals, objectives, a budget, staff, and a clear relationship with stakeholders. It may be a division within a transportation or transit agency, an independent government agency, or a public/private partnership. Below are examples.

 

Table 10          TDM Programs

Program Type	Scope	Travel Affected
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs	Employees in a particular business or jurisdiction.	Commute trips (about 25% of personal travel).
Transportation Management Association	Employees, businesses and clients in a district or jurisdiction.	Personal and some freight travel within an area.
Campus Transport Management	Serves students, staff and visitors in a college, university or research campus.	Commutes, and sometimes other trips.
School Transport Management	Serves students, parents and staff within a school.	School trips (about 5% of personal travel).
TDM Programs	Businesses, employees, residents and visitors within a district or jurisdiction.	Travel in the affected area.
Tourist Transport Management	Visitors, businesses and staff.	Travel in resort areas. Any leisure travel.
Special Event Transport Management	Participants and staff at special events, and travelers during emergencies.	Affected travel.

 

 

TDM programs typically include some of the following strategies:

·         Commuter Financial Incentives (Parking Cash Out and Transit Allowances).

·         Rideshare Matching.

·         Parking Management and Parking Pricing.

·         Alternative Scheduling (Flextime and Compressed Work Weeks).

·         Telework.

·         TDM Marketing and Promotion.

·         Guaranteed Ride Home.

·         Walking and Cycling Encouragement.

·         Walking and Cycling Improvements.

·         Bicycle Parking and Changing Facilities.

·         Land use planning that reflects Location-Efficient Development principles.

·         Amenities such as on-site childcare, restaurants and shops, to reduce the need to drive for errands.

 

 

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

Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that fixed vehicle fees such as insurance and registration charges are converted into variable fees. For example, a motorist who now pays $1,000 per year for insurance would instead pay about 8¢ per mile, which gives motorists a new opportunity to save money if they driving less. Other fees, such as vehicle registrations, licensing, taxes and lease fees can also be made distance-based.

 

PAYD pricing can provide a variety of benefits:

·         Increased equity (fees more accurately reflect the costs imposed by each vehicle).

·         Increased affordability (motorists can minimize their insurance and registration fees by minimizing their mileage, which is not currently possible).

·         Reduced uninsured driving (increased affordability can help lower-income and low-annual mileage motorists afford insurance coverage).

·         Reduced crash risk (reduced mileage reduces crashes, and PAYD insurance gives higher-risk motorists the greatest incentive to reduce their mileage).

·         Reduced traffic congestion.

·         Road and parking costs savings.

 

Converting vehicle insurance and registration fees to PAYD approximately doubles variable vehicle expenses. This is predicted to reduce vehicle travel by approximately 10%, or 12% if vehicle registration fees are also distance-based. Because this involves changes to existing vehicle charges rather it should face less political opposition than a new fee or tax. It can be implemented as consumer option (just as consumers are able to choose a telephone or Internet service rate structure).

 

 

Market Reforms

A number of Transportation  and Land Use market reforms can help reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions, and encourage more efficient land use (USEPA, 2001; BTRE, 2002; CBO, 2006). These include:

 

·         Full cost pricing (also called marginal cost pricing), which means that users pay directly for costs imposed on society by their vehicle use. This can include direct road user fees, parking pricing, insurance pricing reforms, tax reforms (for example, charging property taxes on road rights-of-way), and vehicle emission fees.

 

·         Revenue-neutral tax shifts. Since governments must tax something to raise revenue, many economists recommend shifting taxes from socially desirable activities to activities that impose external costs. For example, fuel taxes and other road user charges could increase, and the revenues used to reduce employment and business taxes.

 

·         More neutral tax policies. Some current tax policies unintentionally favor automobile use. For example, tax policies encourage employers to provide company cars or offer generous mileage reimbursement rates as a perk, and parking is often taxed at a lower rate than other goods.

 

·         Least-Cost Transportation Planning. Least-Cost Planning means that demand management strategies are given equal consideration as capacity expansion in planning and funding.

 

·         Cost-based development and utility fees. Clustered development tends to have lower public service costs, but these savings are not generally reflected in development and utility fees. More cost-based pricing can encourage more infill development.

 

·         Improved transportation pricing methods. Conventional parking pricing and road tolling systems are inconvenient and expensive to operate. New Pricing Methods can overcome these problems, making direct user charges more feasible and politically acceptable.

 

 

There is virtually no technical limit to how much these strategies can reduce transportation energy consumption and emissions, their barriers are primarily political and institutional. Transportation market reforms justified on efficiency grounds (such as more efficient pricing of roads, parking and vehicle insurance) could reduce VMT by about one third (Litman, Komanoff and Howell, 1998), plus additional long-term travel reductions from more efficient land use development patterns.

 

 

Land Use Management Strategies

Land use management strategies such as Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Location-Efficient Development can reduce per capita automobile use, transportation energy use and emissions by improving Accessibility and Transportation Options (Donoso, Martinez and Zegras 2006).

 

Land use reforms can provide a number of benefits (Land Use Evaluation). Increased land use density and mix tend to reduce total per capita emissions (Newman and Kenworthy 1999; USEPA 2002; Mindali, Raveh and Salomon 2004; Lawrence Frank and Company 2005; Rose and Burkholder 2008; TRB 2009), although it can increase exposure to local emissions such as carbon monoxide, particulates and noise. Ewing, et al. (2007), provide detailed analysis of the ability of Smart Growth land use policies to reduce emissions; they estimate the cost effective land use changes can provide energy conservation benefits comparable to shifting average motorists to hybrid vehicles, while providing other economic, social and environmental benefits. In a study comparing per capita carbon emission rates by U.S. metropolitan regions, Sarzynski, Brown and Southworth (2008) found that “density, concentration of development, and rail transit all tend to be higher in metro areas with small per capita footprints. Much of what appears as regional variation may be attributed to these spatial factors.”

 

The following land use factors can affect energy consumption and emissions (Land Use Impacts on Transportation):

 

·         Density (the number of people and businesses in a given area) and Clustering (common destinations located close together) affects the distances that people must travel, and the potential of transit, walking and cycling.

 

·         Land use mix (the diversity of land uses in an area) affects trip distances and the feasibility of nonmotorized transportation.

 

·         Major activity centers (locate employment, retail and public services close together in walkable commercial centers) increases the feasibility of transit use and allows people to make personal and business errands without driving.

 

·         Parking management (flexible minimum parking requirements, shared parking, priced parking and regulations to encourage efficient use of parking facilities) affects the relative price and convenience of driving, and affects land use density, accessibility and walkability.

 

·         Street connectivity (the degree to which streets connect to each other, rather than having deadends or large blocks) affects accessibility, including the amount of travel required to reach destinations and the relative speed and convenience of cycling and walking.

 

·         Transit Oriented Development (locating high-density development around transit stations) makes transit relatively more convenient, and can be a catalyst for other land-use changes.

 

·         Pedestrian Accessibility (walkability) and Traffic Calming (roadway design features that reduce traffic speeds) affect the relative speed, convenience and safety of nonmotorized transportation.

 

 

Although individually each of these factors has relatively modest travel impacts, residents of traditional communities that incorporate most or all of these factors tend to drive 20-40% less than otherwise comparable residents of automobile-dependent communities (Land Use Impacts on Transport). Research by Kenworthy (2007) indicates that residents of North American cities consume about 60 MegaJoules annually for transportation energy, about twice that in Canada and Australia, four times that of Western Europe, and six times that of High Income Asian cities, due to differences in transportation and land use policies. A USEPA study (2004) found that regardless of population density, transportation system design features such as greater street connectivity, a more pedestrian-friendly environment, shorter route options, and more extensive transit service tend to reduce per-capita vehicle travel, pollution emissions, congestion delays and traffic accidents.

 

 

Nonmotorized Transportation Improvements and Encouragement

Shifts from automobile to nonmotorized transportation can be particularly effective at energy conservation and emission reductions by reducing short motor vehicle trips which have high per-mile fuel consumption and emission rates. As a result, each 1% shift of mileage from automobile to nonmotorized modes tends to reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions by 2-4%. A short pedestrian or cycle trip often replaces a longer automobile trip (for example, consumers may choose between shopping at a local store or driving to a major shopping center). Nonmotorized transportation improvements are also important for increasing transit use and creating more Accessible land use patterns.

 

Petritsch, et al. (2008) develop a model for predicting the mode shifts and energy savings likely to result from the addition of a particular cycling facility. According to some estimates, 5-10% of urban automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to non-motorized transport (Pedestrian Improvements). Walking and cycling improvements can help reduce total travel: a short walking or cycling trip replaces a much longer automobile trip, and nonmotorized travel improvements support transit use and more accessible development patterns. Some pedestrian-friendly communities have 5-10 times as many nonmotorized trips as occurs in more Automobile Dependent communities with otherwise similar demographic and geographic conditions.

 

 

Ridesharing.

Ridesharing refers to carpooling and vanpooling. Carpooling uses participants’ own automobiles. Vanpooling uses vans that are usually owned by an organization (such as a business, non-profit, or government agency) and made available specifically for commuting. Vanpooling is particularly suitable for longer commutes (10 miles or more each way). Ridesharing can be the most cost effective transportation mode. Carpooling that makes use of existing vehicle seats that would otherwise travel empty have very low incremental costs. Vanpooling with 6 or more passengers in a vehicle tends to have the lowest average cost per passenger-mile, since it carries more passengers per vehicle than a carpool, and does not require a professional driver or empty backhauls like conventional public transit services.

 

There are several ways to support and encourage ridesharing, including providing rideshare matching and vanpool organizing services, Marketing, Commuter Financial Incentives and HOV Priority.

 

 

Road Pricing

Road Pricing means that motorists pay directly for using a particular roadway or driving in a particular area. Road Pricing can be implemented as a demand management strategy, to fund roadway improvements or for a combination of these objectives. Economists have long advocated Road Pricing as an efficient and equitable way to pay roadway costs and encourage more efficient transportation. Below are specific types of road pricing

 

·         Toll Roads are a common way to fund highway and bridge improvements. This is considered more equitable and economically efficient than other roadway improvement funding options.

 

·         Congestion Pricing (also called Value Pricing) refers to road pricing used to reduce peak-period vehicle travel.

 

·         High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are High Occupancy Vehicle lanes that also allow access to low occupancy vehicles if drivers pay a toll. This allows more vehicles to use HOV lanes while maintaining an incentive for mode shifting, and raises revenue.

 

·         Cordon (Area) Tolls are fees paid by motorists for driving in a particular area, usually a city center during weekdays. This can be done by simply requiring vehicles driven within the area to display a pass, or by tolling at each entrance to the area.

 

·         Vehicle Use Fees such as mileage-based charges can be used to fund roadways and reduce vehicle travel (Distance-Based Fees).

 

 

Transit Improvements and Incentives

A variety of strategies can encourage transit use, including increased service, more convenient and comfortable service, transit priority traffic management, lower fares, improved marketing, commuter incentives (such as employee transit benefits), improved pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, and Transit Oriented Development (TCRP, 2003). In most communities, 5-10% of automobile trips could shift to transit if these strategies are widely implemented.

 

Transit consumes less energy and produce less pollution per passenger-mile than automobile travel, and people who rely on transit tend to travel fewer passenger-miles than motorists, so increased transit tends to reduce per capita energy consumption and pollution emissions. A variety of factors affect the energy conservation and emission reduction impacts of transit improvements and incentives (Transit Evaluation). A full transit vehicle consumes less than 10% of the energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel, but in practice system-wide energy savings tend to be smaller due to relatively low load factors (transit vehicles often make trips with relatively few passengers).

 

Strategies that increase transit load factors (for example, fare discounts, more comfortable vehicles and better information, that increase ridership on routes that have excess capacity) can provide significant emission reductions. Transit improvements can provide a catalyst for broader travel and land use change. For example, people who commute by transit do not usually drive for errands during their breaks, and attractive transit service may allow some households to give up a second car, resulting in reduced per capita automobile travel. Transit Oriented Development helps create multi-modal communities where residents and employees drive less overall (Land Use Impacts on Transport). Some research indicates that each passenger-mile of rail travel represents 3 to 6 miles of reduced automobile travel if a transit system provides a catalyst for more accessible land use, suggesting that total energy saving and emission reduction benefits may be many times greater than what results directly from passenger-miles shifted from automobile to transit (Transit Evaluation).

 

Wright and Fulton (2005) find that a combination of Bus Rapid Transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements can provide substantial emission reductions at relatively low cost ($14-$66 per tonne of CO₂ reduced, compared with $148-3,500 per tonne for introduction of alternative fueled vehicles). Davis and Hale (2007) estimate that at current levels of use public transit services avoid emissions of at least 6.9 million metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by substituting for automobile travel and reducing traffic congestion, and possibly much more by creating more accessible land use patterns. They estimate that a typical household could reduce its total greenhouse emissions by 25-30% by shifting from two to one vehicles, as can occur if they shift from an automobile-dependent lifestyle to a multi-modal lifestyle. Bailey (2007) found that a typical household reduces its annual mileage 45% by shifting from an automobile-dependent location, which provides minimal travel options and requires ownership of two cars, to a transit-oriented neighborhood, which offers quality transit service and requires ownership of just one car. This saves 512 gallons of fuel annually, worth $1,400 at $2.73 per gallon. ICF International (2008) found that high quality public transit service reduces energy consumption and pollution emissions directly, and also indirectly by creating more accessible and multi-modal land use patterns.

 

 

High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) Priority

High Occupant Vehicles (HOVs) include carpools, vanpools and transit vehicles. Strategies that give HOVs priority in traffic and parking can result in mode shifting, and smoother traffic flow reduce per-mile energy consumption and pollution emissions. Hossain and Kennedy (2008) estimated that Bus Rapid Transit could reduce corridor transportation energy consumption by 29% in the short-run and 45% over the long run, compared with general purpose lanes. Table 11 summarizes estimated emission reductions from transit priority strategies. HOV facilities can reduce peak-period vehicle trips on a particular roadway by 4-30%, although regional travel reductions are smaller because only congested travel is affected.

 

Table 11          Bus Priority Measures in London (Bayliss, 1989)

 

 

Parking Management and Parking Pricing

Parking Management and Parking Pricing strategies are an effective way to reduce automobile travel, and tend to be particularly effective in urban areas where pollution problems are greatest. Charging motorists directly for the parking tends to reduce automobile trips by 10-30% of affected trips. Parking management and pricing supports use of alternative modes, improves walkability, and encourages more efficient land use.  Also, by reducing the total amount of pavement in an area they help reduce Heat Island Effects (increased ambient temperatures in paved areas) which tends to increase ozone (V. Gorsevski, et al, 1998).

 

 

TDM Marketing

TDM Marketing includes activities that provide consumer information and encouragement to support TDM. Marketing can have a major impact on TDM program effectiveness. Some TDM marketing programs have reduced automobile travel more than 10%.  TDM marketing includes:

·         Educating public officials, businesses about TDM strategies they can implement.

·         Informing potential participants about TDM options they can use.

·         Identifying and overcoming market barriers to the use of alternative modes.

·         Promoting benefits and changing public attitudes about alternative modes.

 

 

Traffic Calming and Roundabouts

Traffic Calming includes a variety of roadway design features that reduce vehicle traffic speeds and volumes. The energy and emission impacts depend on project design and conditions. Some Traffic Calming strategies result in smoother traffic and more optimal speeds, reducing energy consumption and emissions. In particular, Modern Roundabouts that replace stop signs and traffic signals can improve traffic flow (www.RoundaboutsUSA.com). Other Traffic Calming strategies increase stop-and-go driving and reduce traffic speeds below optimal vehicle efficiency (i.e., below 20 mph), and so may increase per-mile vehicle energy consumption and emissions. Impacts on per capita energy consumption and emissions depend on whether Traffic Calming reduces total vehicle travel by making alternative modes and more accessible urban neighborhoods relatively more attractive.

 

 

 Car-Free Planning and Vehicle Restrictions

Comprehensive Car-free Planning and Vehicle Restrictions can reduce vehicle use, energy consumption and emissions, if implemented as part of a comprehensive program to increase transportation and land use efficiency. If applied on a small scale, such as a single street or commercial centers, it may simply shift when and where driving occurs, causing little or no energy savings or emission reduction benefit. Some types of vehicle restrictions, such as no-drive days based on license plate numbers, are used during extreme air pollution emergencies, but are probably not effective as long-term strategies. Some households will even purchase a second car to use during their regular vehicle’s no-drive days, or rely on taxis rather than personal automobiles.

 

 

Telework

Telework involves the use of telecommunications to substitute for physical travel. This includes telecommuting, distance learning, and various forms of electronic business and government activities. According to some estimates up to 50% of all types of jobs are suitable for Telework, but the actual portion of trips that can be reduced by telework appears to be much lower, since many jobs require access to special materials and equipment, or frequent face-to-face meetings, and not all employees want to telework or have suitable home conditions. A portion of the reduced travel is often offset by additional vehicle trips teleworkers make to run errands, and because it allows employees to move further from their worksite, for example, choosing a home of job in a rural area or another city because they know that they only need to commute two or three days a week.

 

 

Speed Reductions

Traffic speeds reductions can reduce energy consumption and emissions in two ways. Lower speeds tend to reduce total vehicle mileage. The elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to travel time is  –0.2 to –0.5 in the short run and –0.7 to –1.0 over the long run, meaning that a 10% reduction in average traffic speeds reduces affected vehicle travel by 2-5% during the first few years, and up to 7-10% over a longer time period (Transport Elasticities).

 

In addition, vehicle fuel consumption and emissions tend to increase at speeds greater than 55 miles per hour, as indicated in figures 1 and 2. For a typical car, fuel efficiency declines about 1% for each additional mile above 55 mph. Reducing travel speeds from 65 to 55 mph provides about 10% fuel savings for a 1997 model vehicle, and about 18% for a 1984 model vehicle. Some researchers suggest that significant energy savings and emission reductions could be achieved by enforcing existing traffic speed limits (Suzuki, 1998).

 

 

Sustainable Transportation Planning

Sustainable Transportation refers to transportation systems that respond to long-term and indirect economic, social and environmental objectives. Global air pollution and depletion of non-renewable resources are major concerns for Sustainable Transportation. Sustainable Transportation planning can provide a framework for implementing energy conservation and emission reduction strategies.

 

 

Other Strategies

Energy conservation and emission reduction strategies that do not involve TDM are described below.

 

Promote Efficient and Low Emission Vehicle Purchases

Information and promotion can encourage consumers and fleet managers to purchase more efficient, less polluting vehicles. U.S. federal law requires vehicle manufacturers to post fuel efficiency ratings on new vehicles, and information resources such as those listed below can help consumers take energy and emission factors into account when selecting a vehicle.

 

Vehicle Energy Consumption and Emission Information Resources

ACEEE, Green Book; The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (www.aceee.org) and (www.greenercars.com), 2001. This publication ranks motor vehicles according to their environmental impacts.

 

AirHead Website (www.AirHead.org) is an online tool to provide information about the air pollution impacts of their everyday decisions. It can calculate an individual’s air emission profile and track it from month to month.

 

Fuel Economy Website (www.fueleconomy.gov), by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Agency provides information on fuel consumption ratings of new automobiles and additional information on vehicle efficiency strategies.

 

NRC, EnerGuide for Vehicles, Natural Resources Canada (http://autosmart.nrcan.gc.ca/home_e.htm) provides information on automobile fuel efficiency in the Canadian market.

 

 

Emission Standards

These are requirements that manufacturers produce vehicles that incorporate certain technologies (such as emission catalysts) or meet a maximum emission standard. These have been widely applied and have been successful at reducing per-mile emission rates for some pollutants. Such standards can be increased to force manufactures to develop and implement additional emission controls. McGranahan and Murray (2003) discuss vehicle emission standards suitable for developing countries.

 

Table 12          U.S. Emission Standards (Grams/Mile) (BTS, 2000, Table 4-6)

	Total HC	NMHC	CO	Cold CO	NOx	Particulates
Passenger Cars	0.25	0.16	2.1	6.2	6.2	0.05
Full Useful Life	NA	0.19	2.6	NA	0.4	0.06
Light Trucks	NA	0.20	2.7	6.2	0.4	0.05
Full Useful Life	0.50	0.25	3.4	NA	0.6	0.06

This table shows U.S. vehicle emission standards.

 

 

Fuel Efficiency Standards

Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards require vehicle manufactures to produce and sell more fuel-efficient vehicles. Manufactures pay a fine if the vehicles they sell on average exceed these standards. The current US standard is 27.5 mpg (8.2 liters per 100 kilometers) for passenger cars and 20.2 mpg (11.4 liters per 100 kilometers) for light trucks (BTS, 2000, Table 4.5). These have not increased since 1996. Recent studies have investigated raising these standards in the near future (NRC, 2001; Suzuki, 1998).

 

 

Gas Guzzler Taxes

A Gas Guzzler Tax is a special tax on the purchase of new vehicles based on their fuel consumption rates, to encourage the manufacture and sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The U.S. Gas Guzzler Tax was established in 1978 and phased in over ten years. Environmental and energy conservation organizations are lobbying to extend this tax to light trucks and SUVs (FOE, 2000).

 

Table 13          Gas Guzzler Tax Rates (ORNL, 2000, Table 7.19)

Miles Per Gallon	1986-1990	1991+
22.5 & Higher	$0	$0
21.5-22.5	$500	$1,000
20.5-21.5	$650	$1,300
19.5-20.5	$850	$1,700
18.5-19.5	$1,050	$2,100
17.5-18.5	$1,300	$2,600
16.5-17.5	$1,500	$3,000
15.5-16.5	$1,850	$3,700
14.5-15.5	$2,250	$4,500
13.5-14.5	$2,700	$5,400
12.5-13.5	$3,200	$6,400
12.5 & below	$2,850	$7,700

 

 

Feebates

Feebates are a surcharge on the purchase of new fuel inefficient vehicles, with the revenue used to provide a rebate on the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles (DeCicco, 1994; NRT, 1998; Perrin, 2000). The table below indicates the predicted impact of Feebates, based on a 9-liters/100 kilometer base. For example, if a $500 level is used, a vehicle rated at 6 liters/100 km would receive a $1,500 rebate, while a vehicle rated at 11 liters/100 km would be charged a $1,000 fee. Kunert and Kuhfeld (2007) recommend a set of tax reforms to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

Table 14          Feebate Impacts (1996 U.S. Dollars, based on Michaelis, 1996)

Feebate Level Per Liter/100 kms	New Vehicle Fuel Economy Increase
$250	10%
$500	14%
$1,000	20%
$2,000	28%

The table shows the predicted impact of various Feebate levels, based on a 9-liters/100 kilometer base. Purchasers of vehicles that are less efficient pay a fee, and purchasers of vehicles that are more efficient receive a rebate based on the selected rate.

 

 

Close Gas Guzzler Loopholes

Current U.S. federal policy is the opposite of a gas guzzler tax. Businesses are allowed to claim an immediate deduction off the price of a light truck or SUV  that weighs over 6,000 pounds, worth as much as $25,000, plus a bonus deduction of 30% of the remaining vehicle cost until 2004. This deduction is not available on lighter vehicles. A large Chevy Suburban qualifies, but the lighter and more fuel efficient Chevy Blazer does not, nor does a standard or fuel efficient car. This provides a significant price cut. Ford Motor Co.'s Land Rover Range Rover, for instance, has a list price of $71,865, but the combined tax breaks effectively knock $21,560 off the price, over the course of five years, assuming a tax rate of 30%. Although originally intended to benefit small farmers, the law is now primarily used by non-farm businesses. (Jeffrey Ball and Karen Lundegaard, “SUVs Get Big Tax Break - As Drivers Seize Loophole,” The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 2002.

 

 

Efficiency-Based Annual Registration Fees

An alternative to Gas Guzzler taxes or Feebates on the purchase of a new vehicle is an annual vehicle fee based on a vehicle’s fuel efficiency rating (NRT, 1998). This can be implemented by modifying the structure of existing vehicle registration fees rather than imposing a new fee. These may induce some motorists to purchase less polluting vehicles. Such fees tend to be regressive, since lower-income motorists are more likely to own a higher-polluting vehicle (Sevigny, 1998).

 

 

Transit Emission Reduction Programs

Transit vehicle emission reduction programs can be particularly cost effective because transit vehicles tend to drive high mileage under urban-peak conditions, and older diesel buses had high per-mile emission rates (Anyon, 2001). Such programs include use of electric trolleys and alternative fuel buses (such as natural gas) to replace conventional diesel buses, retrofitting existing buses with cleaner diesel engines, and improving bus maintenance and operating practices (see USEPA “Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild” program at www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm).

 

 

Motorcycle Encouragement

Motorcycles average about 50 miles per gallon (BTS, 2000), about twice the fuel efficiency of an average automobile, so shifts from driving to motorcycling can conserve fuel. Programs can encourage motorcycling and motorcycle safety (VicRoads, 2001). However, motorcycles tend to produce high rates of conventional pollutants because their engines generally lack emission control features such as fuel injection and catalytic systems, and many older motorcycles had high-polluting two-cycle engines. Motorcycles also have low load factors: they tend to be more energy-efficient than a solo driver in an average automobile, but less energy efficient than two or more passengers in a fuel-efficient car.

 

 

Super-Efficient and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives

Public agencies can sponsor research, demonstration and marketing programs to develop super-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles and encourage their use (Hypercar; CalStart). The emission reduction benefits from alternative fuels depends on many factors, including the type of fuel and engine used, how the fuel is produced, and whether full lifecycle emissions are considered (Delucchi, 2003; Bourne, 2007). Implementation strategies include minimizing taxes (or providing tax credits) on high efficiency and alternative fueled vehicles, minimizing taxes on alternative fuels, development and production subsidies and tax credits, government fleet purchases of high efficiency and alternative fueled vehicles, infrastructure support (such as government supply of refueling and recharging stations), mandates (see below) and promotion campaigns (ADB, 2007).

 

 

Low and Zero Emission Vehicle Mandates

A Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate was created by California's Air Resources Board (CARB; www.arb.ca.gov) in accordance with Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) Regulations passed in 1990. It requires that a portion of vehicles sold in California by major car companies be zero-emission (i.e., virtually no tailpipe emissions). Originally the mandate was to be 2% of vehicles in 1998, increasing to 10% in 2003, but in 1996, CARB changed the requirement to a “good faith effort” by manufactures to market ZEVs.

 

 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs

This means that vehicles are inspected annually or biannually by a certified emission inspection station to identify those with excessive emission rates (see CFA, 1996, www.epa.gov/otaq/cfa-air.htm). A typical I/M program fails about 10% of vehicles, which are required to be repaired or scrapped. Repairs resulting from I/M programs are estimated to reduce fleetwide vehicle fuel consumption by about 0.5%, emissions of NOx by 1%, hydrocarbons by 10% and carbon monoxide by 15%. As a larger portion of the vehicle fleet has modern engines with more durable emission controls, the effectiveness of such programs is expected to decline.

 

 

Roadside “High Emitter” Identification

Instruments are now available that identify the emission rates of vehicles as they drive pass a sensor (FEAT Data Center, www.feat.biochem.du.edu; Klein and Koskenoja, 1996; MDNR, 2005). These can be used with voluntary systems (see box below) or legal enforcement to have high emitting vehicles corrected. Some programs encourage police and citizens to report vehicles that appear to emit excessive smoke (www.smokey.org.nz).

 

Voluntary Emissions Reduction (www.feat.biochem.du.edu/smart_sign.html) Using input from the public, a new type of vehicle emissions information system has been developed which integrates an innovative variable message sign with an on-road vehicle emissions sensing system to display individual vehicle emissions information to passing drivers. The Smart Sign was successfully operated from May 1995 to August of 1996 in Denver Colorado as part of a Federal Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation System operational test. During that time more than 4 million readings were provided to more than 250,000 individuals at a cost of $0.02/test.   The original deployment was permanently located in Denver at the intersection of Speer Blvd. and Interstate 25. The system operated 7 days a week 24 hours a day in conditions that ranged in temperature from -20 to 100 degrees F. The more than 4 million readings were distributed as 86% “Good”, 10% “Fair” and 4% “Poor”.   Using vehicle information the National Center for Vehicle Emissions Control and Safety conducted a follow-up phone survey which showed that 76% of the weighted population had a favorable impression of the sign. Sixteen percent of vehicles rated “poor” (1.6% of the overall fleet) reported to have already taken corrective action as a result of the Smart Sign.   The Smart Sign system has now been converted to a portable system enabling it to be used in a number of new and innovative applications. The sign has been mounted onto a trailer. The remote sensor is mounted above ground in weather protective housings upstream of the sign.

 

 

Scrapage Programs

These programs involve the purchase and disposal of older, higher-emitting vehicles (BTCE, 1996; CFA, 1996; USEPA, 1997; Perrin, 2000; Dill, 2004). This can reduce local pollution emissions, since older vehicles tend to have high emission rates, but does little to reduce energy consumption since older vehicles are on average no more fuel-efficient than new vehicles. Such programs can be set based on vehicle age (i.e., vehicles must be 15 years or older), or vehicles that fail an emission test could qualify. There are potential problems with such programs, since many of the vehicles may be scrapped soon anyway, and some residents may even purchase an older vehicle from another region so it can be purchased through the program.

 

 

Fuel Quality Improvements

Vehicle fuel quality (such as sulphur and heavy metal content) affects the amount of pollution produced per vehicle-mile (SOx, heavy metals, NOx, and particulates), and some fuel contaminants can degrade vehicle emission control equipment. Fuel quality improvements can reduce some pollutants, and may slightly increase vehicle efficiency (Perrin, 2000; Working Group 1 on Environmental Objectives, 2000). Many jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada and some individual states regulate fuel quality. California has been a leader is setting high fuel quality standards. Fuel quality can also be improved by imposing higher taxes on lower-quality fuels or fuels that have harmful additives. This approach has been successful in reducing the use of leaded fuel.

 

 

Emission Capping and Trading

Emission Capping places a limit on the total amount of pollution that may be produced in an area. Emission Trading is a market structure that involves allocating or selling pollution rights, and allowing those rights to be traded to allow the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies to be implemented (BTE, 1998; Albrecht, 2000; Neiderberger, 2005). For example, if ten factories each receive a 100-ton-per-year emission allocation, those that can reduce emissions at a lower cost can sell their rights to others that have a higher cost per unit of emission reductions.

 

Emission trading has been effective and efficient at reducing some emissions when there are a small number of emitters (e.g., a few factories), but most analysts conclude that emission trading as it is currently practiced is not practical for reducing transportation emissions, at least at an individual level (Dobes, 1998). Emission trading may allow funding of specific transportation emission reduction programs. For example, discounts

 

 

Fleet Management and Driver Training

There are many ways to increase motor vehicle performance and efficiency through best management practices, including regular inspections and maintenance, and improved driver training. This is especially appropriate for large vehicle fleets, such as delivery trucks, taxis and vehicle pools (PHH, 2001). The FleetSmart Program funded by Natural Resources Canada (http://fleetsmart.nrcan.gc.ca) provides information on industrial fleet management for efficiency and safety. The Energy Environment Excellence Fleet Management website (www.e3fleet.com) provides practical information for optimizing vehicle fleet fuel efficiency and environmental performance.

 

Driver education and training programs can emphasize techniques that reduce fuel consumption. The Eco-Drive Program sponsored by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy promotes energy conservation driving techniques which can increase energy efficiency by 10-15% (SFOE, 2000). It recommends the following driving habits:

·         Drive in the highest possible gear and at the lowest possible number of revolutions.

·         Accelerate briskly.

·         Switch to a higher gear quickly (at a maximum of 2500 revolutions), wait before changing down.

·         Drive steadily and defensively, avoid unnecessary braking and gear changes.

 

The Repair Our Air-Fleet Challenge (www.repairourair.org) works with fleets to reduce inefficient fuel consumption through:

·         Idling reduction (commercial vehicles often idle a significant portion of their operating time)

·         Speed management

·         Cab heater alternatives

·         Maintenance practices

·         Driver efficiency

 

 

Anti-Idling

Idling vehicles produce air and noise pollution. FleetSmart (2001) encourages truck drivers to minimize idling. Some communities have passed anti-idling laws that limit how long a vehicle can sit with the engine operating when it is not being driven (CCS, 2001). Some organizations provide information and resources to help reduce unnecessary engine idling (www.climatechangesolutions.com/municipal/land/tools/idle.html and  (www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/idling/home.cfm).

 

 

Neighborhood Vehicles

These are small, low-speed vehicles, often powered by alternative fuels, suitable for local travel (Sperling, 1995). For information see Smart Cars (www.smart.com) and the National Station Car Association (www.stncar.com). This type of vehicle can be encouraged by removing any barriers to their legal registration and use of public roads, favorable local transportation policies, roadway designs that accommodate such vehicles, and by direct support from transit agencies.

 

 

Resurface Highways

Reducing highway surface roughness through improved maintenance and using less flexible pavement surfaces such as concrete rather than asphalt can reduce fuel consumption by as much as 10% for heavy trucks, and by a smaller amount for lighter vehicles (BTCE, 1996; TC, 1999). However, most studies indicate that this is not a very cost effective way to increase fuel efficiency.

 

 

Summary of Emission Reduction Strategies

The table below lists the energy conservation and emission reduction strategies described in this chapter (for strategies that appear to be suitable for quick implementation see Noland, Cowart and Fulton, 2005).

 

Table 15          Summary of Emission Reduction Strategies

Reduces Vehicle Travel (TDM)

Reduces Vehicle Emission Rates

Distance-based emission fees Fuel tax increases Freight transport management Aviation transport management Commute trip reduction programs Pay-as-You-Drive vehicle insurance Distance based fees Market reforms Land use management strategies Nonmotorized transportation Ridesharing Road pricing Transit improvements and incentives Parking management and parking pricing TDM marketing Traffic calming and roundabouts Car-free planning and vehicle restrictions Telework Speed reductions

Promote the purchase of cleaner vehicles Emission standards Fuel efficiency standards Feebates Efficiency-based annual registration fees Transit emission reduction programs Motorcycle encouragement Super-efficient and alternative fuel incentives Low and zero emission vehicle mandates Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs Roadside “high emitter” identification Scrapage programs Fuel quality improvements Emission capping and trading Fleet management and driver training Anti-idling Neighborhood vehicles Resurface highways

This table lists the various types of energy conservation and emission reduction strategies identified in this chapter.

 

 

Policy Reforms and Incentives

Governments can implement various reforms and provide incentives for implementation of emission reduction strategies. For example, governments can implement Institutional Reforms such as Least Cost Transportation Planning and Smart Growth Fiscal Reforms within its own jurisdiction.

 

Governments can perform sustainability audits of its policies, investments and programs to identify how they affect Sustainability objectives, including energy and emission reductions. This process can help prioritize funding allocations and design policies and programs to help achieve sustainability.

 

Federal, state and provincial governments often provide funding to regional and local governments. Special funding programs can be available for projects that reduce transportation emissions (such as transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements), and all types of grants can be prioritized based on how well they support sustainability objectives. For example, infrastructure funding that encourage efficient transportation and Smart Growth can be given priority over projects which are otherwise equally beneficial, but do not support these objectives. Federal, state and provincial grants can give priority to communities that have efficient transportation and land use policies. Such incentives can motivate communities to implement their own Institutional Reforms and Smart Growth Fiscal Reforms. This can increase the cost effectiveness of infrastructure investments, since efficient transportation and land use policies can reduce unit costs of providing public services such as roads, water, sewage and schools, particularly over the long run.

 

 

Congestion-Reduction Strategies

Programs to reduce vehicle traffic congestion are often promoted as ways to save energy and reduce vehicle emissions. For example, Barth and Boriboonsomsin (2009) estimate that reducing severe congestion on Los Angeles freeways (speeds below 30 mph) could reduce freeway travel CO₂ emissions by 7-12%.

 

However, actual benefits are difficult to predict, and often small or negative over the long term if congestion reductions efforts stimulate additional vehicle travel. Traffic speed has different effects on different types of pollutants. Per-mile emissions of most pollutants are high at very low speeds and under stop-and-go conditions, and decline as traffic speeds increase and become steady. NOx emissions are lowest at 20-30 mph and increases at speeds over 45 mph. CO and VOC emissions increase significantly at speeds over 55 mph, as indicated in Figure 2. As a result, strategies that relieve congestion and increase traffic speeds from 25 mph up to 50 mph my reduce CO and VOC emission, but increase NOx emission.

 

Whether a particular congestion reduction program causes overall reductions or increases in energy use and emissions depends on the specific circumstances, including location, time, change in level of congestion, driving style, and which emissions are considered most harmful. Although extreme traffic congestion that results in stop-and-go driving (Level of Service F) significantly increases energy consumption and emissions, a good portion of urban-peak travel occurs under moderate congestions in which energy consumption and emissions are minimized (Level of Service C or D).

 

EPA’s latest research indicates that for newer, cleaner vehicles emissions increase at much lower speeds than previously thought. NOx emissions increase with highway speeds above 15-20 miles per hour, VOC emissions increase with speeds above 30-35 mph, and CO above 30. On arterials and local streets emissions increase above 30-35. A congestion reduction program that improves roadway Level of Service from F probably reduces energy consumption and emissions, but shifting Level of Service from D to A probably increases energy consumption and most emissions. Table 16 compares energy consumption and emissions for a typical diesel transit bus under various conditions, showing the effects of higher speeds and traffic congestion.

 

Table 16          Diesel Transit Bus Energy and Emissions

	Constant 50 km/h	Constant 80 km/hr	Congested Flow	Minor Roads	Arterial Road
CO2 (g/km)	865	964	1,541	997	1,080
NOx (g/km)	8.78	12.16	13.37	9.89	11.18
PM10 (g/km)	0.241	0.344	1.051	0.770	0.545
Fuel (l/100km)	32.7	36.4	58.2	37.5	40.6

The table shows the emission and energy consumption rates of a typical diesel bus under various driving conditions. Congestion increases emissions and energy consumption.

 

 

Congestion reductions tend to induce additional vehicle travel by reducing travel time and vehicle operating costs (Rebound Effects). A less congested roadway allows people to take additional automobile trips that they would forego under more congested conditions. For example, if roads are uncongested you might take a cross-town shopping trip, but choose a closer, more convenient store if roads are congested. Increased roadway capacity may induce some people to choose more distant homes or worksites, resulting in long-term increases in vehicle mileage. This additional travel can increase overall energy consumption and emissions, even if it occurs under less congested conditions.

 

Recent modeling indicates that roadway capacity expansion reduces energy consumption and emissions in the short term, but in most cases this is soon offset by induced travel (OECD/IEA, 2001; Noland and Quddus, 2006). Cities with increased roadway capacity tend to have higher per capita transportation energy consumption and emission rates, indicating that congestion reduction efforts are unlikely to reduce overall vehicle energy use or emissions (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999).

 

Below are congestion reduction strategies that are sometimes promoted as ways to save energy and reduce emissions. Such claims are probably exaggerated or wrong altogether. Current knowledge indicates that efforts to reduce urban traffic congestion by themselves are unlikely to reduce overall vehicle energy consumption or pollution emissions, and are as equally likely to increase it over the long run. Of course, congestion reduction and increased vehicle travel may provide user benefits, but there is little valid evidence that they are justified on environmental grounds.

 

 

Flextime

Flextime means that employees are allowed some flexibility in their daily work schedules. For example, rather than all employees working 8:00 to 4:30, some might work 7:30 to 4:00, and others 9:00 to 5:30. This shifts travel from peak to off-peak periods. By itself it provides no reduction in vehicle mileage, although it can help transit and rideshare commuters match schedules.

 

 

Road Capacity Expansion and Traffic Signal Synchronization

Road widening and traffic signal synchronization are sometime advocated as ways to reduce traffic congestion, and therefore energy consumption and pollution emissions (TRB 1995; USEPA 1998; Cobian, et al. 2009). However, research suggests that at best these provide short-term reductions in energy use and emissions which are offset over the long-run due to Induced Travel (TRB 1995; Stathopoulos and Noland 2003; Cassady, Dutzik and Figdor 2004; Noland and Quddus 2006). Field test indicate that shifting from congested to uncongested traffic conditions significantly reduces pollution emissions, but traffic signal synchronization on congested roads provides little measurable benefit, and can increase emissions in some situations (Frey and Rouphail 2001). According to a study by the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research (TØI 2009):

 

“Road construction, largely speaking, increases greenhouse gas emissions, mainly because an improved quality of the road network will increase the speed level, not the least in the interval where the marginal effect of speed on emissions is large (above 80km/hr). Emissions also rise due to increased volumes of traffic (each person traveling further and more often) and because the modal split changes in favor of the private car, at the expense of public transport and bicycling.”

 

 

Table 17 summarizes roadway improvement emission impacts, including effects on emission rates per vehicle mile, increases in total vehicle mileage, and emissions from road construction and maintenance activities.

 

Table 17          Roadway Expansion Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts (TØI 2009)

	General Estimates	Large Cities	Small Cities	Intercity Travel
Emission reductions per vehicle-kilometer due to improved and expanded roads.		Short term reductions. Stable or some increase over the long-term.	Depends on situation, ranging from no change to large emission increases.	Depends on situation. Both emission reductions and increases can occur.
Increased vehicle mileage (induced vehicle travel), short term (less than five years)	A 10% reduction in travel time increases traffic 3-5%	Significant emission growth	Moderate emission growth	Moderate emission growth
Increased vehicle mileage (induced vehicle travel), long term (more than five years)	A 10% reduction in travel time increases traffic 5-10%	Significant emission growth	Moderate emission growth	Moderate emission growth
Road construction and improvement activity	12 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for 2-lane roads and 21 tonnes for 4-lane roads.	Road construction emissions are relatively modest compared with traffic emissions.
Roadway operation and maintenance activity	33 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for 2-lane roads and 52 tonnes for 4-lane roads.	Road operation and maintenance emissions are relatively modest compared with traffic emissions.

This table summarizes roadway improvement emission impacts according to research by the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research.

 

 

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Intelligent Transportation Systems include the application of a wide range of new technologies, including driver information, vehicle control and tracking systems, transit improvements and electronic charging (see ITS Online and ITS America). These can provide a variety of transportation improvements, including driver convenience, reduced congestion, increased safety, more competitive transit, and support for pricing incentives. ITE strategies that support transportation demand management reduce total vehicle travel (such as transit improvements and electronic road pricing) can reduce energy consumption and emissions, but not strategies that make driving more convenient, or squeeze more vehicles onto existing roadways, because they are likely to increase vehicle traffic mileage and speeds.

 

 

Evaluating Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction Strategies

Several studies have attempted to compare and rank energy conservation and emission reduction strategies in terms of potential effectiveness and cost effectiveness, in order to identify the “best” option (BTCE, 1996; NRT, 1998; TC, 1999; Wright and Fulton, 2005). Their conclusions vary significantly based on the assumptions that are used.

 

Many evaluations ignore Rebound Effects, particularly the tendency of motorists to increase their mileage when increased fuel efficiency reduces per-mile vehicle operating costs. A 10% increase in vehicle fuel efficiency typically results in a 20-30% increase in vehicle mileage, resulting in a 7-8% net energy savings. Ignoring this impact tends to overstate the emission reduction benefit of technical strategies that increase fuel efficiency.

 

Most evaluations focus on direct implementation costs and emission reduction benefits, ignoring most other costs and benefits. Such an approach may favor strategies that are cost-effective at reducing emissions, but increase other problems such as consumer costs, crash damages or traffic congestion. A more Comprehensive Evaluation Framework considers a broader range of impacts, and so will favor that emission reduction strategies that provide additional benefits, such as consumer cost savings, road safety and congestion reductions (Litman, 2002; CBO, 2002).

 

Table 18 discusses whether each strategy described in this chapter is likely to cause induced travel, and what additional benefits and costs it is likely to cause. Strategies that reduce perceived vehicle operating costs tend to induce additional vehicle travel, and so tend to increase traffic congestion, facility costs, crashes and urban sprawl. Strategies that increase perceived vehicle operating costs tend to reduce total vehicle travel, and so can provide benefits such as reduced congestion, facility costs, crashes, and urban sprawl. Some strategies also improve consumer choice and savings. The vehicle travel impacts of some strategies depend on how they are implemented.

 

Table 18          Summary of Rebound Effects and Additional Benefits

	Induced Vehicle Travel	Additional Impacts
Distance-Based Emission Fees	None. Increases per-mile vehicle costs.	Can help reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and urban sprawl.
Fuel Tax Increases	None. Increases per-mile vehicle costs.	Can help reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and urban sprawl.
Freight Transport Management	Depends on which strategies are used.	Depends on which strategies are used. Strategies that reduce vehicle traffic can reduce congestion, roadway costs and crashes.
Aviation Transport Management	Depends on which strategies are used.	Depends on which strategies are used. Strategies that reduce air travel can reduce airport congestion, consumer costs and crashes.
TDM Programs	Depends on which strategies are used.	Strategies that reduce vehicle traffic can reduce congestion, roadway costs and crashes.
Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance	None. Increases per-mile vehicle costs.	Can help reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and increased equity.
Land Use Management Strategies	None.	Depends. Can reduce crashes, increase transportation choices, reduce sprawl and increase community livability.
Nonmotorized Transportation Improvements	None.	Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and increase transport choices and community livability.
Consumer Information	If it encourages motorists to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles than they would otherwise it may cause some induced travel.	Depends. Improves consumer choice and financial savings.
Road Pricing	Generally none, unless it significantly increases total roadway capacity and automobile dependency.	Depends on the type of pricing and how revenues are used. Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Transit Improvements and Transit Vehicle Emission Reductions	None.	Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and increase transport choices and community livability.
Rideshare Programs	May encourage longer commutes.	Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and increase transport choices.
Parking Management	None.	Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs and sprawl.
Traffic Calming and Roundabouts	None.	Can reduce crash risk and increase community livability.
Vehicle Restrictions	None, unless it only applies to a small area and causes travel to shift elsewhere.	Can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs, sprawl, and increase transport choices and community livability.
Telework	Possible. Telecommuters may take additional non-commute trips or move farther away from their worksite.	Reduces traffic congestion, crashes, road and parking facility costs and improves commuter choice and savings. May contribute to sprawl.
Emission Control Standards	Generally none, unless it also reduces vehicle operating costs.	Depends.
Fuel Efficiency Standards	Yes. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so tends to increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Gas Guzzler Taxes	Yes. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so tends to increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Feebates	Yes. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so tends to increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Efficiency-Based Annual Registration Fees	Yes. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so tends to increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Super-Efficient and Alternative Fuel Incentives	Yes. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so tends to increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Motorcycle Encouragement	Probably. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase crash injuries and deaths.  Often increases conventional air pollutants (since few motorcycles have emission control equipment). Reduces parking costs.
Low and Zero Emission Vehicle Mandates	Probably. Reduces vehicle operating costs and so increase vehicle mileage.	Tends to increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs	Probably. May reduce vehicle operating costs by a small amount.	Uncertain. May increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl, but impacts are likely to be small.
Roadside "Hig Emitter" Identification	Unlikely. May reduce vehicle operating costs by a small amount.	Minimal.
Scrapage Programs	Probably none.	May increase road safety by reducing the number of old vehicles on the roadway.
Fuel Quality Improvements	Uncertain. May increase fuel costs but increase fuel efficiency.	Uncertain. Probably minimal.
Emission Capping and Trading	Depends on how the program is implemented.	May involve TDM strategies.
Fleet Management	Uncertain. May reduce vehicle-operating costs and reduce vehicle mileage.	Depends on what measures are implemented.
Speed Limit Enforcement	None. Tends to increase per-mile time costs and so reduce total mileage.	Can reduce crashes and sprawl, and increase community livability.
Anti-Idling	Probably none.	Can increase community livability due to reduced local air and noise pollution.
Neighborhood Vehicles	None. Likely to reduce total vehicle mileage.	Mixed impacts. Likely to increase consumer choice and community livability.
Resurfacing Highways	Probably. Reduces vehicle operating costs and increases comfort.	May increase traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and sprawl.
Flextime	Probably. Reduces traffic congestion, which is likely to induce vehicle travel.	Reduces peak-period traffic congestion.
Road Capacity Expansion/Traffic Signal Synchronization	Yes. Reduces traffic congestion and vehicle operating costs, inducing additional vehicle travel.	Likely to increase downstream traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes, sprawl and automobile dependency, particularly over the long-run.
Intelligent Transportation Systems	Depends on which are implemented.	Strategies that reduce congestion and increase vehicle speeds and volumes may increase some costs.

This table indicates whether a strategy is likely to induce additional vehicle travel by reducing per-mile vehicle operating costs, and other benefits and costs that it is likely to cause.

 

 

Emission Reduction Equity Analysis (www.policylink.org/documents/climatechange_final.pdf).

Lin (2008) evaluates climate change policies in terms of their equity impacts, including the distribution of damages from climate change and other air pollutants (impacts such as power plant emissions and reduced fish and game are particularly concentrated on low income and minority communities), and the distribution of benefits from emission reduction efforts (such as whether energy conservation programs provide incentives and jobs to low income and minority populations). She critiques emission reduction policies, such as cap-and-trade, feebates and road pricing in terms of their impacts on disadvantaged populations, and recommends specific design principles (such as insuring adequate alternative travel modes if congestion pricing or carbon taxes are implemented, and use of revenues in ways that benefits disadvantaged populations.

 

Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation

Many transportation professionals have a personal preference for technological strategies that increase vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce per-mile emissions over TDM strategies that reduce automobile mileage, on the assumption that this maximizes social benefits, since vehicle mileage reductions require consumers to forego travel or shift to slower modes. However, this assumption if often wrong. Mileage reduction strategies based on positive incentives (for example, by improving alternative modes or giving consumers a financial reward for reduced driving) benefit consumers directly, as well as providing additional social benefits such as congestion reductions, reduced crashes, road and parking facility costs savings, and more efficient land use (Evaluation). When all factors are considered, mileage reductions are often the most cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption and emissions, and make consumers better off overall (Win-Win Transportation Solutions).

 

Of course, there is seldom a need to choose between vehicle efficiency improvements and TDM. Demand management strategies can be implemented in conjunction with vehicle design improvements, so that consumers have opportunities and incentives to avoid unnecessary vehicle travel, and any driving they do is in an efficient, low-polluting vehicle.

 

Wit and Humor Economists often emphasize the importance of “internalizing” costs, meaning that users bear the costs direct, rather than imposing them on other people. It’s easy to internalize motor vehicle air pollution costs. Simply connect the exhaust pipe directly into the passenger compartment. Of course, that’s also called suicide.

 

 

Best Practices

 

·         Consider a wide range of energy conservation and emission reduction strategies.

 

·         Consider a variety of impacts besides energy conservation and emission reductions, including impacts on consumer costs and transportation choice, congestion, parking costs, road safety, equity and community livability.

 

·         Account for the rebound effects of strategies that reduce per-mile vehicle operating costs.

 

·         Consider additional costs and benefits, including social costs (congestion, crashes, facility costs, sprawl, etc.) that result from any induced vehicle travel, and benefits that result from reductions in vehicle travel.

 

·         Consumer surplus analysis can be used to evaluate the impacts that TDM strategies have on consumers. Strategies that use positive incentives (improved transportation choices and financial benefits) tend to make consumers better off overall, while strategies that use negative incentives (such as road and parking pricing) tend to cause direct reductions in consumer surplus (minus any social benefits and revenues).

 

·         In most cases a package of complementary strategies is the most effective and cost-effective way to reduce energy consumptions and emissions.

 

·         In most cases, congestion reductions by themselves will not reduce vehicle energy consumption or emissions over the long run.

 

 

Examples and Case Studies

Vacaville Becomes Voltageville With Electric Vehicle Implementation

The City of Vacaville, California developed a $300,000 program that subsidizes electric vehicle lease costs. Thirty-five residents receive a $6,000 incentive over the 3-year lease period. Additional electric vehicles are being leased by the city for business use. The response has been very positive, with extensive press coverage and more than 100 motorists on a waiting list.

 

Minimize the Air Pollution from Your Consumer Choices with AirHead.org (http://www.AirHead.org)

Every time you dry your hair, make toast, or drive a car you are using energy made from fossil fuels, and that creates air pollution. It's a grim picture, but sources of pollution are also opportunities for change. The Center for Neighborhood Technology designed AirHead.org to provide People with simple ways to reduce their energy use and improve the quality of our air.

 

With AirHead's emissions calculator you can learn how much air pollution you create in the course of your everyday life, and compare your personal profile to other people in the U.S. and around the world. And AirHead offers many simple ways to reduce the impact of your day-to-day behaviors on the environment. Our product search, with over 60,000 products, ranks common products like cars, computers, refrigerators, VCRs and dishwashers by their energy-use emissions. AirHead helps users consider pollution and energy-use in their purchase considerations. We've also written extensively on the links between air pollution, health, products, and community.

 

Finally, we have created a discussion forum so you can join a community of folks with similar concerns and questions. We hope you come to visit www.airhead.org and tell your friends about us!

 

 

0800 SMOKEY

More than 17,000 people have so far called the 0800 SMOKEY hotline since the Auckland Regional Council's campaign, targeting vehicles with smoky exhausts, was launched on August 14.  All motorists identified receive a letter from the ARC offering the vehicle owner a free exhaust emission test and a suggestion to tune their vehicles regularly.

 

The initiative has been set up to address the problem that air quality in some inner-city Auckland streets regularly exceeds World Health Organisation standards.  Carbon monoxide levels in Auckland are higher than in London. Over 80% of Auckland’s air pollution comes from motor vehicle emissions, compared with 3% from industry.  Tuning vehicles regularly will also improve vehicle fuel economy. More information is at: http://www.smokey.org.nz/ and http://www.arc.govt.nz/about/air/air.htm

 

 

Other Cities Follow Lead of New York Buses, Without Choking

June 16, 2002  New York Times, By RANDY KENNEDY

 

Two years after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and state lawmakers struck a landmark deal to clean up what comes out of the tailpipes of the city's 4,500 buses, the results are beginning to be seen - or more accurately, not seen - around the city.

 

Along Madison Avenue, plied by so many buses that environmental officials installed an air monitor there in the late 1980's to track the high levels of diesel soot, it is now hard to spot a city bus trailing even a modest cloud of black smoke.

 

The reason can be found at a cavernous bus garage in the Bronx, where over the last several months transit mechanics and engineers have been completely rebuilding the guts of the city's oldest and most polluting diesel buses, installing cleaner, custom-made engines and placing powerful filters on the exhaust pipes.

 

The improvements to the buses, and New York City Transit's decision in the fall of 2000 to switch to a special ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel, has resulted in a strange situation for transit officials: environmentalists, the same ones who hounded them relentlessly for years to clean up bus emissions, are actually happy with them now, and seem impressed by the progress the agency has made toward meeting the goals set in Albany to improve the city's air.

 

But more important than that, environmentalists say, is the ripple effect that the agency's actions have had across the country in fights to make other bus fleets more environmentally friendly.

 

The authority, as the 800-pound gorilla of the nation's mass transit services, does more than influence other agencies' decisions, transit officials and environmentalists say. It virtually creates its own market for cleaner vehicles and fuels.

 

When the authority agreed to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel two years ago, for example, it was not widely available in mass quantities in the United States, and the Environmental Protection Agency would not start requiring production of it until 2006. New York transit officials, in fact, thought they might have to import it from Rotterdam.

 

But when a bus fleet that buys 42 million gallons of fuel a year - as the authority does - decides it wants to start buying ultra-low-sulfur diesel, it is a good bet that fuel companies will start to produce it, and they did.

 

In turn, this made it easier for other bus fleets around the country to begin using it. Last fall, for example, the District of Columbia's fleet of 1,400 buses switched, estimating that the change would reduce the amount of particulate matter - tiny, potentially dangerous soot particles that can lodge in the lungs - by about 17 tons per year from the buses. Boston made the switch this year, as did New Jersey Transit.

 

The switch is important not only because the new fuel reduces the amount of soot particles and airborne sulfur, a component of ozone and smog. But it also makes it possible for the rebuilt New York City buses to use complex exhaust filters, which are about the size of a small keg of beer and are concealed inside the back engine compartment.

 

The filters - which reduce particle emissions even more, making diesel buses almost as clean in many respects as natural gas buses - would not work with regular diesel fuel, because the soot particles created clogs.

 

"I think the M.T.A.'s commitment to cleaning up its bus fleet has had huge repercussions with virtually every other large bus fleet in the country," said Richard Kassel, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that pushed hardest for the change. "It was probably more important than the M.T.A. ever realized. I am now seeing fleets that fought like crazy not to change starting to change."

 

Millard L. Seay, who oversees bus service for New York City Transit, said that the agency has continued, as part of its agreement with the state, to expand its fleet of natural gas buses and those known as hybrid electrics, which use small diesel engines to power electric motors attached to the wheels.

 

But Mr. Seay added that advances in cleaning diesel emissions have come so rapidly, just in the last two years, that it is not altogether clear which kind of fuel will emerge as the best choice for the environment. Natural gas engines, for instance, still produce some carbon dioxide, a significant greenhouse gas, and nitrogen oxide, a component of smog.

 

So far, the authority is operating 221 natural gas buses, and plans to increase its fleet to 650. There are only 10 of the hybrid buses on the road, in a pilot program, but the agency says it will have 125 delivered by the end of this year and expects to have 400 by 2005.

 

But the most intense activity now is at a huge repair shop on Zerega Avenue in the Bronx and a smaller one in East New York, Brooklyn, where mechanics are rebuilding about seven of the city's oldest buses every week, junking the old engines and installing new 1,110-pound ones with electronic emission controls and pollution filters.

 

John Walsh, the authority's chief bus maintenance officer, said that more than 450 of the 572 oldest buses, some with as many as 15 years on the road, have been rebuilt, at a cost of about $85,000 a bus. Newer buses undergoing routine maintenance are also having filters installed, and work is on schedule to equip every diesel bus with a filter by the end of next year, he said, in keeping with the agency's agreement with the state.

 

Surveying the work last week at the Zerega Avenue garage, Mr. Walsh pointed to a long row of rusty, dingy-looking engines, the old ones, which would soon be bound for the scrapyard. Nearby sat their shiny replacements, customized by the authority after a year of research and design, and soon to bolted into the back of a bus.

 

"To me," Mr. Walsh said, looking at one of the new motors, "they are a thing of beauty. But there's no accounting for taste."

 

 

Trees for Travel (www.treesftf.org/travel.htm)

Every time someone travels by motor vehicle they contribute to global warming. The Trees for Travel (TM) program makes their travel a "global cooling" experience, by planting trees that will absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) than their trip generates. The Trees for Travel partnership was formed between Trees for the Future, an international NGO, and travel agents and businesses nation wide. Businesses participating in the program pay US$50 for a kit containing 50 certificates to be used as a customer gratuity. As proof that their trees have been planted, each customer is provided with a Trees for Travel certificate, which states that the participant has sponsored the planting of seven trees on their client's behalf at one of the Trees for the Future's tree planting sites.

 

Trees for the Future has planted over 27 million trees in 64 countries, working with local farmers to ensure trees will reach maturity. In addition, tree species that are planted put nutrients into the soil and reduce soil erosion. Each tree absorbs 50 pounds (22 kg) of CO2 every year for at least 40 years.

 

The estimated number of trees required to offset different types of travel are listed below:

• Airplane: 1 tree every 2,000 miles
• Auto: 1 tree every 2,000 miles
• Bus: 1 tree every 10,000 miles
• Train: 1 tree every 3,700 miles
• Cruise ship: 1 tree every 4 days at sea.

 

 

Emission Prices Are More Efficient than Emission Caps

CBO, Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Prices Versus Caps, Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6148&sequence=0), March 15, 2005.

 

Analysts generally conclude that uncertainty about the cost of controlling carbon dioxide emissions makes price instruments preferable to quantity instruments because they are much more likely to minimize the adverse consequences (excess costs or forgone benefits) of choosing the wrong level of control.(1) The price approach would motivate people to control emissions up to the point where the cost of doing so was equal to the emission price. If actual costs were less than, or greater than, anticipated, people would limit emissions more than, or less than, policymakers projected. However, emissions would be reduced up to the point at which the cost of doing so was equal to the expected benefits, provided that the emission price was set equal to the expected benefits of reducing a ton of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, a strict cap on emissions could result in actual costs that were far greater (or less) than expected and that therefore exceeded, or fell below, the expected benefits.

 

The advantages of a price-based approach stem mainly from the fact that the cost of limiting a ton of emissions is expected to rise as the limit becomes more stringent, while the expected benefit of each ton of carbon reduced is roughly constant across the range of potential emission limitations in a given year. That constancy occurs because climate effects are driven by the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and emissions in any given year are a small portion of that total. Further, reductions in any given year probably would fall considerably short of total baseline emissions for that year.

 

 

Texas Remote Sensing Emission Enforcement (www.txdps.state.tx.us/vi)

The state of Texas uses remote sensing along highways to identify high emitters (vehicles with exceptionally high tailpipe emissions). Owners of such vehicles are sent a notice requiring them to have an emission test. During a typical month the program identifies approximately 450 high emitting vehicles. Approximately 70% of those vehicle owners receive a notice. Of those, approximately 60% comply with the testing requirement and, if failing, have the vehicles repaired and retested. A portion of the remaining 40% have their cases forwarded to law enforcement for citation and prosecution. This program has also helped identify emission inspection stations that appear to have performed inaccurate, and possibly fraudulent, tests.

 

Ten U.S. Cities Best Prepared for an Oil Crisis SustainLane (www.sustainlane.com),    Did your life change when gas prices hit $2 or $3 a gallon last summer? For many people across the United States higher gas prices meant cutting down on unnecessary car trips or taking public transportation. Some even sold their gas-guzzling SUV, while others switched to alternative fuels.   So, what will you do when gas hits $4 or $5 or even $8 a gallon? Some experts see pump prices in this range as being likely in the event of numerous potential world political or climatic events, like a major 2006 Gulf Coast hurricane. SustainLane has looked at the largest 50 U.S. cities with this scenario in mind. We wanted to know which cities will be the best places to live and work if gas prices suddenly rise because of coming events out of anybody's control.   SustainLane ranked the largest 50 U.S. cities based on recent city commute practices, metro area public transportation, sprawl, traffic congestion, local food and wireless network access (in order of importance: see chart). There are many other areas that rising oil prices will affect: construction, retail goods of all types, utilities (especially in the Northeast, the one part of the nation where heating oil is used)—virtually every aspect of our economy will be hit. We looked at the areas most directly impacted: how people get around, where their food comes from, and how they work.   Top 10 U.S. Cities Best Prepared For An Oil Crisis New York City Boston San Francisco Chicago Philadelphia Portland Honolulu Seattle Baltimore Oakland   New York City is the city most prepared to cope with a $100+ tank of gas. With its strong city and regional public transportation system, New York stands out above the rest. From New York City’s subways to the Tri State area’s suburban train lines, New York is truly the only American city where people are committed to riding over driving.   “As the largest city in the country and the business capital of the world New York City must be prepared for what comes our way, and we are,” said Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “That New York City has been recognized by SustainLane as the best prepared city to face a nation-wide oil crisis is testament to the resiliency and strength of our infrastructure.”   Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia also ranked high for access to public transportation and commute rates, though congestion was a significant problem for The Bay Area and Boston in particular.   Ranking Criteria ·         Commute to work data ·         Public transit service data ·         Sprawl ·         Traffic congestion ·         Local food production ·         Wireless availability   The top ten cities also combine strong public transportation with access to locally grown fresh food, and most (with the exception of Honolulu) have significant access to local wireless networks for telecommuting. Philadelphia leads the largest 50 cities in the U.S. with the highest combined per capita rate of farmers markets and community gardens. A homegrown system of local farmers and gardeners could prove to be a better alternative than the current system, where food is transported an average of 1500 miles to your dinner plate.   Seattle is the national leader in wireless connectivity, followed closely by San Francisco, Oakland, New York and Portland. Telecommuting could be an important way for large numbers of people to work from home if gas becomes completely unavailable, as it was sometimes during the 1973-74 Oil Embargo.   Finally, the most prepared cities and their metropolitan areas are relatively dense (except Portland) and had low sprawl, with the exception of Seattle. City services, jobs, shopping centers and entertainment are centrally located in all of these top ten cities. That is not the case with many other mid- to-large sized American cities that ranked lower in our analysis.   One commonality each of these ten cities has, though this was not used to determine the ranking, is that each is a major port. Port cities have the natural advantage of receiving imported goods without the added fuel needed to send truck fleets across the nation to landlocked areas. Just as it was for hundreds of years before the twentieth century, a city's geographical location may once again become the most important factor keeping its economy thriving.   Regardless of where you live, it will pay to be aware of what public transportation options are available in your community. If you’re thinking about moving to a different city or neighborhood, transportation options should be high on your list of considerations.   Beyond buying local organic food, which uses less oil-based fertilizer, and is likely to become less expensive compared with conventional long-distance transported supermarket food, you should become familiar with what you can grow and make for yourself at home. Buying locally produced and sourced goods is also a way to balance dependence on the oil-intensive global economy. SustainLane’s SLED offers a rich network of these small to medium-sized businesses, many that may be in your community.

 

 

Seattle Climate Action Plan (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/climate/report.htm)

In 2005 Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels established a Green Ribbon Commission that included a wide variety of stakeholders and experts to recommend climate protection actions for the Seattle community to meet or beat the Kyoto target. In 2006 the Commission released a report and recommendations, which include the following strategies to reduce automobile use (plus other strategies to reduce emissions in other ways):

·         Increase the Supply of Frequent, Reliable and Convenient Public Transportation

·         Significantly Expand Bicycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure

·         Lead a Regional Partnership to Develop and Implement a Road Pricing System

·         Implement a New Commercial Parking Tax

·         Expand Efforts to Create Compact, Green, Urban Neighborhoods

 

Along with their recommendations the Commission offered these observations:

 

·         Success will require a deliberate, sustained, community-wide effort. And, since cars and other transportation sources are the largest source of climate pollution in our area, we will need strong regional collaboration as well.

 

·         The actions and investments needed to rein in Seattle’s climate pollution will, at the same time, make our community healthier and more livable, for example, by reducing traffic congestion and toxic air pollution from diesel emissions.

 

·         In addition, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels increases our energy independence, keeps more money circulating in the local economy and supports local and regional economic development.

 

·         The road to a more climate-friendly community is paved with economic opportunities, including cost-savings from energy efficiency measures for our families and businesses—especially in light of rising and volatile energy prices—and new business prospects for our companies and entrepreneurs.

 

·         Implementing these recommendations requires a significant investment of time and money by the community. But we believe the price tag is dwarfed by the cost to our community of not taking additional action.

 

·         Finally, meeting the Kyoto target here—and, more important, transforming Seattle into the nation’s most climate-friendly city—is an extraordinary challenge. But our community has rallied to meet such challenges in the past. With Seattle’s unique mix of eco-intelligence and entrepreneurial zeal, we will meet and exceed the goal.

 

 

Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy (www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucft696/vibat2.html)

This research project by the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London involves estimating emission reductions needed to achieve 60% reduction in climate change emissions from baseline by 2030, and evaluates various packages of policies to achieve such reductions, including new technologies and travel reduction incentives. It involved three main stages:

1. Set targets for 2030 and to forecast the business as usual situation for all forms of transport in the UK over that period, so that the scale of change can be assessed in terms of achieving emission reduction targets.
2. Describe the transport system in 2030 that will meet the reduction target, considering various combinations of technological and the behavioural options.
3. Backcaste the effects of various policy packages for achieving emissions reduction targets. This allows policy and planning options to be evaluated.

 

The analysis indicates that the 60% emission reduction target (in 2030) can be achieved by a combination of behavioural change and technological innovation. Travel behaviour change is particularly important and so should be implemented at the earliest possible occasion. Changes in the built environment will become effective in the medium term (over 10-15 years), whilst the major contribution of technological innovation will only be effective in the period after 2020. It is not possible to achieve the 60% reduction target (in 2030), with the expected growth in travel, as the increase in emissions from this growth outweighs many of the possible savings from behavioural change and technological innovation.

 

 

Emission Reductions in Developing Countries (www.pewclimate.org)

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change programs has sponsored research on “Transportation in Developing Countries,” which identifies a variety of cost effective strategies for reducing local and global air emissions from motor vehicles in developing country cities. This research recommends various strategies to encourage more efficient vehicles and reduced automobile dependency, including improved facilities for non-motorized transport, use of more efficient motorcycle/scooter engines, improved public transit service, more use of traffic management, and alternative fuels.

 

 

Emission Reduction Legislation and Strategies (ETAAC, 2008)

California Assembly Bill AB32 requires the state to reduce greenhouse gases 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. A study by the California Economic and Technology Advisory Committee (ETAAC, 2008) identified a number of opportunities to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions, and discusses their costs, benefits (including cobenefits) and implementation requirements of these strategies.

 

Moving Cooler (www.movingcooler.info)

The report, Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Cambridge Systematics (2009) evaluates several dozen climate change emission reduction strategies, including their emission reductions, implementation costs, impacts on vehicle costs, and equity impacts. It estimates the emissions that could be reduced under a range of assumptions about how they are implemented – from expanding current practice more quickly and broadly to major changes in public policy and regulation. The following categories of impacts are considered.

 

• Pricing and taxes. Strategies raise the costs associated with the use of the transportation system, including the cost of vehicle miles of travel and fuel consumption. Both local and regional facility-level pricing strategies (e.g., congestion pricing) and economy-wide pricing strategies (e.g., carbon pricing) are considered.

 

• Land use and smart growth. Strategies focus on creating more transportation-efficient land use patterns, and by doing so reduce the need to make motor vehicle trips and reduce the length of the motor vehicle trips that are made.

 

• Nonmotorized transport. Strategies encourage greater levels of walking and bicycling as alternatives to driving.

 

• Public transportation improvements. Strategies expand public transportation by subsidizing fares, increasing service on existing routes, or building new infrastructure.

 

• Ride-sharing, car-sharing, and other commuting strategies. Strategies expand services and  provide incentives to travelers to choose transportation options other than driving alone.

 

• Regulatory strategies. Strategies implement regulations that moderate vehicle travel or reduce speeds to achieve higher fuel efficiency.

 

• Operational and intelligent transportation system (ITS) strategies. Strategies improve the operation of the transportation system to make better use of the existing capacity; strategies also encourage more efficient driving.

 

• Capacity expansion and bottleneck relief. Strategies expand highway capacity to reduce congestion and to improve the efficiency of travel.

 

• Multimodal freight sector strategies. Strategies promote more efficient freight movement within and across modes.

 

 

Urban Transportation Emissions Calculator (www.tc.gc.ca/UTEC)

The Urban Transportation Emissions Calculator developed by Transport Canada is a simple, user-friendly tool for estimating annual greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria air contaminant (CAC) emissions from passenger, commercial, and urban transit vehicles. The primary input to the Tool is vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) for road vehicles and passenger kilometres travelled (PKT) for rail vehicles. Other inputs relating to average travel speeds, expansion factors, and vehicle fuelling characteristics can be modified from default values.

 

The Tool estimates GHG and CAC emissions for the following vehicles:

• Light-duty passenger vehicles (automobiles, light trucks)
• Light-duty commercial vehicles
• Heavy-duty commercial vehicles
• Public transit buses
• Public transit trolley buses
• Light rail/Metro (electric and diesel)
• Heavy rail (diesel)

 

 

The Tool calculates both the direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with the operation of vehicles. Direct GHG emissions are released directly from the tailpipe of a vehicle. Indirect GHG emissions are created and released from production of electricity used by electric vehicles (i.e. trolleys and light rail) as well as from the production, refining and transportation of transportation fuels (i.e. from wells to pump). It is important to note that the Tool does not address life-cycle emissions associated with the manufacture and end of life recycling of vehicles. Due to the unavailability of appropriate emission factors, only direct CAC emissions are estimated. The Tool also considers the impacts of new technologies and alternative fuels on GHG and CAC emissions based on existing technologies and available data.

 

The Tool requires the user to select the province of the municipality of interest and the study year. This allows the Tool to account for the varied provincial breakdowns of light-duty passenger vehicles (i.e., proportion of automobiles vs. light trucks) as well as the differing GHG intensities associated with electricity production in each province. It also allows the selection of a modelling year in five year increments from 2006 through 2031 (to correspond with Census years), as vehicle fuel efficiencies and other emission factors are predicted to improve in the future.

 

 

Emission Calculators

Below are examples of emission calculators.

·         Add Up Your Carbon Dioxide Emissions (http://globalwarming.enviroweb.org/games/yourscore/yourscore2.html). Determines average annual CO2 emissions by filling out a questionnaire. Results tabulate pounds of CO2 produced for each daily activity compared to U.S. average annual emissions.

·         Business Energy Analyzer (www.energyguide.com). The Business Energy Analzyer is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of energy use in your business along with customized energy efficiency improvement recommendations. The calculator prepares a report, based on information submitted by the user, showing investments with greatest savings and those with the fastest payback on investment.Information on multiple buildings may be stored and updated for use in future analyses.

·         CarbonCounter (www.carboncounter.org). Carboncounter.org is an individual carbon dioxide emissions calculator generated by The Climate Trust, a pioneering non-profit organization that invests in high-quality projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

·         Climate Change Calculator (www.climcalc.net). This tool prepared for the Canadian government calculates personal greenhouse gas emissions and lists mitigation strategies. Using a graphical example of a Canadian community, the user answers a series of questions on home heating and cooling, appliances, transportation and recreation activities. The calculator estimates personal CO2 emissions, offers suggestions for reducing emissions, and shows reductions achieved for those actions. The reporting function provides a graphical emissions breakdown for each feature.

·         Density Effects Calculator (www.sflcv.org/density). Indicates how neighborhood density impacts the environment (land, materials, energy and driving).

·         Emissions Calculator (www.airhead.org/Calculator). This emissions calculator tabulates a user's aggregate monthly emissions of seven air pollutants (in pounds) from electricity and natural gas consumption, airplane trips, and vehicle miles traveled (auto or sport utility vehicle/truck) and compares them with average national emissions.

·         Energy Advisor / Home Energy Saver (http://homeenergysaver.lbl.gov). The Home Energy Saver is designed to help identify the best ways to save energy in a home. The Home Energy Saver asks for a detailed description of your home, and then quickly computes energy use on-line. Results are provided in dollars, kilowatt hours and CO2 emissions for your house and the most energy efficient house. In addition, the Home Energy Saver's "Making it Happen" and "Energy Librarian" modules connect users to an expanding array of "how-to" information resources throughout the Internet.

·         EPA's Personal Online Greenhouse Gas Calculator (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterToolsGHGCalculator.html).

·         Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator (www.usctcgateway.net/tool). It translates greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from units that are typically used to report reductions (e.g., metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) into terms that are easier to conceptualize.

·         Home Analyzer (www.energyguide.com). The Home Analyzer is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of energy use in your home, descriptions of measures to reduce energy use, and comparisons to similar homes. Estimates of monthly and annual energy costs and CO2 emissions are provided for eight categories of home energy use.

·         Home Energy Checkup (www.ase.org/section/homeenergycheckup). Home Energy Checkup is a guide to identifying options for reducing energy costs through energy efficiency improvements. You can select from among 15 energy efficiency measures, compare costs to your current equipment or materials, and calculate cost and CO2 savings. It includes references to more sophisticated software tools, equipment manufacturers, and other sources of information.

·         How Much Does Your Vehicle Pollute? (www.environmentaldefense.org/tool.cfm?tool=tailpipe). Determines your auto's carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions.

·         MetroQuest (www.envisiontools.com) Evaluates the consequences of different long-term planning strategies.

·         Personal CO2 Calculation (http://www3.iclei.org/co2/co2calc.htm). This worksheet determines yearly direct personal carbon dioxide emissions. Results include yearly personal carbon dioxide emissions and a per capita comparison chart to other industrialized countries. Suggestions on reducing emissions and saving money.

·         Personal Environmental Impact Calculator (http://ans.ep.wisc.edu/~eic/personal.impact.html). Calculates personal environmental impacts from home energy, transportation, recycling habits and water usage. Results include emissions of CO2 sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nuclear fuel, and particulates.

·         Power Profiler (www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler.htm). The Power Profiler helps users determine the specific air emissions impacts of electricity used to power their home or business using actual monthly energy use information (provided by the user), average monthly use, or default values for monthly residential and commercial electricity use.

·         Recycled Content Tool (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsWasteToolsRecon.html).  The Recycled Content (ReCon) Tool calculates the GHG emission and energy impacts of increasing the post-consumer recycled content of materials purchased or manufactured.

·         SafeClimate Carbon Dioxide Footprint Calculator (http://safeclimate.net/calculator).  SafeClimate’s calculator allows individuals in the U.S., Canada and 36 other countries to calculate their "carbon footprint" by tracking residential and transportation energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

·         Tool For Costing Sustainable Community Planning (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/index.cfm) by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation allow a user to estimate the major costs of community development, particularly those that change with different forms of development (e.g., linear infrastructure), and to compare alternative development scenarios.

·         Travel Matters Emissions Calculators (www.travelmatters.org). TravelMatters! from the Center for Neighborhood Technology that provides a trio of resources - interactive emissions calculators, online emissions maps, and a wealth of educational content - that emphasize the relationship between more efficient transit systems and lower greenhouse gas emissions. TM's Emissions Calculator allows users to conceptualize how much carbon dioxide they emit due to their travel decisions. The site also offers transportation emissions by county for all contiguous states.

·         The Zerofootprint Calculator (www.zerofootprint.net) enables you to measure and understand the impact of your ecological footprint, taking into account both direct and indirect resource consumption. Zerofootprint Cities is an initiative designed for Mayors of the world's cities to engage their citizens around climate change.

 

 

Emission Reduction Legislation (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2008)

A number of municipal, state and federal governments have enacted climate change emission reduction legislation, which sets specific emission reduction targets. For example:

 

·         In 2006, California enacting AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which made it the first U.S. state to establish an economy-wide cap on its greenhouse gas emissions. It requires greenhouse gas emission reductions of 25% of 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050, through a combination of regulations and market mechanisms.

 

·         Sixteen other U.S. states have since adopted overarching greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (six of them codified).

 

·         Nearly 800 mayors in communities representing more than 77 million Americans from all 50 States have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, whereby they agree to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to at least 7 percent below 1990 levels.

 

·         The Western Climate Initiative, launched in early 2007, establishes a regional greenhouse gas reduction target shared by seven States. It calls for an economy-wide regional cap-and-trade program, the design of which will be publicly proposed in July 2008. The latest U.S. regional agreement to be negotiated, the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, commits another six States to near- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals under of a multi-sector cap-and-trade system.

 

·         State and local governments also are using various incentives to help their citizens reduce their carbon footprint. For example, Nassau County, New York, recently launched its “Green Levittown” initiative, a public-private partnership to reduce carbon emissions from Levittown homes by 20% in 2008 by helping residents conduct home energy audits, replace old boilers, and make other home energy savings improvements. Arlington County, Virginia, is encouraging energy audits and energy efficiency improvements by its County residents and commercial buildings. Some States and local governments also provide tax or other incentives for hybrid cars.

 

·         The city of Portland, Oregon, included in its greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy a target of reducing per-capita VMT 10% below 1995 levels by 2010, through a series of improved public transit and compact development zoning proposals.

 

 

According to the, Climate Change Legislation Design White Paper: Appropriate Roles for Different Levels of Government, by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, although all levels of government must play a role in reducing emissions, federal action may be appropriate to rationalize these programs in order to maximize their efficiency and avoid potential conflicts.

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

AASHTO (2009), Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (www.transportation.org); at www.transportation1.org/RealSolutions/index.html.

 

ADB (2007), A Roadmap for Cleaner Fuels and Vehicles in Asia, Asian Development Bank and Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities Center (www.adb.org).

 

Sanjana Ahmad and David Greene (2005), The Effect of Fuel Economy on Automobile Safety: A Reexamination, TRB 84th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).

 

Airimpacts.org (www.airimpacts.org) is a website maintained by the UN Environmental Program that provides comprehensive information on the health and economic impacts of air pollution.

 

Air Now (www.airnow.gov) is a cross-agency U.S. Government web site dealing with air quality issues.

 

Alternative Fuels Data Center (www.afdc.doe.gov) by the U.S. Department of Energy provides information on various alternative vehicle fuels.

 

Jillian Anablek, Ben Lane and Tanika Kelay (2006), An Evidence Base Review Of Public Attitudes To Climate Change And Transport Behaviour, UK Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_612225.pdf).

 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (www.aceee.org) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing energy efficiency as a means of promoting economic prosperity and environmental protection.

 

American Planning Association (www.planning.org/energy) provides information on ways to incorporate energy conservation into planning decisions.  

 

Peter Anyon (2001), “Green Buses on Schedule,” SMART Urban Transport, Vol. 1 No. 1

(www.smarturbantransport.com), September. 2001, pp. 14-18.

 

APTA, Transit Statistics, American Public Transit Association (www.apta.com), updated annually.

 

ASE (2005), State Energy Efficiency Index, Alliance To Save Energy (www.ase.org/content/article/detail/2356). This set of documents provide information on various energy efficiency policies.

 

Association For The Study Of Peak Oil & Gas (www.peakoil.net) is an organization that explores future petroleum supply and the implications of depletion.

 

Linda Bailey (2007), Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil, ICF International for the American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/apta_public_transportation_fuel_savings_final_010807.pdf.

 

David Banister (2007), Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London (www.ucl.ac.uk); at www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucft696/vibat2.html. This research project involves estimating emission reductions needed to achieve 60% reduction in climate change emissions from baseline by 2030, and evaluates various packages of policies to achieve such reductions, including new technologies and travel reduction incentives.

 

Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin (2009), “Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gases” Access 35 (www.uctc.net), Fall 2009, pp. 2-9; at www.uctc.net/access/35/access35.shtml.

 

D. Bayliss (1989), Background Report for the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD Joint Ministerial Session on Transport and the Environment (www.oecd.org).

 

Alain Bertaud (2003), Clearing the air in Atlanta: Transit and smart growth or conventional economics?, Alain Bertaud Website (http://alain-bertaud.com); at http://alain-bertaud.com/images/AB_Clearing_The_Air_in%20Atlanta_1.pdf

 

Ranjan Bose, et al. (2001), Transportation in Developing Countries: Greenhouse Gas Scenarios for Delhi, India, Pew Center on Global Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org/projects/transportation_delhi.cfm).

 

Joel K. Bourne (2007), “Biofuels: Boon or Boondoggle?,” National Geographic, Oct. 2007, pp. 38-59.

 

Christie-Joy Brodrick, Daniel Sperling and Harry A. Dwyer (2001), “Clean Diesel: Overcoming Noxious Fumes,” ACCESS, Number 19, University of California Transportation Center, (www.uctc.net), Fall 2001, pp. 16-23.

 

Jodi Browne, Eduardo Sanhueza, Erin Silsbe, Steve Winkleman, Chris Zegras (2005), Getting on Track, International Institute for Sustainable Development (www.iisd.org/climate/global/ctp.asp). This report explains how a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) can encourage more efficient transportation policies in developing countries.

 

BTCE (1996), Transport and Greenhouse; Costs and Options for Reducing Emissions, Bureau of Transport Economics (www.dot.gov.au/programs/bte/btehome.htm).

 

BTE (1998), Tradable Permits in Transport? Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (www.dot.gov.au/programs/bte/btehome.htm).

 

BTRE (2002), Greenhouse Policy Options for Transport, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (www.btre.gov.au).

 

BTS (2000), National Transportation Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics), 2000.

 

C40 Cities (2008), Best Practices: Transport Case Studies, Climate Leadership Group, C40 Cities (www.c40cities.org/bestpractices/transport). C40 is a group of the world’s largest cities committed to tackling climate change.

 

CAI-Asia (2007), Compendium of Air Quality Management and Sustainable Urban Transport Projects in Asia, Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (www.cleanairnet.org); at www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-58567.html.

 

CalStart (www.cleanfleets.com) is a consortium of researchers and industries to promote the production and sale of more efficient vehicles.

 

CALTRANS (2008), California Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Searchable Database, California Department of Transportation (http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov).

 

Cambridge Systematics (2000), A Sampling of Emissions Analysis Techniques for Transportation Control Measures, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-EP-01-017

(www.fhwa.dot.gov).

 

Cambridge Systematics (2009), Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (www.movingcooler.info), co-sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), American Public Transportation Association (APTA); Environmental Defense Fund; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA); Kresge Foundation; Rockefeller Foundation; Shell Oil; Surdna Foundation; Funders Network for Smart Growth; and the Urban Land Institute; report at http://commerce.uli.org/misc/movingcooler.pdf; summary at http://commerce.uli.org/misc/movingcoolerexecsum.pdf.

 

Canadian Centre for Energy (www.centreforenergy.com) provides comprehensive and convenient to access to energy information.

 

Cansult and TSI Consultants (2005), The Impact of Transit Improvements on GHG Emissions: A National Perspective, Transport Canada (www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/policy/docs/Summary.pdf).

 

CARB (1994), Land Use-Air Quality Linkage: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, California Air Resources Board (www.arb.ca.gov/linkage/linkage.htm).

 

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

 

Alison Cassady, Tony Dutzik and Emily Figdor (2004), More Highways, More Pollution: Road-Building and Air Pollution in American's Cities, U.S. PIRG Education Fund (www.uspirg.org).

 

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, Under the Perrin Quarles Associates (PQA), Co-benefits Coordinator in Asia Project (www.observatory.ph/co-benefits_asia/index.php).

 

CBE, Urban Heat Island Reduction Group Recommendations, Committee for the Building Environment, Livable Houston (www.livablehouston.org).

 

CBO (2002), Reducing Gasoline Consumption: Three Policy Options, Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov).

 

CBO (2002), Evaluating The Role Of Prices And R&D In Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov).

 

CBO (2005), Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Prices Versus Caps, Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov).

 

CBO (2008), Effects of Gasoline Prices on Driving Behavior and Vehicle Markets, Congressional Budget Office (www.cbo.gov); at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8893/01-14-GasolinePrices.pdf.

 

CCAP (2003), State and Local Leadership On Transportation And Climate Change, Center for Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org).

 

CCAP (2004), Connecticut Climate Change Stakeholder Dialogue, Center for Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org/Connecticut.htm). This is a good example of a set of emission reduction strategies recommended for implementation at the state level.

 

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. Each part of the guidebook contains a series of policy briefs which include information about each strategy, including an overview, cobenefits, implementation, case studies and information resources. It includes a spreadsheet model that calculates total emission reductions from specific combinations of these strategies.

 

CCAP (2007), Integrating Transportation, Energy Efficiency, and GHG Reduction Policies: A Guidebook for State and Local Policy Makers, Center for Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook.php).

 

CCIG (2008), A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change, Oregon State Climate Change Integration Group (www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM/docs/CCIGReport08Web.pdf).

CCS (2001), Anti-Idling Campaign, Climate Change Solutions (www.climatechangesolutions.com/english/municipal/tools/transport/idle.htm).

 

CEC (2002), Petroleum Reduction Options, P600-02-011D, California Energy Commission (www.energy.ca.gov/reports) and California Air Resources Board.

 

Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting (http://climate.volpe.dot.gov/about.html), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, provides research, policy analysis, partnerships and outreach reduce transportation-related greenhouse gases and to mitigate the effects of global climate change. 

 

CFA (1996), Clean Cars – Clean Air; A Consumer Guide to Auto Emission Inspection and Maintenance Programs, Consumer Federation of America and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/otaq/cfa-air.htm).

 

Michael Chertok, Alexander Voukelatos, Vicky Sheppeard and Chris Rissel (2004), “Comparison of Air Pollution Exposure for Five Commuting Modes in Sydney – Car, Train, Bus, Bicycle and Walking,” Health Promotion Journal of Australia, Vol. 15, No. 1 (www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/HPJA_air_pollution_exposure.pdf), pp. 63-67.

 

Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath (2008), Environmental Life-cycle Assessment of Passenger Transportation: A Detailed Methodology for Energy, Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Inventories of Automobiles, Buses, Light Rail, Heavy Rail and Air v.2, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport: A Volvo Center of Excellence, Paper vwp-2008-2.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/future_urban_transport/vwp-2008-2.

 

CIESIN (1995), Thematic Guide to Integrated Assessment Modeling of Climate Change, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, University of Michigan CIESIN (http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/iamcc.tg/TGHP.html).

 

Clean Air Initiative (www.worldbank.org/cleanair), by the World Bank is a partnership that advances innovative ways to improve air quality in cities around the world by sharing knowledge and experiences. It includes technical information on transportation emission reduction strategies and policy reforms.

 

Co-Benefits Asia Hub Website (www.observatory.ph/co-benefits_asia) provides information on climate change emission reduction strategies that provide additional benefits related to environment (e.g. air quality management, health, agriculture, forestry and biodiversity), energy (e.g. renewable energy, alternative fuels and energy efficiency) and economics (e.g. long-term economic sustainability, industry competitiveness, income distribution).

 

Rafael Cobian, Tony Henderson, Sudeshna Mitra, Cornelius Nuworsoo and Edward Sullivan (2009), “Vehicle Emissions and Level of Service Standards: Exploratory Analysis of the Effects of Traffic Flow on Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 79, No. 4, April, pp. 30-41.

 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (2008), Climate Change Legislation Design White Paper: Appropriate Roles for Different Levels of Government, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/white%20paper%20st-lcl%20roles%20final%202-22.pdf.

 

Holger Dalkmann and Charlotte Brannigan (2007), “Transport and Climate Change: Module 5e,” Sustainable Transportation Sourcebook: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Countries, by the Sustainable Urban Transport Project – Asia (www.sutp-asia.org); at www.sutp.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_details/gid,383/lang,uk.

 

John Davies, Michael Grant, John Venezia and Joseph Aamidor (2007), “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the U.S. Transportation Sector: Trends, Uncertainties, and Methodological Improvements,” Transportation Research Record 2017, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 41-46.

 

Todd Davis and Monica Hale (2007), Public Transportation's Contribution to Greenhouse Gas Reduction, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/climate_change.pdf.

 

John DeCicco (1994), “Size-Based Fees and Rebates for Reducing Light Vehicle Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide,” Transportation Research Record 1475, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).

 

Mark Delucchi (2000), “Environmental Externalities of Motor-Vehicle Use in the US,” Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, Vol. 34, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 135-168.

 

Mark A. Delucchi (2003), A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials, ITS-Davis, Publication No. UCD-ITS-RR-03-17 (www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2003/UCD-ITS-RR-03-17-MAIN.pdf).

 

John DeCicco and Mark Delucchi (1997), Transportation, Energy and Environment; How Far Can the Technology Take Us, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (www.aceee.org).

 

Jennifer Dill (2004), “Scrapping Old Cars,” Access, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Spring 2004

 

Jos M.W. Dings, Marc D. Davidson, Maartje N. Sevenster (2003), External And Infrastructure Costs Of Road And Rail Transport - Analysing European Studies, CE (www.ce.nl) for the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Water Management and Public Works.

 

Leo Dobes (1998), “The Transport Sector: Is a Carbon Tax Better?” Trading Greenhouse Emissions: Some Australian Perspectives, Bureau of Transport Economics (www.dot.gov.au/programs/bte/btehome.htm).

 

Stuart Donovan, et al. (2008), Managing Transport Challenges When Oil Prices Rise, Research Report 357, New Zealand Transport Agency (www.ltsa.govt.nz); at www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/reports/357.pdf.

 

Pedro Donoso, Francisco Martinez and Christopher Zegras (2006), “The Kyoto Protocol and Sustainable Cities: Potential Use of Clean-Development Mechanism in Structuring Cities for Carbon-Efficient Transportation,” Transportation Research Record 1983, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 158-166; at http://web.mit.edu/czegras/www/Donoso_et_al_TRR_06.pdf.

 

Alan Durning (2008), Sightline's Cap and Trade 101: A Climate Policy Primer, Sightline Institute (www.sightline.org); at www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/cap-and-trade-101/Cap-Trade_online.pdf.

 

EcoDrive (www.ecodrive.org) promotes safer and more energy efficient driving styles.

 

EEA (2008), Success Stories Within The Road Transport Sector On Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission And Producing Ancillary Benefits, European Environment Agency (www.eea.europa.eu); at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2008_2.

 

EIA (annual reports), Annual Energy Review, Energy Information Administration (www.eia.doe.gov); at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html. provides information on U.S. energy production, consumption, trade, stocks, and prices.

 

EIO-LCA Model (www.eiolca.net) is a computer model that quantifies the economic and environmental impacts of producing goods or services, including total energy consumption and pollution emissions.

 

EMBARQ (2008), Measuring The Invisible: New EMBARQ Publications Help Cities Quantify Emissions From Reductions From Transport Solutions, EMBARQ - The World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport (www.embarq.wri.org); at http://embarq.wri.org/en/Article.aspx?id=140#Queretaro.

 

EnerGuide Website (http://autosmart.nrcan.gc.ca/home_e.htm) by Natural Resources Canada provides information on fuel consumption ratings of new Canadian automobiles and additional information on vehicle efficiency strategies.

 

Energy Environment Excellence Fleet Management (www.e3fleet.com) provides practical information for optimizing vehicle fleet fuel efficiency and environmental performance.

 

ETAAC (2008), Technologies and Policies to Consider For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California, California Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee for the California Air Resources Board (www.arb.ca.gov); at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/ETAACFinalReport2-11-08.pdf.

 

European Environment Agency (www.eea.eu.int) provides information on European vehicle emissions and emission reduction strategies. 

 

Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters and Don Chen (2007), Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html).

 

FleetSmart (2001), Idling Gets You Nowhere, FleetSmart Program, Natural Resources Canada (http://fleetsmart.nrcan.gc.ca).

 

FOE (2000), Gas Guzzler Loophole: SUVs and Other Light Trucks Drive Off with Billions, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org).

 

Fuel Economy Website (www.fueleconomy.gov), by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Agency provides information on fuel consumption ratings of new automobiles and additional information on vehicle efficiency strategies.

 

FEAT (Fuel Efficiency Automobile Test) Data Center (www.feat.biochem.du.edu) provides information on the results of numerous remote sensing vehicle emission studies. This technique is able to measure tailpipe emissions from vehicles as they operate on the roadway.

 

Christopher Frey and Magui Rouphail (2001), Emissions Reductions Through Better Traffic Management: An Empirical Evaluation Based on On-Road Measurements, North Carolina State University and North Carolina Dept. of Transportation (www.dot.state.nc.us/~research).

 

Lew Fulton (2001), Sustainable Transport: New Insights From The IEA's Worldwide Transit Study, International Energy Agency (www.iea.org).

 

GEF (2006), Environmentally Sustainable Transport and Climate Change: Experiences and Lessons from Community Initiatives; The Global Environment Facility, United Nations Environment Programme (www.undp.org); at www.undp.org/sgp/download/GEF_SGP_Sustainable_Transport_and_Climate_Change.pdf.

 

Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl (2007), Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil, Earthscan Press (www.transportrevolutions.info).

 

Edward L. Glaeser and Matthew E. Kahn (2008), The Greenness Of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions And Urban Development, Working Paper 14238, National Bureau Of Economic Research; at www.nber.org/papers/w14238; summarized in http://mek1966.googlepages.com/greencities_final.pdf.

 

Garry Glazebrook and Peter Rickwood (2006), Options for Reducing Transport Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Emissions for Sydney, SOAC; at www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/cityfutures/SOAC/optionsforreducingtransportfuel.pdf.

 

David Goldstein (2007), Saving Energy, Growing Jobs: How Environmental Protection Promotes Economic Growth, Profitability, Innovation, and Competition, Bay Tree Publishers (www.baytreepublish.com); summary at www.cee1.org/resrc/news/07-02nl/09D_goldstein.html.

 

V. Gorsevski, et al (1998), Air Pollution Prevention Through Urban Heat Island Mitigation: An Update on the Urban Heat Island Pilot Project, Global Hydrology and Climate Center (www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/uhipp/epa_doc.pdf).

 

Michael Grant, Anne Choate and Lauren Pederson (2008), Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Analysis Techniques for Transportation Projects, Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).

 

Green Car Club (www.nesea.org/greencarclub) is a program of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA) to promote electric and energy efficient vehicles. 

 

David L. Greene and John DeCicco (2000), Engineering-Economic Analysis of Automotive Fuel Economy Potential in the United States, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL-27, 3-96).

 

David Greene and Nataliya I. Tishchishyna (2000), Costs of Oil Dependence: A 2000 Update, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-TM-2000/152 (www.osti.gov/bridge).

 

Greenhouse Gas Action Guide (www.ghgactionguide.ca) provides information on a variety of strategies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other transportation problems.

 

Green Ribbon Commission On Climate Protection (2006), Seattle, a Climate of Change: Meeting the Kyoto Challenge: Green Ribbon Commission On Climate Protection Report and Recommendations, City of Seattle (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/climate/report.htm).

 

Jürg M. Grütter (2007), The Clean Development Mechanism, GTZ-SUTP (www.sutp.org).

 

GTZ (2003), Sustainable Transportation: A Sourcebook for