Moving Cooler: Study Findings

Moving Cooler Study Findings GHG Mitigation Potential in the Transport Sector Transforming Transportation 2010 January 15, 2010 presented by Joanne R. Potter Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust.

Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. GHGs Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007,” April 2009, http://epa.gov/climagechange/emissions/usinventory.html. U.S. GHG Emissions by End Use Economic Sector 2006 U.S. GHG Emissions Breakdown by Mode Electricity Generation 33% Transportation 28% Residential 5% Commercial 6% Agriculture 8% Industry 20% Light-Duty Vehicles 59.3% Heavy-Duty Vehicles 19.6% Other 2.0% Rail 2.7% Marine 4.9% Aircraft 11.5%

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Federal Transit Administration American Public Transportation Association Environmental Defense ITS America Shell Oil Natural Resources Defense Council Kresge Foundation Surdna Foundation Rockefeller Brothers Fund Rockefeller Foundation Urban Land Institute Analytic Team: Cambridge Systematics Multiple Partners on Steering Committee:

Wide Range of Strategies Examined Pricing, tolls, PAYD insurance, VMT fees, carbon/fuel taxes Land use and smart growth Nonmotorized transportation Public transportation improvements Regional ride-sharing, commute measures Regulatory measures Operational/ITS strategies Capacity/bottleneck relief Freight sector strategies

Focus of Analysis Estimates GHG effectiveness and direct implementation costs Not a full cost-benefit analysis – therefore not a complete basis for decisions GHG benefits only Direct agency monetary implementation costs Vehicle operating costs (savings) – fuel, ownership, maintenance, insurance Political feasibility not assessed Allows comparison to McKinsey Report findings on fuels and technology

Establish baseline Select strategies and define parameters Estimate the GHG reduction of each individual strategy “ Bundle” the strategies and examine the combined impacts Analytic Approach

Assumptions for Baseline Travel continues to grow VMT growth of 1.4% per year Transit ridership growth 2.4% / year Fuel prices increase 1.2% per year, beginning at $3.70 / gallon in 2009* Fuel economy improves steadily Light duty vehicles at 1.91% annually Heavy duty at 0.61% * AEO high fuel price scenario

Moving Cooler Baseline to 2050 Note: This figure displays National On-Road GHG emissions as estimated in the Moving Cooler baseline, compared with GHG emission estimates based on President Obama’s May 19, 2009, national fuel efficiency standard proposal of 35.5 mpg in 2016. Both emission forecasts assume an annual VMT growth rate of 1.4 percent. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) identifies GHG reduction targets in 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050. The 2020 and 2050 targets applied to the on-road mobile transportation sector are shown here. National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Study Baseline American Clean Energy and Security Act 2020 Target (83% of 2005 emissions) American Clean Energy and Security Act 2050 Target (17% of 2005 emissions) Obama Administration Proposal

Moving Cooler Sensitivity Tests to 2050 High Fuel Price/Low VMT: Fuel prices increase dramatically, resulting in lower VMT and improved vehicle technology. Low Fuel Price/High VMT: Lower fuel prices drive higher VMT growth and less investment in improved technology. High Technology/High VMT: Technology progresses rapidly, leading to decreased driving cost and higher VMT. National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Study Baseline American Clean Energy and Security Act 2020 Target (83% of 2005 emissions) American Clean Energy and Security Act 2050 Target (17% of 2005 emissions) Obama Administration Proposal High Fuel Price, Low VMT Low Fuel Price, High VMT High Tech, High VMT

Strategy Parameters: 7 Area Types Density /Level of Transit Large urban Hi Low Medium urban Hi Low Small urban Hi Low Non-urban

3 Deployment Levels per Strategy Example: Pricing Strategies Sample Parameters Scope Intensity Expanded current practice Large urban areas Peak hour at $0.45 / mile More aggressive Large & medium urban areas Peak hour at $0.69 / mile Maximum effort Large, medium, & small urban areas Peak hour at $0.69 / mile

Findings: Individual Strategies Individual strategies achieve varying levels of GHG reductions <0.5% to over 4.0% cumulatively to 2050

Example Findings: Individual Strategies Strategy Cumulative % GHG reduction from baseline (2050) VMT fees 0.4 - 4.9% Speed limit reductions 1.7 - 3.5% PAYD insurance 1.1 - 3.2% Congestion pricing 0.8 – 1.8% Eco-driving 1.0 – 2.6% Land use/smart growth 0.2 - 2.0% Urban Public Transit LOS/Expansion 0.3 - 1.1% Employer based commute/parking pricing 0.4 - 1.7% Operational and ITS improvements 0.3 – 0.7%

Strategy Bundles Illustrative Analysis Low Cost Near-Term/ Early Results Long-Term/ Maximum Results Land Use/ Nonmotorized/ Public Transportation System and Driver Efficiency Facility Pricing

Combinations of transportation strategies can achieve GHG reductions from transportation 4% to 18% GHG reduction from baseline* in 2050 (aggressive deployment, without economy-wide pricing) Up to 24% GHG reduction from baseline* in 2050 (maximum deployment, without economy-wide pricing) These strategies complement the important reductions anticipated from fuel and technology advancements Findings: Strategy Bundles * Projections for on-road surface transportation GHG emissions

Range of Annual GHG Reductions of Six Strategy Bundles (Aggressive and Maximum Deployment) 1990 & 2005 GHG Emissions – Combination of DOE AEO data and EPA GHG Inventory data Study – Annual 1.4% VMT growth combined with 1.9% growth in fuel economy Aggressive Deployment Levels – Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at aggressive level Maximum Deployment Levels – Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at maximum level Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2005 1990 Note: This figure displays the GHG emission range across the six bundles for the aggressive and maximum deployment scenarios. The percent reductions are on an annual basis from the Study Baseline. The 1990 and 2005 baseline are included for reference. 4% 24% 1% 3% 11% 17% 18% Study Baseline Aggressive Development Levels Maximum Development Levels

Economy-Wide Pricing Mechanisms: Carbon pricing, VMT fee, and/or Pay As You Drive (PAYD) insurance Strong economy-wide pricing measures added to bundles achieve additional GHG reductions Aggressive deployment: additional fee (in current dollars) starting at the equivalent of $0.60 per gallon in 2015 and increasing to $1.25 per gallon in 2050 could result in an additional 17% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050 Two factors would drive this increased reduction Reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) More rapid technology advances

Economy-Wide Pricing Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1990 & 2005 GHG Emissions – Combination of DOE AEO data and EPA GHG Inventory data Study Baseline – Annual 1.4% VMT growth combined with 1.9% growth in fuel economy Aggressive – GHG emissions from bundle deployed at aggressive level without economy wide pricing measures 2005 1990 Study Baseline Aggressive Economy-Wide Pricing 18% 35% 12% 30% 7% 19%

Direct Vehicle Costs and Costs of Implementing Strategy Bundles Note: This figure displays estimated annual implementation costs (capital, maintenance, operations, and administrative) and annual vehicle cost savings [reduction in the costs of owning and operating a vehicle from reduced vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and delay. Vehicle cost savings DO NOT include other costs and benefits that could be experienced as a consequence of implementing each bundle, such as changes in travel time, safety, user fees, environmental quality, and public health. 2008 Dollars (in Billions) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Vehicle Cost Savings Implementation Costs 2050

Near-Term and Long-Range Strategies Some strategies are effective in achieving near-term reductions, reducing the cumulative GHG challenge in later years Investments in land use and improved travel options involved longer timeframes but would have enduring benefits

Scale of Implementation Both national level and state/regional/local strategies are important GHG reductions should be viewed relative to the scale of potential implementation While effect on national emissions may be modest, some strategies may be more beneficial at regional scales

Other Societal Goals Many strategies contribute to other social, economic and environmental goals while reducing GHGs Some strategies have significant equity implications that should be examined and addressed

Next Steps Regional / state applications Regionally tailored strategy packages Climate action implementation Continuing research Further analyses of individual strategies / bundles Sensitivity to various parameters Vehicle conditions / traffic flow modeling Interactions with pricing Interactions with fuel and vehicle technology advancements Sub-national analyses Pilot regional assessments

For More Information… http://movingcooler.info http://www.uli.org/Books [email_address]

Moving Cooler: Study Findings

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Moving Cooler: Study Findings

More from WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities

Recently uploaded

Moving Cooler: Study Findings

Editor's Notes