ResearchPDF Available

Connected, Automated, Zero-Emission Cars Are Essential for Improving Livable, Sustainable Communities

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

One of the public policy goals for livable and sustainable communities is to minimize the use of automobiles. This paper focuses on introducing and justifying an important new policy principle. Even when car travel is minimized with smart growth land development policies, transportation demand management, and increased public transit, a significant level of automobile use will remain. As a result, reducing the environmental, economic and safety impacts of those remaining automobiles should be an essential element of a livable, sustainable community. Fortunately, fundamental and disruptive technological advances in new vehicles—automation, connectivity, and electrification—as described in this paper are fast emerging to make this new priority feasible.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Connected, Automated, Zero-Emission Cars
Are Essential for Improving Livable, Sustainable
Communities
John S. Niles
Research Director
Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions (CATES)
4005 20th Ave West, Suite 111
Seattle, WA 98199
+1-206-781-4475 jniles@alum.mit.edu
ABSTRACT
One of the public policy goals for livable and sustainable communities is to minimize the use of
automobiles. This paper focuses on introducing and justifying an important new policy principle.
Even when car travel is minimized with smart growth land development policies, transportation
demand management, and increased public transit, a significant level of automobile use will
remain. As a result, reducing the environmental, economic and safety impacts of those remaining
automobiles should be an essential element of a livable, sustainable community. Fortunately,
fundamental and disruptive technological advances in new vehicles—automation, connectivity,
and electrification—as described in this paper are fast emerging to make this new priority
feasible.
KEY WORDS
livability, sustainability, smart growth, electrified vehicles, automated driving, connected
vehicles, personalized mobility, traffic safety, smart cities, urban planning
- 2 -
One of the shared public policy goals for the two concepts of livable and sustainable
communities is to minimize the use of automobiles (1). This paper focuses on introducing and
justifying an important new policy principle: Even while car travel is reduced with smart growth
land development policies, transportation demand management, and strong public transit,
reducing the harmful environmental, economic and safety impacts of the remaining and
irreducible vehicle use is essential – not optional, not merely desirable, but essential -- for livable
and sustainable communities.
The U.S. Government supports livable communities through the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities formed in June 2009 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). As described by the Federal Highway Administration, “These three agencies
have pledged to ensure that housing and transportation goals are met while simultaneously
protecting the environment, promoting equitable development, and helping to address the
challenges of climate change” (2). The Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute at the
University of Michigan defines "livable communities" as "places that seek to balance economic
and natural assets to meet the diverse needs of local residents in the present and in the future.
These communities offer a variety of housing choices, convenient transportation options, healthy
lifestyle options, reduced air and water pollution, and protection of natural landscapes. These
communities also allow people to live closer to jobs and save money on personal transportation”
(3).
As part of a Graham Institute-funded integrated assessment of innovative and disruptive vehicle
technologies, a partnership of the University of Michigan Connected Vehicle Proving Center
(CVPC) and the Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions (CATES) has
explored the hypothesis that the broad deployment of cars with electric motors for oil-free
propulsion, wireless data connectivity, and automation applications for driver assistance and
eventual autonomous vehicle control is essential to the growth in the livability and sustainability
in U.S. communities. This hypothesis has not been previously advanced to date, based on
evidence from existing programs (4). This paper provides support for the hypothesis.
Because the design of livable, sustainable communities seeks to reduce automobile use by
residents and visitors, the hypothesis is counterintuitive and perhaps surprising. As noted by the
first Secretary of Transportation in the Obama Administration, Ray LaHood, "Livability means
being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or post
office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids at the park - all without having to
get in your car" (5).
SEATTLE AS AN EXAMPLE
Although the need to use a car may be minimized within a livable community, the experience in
such communities to date is that cars still drive into and through the geographic extent of livable
places that have roads.
- 3 -
An example of a U.S. city that strives to have livable, walkable neighborhoods is Seattle,
Washington. Figure 1 is a map from Walk Score showing the high walkability of many
neighborhoods in this city, depicted in green.
Figure 1: Walkable Neighborhoods of Seattle, Washington Shown in Green
Map from http://www.walkscore.com
For moving around without a car, Seattle has ubiquitous public transit (Fig 2) and an extensive
bike lane network (Fig 3).
- 4 -
Figure 2: Public Transit Routes in Seattle, Washington
Map from King County Metro
- 5 -
Figure 3: Bicycle Lanes and Paths in Seattle, Washington
Map from King County Geographic Information Services
Furthermore, parking at the curb throughout the city is controlled with time-metered pricing or
residential permit requirements. Still, the Seattle Department of Transportation map of traffic
volumes on roads throughout the city (Fig 4) illustrates that massive traffic flows are always
close to or in some cases passing through walkable neighborhoods.
- 6 -
Figure 4: Daily Vehicle Volumes in Seattle, Washington
Map from City of Seattle Department of Transportation
As long as significant car usage continues, how cars affect the environment remains pertinent to
livability. Cars now and in the future are likely to provide a large share of the mobility in and
between livable communities, as frequently noted by veteran transportation analysts (6).
Or consider the example of the entire four-county Seattle-Tacoma region. The creation of dense,
transit-oriented livable communities is a major priority in the public spending and policies of the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a plan that
- 7 -
prescribes government resource allocation to transportation programs out to year 2040. However,
even with the emphasis on livability and half of all government spending on transportation
allocated to public transit including a doubling of bus service, PSRC’s computer modeling of
future travel demand forecasts the mode share of automobile use in trip making at 82.4% in 2040
(7).
Even considering the frequently observed ongoing decline in per capita miles of driving in North
America over the past decade (8), there is no doubt from even the lowest car usage forecast
scenarios that automobiles will remain a dominant mode for surface travel in urban environments
and elsewhere (9).
Therefore, it is important to recognize and reduce the many present ways in which cars cause
environmental damage that detracts from sustainability and the impacts that reduce livability.
These impacts are several, to be described next. Fortunately, harm reduction in each area is in
sight from new technology applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE FROM AUTOMOBILES, AND SOLUTIONS
A first and prominent negative impact of cars comes from the air emissions produced by the
petroleum-burning internal combustion engines found in the majority of today's cars. These
emissions are approximately proportional to the amount of petroleum fuel burned (10). Harmful
air emissions include the six EPA-regulated pollutants plus greenhouse gases (GHG). These
local emissions are now recognized as causing premature deaths at the same rate as car crashes
(11).
Fortunately, a switch from petroleum fueled engines to zero-emission electric motors is an
increasingly available power train option. Plug-in hybrids and battery-only electric car sales are
growing rapidly, currently doubling year over year (12). Along with improvements in internal
combustion engines, an increase in the proportion of cars using batteries and electric motors for
propulsion reduces air emissions. The reduction of the need to use increasingly expensive
petroleum fuels is another community economic benefit of automobility that trades out gas
station fill ups for plug-in recharging at home, at work, in shopping centers, and at other
common destinations or roadside stops.
The U.S. Government has mandated higher fuel economy in cars and light trucks, which is
forecast by a recent National Academy of Science panel to be an important step to reduce air
emissions, along with improvements in internal combustion engines and new fuels like natural
gas and biofuels, plus evolution of the electric power grid to zero carbon. (13). The new 54.5
miles per gallon Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standard for 2025, along with
emission control rules at the multi-state level following the leadership from California is going to
force car makers to produce and sell more cars that are electric powered (14). A further benefit of
electric cars is their quietness compared to cars with internal combustion engines, so quiet that
government is intervening to make sure they make some noise for the sake of safety (15).
A second obvious negative impact of cars is fatalities, injuries, and property damage from traffic
accidents of all sorts. 33,561 drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists died in 2012 in motor
- 8 -
vehicle mishaps in the U.S. There were 2.36 million serious injuries. Costs from vehicle
accidents exceed $70 billion per year. Vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for
Americans aged 11 through 27. According to the NHTSA, most mishaps involve driver error or
incapacitation (16).
But thanks to development of computers, software, and sensors over the past decade, the
prospect is now at hand for vehicle automation to substantially reduce vehicle mishaps large and
small. This was clearly revealed by industry presentations at the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) Road Vehicle Automation Workshops in July 2012 and July 2013 (17), and has been
affirmed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a policy statement
(18). Cars with automation capabilities – such as lane-keeping and automatic braking – are going
to be increasingly deployed over the course of the decade just ahead, with capabilities by the mid
2020s for periods of no-hands, no-feet, safe driving.
Automation technology has already been developed and deployed by some manufacturers that
keeps cars from colliding with other vehicles, with bicycles, and with pedestrians (19), as well as
lane-keeping to prevent vehicles leaving the roadway. How fast this technology deploys onto the
streets of USA is dependent upon its price to end users, as influenced by incentives and
regulations from governments, suggesting an important public policy role.
A third negative impact from autos is the extensive occupation of street space and parking lot
space by cars, manifested in the worst case as traffic congestion and packed parking lots, which
typically occupy an average of about half the land area in urban commercial development (20).
Advanced vehicle automation provides the capability of reducing street traffic and parking
demand in communities where leaders are seeking livability.
First of all, automation to the extent that cars can move autonomously to new locations could
mean fewer cars needing parking. But even if the number of cars used does not decrease with
expansion of automation, there is the prospect of taking some parking capacity in dense areas out
of service because automated cars can be parked closer together or in lots that are less proximate
to walkable, livable community zones. Outside of parking, simply reducing the number of
vehicle collisions removes a significant cause of road congestion. Automation of vehicles also
supports smoother driving patterns in vehicles with internal combustion engines, which improves
energy efficiency and thus reduces air emissions (21).
At the same time, vehicle automation opens up the potential for improving the performance and
sustainability of public transit, a signature element of livable urban communities. Automation of
vehicle control yields new options for reducing the cost of transit operations by offering mobility
with a lower requirement for highly skilled human operators than has been the traditional pattern.
Vehicle automation also provides opportunity for new forms of transit – for example, driver-less,
multi-passenger shuttles making multiple trips with no driver salary cost – that could efficiently
serve lower density suburban residential zones better than fixed route buses (22).
Automated vehicles have capabilities that fit well with the denser residential zones characteristic
of smart growth and livability. Speed limits can be electronically maintained and enforced.
Electric urban vehicles can be smaller and lighter, thus more compatible with narrow streets and
- 9 -
less space dedicated to parking. Increased opportunity for shared vehicle use and non-owned
multi-passenger shuttle vans could also potentially lead to fewer vehicles requiring parking (17).
These are all potentials that will require public policy guidance.
In summary, new vehicle technology in motor cars with associated new capabilities such as car
sharing, ride sharing, and driverless transit, could potentially take down air pollution, GHG
emissions, crashes, traffic congestion, and parking space. All of these issues are on the list that
sustainable, livable communities try to deal with by reducing vehicle ownership and car use. In a
future scenario where some level of car use remains in livable communities, new vehicle
technologies in the residual vehicles can reduce the same negative impacts that reducing the
number of vehicles per capita addresses.
CONCERNS AND CONCLUSION
Concerns have been raised that future autonomous driving that lets drivers do other things
besides paying attention to the road while on daily commuting trips could make cars more
popular at the expense of public transit. This might make sprawling land use more attractive by
facilitating easy, comfortable travel in cars that are safer and greener. In response we would note
that smart growth is often well incentivized by land use controls, the rising cost of travel from
fuel prices, and provision of urban amenities that support higher density residential zones.
At the same time, suburbanization continues to expand (23) inexorably even with the automobile
fleet in very early stages of electrification and automation. The safety and GHG reduction
benefits that accrue from the expanded deployment of new vehicle technologies are compelling
and may come to enlarge the popular definition of livability to include safer, cleaner, more
comfortable motorized personal mobility when it is desirable, such as in family trips during off-
peak periods.
Whether cars become more attractive or less attractive in any segment of a community, they are
still going to be a major mode of travel even if motor car use were to end up decades from now
at half or less of today’s levels. Outside of livability programs, widely-accepted public policy
steps are being taken to lower the damage that cars do to the climate and to people on the planet,
no matter where people live.
For this reason plus the inevitable ubiquity of cars in all American communities, we conclude
that the expanded deployment of clean, safe cars is not benign and neutral in the context of
livability and sustainability, but rather essential. This is true for those who reside in livable
communities of intentionally dense design with convenient transit service, and as well,
obviously, for everybody else.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support to Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions (CATES) for the
preparation of this paper and for any conference presentations based on it comes from the
Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute and the Connected Vehicle Proving Center, both
at University of Michigan.
- 10 -
Useful review comments on earlier drafts were provided by Steve Marshall at CATES, Steve
Underwood at Connected Vehicle Proving Center at University of Michigan – Dearborn, Clark
Williams-Derry at Sightline, and anonymous reviewers selected by the Energy Committee of the
Transportation Research Board. Nothing in this paper should be construed as endorsed or
confirmed by any individual or institution except for the author and CATES itself.
REFERENCES
1. Samberg, Stuart, Alon Bassok, and Shawna Holman, “Method for Evaluation of Sustainable
Transportation Toward a Comprehensive Approach,” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1–8.
2. Federal Highway Administration, “Leveraging the Partnership: DOT, HUD, and EPA
Programs for Sustainable Communities,” FHWA livability home page.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/scp.cfm. Accessed January 31, 2014.
3. Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan, “Advancing Livable
Communities through Sustainable Transportation: Integrated Assessment, Request for
Planning Grant Proposals,” September 1, 2011. http://www.aboutcates.org/UofMGraham-
livablecommunitiesGrant-rfp.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
4. Fabish, Lisa and Peter Haas, “Measuring the Performance of Livability Programs,”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2242,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 45–
54.
5. ICF International, Livability in Transportation Guidebook, First edition, 2010, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-HEP-10-028, pg. 1.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/guidebook/livabilitygb10.pdf. Accessed
January 31, 2014.
6. Liu, Changzheng, Elizabeth C. Cooke, David L. Greene, and David S. Bunch, ”Feebates and
Fuel Economy Standards Impacts on Fuel Use in Light-Duty Vehicles and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2252, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 23–30.
7. Puget Sound Regional Council, Transportation 2040 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
PSRC, 2010, Chapter 4, Exhibit 4-26. http://www.psrc.org/assets/3677/04-
Transportation.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
8. Sivak, M, “Has Motorization in the U.S. Peaked?” June 2013, Report No. UMTRI-2013-17,
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/98098/102947.pdf . Accessed
January 31, 2014.
- 11 -
9. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to
2040 U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383(2013), April2013, Issues in Focus, p. 35.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption
for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Fact Sheet” Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, EPA420-F-08-024, October 2008.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
11. Caiazzo, F., Ashok, A., Waitz, I.A., Yim, S.H.L., Barrett, S.R.H., “Air pollution and early
deaths in the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005,”
Atmospheric Environment, Volume 79, November 2013, pp. 198-208,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231013004548
12. U.S. Department of Energy, “Visualizing Electric Vehicle Sales,” Energy.gov web page.
http://energy.gov/articles/visualizing-electric-vehicle-sales. Accessed January 31, 2014.
13. Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels; Board on Energy and
Environmental Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research
Council, Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels, National Academies Press (2013).
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18264. Accessed January 31, 2014.
14. Paul, Binny M., Kara M. Kockelman, and Sashank Musti “Evolution of the Light-Duty
Vehicle Fleet Anticipating Adoption of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Across the U.S. Fleet” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2252, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 107–117.
15. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Minimum Sound Requirements for
Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: Draft Environmental Assessment,” Docket Number NHTSA-
2011-0100, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, January 2013.
www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Quiet_Cars_Draft_EA.pdf. Accessed January 31,
2014.
16. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "2012 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview”,
November 2013 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
17. Transportation Research Board online record, First and Second Workshops on Road Vehicle
Automation. http://vehicleautomation.org. Accessed January 31, 2014.
18. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Preliminary Statement of Policy
Concerning Automated Vehicles,” May 30, 2013.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/U.S.+Department+of+Transportation
+Releases+Policy+on+Automated+Vehicle+Development. Accessed January 31, 2014.
19. Coelingh, E.; Eidehall, A.; Bengtsson, M., "Collision Warning with Full Auto Brake and
Pedestrian Detection - a practical example of Automatic Emergency Braking," Intelligent
- 12 -
Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th International IEEE Conference on, pp.155,160,
19-22 Sept. 2010.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5625077&isnumber=5624963.
Accessed January 31, 2014.
20. Litman, Todd, Transportation Land Valuation Evaluating Policies and Practices that Affect
the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities (16 January 2012), Victoria
Transport Policy Institute Report. http://www.vtpi.org/land.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
21. Boriboonsomsin, Kanok, Haitao Xia, Guoyuan Wu, and Matthew Barth, “Supplementary
Benefits from Partial Automation in Energy and Environment-Focused Connected Vehicle
Applications” Poster at TRB 2nd Road Vehicle Automation Workshop, July 16, 2013.
http://tinyurl.com/ks2n3q2. Accessed January 31, 2014.
22. Kornhauser, Alain, “Autonomous Vehicle Personal Rapid Transit (PRT): a Concept”
Presentation to 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
January 22-26, 2012.
http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/Presentations/AutonomousTaxiTRB2012.pptx. Accessed
January 31, 2014.
23. U.S. Census Bureau, Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to
2010 (September 2012) Special Reports C2010SR-01.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/reports/c2010sr-01.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
... Niles (72) sees the goal of reducing impacts of autos-on safety, economy and environment-as realistic, and key to livable sustainable communities. ...
Article
Full-text available
Walkability and walking activity are of interest to planners, engineers, and health practitioners for their potential to improve safety, promote environmental and public health, and increase social equity. Connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) will reshape the built environment, mobility, and safety in ways we cannot know with certainty—but which we may anticipate will change the meaning of “walkability.” The CAV era may provide economic, environmental, and social benefits, while potentially disrupting the status quo. This paper considers the concept of walkability in light of the approaching transition to CAVs, considering literature in engineering, information technology, built environment, land use, and public health, to support a discussion on research needs. To add depth, we subject a collection of research papers and technical reports to text analytics.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
More and more vehicles are being equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems. These systems intend to help the driver avoid or mitigate accidents by automatically applying the brakes prior to an accident. Initially only rear-end collision were addressed but over time more accident types are incorporated and brakes are applied earlier and stronger, in order to increase the velocity reduction before the accident occurs. This paper describes one of the latest AEB systems called Collision Warning with Full Auto Brake and Pedestrian Detection (CWAB-PD). It helps the driver with avoiding both rear-end and pedestrian accidents by providing a warning and, if necessary, automatic braking using full braking power. A limited set of accident scenarios is selected to illustrate the theoretical and practical performance of this system. It is shown that the CWAB-PD system can avoid accidents up to 35 km/h and can mitigate accidents achieving an impact speed reduction of 35 km/h. To the best of the authors knowledge CWAB-PD is the only system on the market that automatically can avoid accidents with pedestrians.
Article
A crucial element of sustainability is the optimization of system efficiency by the maximization of existing resources and the limitation of the necessity of infrastructure expansion. Although the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification is an internationally recognized standard for determining sustainable architecture, no officially accepted method exists for evaluating sustainable transportation. The development of a performance evaluation method for sustainable transportation is necessary, with a focus on multimodal mobility rather than on automobility. It is crucial that current transportation projects not preclude the provision of multimodal mobility options in the future. This paper reviews the literature on operational and proposed evaluation strategies for transportation projects and proposes a sustainable transportation evaluation method. The sustainable transportation evaluation method builds on the observed beneficial qualities of the existing evaluation systems and attempts to address their shortcomings. Implementation of the sustainable transportation evaluation method relies on established multicriterion techniques that allow for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainability of transportation projects during the planning, design, and construction phases. The evaluation method proposed can augment traditional environmental analysis performed for transportation project selection. The method is designed to be flexible so that it can be easily implemented by a wide range of stakeholders who are considering diverse issues.
Article
This study evaluates the potential impacts of a national feebate system, a market-based policy that consists of graduated fees on low-fuel-economy (or high-emitting) vehicles and rebates for high-fuel-economy (or lowemitting) vehicles. In their simplest form, feebate systems operate under three conditions: a benchmark divides all vehicles into two categories-those charged fees and those eligible for rebates; the sizes of the fees and rebates are a function of a vehicle's deviation from its benchmark; and placement of the benchmark ensures revenue neutrality or a desired level of subsidy or revenue. A model developed by the University of California for the California Air Resources Board was revised and used to estimate the effects of six feebate structures on fuel economy and sales of new light-duty vehicles, given existing and anticipated future fuel economy and emission standards. These estimates for new vehicles were then entered into a vehicle stock model that simulated the evolution of the entire vehicle stock. The results indicate that feebates could produce large, additional reductions in emissions and fuel consumption, in large part by encouraging market acceptance of technologies with advanced fuel economy, such as hybrid electric vehicles.
Article
Supported by general revenues from the State of Texas. 16. Abstract The first part of this report relies on stated and revealed preference survey results across a sample of U.S. households to first ascertain vehicle acquisition, disposal, and use patterns, and then simulate these for a synthetic population over time. Results include predictions of future U.S. household-fleet composition, use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under nine different scenarios, including variations in fuel and plug-in-electric-vehicle (PHEV) prices, new-vehicle feebate policies, and land-use-density settings. This work highlights the impacts of various directions consumers may head with such vehicles. For example, twenty-five-year simulations at gas prices at $7 per gallon resulted in the second highest market share predictions (16.30%) for PHEVs, HEVs, and Smart Cars (combined) — and the greatest GHG-emissions reductions. The strciter feebate policy (pivot point at 30 mpg and fee or rebate rate of $400 per mpg) – coupled with gasoline at $5 per gallon – resulted in the highest market share (16.37%) for PHEVs, HEVs, and Smart Cars, but not as much GHG emissions reduction as the $7 gas price scenario. Excepting the low PHEV price and two feebate policy simulations, all other scenarios predicted a lower fleet VMT. While plug-in vehicles are now hitting the market, their adoption and widespread use will depend on thoughtful marketing, competitive pricing, government incentives, reliable driving-range reports, and adequate charging infrastructure. The second part of this report relies on data from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) to estimate the welfare impacts of carbon taxes and household-level capping of emissions (with carbon-credit trading allowed). A translog utility framework was calibrated and then used to anticipate household expenditures across nine consumer goods categories, including vehicle usage and vehicle expenses. An input-output model was used to estimate the impact of carbon pricing on goods prices, and a vehicle choice model determined vehicle type preferences, along with each household's effective travel costs. Behaviors were predicted under two carbon tax scenarios ($50 per ton and $100 per ton of CO2-equivalents) and four cap-and-trade scenarios (10-ton and 15-ton cap per person per year with trading allowed at $50 per ton and $100 per ton carbon price). Carbon taxes were found to relatively regressive than a cap-and-trade setting (in terms of taxes paid per dollar of expenditure), but a tax-revenue redistribution can be used to offset this regressivity. In the absence of substitution opportunities (within each of the nine expenditure categories), these results represent highly conservative (worst-case) results, but they illuminate the behavioral response trends while providing a rigorous framework for future work.
Article
Combustion emissions adversely impact air quality and human health. A multiscale air quality model is applied to assess the health impacts of major emissions sectors in United States. Emissions are classified according to six different sources: electric power generation, industry, commercial and residential sources, road transportation, marine transportation and rail transportation. Epidemiological evidence is used to relate long-term population exposure to sector-induced changes in the concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone to incidences of premature death. Total combustion emissions in the U.S. account for about 200,000 (90% CI: 90,000-362,000) premature deaths per year in the U.S. due to changes in PM2.5 concentrations, and about 10,000 (90% CI: -1000 to 21,000) deaths due to changes in ozone concentrations. The largest contributors for both pollutant-related mortalities are road transportation, causing ˜53,000 (90% CI: 24,000-95,000) PM2.5-related deaths and ˜5000 (90% CI: -900 to 11,000) ozone-related early deaths per year, and power generation, causing ˜52,000 (90% CI: 23,000-94,000) PM2.5-related and ˜2000 (90% CI: -300 to 4000) ozone-related premature mortalities per year. Industrial emissions contribute to ˜41,000 (90% CI: 18,000-74,000) early deaths from PM2.5 and ˜2000 (90% CI: 0-4000) early deaths from ozone. The results are indicative of the extent to which policy measures could be undertaken in order to mitigate the impact of specific emissions from different sectors — in particular black carbon emissions from road transportation and sulfur dioxide emissions from power generation.
Article
Livability programs seek to make communities better places to live for both current and future generations by influencing the structure and the uses of the land and built environment, including the transportation infrastructure. As such, livability programs explicitly link transportation, land use, the environment, and sustainability. This study explored how transportation and partner agencies should structure the performance measurement of metropolitan livability programs. Existing research suggested that a good performance measurement approach would help an agency achieve the objectives of the program and its customers by influencing agency and stakeholder decisions and actions. An analysis of the performance measurement approaches used by five mature metropolitan livability programs was provided. Four measurement types were identified by the agencies as particularly useful in supporting program decisions: delivery of project commitments (did the program get what was funded?), percentage of the region's development that occurs in targeted development areas (is the program developing where it wants to develop?), leveraged funding (did the program close the financing gap?), and transportation access factors such as induced ridership, cost per induced rider, and bicycle and pedestrian access (did the program achieve a transportation-land use link?). Results of the analysis suggested that good performance measurement in livability programs would require efficient, decision-oriented approaches that would reflect the full range of the objectives of the program and its customers, unconstrained by agency structure. Good performance measurement would require a balanced view across all livability objectives, incorporating both the volume and nature of development, affordability, and land value, and quantifiable and subjective goals.
Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040 U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040 U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0383(2013), April2013, Issues in Focus, p. 35. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.
Supplementary Benefits from Partial Automation in Energy and Environment-Focused Connected Vehicle Applications" Poster at TRB 2 nd Road Vehicle Automation Workshop
  • Kanok Boriboonsomsin
  • Haitao Xia
  • Guoyuan Wu
  • Matthew Barth
Boriboonsomsin, Kanok, Haitao Xia, Guoyuan Wu, and Matthew Barth, "Supplementary Benefits from Partial Automation in Energy and Environment-Focused Connected Vehicle Applications" Poster at TRB 2 nd Road Vehicle Automation Workshop, July 16, 2013. http://tinyurl.com/ks2n3q2. Accessed January 31, 2014.
Transportation Land Valuation Evaluating Policies and Practices that Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities
  • Todd Litman
Litman, Todd, Transportation Land Valuation Evaluating Policies and Practices that Affect the Amount of Land Devoted to Transportation Facilities (16 January 2012), Victoria Transport Policy Institute Report. http://www.vtpi.org/land.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2014.