From Burness Communications via Eurekalert
Urban transportation systems an emerging priority ahead of UN climate and sustainable development meetings
NEW YORK (17 September, 2014)—More than $100 trillion in cumulative public and private spending, and 1,700 megatons of annual carbon dioxide (CO2)—a 40 percent reduction of urban passenger transport emissions—could be eliminated by 2050 if the world expands public transportation, walking and cycling in cities, according to a new report released by the University of California, Davis, and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP).
Further, an estimated 1.4 million early deaths could be avoided annually by 2050 if governments require the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels, according to a related analysis of these urban vehicle activity pathways by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) included in the report.
“Transportation, driven by rapid growth in car use, has been the fastest growing source of CO2 in the world, said Michael Replogle, ITDP’s managing director for policy and co-author of the report. “An affordable but largely overlooked way to cut that pollution is to give people clean options to use public transportation, walking and cycling, expanding mobility options especially for the poor and curbing air pollution from traffic.”
“The analysis shows that getting away from car-centric development will cut urban CO2 dramatically and also reduce costs, especially in rapidly expanding economies,” said report co-author Lew Fulton, co-director of NextSTEPS Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. “It is also critical to reduce the energy use and carbon emissions of all vehicles.”
The report, A Global High Shift Scenario, is the first study to examine how major changes in transport investments worldwide would affect urban passenger transport emissions as well as the mobility of different income groups. The authors calculated CO2 emissions in 2050 under two scenarios, a business-as-usual scenario and a “High Shift” scenario where governments significantly increased rail and clean bus transport, especially Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and helped urban areas provide infrastructure to ensure safe walking, bicycling and other active forms of transportation. The projections also include moving investments away from road construction, parking garages and other ways that encourage car ownership.
Under this High Shift, not only would CO2 emissions plummet, but the net financial impact of this shift would be an enormous savings over the next 35 years, covering construction, operating, vehicle and fuel-related costs.
The report was released at the United Nations Habitat III Preparatory Meeting in New York on September 17th, in advance of the September 23rd United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Summit, where many nations and corporations will announce voluntary commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including new efforts focused on sustainable transportation.
“This timely study is a significant contribution to the evidence base showing that public transport should play central role in visions for the city of tomorrow” says Alain Flausch, Secretary General of the International Association of Public Transport, and member of UN Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport.
Better Mobility Leads to Social Mobility
The new report also describes sustainable transportation as a key factor in economic development. Under the High Shift scenario, mass transit access is projected to more than triple for the lowest income groups and more than double for the second lowest groups. Notably, the overall mobility evens out between income groups, providing those more impoverished with better access to employment and services that can improve their family livelihoods.
“Today and out to 2050, lower income groups will have limited access to cars in most countries under almost any scenario; improving access to modern, clean, high-capacity public transport is crucial,” said Fulton.
“Unmanaged growth in motor vehicle use threatens to exacerbate growing income inequality and environmental ills, while more sustainable transport delivers access for all, reducing these ills. This report’s findings should help support wider agreement on climate policy, where costs and equity of the cleanup burden between rich and poor are key issues,” noted Replogle.
Emission Standards Save Lives
Air pollution is a leading cause of early death, responsible for more than 3.2 million early deaths annually. Exposure to vehicle tailpipe emissions is associated with increased risk of early death from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, as well as respiratory infections in children. Car and diesel exhaust also increases the risk of non-fatal health outcomes, including asthma and cardiovascular disease.
The International Council on Clean Transportation evaluated the impacts of urban travel by cars, motorcycles, trucks and buses on the number of early deaths from exposure to soot emitted directly from vehicle tailpipes. “Future growth in vehicle activity could produce a four-fold increase in associated early deaths by 2050, even with a global shift to mass transit,” said ICCT’s Joshua Miller, a contributor to the study. “We could avoid about 1.4 million early deaths annually if national leaders committed to a global policy roadmap that requires the strongest vehicle pollution controls and ultralow-sulfur fuels.” Cleaner buses alone would account for 20 percent of these benefits.
Fuel Economy Standards Save Fuel and Cut CO2 Emissions
While this study has not focused on further actions to boost motor vehicle fuel economy, it takes into account existing policies that, in the International Energy Agency’s Baseline scenario, improve average new car fuel economy by 32 percent in countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 34 of the world’s most developed, democratic, market economies, and 23 percent in non-OECD countries.
The High Shift scenario increases this to 36 percent and 27 percent respectively, due to improved in-use driving conditions and a slight shift to smaller vehicles. However, the Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI) calls for much more: a 50 percent reduction in fuel use per kilometer for light-duty vehicles worldwide by 2030. Achieving the GFEI 2030 goal could reduce 700 megatons of CO2 annually beyond the 1,700 reduction possible from a High Shift scenario. Taken together, achieving this fuel economy goal with better public transport, walking and cycling could cut annual urban passenger transport CO2 emissions in 2050 by 55 percent from what they might otherwise be in 2050 and 10 percent below 2010 levels.
Cutting Emissions with Sustainable Transportation Across the World’s Cities
Transportation in urban areas accounted for about 2,300 megatons of CO2 in 2010, almost one quarter of carbon emissions from all parts of the transportation sector. Rapid urbanization—especially in fast developing countries like China and India—will cause these emissions to double by 2050 in the baseline scenario.
Among the countries examined in the study, three stand out:
- United States: Currently the world leader in urban passenger transportation CO2 emissions, with nearly 670 megatons annually, the US is projected to lower these emissions to 560 megatons by 2050 because of slower population growth, higher fuel efficiencies, and a decline in driving per person that has already started as people move back to cities. But this pace can be sharply accelerated with more sustainable transportation options, dropping to about 280 megatons, under the High Shift scenario.
- China: CO2 emissions from transportation are expected to mushroom from 190 megatons annually to more than 1,100 megatons, due in large part to the explosive growth of China’s urban areas, the growing wealth of Chinese consumers, and their dependence on automobiles. But this increase can be slashed to 650 megatons under the High Shift scenario, in which cities develop extensive BRT and metro systems. The latest data show China is already sharply increasing investments in public transport.
- India: CO2 emissions are projected to leap from about 70 megatons today to 540 megatons by 2050, also because of growing wealth and urban populations. But this increase can be moderated to only 350 megatons, under the High Shift scenario, by addressing crucial deficiencies in India’s public transport.
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) is a global nonprofit that helps cities design and implement high-quality transit systems to make communities more livable, competitive and sustainable. ITDP works with cities worldwide to bring about transport solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce poverty, and improve the quality of urban life. Please visit http://www.itdp.org for more information.
UC Davis is a global community of individuals united to better humanity and our natural world while seeking solutions to some of our most pressing challenges. Located near the California state capital, UC Davis has more than 34,000 students, and the full-time equivalent of 4,100 faculty and other academics and 17,400 staff. The campus has an annual research budget of over $750 million, a comprehensive health system and about two dozen specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and 99 undergraduate majors in four colleges and six professional schools.
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) is a non-profit research organization dedicated to improving the environmental performance and efficiency of transportation to protect public health, the environment, and quality of life. ICCT provides national and local policymakers with technical analysis of regulations, fiscal incentives, and other measures for clean vehicles and fuels. For more information, please visit http://www.theicct.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More efforts by the far left Progressives to force everyone but the “elites” into tiny cubicles in high rise apartment buildings. They should change their name to Regressive instead of Progressive.
Of course there will be off-sets to that 100 trillion dollars !
Like lost jobs and profits for car makers and their employees.
If yo uget rid of a lot of your population that will ‘save’ money as well.
I live in Colorado Springs. I give our bus system a “D+” grade. They do not come out to where I live. When I used to live in another part of the springs, my daughter spent 1 and a half hour commute to college on the bus — 2 transfers — thee same amount of time it took me to commute driving my self to Denver (90 miles). I would gladly buy and ride a bike even though I’m 67, but the way the roads are, I would likely end up as a hood ornament.
And these “knowledgeable” people care nothing about those people living out in the country. Out there — you need a car or truck.
They would like to herd everyone living out in the country into cities where they can all walk or take the bus. To them, you don’t need farms, trucks, or country living. If everyone is crowded into cities, they can just walk to the nearest store to get their food. Since stores get their food by magic, they can never run out.
Poor devils.
Can’t wait to get my 2015 Corvette
Stingray/Z06. 6.2 liter V-8. 650 hp.
San Francisco – with an 80% contribution from the Federal Transportation Administration – implemented SFPark: a study to see how UCLA Professor Shoup’s ideas could improve parking by making it more expensive – hence theoretically improving availability and reducing congestion and pollution caused by cars circling for parking. This $60M project installed 8000 IPS meters in SF along with sensors and research projects.
The $6 an hour and higher rates ironically have not improved availability in the highest demand areas – what it has done is encouraged ever more people to get handicapped placards. Half or more of the metered spaces in these areas are now typically occupied by individuals with handicapped placards; there are over 65000 handicapped placards issued in SF every year (vs. 30K or so meters).
The last irony? There is no actual way to measure how much these high meter rates have helped the parking problem. The FTA just concluded an RFP where they asked outside companies to try and solve this problem – existing methods being unsatisfactory and inconclusive.
The American way of life is based on the automobile. It has been part of the American dream since post WWII. A nice home in a nice neighborhood meant driving to work and for shopping. No problem, as American post-war prosperity made the dream attainable for almost anybody.
I bet this just galls these people. It’s unfair we have it so good. Sure, build commuter rail or subway. If it doesn’t go where people want to go, well, that’s their problem.
Houston’s Metro, in its obsession with shoving light rail, has wrecked what was one of the nation’s best bus systems and squandered literally billions of dollars on a system that is vulnerable to minor street flooding (in a city famous for minor street flooding), is static and cannot be moved in a city that is famous for redevelopment and mobile populations, and that very few people actually use.
Now favored land developers have made millions, a few neighborhoods have benefited, but most of Houston pays for something that hurts traffic and few use.
Yes, a push cart nation does save on carbon, rubber, coolant, and batteries. But it is costly in the rolling back of civilization for the majority. Just continue the civil disobedience by driving to work and school on time.
Just another alarmist example of talking without “BRAIN ON” button
We clearly need to get away from city living, we can save 2300 megatons of annual CO2 if we don’t produce cement any longer and start to live in timber and grass/straw housing.
Saving 5% of the annual CO2 production for 100 trillion to be invested elsewhere, there won’t be a financial saving as the headline suggests, seems a high price to pay when we can save a lot more of the CO2 production by changing the way we build houses at probably a similar refinancing scenario. And the timber needed is a renewable resource, should be a green dream.
People pay money for not to use public transportation because cars create value for them. Waste on waiting is particularly high. Every person can save hours of door-to-door travel time every week.
Self-driving cars will make mass transportation obsolete.
I have no doubt that we’ll have to spend something like $240 trillion to get that $100 trillion in savings.
…..but can it pay its debt obligations and UN dues?
Our city manager is a bicycle proponent. He wants to spend our tax money building bike trails everywhere. Now bicycles are great recreation and great exercise, but are not practical transporation for anybody over the age of 12.
Why is our transportation tax money being wasted on this things? Because these people are smarter than we are. They know how we should live. That’s why they are in government and public planning.
Related: Why do federal tax dollars go to build bike trails and walking trails? Should those funds be left to the state and local government, except for national parks and other federal lands?
I can’t even consider riding a bike to work. The logistics just do not work out when the temperatures are consistently in the 90s for 5 months of the year. I would have to bring all my close to work, find a gym with a shower and change there at work. I work with people all day (about 10000 of them) in a close one on one environment (well, not all 10000 every day) and if I rode a bicycle the 15 miles to work (even if that wasn’t taking my life into my hands), the body odor would be a sure non-starter. It’s hard to lead people to knowledge if they don’t want to be in the same room with you.
clothes…I need to read before hitting post…
People get trapped into a way of thinking and often go about solving the wrong problem. This whole discussion is framed in terms of solving the “transportation problem”. Transportation clearly has a value, and has for as long as there has been human civilization. The value of transportation is why the Romans built roads. It is why the Venetians, the Dutch and the British built merchant fleets and navies to protect them. It is why industrial nations built canals, then railroads, highways and airports.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to look at ways of optimizing transportation — deriving the same benefits for less cost or more benefits for the same cost. We’ve been doing that all along.
But it’s important to keep asking whether new technologies supersede some of the traditional thinking which has surrounded traditional transportation.
Mail-order catalogs, using the transportation infrastructure of the late 19th and early 20th century greatly expanded access to modern manufactured goods for people in rural areas. Instead of making a long journey to the big city, going to a department store and loading up your wagon with stuff to cart back to the farm, the postal service brought you a catalog, and conveyed your order in a small envelope to Sears, who then packaged your order and sent it back to you by train, wagon, truck or whatever. In effect, life was improved by reducing the total amount of physical transportation needed to get new stuff to rural areas. When phone service developed beyond just local calling, mail-order became phone order, replacing physically transporting your order form with a phone call.
Amazon and Federal Express continued this process, reducing the time from order to possession to the point where a significant percentage of total shopping is now done online. This is a huge boon especially for Christmas shopping, precisely because I no longer have to transport myself to a store. This is an improvement regardless of whether my saved trips would have been by rail, bus, automobile or bike.
The discussion is framed the way it is to a significant extent because bureaucracies have been created and chartered to advocate for one or another form of physical transportation. In effect, there are large vested interests in continuing to think in the traditional ways. We should be looking for ways new technology can replace physical movement of people with electronic communication.
In Atlanta traffic is much worse when the schools are in session and during the work commuting windows. If the workforce could work from home 1 day a week, that cuts down on getting people to and from work by 20%. And it will cost way less than making cars 20% more fuel efficient, or building 20% more light rail lines, or adding new bike lanes, or anything else anyone is talking about to “solve the transportation problem”.
Ditto for having 1 day a week of at home virtual classrooms. These days every school kid must have a computer and access to the internet to do basic school work, and even to “hand in” assignments (I wonder when that usage will stop, since we still talk about “dialing” a phone number long after most phone users have never even seen, let alone used a rotary phone).
And in Atlanta, as bad as traffic gets, it gets much, much, much worse when President Obama visits for any reason. I think the path to new thinking about transportation needs some leadership from the top. The president should stop flying everywhere to hold publicity events and fundraisers and use Skype instead. The president should play virtual golf instead of having the Secret Service shut down the whole course so he can get in a round. Keeping presidential visits from completely fouling up traffic in even large urban areas will save Billion$ and can be implemented immediately. I have a new study coming out which proves it.
The Ice Cream Test
Does your mode of transportation get the ice cream from the store to your home freezer before the ice cream melts? If so, then it is acceptable transportation, for the people in your family who prefer their ice cream frozen only once.
It is noted a person could bicycle home the ice cream in below freezing air temperatures. How acceptable is that to the one doing the peddling? Does the bike have snow chains?
Ice cream? How much CO_2 is given off to help you make this frozen confection? Probably a pound for a pound, or even worse! Refrigeration, cooking the custard, transportation. And in the end, ice cream is terrible for you. Fat and sugar — why not just shoot yourself. Besides, the milk comes from antibiotic-laced cows, and raising cows is wrong, even for milk. They produce a small boatload of methane, exhale CO_2, consume grass and grains that are what we should be eating instead of things like ice cream. Besides, 2/3 of the world is lactose intolerant — eating ice cream is itself a subtle form of racism when everybody can’t do it. Wheat too. No more peanuts — who wants to make peanut allergic people feel bad?
So don’t worry about the ice cream question. It will melt in the heat, along with the polar caps. In the new world there will be no ice cream.
The only way to save the situation is, of course, to do the moral thing and die. If we could talk around 6.5 billion people into committing suicide tomorrow — problem solved. Heck, the survivors could probably even ice cream! I suggest that we offer people huge subsidies to kill themselves, and impose an equally huge death tax on their heirs. But we won’t tell people about that, at least not until it is too late. Think of it as a highly regressive social policy.
rgb
Dr. RGB,
LOL. Thanks. I needed a good chuckle, before I go and get my ice cream (if the lovely Mrs. hunter will permit….)
Obviously the advent of the private refrigerator/freezer is a contributory factor in the wasteful American suburban lifestyle. Without a fridge/freezer, we would need to live closer to the markets and shop more frequently.
Common Sense Pt 1
Quite right. It may surprise you to learn that in the case you’ve mentioned, I would drive my car. I employ the fundamental principle of using the right tool for the job, and right vehicle for the trip. I also try to avoid fool’s errands like hauling ice cream by bicycle over a long distance on a hot day.
It’s a joy to be a human, and be so clever, don’t you think? – ☺ –
Agreed too, it sucks riding in the cold, or when it’s raining. I avoid both, and drive my car.
Think about how much money we would save if we all quit eating by 2050.
I personally plan to quit eating by just about that time if not sooner, and expect that I will pretty much completely cease spending money then as well, aside from one massive blowout that I, sadly, will be unable to attend.
Pollution? … Is somebody getting their monoxides and dioxides mixed up?
Never forget the fundamental Law of the Universe:
Mass Transit is for LOSERS!
Except that the cost of implementing public transportation anywhere that is not already densely populated (such as most of the US) far exceeds the resources available to do so. Hell, St. Louis, a metropolitan region of 3 million people (19th in the US), covers nearly 22,000 km2. Cars are a necessity when it takes 30 minutes just to get to a bus stop, and another 30 to get to whatever rail system is in place, followed by another 30 on the final bus trip to your destination.
Out here in Colorado, public transportation only makes sense if you live in Colorado Springs and work in Denver (or vice versa)… let alone trips to the mountains from anywhere east of the front range.
Liberaltopians envision a world full of New York City living centers with trips anywhere else only on “special occasions.” %×÷€ that. I’m here because I don’t like big cities.
Mark
Eric Sincere
September 18, 2014 at 11:19 am
Once crammed into habitation zones, the overlords will only need to shut down food/water/sewer systems. There, problem solved!
____________________________
Righto. Such places were called Ghettos an had fences all around with guard towers and mounted machineguns. If that is what the ruling class wants, I don’t want that ruling class.
Ten thousand words to say:
“You Prole Peasants, Get the hell off the highway and make unobstructed driving for my government provided limo. I’m an important VIP!”
Just like the Soviet Union used to do where they reserved lanes for the Party apparatchicks.
Accidental coal fires in China emit about the same amount of CO2 as all the cars and light trucks in the U.S. And the smoke has more actual pollutants than vehicle exhaust–no emission controls. All things considered, putting out the fires would probably achieve something–but that apparently isn’t part of the plan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240861/pdf/ehp0110-a0234a.pdf
The cover photo for the post is a view looking north along the 405 Freeway, just south of the 10 Freeway in West Los Angeles. The central planners just got finished with about $2,000,000,000.00 worth of car pool lane construction through the Sepulveda Pass about 5 miles to the north. My last several visits to the area showed that this particular transportation project hasn’t had much of an affect on the chronic traffic problem shown in the photo.
As I noted above, I have never seen a study showing that carpool (aka HOV) lanes increase ride-sharing. (It may, its just no studies have been done and I doubt if the increase would be statistically significant. It certainly isn’t traffic-significant.) I have seen studies that all the innovations (HOV lanes, metering, etc.) do make commutes longer. The only thing that helps is more lanes for everyone.
It does increase the sale of mannequins.
@philjourdan Per your insight I have just increased my investment in mannequin futures.
Having driven that lovely stretch of highway many times both ways for over 40 years, I can only offer my mournful observation that all improvements & upgrades to the 405-101 have been almost immediately overwhelmed by increased traffic.
Hey, they upgraded the 405/101 – looks like a good time to move to 1000 Oaks!