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.
Over a million killed annually in car accidents worldwide. Divide that by total distance traveled and number of passengers. You get deaths per mile per passenger. I bet the deaths per mile per passenger of bicycles is higher than cars. If you replace half of the cars with bicycles, the death rate would be higher.
Not against cycling. I like it as a sport. We all want to live in countrysides where cycling is safer. But according to urban planners, dense cities are more environment-friendly. I guess they envision mass transport system and walking.
If you replace half of the cars with bicycles, the death rate would be higher.
Not necessarily, because the automobile is the primary agent of those bicycle fatalities.
Well I’m not going to blame the car, if the bike is riding backwards, down the wrong side of the road, where no car driver is going to expect to see it, and if they walked their bike across the pedestrian crossing, instead of illegally riding a bike on the pedestrian crossing, that too would improve biker safety.
Proper biker behavior, such as for example, is not practiced in San Francisco, would greatly reduce biker accidents.
Bikers are supposed to obey ALL traffic laws; not just the ones they approve of.
PS: I’m a biker.
Most bicycle accidents I see reported in the media involve the rider being run down from the rear by a vehicle. Some of those collisions may not be the driver’s fault, but I suspect most of them are.
Certainly, it is an extremely rare event when the bicycle comes out on top in any car-bike collision. I’ve never heard of such a case, but odd things happen, so who knows? A 175 lb. projectile traveling at 12 mph is capable of a lot less damage than a 2500 lb. projectile traveling 35 mph.
Nobody stops being a fool just because they ride a bicycle, just like nobody becomes automatically smart or even cool by jumping in a Jaguar or Ferrari. The common reaction with some motorists is to condemn all bicyclists because they’ve seen some reckless or foolhardy rider(s) doing something thoughtless or dangerous.
I’ve already had numerous instances where cars turning right blasted through the walk light, and I avoided injury by pulling up short instead of entering the crosswalk. In California, even in a crosswalk you are not safe. California has also very poorly designed crosswalk entry points. Who came up with that poor design? Crosswalks entry points in Colorado are superior.
Where I live, pedestrians are frequently run down trying to cross busy streets away from the crosswalk. Bicyclists not so much, because a bike is potentially much faster than a pedestrian, and most of us don’t lollygag crossing a street
Sorry George, your unrealistic example does not depict the reality I’ve seen and experienced in almost 60 years of riding a bike. Yes, some bike riders are idiots and ride wildly. Equally, some car drivers are distracted, going too fast, and impaired.
Which is the greater danger?
An expensive exercise would be to widen train tracks for a tripling of passenger capacity with wider more stable trains, it would also require a united effort from many different jurisdictions but it is the best way.
“ITDP works with cities worldwide to bring about transport solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce poverty, and improve the quality of urban life.”
How does reducing carbon emissions reduce poverty? Someone give me the connection here. What I do know is the cost of reducing the CO2 emissions will shrink if not collapse the economy. Well dosen’t that mean more poverty? (and maybe wide spread starvation?)
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
dbstealey says: September 18, 2014 at 1:00 pm Dudley, “Relax, I wasn’t attacking you.”
Thanks, Mr Stealey, I am happy to accept that explanation.
Rogerthe surf, please note the commas in “solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce poverty, and improve”. No linkage betweed “GGE” and “reduce poverty”. There are three separate items which they are hoping to achieve. I would argue that many of their transport solutions might cut greenhouse gas emissions, but increase poverty – IIRC the ITDP outfit is a bus promoter, with particular emphasis on BRT, which in the view of those who have studied it is a sham concept. If it manages to give the same service as light rail it costs nearly as much to build, and if it does not cost nearly as much it does not give good service. And it costs more to operate.
Mr Stealey, I am pleased that you think I sound like a transit consultant you know – he (she?) must be a pretty good chap!
Rgbatduke suggests: “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. . . . I suggest that we offer people huge subsidies to kill themselves, and impose an equally huge death tax on their heirs.”
Oh dear, Mr B. Just think of all the coal, oil or gas needed to cremate all those bodies! If the CAGW people were even slightly serious they would be pushing as hard as possible the banning of crematoriums and cremations. Best idea is mincing and using as fertilizer, so less need for carbon dioxide to fertilize your plants and trees.
Dudley,
Good. I never want to increase my circle of enemies. I have enough already because I wear my heart on my sleeve; my opinions are no secret. And yes, transit consultants are fine folks.
Regardless of the Co2 issue — and on that point I am utterly convinced by the many fine posters on this site that it is better regarded as plant food than pollution — the advantages of building stronger urban mass transit systems and high speed interurban rail are compelling, and should be pursued vigorously by governments and private industry at all levels. I don’t hear anyone talking about taking your steering wheel out of your hands, but I do hear a strong case for having more transportation options. These include zip-cars and other innovative uses of the automobile, but also strengthened transit and rail, which are in many ways more efficient and effective than autos.
Well we have plenty of examples of “Transit” (whatever that is) and rail. They just don’t go where people want to go; nor do they go when people want to go.
You can have my steering wheel, when you pry my cold dead fingers off it. Why is it, that people have time on their hands, to organize everybody else’s lives for them ?
Get rid of your own car first, before coming and telling us to get rid of ours. I like mine; it gets between 40 and 50 miles per gallon, depending on how much of the road is reserved for the occasional transit bus to use.
A couple of years ago I left Stockton CA, where I spent about 15 minutes commuting to and from work, to
Stay with my parents for a couple of months while teaching a training class in San Francisco. While with my parents, I commuted by bus or “BART”. That public transit commute took me about an hour each way.
I realize I’m comparing different commuting environments here, but I still think my main point is correct.
Using public transportation may save on overall energy, but it costs a LOT more in time- if given a choice, most people would rather spend a little more to travel by auto, and save a LOT more in time.
Not to mention the cost overruns that rival nuclear plant cost restatements and USAF plane designs
This is another policy area where Calif. needs to take the lead, and with policy safeguards where they cannot drag the rest of us in with some hidden clause in a congressional omnibus bill.
The loss of $100 T from the US economy, should cost enough jobs and product output to save quite a bit of CO2 emission.
So let’s get rid of a bunch more jobs and industry, and that will save even more CO2.
I can’t even guess how many people that will end up killing, but I would guess quite a few. Maybe that’s a good thing.
I can think of quite a few busybodies, that I would put on my list of preferred candidates for extinction.
Just think how getting rid of the need to pump oil, will raise the cost of feedstocks for other industries, like cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.
Don’t forget to switch your electric car over to air bearings, as ordinary liquid lubricants will be far too expensive, once oil wells become a thing of the past.
And I just heard that the summer of 2014 has been the hottest summer on record. No it couldn’t bee the highest temperature on record, as the Temperature hasn’t changed for almost 18 years; it’s just “hotter”, whatever that implies.
I wonder when Boeing plans to introduce its first wind powered intercontinental air liner; should be a snap, since the both can use the same propeller.
Yes the new utopia sans fossils, is something I would like to see.
Oh and I would like to soon receive my share of that $100 T tax refund, that we will all be saving.
In a less tongue in cheek vein, this “life after cars” insanity, is on a par, with Terraforming Mars, and thermonuclear fusion energy.
On the latter, the September issue of Optics & Photonics News Journal carries a front cover story on the recent breakthrough in thermonuclear fusion energy, where at the US National Ignition Facility, they finally squished a 2 mm diameter plastic packet containing compressed and frozen Deuterium and Tritium, to produce more energy than all of the energy it took to run their giant laser, and all the control electronics, and fuse the DT to get helium.
Why are they doing that? Just where on earth do you mine Tritium ?
It seems that Thermonuclear, is the wind farm of nuclear energy; you need a fission reactor, to supply the fusion reactor, with Tritium.
Well you could just squish DD, instead of DT, but then that takes a heck of a lot more energy to do, so they still are behind the 8-ball.
Is there no end to the insanity of these dreamers. If you can make safe clean green fission nukes, to produce Tritium, why not just use them for fission powered nuclear energy.
Also DT fusion produces oodles of fast neutrons (is that the 14 MeV neutrons), so nyet, of the clean green fusion mythology.
There are many sites where radioactive substances have polluted the Planet especially in former Soviet Union, forget CO2 the real ruination of the Earth is is happening under our noses.
“Further, an estimated 1.4 million early deaths could be avoided annually” Hurray, eternal life, finally.
According to the data in the article for the U.S., China, and India there will still be growth in emissions even under the High Shift scenario. The chances of implementing that scenario in all three nations are zero so this is a useless exercise in daydreaming. I’m sure it will be followed by much more fantasy at the UN Summit.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=production+consumption
According to this, jets dump 5.2 million barrels of semi-burned fuel into the air of the Earth every day. How many MT of CO2 will we save IF, instead of ruining our world economy we simply forbid commercial air traffic from taking off and close all the airports. Jet engines are the ONLY power producers that now have no pollution control devices added to them, whatsoever. 5.2M bbl/day = 104,390,000,000 gallons per year…about.
Seems like we should eliminate the unnecessary luxury use of all fuels before the entire population has to walk to work every morning. Airplanes, yachts, etc….totally unnecessary.
Yes, Larry, we need to shut down everything that you see as non-essential because you, of course, are the judge of what is essential and what is non-essential. Notices that there would have to be exceptions such as: the armed services and medical transport.
Therefore, the Government would be able to say, “What you want to do is non-essential, but what I want to do is essential — flying congressmen and presidents about on “fact-finding tours” or “official trips” that happen to coincide with fundraisers. Soon there will be other “non-essential” things that will be discovered. People really don’t need to travel between states unless it is on commercial trips… unless you are a part of the government. People really don’t need carpool lanes. Only government officials need to get there fast… along with those civilians who the government deems essential.
Pretty soon we are all equal, but some are more equal than others. No thank you.
“to ensure safe walking, bicycling and other active forms of transportation”
Whoever wrote this report has never observed bicyclists in their natural habitat. Almost every day I see them speeding, ignoring traffic regulations and endangering everybody else (including themselves.)
Oil-fueled cars are here to stay. Electric cars are cute, but they need electricity and if those in power continue with their insanity of pushing “renewable”, only very rich people will be able to afford electricity. Besides, I doubt there is any power grid in the world that can handle this. Hybrids cars are interesting, but the tech isn’t at a point where people can afford them. The prices I’ve seen are hair-raising.
And that’s just talking of normal cars that people own, not going into transport. Trucks are here to stay as well.
And yes, if we increase public transport, we’ll need more vehicles. Those vehicles need to be propelled somehow. There are no buses on the market that can run on electricity, they all eat fossil fuels. More buses = more fossil fuel emissions from buses. So, the idea is really just a publicity stunt.