Download Analysis of Transportation Strategies to Reduce GHGs

Analysis of Transportation
Strategies to Reduce GHGs
Moving Cooler – A National, State and Regional View of
Transportation and Land Use Strategies
New York State MPO Annual Conference
June 15, 2010
presented by
David L. Jackson
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Transportation leadership you can trust.
Presentation Agenda
Transportation Sector Context
Moving Cooler
• On-Road GHG Emissions Baseline
• Strategies Examined
• Analytic Approach & Findings
• Regional Implications & Conclusions
Agency Responsibilities
• Maryland DOT
• Metro Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)
Collaborative Decision Making Process
Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. GHGs
U.S. GHG Emissions by
End Use Economic Sector 2006
Residential
5%
Commercial
6%
Electricity
Generation
33%
Source:
Other
2.0%
Rail
2.7%
Light-Duty
Vehicles
59.3%
Marine
4.9%
Agriculture
8%
Industry
20%
U.S. GHG Emissions
Breakdown by Mode
Aircraft
11.5%
Transportation
28%
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2007,” April 2009, http://epa.gov/climagechange/emissions/usinventory.html.
Heavy-Duty
Vehicles
19.6%
Federal Action on Transportation
and Climate Change
U.S. DOT Report to Congress on Transportation and
Climate Change
Federal transportation authorization bill likely to
include provisions for considering GHG emissions
Energy legislation likely will address national GHG
reduction targets and include funding for MPO/state
target setting
US DOT/US EPA Joint Rulemaking (2016 LDV CAFE)
Administration directive on 2017 – 2025 LDV CAFE
and 2014 – 2018 M/HDV GHG/fuel economy standards
State and Local Action
on Transportation and Climate Change
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2009
Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions
Moving Cooler
Study Objective:
• Examine the potential
of VMT and travel
efficiency strategies to
reduce GHG emissions
• Moving Cooler targets
2 of the 4 “legs”
• McKenzie study / US
DOT Report addresses
vehicle technology and
fuels
Alternative Baseline/Policy Tests to 2050
National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt)
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
American Clean Energy and Security Act 2020
Target (83% of 2005 emissions)
1,000
Moving Cooler Baseline
800
600
2016 CAFE & Extended
Policies
400
High Fuel Price, Low VMT
Low Fuel Price, High VMT
200
American Clean Energy and Security Act 2050 Target
(17% of 2005 emissions)
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
High-tech, High VMT
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Highlights potential GHG emission outcomes based on
varying fuel price and technology scenarios
Spatial Allocation of On-Road GHGs
Share of Cumulative (2010-2050) National On-Road GHG Emissions
Large/High Density Regions (New York City, Buffalo)
22%
Large/Low Density Regions – (Rochester)
43%
Medium/High Density Regions – (Albany, Syracuse)
Medium/Low Density Regions – (Poughkeepsie-Newburgh)
15%
Small/High Density Regions - (Ithaca, Binghamton, Elmira)
Small/Low Density Regions – (Kingston, Utica, Glens Falls)
Non-Urban Areas
9%
6%
2%
2%
Range of Strategies Examined
VMT Focus
Parking, cordon & congestion
pricing
Economy wide pricing
Land use & non-motorized
Urban transit: fares, LOS &
service expansion
Intercity passenger rail &
high-speed rail
Car sharing, employer based
commute
Consolidated freight facilities
Rail and marine infrastructure
bottlenecks
System Efficiency Focus
Congestion pricing
HOV/Managed lanes
Speed limit reductions
Eco-driving
Systems operations and
management, bottleneck relief
and capacity expansion
Overweight load permits, WIM
screening, truck stop anti-idling
Truck-only lanes
Range of Strategies Examined (cont.)
URBAN Focus
Parking, cordon &
congestion pricing
ALL AREA Focus
Economy-wide
pricing
Land use & nonmotorized
Eco-driving
Urban transit: fares,
LOS & service
expansion
Overweight load
permits, WIM
screening, truck
stop anti-idling
HOV, car sharing,
commute strategies
Operational, ITS,
bottleneck relief &
capacity expansion
Consolidated freight
facilities
Truck only lanes
Rail and marine
infrastructure
bottlenecks
NON-URBAN Focus
Intercity tolls
Intercity
passenger rail,
high-speed rail
Speed limit
reductions
Analytic Approach
1. Estimate the GHG reduction of each individual strategy
(change in fuel consumption)
•
•
•
Cumulative reduction for 2030 and 2050
Annual reductions in critical target years (2020, 2030, 2050)
3 levels of intensity of implementation
2. “Bundle” the strategies and examine the combined impacts
•
•
•
•
•
Effectiveness
Interactions, synergies, antagonistic effects
Cost
Other societal impacts / co-benefits / externalities
Equity effects
Moving Cooler: Example Findings
Ranges of Individual Strategies
Strategy
GHG Reduction from Baseline
(2020)
VMT Fees
0.5 – 6.0%
Bike and Pedestrian
0.1 – 0.3%
PAYD Insurance
1.2 – 3.3%
Congestion Pricing
0.1 – 1.1%
Eco-Driving
0.5 – 2.2%
Land Use/Smart Growth
0.1 – 0.7%
Urban Public Transit LOS/Expansion
0.1 – 0.7%
Employer-Based Commute/Parking Pricing
0.2 – 2.1%
Operational and ITS Improvements
0.1 – 0.4%
“Bundling” Strategies Will be Key
Combined effectiveness
Near-Term/
Early Results
Interactions, synergies, antagonistic effects
Long-Term/
Maximum Results
Low Cost
Cost and cost effectiveness
Other societal impacts/co-benefits/externalities
Equity effects
Land Use/
Nonmotorized/
Public
Transportation
Facility Pricing
System and
Driver Efficiency
Example: System and Driver Efficiency Bundle
Combination of strategies
to enhance the efficiency of
transportation networks
• Congestion pricing, transit
LOS, HOV lanes, car sharing,
speed limits, system
operations and management,
multimodal freight strategies
• Improve travel speeds, reduce
congestion and idling, create
viable alternatives to driving
alone
Example: Land Use / Transit /
Nonmotorized Bundle
Urban transit
• Fare reduction
• Increased transit service
• Urban transit expansion
Land use – increased density
Pedestrian/bicycle
Parking pricing/parking
restrictions
Congestion pricing
High-speed rail/intercity
passenger rail expansion
Urban consolidation centers
(freight)
HOV expansion
Car sharing
Signal enhancement
Traveler information
Findings: “Bundles”
Combinations of transportation strategies can achieve
GHG reductions from transportation (synergies)
• 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 (and more
significant) reductions anticipated from fuel and
technology advancements
* Projections for on-road surface transportation GHG emissions
Range of Annual GHG
Reductions of Six Strategy Bundles
Aggressive and Maximum Deployment
Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt)
2,000
1,800
1%
1,600
2005
3%
4%
11%
1,400
18%
17%
24%
1,200
1990
1,000
Study Baseline
Aggressive Development Levels
800
Maximum Development Levels
600
400
200
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
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
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.
2050
Conclusions – Regional Planning Background
Regional transportation planning processes consider
VMT and system efficiency strategies in short and long
range plans
These strategies are included in plans based on their
ability to target regional goals, meet conformity
requirements, address planning factors, and meet
feasibility and financial constraints.
Strategy implementation results in changes in traveler
behavior and system performance
At present, most MPOs do not consider GHG emission
impacts of transportation planning decisions or include
GHG emissions as a performance measure
Conclusions – Regional Planning Direction
States and regions leading the way in developing Climate
Action Plans and legislating GHG reduction targets
Federal transportation reauthorization to include
provisions for including GHG emissions as a planning
factor
Energy legislation to formalize a process for setting
national GHG reduction targets and to include funding for
MPO/state target setting
Conclusions – Moving Cooler
Application for MPOs
Moving Cooler provides:
•
A process to estimate GHG reductions (annual and cumulative)
from VMT and system efficiency strategies
•
Strategy specific sketch modeling level approaches and technical
resources that can be applied at the regional context,
•
Estimating tools for costs and system user savings,
•
A broad set of policies, strategies and implementation/deployment
level considerations,
•
Bundling concepts and interaction approaches, and
•
Ranges of GHG reduction estimates to assist in:
− Incorporating GHG emissions as criteria in visioning and long range
planning
− Developing ambitious yet achievable regional targets
Conclusions
Synergies result in more significant reductions
Some strategies are effective in achieving near-term
reductions, reducing the cumulative GHG challenge
Investments in land use and improved travel options
involve longer timeframes but have enduring benefits
Both national level and state/regional/local strategies
are important
GHG reductions should be viewed relative to the scale
of potential implementation
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
Transportation GHG Reduction
Strategies & Responsibilities
Strategy Group
Transportation System Planning
and Design
Construction and Maintenance
Practices
Transportation System
Management & Operations
State
Transp.
Metro
Transp.
Local
Transp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vehicle and Fuel Policies
Transportation Planning and
Funding
Local Other State Other
X
X
X
X
X
Land Use Codes, Regulations,
other Policies
X
Taxation and Pricing
X
X
X
X
Travel Demand Management
X
X
X
Public Education
X
X
X
Analytic Approach for Tailored
Transportation Strategy to Reduce GHGs
4.
Estimate
GHG
reduction
1.
Establish
baseline:
GHG effects
of current
program
2.
Set target
and
timeframe
for GHG
reduction
from
individual
strategies
3.
Select
strategies
5.
Bundle
strategies
and estimate
combined
impacts
and define
parameters
6.
Assess
effectiveness
in meeting
GHG target
Maryland’s Response to Climate Change
April 2007
Governor O’Malley’s
Executive Order
August 2008
Climate Action Plan
(CAP)
25% reduction by 2020 from 2006 baseline
Established Maryland Commission on Climate Change:
16 agency heads
Private sector
6 General Assembly members
NGOs
Local governments
42 Policy Options Across All Sectors
8 Transportation and Land Use Policy Options
Land Use
Bike / Ped
Technologies
Transit
Intercity Travel
PAYD
Pricing
GHG Impact Analysis
Established agency implementation requirements
May 2009
2009 GHG Emission
Reduction Act
and set 2020 target (25% below 2006)
No funding; No sector-specific GHG emission targets
• Dec. 2011 – Submit Draft Implementation Plan
• Dec. 2012 – Final Implementation Plan Adopted
• 2016 - General Assembly will Conduct a Mid-Course Review
Maryland Department of Transportation
MDOT’s Draft Implementation
Status Report - Analysis
Update 2006 inventory and 2020 base forecast
Establish transportation sector GHG emissions reduction
target
GHG emissions assessment by Category (GHG
reductions and costs)
1. Technology and fuel programs
2. Open and funded projects 2006-2020
(CTP, MPO TIPs/LRTPs)
3. TERMS open and funded 2006-2020
4. Transportation and Land Use (TLU) strategies
Maryland Department of Transportation
Maryland DOT Climate Action
Implementation Status Report
Preliminary GHG Emissions Modeling Results
mmt CO2e
40
38
37.77 Base 2020 forecast
36
34
-3.76 National CAFE Standard
33.54
-1.00 Maryland Clean Car
-0.28 Renewable Fuels Standard
32
-1.38 Funded Plans and Programs
30
-0.73 Funded TERMS
25%
Reduction
Goal
-1.62
28
Target Shortfall
3.86 – 2.32 mmt
26
-3.16
25.15
24
2006
Maryland Department of Transportation
2020
TLU Policy Options
(range of strategies)
MDOT’s Draft Implementation
Status Report - Results
Percent of mobile source GHG emissions target reduction
in 2020:
• 40% - National Fuel Economy Standards, MD Clean Car,
National Renewable Fuel Standards
• 17% - MD Plans and Programs and TERMs
• 13–25% - TLU policy options (44 strategies capable of
implementation by 2020)
• 18–30% - Remaining target shortfall
Maryland Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Washington COG (MWCOG)
Climate Change Report and Scenario Planning
Source: MWCOG, April 2010
Source: MWCOG, April 2010
Source: MWCOG, April 2010
Source: MWCOG, April 2010
SHRP 2 – C09:
Incorporating GHG Emissions Into the
Collaborative Decision-Making Process
Develop strategies for incorporating GHG emissions in key
points of decision-making framework
Identify relevant information and materials that are already
produced by the transportation planning process and the
gaps that exist for GHG analysis
Prepare materials and methods for dealing with these gaps
Prepare a Practitioner’s Handbook that can be used in the
planning and decision making process
SHRP 2 – C 09
Practitioners’ Guide
State workshops to test strategies
Finalize GHG strategy for each key decision point and
incorporate in handbook/Web tool
Provide user with information on how to incorporate
GHG considerations
−
Roles and responsibilities
−
Supportive data, tools, and technology
−
Associated best practices
Project complete fall 2010
For More Information…
Moving Cooler: http://movingcooler.info
Maryland Climate Action Plan:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/Air/climatechange/legislation/index.asp
MWCOG “What Would it Take”:
http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/
SHRP 2 Collaborative Decision Making:
www.transportationforcommunities.com
David Jackson, AICP
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
[email protected]