transport and sustainability n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Transport and Sustainability PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Transport and Sustainability

Transport and Sustainability

94 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Transport and Sustainability

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Transport and Sustainability Seminar by Dr. George C. Eads Vice President, CRA International Canberra, Australia December 9, 2005

  2. Presentation outline • The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Mobility Project • The SMP’s definition of sustainable mobility • Seven goals identified by the SMP for improving the sustainability of mobility • Goal-by-goal review • SMP’s “bottom line” conclusion about whether mobility can be made sustainable

  3. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) • A coalition of 170 international companies united by a share commitment to sustainable development via the three pillars of economic growth, ecological balance, and social progress • WBCSD members are drawn from more than 35 countries and 20 major industrial sectors • WBCSD issues reports that are the responsibility of the entire membership; also provides the process, quality control, and outreach for member-led sector projects • The Sustainable Mobility Project (SMP) was a member-led sector project; I was its lead consultant, but report I will be summarizing was issued on the responsibility of the members

  4. SMP members

  5. The SMP Final Report: Mobility 2030 • Defines “sustainable mobility” and provides indicators for measuring it • Provides a frank assessment of outlook if present trends continue* • Proposes seven goals for improving outlook • Provides metrics for measuring attainment of several of these goals* *Using “spreadsheet model” developed jointly by SMP and IEA Report and supporting material (including “spreadsheet model” and documentation) available at

  6. SMP’s definition of sustainable mobility “The ability to meet the needs of society to move freely, gain access, communicate, trade and establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human or ecological values today or in the future.”

  7. SMP’s indicators of sustainable mobility • Access to mobility • Monetary cost to users • Travel time • Reliability and comfort • Safety • Security • Greenhouse gas emissions • Impact on environment and public well-being • Resource use • Impact on public revenues and expenditures • Equity implications • Prospective rate of return to private business Mobility users Society as a whole, as represented by governments* Mobility providers • *Governments reflect at least three distinct societal perspectives: • As “internalizer” of externalities (#7, #8 and #9) • As fiscal agent (#10) • As promoter of equity (#11)

  8. SMP’s seven goals for improving the sustainability of mobility • Reduce conventional emissions from transport to levels where they do not constitute a significant public health concern anywhere in the world • Limit GHG emissions from transport to sustainable levels • Reduce the number of transport-related deaths and injuries worldwide • Reduce transport-related noise • Mitigate traffic congestion • Narrow “mobility opportunity divides” • Preserve and enhance mobility opportunities available to the general population

  9. Goal 1: Eliminate transport-related conventional emissions as a significant public health concern anywhere in the world “We believe that in the developed world this goal will be achieved by 2030. Indeed, it might be achieved as early as 2020….In the developing world, it should be possible to reduce transport-related conventional pollutants to well below the levels in our reference case. It is not realistic to expect the stated goal to be achieved throughout the developing world as soon as it is achieved in the developed world.” Mobility 2030: Overview, pp. 20-21

  10. Example: Projected transport-related NOx emissionsDeveloped world (left panel) and developing world (right panel)

  11. Impact of lags of different length in adoption of standards by the non-OECD countries Non-OECD regions: Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions by year depending on the time lag in implementing developed world emissions standards Time lag used in reference case

  12. Building blocks for reducing transport-related emissions • Advanced vehicle emissions control technologies • Unleaded gasoline and lower sulphur fuels • Four-stroke engines and advanced emissions controls for two and three wheelers • Technologies for monitoring in-use performance; political will to use these technologies

  13. Challenges to achieving goal • Affordability to consumers of advanced pollution control equipment, especially in developing world • Time lags • In the adoption of standards • In fleet turnover • Actual in-use performance • Resolving issues of vehicle and fuel interdependence • Political and cultural acceptance

  14. Goal 2: Limit transport-related GHG emissions to sustainable levels “We accept that society’s long-term goal should be nothing less than to eliminate transportation as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet even under the most favorable circumstances, achieving this goal will take longer than the time frame of this report” Mobility 2030 Overview, p. 21.

  15. Share of worldwideGHG emissions associated with transport activity* Source: IEA WEO 2002; SMP calculations * Data for 2000

  16. Reference case transport-related GHG emissions Projection by region

  17. Reference case transport-related GHG emissions Projection by transport mode

  18. Building blocks for reducing transport-related GHG emissions Transport-related GHG emissions = A*S*I*F Activity (volume of passenger and freight travel) Structure (shares by mode, utilization factors, and vehicle type) Intensity (fuel use per unit of vehicle activity) Fuel type (GHG characteristics of fuel used)

  19. “A” times “S” = Transport demandSMP’s projections of future personal and goods transport demand

  20. “I” times “F” = Emissions per unit of transport demandFuel and vehicle characteristics examined by SMP

  21. Challenge to achieving goal Even if implemented worldwide, diesels and hybrid ICEs fueled with conventional gasoline and diesel fuel, or fuel cells fueled by natural gas-derived hydrogen, can no more than slow the growth in road transport CO2 emissions during the period 2000-2050. Only the use of carbon-neutral hydrogen in fuel cells and advanced biofuels in ICE-powered vehicles can largely or totally offset the growth in CO2 emissions produced by the growth in road travel during the period 2000-2050.”

  22. Illustration of challenge Project conducted two simulations • Impact on “well-to-wheel” GHG emissions from road vehicles of individual technologies at very high levels of market penetration • Possible combination of strategies that would return “well-to-wheel” road vehicle emissions to their 2000 levels by 2050 In both simulations, no account was taken of cost or customer acceptance

  23. What are “well to wheel” emissions? • GHG emissions are produced both during the production and distribution of transport fuel (“well to tank” emissions) and during the combustion of the fuel (“tank to wheels” emissions) • Total transport-related emissions are the sum of the two (“well to wheels” emissions) • It is this sum that must be reduced Next chart shows the importance of using “well to wheels” measure of emissions

  24. ICEs (SI and CI) Hybrids Fuel Cells

  25. Simulation #1 – Impact of individual technologies Assumptions: • Diesel ICE technology (using conventional diesel fuel) assumed to have 18% fuel consumption benefit* versus prevailing gasoline ICE technology during entire period • Gasoline hybrids assumed to have 30% advantage* versus the prevailing gasoline ICE technology; diesel hybrids, a 36% advantage*; fuel cell vehicles, a 45% advantage* • Diesels and advanced hybrids reach 100% sales penetration (worldwide) by 2030 in light-duty vehicles and medium-duty trucks • Fuel cells reach 100% sales penetration (worldwide) by 2050; hydrogen produced by reforming natural gas, no carbon sequestration • For “carbon neutral” hydrogen, change WTT emissions characteristics of the hydrogen used in fuel cell case above • For biofuels, assume would be used in a world road vehicle fleet similar in energy use characteristics to the SMP reference fleet * Actual fleet-average in-use emissions; not theoretically possible emissions

  26. Results of simulation #1(Caution: results for individual technologies cannot be added together)

  27. Simulation #2 --- “Combined technology” strategy Applied five technology “increments”* in order shown (are additive, but order matters) • Dieselisation. For light-duty vehicles and medium-duty trucks, rises to around 45% globally by 2030. • Hybridisation. For light-duty vehicles and medium-duty trucks increases to half of all ICE vehicles sold by 2030. • Conventional and advanced biofuels. The quantity of biofuels in the total worldwide gasoline and diesel pool rises steadily, reaching one-third by 2050. • Fuel cells using hydrogen derived from fossil fuels (no carbon sequestration). Mass market sales of light-duty vehicles and medium-duty trucks start in 2020 and rise to half of all vehicle sales by 2050. • Carbon neutral hydrogen used in fuel cells. Hydrogen sourcing for fuel cells switches to centralized production of carbon-neutral hydrogen over the period 2030-2050 once hydrogen LDV fleets reach significant penetration at a country level. By 2050, 80% of hydrogen is produced by carbon-neutral processes. *Assumptions of effectiveness of technologies identical to those used in Simulation #1

  28. Results of Simulation #2 Impact of increments #1 through #5

  29. The five technology/fuel increments do not achieve goal of returning road vehicle “well to wheels” GHG emissions to their 2000 level by 2050 Two additional increments required: • Additional fleet-level vehicle energy efficiency improvement. SMP reference case projects an average improvement in the energy efficiency of the on-road light-duty vehicle fleet of about 0.4% per year. We assume that the average annual in-use fleet-level improvement rises by an additional10% (i.e., from about 0.4% to about 0.6%).* • A 10% reduction in emissions due to better traffic flow and other efficiency improvements in road vehicle use. * Perhaps due to “downsizing” or other forms of “mix shifting”

  30. Reducing transport-related GHG emissions -- the way forward “Important progress can be made during the next two or three decades. Prior to 2030, where economically practical and politically acceptable, SMP members believe that the following actions aimed at “bending the transport-related GHG emissions curve downward” should be undertaken: • The energy efficiency of transport vehicles should be improved consistent with customer acceptance and cost-effectiveness. • The technological foundation should be laid for the eventual elimination of the effects of fossil carbon in transport fuel.... • Where new fuel infrastructures are required to permit the eventual elimination of the effects of fossil carbon in transport fuel, planning should be undertaken and, if practical, construction should begin.” Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 21

  31. Goal 3: Reduce Road-Related Deaths and Injuries “All countries should pursue aggressive strategies to reduce the number of transport-related deaths and injuries*, especially deaths and injuries related to road vehicles….Programs to reduce deaths and serious injuries should address the full range of factors contributing to vehicle-related deaths and serious injuries, including driver behavior, improvements in infrastructure, and the development and deployment of improved technologies for crash avoidance and injury mitigation.” Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 22. *relative to our reference case projections

  32. Reference case projections of road-related deaths Reference Case #1 Reference Case #2 Source: Analysis by Koornstra conducted for SMP

  33. There are sharp regional differences in who is being killed today in road crashes

  34. Goal 4: Reduce transport-related noise “[While] different localities can place quite different priorities on the importance of dealing with transport-related noise …a common set of elements from which communities might develop a noise-reduction strategy…includes using road surfaces that significantly dampen noise, constructing noise barriers in noise-sensitive areas; enacting and enforcing regulations restricting the modification of vehicles in ways that create greater noise and/or allow such vehicles to be operated in a manner that produces unnecessary noise; and continuing to improve the noise performance of transport vehicles. Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 23.

  35. Goal 5: Mitigate congestion “Transportation congestion cannot be completely eliminated without destroying transport’s vital role in enabling economic growth. But its effects can be substantially mitigated • “Infrastructure capacity can be expanded to accommodate demand-led growth….But in the SMP’s view, building additional transport capacity should never be the only (or even the principal) approach to mitigating congestion. (emphasis added) • “Infrastructure planning can be focused increasingly on the elimination of “choke points” that prevent critical elements of transport infrastructure from being used efficiently. • “Where practical and politically acceptable, transport demand growth can be absorbed by making better use of existing mobility systems and infrastructure. Pricing strategies of various types are being used in an increasing number of places, although their use remains controversial.” Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 23.

  36. Goal 6: Narrow the most serious mobility opportunity divides “Many of the world’s peoples are hampered in their efforts to better their lives by poor mobility opportunities. In some of the poorest countries and regions, mobility opportunities are a small fraction of what they are in the rest of the world. “And in most countries, there are large differences in the mobility opportunities enjoyed by the average citizen and members of certain groups – the poorest, the handicapped and disabled, the elderly, etc. “These ‘mobility opportunity divides’ must be narrowed if mobility is to become sustainable.” Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 23.

  37. One indicator of the size of the gap in mobility opportunities between wealthier and poorer regions

  38. Two approaches to reducing mobility opportunity divides between more developed and less developed regions • Improve road infrastructure so people everywhere have access to all-weather roads • Provide inexpensive, safe, clean mobility systems Concern about possible increases in GHG emissions should not be used as a reason to block such improvements – countries in the world’s more developed regions must “make room” for mobility improvements in the world’s less developed regions

  39. Increase mobility opportunities available to certaindisadvantaged groups in all countries -- even “mobility rich” countries • Mobility opportunities available to certain groups in almost every country are limited • The elderly • The disabled • The economically disadvantaged • Certain disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups • Deficit in mobility opportunities available to these groups contributes to their social and economic exclusion

  40. Two approaches to reducing mobility opportunity divides within all countries – even “mobility rich” countries • Where feasible, tailor “conventional” public transport services to meet the needs of these mobility-disadvantaged groups • Increase use of alternatives to “conventional” public transport such as paratransit; utilize ITS technologies to improve the service characteristics and reduce the costs of these alternative systems

  41. Goal 7: Preserve and improve the mobility opportunities available to the general population “The mobility opportunities available today to the general population of most developed-world countries (and in many developing-world countries) greatly exceed those of any period in the past. However, the changes in urban living pattern that [Mobility 2030 notes] as adversely impacting the mobility opportunities of the poorest, the elderly, the handicapped and disabled, and the disadvantaged also threaten to erode the mobility opportunities of many average citizens. “In particular, the ability of conventional public transport systems to perform their vital role in personal mobility is being threatened. “During the next several decades, a primary goal should be to preserve these mobility options. At the same time, new mobility systems that could be sustainable in a future urbanized/suburbanized world need to be developed and their implementation begun.” Mobility 2030: Overview, p. 25.

  42. Even where public transport is of very high quality, itoften cannot come close to meeting everyone’s total personal mobility needs Personal transport modal usage in Paris (Central Paris* and first ring**) Percent of respondents • *Arrondissements I – XX • ** Departments of Hauts de Seine, Seine Saint Denis, and Val de Marne • Source: Renault

  43. Challenge becomes even greater once one moves outside the urban core and trips to and from that core Daily Trips by Mode in the Paris Region * * Ile de France region outside Central Paris and First Ring

  44. 13.2% of daily trips 5.9% of daily trips 14.3% of daily trips Total = 33.4% of daily trips

  45. Illustration: Paris region as a whole Total = 66.6% of daily trips 8.8% of daily trips 22.8% of daily trips 35.0% of daily trips

  46. While conventional public transport systems will continue to play a vital role in “monocentric” urban areas, societies should develop new mobility systems • These systems should combine flexibility provided by private vehicle with cost and efficiency characteristics of public transport • Goal should be to fit characteristics of mobility systems to the needs and desires of people rather than the reverse • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems • Advanced paratransit • Shared-use vehicle services (car sharing) • Possibly in the future, fully automated systems

  47. Mobility 2030’s “bottom line” conclusion • Mobility can be made sustainable, but . . . • There is no single “magic” technological solution; a portfolio of solutions is required • Some goals can be achieved by 2030, especially in the World’s more developed regions, but others will take longer • Achieving sustainable mobility will require coordinated efforts, starting now, by all elements of society – business, government, public • Sustainable mobility cannot be achieved without the active involvement of the developing world

  48. Thank you for your attention

  49. Workshops Stakeholder Dialogues Brussels Paris Prague Davos Beijing Aspen Washington D.C. Shanghai Delhi Mexico City Manila Sao Paulo Capetown Global dialogue Tokyo Nagoya

  50. Assurance group • Advice on quality and integrity of substance and process • Members • Rt Hon Simon Upton (Chair) – New Zealand • Mr. David Ashley – Australia • Professor John Heywood – USA • Professor Peter Jones – Great Britain • Professor Suzana Kahn Ribiero – Brazil • Profesor Martin Wachs – USA • Professor Akio Morishima – Japan