Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 Other strategies that may be influenced by transportation agencies include • Land use planning, for which transportation agencies may provide regional coordination, funding, and/or technical assistance to support state and local efforts to develop more efficient land use patterns; • Pricing strategies, such as tax and insurance policies, mileage-based pricing, or registration fees, for which trans- portation agencies may provide analysis support and encourage state-level policy changes; and • Provision of alternative fuels infrastructure, as well as direct purchase of alternative fuel vehicles for agency fleets. Opinions differ on which GHG reduction strategies should receive the greatest emphasis. Some analysts believe that tech- nological innovations resulting in increased vehicle efficiency and/or the substitution of low-carbon fuels may be the only economically and politically feasible ways to achieve the trans- portation emissions reductions needed to meet GHG reduc- tion targets, which range as high as an 83% reduction in 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Others believe that measures to affect travel activity—particularly a shift toward more compact and transit-oriented land use patterns, as well as other travel reduction measures such as improved transit service, extensive transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and travel pricing—can make significant contributions to GHG reduction and are a necessary component of achieving overall goals. In general, the comprehensive analyses that have been conducted suggest that vehicle and fuel technology strategies will yield the largest GHG benefits, but that by themselves they are unlikely to achieve the most aggressive GHG reduction goals. Additional reductions from travel activity and system efficiency strategies will likely be needed to meet such targets, especially over the short term and particularly for those por- tions of reduction targets assigned to DOTs (Mui et al. 2007; Green and Schafer 2003). Background Many of the studies and research on transportation-related GHG reduction strategies have focused on changes in fuels and vehicle technology. Although such strategies are critical as part of a national strategy to reduce GHG emissions, most state and local transportation agencies have little authority over them. State governments can, however, exercise signifi- cant influence through taxation policies and mechanisms such as alternative fuel infrastructure investment and fuel and vehicle standards. State and local transportation agencies can directly influence a variety of strategies via normal trans- portation planning, investment, and operations decisions; others, such as pricing strategies, will remain specific to those jurisdictions willing to act on them. Table 3.1 presents a typology of transportation-related GHG reduction strategies and identifies the levels or sectors of government that are best suited to address each strategy. The strategies considered for reducing GHG emissions are found in the nine major categories listed in the left-hand column of Table 3.1. Inclusion of any of these strategies or projects does not guarantee a reduction in GHG emissions; the GHG impacts of any given strategy or project must be evaluated based on local conditions and data. The strategies most directly under the influence of transportation agencies include • Infrastructure provision, including the design, construc- tion, and maintenance of highway, transit, and other trans- portation facilities and networks; • Management and operation of the transportation system, such as technologies and operational practices to improve traffic flow or transportation system pricing policies; and • Provision of transportation services and demand manage- ment measures to encourage the use of less carbon-intensive modes, such as transit service improvements, rideshare and vanpool programs, and worksite trip reduction. C h a p t e r 3 GHG-Reducing Transportation Strategies

20 Table 3.1. State and Local Government Strategies That Can Influence Transportation-Related GHG Emissions and Energy Use Strategy Government Action Primary Responsibility Transportation system planning and design •  Transportation network design •  Modal choices and investment priorities •  Roadway design standards (affecting traffic speed and flow and pedes- trian and bicycle accommodation) Transportation agency (state,  metro, local) Construction and mainte- nance practices •  Pavement and materials (reduced energy consumption materials, durabil- ity and longevity, smoothness) •  Construction and maintenance equipment and operations (idle reduction,  more efficient and alternative fuel vehicles) •  Right-of-way management (vegetation management to maximize vegeta- tion as carbon sinks, minimize mowing, solar and wind alternative energy  capture) Transportation agency (state, local) Transportation system management and operations •  Traffic management and control (signal optimization and coordination,  integrated corridor management) •  Speed management (speed limits, enforcement) •  Idle reduction policies and enforcement •  Real-time travel information •  Incident management •  Preferential treatment for vehicle types (high-occupancy vehicle lanes,  bus priority) •  Pricing (high-occupancy toll lanes, congestion pricing) Transportation agency (state,  metro, local) Vehicle and fuel policies •  Vehicle emissions standards (possibly) •  Feebates or carbon-based registration fees •  Provision of low-carbon fuel infrastructure •  Subsidies for low-carbon fuels •  Transit vehicle fleet purchases or retrofits •  State and local government fleet purchases •  Older and inefficient vehicle scrappage State government, transportation  agency (fleet purchases) Transportation planning and funding •  GHG consideration and analysis in planning •  GHG emissions reduction targets •  Funding incentives tied to GHG reduction •  Multiagency working groups Transportation agency (state,  metro, local) Land use codes, regula- tions, and other policies •  Integrated regional transportation and land use planning and visioning •  Funding incentives and/or technical assistance for local policies for com- pact development, walkable communities, mixed-use development,  reduced parking requirements •  Infrastructure investments to support in-fill and transit-oriented  development Local government (mostly), state  government, state and metro  transportation agency (incen- tives, technical assistance) Taxation and pricing •  State or local tax policies that discourage low-density development •  Congestion pricing •  Pay-as-you-drive insurance •  Parking pricing •  Mileage-based transportation user fees •  Vehicle registration fees based on fuel efficiency, carbon emissions, or  miles driven State government (mostly), local  government (development fee  policies, parking pricing), trans- portation agency (congestion  pricing) Other travel demand man- agement and public  education •  Commute and worksite trip reduction programs •  Telecommuting and alternative work schedules •  Ridesharing and vanpooling incentives and services •  Individualized marketing campaigns Transportation agency (state, metro,  local) Other public education •  Eco-driving information, training, and in-vehicle feedback •  Information on fuel economy, cost, and GHG impacts of vehicle purchase  and travel decisions State and local government,  transportation agency

21 Cost-effectiveness of transportation Strategies Information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dif- ferent transportation-related GHG strategies was drawn from the existing literature, with a focus on recent reports that sum- marized estimates across multiple strategies. The feasibility assessment presented in this section is also based on informa- tion from the literature, as well as on the judgment and experi- ence of the research team. The information provided in this section must be inter- preted with caution. The literature on transportation-related GHG reduction strategies is fairly new and focuses on sum- mary estimates at a national level. There is considerable uncer- tainty surrounding the estimates for many strategies, and both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individual strategies may vary significantly depending on local factors. The feasibil- ity of a given strategy may also vary from location to location, and may change in the future depending on changes in tech- nology, market trends, and changing political and societal viewpoints. Metrics and Methodological Issues Both the effectiveness (potential magnitude of GHG reduc- tions) and cost-effectiveness (cost per unit of reduction) are important considerations when selecting a set of strategies through the transportation decision-making process. Effec- tiveness is typically measured in terms of metric tons (tonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions reduced per year or cumulatively over a number of years. For comparison at different geographic scales, however, effectiveness should be measured as a percentage reduction of emissions from either a total transportation sector or a particular transportation subsector (e.g., on-road vehicles). Use of different comparison bases in the literature creates challenges for the development of consistent effectiveness estimates. Cost-effectiveness is typically measured in terms of dollars per tonne of CO2e reduced and can be compared more consis- tently across studies. To evaluate a string of future year benefits, costs are typically discounted to current year dollars using a standard discount rate. Future GHG emissions are usually not discounted, although practices vary. It is generally agreed that the benefit of reducing a tonne of GHG emissions is roughly the same whether that reduction occurs now or 10 years in the future. The most important metric is cumulative GHG reduc- tions starting in the present and continuing through some analysis horizon (e.g., 2030 or 2050). The types of costs included in a cost-effectiveness calcula- tion are an important consideration. Some estimates of cost- effectiveness include public sector implementation costs only. Others include benefits to travelers, such as vehicle operating cost savings. Tolls and taxes (or rebates) are generally consid- ered to be a transfer between one entity and another, and there- fore are not a net social cost, although they affect the distribution of costs among different population groups. A particularly challenging issue is the incorporation of nonmonetary costs such as environmental externalities (e.g., air pollution or reduced oil dependency) into an assessment effort. For some strategies, these costs can be quite significant, but they are usu- ally not monetized in GHG cost-effectiveness estimates. Net included costs refer to all the monetized costs included in the cost-effectiveness estimates. Readers should be aware that the use of net included cost-effectiveness measures is controversial, with the argument against their use being primarily that they ignore other positive benefits associated with such strategies and thus bias the results against highway improvement projects; these measures are not presented in Table 3.2. Caution should be exercised when using cost-effectiveness indices alone. For example, a cost-effectiveness index could very well show that one strategy is better than another based on the relationship between benefits and costs, but that the overall reduction in GHG emissions might be greater from the strategy that has the lower cost-effectiveness index. This highlights the concept that cost-effectiveness evaluation must be done in the context of the overall goals of the policy or planning study. Cobenefits of GHG Reduction Strategies GHG emissions reductions are just one of the benefits and impacts that must be considered when evaluating any transpor- tation action. Many strategies also have important cobenefits (positive impacts) or negative impacts. For example, congestion reduction strategies reduce traveler delay and improve mobil- ity in addition to reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Provision of alternative modes (transit, walking, bicycling) can increase accessibility, especially for populations with lim- ited car access. By increasing the cost of travel, pricing may have negative impacts unless these impacts are mitigated through revenue redistribution or enhancement of travel alternatives. Some strategies, especially pricing, may have equity impacts by disproportionately affecting a particular subset of the population (e.g., low-income travelers). Sources of Cost-Effectiveness Estimates Most of the literature on transportation-related GHG reduc- tion strategies has focused on vehicle and fuel technology strategies. The literature on the cost-effectiveness of travel behavior (vehicle miles traveled [VMT] reduction) and sys- tem efficiency (e.g., congestion relief) strategies with respect to GHG reduction is quite limited and mostly new, having (text continues on page 27)

22Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%) Direct Cost- Effectiveness Data Source Feasibility Technical Institutional Political Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design Highways Capacity  expansiona, b, c 25% to 100% increase in economi- cally justified investments over  current levels 0.07%–0.29% [0.25%–0.96%] NA Cambridge Systematics 2009 M H L–H Bottleneck reliefa, b Improve top 100 to 200 bottlenecks  nationwide by 2030 0.05%–0.21% [0.29%–0.66%] NA Cambridge Systematics 2009 M H L–H HOV lanes Convert all existing HOV lanes to  24-hour operation 0.02% 0.00% $200 International Energy Agency 2005;  Cambridge Systematics 2009 H H H Convert off-peak direction general- purpose lane to reversible HOV  lane on congested freeways 0.07%–0.18% $3,600–$4,000 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M H L–M Construct new HOV lanes on all  urban freeways 0.05% $1,200 International Energy Agency 2005 L H L–M Truck-only toll lanes Constructed to serve 10% to 40%  of VMT in large and/or high- density urban areas 0.03%–0.15% $670–$730 Cambridge Systematics 2009 L H L–M Transit Urban fixed- guideway transit Expansion rate of 2.4%–4.7%  annually 0.17%–0.65% $1,800–$2,000 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M H M High-speed intercity  rail 4 to 11 new HSR corridors 0.09%–0.18% $1,000–$1,400 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M M M Non-motorized Pedestrian  improvements Pedestrian improvements imple- mented near business districts,  schools, transit stations 0.10%–0.31% $190 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H L–M M Bicycle  Improvements Comprehensive bicycle infrastruc- ture implemented in moderate to high-density urban neighborhoods 0.09–0.28% $80–$210 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M L M (continued on next page)

23 (continued on next page) Freight Rail freight  infrastructure Aspirational estimates of potential  truck–rail diversion resulting from  major program of rail infrastruc- ture investments 0.01%–0.22% $80–$200 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 M M L–H Ports and marine  infrastructure and  operations Land and marineside operational improvements at container ports 0.01%–0.02% NA Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 M M M–H Construction and Maintenance Practices Construction  materialsd Fly-ash cement and warm-mix  asphalt used in highway construc- tion throughout U.S. 0.7%–0.8% $0–$770 Cambridge Systematics  forthcoming Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 M–H M M–H Other transporta- tion agency  activitiesd Alternative fuel DOT fleet vehicles,  LEED-certified DOT buildings 0.1% NA Cambridge Systematics  forthcoming Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 H M M–H Transportation System Management and Operations Traffic management Deployment of traffic management  strategies on freeways and arteri- als at rate of 700 to 1,400 miles/ year nationwide in locations of  greatest congestion 0.07%–0.08% [0.89%–1.3%] $40 to >$2,000 Ramp meteringa Centrally controlled 0.01% [0.12%–0.22%] $40–$90 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H H M Incident  managementa Detection and response, including  coordination through traffic man- agement center 0.02%–0.03% [0.24%–0.34%] $80–$170 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H M H Signal control  managementa Upgrade to closed loop or traffic  adaptive system 0.00% [0.01%–0.10%] $340–$830 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H M H Active traffic  managementa Speed harmonization, lane control,  queue warning, hard shoulder  running 0.01%–0.02% [0.24%–0.29%] $240–$340 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M M H Integrated corridor  managementa Multiple strategies 0.01%–0.02% [0.24%–0.29%] $240–$340 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M M H Real-time traffic  informationa 511, DOT website, personalized  information 0.00% [0.02%–0.07%] $160–$500 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M M H Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies (continued) Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%) Direct Cost- Effectiveness Data Source Feasibility Technical Institutional Political

24 Transit Service Fare reductionse 25%–50% fare reduction  (Cambridge) 0.02%–0.09% NA Cambridge Systematics 2009 H H H 50% fare reduction (EIA) 0.3% $1,300 International Energy Agency 2005 Improved headways  and LOS 10%–30% improvement in travel  speeds through infrastructure and  operations strategies 0.05%–0.10% $1,200–$3,000 Cambridge Systematics 2009 L–M L–M M–H Increase service (minimum: add  40% to off peak; maximum: also  add 10% to peak) 0.2%–0.6% $3,000–$3,300 International Energy Agency 2005 H H H Intercity passenger  rail service  expansion Minimum: Increase federal capital  and operating assistance 5%  annually versus trend. Maximum:  Double federal operating assis- tance, then increase 10% annually 0.05%–0.11% $420–$1,500 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H H H Intercity bus service  expansion 3% annual expansion in intercity bus  service 0.06% NA Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 H M H Truck Operations Truck idling  reductionc 30%–100% of truck stops allow  trucks to plug in for local power 0.02%–0.06% $50 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H L–M M–H 26%–100% of sleeper cabs with on- board idle reduction technology 0.09%–0.28% $20 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H M M Truck size and  weight limits Allow heavy/long trucks for drayage  and noninterstate natural resources hauls 0.03% $0 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H M L–M Urban consolidation  centers Consolidation centers established  on periphery of large urbanized  areas; permitting of urban deliver- ies to require consolidation 0.01% $40–$70 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M L L–M Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies (continued) Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%) Direct Cost- Effectiveness Data Source Feasibility Technical Institutional Political (continued on next page)

25 Reduced Speed Limitsf 55 mph national speed limit 1.2%–2.0% $10 Cambridge Systematics 2009; Gaffi- gan and Fleming 2008; Interna- tional Energy Agency 2005 H M–H L Land Use Codes, Regulations, and Policies Compact  development 60%–90% of new urban growth in  compact, walkable neighbor- hoods (+4,000 persons/sq mi or  +5 gross units/acre) (Cambridge) 25%–75% of new urban growth in  compact, mixed-use develop- ments (Special Report 298) 0.2%–1.8% 0.4%–3.5% 1.2%–3.9%a $10 Cambridge Systematics 2009 Special Report 298 2009 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 M L L Parking  management All downtown workers pay for park- ing ($5/day average for those not  already paying) 0.2% NA Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 H L L Taxation and Pricing Cap-and-trade or carbon tax Allowance price of $30–$50/tonne in  2030, or similar carbon tax 2.8%–4.6% NA Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 M M L–M VMT fees VMT fee of 2¢ to 5¢/mile 0.8%–2.3% $60–$150 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 L H L Pay-as-you-drive  insurance Require states to permit PAYD insur- ance (low)/require companies to  offer (high) 1.1%–3.5% $30–$90 Cambridge Systematics 2009 L–M L–M M Congestion pricing Maintain LOS D on all roads (aver- age fee of 65¢/mile applied to  29% of urban and 7% of rural  VMT) (Cambridge) 1.6% $340 Cambridge Systematics 2009 L H L Areawide systems of managed lanes  (EEA) 0.5%–1.1% Energy and Environmental Analysis  2008 Cordon pricing Cordon charge on metro area CBDs  (average fee of 65¢/mile) 0.1% $500–$700 Cambridge Systematics 2009 M–H M L Travel Demand Management Workplace TDM  (general) Widespread employer outreach and  alternative mode support 0.1%–0.6% $30–$180 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 H L–H H Teleworking Doubling of current levels 0.5%–0.6% $1,200–$2,300 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 M L M–H (continued on next page) Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies (continued) Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%) Direct Cost- Effectiveness Data Source Feasibility Technical Institutional Political

26Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies (continued) Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%) Direct Cost- Effectiveness Data Source Feasibility Technical Institutional Political Compressed work  weeks Minimum: 75% of government  employees; maximum: double  current private participationa 0.1%–0.3% NA International Energy Agency 2005 H L L–H Requirement to offer 4/40 workweek  to those whose jobs are amenable  (IEA) 2.4% <$1 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 Ridematching,  carpool, and  vanpool Extensive rideshare outreach and  support 0.0%–0.2% $80 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 H L–M H Mass marketing Mass marketing in 50 largest urban  areas 0.14% $270 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 H M H Individualized  marketing Individualized marketing reaching  10% of population 0.14%–0.28% $90 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2010 M M H Carsharing Subsidies for start-up and  operations 0.05%–0.20% <$10 Cambridge Systematics 2009 H M H Other Public Education Driver education/ eco-driving Reach 10%–50% of population + in-vehicle instrumentation 0.8%–2.3% NA Cambridge Systematics 2009 L L H 3.7% International Energy Agency 2005 Information on  vehicle purchase Expansion of EPA SmartWay pro- gram (freight-oriented) and con- sumer information 0.09%–0.23% NA Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and  Eastern Research Group, Inc.  2010 H H H Notes: L, M, and H = low, medium, and high, respectively; LOS = level of service. a Top range (smaller reductions) includes induced demand effects as analyzed in Moving Cooler (Cambridge Systematics 2009); bottom range in brackets (larger reductions) does not. Cost-effectiveness estimates  include induced demand effects. b Cost-effectiveness for capacity expansion and bottleneck relief strategies calculated from Moving Cooler data are undefined because net 2010–2050 GHG benefits were negative (2009). c Economically justified capacity expansion based on analysis using the FHWA Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) model. d Most of the emissions reduced are from other (nontransportation) sectors. Reductions are shown as a percentage of transportation sector emissions for comparison. e Fare reductions are considered as a transfer in the Moving Cooler study and therefore have no net implementation cost (2009). The IEA study considers costs to the public sector (lost fare revenues). f Percentage reduction from Gaffigan and Fleming (2008). Direct cost-effectiveness from International Energy Agency’s Saving Oil in a Hurry (2005). Net included cost-effectiveness from Moving Cooler (2009).

27 been published within the past 5 years. Although some of this literature represents original research and analysis, other literature provides valuable summary and syntheses of other sources, including research and evaluation results for individual strategies. Although GHG emissions have become an explicit analysis focus only recently, studies dating as far back as the 1970s have evaluated VMT and congestion reduction strategies for energy and/or air quality purposes. Some of this literature contains information useful to GHG assessment, but additional analysis is generally required to infer GHG impacts from reported VMT, energy, and/or air pollutant reductions. The following sources provided the cost-effectiveness esti- mates of the transportation-related GHG reduction strate- gies discussed in this report. The strengths and limitations of each source are presented. The 2010 U.S. DOT report to Congress, Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provides a compre- hensive summary of existing literature, and some original analysis, on the GHG impacts and cost-effectiveness of a full range of transportation strategies (Cambridge Systematics and Eastern Research Group 2010). The report covers six general strategy types for all transportation modes: • Low-carbon fuels; • Vehicle fuel efficiency; • System efficiency; • Reduction in carbon-intensive travel activity; • Economywide market mechanisms; and • Planning and funding approaches. For system efficiency and travel activity strategies, individ- ual study results are presented, and summary ranges (low to high) of nationwide effectiveness (expressed in million metric tons [MMT] CO2e in 2030) and cost-effectiveness (dollars per tonne) are presented for each strategy. For vehicle and fuel strategies, original estimates (again, shown as low to high ranges) are developed based on data found in the existing lit- erature for technology effectiveness, market penetration rates, and costs. The report also discusses cobenefits of each strategy, as well as issues affecting feasibility. The Moving Cooler report represents the first attempt at a comprehensive analysis of the nationwide GHG reduction benefits and costs of system efficiency and reduction strate- gies for travel behavior and VMT (Cambridge Systematics 2009). Cumulative benefits and costs over 2010 to 2050 are estimated for each strategy, and snapshot results are provided for 2020, 2030, and 2050. Cost-effectiveness is not calculated directly, although it can be inferred based on cumulative 2010 to 2050 benefits and costs. Three levels of implementation aggressiveness are evaluated. Results are presented for six strategy bundles in addition to individual strategies. An analysis is also provided of equity implications, with the pri- mary focus on pricing strategies. Saving Oil in a Hurry provides sketch-level estimates of fuel savings for various VMT reduction strategies, as well as speed reduction, eco-driving, and alternative fuels (Inter- national Energy Agency 2005). The study is internationally focused in terms of its data sources and assumptions, and estimates are provided for different regions of the world, including the United States and Canada, Japan and Korea, Western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. Some cost-effectiveness estimates (expressed in dollars per barrel of oil) are provided. Transportation and Global Climate Change: A Review and Analysis of the Literature provides a synthesis of existing lit- erature on travel reduction, fuel economy–focused, and alter- native (reduced carbon content) fuel strategies and potential ranges of VMT, fuel savings, and/or GHG impacts (Federal Highway Administration 1998). Impacts are not expressed in consistent terms, but rather rely on the information available in the literature. The timing of benefits and implementation issues are also discussed. The reports McKinsey and Company produced on reduc- ing GHGs evaluate the GHG reduction benefits and cost- effectiveness of a full range of technology-focused GHG reduction strategies across all sectors of the U.S. economy (2007, 2009). Transportation technologies such as hybrid and battery-powered electric vehicles and low-carbon fuels are included. Important innovations of these reports include the comparison of all sectors in the same terms and the presenta- tion of results in the form of a marginal abatement curve that displays both the magnitude of impacts and cost-effectiveness of all strategies on a single chart. Lutsey (2008) applies consistent economic assumptions to develop a multibenefit, cost-effectiveness accounting tool that simultaneously evaluates the technology costs, lifetime energy-saving benefits, and GHG reductions from strategies in all sectors in a single cost per tonne–reduced metric. Both transportation vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuel strate- gies are considered. Transportation technologies are found to represent approximately half of the no-regrets mitigation opportunities across all sectors (i.e., those that result in net cost savings) and about one-fifth of the least-cost GHG miti- gation measures to achieve the benchmark 1990 GHG emis- sions level. Burbank’s 2009 NCHRP report develops scenarios of future transportation GHG emissions considering different levels of reduced VMT growth, enhanced system efficiency, and more aggressive vehicle and fuel CO2 reductions based on evidence from the literature on the benefits achievable through these strategies. The report also summarizes GHG reduction estimates for vehicle improvements, low-carbon fuels, smart growth and transit, and other strategies evaluated (continued from page 21)

28 in state climate action plans. Based on previous research, the report suggests that for the foreseeable future, $50 per ton of GHG emissions reduction is a useful benchmark for selecting transportation strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Some state and metropolitan agencies are just beginning to document the potential benefits and costs of GHG reduction strategies in their respective regions. The most extensive efforts have been in the preparation of state climate action plans. Burbank identifies 37 states that have plans completed or in progress (2009). The Center for Climate Strategies has facili- tated climate action plan development in many of these states, including strategy development and estimation of GHG reductions and cost-effectiveness. However, the methods and assumptions vary greatly from state to state, and some of the estimates reflect high aspirations. One example is the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ National Capital Region Climate Change Report (2008). This cross-sectoral report establishes regional targets for GHG reduction, identifies strategies (including transpor- tation strategies), and provides a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness and cost of each strategy, although it does not attempt to develop region-specific quantitative estimates. Extensive work is also underway throughout California to assess GHG reduction strategies in support of state planning requirements. The Maryland Department of Transportation has conducted follow-on analysis work to develop more detailed GHG estimates of the strategies proposed in the state climate action plan. It is anticipated that more original analysis will be con- ducted in the future at the state and metropolitan levels to estimate the potential benefits and costs of GHG reduction strategies in specific local contexts. Strategy assessment Tables 3.2 and 3.3 provide information from the literature regarding the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of transportation GHG reduction strategies. Table 3.2 shows transportation system strategies directed at both the design and operation of the transportation system itself and the behavior of users of the system. This table includes infrastruc- ture planning and investment decisions; construction and maintenance practices; highway, transit, and freight opera- tions; land use; taxation and pricing; travel demand manage- ment; and other public education. With some exceptions (e.g., land use, many of the pricing strategies, and rail and port investment), the strategies shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 can largely be implemented by state and metropolitan transpor- tation agencies. Table 3.3 shows vehicle and fuel technology strategies, which seek to reduce GHG emissions through the use of low-carbon fuels and/or more fuel-efficient vehicles. This table includes strategies that are primarily under the control of federal or state legislative bodies and regulatory agencies, rather than transportation agencies. The strategies included in these tables represent strategies for which information on GHG impacts and cost-effectiveness was identified in one or more literature sources. Estimates were reviewed for reasonableness of assumptions, and in some cases, results were not presented if the assumptions were deemed to be too unrealistic. For example, the International Energy Agency’s 2005 study estimates of carpooling reduc- tions assumed that vehicle occupancies could be increased substantially (such as adding one person per vehicle to every commute trip). The context of the study was to provide infor- mation relevant to what might be achieved in response to a major oil supply disruption, in which case dramatic increases in fuel prices might be expected and could lead to or support significant changes in travel behavior. However, this estimate was not deemed realistic for an assessment of carpooling potential in the absence of such a major disruption. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 present the following information: • Key deployment assumptions. A description of the key strategy deployment assumptions in the underlying study; • Percentage fuel and GHG reductions. Potential reductions in total transportation fuel consumption and GHG emis- sions, generally in 2030. Table 3.2 also shows 2050 savings for advanced technology strategies that will take many years to fully develop. The percentage reductions are based on reported GHG reductions from most sources, except for the International Energy Agency report (2005), which reports fuel (petroleum) use reductions. In some cases, the percent- age reduction was taken directly from the source document. In others, the reduction was calculated based on absolute GHG reductions reported in the source document. In these cases, absolute reductions were converted to percentage reductions based on the U.S. Department of Energy’s April 2009 Annual Energy Outlook reference case (Energy Infor- mation Administration 2009), with minor adjustments to account for non-CO2 GHGs. The adjusted 2030 transporta- tion sector baseline is 2,171 MMT CO2e. • Direct cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness, expressed in dollars per tonne CO2e reduced, considering implementa- tion costs only (typically public sector costs for infrastruc- ture, services, or programs; not shown for strategies in Table 3.3). • Net included cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness, expressed in dollars per tonne CO2e reduced, considering implementation costs and other quantified costs. For vehi- cle and fuel technology strategies, net included costs include increases in vehicle capital costs and increases or decreases in fuel costs, all costs that are generally borne by the private sector (i.e., consumers).

29 Table 3.3. Vehicle and Fuel GHG Reduction Strategies Strategy Name Key Market Penetration and Per Vehicle Benefit Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction (%) Net Included Cost-Effectiveness Feasibility 2030 2050 Technical Institutional Political Low-Carbon Fuels Ethanol (corn)a Maximum near-term corn ethanol production capacity; 68%  increase to 60% benefit per E85 vehicle (1.1%)–0.9% $90–∞ M H M Ethanol (cellulosic) Maximum cellulosic ethanol production capacity in 2030 (33%  of LDV market at E85); 57%–115% GHG reduction per  vehicle 11%–23% $10–$30 L L ? Biodiesela Full substitution of diesel with B20 biodiesel blend from soy;  13% GHG reduction to 10% increase per vehicle (1.9%)–2.9% $130–∞ M M ? Natural gas 2.5%–5% of total U.S. natural gas use diverted to transporta- tion; 15% GHG reduction per vehicle 0.3%–0.6% ($130) M M ? Electricityb 2030: 18% LDV market penetration, 40%–55% GHG reduc- tion per vehicle 2050: 60% LDV market penetration, 79%–84% GHG reduc- tion per vehicle 2.4%–3.4% 18%–22% ($160)–$70 L M ? Hydrogenb 2030: 5% LDV market penetration, 68%–80% GHG reduction  per vehicle 2050: 56% LDV market penetration, 78%–87% GHG reduc- tion per vehicle 2.2%–2.5% 26%–30% ($20)–($110) L L ? Advanced Vehicle Technology: Light-Duty Advanced conven- tional gasoline vehiclesb, c 8%–30% efficiency benefit per vehicle; 60% market penetra- tion in 2030, 100% in 2050 2.5%–9.0% 4.4%–16% ($180)–($30) L–H H H (continued on next page)

30 Diesel vehiclesb 0%–16% efficiency benefit per vehicle; up to 45% market  penetration in 2030, 100% in 2050 0%–4.1% 0%–9.9% ($240)–$660 H H M Hybrid electric  vehiclesb 26%–54% efficiency benefit per vehicle; 28% market penetra- tion in 2030, 56% in 2050 2.9%–5.9% 7.4%–15% ($140)–$20 M H H Plug-in hybrid elec- tric vehiclesb 46%–70% efficiency benefit per vehicle, 15% market penetration  in  2030;  49%–75% per  vehicle,  56% market penetration  in  2050 3.9%–5.9% 16.4%–26% ($40)–($110) L M M Advanced Vehicle Technology: Heavy-Duty On-road trucksc Fleetwide deployment of engine/drivetrain and resistance  reduction technologies, as appropriate for type of vehicle:  17%–42% per vehicle efficiency benefit 4.4%–6.4% ($140)–$40 L–H L–M M Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems Refrigerants Replacement of current a/c refrigerant with low global warm- ing potential refrigerant 2.6% $40–$90 M M M Engine load  reduction Reflective window glazings, secondary loop a/c systems, and  improved a/c system efficiency 0.6%–1.4% M M M Notes: The use of a “?” indicates that the feasibility of a particular strategy is unknown or is subject to political factors that could be either positive or negative depending on circumstances. Data are from the 2010  report Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Estimates are original estimates based on data from numerous literature sources. a Corn ethanol and biodiesel estimates account for indirect effects, such as indirect land use change associated with agricultural production practices, based on analysis by the EPA in support of the proposed Renew- able Fuel Standard (RFS2) rulemaking in 2009. The estimates show a wide range of impacts, depending on feedstock source, production methods, and analysis assumptions, and suggest that these fuels may  increase GHG emissions under some circumstances. b Market penetration estimates represent the high end of estimates found in the literature and assume that technology will be developed to the point of marketability in the analysis time frame. c For advanced gasoline LDV and on-road truck technology, some strategies are proven or well-advanced, but others are not. Table 3.3. Vehicle and Fuel GHG Reduction Strategies (continued) Strategy Name Key Market Penetration and Per Vehicle Benefit Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction (%) Net Included Cost-Effectiveness Feasibility 2030 2050 Technical Institutional Political

31 • Data sources. References providing the source(s) of effec- tiveness and cost-effectiveness data for the strategy. • Feasibility. Feasibility is assessed using a high, moderate, or low rating for three dimensions of feasibility: 44 Technological. Is the technology well-developed and proven in practice? What is the likelihood that the tech- nology could be implemented in the near future at the deployment levels assumed in the analysis? Technological barriers can be low-tech as well as high-tech; for example, there may be right-of-way constraints to infrastructure expansion in urban areas. 44 Institutional. To what extent do the authority and resources exist for government agencies to implement the strategy, and what is the administrative ease of running a program and the level of coordination required among various stakeholders? 44 Political. Is the strategy generally popular or unpopular with any interested stakeholders, elected officials, and the general public? What is the political clout of those supporting versus those opposed to the strategy? Feasibility is assessed without respect to cost, which was evaluated as part of the cost-effectiveness measure. Combined Strategy Impacts and Benefits Many GHG reduction strategies interact to produce different outcomes for total GHG reductions. The benefits of each strategy (or group of strategies) are not additive, and they may be reduced depending on other strategies that are imple- mented. However, some strategies are complementary or syn- ergistic, and their effectiveness is likely to be enhanced if they are implemented in combination with each other. As an example of synergy effects, transit, nonmotorized improvements, land use, and pricing strategies would be expected to be most effective when applied in combination. For example, a study by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development compared CO2 emissions per household based on characteristics including access to rail transit and neigh- borhood land use characteristics to characterize location effi- ciency (Haas et al. 2010). The study found that compared with the average metropolitan area household, households in tran- sit zones that fell into the two middle categories of location efficiency produced 10% and 31% lower transportation emis- sions, and households in the highest location-efficient cate- gory produced 78% lower transportation emissions than the average metropolitan area household (Haas et al. 2010). The Moving Cooler study also found that transit and nonmotorized improvements were more effective in areas of higher popu- lation density (Cambridge Systematics 2009). It further might be expected that strategies that encourage the use of alternative modes (such as road pricing) would have a greater impact when applied in conditions in which better alterna- tives exist (as would be found with increased transit invest- ment and more compact land use patterns). This was the case in the London congestion pricing program, for which large investments in the city’s bus system preceded the implementa- tion of the pricing scheme. Quantitative evidence on the interactive effects among various strategies in combination is limited, and existing evidence is generally based on simplified analysis. More sophisticated analysis of combined effects would require the use of an enhanced regional modeling system and careful selection of comparison scenarios. Three research studies have made assumptions concerning the synergistic effects of implementing different GHG emis- sions mitigation actions as part of a GHG mitigation strategy. The Moving Cooler study created six strategy bundles and com- bined the individual benefits of strategies in each bundle in a multiplicative fashion. For example, if Strategy A results in a 10% GHG reduction, and Strategy B results in a 10% GHG reduction, the combined effect was assumed to be (1 - 0.10)  (1 - 0.10) = 0.90  0.90 = 0.81, or a 19% combined reduction, rather than a 20% reduction if they were simply added. The study also accounted for synergies among certain strategies; in particular, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and carsharing strategies were assumed to be more effective in areas of greater popula- tion density, and therefore more effective under more aggres- sive land use scenarios. The six bundles resulted in a reduction in GHG emissions versus the surface transportation baseline ranging from 3% to 11% in 2030 at aggressive levels of imple- mentation, increasing to as much as 18% in 2050. Reductions under a maximum implementation scenario ranged as high as 17% in 2030 and 24% in 2050. Cost-effectiveness was also provided for each bundle. The estimated cost-effectiveness, including implementation costs only, ranged from a low of $80 per tonne for the low-cost bundle, to over $1,600 per tonne for a facility pricing bundle that combines infrastructure improvements with local and regional pricing measures to pay for these improvements. The study concluded that a net savings would be realized for most bundles if vehicle operating cost savings were counted against the direct implementation costs. Using information later included in the 2010 U.S. DOT Report to Congress, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2009) devel- oped combined GHG reduction estimates for each of five categories of strategies: pricing carbon, low-carbon fuels, vehicle fuel efficiency, system efficiency, and travel activity. Mutually exclusive or redundant strategies were excluded from the combined estimates. The results showed that in the long term the most effective strategies for reducing GHG emissions were introducing low-carbon fuels, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, and reducing carbon-intensive activity.

32 The most rigorous attempt to consider the combined effects of different mitigation actions (or perhaps more cor- rectly to avoid double-counting of energy reduction due to strategy implementation) is found in the Pew Center report on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transporta- tion (Greene and Plotkin 2011). This study used equations that decomposed the contributing factors that determined emissions from different modes, vehicle types, and fuels. The analysis also considered the rebound effect, which occurs when energy efficiency strategies reduce the use of energy. This reduction in energy use lowers the cost of energy, lead- ing to increased consumption of energy and in some portion offsetting the benefits of increased efficiency. Readers inter- ested in this approach are encouraged to read the Pew report. Other Studies Other studies have examined the potential for transportation sector GHG reductions, but primarily for vehicle and fuel technology rather than travel activity and system efficiency. For example, Bandivadekar et al. (2008) conclude that a 30%–50% reduction in fuel consumption is feasible over the next 30 years. In the short-term, this will come as a result of improved gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions, gasoline hybrids, and reductions in vehicle weight and drag. . . . Over the longer term, plug-in hybrids and later still, hydrogen fuel cells may enter the fleet in numbers sufficient to have a significant impact on fuel use and emissions. Lutsey (2008), considering costs and effectiveness from a cross-sectoral perspective, concludes that Transportation technologies are found to represent approx- imately half of the “no regrets” mitigation opportunities and about one-fifth of the least-cost GHG mitigation measures to achieve the benchmark 1990 GHG level. With the adoption of known near-term technologies, GHG emissions by 2030 could be reduced by 14% with net-zero-cost technologies, and emis- sions could be reduced by about 30% with technologies that each have net costs less than $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced. Lutsey also considers the VMT reductions needed to achieve aggressive GHG reduction targets (80% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050) even after vehicle and fuel tech- nology strategies have been fully realized. He concludes that After deploying the level of GHG reduction technology for vehicles and fuels as described in this study (and no further advances), the travel demand reduction to achieve the 2050 target would be quite severe. For this amount of GHG reduc- tions to come from travel reductions, national light-duty vehicle (LDV) travel would have to be reduced annually by approximately 4%, instead of the forecasted increase of about 1.8% annually from 2010 on. . . . Even after a new crop of vehicle and fuel technologies (e.g., plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles) emerges, it appears safe to speculate that some significant amount of reduction in vehicle-miles-traveled will be needed to augment technology shifts to achieve deeper, longer-term GHG reductions. Top-down, aspirational or scenario estimates of potential travel activity and system efficiency benefits have also been developed. These estimates make assumptions regarding what percentage VMT reduction is needed or can be obtained to contribute to certain GHG reductions in conjunction with other (non-VMT) strategies, rather than building from the bottom up according to individual strategy effects. As an example, an EPA wedge analysis of the transportation sector assumed that a 10% to 15% reduction in VMT from TDM strategies, along with vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuel improvements, could contribute to GHG reductions (Mui et al. 2007). Another example of such a scenario approach is provided by the NCHRP Project 20-24 (Task 59) study (Burbank 2009), which examined transportation GHGs through 2050. This study made assumptions about the reduction in carbon intensity of the vehicle fleet (58% to 79% reduction in carbon emissions per vehicle mile), reduction in growth of VMT (to 0.5% to 1.0% annually), and improvements in system operat- ing efficiencies (providing a 10% to 15% GHG reduction). The resulting GHG emissions were compared with 2050 goals as established in various national and international climate change proposals or initiatives. The various scenarios result in transportation GHG emissions levels from 44% to 76% below a 2005 baseline. Conclusion There are no simple answers to the questions of what are the most and least cost-effective transportation strategies for reducing GHG emissions. The cost-effectiveness of most transportation system strategies depends greatly on what is included in the assessment of costs and cost savings. One way to look at cost-effectiveness is simply from the public agency perspective of the direct implementation costs. Including vehicle operating cost savings generally provides a much dif- ferent picture, because consumers save money on fuel and maintenance. However, even this is an incomplete accounting in that it does not consider factors such as travel time savings, other welfare gains or losses (due to accessibility and increased or decreased convenience), or equity (incidence of costs and benefits across population groups). These factors represent important impacts of transportation projects, but they are rarely quantified for GHG cost-effectiveness analysis. There- fore, the cost-effectiveness estimates shown in Table 3.2, in

33 particular, are incomplete and may not accurately represent full social costs and benefits. Furthermore, there is considerable uncertainty in the esti- mates for many strategies. Existing knowledge of both costs and benefits is in many cases limited, with estimates based on only a single study. In addition, drawing blanket conclusions about any particular strategy is risky. Many individual projects or policies may be cost-effective in one context but not at all cost- effective in another (e.g., a transit project in an area of high versus low population density). Also, the interactions among strategies can be exceedingly complex: TDM strategies can reduce emissions only to be offset by induced demands; how- ever, pricing strategies and/or improvements in transit and land use could consolidate gains while promoting further emissions reductions, depending on the site-specific situation. The cost-effectiveness estimates for the vehicle and fuel technology strategies shown in Table 3.3 are much closer to a full social cost representation, as the nonmonetary impacts of these strategies are for the most part relatively minor (there may be some impacts on vehicle performance, such as reduced range for electric vehicles). However, many of these estimates reflect considerable uncertainty over technological and economic factors, such as the time frame for technology advancement, future cost of the technology, future fuel prices, indirect effects of biofuels, and other factors. With these caveats in mind, several conclusions can be drawn from the cost-effectiveness data presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. The largest absolute GHG benefits in the transporta- tion sector are likely to come from advancements to vehicle and fuel technologies. Particularly promising technologies in the short- to midterm include advancements to conventional gas- oline engines, truck engine improvements and drag reduction, and hybrid electric vehicles. In the longer term, ethanol from cellulosic sources, battery-powered electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles all show great promise for reducing GHGs, but only if the tech- nologies can be advanced to the point of being marketable and cost-competitive. Most of these strategies show the potential for net cost savings to consumers. The impacts of any single transportation system strategy (system efficiency and travel activity) are generally modest, with most strategies showing impacts of less than (and usu- ally considerably less than) 1% of total transportation GHG emissions in 2030. A few strategies show larger impacts (greater than 1%), including reduced speed limits, compact development, various pricing measures, and eco-driving; but the ability to implement these strategies at sufficiently aggressive levels is uncertain due to institutional and/or political barriers. Despite the modest individual strategy impacts, the combined effects of all transportation system strategies may be significant, on the order of 5% to 20% of transportation GHG. Transportation infrastructure investment, whether highway or transit investment, is generally high cost, with cost-effectiveness estimates of $500 to $1,000 per tonne or more. One study has suggested that cumulative GHG benefits of highway expansion strategies may actually be negative over the 2010 to 2050 time frame when induced travel effects are considered. Based on lim- ited evidence, bicycle and pedestrian improvements may be relatively lower cost (in the range of $200 per tonne), although the magnitude of impacts is likely to be modest. Although major infrastructure investments are not among the most cost- effective GHG reduction strategies, they may be worthwhile for other purposes (e.g., mobility, safety, or livability) or as part of a package of strategies that is collectively more cost-effective (e.g., transit with land use, bottleneck relief with congestion pricing). Virtually all studies assume that the existing system remains in a state of good repair and that lane closures, bridge post- ings, major diversions, increased congestion, and other infra- structure maintenance do not occur. Unfortunately, current expenditures do not support this assumption, and it may be that the most cost-effective thing a DOT can do is to keep the existing system intact. Although rail and marine freight are on average considerably more energy efficient than truck travel, the absolute magnitude of reductions from freight mode shifting is limited because only certain types of goods (particularly long-haul, non-time- sensitive goods) can be competitively moved by rail. One estimate of the cost-effectiveness of rail freight infrastruc- ture improvements falls in the range of $200 per tonne, but this is based on highly optimistic estimates of truck–rail mode shift. Improved estimates are needed to assess the GHG reduc- tion and cost-effectiveness of rail and marine freight invest- ments to encourage freight mode shift. Transportation system management strategies that reduce congestion and improve traffic flow may provide modest GHG reductions at lower cost than capacity and/or system expansion (typically between $50 and $500 per tonne, with lower costs if operating cost savings to drivers are included). As with highway capacity strategies, however, there is consid- erable uncertainty in the GHG reduction estimates for these strategies because of uncertainty regarding the magnitude and treatment of induced demand. However, here again the synergies needed for effective reductions should be kept in mind. For example, any effective pricing system will need a companion intelligent transportation system component to be viable, and traveler advisories can increase transit use. Like transit infrastructure improvements, urban and inter- city transit service improvements have high direct (public sec- tor) costs, generally over $1,000 per tonne, although they provide similar nonmonetary (mobility) benefits and in some circumstances they may yield net savings to travelers as a result of personal vehicle operating cost savings. The GHG

34 benefits of any particular transit project will vary depending on ridership levels, and they could be negative if ridership does not reach high levels. Among other imponderables, improved transit and novel modes such as shared electric vehicles may eventually change travel behavior over the very long term. Truck operations strategies, in particular idle reduction, can provide modest total benefits with a low public invest- ment cost while yielding net cost savings to truckers. The most effective strategy is to require on-board idle reduc- tion technology, which would require harmonization of state regulations. Speed limit reductions can provide significant benefits at modest cost, although they are not likely to be popular, and would require strong enforcement to achieve these GHG benefits. Land use strategies can potentially provide significant GHG reductions over the long term at very low public sector cost. Modest to moderate changes in land use patterns can prob- ably be accomplished without significant loss of consumer welfare, but more far-reaching changes may not be popular and may be very difficult to achieve in the current political and economic environment. Pricing strategies, especially those that affect all or a large portion of VMT (such as VMT-based fees or congestion pric- ing), can provide significant GHG reductions, but only by pricing at levels that may be unacceptable to the public. The 2- to 5-cents per mile fee analyzed in Table 3.2 is equivalent to a gas tax increase of $0.40 to $1.00 per gallon at today’s fuel efficiency levels. Implementation costs are moderate (less than $100 per tonne to $300 per tonne or more) for most mecha- nisms, due to the technology and administrative requirements for VMT monitoring. Cost-effectiveness improves with higher fee levels, since the same monitoring and administration infrastructure is required regardless of the amount of the fee. Pricing strategies will also have significant equity impacts unless revenues are redistributed or reinvested to benefit lower-income travelers. A gas tax increase or carbon tax could be implemented at much lower administrative cost, but these strategies are not currently politically acceptable at a national level or in most states. TDM strategies have a modest GHG reduction potential, also at moderate public cost (typically in the range of $100 to $300 per tonne), but they require widespread outreach efforts combined with financial incentives. Furthermore, the public sector has so far demonstrated little ability to influence strat- egies such as telecommuting and compressed work weeks, and adoption of these strategies has primarily been driven by private initiative. Studies have suggested that eco-driving may have significant GHG reduction potential while providing a net savings to trav- elers. For example, a Dutch study found the cost-effectiveness of eco-driving to be $6.08 to $9.45 per CO2 tonne avoided (Hoed et al. 2006). An eco-driving workshop held in Paris in 2007 found a potential for a 10% reduction in surface trans- portation CO2 emissions from eco-driving. However, these results are based on limited European experience and may not be transferable in a widespread fashion to the United States.