Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 19-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 19... ...
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 transportation 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.
|
From page 20... ...
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 pedestrian and bicycle accommodation)
|
From page 21... ...
21 Cost-effectiveness of transportation Strategies Information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different transportation-related GHG strategies was drawn from the existing literature, with a focus on recent reports that summarized estimates across multiple strategies. The feasibility assessment presented in this section is also based on information from the literature, as well as on the judgment and experience of the research team.
|
From page 22... ...
22Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies Strategy Name Key Deployment Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030 (%)
|
From page 23... ...
23 (continued on next page) Freight Rail freight infrastructure Aspirational estimates of potential truck–rail diversion resulting from major program of rail infrastructure 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 construction throughout U.S.
|
From page 24... ...
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)
|
From page 25... ...
25 Reduced Speed Limitsf 55 mph national speed limit 1.2%–2.0% $10 Cambridge Systematics 2009; Gaffigan and Fleming 2008; International Energy Agency 2005 H M–H L Land Use Codes, Regulations, and Policies Compact development 60%–90% of new urban growth in compact, walkable neighborhoods (+4,000 persons/sq mi or +5 gross units/acre) (Cambridge)
|
From page 26... ...
26Table 3.2. Transportation System GHG Reduction Strategies (continued)
|
From page 27... ...
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.
|
From page 28... ...
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.
|
From page 29... ...
29 Table 3.3. Vehicle and Fuel GHG Reduction Strategies Strategy Name Key Market Penetration and Per Vehicle Benefit Assumptions Fuel/GHG Reduction (%)
|
From page 30... ...
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 penetration in 2030, 56% in 2050 2.9%–5.9% 7.4%–15% ($140)
|
From page 31... ...
31 • Data sources. References providing the source(s)
|
From page 32... ...
32 The most rigorous attempt to consider the combined effects of different mitigation actions (or perhaps more correctly 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.
|
From page 33... ...
33 particular, are incomplete and may not accurately represent full social costs and benefits. Furthermore, there is considerable uncertainty in the estimates for many strategies.
|
From page 34... ...
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.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.