Transportation Alternatives for Energy
Efficiency: A National Perspective
Dr. Michael D. Meyer, P.E.
F. R. Dickerson Chair and Professor
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Transportation System Planning and Design
Construction and Maintenance Practices
Transportation System Management and Operations
Vehicle and Fuel Policies
Transportation Planning and Funding
Land Use Codes, Regulations, and other Policies
Taxation and Pricing
Travel Demand Management
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
% Fuel/GHG
Reduction in 2030
Highways
Capacity Expansion
Bottleneck Relief
HOV Lanes
25 – 100% increase in economically justified
investments over current levels
0.07 – 0.29%
[0.25 – 0.96%]
Improve top 100 to 200 bottlenecks nationwide by
2030
0.05 – 0.21
[0.29 – 0.66%]
Convert all existing HOV lanes to 24-hour operation
0.02%
0.00%
Convert off-peak direction general purpose lane to
reversible HOV lane on congested freeways
Construct new HOV lanes on all urban freeways
Truck-only Toll Lanes
Constructed to serve 10 – 40% of VMT in large/high
density urban areas
0.07 – 0.18%
0.05%
0.03 – 0.15%
Transit
Urban FixedGuideway Transit
High-Speed Intercity
Rail
Expansion rate of 2.4 – 4.7% annually
4 – 11 new HSR corridors
0.17 – 0.65%
0.09 – 0.18%
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
% Fuel/GHG Reduction
in 2030
Non-motorized
Pedestrian
Improvements
Pedestrian improvements implemented
near business districts, schools, transit
stations
0.10 – 0.31%
Bicycle
Improvements
Comprehensive bicycle infrastructure
implemented in moderate to high-density
urban neighborhoods
0.09 – 0.28%
Aspiration estimates of potential truck-rail
diversion resulting from major program of
rail infrastructure investments
0.01 – 0.22%
Freight
Rail Freight
Infrastructure
Ports and Marine
Infrastructure &
Operations
Land and marine-side operational
improvements at container ports
0.01 – 0.02%
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
Construction and Maintenance Practices
Construction
Materials
Other
Transportation
Agency Activities
Fly-ash cement and warm-mix asphalt used
in highway construction throughout U.S.
Alternative fuel DOT fleet vehicles, LEEDcertified DOT buildings
% Fuel/GHG
Reduction in 2030
0.7 – 0.8%
0.1%
Transportation System Management and Operations
Traffic
Management
Ramp Metering
Incident
Management
Deployment of traffic management
strategies on freeways and arterials at rate of
700 to 1,400 miles/year nationwide, in
locations of greatest congestion
0.07 – 0.08%
[0.89 – 1.3%]
Centrally controlled
0.01%
[0.12 – 0.22%]
Detection and response, including
coordination through traffic management
center
0.02 – 0.03%
[0.24 – 0.34%]
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
Transportation System Management and Operations
% Fuel/GHG Reduction in 2030
Signal Control
Management
Upgrade to closed loop or traffic adaptive system
0.00%
[0.01 – 0.10%]
Active Traffic
Management
Speed harmonization, lane control, queue warning,
hard shoulder running
0.01 – 0.02%
[0.24 – 0.29%]
Multiple strategies
0.01 – 0.02%
[0.24 – 0.29%]
511, DOT website, personalized information
0.00%
[0.02 – 0.07%]
Integrated Corridor
Management
Real-Time Traffic
Information
Transit Service
Fare Reductions
Improved Headways
and LOS
Intercity passenger rail
service expansion
Intercity bus service
expansion
25 – 50% fare reduction (2); 50% fare reduction (5)
0.02 – 0.09%
0.3%
10 – 30% improvement in travel speeds through
infrastructure/ops strategies
0.05 – 0.10%
Increase service (min: add 40% to off-peak; max: also
add 10% to peak)
0.2 – 0.6%
Min: increase federal capital/operating assistance 5%
annually vs. trend; Max: Double fed operating
assistance then increase 10% annually
0.05 – 0.11%
3% annual expansion in intercity bus service
0.06%
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
% Fuel/GHG Reduction
in 2030
Truck Operations
Truck Idling
Reduction
30 – 100% of truck stops allow trucks to
plug in for local power
0.02 – 0.06%
26 – 100% of sleeper cabs with onboard
idle reduction technology
0.09 – 0.28%
Truck Size and
Weight Limits
Allow heavy/long trucks for drayage and
non-interstate natural resources hauls
0.03%
Urban
Consolidation
Centers
Consolidation centers established on
periphery of large urbanized areas;
permitting of urban deliveries to require
consolidation
0.01%
Reduced Speed
Limits
55 mph national speed limit
1.2 – 2.0%
Strategy Name
Key Deployment Assumptions
Transportation System Planning, Funding, and Design
Travel Demand Management
Workplace TDM
(general)
Teleworking
% Fuel/GHG Reduction
in 2030
Widespread employer outreach and
alternative mode support
0.1 – 0.6%
Doubling of current levels
0.5 – 0.6%
Minimum – 75% of government
employees; Maximum – double current
Compressed Work
private participation (1) Requirement to
Weeks
offer 4/40 workweek to those whose jobs
are amenable (5)
0.1 – 0.3%
2.4%
Ridematching,
Carpool, and
Vanpool
Extensive rideshare outreach and support
0.0 – 0.2%
Mass Marketing
Mass marketing in 50 largest urban areas
0.14%
Individualized
Marketing
Car-Sharing
Individualized marketing reaching 10
percent of population
0.14 – 0.28%
Subsidies for start-up/operations
0.05 – 0.20%
Missouri DOT
Grasman, et al, “Alternative Energy Resources for the Missouri DOT,” Jan. 2011.
Grasman, et al, “Alternative Energy Resources for the Missouri DOT,” Jan. 2011.
Grasman, et al, “Alternative Energy Resources for the Missouri DOT,” Jan. 2011.
Sivek and Schoettle, “Eco-Driving: Strategic, Tactical and Operational Decisions of the Driver that
Improve Vehicle Fuel Economy,” UMTRI, University of Michigan, Aug. 2011.
“Furthermore, increased efforts should
also be directed at increasing vehicle
occupancy, which has dropped by 30%
from 1960. That drop, by itself, increased
the energy intensity of driving per
occupant by about 30%.”
Sivek and Schoettle, “Eco-Driving: Strategic, Tactical and
Operational Decisions of the Driver that Improve Vehicle Fuel
Economy,” UMTRI, University of Michigan, Aug. 2011.
MARTA Carbon Footprint
Carbon Footprint of MARTA (2008)
350,000
300,000
CO2e (metric tons)
Upstream Vehicle-Cycle
250,000
Upstream Fuel/Energy-Cycle
Direct
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
CNG Bus
Diesel Bus
Paratransit
Heavy Rail
Non-Revenue
Vehicles
Facilities
All
“Driving and the Built Environment”
(TRB, Sept 2009)
1. More compact development patterns are likely to
reduce VMT.
2. The most reliable studies estimate that doubling
residential density across a metropolitan area might
lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent,
and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled
with higher employment concentrations, significant
public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other
supportive demand management measures.
3. More compact, mixed-use development can produce
reductions in energy consumption and CO2
emissions both directly and indirectly.
4. Significant increases in more compact, mixed-use
development result in only modest short-term
reductions in energy consumption and CO2
emissions, but these reductions will grow over time.
– Bottom Line: Reduction in VMT, Energy Use, and CO2
emissions from more compact, mixed-use development in
the range of <1 % to 11 % by 2050.
– Committee disagreed about plausibility of extent of
compact development and policies needed to achieve high
end estimates.
5. Promoting more compact, mixed use development
on a large scale will require overcoming numerous
obstacles.
6. Changes in development patterns entail other
benefits and costs that have not been quantified in
this study.
“Moving Cooler” (ULI/CS, 2009)
• Evaluated non-technology transportation strategies
for (a) GHG reductions and (b) cost-effectiveness in
reducing GHG
• Analyzed 46 individual transportation strategies and
6 “bundles”
• The 6 “bundles” of strategies:
1.Near Term/Early Results
2.Long Term/Maximum Results
3.Land Use/Transit/Non-motorized
4.System and Driver Efficiency
5.Facility Pricing
6.Low Cost
• Did not analyze technology/fuel strategies (instead,
technology is part of the baseline)
Individual strategies achieve GHG reductions ranging
from <0.5% to 4.0% cumulatively 2010-2050,
compared to on-road baseline GHG
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
15,186 mmt 3,361 mmt –
2,428 mmt –
2,233 mmt –
1,815 mmt –
1,445 mmt –
carbon pricing equivalent to $2.71/gallon
VMT fees equivalent to $2.53/gallon
speed limit reductions/enforcement
PAYD auto insurance (100%)
eco-driving by 20% of drivers
at least 90% of new urban development is compact,
with high quality transit
1,241 mmt – congestion pricing fully implemented in 120 metro
areas at 65 cents/mile
575 mmt - $1.2 trillion transit expansion
352 mmt – combination of 10 freight strategies
SANDAG
• Promote transit-oriented design (TOD) by increasing
housing and job density near transit nodes.
• Promote mixed use development.
• Increase the connectivity of new developments,
using techniques such as reducing the number of culde-sacs and increasing the number of through
streets.
• Integrate safe bikeways and pedestrian paths into the
transportation mix and provide bicycle parking and
other facilities to encourage bicycling.
Summary
• Transportation sector an important source of
energy savings
• Vehicle/fuel strategies most effective
• Pricing, not surprisingly, the most effective of
behavioral strategies
• Systems operations…as a package
• Transit….it all depends
• Land use….it all depends