Oct 31, 2008 Alan E. Pisarski

 Three Interacting Factors
 Energy Security
 GCC/GHG
 Economic Activity
 Look For Win / Win / Win – They Do
Exist:
 Vehicle Fuel Efficiencies
 Stationary Fuel Efficiencies
 Fuel Shifts

Surface Transportation is the main issue for now
U. S. Transportation Carbon Emissions by Mode, 2003
(Million metric tons CO2)
Air, 171
Waterborne, 58
Rail, 43
Pipeline/Other, 47
Internat'l./Bunker,
84
Light Vehicles,
1113
Heavy Vehicles,
350

Petroleum – high in energy/pound
2007 ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY
TRANSPORTATION biomass
2% electricity
0% nat gas2% coal 0% coal nat gas petroleum biomass electricity
96%

 Btu per $ of GDP declines about a third from 2006 to
2030 (-2%/yr since 1992)
 Decline of energy intensive industries
 Energy Efficiency
 1990 – 2006 Pop 20%; Energy 18%
 2006 – 2030 Pop 22%; Energy 19%
1980=1.0

Annual Energy Outlook – DOE 2008 background forecasts
2006 2030
Primary
Consumption
99.5 q 118.0 q
CO
2 emissions /
Cum emissions 2008
6,851 mmt
Change pre EISA
2007
-5.3 q
- 522 mmt
- 5,300 mmt
Q = quadrillion Btu = 172 million bbls oil/yr
EISA = Energy Independence and Security Act 2007
MMT = million metric tons
Mbbls = million barrels

AEO 2008 Transportation forecast changes from pre EISA
2006
Liquids used 13.9
mbbls/day
Imports 60%
96% % Petrol
Transport
LDV mpg 20
2030
22.8 mbbls/day
54%
88%
27.9
Change pre-
EISA 2007
-2.1 mbbls/day
-2.4 mbbls/day
+ 40%

Transportation now leads in energy consumption (q Btu)
2006
Energy consumed 28.2 q
Annual growth 1.4%
2030 Change pre-
EISA
33.0 q - 6.3 q
.7% Cut in half

THE TRENDS ARE LARGELY
POSITIVE
 CO
2
Is Almost Self-stabilizing
 Energy Intensity/GDP Declining
 Energy Intensity/Capita Stable
 Transportation VMT Slow Growth
 Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
 Demography
 Price Will Be Key Factor

4$ a gallon has come and gone
 Will it be back? When?
 Who is affected?
 What happened to vmt?
 What happened to commuting?
 Are there answers:
 Short Term ?
 Long Term ?

440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
WEEKLY GAS PRICES 1 YEAR
VMT DECLINE
STARTED HERE!
COST OR
STICKER SHOCK?

440
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
WEEKLY GAS PRICES 1 YEAR
4.00$ range
More sticker shock?

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
% Decline in VMT by Month
2008-2007
Urban Interstate Urban Other Arterial Other Urban
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
% Decline in VMT by Month
2008-2007
Rural Interstate
Urban Interstate
Rural Other Arterial
Urban Other Arterial
Other Rural
Other Urban
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
% Decline in VMT by Month
2008-2007
Rural Interstate
Urban Interstate
Rural Other Arterial
Urban Other Arterial
Other Rural
Other Urban
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
July - 3.6%
Aug. - 5.6%
JUN

HURRAY!
 Schadenfreude!
 Those suburbanites had it coming!
 At last we are at
“the Tipping Point”
 Now there will be a rush to the center for people and jobs
BOO !
 Less VMT = trips not taken; less economic activity
 Now is the worst time to be cutting economic activity

VMT trend is not just gas prices
 WEAK ECONOMY
 Discretionary trips in Vacation Season
 DEMOGRAPHY - a long term trend
VMT GROWT H RAT E PER DECADE
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's

TREND IN PERSONAL VMT
– by age-sex
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
16-
19
20-
34
35-
54
55-
64
65+
Female
Source: Commuting in America III
16-
19
20-
34
35-
54
55-
64
65+
Male
90-01 CHG
90 VMT

25
20
15
10
5
0
WORKERS ADDED PER DECADE
12.2
19.8
18.4
13.3
1980-90
 18.5 Million
1990-2000
 13.3 Million
2000-2010
 Maybe as many
1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00
 Our problem may be too few commuters not too many!
Source: Commuting in America III

3.3% drop for year =
 Last year I drove 300 miles a week [15,000 miles/yr]
 This year I drove 290 miles a week
= 1 five mile trip lost per week

Historical Passenger Car VMT change rates
1974-1984
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
19
74
-4.00%
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
-6.00%

Cost/ gal
Fuel
Efficiency
Cost/ mile
1981
2007$
3.09
16.4
18.8 cents
2007 2.85
22.4
12.7 cents
2008 approx.
4.00
23.7* 16.8 cents
PLUS WE ARE 20% RICHER THAN THEN!

VMT Response: Where did it go?
 TRIP CHAINING – Big payoffs
 CARPOOLING
 Work – some gains
 Non-work – more
 CUTS IN TRIP LENGTH
 CUTS IN TRIPS MADE
 SHIFTS TO TRANSIT?
 Maybe 2%
 FREIGHT
 Local
Distribution opportunities
 Load changes
 Big Fleet gains

Would 5$ or 6$ gas change
America?
 LIFE STYLE PREFERENCES WILL DETERMINE
GOALS; AND TECHNOLOGY WILL RESPOND
 The consumer benefit of automobility is colossal
– think of toll costs = $4/gal
 Europe at $9/gal; still has traffic jams
 SERIOUS EFFECTS
 slower access to automobility of minorities and lower income populations
 Rural stress
 Less access to broader worker pool
 Depresses auto sales
 FLEET TURNOVER RATE WILL BE KEY

 Many (maybe too many!) players
 Here and abroad
 Technologies
 National Modeling DOE; NCEP, EPA
 Metropolitan Modeling Wash COG, others?
 Policy
 NCEP
 US CHAMBER

 OUTSIDE US
 Eddington – link between Transport and
Economy
 Stern – Economic Review of Climate change
 King – review of low carbon car opportunities
 UK Dept for Transport – attempts to meld all
 INSIDE US
 McKinsey – assess opportunities and costs
 NCEP – assess impacts of policies
 Institute for 21 st Century Energy US C of C made recommendations for energy security
 Energy Security Leadership Council

GHG responses are different from
Air Quality Approaches
 Reducing GHG and fuel use works with self interest
 Immediate cost savings
 Maybe some trade-offs
 Greater appreciation of role of technology
 Short term/long term factor is more significant
 Low cost
 Immediate action
 Present value analysis

What Part Of Gains
In Air Quality In
The Past 20
Years Have Come
From:
 Technology?
 Changed
Behavior?

What Part Of Gains
In Air Quality In
The Past 20 Years
Have Come From:
 Technology –
 95% to 105%
 Changed Behavior
+5% to -5%

What Part Of Gains
In Air Quality In
The Past 20 Years
Have Come From:
What Part Of Gains
In Green House
Gases In The
Next 20 Years
Will Come From:
Technology
 95% to 105%
 Changed Behavior
+5% to -5%
 Technology?
 Changed
Behavior?

 Change behavior or change technology?
 GHG is even more true
 No conflicts over trade offs re costs or bens
 AQ increased costs for unclear bens
 Safety was key tradeoff issue
 GHG is reduced costs and maintain bens
 McKinsey Study Consumer Surplus

1. EMISSIONS NOT VMT
2. AVOID THE CONFORMITY PROCESS
3. STAY OUT OF NEPA – PROJECT BASED
 PROCESS IS “BROKEN”
 PROJECT, HOTSPOTS & METRO BASED
 GHG IS GLOBAL
4. FOCUS ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS

EARLY TIMING IS A MAJOR FACTOR
STUFF STAYS AROUND A LONG TIME
M Norman



SHORT TERM
 Speed – Eco-driving
 Congestion Operations
 Trip Chaining
 Work at Home
 Work Schedules
 Fleet Optimization
Carpooling
Load Factors
Non-Motorized Means
LONG TERM
 New Facilities
 New Vehicles
 Fleets
Public/Private
 Private Individual
 New Technologies
 New Fuels
 Land Use Changes
 Redistributed O-D’s

 GHG is cumulative; therefore early solutions are superior to longer term
 A form of present worth analysis is appropriate
 In some ways opposite to air quality
 Need to focus:
 Near term 1-5 years
 Mid-term 5-20 years
 Long-Term 20 + years

 Attack current congestion
 Focus on operations, speeds, flow
 Non-construction-based mode shifts
 Carpooling, trip chaining, use current transit, work at home, non-motorized opportunities
 Construction and Reconstruction are potential negatives to be recognized in b/c analysis
 Refocus research and planning
 more efficient mechanisms for construction and maint. (concrete, steel, construction machinery, etc.)

 Critical Transportation Factors
 Vehicle power trends
 Sources of electricity
 Travel demand PMT/VMT demographic trends
 Outside scope of profession?
 Scale of energy-intensive industries
 Efficiency gains in other sectors
 Restructuring of energy distribution

 Life Styles
 Energy intensive vs non-intensive industries
 Wealth-producing productivity
 Efficiencies in other sectors
 Substitutes for mobile fuels
 Ultimately it’s all about electricity

Emphasis on System Operations
 The 4-legged stool is now a standard item in transportation GHG topic
 System Ops is now the fourth leg

EMPHASIS ON OPERATIONS
NO REGRETS – NO DOWNSIDES
Speed – Eco-driving
Congestion Ops
Trip Chaining
Work Schedules/WAH
Fleet Optimization
Load Factors
Non-Motorized Means
Economy Energy GCC
  



















CO
2 reductions can be accomplished by reducing congestion and improving operational efficiency
CO
2
Emissions Rates by Speed
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed (MPH)
Source: University of California, Riverside

 60-80% cut in GHG below 1990 by 2050
 Too many are just Political assertions of aspirations; without substance
 Transportation leadership “not involved”
“There is stunning degree of innumeracy when it comes to the numbers surrounding climate change legislation. "
Statement by outgoing Chairman of President’s Council on Environmental Quality”

 TRIUMPH OF RHETORIC OVER
REALITY:
“The legislation expresses the sentiments the Congress would like to have us believe they hold!”
George Will

 Very long term
 Limited opportunities – (population doubling rate)
 Scale responses small
 Density is one of the key life style choices
 Inconsistent with affluent, technologically developed society
 Options and opportunities – not requirements
 Let it happen – not make it happen

 There is a colossal existing potential for people to live “more efficient” life-styles if they choose. We can go to the nearest:
Job
School
Food store
Restaurant
Doctor
Religious Facility

ULI on Land Use Potential
 “It is realistic to assume a 30 percent cut in VMT with compact development.”
 “… smart growth could …reduce total transportation-related CO emissions from current
 Assumes:
 67% of development in place in 2050 is new or rehab
 60-90% of that development is “smart growth”
(equivalent to 15 housing units per acre) [=
25,000 sq. mi .
]
-- “Growing Cooler” by ULI, CCAP, et al, 2007

 The Efficiency/Equity argument is fundamental to any regulatory process
 EQUITY = your share of solution should equal your share of the problem!
 EFFICIENCY = do most cost-effective first and solve more of the problem per $

 Issue is global climate change and energy security
 Focus on fuels and efficiencies
 VMT reduction is often a different agenda
“ The largest CO
2 abatement opportunities in the transport sector lie in initiatives to
improve fuel efficiency.” ECMT

Ask about a proposed project:
What share of my resources am I going to commit to solve what share of my problem?

TRANSPORTATION
VS OTHER OPTIONS
 Options in other sectors are greater.
 Main focus is, and should be, electricity generation.
 WHY IS TRANSPORTATION SINGLED OUT
AS ONLY ONE TO HAVE OUTPUT CUT?
 No one suggests farm output or industrial output should be cut by 25%

Transport is most dependent on high energy density fuels
 “Cost effectiveness (cost per tonne of CO
2
) is the fundamental determinant of which abatement policies to adopt and how much the transport sector should contribute towards economy-wide CO
2 abatement goals --- it is important to achieve the required emissions reductions at the lowest overall cost to avoid damaging welfare and economic growth.”
 “Transport and other sectors are expected to contribute less to overall emissions reduction strategies.”
ECMT Council of Ministers Transport and Environment ;Jun
2006

Big win win win opportunities with no loss of consumer benefits
Source: McKinsey & Co.

 McKinsey “maintaining Consumer
Surplus”
 CAFÉ safety trade-offs
 Fuel and insurance trade-offs ?
 Infrastructure needs

THE QUANTITATIVE VS THE
ASSERTIVE
 IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A NEW CHALLENGE
THE FOCUS IS TYPICALLY QUANTITATIVE
 WHAT,WHY,HOW MUCH ?
 GAINING A SENSE OF SCALE
 GAINING A SENSE OF FACTORS AND
RELATIONSHIPS
 BUT, THIS CAN QUICKLY LEAD TO THE
ASSERTIVE AND TO ADVOCACY ROLES AS
PLAYERS SENSE THREATS/OPPORTUNITIES

 ADVOCATES HAVE ADOPTED A NEW
JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR CAUSE
 Heavy hyperbole
 Most data issues are in rates and performance effects
 GHG savings/$ of expenditure
 Comparative performance statistics

 EMFAC (CARB); MOVES EPA
 CO
2 consequences of transportation construction
 Weak on Fuel efficiencies long term
 Weak on Fuel types long term (electrics
2.4% cap)
 Sensitive to stop/start
 Life cycle analysis weak
 Fleet information characteristics; VIUS

 Economic Efficiency
 Costs per unit of problem solved
 Between transportation and other options
 Within transportation
 Performance Measurement
 Delivery timing and budget
 Risk Reward

The emphasis should be on setting priorities and quantification but …
LOW ON $
MINOR
PROBLEM
LOTS OF $
Lots of rhetoric
Advocacy
Earmarks
REAL
PROBLEM
Quantification key
Setting Priorities
Cost-Effectiveness
MAYBE

Cost-effectiveness of Example Transportation Emissions
Reduction Measures ($ per ton of CO
2 reduced)
Category Description
Telecommute Programs
Signal Optimization
Park & Ride Lots (Transit and HOV)
Transit Service improvements
CO
2
Cost
Effectiveness
Range
$10 to $40
$30 to $50
$100 to $500
$100 to $800
WASH COG MODEL

The Right Answer Should At Least
Be Among The Options Available!
 This Is A Real Problem Even Independent
Of Global Warming
 Fuel costs
 Energy Security
 Economic Uncertainties
 This Is A Real Problem With Little Resources
 Selling Bad Solutions To A Real Problem
Should Be Out!
 Research / Economic Analysis /
Performance Measurement Should Be Key

 Reduce emissions per vehicle by 50% by 2030
 “Emissions saved now are more important than those saved later”
 Long term “decarbonization” of road transport
 Almost COMPLETELY “decarbonize” road transport, at least in the developed world, by 2050!

We obtain about a 1% increase in engine efficiency per year at present – the question is: How do we choose to use it?
H
S
P
135
1975
1986
13 MPG 22

We obtain about a 1% increase in engine efficiency per year at present – the question is: How do we choose to use it?
2006
225
H
S
P
1975
135
1986
13 MPG 22

We obtain about a 1% increase in engine efficiency per year at present – the question is: How do we choose to use it?
2006
225
?
H
S
P
1975
135
1986
13 MPG 22

 has an average diesel fuel consumption of just 0.99 litres per 100 kilometres
 Ughhhhh multiply by 3/18 add 47 carry the one =

 has an average diesel fuel consumption of just 0.99 litres per 100 kilometres
 Ughhhhh multiply by 3/18 add 47 carry the one =235 mpg NOT BAD !

A key policy feature will have to be
Adaptation to GCC?
 Adaptation: “ Actions by individuals or systems to avoid, withstand, or take advantage of current and projected climate changes and impacts. Adaptation decreases a system ’ s vulnerability, or increases its resilience to impacts.
” (Pew Center on GCC)
70

Potential impacts on new and existing transportation infrastructure?
 Permanent inundation of roads, bridge approaches
 Weakening of land, substructure supporting roads, bridges
 Temporary flooding of roads
 Coastal Interior
 Increased stream flow, erosion and bridge scour
 Pavement cracking, deformation;

This will be reflected in all stages
 Transportation Planning
 Preliminary engineering and NEPA
 Project design and construction
 Operations and maintenance
72

 Maintain and manage
 Higher maintenance costs
 Protect, strengthen
 Sea walls, buffers, design changes
 Relocate
 Move key facilities, instead of rebuilding
 Promote redundancy
 Emergency management
73

 Make it to next legislation? Yes? No?
 Usual Sources of Revenue very limited
 Taxes – no growth; inflation losses
 Bonding – market is suffering
 Tolls and Pricing – Toll model weakened
 Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax ?
 POSSIBLE STIMULUS PACKAGE
TOUGHEST REAUTHORIZATION EVER!

 Supported by Economists
 Less complex, less bureaucratic than cap and trade
 Tax starts low and grows in fixed steps
 Percentage to R&D
 Revenue neutral goal – taxes recycled or substituted

WORK WHERE THE LIGHT IS
GOOD
 ISSUES PLAY TO THE STRENGTH OF
THIS ORGANIZATION
 FOCUS ON AREAS IN YOUR PURVIEW
 FIGHT FOR QUANTITATIVENESS
 PLAY A ROLE IN PUBLIC INFORMATION
 BE KNOWLEDGEABLE PLAYER IN
OTHER AREAS

Government’s Failures are in
Public Information
 Promote slower speeds
 Promote 4 day week or 9 day biweek
 Promote other flex-time
 Promote Working at Home
 Promote carpooling

 ADVANCE STRONGER SUPPORT FOR ENHANCED
OPERATIONS
 ADVANCE GOALS FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES
 ADVANCE MORE EFFECTIVE PLANNING PROCESS
 EMPHASIZE THE QUANTITATIVE
 DATA
 MODELS
 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
 SUPPORT EXPANDED RESEARCH
 ROLE IN ADAPTATION TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

 SUPPORT FUEL EFFICIENCIES
 SUPPORT NEW FUEL OPTIONS
 SUPPORT MORE EFFECTIVE
FEDERAL/STATE LEGISLATION AND
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RE GHG
 SUPPORT APPROPRIATE TAXATION
 FLEET TURNOVER IS KEY ISSUE

alanpisarski@alanpisarski.com

Annual Energy Outlook – DOE 2008 background forecasts
2006 - 2030 Notes
GDP
Labor
Productivity
2.4% annual down .4 from
2007 estimate
2.3% annual down .4 from
2007 estimate
Employment 0.9 annual No change