Moving Cooler - Federal Transit Administration - U.S. Department of ...

Executive SummaryMovingCoolerAn Analysis of TransportationStrategies for ReducingGreenhouse Gas EmissionsCambridge Systematics, Inc.

Executive SummaryMoving CoolerAn Analysis ofTransportation Strategiesfor ReducingGreenhouse Gas EmissionsPrepared forMoving Cooler Steering CommitteePrepared byCambridge Systematics, Inc.July 2009

About the Urban Land InstituteThe mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provideleadership in the responsible use of land andin creating and sustaining thriving communitiesworldwide. ULI is committed to| Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;| Fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI’smembership through mentoring, dialogue, andproblem solving;| Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;| Advancing land use policies and design practicesthat respect the uniqueness of both built andnatural environments;| Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and| Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address currentand future challenges.Established in 1936, the Institute today hasmore than 35,000 members worldwide, representingthe entire spectrum of the land use anddevelopment disciplines. ULI relies heavily on theexperience of its members. It is through memberinvolvement and information resources that ULIhas been able to set standards of excellence indevelopment practice. The Institute has long beenrecognized as one of the world’s most respectedand widely quoted sources of objective informationon urban planning, growth, and development.Recommended bibliographic listing:Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Moving Cooler: An Analysisof Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse GasEmissions. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2009.Copyright ©2009 by the Urban Land InstituteAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproducedin any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopying and recording, or by anyinformation storage and retrieval system, without writtenpermission of the publisher.Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20007-5201ULI Catalog Number: M87ISBN: 978-0-87420-118-510 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Printed in the United States of America.ULI Project StaffDean SchwankeSenior Vice President, PublicationsJames A. MulliganManaging EditorElizabeth Horowitz, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript EditorBetsy VanBuskirkCreative Director/Book DesignByron HollySenior DesignerAnne MorganDesigner/Cover DesignCraig ChapmanDirector, Publishing OperationsCambridge Systematics, Inc.,Research TeamJoanne R. PotterProject ManagerTechnical TeamWilliam CowartRobert HymanDavid JacksonChristopher PorterArlee RenoContributorsDaniel BeaganLaurie HusseyDavid KallDanny KwanRichard MargiottaRobert TaggartWendy TaoHerbert WeinblattProject FacilitationW. Steve LeeCollaborative Strategies Group, LLCii

Study AuthorCambridge Systematics, Inc.Cambridge Systematics, Inc., specializes in transportation, dedicated to ensuring that transportationinvestments deliver the best possible results. It is recognized as a leader in the development andimplementation of innovative policy and planning solutions, objective analysis, and technologyapplications. Cambridge Systematics works to build the capacity of the transportation community tounderstand and address both sides of the climate change challenge: to develop strategies to reducegreenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and to prepare for the potential effects of climate changeon transportation systems.Moving Cooler Steering CommitteeAmerican Public Transportation AssociationRob PadgetteEnvironmental Defense FundMichael ReplogleFederal Highway AdministrationApril Marchese and John DaviesFederal Transit AdministrationTina HodgesIntelligent Transportation Society of AmericaLeslie BellasNatural Resources Defense CouncilDeron Lovaas and Nathan SandwickShell Oil CompanyMiriam ConnerUrban Land InstituteRobert Dunphy, Rachelle Levitt, and Dean SchwankeU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyKen AdlerProject FacilitationCollaborative Strategies Group, LLCCollaborative Strategies Group, LLC, is a consulting firm specializing in facilitation, public outreach andcommunication, project management, and public policy development for governments, businesses, communities,and organizations that need help navigating complex problem-solving, decision-making, andrelationship-building issues.iii

Rockefeller Brothers FundFounded in 1940, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) encouragessocial change that contributes to a more just, sustainable,and peaceful world. The RBF’s grant making is organized aroundthree themes: democratic practice, sustainable development,and peace and security, and three pivotal places: New York City,western Balkans, and southern China. On October 12, 2006, theRBF trustees approved a new cross-programmatic grant-makinginitiative on energy.Rockefeller FoundationThe work of the Rockefeller Foundation for the 21st century is toenable “smart globalization.” It attempts to harness the creativeforces of globalization to ensure that the tools and technologiesthat have significantly improved the human condition in manyparts of the world during the past half century are accessible todayto more people, more fully, in more places. It seeks to shapeefforts in planning, finance, infrastructure, and governanceto manage a world in which, for the first time in history, morepeople live in urban communities than rural ones.Surdna FoundationSurdna is a family foundation that makes grants in the areas ofenvironment, community revitalization, effective citizenry, thearts, and nonprofit sector support. The Surdna Foundation’s EnvironmentProgram is national in scope and supports a healthynatural environment, the foundation upon which human communitiesflourish. It believes that the social and economic concernsof communities are inextricably, and crucially, linked to thenatural world. The program’s goals include: building support forprograms to stabilize climate change at the local, state, and nationallevel; and improving transportation systems and patternsof land use across metropolitan areas, working landscapes, andintact ecosystems.Urban Land InstituteThe Urban Land Institute is a global nonprofit education andresearch institute supported by its members. Its mission is toprovide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creatingand sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Established in1936, the Institute has more than 35,000 members representingall aspects of land use.ShellShell Oil Company is part of the Royal Dutch Shell group ofcompanies (collectively referred to as Shell), which is a globalgroup of energy and petrochemical companies. With around102,000 employees in more than 100 countries and territories,Shell helps to meet the world’s growing demand for energy ineconomically, environmentally, and socially responsible ways. Inthe United States, Shell has exploration and production, refining,chemical, lubricants, distribution, retail, natural gas, power, andalternative energy operations.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the nation’senvironmental science, research, education, and assessmentefforts. The mission of the EPA is to protect human healthand the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for acleaner, healthier environment for the American people.ix

Executive SummaryThe de b at e on ho w to me e t the nation’sclimate change challenge is well under way, andambitious goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductionsare likely to be established. Proposals underdiscussion would set national targets for reductionsin GHG emissions, from all sectors of theeconomy, of up to 83 percent from 2005 levels by2050—equivalent to a reduction of more than 5,900million metric tonnes (mmt) of GHGs during thisperiod of time. Transportation contributes roughly28 percent of the United States’ total GHG emissions—andtransportation emissions have beengrowing faster than those of other sectors. In fact,between 1990 and 2006, growth in U.S. transportationGHG emissions represented almost one-half(47 percent) of the increase in total U.S. GHGs.Success in reducing GHGs through transportationstrategies will be critical to meeting national goals.Moving Cooler was commissioned by a widerange of agencies and interest groups who seekobjective information about the potential contributionsof transportation strategies to meet theseGHG reduction goals. Considerable research hasbeen conducted on the role of advanced vehicleand fuel technolo gies in reducing the carbonfootprint of transportation. However, there is lessinformation about the potential contribution oftransportation actions and strategies to reduce theamount of vehicle travel that occurs, or to makechanges to the transportation system and servicesthat improve fuel efficiency. Moving Cooler providesinformation on the effec tiveness and costs ofalmost 50 of these types of strategies and com­}binations of strategies. The results of the MovingCooler findings can help shape effective, integratedapproaches for reducing GHG emissions nationally,regionally, and locally, while meeting broadertransportation objectives as well.Transportation GHG emissions are the resultof the interaction of four factors: vehicle fuel efficiency,the carbon content of the fuel burned,the number of miles that vehicles travel, and theoperational efficiency experienced during travel.Therefore, the range of transportation strategiesthat can be used to reduce GHGs fall into fourbasic approaches, as follows:| Vehicle Technology—Improving the energy efficiencyof the vehicle fleet by implementing moreadvanced technologies,| Fuel Technology—Reducing the carbon contentof fuels through the use of alternative fuels (forinstance, natural gas, biofuels, and hydrogen),| Travel Activity—Reducing the number of milestraveled by transportation vehicles, or shiftingthose miles to more efficient modes of transportation,and| Vehicle and System Operations—Improving theefficiency of the transportation network so thata larger share of vehicle operations occur infavorable conditions, with respect to speed andsmoothness of traffic flow, resulting in more fuelefficient vehicle operations.The focus of Moving Cooler is on strategies thatfall within these last two approaches to reducingtransportation GHGs.1

Research ApproachThe Moving Cooler analysis estimates the potentialeffectiveness of strategies to reduce GHG emissionsby reducing the amount of vehicle travel that occurs,by inducing people to use less fuel-intensive meansof transportation (e.g., walking, bicycling, riding ina bus or train, or carpooling), or by reducing theamount of fuel con sumed during travel throughtransportation system improvements. Strategiesare first assessed individually, and are then combinedinto “bundles” that illustrate the potentialcumulative effects that could be achieved. Finally,bundles are examined using an economy-widepricing overlay that analyzes the effect of fueltax and carbon pricing and other nationwidepricing measures.For both the individual strategies and thebundles, the analysis examined the followingperformance outcomes:| GHG Reduction—What level of GHG reductioncould be achieved during what time frame?| Implementation Costs—What are the costs toimplement the strategy or bundle?| Change in Vehicle Costs—What would be the effectson the costs of vehicle ownership, maintenance,and fuel from a nationwide perspective?| Equity Effects—How would implementation ofvarious bundles affect different groups of people,and how might inequitable effects be addressed?Moving Cooler StrategiesThe strategies considered by Moving Cooler aregrouped into nine categories, as follows:| Pricing and taxes. Strategies raise the costsassociated with the use of the transportationsystem, including the cost of vehicle miles oftravel and fuel consumption. Both local andregional facility-level pricing strategies (e.g.,congestion pricing) and economy-wide pricingstrategies (e.g., carbon pricing) are considered.| Land use and smart growth. Strategies focuson creating more transportation-efficient landuse patterns, and by doing so reduce the need tomake motor vehicle trips and reduce the lengthof the motor vehicle trips that are made.| Nonmotorized transport. Strategies encouragegreater levels of walking and bicycling as alternativesto driving.| Public transportation improvements. Strategiesexpand public transportation by subsidizingfares, increasing service on existing routes, orbuilding new infrastructure.| Ride-sharing, car-sharing, and other commutingstrategies. Strategies expand ser vices andprovide incentives to travelers to choose transportationoptions other than driving alone.| Regulatory strategies. Strategies implementregulations that moderate vehicle travel or reducespeeds to achieve higher fuel efficiency.2

| Operational and intelligent transportationsystem (ITS) strategies. Strategies improve theoperation of the transportation system to makebetter use of the existing capacity; strategiesalso encourage more efficient driving.| Capacity expansion and bottleneck relief. Strategiesexpand highway capacity to reduce congestionand to improve the efficiency of travel.| Multimodal freight sector strategies. Strategiespromote more efficient freight movement withinand across modes.Deployment Levels Used to TestStrategy EffectivenessEach of the individual strategies is defined at threelevels of deployment to test their effectiveness atdifferent degrees of implementation. These levelsof deployment are defined in terms of: (1) Geographicscale—Where and how broadly are thesestrategies implemented? (2) Time frame—Howquickly are these strategies deployed, and whenwill they take effect? and (3) Intensity—How aggressivelyare these strategies structured? Usingthis combination of factors, three levels of deploymentwere defined to estimate potential GHGemission reductions for each strategy and bundleof strategies:| Expanded Current Practice, which assumes thesteady expansion of existing practices that couldreduce GHG emissions focused predominatelyon major metropolitan areas;| Aggressive, which assumes that the strategiesare implemented sooner, more broadly geographically,and more aggressively than underthe expanded current practice deployment; and| Maximum Effort, which assumes that the strategiesare implemented within the framework ofmajor changes in national policy and levels ofinvestment consistent with a singular commitmentto reduction in GHG emissions nationally,regionally, and locally.The intent of defining these levels of deploymentis to provide insight into the magnitude of GHG reductionsand other socioeconomic impacts that mightoccur over a wide range of “what if” assumptions.Moving Cooler Strategy BundlesIn practice, most strategies would typically beimplemented as part of a package of transportationactivities. To test the combined impact ofstrategies, Moving Cooler developed six illustrativebundles of strategies and estimated the total GHGreductions that might be achieved through an integratedset of actions. Each bundle was designedto bring together strategies that emphasize a commonthrust or action plan.The six strategy bundles used for the MovingCooler analysis are as follows:1. The Near-Term/‌Early Results Bundle focuseson strategies that could be implemented broadlyin the short term (i.e., before 2015) and thatcould result in early GHG reduction benefits.Examples of the variety of strategies that can beimplemented relatively quickly include: reducedspeed limits, increases in urban center parkingfees, increased transit level of service, eco-drivingprograms, and truck stop electrification.2. The Long-Term/‌Maximum Results Bundlefocuses on maximizing efforts to reduce GHGemissions without regard to cost, scale, or timeframe of the implementation. This “all-out” bundleincludes most of the Moving Cooler strategiesassessed for this study: both near-term strategies,as well as land use changes, infrastructureinvestment to expand transportation services,pricing measures, operational improvements,and freight strategies.3. The Land Use/‌Transit/NonmotorizedTransportation Bundle emphasizes the interactionof urban area-focused strategies thatincrease density and encourage travelers toshift to more energy efficient modes, withshorter average trip lengths and increased walkingand biking, which would eliminatesome vehicle trips.4. The System and Driver Efficiency Bundlefocuses on strategies that improve multimodalsystem efficiency by adding capacity, removingbottlenecks, reducing congestion, and improvingtraffic flow.5. The Facility Pricing Bundle focuses on local andregional pricing and incentive strategies (e.g.,tolls, congestion pricing, parking fees) that willinduce changes in travel behavior by changingthe cost of travel. These strategies also could becoupled with service expansion.6. The Low Cost Bundle focuses on achieving GHGemission reductions through the deployment ofstrategies that are more cost-effective.While these bundles represent logical combinationsof strategies, any number of other combinationscould also be designed and tested. Thepurpose of evaluating bundles in the Moving Coolerstudy is to provide analyses that demonstratepotential GHG reductions that could be achieved bycombining multiple strategies.3

The Moving Cooler BaselineThe effectiveness of each strategy in reducing GHGemissions is measured against a baseline developedby the authors of Moving Cooler that projectsGHG emissions from years 2010 to 2050 (FigureES.1). This baseline is based on an annual rate ofvehicle and fuel technological change, consistentwith forecasts of the U.S. Department of Energy inits “Annual Energy Outlook” and the U.S. Departmentof Transportation’s examination of alternativeCorporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Thisbaseline shows that innovations in vehicle andfuel technology will have a substantial impact onGHGs, but that these gains will largely be offsetby increases in travel along with growth in theU.S. population. Consequently, the Moving Coolerbaseline shows GHG emissions remaining roughlyat 2005 levels through 2050.The reductions in GHG emissions estimatedto result from implementation of the Moving Coolerstrategies and bundles are expressed as a percentagereduction from this baseline.Figure ES.1 illustrates the relationshipbetween the Moving Cooler baseline and sometargets for national GHG emission reductions. TheAmerican Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454)(ACESA) 1 sets economy-wide GHG reduction targetsin 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050, compared with2005 emission levels. The Moving Cooler baselineprojects GHG emissions that are 104 percent of2005 emissions; this level is 21 percent short of theACESA target for 2020 (assuming that the ACESAreduction targets are distributed proportionatelyacross all sectors).Because the results of the strategy analysisare tied to the values in the baseline, and in recognitionof the degree of uncertainty associated witha forecast that extends more than 40 years, threealternative baseline scenarios were developedto investigate the sensitivity to differing baselineassumptions of individual strategy and strategybundle GHG reduction estimates. The results fallunder these assumed scenarios: (1) high fuelprices and low VMT growth; (2) low fuel prices andhigh VMT growth; and (3) high-technology and fueleconomy combined with high VMT (Figure ES.2).The recent national fuel efficiency standardproposal from President Obama was also extrapolatedbeyond 2016, assuming the same VMT growthFigure ES.1 Moving Cooler Baseline: Projected On-Road GHG Emissions2,000National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt)1,8001,6001,4001,2001,000800600400200American Clean Energy and Security Act2020 Target (83% of 2005 emissions)American Clean Energy and Security Act2050 Target (17% of 2005 emissions)Study BaselineObama Administration Proposal02000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Note: This figure displays National On-Road GHG emissions as estimated in the Moving Cooler baseline, compared withGHG emission estimates based on President Obama’s May 19, 2009, national fuel efficiency standard proposal of 35.5mpg in 2016. Both emission forecasts assume an annual VMT growth rate of 1.4 percent. The American Clean Energyand Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454) identifies GHG reduction targets in 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050. The 2020 and 2050targets, with an example application to the on-road mobile transportation sector, are shown here.4

Figure ES.2 Moving Cooler National GHG Emissions Baseline and Baseline Sensitivity2,2002,000National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt)1,8001,6001,4001,2001,000800600400200Study BaselineHigh Fuel Price, Low VMTLow Fuel Price, High VMTHigh Technology, High VMTObama Administration Proposal, with Baseline VMTStudy Baseline02000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Note: This figure displays National On-Road GHG emissions as estimated in the Moving Cooler baseline, compared withthe study’s three sensitivity analysis baselines and with the GHG emission estimates, based on President Obama’s May19, 2009, national fuel efficiency standard proposal of 35.5 mpg in 2016.rate as in the Moving Cooler baseline to calculateGHG emissions. Under this scenario, GHG emissionsare projected to be 98 percent of 2005 emissions,or 15 percent short of the 2020 target. TheObama Administration proposal thus falls withinthe range of sensitivity analyses conducted by theMoving Cooler study.FindingsCombining Strategies to Reduce GHGsAn integrated, multistrategy approach—combiningtravel activity, local and regional pricing, operational,and efficiency strategies—can contributeto significant GHG reductions. Implementationof a complete portfolio of Moving Cooler strategieswithout economy-wide pricing could achieveannual GHG emissions ranging from less than 4percent to 18 percent (Aggressive Deployment) andas high as 24 percent (Maximum Effort Deployment)less than projected baseline levels in 2050(Figure ES.3). Such reductions would, however,involve considerable—and in some cases major—changes to current transportation systems andoperations, travel behavior, land use patterns, andpublic policy and regulations.Within these illustrative bundles, the strategiesthat contribute the most to GHG reductionsare local and regional pricing and regulatory strategiesthat increase the costs of single occupancyvehicle travel, regulatory strategies that reduceand enforce speed limits, educational strategiesto encourage eco-driving behavior that achievesbetter fuel efficiency, land use and smart growthstrategies that reduce travel distances, and multimodalstrategies that expand travel options.The analysis also shows that some combinationsof strategies could create synergies that enhance thepotential reductions of individual measures. In particular,land use changes combined with expandedtransit services achieve stronger GHG reductions,than when only one option is implemented.These results demonstrate that transportationagencies and other decision makers could createeffective combinations of transportation strategiesthat provide high-quality transportation services,while achieving meaningful GHG reductions.Implementation Costs and VehicleCosts SavingsThe costs of implementing many of the MovingCooler strategies are sub stantial. So too are thedirect vehicle cost savings realized nationally,through reduced travel and reduced fuel consump­5

Figure ES.3 Range of Annual GHG Emission Reductions of Six Strategy Bundles at Aggressive and MaximumDeployment Levels2010 to 2050Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt)2,0001,9001,8001,7001,6001,5001,4001,3001,2001,1001,0009008007006005004003002001000200519901%11%1990 and 2005 GHG Emissions—Combination of DOE AEO data and EPA GHG Inventory data.Study Baseline—Annual 1.4% VMT growth combined with 1.9% growth in fuel economy.Aggressive Range—Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at aggressive level.Maximum Range—Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at maximum level.1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20503%17%4%24%Study BaselineAggressiveRangeMaximumRangeNote: This figure displays the GHG emission range across the six bundles for the aggressive and maximum deployment scenarios. The percentreductions are on an annual basis from the study baseline. The 1990 and 2005 baselines are included for reference.tion. For five of the six bundles examined (thefacility pricing bundle being the exception), theestimated average annual savings in direct vehiclecosts (i.e., ownership, maintenance and repair, andfuel) exceed estimated implementation costs by upto $72 billion for an aggressive level of deploymentand up to $112 billion for a maximum level of deploymentduring a 40-year time frame. Figure ES.4illustrates this effect for one bundle.Relevant to energy independence, reducedfuel consumption realized nationally through thesestrategies translates to an average annual savingsof 85 million to 470 million barrels of oil at an aggressivelevel of deployment, and to a savings ofas much as 110 to 660 million barrels a year at amaximum level of deployment.It is important to note that this comparison ofimplementation costs to vehicle cost savings is nota full assessment of costs and benefits, because theMoving Cooler analysis did not address other importantbenefits and costs, such as changes in mobility,travel time, safety, user fees, environmental quality,economic development, and public health.Pricing MeasuresStrong economy-wide pricing measures, beyondthe local and regional pricing strate gies includedin some of the illustrative bundles, could generateGHG reductions well beyond those that could beachieved by the bundles. For example, an additionalfee (in current dollars) starting at the equivalentof $0.60 per gallon in 2015 and increasing to $1.25per gallon in 2050 (Aggressive Deployment) couldresult in an additional 17 percent reduction in GHGemissions in 2050; a much higher fee similar tocurrent European fuel taxes, starting at $2.40 agallon in 2015 and increasing to $5.00 a gallon in2050 (Maximum Effort Deployment) could result inan additional 28 percent reduction in GHG emissionsin 2050.Two factors would drive this increasedreduction in GHG as a result of pricing signals:reductions in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) andmore rapid technology advances. Implementationof both Pay as You Drive insurance (PAYD) and/ora direct VMT fee would increase consumers’ cost6

Figure ES.4 Implementation Costs and Vehicle Cost Savings for the Long-Term/Maximum Results Bundle at Aggressive Deployment2010 to 20502008 Dollars (in Billions)200180160140120100806040200Vehicle Cost SavingsImplementation Costs2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Note: This figure displays estimated annual implementation costs (capital, maintenance, operations, and administrative)and annual vehicle cost savings [reduction in the costs of owning and operating a vehicle from reduced vehiclemilestraveled (VMT) and delay]. Vehicle cost savings DO NOT include other costs and benefits that could be experiencedas a consequence of implementing each bundle, such as changes in travel time, safety, user fees, environmentalquality, and public health.per mile of travel, and would result in a nationalreduction in VMT. Pricing of carbon-based fuelleads to higher fuel costs that depress VMT, andalso creates market conditions that encourage thepurchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles.Individual Moving Cooler StrategiesWhen evaluated individually, almost all of thestrategies could achieve some GHG reductions.In particular, measures that reinforce efficientdriving—either through regulation (speed limit reductions)or education (eco-driving)—could achievea cumulative (from 2010 to 2050) 1.1 to 3.6 percentreduction from the baseline GHG emissions,depending on the level of deployment. Strategiesthat aim to reduce VMT by raising the cost of travel(PAYD insurance and VMT fees) could have a comparableeffect—a 1.2 to 4.4 percent reduction fromcumulative baseline GHG emissions, depending onthe level of deployment assumed.An integrated set of land use strategiesachieves cumulative GHG reductions from 0.3to 2.1 percent improvement from the baseline.Because these strategies take many years toimplement and will involve the participation andacceptance of many parties to achieve, the benefitsaccrue quite slowly in the short-term, before beginningto escalate significantly in the later years.Transit capital investments, such as urbantransit expansion and intercity and high-speed rail,could produce cumulative GHG reductions rangingfrom 0.4 to 1.1 percent of baseline emissions. Thisexpansion of service requires sustained investmentover and above the current levels of investment.Implementation of a full set of operational andITS improvements could achieve 0.3 to 0.6 percentcumulative reductions.If implemented individually, many of the strategiesare estimated to achieve cumulative nationalreductions of less than 0.5 percent from the MovingCooler baseline by 2050, even at maximum levelsof deployment. However, the effectiveness of thesestrategies should be viewed relative to the scale oftheir potential deployment. Moving Cooler measuresGHG reduction against a national baseline.At the local and regional scale, many Moving Coolerstrategies result in greater relative reductions inGHG emissions and could be useful techniques tohelp meet regional GHG objectives, while enhancingtransportation service.Other Social, Economic, andEnvironmental GoalsThe fact that many individual strategies will likelymake only small contribu tions to national GHGreductions does not indicate that they should be7

2020. For example, near-term strategies such aslower speed limits, congestion pricing, eco-driving,operational improvements, and improved transitlevel of service, if implemented, are among strategiesthat would achieve GHG reductions relativelyquickly. Achieving early results would reducethe cumulative GHG reduction challenge in laterdecades. Near-term actions could give the sectoran early start in reducing GHGs, while creating theimpetus for more aggressive innovation in vehicleand fuel technology.discarded. In addition to making a contributionto reducing GHGs, many strategies achieve otherimportant objectives, such as expanded traveloptions, reduced congestion, greater accessibility,improvements in the livability of urban areas,improved equity, improved environmental quality,enhanced public health, and improved safety. Theanalysis shows, for example, that additional investmentin highway capacity and bottleneck reliefcould result in GHG reductions through 2030 anda negligible increase in GHG through 2050. Reviewof other cost-benefit studies demonstrates thathigher levels of investment in public transportationand highways have returns of two or three times toone in terms of benefits in relation to the costs ofthese strategies.Near-Term ReductionsMany of the strategies analyzed in Moving Coolercould be implemented within a few years andcould begin to generate reductions in GHG prior toLand Use and Improved Travel OptionsWhile some Moving Cooler strategies could beimplemented quickly, others would require manyyears to put in place. This observation is particularlytrue for bundles that involve changes indevelopment patterns and land use to increasedensity and reduce the distance or need for vehicletravel. The analysis demonstrates that over time,changes in land use and investments in improvedtransit and transportation options can improve theefficiency and quality of travel, reduce trip lengths,and reduce GHG emissions. The notable reductionsfor these strategies are realized in the outerdecades of this analysis, in 2030 and beyond. Thesestrategies would require changes in developmentpolicies and significant funding becauseof the capital costs of expanded transit services,but these actions could achieve meaningful GHGreductions by 2050, ranging from 9 percent to 15percent without economy-wide pricing.Equity EffectsThe direct costs of implementing strategy bundleswill vary, with different costs incurred by government,consumers, and businesses. If properly designed,highway, public transportation, ride-sharing,and operations investments can be implemented tobenefit all income groups and all user groups.Without mitigating policies, the pricing strategieswould potentially create serious equity issues,because of their disproportionate effects on lowerincomegroups and on those travelers with limitedmobility options. Lower income groups spendas much as four times more than higher incomegroups of their income on transportation; implementationof pricing strategies would exacerbatethis inequity.One solution to this problem could involve takingthe revenues from pricing strategies and reinvestingthem in additional strategies that addressequity concerns, particularly through investments8

in public transportation and highway investmentsthat benefit lower income and dis advantaged communitiesto reduce the effects of higher fees. Otherincome transfer approaches also could be used toaddress the effects on lower-income groups.Future ResearchOngoing research is needed in several areas,including further evaluation of the effectiveness ofGHG measures in specific contexts, research andevaluation of effective means to develop and deploynew strategies and technologies, and researchon the economic effects of different strategy approaches.The interactions of land use, urban form,and transportation are complex, particularly whenattempting to project the long-range effects of investmentchoices on travel behavior. Developmentof more refined modeling tools that combine GHGand economic analyses could help deci sion makersmore effectively examine investment and planningscenarios, in terms of GHG effects and overallsocietal benefits and costs.Note1 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,HR 2454, 111th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record155, no. 98, daily ed. (June 26, 2009): H 7471.9