Transcript sustainable transportation definitions and indicators

Sustainability and Transportation
•
•
•
•
Sort yourselves into groups of five.
Review Nickerson’s Guideposts for Sustainability (above).
Think about all aspects of transportation by private automobile.
Based on Nickerson’s sustainability criteria, is transportation by
private automobile sustainable? Why or why not?
Provide specific examples!!
Sustainable Transportation
Performance Indicators
Brock University - TREN 3P18
What is Sustainable Transportation?
 Literature definitions somewhat imprecise
 Definition reviewed in 2005:
Centre for Sustainable Transportation. 2005. Defining
sustainable transportation. Prepared by Al Cormier
and Richard Gilbert for Transport Canada (doc. No.
T8013-4-0203). March 31, 2005 – 22 pp. Available
online at http://cst.uwinnipeg.ca/completed.html#dst
What is Sustainable Transportation?
 See
Gilbert and Myrans,
2003: Sustainable
Transportation
Performance
Indicators
A sustainable transportation
system is one that:
Environment
 Allows the basic access needs of
individuals to be met safely and in a
manner consistent with human and
ecosystem health, and with equity within
and between generations.
Economy
Equity
A sustainable transportation
system is one that:
Environment
 Is affordable, operates efficiently, offers
choice of transport mode, and supports a
vibrant economy.
Economy
Equity
A sustainable transportation
system is one that:
Environment
 Limits emissions
and waste within the
planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes
consumption of non-renewable resources,
limits consumption of renewable resources
to the sustainable yield level, reuses and
recycles its components, and minimizes
the use of land and the production of
Economy
Equity
noise.
Indicators
Brock University - TREN 3P18
What are Indicators?
 Indicators are numbers that tell a story about variables of
significance
 Indicators usually have an explicit or implicit time
component
 May be in the form of an index (i.e., a group of indicators
aggregated into a single value).
Everyday examples:


National unemployment rate (number of unemployed persons
expressed as a percentage of the labour force at a given time)
Consumer Price Index (Statistics New Zealand, Statistics
Canada)
Indicators: Aggregate vs. Per Capita
 Per-person measures are not often used
when sustainability is a consideration,
because the environment responds to
overall rather than relative impacts.
E.g.: Though fuel efficiency of individual cars or
per-capita fuel consumption may decline (scale
of the individual), the overall impacts may still
increase due to the aggregate effects of more
drivers driving further distances (scale of the
collective)
Use of indicators
*
*VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: Litman, Todd. 2009. Sustainable Transportation Indicators.
Use of indicators
Source: Todd Litman and David Burwell (2006), “Issues in Sustainable
Transportation,” International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 6, No.
4, pp. 331-347; at www.vtpi.org/sus_iss.pdf.
Towards consistent indicators?
 There is no universally accepted definition
of sustainability, sustainable development
or sustainable transport (Litwin 2009)
 There are currently no standardized
indicator sets for comprehensive and
sustainable transport planning (Litwin
2009)
Towards consistent indicators?
 In recent correspondence
(14 Jan 2014) , Richard
Gilbert stated that no
further work had been done
on transportation indicators
using his approach
 Most recent comprehensive attempt is
therefore Gilbert and Myrans (2003)
-> old data, but still the best overall
example!
Sustainable Transportation
Performance Indicators
Gilbert and Myrans 2003
Brock University - TREN 3P18
Sustainable Transportation
Performance Indicators
1. Energy use for
transport
2. Greenhouse gas
emissions
3. Other transport
emissions
4. Injuries and fatalities
5. Movement of people
6. Movement of freight
7. Travel by cars and
planes
8. Personal vehicle
movement
9. Urban land use
10. Length of paved
roads
11. Household spending
12. Relative transit costs
13. Energy intensity
14. Emissions intensity
What the STPI can be used for
 a means of tracking from year to year whether
transport in Canada is becoming more
sustainable (like the definition), or moving away.
 can tell us about the effects of government
policies, by looking at how specific STPI change
after the policies are implemented.
 can help shape new policies, by showing the
kinds of change that the policies should
produce.
 can also guide the private sector, by showing
what is needed for sustainability.
1. Energy use for transport
 Almost 100% of energy
used for transport in
Canada is from oil
 Energy used for
transport in Canada
increased by 21.5%
between 1990 and 2000,
from 1,878 to 2,282
petajoules (1015 j).
2. Greenhouse gas emissions
 A sustainable
transportation system
“limits emissions …
within the planet’s
ability to absorb them”
2. Greenhouse gas emissions
 Transport contributes
about a third of total
GHG emissions
directly, and much
more if its share of
emissions from fuel
production is counted.
 When these
emissions decline,
there is progress
towards sustainable
transportation.
2. Greenhouse gas emissions
 Emissions of GHGs
from transport
increased by 21.0%
between 1990 and
2000, from 135.0 to
163.4 megatonnes of
CO2 equivalent.
3. Other transport emissions
 Index of locally acting
emissions from road
transport: CO, SO2,
NOx, and VOCs
 Index fell by 9.1%
between 1990 and
2000, due to
improvements in
vehicle technology
4. Injuries and fatalities
 Injuries and fatalities
from road transport
comprise almost 90%
of all transport
fatalities and almost
100% of all transport
injuries
 Index fell throughout
the1990s, with a total
decline of 21.8%
4. Injuries and fatalities
 Injuries and fatalities
from road transport
comprise almost 90%
of all transport
fatalities and almost
100% of all transport
injuries
 Index fell throughout
the1990s, with a total
decline of 21.8%
 Traffic death rate per
100,000 inhabitants
 Canada: 6 (2012)
 USA: 11.6 (2012)
 Worst in world:
Eritrea (48.4), Dominican
Republic (41.7), Libya (40.5),
Thailand (38.1)
 Best in world:
Norway (2.9), Sweden (3),
Denmark (3), Palestinian
territories (3.2)
4. Injuries and fatalities
4. Injuries and fatalities
Motor vehicle accident deaths per 100,000 population per year in Thailand
4. Injuries and fatalities
Contributing factors:



drunk-driving laws
seat-belt laws
safety features in vehicles
(e.g., airbags and better brakes)

safety features in highway
design
(e.g., better alignments and signage)

enforcement of speed limits
and safe-driving requirements
5. Movement of people
Modes of travel in Canada (2000):
 74.3% - personal vehicle
 17.1% - air
 3.9% - urban transit
 2.7% - school bus
 1.8% - inter-city bus
 0.3% - inter-city rail
5. Movement of people
 Most movement of
Canadians is in
personal motorized
vehicles
 As this movement
increases, the
unsustainable effects
of transport tend to
increase.

Motorized movement increased 14.7% (1990 –
2000), from 509 to 583 billion person-kilometres.
5. Movement of people
 Main contributing
factor: 11.2% increase
in Canada’s population
(1990 – 2000).
 Small (3.1%) overall
increase in travel per
person
 Decline noticed in late
1990s
6. Movement of freight
Freight Movement in Canada (2000):
 43.9% by rail
 28.7% by water
 27.4% by road
 less than 0.1% by air
6. Movement of freight
 Freight increased by
37.1% (1990–2000),
from 541 to 741
billion tonnekilometres
 Contributing factors:
 growth in road
freight by 94.3%
(1990-2000)
 use of ‘just-in-time’
delivery methods
6. Movement of freight
 Movement of freight
uses energy, causes
globally and locally
acting emissions.
 On balance, reducing
the movement of
goods represent
progress towards
sustainable transportation.
7. Travel by cars and planes
 Index shows % of all
travel by two most
polluting motorized
modes: aviation and
personal vehicles.
 No clear trend
 Share of travel by
plane and personal
vehicle remained
>90% every year.
Note narrow range
of percentages!
8. Personal Vehicle Movement
 Personal vehicles
account for > 82% of
vehicles on road
(2000).
 Measured in vehicle
kilometres (vkm)
 Increased by 13.6%
(1990-2000) from
230 to 261 billion.
8. Personal Vehicle Movement
 Average occupancy of personal
vehicles fell by 4.8%,from 1.74
to 1.66 persons / vehicle.
 Each car driven an average of
17,500 km/year in Canada.
 Main change in 1990s: growth
in SUVs, minivans, and pick-up
trucks: increased from 16.8% in
1990 to 28.4% in 2000.
 SUVs use about 35% more fuel
per km than passenger cars
(US CAFE fleet average data, 2005)
9. Urban Land Use
 A sustainable transportation system minimizes
the use of land.
 Transport uses land directly (roads,
driveways, transport corridors, parking)
 Personal transport allows low-density
development of urban areas ->urban sprawl.
 Low residential densities make it
economically impossible to justify
public transit…
 -> the cycle of car
dependency increases.
9. Urban Land Use
 Developed land per
urban resident
increased by 28.9%,
(1971 -1996), from
971 to 1,251 square
metres
 Highest rate of
growth occurred
1991 - 1996
10. Length of paved roads
Impacts of new roads:
 direct land use
 energy consumption
(construction, maintenance,
use)
 Adding new roads
encourages driving,
enhances sprawl and car
dependency, and results
in inefficient use of
infrastructure.
10. Length of paved roads
 Length of paved roads
increased by 23.6%
(1985-1995), from
243,800 to 301,300
two-lane-kilometre
equivalents.
11.Household transportation spending
 The share of aftertax household
spending on
transport increased
from 16.1% to 19.2%
(1982 – 2000)
11.Household transportation spending
Average household spending (2000):
 Personal vehicles: $6,906
($4,430 fixed costs, $2,476 operating costs)
 Urban transit: $216
 Other transport (mostly air): $454
 Just over 90 minutes of each day’s
employment is dedicated to paying for
personal vehicles ->
390 hours per year, or 48.75 work days
 Average Canadian commuting time is
just over 60 minutes per day->
260 hours per year, or 32.5 work days
11.Household transportation spending
Equity dimension:
 If transport is too
cheap, it could be
used too much
(i.e., unsustainably)
 If transport is too
expensive, poorer
people may have
inadequate access
12. Relative transit costs
 Part of the reason people may
use their cars once they own
them is that the marginal
operating cost of driving is less
than the cost of urban transit.
 Indicator examines cost of urban
transit in relation to the main
operating cost – fuel - for a
personal vehicle you already own
-> a decline in transit cost relative to
gasoline cost should indicate progress
towards sustainability
12. Relative transit costs
 Indicator rose by
23.2% (1990-2000),
representing
movement away
from sustainable
transportation.
Increase between 1990 and
1998 was 49.1%, but it fell
steeply between 1998 and
2000.
13. Energy intensity: cars and trucks
 Indicator examines
the technical
performance of road
vehicles, specifically
energy used per unit
of distance covered.
 Cars and trucks
account for almost
75% of all transport
energy use -> basis
of this indicator.
Energy intensity varies
greatly among personal
vehicles: 1 l/ 100 km
(prototype car in front)
vs. 11 l/ 100 km (van
behind).
13. Energy intensity: cars and trucks
 Energy intensity of cars
and trucks increased by
6.3% (moved away from
sustainability) between
1990 and 1995 (with dip
in 1991), then declined
to 5.4% above1990 level
in 2000.
 Main contributing factor was growth of proportion of fuel-hungry
sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and light trucks.
 In the second half of the decade, this factor was offset by reductions
in the fuel intensity of other vehicles, notably heavy trucks.
14. Emissions intensity
 Indicator is concerned
with the technical
performance of road
vehicles, specifically the
amount of locally acting
emissions per unit of
transport activity.
 Lower emissions per
unit of transport activity
is desirable
-> goal of ZEV (zero
emissions vehicles)
14. Emissions intensity
 Index fell by 25.7%
between 1990 and 2000
 Represents substantial
improvement in the
performance of road
vehicles and progress
towards sustainable
transportation.
Conclusions
Brock University - TREN 3P18
Sustainable Transportation
in Canada: CONCLUSIONS
 Indicators 1, 2, 5, 6,
8, 9, 10, 11, and 13
suggests that
transportation in
Canada has been
mostly moving away
from sustainability
 Trends in a few (5, 8,
13) show
improvement
Sustainable Transportation
in Canada: CONCLUSIONS
 Some indicators (3,
4, 14) show that
progress has been
made towards
sustainable
transportation.
Sustainable Transportation
in Canada: CONCLUSIONS
 Some indicators (3,
4, 14) show that
progress has been
made towards
sustainable
transportation.