Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
Moving Cooler: Study Findings
1.
2. Moving Cooler Study Findings GHG Mitigation Potential in the Transport Sector Transforming Transportation 2010 January 15, 2010 presented by Joanne R. Potter Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation leadership you can trust.
3. Transportation’s Contribution to U.S. GHGs Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007,” April 2009, http://epa.gov/climagechange/emissions/usinventory.html. U.S. GHG Emissions by End Use Economic Sector 2006 U.S. GHG Emissions Breakdown by Mode Electricity Generation 33% Transportation 28% Residential 5% Commercial 6% Agriculture 8% Industry 20% Light-Duty Vehicles 59.3% Heavy-Duty Vehicles 19.6% Other 2.0% Rail 2.7% Marine 4.9% Aircraft 11.5%
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Moving Cooler Baseline to 2050 Note: This figure displays National On-Road GHG emissions as estimated in the Moving Cooler baseline, compared with GHG emission estimates based on President Obama’s May 19, 2009, national fuel efficiency standard proposal of 35.5 mpg in 2016. Both emission forecasts assume an annual VMT growth rate of 1.4 percent. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) identifies GHG reduction targets in 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050. The 2020 and 2050 targets applied to the on-road mobile transportation sector are shown here. National On-Road GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Study Baseline American Clean Energy and Security Act 2020 Target (83% of 2005 emissions) American Clean Energy and Security Act 2050 Target (17% of 2005 emissions) Obama Administration Proposal
11.
12. Strategy Parameters: 7 Area Types Density /Level of Transit Large urban Hi Low Medium urban Hi Low Small urban Hi Low Non-urban
13.
14.
15.
16. Strategy Bundles Illustrative Analysis Low Cost Near-Term/ Early Results Long-Term/ Maximum Results Land Use/ Nonmotorized/ Public Transportation System and Driver Efficiency Facility Pricing
17.
18. Range of Annual GHG Reductions of Six Strategy Bundles (Aggressive and Maximum Deployment) 1990 & 2005 GHG Emissions – Combination of DOE AEO data and EPA GHG Inventory data Study – Annual 1.4% VMT growth combined with 1.9% growth in fuel economy Aggressive Deployment Levels – Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at aggressive level Maximum Deployment Levels – Range of GHG emissions from bundles deployed at maximum level Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2005 1990 Note: This figure displays the GHG emission range across the six bundles for the aggressive and maximum deployment scenarios. The percent reductions are on an annual basis from the Study Baseline. The 1990 and 2005 baseline are included for reference. 4% 24% 1% 3% 11% 17% 18% Study Baseline Aggressive Development Levels Maximum Development Levels
19.
20. Economy-Wide Pricing Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1990 & 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 – GHG emissions from bundle deployed at aggressive level without economy wide pricing measures 2005 1990 Study Baseline Aggressive Economy-Wide Pricing 18% 35% 12% 30% 7% 19%
21. Direct Vehicle Costs and Costs of Implementing Strategy Bundles Note: 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 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and delay. Vehicle cost savings DO NOT include other costs and benefits that could be experienced as a consequence of implementing each bundle, such as changes in travel time, safety, user fees, environmental quality, and public health. 2008 Dollars (in Billions) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Vehicle Cost Savings Implementation Costs 2050
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Notes de l'éditeur
Note the difference between cumulative results and annual results, short and long term benefits Both annual and cumulative reductions are important
Bullet 2 – ok Bullet 3 - Define what economic growth means – ie is this GDP or economic benefit/ROI? – present this bullet as strategies have positive return on investment Bullet 4 Bullet 5 – national, state and regional challenges vary – study reinforces need to include sustainability in local/regional/state planning efforts - Ignoring overlaps, there is a lot of flexibility in the measures considered to develop targeted bundles to address specific needs/goals