Efficient vehicles versus efficient transportation. Comparing transportation energy conservation strategies

Abstract

Efficient vehicles, such as this hybrid SUV, consume less fuel per mile but tend to be driven more miles and so increase congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes and some environmental impacts. This paper investigates these tradeoffs. AbstractThis paper compares four transportation energy conservation strategies using a comprehensive evaluation framework that takes into account how each strategy affects annual vehicle travel, and therefore mileage-related impacts such as traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, and crashes. These mileage-related impacts tend to be large in magnitude compared with energy conservation benefits, so even small changes in total vehicle travel can have a large impact on net benefits. Fuel efficiency standards and some alternative fuels cause vehicle travel to increase. Higher fuel taxes cause a combination of increased vehicle fuel economy and reduced mileage. Mobility management strategies cause relatively large mileage reductions and so provide the greatest mileage-related benefits. Conventional evaluation practices often overlook mileage-related impacts and so tend to overvalue strategies that increase vehicle fuel efficiency and undervalue mobility management strategies.

Transportation and Public Health

“…Table 7 compares how various types of transport improvement strategies affect ten major planning objectives. Conventional strategies, such as roadway expansion and incentives to choose more fuel-efficient vehicles (such as fuel efficiency standards and rebates), generally achieve only one or two planning objectives and, to the degree that they induce additional vehicle travel, tend to contradict others (46). TDM and smart growth strategies, which improve overall accessibility and reduce total vehicle travel, tend to achieve multiple planning objectives and so are considered win-win strategies.…”

Urban Accessibility and Affordability: A Case Study for Istanbul

“…According to Litman [13], it means that people can purchase access to basic goods and activities (medical care, basic shopping, education, work and socializing), which typically means that low-and medium-income households spend less than 20% of their budgets on transport and less than 45% on transport and housing combined. The terms, sustainability and affordability require improving transportation modes like public transport, cycling and walking.…”

Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences

“…Titheridge et al (2014: p.4).) It proposes a distinction between & transport poverty itself, which is explained as an overarching combination of the subset of & transport affordability (Litman, 2015) -that is, inability to meet the cost of transport & mobility poverty -that is, the lack of (usually motorised) transport & accessibility poverty -that is, the difficulty of reaching certain key activities such as employment, education, Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences Lucas, Mattioli, Verlinghieri and Guzman healthcare services, shops and so on (Abley, 2010;Harris, 2001) & exposure to transport externalities -in its broadest definition, transport poverty can also been seen to include the disproportionate negative exposures to the transport system itself (Barter, 1999;Booth et al, 2000;UN-Habitat, 2013). …”

“…291) and Litman (2015;p. 2), official policymaking bodies such as the UK's Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2003) and UK Department for Transport (DfT, 2006) and lobby organisations such as the UK's Royal Automobile Club (RAC Foundation, 2012) and the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT, 2012).…”