Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhDProfessor of Transportation
Department of Civil EngineeringDepartment of Civil [email protected]
Presented at Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, April 27, 2012
In 1972, a team of experts from MIT presented a
db ki groundbreaking report called The Limits to Growth
In 2012 Australian h i i t d physicist and
sustainability analyst Graham
Turner updated it Turner updated it with data from 1970 to 2000
OutlineOutline
i. SUSTAINABILITYii. FRAMEWORKii. FRAMEWORKiii. ANALYSISiv CASE STUDYiv. CASE STUDYv. POLICY & DM
CONCLUSIONvi. CONCLUSION
Sustainability Sustainability can be applied
to any system, to describe the maintenance of a balancethe maintenance of a balance within the system
Integrates Environment, E E S i tEconomy, Energy, Society
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): Sustainability is a rate of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
Sustainability … How?yTransportation impacts on:
I ti Environment Society
Incorporation of
sustainability into
Economy transportation planning
1. Transportation system sustainability definition2. Standard method for assessing transportation systems
Not AvailableNot Available
Sustainability and LCASustainability and LCA
Life Cycle Models
Cradle to Well toCradle to Grave
Well to Pump
Vehicle Cycle Fuel Cycle
The Sustainability Framework (1/3)y
The 7 dimensions:
The generic structure components of a transportation system and the restrictions
The 7 goals seek to: The 7 dimensions:
1. Environment
2 T h l
The 7 goals seek to:
1. Minimize environmental impact
2 Maximize technology performance to 2. Technology
3. Energy
2. Maximize technology performance to help people meet their needs
3 Minimize energy consumption4. Economy
5. Users (and other
3. Minimize energy consumption
4. Maximize and support a vibrant economy
5 Maximize users’ satisfaction stakeholders)
6. Legal framework
5. Maximize users satisfaction
6. Comply with legal framework
7 Comply with local restrictions of each7. Local restrictions
7. Comply with local restrictions of each place
The Sustainability Framework (2/3) y ( / )
Transportation mode ‐Component
Sustainability dimension ‐Component
Environment
Technology
Energy
Economy
Users
Legal Framework
Sustainability Decomposition Prism
Framework
Local Restrictions
Sustainability P i
All activities within environmental limits• Human made components
• Limits set by other layers
• Set of stakeholders• System’s output • Existing legislation of a community
• Feasibility constrains
• Important & complex
ti i tiPrism • Sustainable technology
y• Sustainable economycontrol user’s choice
y• Cultural heritage• Archeological sites
participation• Short and long term impacts
• Needs are not met
Economy
TechnologyEnergy
Economy
Environment
gy
Users
Sample Applications Transport systems
Transport modesp
Other applications
Hydroelectric, coal, nuclear plants
Wind, solar power generation Wind, solar power generation
Construction
Waste treatment Waste treatment
Other infrastructure
Focus Urban transportation modes
The Sustainability Framework (3/3)
Urban transportation mode
Adjusted to assess sustainability in transportation
p System operator Traveler Different technologies and fuel types Components Attributes
fuel types
ComponentsComponentsVehicleInfrastructure
Vehicle InfrastructureManufacture Fuel Operation MaintenanceConstruction Fuel Operation MaintenanceVehicle InfrastructureManufacture Fuel Operation MaintenanceConstruction Fuel Operation Maintenance
Sustainability Indicators (1/2)y ( / )From literature developed indicators for sustainable transportation
t d d 4 t i bilit di iassessment grouped under 4 sustainability dimensions:
1. Transportation system performance2 E i2. Environment3. Society4. Economy
These sustainability dimensions are captured by the sustainable transportation goals described in the two fundamental definitions on sustainable transportation provided by the WCED (1987) and the (ECMT 2001)
Environment Technology Energy Economy Users Legal FrameworkLocal
RestrictionsFramework Restrictions
ObjectivesE1…Ei
ObjectivesT1…Ti
ObjectivesEN1…ENi
ObjectivesEC1…ECi
ObjectivesU1…Ui
ObjectivesF1…Fi
ObjectivesR1…Ri
IndicatorsE1…Ej
Environment Sustainability
IndicatorsT1…Tj
Technology Sustainability
IndicatorsEN1…ENj
Energy Sustainability
IndicatorsEC1…ECj
EconomySustainability
IndicatorsU1…Uj
UsersSustainability
IndicatorsF1…Fj
Legal FrameworkFrameworkSustainability
IndicatorsR1…Rj
Local RestrictionsSustainabilitySustainability
IndexSustainability
IndexSustainability
IndexSustainability
IndexSustainability
IndexSustainability
IndexSustainability
Index
Overall Sustainability Index
AssumptionsAssumptions All vehicles use the same infrastructure
Indicators focus on the component vehicle, and 5 sustainability
dimensions:
1. Environment2. Technology3. Energy3. Energy4. Economy 5. Users
The remaining two dimensions (legal framework and local
restrictions) are imposed by communities and they are applicable onlyrestrictions) are imposed by communities and they are applicable only
to the deployment of specific transportation projects
Transportation VehiclesTransportation Vehicles1. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle or ICEV (2010 Toyota g ( y
Camry LE)2. Hybrid Electric Vehicle or HEV (2010 Toyota Prius III)3 Fuel Cell Vehicle or FCV (2009 Honda Clarity FCX)3. Fuel Cell Vehicle or FCV (2009 Honda Clarity FCX)4. Electric Vehicle or EV (2011 Nissan Leaf)5. Plug‐In Hybrid Vehicle or PHEV (2011 Chevrolet Volt)g y ( )6. Gasoline Pickup Truck or GPT (2010 Ford F‐150 base)7. Gasoline Sports Utility Vehicle or GSUV (2010 Ford Explorer
Base)Base)8. Diesel Bus or DB (New Flyer 40′ Restyled)9. Bus Rapid Transit or BRT (New Flyer 60′ Advanced Style BRT)10. Car‐sharing or CS program with ICEV (2010 Toyota Camry LE)11. Car‐sharing or CS program with HEV (2010 Toyota Prius III)
Vehicle CharacteristicsVehicle CharacteristicsICEV HEV FCV EV PHEV GPT GSUV DB BRT CS CS
Camry Prius Clarity Leaf Volt F‐150 Explorer New fl
New fl
Camry PriusCamry Prius Clarity Leaf Volt F 150 Explorerflyer flyer
Camry Prius
Weight Lbs 3,307 3,042 3,582 3,500 3,781 5,319 4,509 26,000 49,000 3,307 3,042
Average occupancy passengers 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.40 10.50 23.90 4.58 4.58
Average lifetime years 10.6 10.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 9.6 9.6 12.0 12.0 2.0 2.0
Average annual miles miles 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 41,667 41,667 18,000 18,000
Lifetime miles miles 119,780 119,780 169,500 169,500 169,500 108,480 108,480 500,000 500,000 36,000 36,000
Cost to buy (MSRP) $ US dollars $22,225 $23,050 $48,850 $32,780 $40,000 $22,060 $28,190 $319,709 $550,000 $22,225 $23,050
Fuel Price $ per U SFuel Price
(Jan. 2010 ‐W.Coast)
$ per U.S.
gallon$2.85 $2.85 $4.90* $0.16** $2.85 $2.85 $2.85 $2.94 $2.94 $2.85 $2.85
Note: (*) per kg, (**) per kWh
Due to the variable character of the proposed indicators dataDue to the variable character of the proposed indicators, data for each vehicle is found from different sources
Life Cycle ModelsLife Cycle ModelsEmissions and Energy
V e h i c l e
Manufacturing Fueling Operation
MOBILE 6 2
Maintenance
GREET 2.7 GREET 1.7MOBILE 6.2GREET 1.7EIO‐LCA
GREET 2.7EIO‐LCA
Manufacture Feedstock Fuel Run, Start, Tire, Brake,
Idle, Insurance
Maintain Dispose Recycle
Insurance, License,
Registration, Taxes
EnvironmentEnvironmentSustainability Dimension
Goal Objective Indicator
Minimize global warming
Carbon Dioxide ‐ CO2
Methane ‐ CH4
N O
onmen
t Minimize
environmental
N2O
GHG
Volatile Organic Compound
Enviro environmental
impactMinimize air pollution
Carbon Monoxide ‐ CO
Nitrogen Oxides ‐ NOx
Particle Matter PMParticle Matter ‐ PM10
Sulphur Oxides ‐ SOx
Minimize noise Noise
Minimize externalities on living
humans and speciesHealth
TechnologyTechnologySustainability Dimension
Goal Objective Indicator
Vehicle lifetimeMaximize vehicle lifetime
Vehicle lifetime
Upgrade potential
Maximize used resources Capacity
gy
M i i t h l
Minimize time losses
Fuel frequency
Maintenance frequency
Techno
lo Maximize technology performance to help people
meet their needs Minimize land consumption Vehicle storage
Maximize supply Supplypp y pp y
Maximize mode choices for all users
Feasibility of use by social excluded groups
Readiness
Maximize vehicle performance Engine power
EnergyEnergy
Sustainability Dimension Goal Objective Indicator
gy Minimize energy
Manufacturing energy
Fueling energy
Energ Minimize energy
consumptionMinimize energy consumption
Fueling energy
Operation energy
Maintenance energy
60.0
Energy Consumpion per VMT
40.0
50.0
MT)
20.0
30.0
Ener
gy (M
j/VM
0 0
10.0
0.0
ICE
V
HE
V
FCV
EV
PH
EV
GP
T
GS
UV
DB
BR
T
CS
-Cam
ry
CS
-Priu
s
Maintenance Operation Fueling ManufactureMaintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture
Energy Consumpion per PMT
12.0
Energy Consumpion per PMT
8.0
10.0
MT)
4.0
6.0
Ener
gy (M
j/P
0 0
2.0
0.0
ICE
V
HE
V
FCV
EV
PH
EV
GP
T
GS
UV
DB
BR
T
CS
-Cam
ry
CS
-Priu
s
Maintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture
EconomyEconomySustainability Dimension
Goal Objective IndicatorDimension
Reduce cost requirementsCost
Property damage
my Maximize and
Minimize parking requirements Parking cost
Econ
om
Maximize and support a vibrant
economy Minimize costs for the community Safety cost
Minimize governmental support Subsidy
Promote welfare Job opportunitiesPromote welfare Job opportunities
UsersUsersSustainability Dimension
Goal Objective IndicatorDimension
Mobility
Demand
Maximize transportation performance
Global availability
Reasonable availability
Delay
Users Maximize users
satisfactionReliability
Safety
Improve accessibility Equity of access
Maximize user comfort
Leg room
Cargo space
Seated probability
Fueling opportunities
Urban Mode Sustainability ScoresUrban Mode Sustainability Scores
Sustainability Dimensions
ICEV HEV FCV EV PHEV GPT GSUV DB BRT CS CS
Camry Prius Clarity Leaf Volt F‐150 Explorer New flyer New flyer Camry Prius
Environment 0.483 0.637 0.803 0.642 0.606 0.145 0.492 0.717 0.860 0.907 0.959
Technology 0.450 0.500 0.408 0.553 0.471 0.387 0.489 0.628 0.669 0.561 0.590
Energy 0.388 0.572 0.545 0.462 0.541 0.019 0.324 0.673 0.908 0.956 0.999
Economy 0.341 0.385 0.485 0.557 0.454 0.193 0.354 0.326 0.486 0.578 0.561
Users 0.344 0.347 0.291 0.129 0.354 0.429 0.402 0.250 0.228 0.344 0.347
Overall Sustainability
Index40.1% 48.8% 50.6% 46.8% 48.5% 23.4% 41.2% 51.9% 63.0% 66.9% 69.3%
Ranking 10 6 5 8 7 11 9 4 3 2 1
Case Studyy Uses our experimental SusTainability
RAnking TOol (STRATO) in transportationRAnking TOol (STRATO) in transportation planning
STRATO reveals the tradeoffs that occur STRATO reveals the tradeoffs that occur from transportation policies and planning
The results are aggregated to assess the The results are aggregated to assess the transport sustainability of 3 metropolitan areas by taking into account their transportation characteristicstransportation characteristics
MethodologyMethodology Atlanta, Chicago, and a simulated metropolitan area
called OPTIMUS (Optimal Transportation Indicators for ( p pModeling Urban Sustainability)
OPTIMUS combines optimal and average characteristics f U S lifrom U.S. metropolitan areas
The specific metropolitan areas of Atlanta and Chicago were selected due to the availability of recent trip datawere selected due to the availability of recent trip data
Data Regional household travel surveyssurveys
Sustainability indicators are weighted per area passenger miles traveled
29
(PMT) to eliminate inconsistencies due to different population sizes
Input DataOPTIMUS A i
p1. Vehicle fuel price 2. Vehicle parking cost
1. Lowest fuel cost 2 Lowest electricity cost
OPTIMUS Assumptions
p g3. Vehicle ownership ratio 4. Number of passengers per
t lit
2. Lowest electricity cost 3. Lowest insurance cost 4. Average parking cost
metropolitan area5. Mode split by trip 6. Avg. miles per trip per vehicle
5. Average vehicle ownership ratio 6. Average metropolitan area size g p p p
type 7. Cost to purchase vehicle 8 Public transit fare
7. Average trips per passenger 8 Average miles per trip8. Public transit fare
9. Insurance cost per vehicle type 10. Number of fueling stations
8. Average miles per trip 9. Maximum vehicle occupancy 10. Optimal fleet mixg
available11. Vehicle occupancy per vehicle 11. Highest public transit use
STRATO’s Sustainability IndicesSTRATO s Sustainability Indices
Index Atlanta Chicago OPTIMUS
Environment 0.880 0.887 1.000
Technology 0.845 0.842 0.999Technology 0.845 0.842 0.999
Energy 0.864 0.880 1.000
Economy 0.913 0.707 0.974
Users 0.791 0.787 0.800
Overall Sustainability 0.859 0.820 0.954
STRATO’s Sustainability ScoresSTRATO s Sustainability Scores1.000Environment
0.600
0.800
1.000
0.200
0.400Technology Users
Chicago0.000
ChicagoAtlantaOptimus
Energy Economy
13,000
Business as Usual Model ‐‐Million KWh
Biodiesel
10,000
11,000
12,000 PV
Coal
Wind
Geothermal
7,000
8,000
9,000Hydro‐electric
H‐Power
Biomass
Petroleum
5,000
6,000
Oil usage change since
2,000
3,000
4,000change since 2008= ‐4%
0
1,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
12 000
13,000
Solve‐the‐Problem Model ‐‐Million KWh
Bi di l
10,000
11,000
12,000 Biodiesel
PV
Coal
Wind
Geothermal
7,000
8,000
9,000
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
H‐Power
Biomass
Petroleum
5,000
6,000
2,000
3,000
4,000Oil usage
change since 2008 = ‐ 41 %
0
1,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Transit 6.6Drive Alone 63.0s, PhD
, 201
1
Transit 5.6D i Al 63 8
Carpool 21.1Other 9.3Rail
anos
D. P
reve
dour
os
Drive Alone 63.8Carpool 21.2Other 9.4 Transit 7.0HOT
© P
Drive Alone 57.0Carpool 25.0Other 11.0
HOTBRTTeleCBik W
50%
BikeW
Best Quadrant
WIDE spread of COST
NARROW Spread of COST
2nd Best WIDE NARROWCOST COST
WIDE spread of BENEFIT
BestBestSpotSpot
HOTLanes
WIDENew
FreewayTruck Only Lanes
NARROW spread of BENEFIT
Handi‐van Service
Ferry Service
NARROWJapanH.S. Rail
Bridge
3rd Best WIDE NARROWWorst
QuadrantWIDE NARROW
WIDECity Street Re‐paving
Contraflow, temp. lane closures
Quadrant
WIDEHonoluluRail (32km)
California H.S. Railp g
closures
NARROWBicycle Lanes
Parking meters
( )
NARROWSan Juan
Rail (15km)WorstWorstSpotSpot
HIGHLOW COST
LimitationsLimitations The high number of data sources and assumptions impose g p p
limitations and uncertainties
STRATO’s inventories for vehicles are based on built‐in ti d t i GREET MOBILE d EIO LCAassumptions and parameters in GREET, MOBILE and EIO‐LCA.
STRATO’s sustainability results rely on the characteristics of the “best‐selling vehicle”, which represents a whole class of g , pvehicles
Research Outcomes (1/2)( / )1. Developed a comprehensive sustainability framework with
a set of indicators for the life cycle sustainability
assessment of transportation vehiclesp
2. Organized indicators into sustainability dimensions
(Environment, Technology, Energy, Economy, Users, Legal
Framework and Local Restrictions) that do not cross
sustainability boundaries
Research Outcomes (2/2)Research Outcomes (2/2)
3 Assessed transportation sustainability by3. Assessed transportation sustainability by
disaggregating transportation modes according to
vehicle population and characteristics
4. Developed STRATO, which is composed by a set of p p y
sustainability indices and a visual interface, that can be
used as a planning and policy toolused as a planning and policy tool
5. Method is expandable to other infrastructure systems
Future WorkFuture Work Include a sensitivity analysis to reveal how changes in the y y g
assumed parameters of vehicles can change the final outcome
Expand this application to cover all popular urban transportation modes such as heavy and light rail, HOT Lanes etcLanes, etc.
Explore additional indicators per sustainability dimension
Remove indicators if their effect is uniform or marginal
Th k YThank You
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhDProfessor of Transportation
Department of Civil [email protected]