Three Revolutions In Urban TRANSPORTATION
Three Revolutions in UrbanTRANSPORTATIONHow to achieve the full potential of vehicle electrification, automation and shared mobility in urban transportation systems around the world by 2050Lew Fulton, UC DavisJacob Mason, ITDPDominique Meroux, UC DavisMay 2017Research supported by:ClimateWorks Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Barr Foundation
AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank ClimateWorks Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Barr Foundation fortheir generous financial support, which made this work possible. We also thank the individuals who participated in theadvisory committee for this study and provided valuable comments. Members of that group included Pierpaolo Cazzola(IEA); Holger Dalkmann, Dario Hidalgo, and Diego Canales (WRI); Phillippe Crist (ITF); Shomik Raj Mehndiratta (WorldBank); Tim Wallington (Ford); Jarret Walker (unaffiliated); Anthony Eggert (ClimateWorks); Margarita Parra (HewlettFoundation); Colin Hughes, Aimee Gauthier, Clayton Lane, Kathleen Letchford, Ana Nassar, Bernardo Serra, Diego daSilva, Gabriel Oliveira, and Clarisse Linke (ITDP); and Dan Sperling, Susan Pike and Mollie D’Agostino (UC Davis).Thanks also to Jacob Teter and other staff at the International Energy Agency for insights related to the urban analysisdeveloped with the IEA Mobility Model (MoMo) that this analysis draws on. However, this analysis has been undertakenby the UC Davis and ITDP, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the International Energy Agency.Finally, the authors thank all the members of the production teams at UC Davis and ITDP who carried out editing, proofreading, and layout of this report. This includes Stephen Kulieke, Beth Bourne, Rosa Dominguez-Faus, and Kelly Chang(UC Davis); Jamie Knapp (J Knapp Communications); and Jemilah Magnusson (ITDP).Many other people too numerous to name helped this project succeed, and we thank them. Of course, any errors orflaws in the end product are the responsibility of the authors alone.iThree Revolutions in Global Transportation
ContentsAcknowledgementsExecutive Summary1. Introduction2. Study Design, Methodology, and Scenarios3. The Three Revolutions: Status and PotentialElectrificationAutomationShared Mobility4. Future Scenarios: BAU, 2R, and 3RThe BAU ScenarioThe 2R Scenario: Electrification and AutomationThe 3R Scenario: Adding Shared MobilityResults: Passenger Travel Projections Across the ScenariosScenario Impacts on Energy and CO2 EmissionsThe Costs of 3 Revolutions5. Policy NarrativesBAU Scenario Policy Narrative2R Scenario Policy Narrative3R Scenario Policy Narrative6. Conclusions, Uncertainties, Next 37iThree Revolutions in Global Transportation
Executive SummaryThe world is on the cusp of three revolutions intransportation: vehicle electrification, automation,and widespread shared mobility (sharing of vehicletrips). Separately or together, these revolutions willfundamentally change urban transportation around theworld over the next three decades.by encouraging a large increase in trip sharing, transituse, and active transport through policies that supportcompact, mixed use development, cities worldwidecould save an estimated 5 trillion annually by 2050while improving livability and increasing the likelihood ofmeeting climate change targets.Each revolution addresses different societal needs, butcan also lead to societal costs:Methodology Vehicle electrification can cut vehicle energy useand CO2 emissions. However, for electrification tohave maximum benefits, power generation must bestrongly shifted away from fossil fuels and deeplydecarbonized. In addition, these vehicles will likelyremain expensive for at least one more decade. Automation can provide important safety benefits,reduce labor costs, and enable cheaper traveland more productive use of time. However, bylowering the cost of travel in terms of time andmoney, automation would likely induce more traveland dramatically reduce the number of jobs intransportation. Shared mobility, whether through shared vehicle tripsor public transport, can lead to more efficient use ofurban space, reduce traffic congestion, enable morewalking and cycling, cut energy use and emissions,and generally improve urban livability. However,this would require large increases in load factors(passengers per vehicle trip), and a range of strongpolicies to achieve.Together, the positive and negative aspects of eachrevolution will interact in many complex and difficultto-predict ways. This report may be the first to attemptto quantify how these major changes could evolve andinteract on a global and regional basis out to 2050. Itconsiders possible end states, as well as transitionalpathways and policies needed to get there.Our central finding is that while vehicle electrificationand automation may produce potentially importantbenefits, without a corresponding shift toward sharedmobility and greater use of transit and active transport,these two revolutions could significantly increasecongestion and urban sprawl, while also increasing thelikelihood of missing climate change targets. In contrast,We build on two recent reports published by ITDP andUC Davis’s STEPS program: “A Global High Shift CyclingScenario” (2015) and “A Global High Shift Scenario:Impacts and Potential for More Public Transport, Walkingand Cycling with Lower Car Use” (2014). Both reports tooka scenario approach to consider the role of different travelmodes in providing mobility, and the amount of potentialenergy savings and CO2 reduction that could come froma less car-centric world in the future (Mason, Fulton, &McDonald, 2015; Replogle & Fulton, 2014).This report expands upon the scope of the previousstudies by considering the role of electrification,automation, and ride sharing (more people per vehicle)in developing future scenarios. The possible types ofimpacts are well documented, and researchers havebegun to estimate how various combinations of impacts– such as people spending more time in their cars, oron-demand mobility trips substituting for public transport– may affect travel and energy use. But most studies havenot explicitly projected numeric scenarios into the futureor attempted to characterize how various interactionscould play out. As with our previous modal shift studies,this study is global, breaking the world into eight regionsincluding five major markets: United States, Europe, China,India, and Brazil.We have developed our present analysis using threemain urban travel scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario,a technology-dominated 2 Revolutions scenario, and atechnology high shared-mobility 3 Revolutions scenario.These are elaborated from a base year of 2015 through2050 as follows: Business-as-usual (BAU) scenario – This scenarioassumes few changes from 2017 travel patterns andcurrent trends through to 2050. No major revolutionsoccur. It assumes internal combustion engine (ICE)light-duty vehicles (LDVs) remain dominant or grow in1Three Revolutions in Global Transportation
dominance, depending on the country, through 2050,and applies population and growth projections withthese assumptions in mind. 2 Revolutions (2R) scenario – This is a technologyfocused scenario that includes rapid vehicleelectrification along with – but starting later – rapidautomation. Electric vehicles (EVs) achieve asignificant share of vehicle sales by 2025 in leadingcountries, with automated EVs reaching this stageabout five years later. Both are dominant around theworld by 2050. This scenario contains no significantincrease of shared vehicle trips through newtechnology; it preserves the BAU trends toward aprivate-car-dominated world. 3 Revolutions (3R) scenario – This scenarioincludes widespread vehicle electrification andautomation, and adds a major shift in mobilitypatterns by maximizing the use of shared vehicletrips. This scenario includes all three revolutions, andis a strongly multi-modal scenario, with increasedavailability of vehicles for shared trips, increasedpublic transport availability and performance(including on-demand small bus services, larger busesand rail), and significant improvements in walking andcycling infrastructure and therefore in travel by thesemodes.Other scenarios with different combinations of theserevolutions could be considered; the choices madehere are intended to simplify these complex scenariosand highlight certain features. And although we cannotaccurately predict the interactions that each step of eachrevolution will have on the others, our scenarios createparadigms of travel that we can use to quantify the energyand CO2 impacts and begin to develop policies to guidethe world toward the most societally optimal outcomes.FindingsOur central finding is that the 3R scenario is the bestoption for reducing energy use and CO2, and performssignificantly better than 2R in these respects as wellas on total measured cost. The 3R scenario would alsodramatically reduce the number of vehicles on theworld’s roads. This finding is true worldwide and for eachindividual country or region studied.The following summarizes all key findings: The 2R scenario, which includes electrificationand automation but with a private-car-dominatedworld, may provide significant energy and CO 23R Scenario Global ResultsCompared to the BAU case in 2050, the 3R scenarioproduces impressive global results. It would: Cut global energy use from urban passengertransportation by over 70% Cut CO2 emissions by over 80% Cut the measured costs of vehicles,infrastructure, and transportation systemoperation by over 40% Achieve savings approaching 5 trillion per yearsavings, mostly after 2030, and only with largescaledecarbonization of electricity production. In the2R scenario, vehicle travel rises higher than in theBAU, but vehicle-related emissions and energyuse are eventually cut significantly, with specificCO2 reductions dependent on the extent to whichelectricity production decarbonizes around the world.If the world’s electricity production is not completelydecarbonized by 2050, this scenario may producemore CO2 emissions in 2050 than is consistent withtargets to limit global temperature rise to 2 C (or less)compared to preindustrial levels. An autonomous vehicle (AV) world withoutelectrification (i.e. using ICEs) and without tripsharing would not cut CO2 emissions out to 2050.We estimate that the lower travel time “costs”provided by self-driving vehicles would likely lead toa significant increase in vehicle travel, on the order of15-20% compared to the BAU (with a wide range ofuncertainty). The increased efficiency of AVs wouldoffset some or all of this travel to keep energy andCO2 close to BAU levels; but it is the widespread useof electrification in AVs that dramatically reducesvehicle-related pollution and CO2 emissions in thisscenario. The increased travel of AVs could triggermore traffic congestion, though their improved roadspace efficiencies and coordinated travel patternsmight mitigate some of these impacts. We do notattempt to estimate congestion impacts in this study. The 3R scenario performs significantly betteron energy and CO2 , as well as on livability. Thisscenario has the potential to deliver an efficient,low-traffic, low-energy, and low-CO2 urban transportsystem around the world. In this scenario, thewidespread adoption of on-demand travel withsubstantial ride sharing, along with greater use of(high-quality) public transport, cycling, and walkingreduces car travel by well over half in 2050, and the2Three Revolutions in Global Transportation
number of cars by nearly three-quarters comparedto our BAU. It would reduce traffic congestion andparking needs dramatically, opening up tremendousamounts of urban space for walking, cycling, andother uses. This scenario – with energy use and CO2emissions in 2050 less than one-third of the BAU andabout one-half that of the 2R scenario, and with fullydecarbonized electricity production – yields a verylow CO2 picture worldwide. Ride sharing must deliver high-occupancy-vehicletravel, both in light-duty taxi-style vehicles and insome larger vehicles such as minivans and smallbuses. Ride hailing services do not help bring aboutthis scenario if they are dominated by single-occupanttrips. Thus, we distinguish “ride hailing” from “ridesharing” where the latter means separate trips areshared in a single ride. Our assumed load factors(average passengers per trip) in ride-hailed vehiclesrises over time in the 3R scenario and is about 3040% higher than in the 2R or BAU scenarios by 2050. The 3R scenario also delivers large cost savings.The costs of urban travel would likely be much loweroverall in the 3R scenario than in the 2R or BAUscenarios, considering a wide range of out-of-pocketcosts, including vehicle purchase and operation,fuel purchase, the costs of operating transportationnetwork companies (TNCs) as well as public transportsystems, and the costs of building and maintainingroad and transport infrastructure. These savingsemerge mainly after 2030 and relate mainly to lowercosts of vehicle purchase (given far fewer vehiclespurchased), energy cost savings, and road andparking infrastructure cost savings. The 2R scenariosaves some costs by 2050 compared to BAU fromlower-cost EV and AV operation and by eliminatingmost drivers, but these savings are mostly offset byhigher cost vehicles and induced, increased travel. Other potentially important benefits are moredifficult to quantify. Though not specificallycalculated, the value of CO2 and criteria pollutantemissions reductions are potentially important inthe 2R scenario, along with the value of congestionreduction in the 3R scenario. Both scenarios shouldprovide substantial safety benefits if automation livesup to its safety potential and given the much less cardominant world in 3R. Quantifying these impacts is animportant area for further research. The 3R scenario achieves its energy, CO2 andcost savings by creating a far more efficienttransportation system than in the BAU or 2Rscenarios, including:* Lower overall travel demand due to shorter traveldistances from more compact cities* More transportation choices, with walking andcycling rising significantly over time given saferconditions and better infrastructure* A much larger share of travel provided by moreefficient modes (bus and rail systems as well assmaller, right-sized vehicles, whose sizebetter matches travel demand)* A higher average load factor (people per trip)* More intense vehicle use, requiring far fewervehicles to meet passenger travel needs (sincepersonal vehicles currently remain idle 90 % ofthe time)* Lower parking and road-building requirementsfrom less vehicle travel), with associated costsavings. The 3R scenario would also dramatically reducethe number of vehicles on the world’s roads by2050. The current global urban stock of LDVs,around 750 million (out of 1.1 billion total, urban non-urban), reaches 2.1 billion by 2050 in our BAUand 2R scenarios. In the 3R scenario it drops instead,to about 500 million. In 3R these far fewer vehiclesare highly productive, carrying many more people onmore trips per day than average vehicles in the otherscenarios. Fewer vehicles in 3R allows the world tobuild far fewer parking spaces and lots, and freesup considerable space for other activities. Total LDVtravel also drops by half in the 3R scenario comparedto the 2R scenario, meaning less congested andsafer roads. In turn, the urban landscape can berepurposed and reoriented toward more cycling andwalking. Our findings are broadly consistent across worldregions, despite very different starting points.Since countries like the United States, with its cardominated transportation system, are very differentfrom, say, India, with its wide range of modes sharingthe streets, these scenarios also look quite different.In fact, for India and most other emerging economies,the high levels of shared vehicle trips in the 3Rscenario (at least in terms of the dominance of masstransit mobility) already largely exists, and the mainchallenge is to preserve it. In general, those regionswith existing high levels of public transport, walking,and cycling see these travel modes decline in theBAU scenario as well as in the 2R scenario, as carsbecome dominant everywhere; in contrast, theyretain or gain on public transport ridership in the 3Rscenario, thanks to major investments in systems andstrong linkages with shared vehicle trips. A 50% or3Three Revolutions in Global Transportation
greater reduction in both the numbers of vehicles andCO2 emissions in 2050 appears possible everywherein the 3R scenario vs. the BAU scenario.Policy Implications of the ScenariosThe intensity of policies likely required to achieve eachscenario tends to increase moving from the BAU caseto the 2R and 3R scenarios, with the latter scenariorequiring the most ambitious policy scheme to achievethe maximum societal benefits. All policies envisionedin these scenarios would require some flexibility anditeration, as it cannot be fully known how various factorswill interact with each other. They would also probablyvary by country given local conditions and preferredpolicy strategies. The following summarizes our policyneeds assessment: The 2R scenario will require a dual-policy focusincentivizing EV uptake and enabling automation.The scenario includes strong, proactive vehicleelectrification policy incentives, resulting in thewidespread adoption of EVs with steady 30% ormore annual increases in these vehicles for the next20 years and beyond, and particularly rapid growthbetween 2020 and 2035. Enabling policies includeongoing purchase incentives and public awarenesscampaigns, strong government coordination andsupport of expanded EV charging infrastructure,research support, elimination of petroleum subsidies,as well as electricity decarbonization policies such ascarbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems. Achieving widespread driverless vehicles mustfocus on barrier removal. The commercial vehiclesector is eager to take advantage of the tremendouscost-saving potential of automation technologies.Therefore, the 2R scenario assumes that a relaxedregulatory environment will enable rapid adoption ofdriverless cars. This differs from the BAU scenario,where there is an assumption that heavy regulatoryburdens delay adoption of AVs. In the 2R scenariothe policy climate is favorable enough to ensure awidespread uptake of automation by commercialfleets by 2025, with households following suit shortlythereafter. But in 2R, on-demand mobility does notgrow, and preferences for private vehicle ownershipand solo driving endure, with longer trips and evenzero-occupant driving becoming commonplace.contain as a core policy on-demand ride sharingincentives, such as vehicle travel fees tied to vehicleoccupancy (such fees could also be applied to privatevehicles). These could also vary with the length oftrips, vehicle carbon intensity, and level of congestion.Policies could also restrict or heavily charge forprivate ownership of AVs, and/or their undertaking ofzero-occupant trips. Incentives would urge a bettermatch between vehicle size and occupancy, which willmake travel more efficient. Bicycle and e-bike sharingsystems would be encouraged. Multimodal urbanplanning investments in walking, cycling, and publictransit infrastructure and services would likely helpreduce and shorten vehicle trips. These investmentswould be most effective if coupled with provenpractices such as implementation of compact, mixeduse urban plans centered on linking concentrateddevelopment zones through public transit, andfeaturing designated cycling and walking zones. In 3R, governments play a central role. The 3Rscenario may need governments to coordinate bothAV infrastructure and management of public andprivate trips, broadening the definition of publiclyfunded transportation
May 10, 2017 · 2 Three Revolutions in Global Transportation. dominance, depending on the country, through 2050, and applies population and growth projections with these assumptions in mind. 2 Revolutions (2R) scenario – This is a technology-focused scenario that includes rapid vehicle electrification along with
Urban Design is only is 85; there is no application fee. Further information and application form see the UDG website www.udg.org.uk or phone 020 7250 0892 Urban Degsi n groUp Urban U Degsi n groUp UrBan DesiGn145 Winter 2018 Urban Design Group Journal ISSN 1750 712X nortH aMeriCa URBAN DESIGN GROUP URBAN DESIGN
Chapter 24 Nationalist Revolutions Sweep the West (1789-1900) Latin America Colonial society with . Creoles Mestizos Mulattos Enslaved Africans Native American Indians Latin American Revolutions Enlightenment Ideas Locke Paine Voltaire Montesquieu . Chapter 24 Nationalist Revolutions Sweep the West .File Size: 1MB
The present bibliography is a continuation of and a complement to those published in the Urban History Yearbook 1974-91 and Urban History from 1992. The arrangement and format closely follows that of pre- . VIII Shaping the urban environment Town planning (and environmental control) Urban renewal IX Urban culture Urban renewal Urban culture .
Comparative Politics Reading List p. 7 5. REVOLUTIONS Required Reading: Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution, 3rd ed. (Vintage, 1965). James DeFronzo, Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements, 4th ed. (Westview Press, 2014). John Foran, Taking Power: On the Origins of Third World Revolutions (Cambridge UP, 2005). Jack A. Goldstone, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World .
AP World History Notes Chapter 17. Spanish American Revolutions Inspired by the North American, French, and Haitian Revolutions . revolution than the colonies of North America Why? Had little tradition of self-government Societies much more authoritarian and divided by class.
Enlightenment and Revolutions HW Packet #2 – Honors (Ch. 6, 7, 8) Name: _ Essay Explain how the Enlightenment caused the American, French, and Latin American Revolutions? Remember your essay should start with an introduction, have at least 3 paragraphs of evidence in the body, and finish with a conclusion.
AP WORLD HISTORY CHAPTER 18 Revolutions of Industrialization 1750-1914. Life Before the Industrial Revolution . Revolutions of Industrialization 1750-1914 Author: GSCS Created Date: 4/24/2018 10:05:49 AM .
Welcome to ENG 111: Introduction to Literature and Literary Criticism. This three-credit unit course is available for students in the second semester of the first year BA English Language. The course serves as a foundation in the study of literary criticism. It exposes you to forms critical theories and concept in literary criticism. You will also
