Sustainable Transportation: Where weve been and where we need to go Sally Hunter University of Idaho

1. Introduction The problem of transportation and its effect on our environment, economy and equality is a profound one. The modes of transportation people use and the policies that support these decisions are not sustainable. The status quo has lead to world where the ever- increasing use of fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources has left us in a precarious position. Air pollution is increasing, the climate is changing, and people are getting left in the dust. Our choices affect those around us and the world we live in. A change needs to happen. There must be shift in personal behavior and a change in the national and international policies that enforce those behaviors. The most inclusive description of a sustainable transportation system is as follows: allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies, and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity with and between successive generationsis affordable, operates fairly and efficient, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional developmentlimits emissions and waste with the planets ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes(Rastogi, 2011) It is with this definition in mind that policymakers and the users of transportation should go forth and begin the changes necessary to form a more sustainable transportation system worldwide. 2. Policies and Planning The shift to a more sustainable transportation system must begin with a change in national and international policies. It is from these policies that manufacturing companies, transport companies, developers, and individuals will take their cues. It is important to note that not all policies integral to sustainable transportation deal exclusively with the transportation sector. Sustainable development is closely linked with a successful new transportation system. The current system is one that cannot stand for much longer. The U.S. is consuming a quarter of

the worlds oil for its transportation need and at the same time, worldwide transportation account for nearly a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions (Deakin, 2011). Americans are traveling further and in less efficient cars than Europeans or the Japanese. They are addicted to their cars, in part due to the massive urban sprawl that has occurred over decades of modern development. 2.2 Urban Development The role of urban development is an especially complex one in regards to its effect on sustainable transportation. As the urban begins to flow in the suburban, there are fewer opportunities for the residents to use alternative modes of transport and forced into using the highly inefficient personal car. At the same time, the personal desire to own a vehicle fuels the development of suburban areas and the desire for a more private home life with ample space between neighbors. In one particularly disturbing example, wealthy businessmen will commute to work by helicopter, partly due the dangers of commuting in a more traditional manner (Mercier, 2009). This is a cycle that must be halted. With proper urban and suburban planning, there is the possibility for a reduction in the dependence on personal vehicles, as well as the development of a highly efficient urban transportation system that meets the needs of all (Rehan & Mahmoud, 2011). The underlying problem is one of finding a way to meet the needs of the people while minimizing their impact on the environment. It has been shown that the most inclusive way to do this is through urban planning. By changing the way in which our cities are planned, developed, and settled, we can change the needs for transportation. A compact city is one where a resident can bike or walk to the market or to work (Loo & Chow, 2006). A longer trip can be met with public transit, such as a bus or subway system. When planning these compact cities, it should be noted that the road

spaced needed for a vehicle is 120 sq. miles while a bus only requires 12. Furthermore, a rail system needs 7 sq. miles, a bike needs 9, and pedestrian 2 (Rastogi, 2011). It is abundantly clear that a compact city is achievable is planned in a way to maximize public transit, walking, and biking. The more suburban an area becomes, the more emissions, travel costs and miles traveled per household increases (Kennedy, Miller, Shalaby, Maclean, & Coleman, 2005). Not only does this compact city reduce the dependence on personal vehicles, it will play a role reduction of emissions and particulates released by the increasing numbers of vehicles on the road. It has been shown that the most sustainable compact cities are those with populations over 50,000 with only a medium density of people. These cities should have mixed use developments and there is preference for developments near public transport (Banister, 2011). In such a city, the average citizen would not need a personal vehicle. Additionally, a compact city allows for the equitable distribution of transportation amongst all its residents. As one of the pillars of sustainability, it is essential that everyone have equal access to transportation. The model of a car-based transportation system is exclusive. Not everyone can afford a car or the associated costs: fuel, maintenance, registration, or insurance. An affordably priced public transportation system or a mixed use development that allows for biking and walking is more equitable for people (Banister, 2011). Unfortunately, it is not always easy to change the way in which a city is planned or a housing development constructed. Decades of indoctrination by automobile makers and policies that favor vast highway infrastructure do not readily support the building of the compact city (Deakin, 2011). It is with this knowledge in mind that one must then look to the policies that govern transportation. 2.3 Transportation Policy

There are several policies that are currently in use and several more that could be implemented to help change the current approach to urban design and shift the attitudes and behaviors of transport users to a more sustainable system. These policies includes taxes, direct use cost implementation, land use policies, emissions limits, incentive programs, technology incentives, implementation of government run public transportation systems, and even car parking restrictions. The more these policies become commonplace, the sooner we can transition to a more sustainable transportation model. In the past, there has been a reliance on technological advances to further the sustainable transportation model. There has been a push for more efficient personal vehicles and better fuel sources. Unfortunately, these technological advances have been outweighed by the increase in vehicles on the road. As the cars became more efficient (even slightly so), people were quick to buy more and justify their purchase. Unfortunately, the slight increase in fuel efficiency was quickly diminished in the face of rising vehicle numbers and increase in drive length and time spent on the road due to increasing suburbanization (Banister, 2011). This reliance on technology to save the day, rather than an inward focus on consumption behavior does little to ease the transition to a more sustainable system. Technology is still important and has played an important role in decreasing some carbon emissions but its not enough. Policies need to shift towards behavior change. Another approach to sustainable transportation centers on paying the actual price for the mode of transportation used. This means a decrease in the amount of federal subsidies for personal vehicles and increase in the funding for public transport infrastructure. There are

some very creative policies being used around the world to further this cost sharing of transportation. For example, in some Asian countries, there is a vehicle quota system (VQS) that

only allows so many vehicles to be registered and in use at any given time. If a resident wishes to purchase a vehicle and register if for use, they must purchase their registration on the open market from another user who is willing to end their personal transportation. In this way, the government is able to control the number of vehicles on the road, reducing emissions, traffic, and harmful pollution. Additionally, the user is forced to bear a more representative cost for their transportation choice (Matsumoto, King, & Mori, 2007). A similar system is road pricing or tolls where users are forced to pay for the use of a particular roadway. Only those willing to pay for their usage may travel that particular road. Almost all developed nations have an emissions standard that must be abided. These standards limit the amount of discharge allowed from a single vehicle. These policies aim to remove air-polluting vehicles from the road and increase the efficiency of others. A similar event is the introduction of a car-free day. These are usually single day events that ban motorized vehicles from using streets. They prevent pollution, emissions, and fuel usage for one day at least. International Car Free Day is held every September, though it is not legally mandated. Typically, the event is held as an informative measure, to encourage consumers to find an alternate route or method for a day. Another creative measure is the reduction in available parking. In the past, there was a minimum number of car parking spaces required per plot of developed land. These previous policies greatly encouraged the use of a personal vehicle and the urban sprawl that necessary to account for so many car parking spaces. New policies are being shifted towards a maximum allowable number of car parking spaces. If there isnt anywhere for someone to park their personal vehicle, they will likely be forced into using public transport to arrive at their destination; or so the theory goes. Legislation in the UK has begun limiting the number of

allowable parking spaces based on a proposed developments relative location to alternative transportation modes; the more alternatives available (bus, subway, rail, taxi), the fewer spaces a development may have (Al-Fouzan, 2012). In this way they are able to both limit personal vehicle use and promote cost-effective and environmentally friendly public transportation. Curitiba, Brazil took drastic measures to ensure the equity of their city and its transportation. After the city was becoming increasingly polluted, the city instituted a policy whereby residents could exchange trash for bus tokens. Residents took it upon themselves to clean up their neighborhoods and in the process gained valuable access to transportation, increasing the equity of the city. With access to transportation, residents were able to find employment, have transportation to their employment and be able to shop for food for their families in a timely manner. The city planners also reorganized the city in a manner that encouraged use of the available bus system. When doing their reorganization, the city opted to find a new way to use the old bus system rather than building a costly subway system. This bus rapid transit system has approximately 1,100 buses, making 15,000 daily trips. Bus drivers have segregated lanes of traffic and can control the traffic signals. Because of this, the bus is the preferred method of transport over the personal vehicle. The buses are faster, economical and more reliable. Curitiba is a model for the success possible with a sustainable transportation system (Rehan & Mahmoud, 2011). Furthermore, policies and infrastructure aimed at promoting biking and walking will enhance GHG emission and air pollution reduction, as well as increasing the equity and economy of a sustainable transportation system. Just a minor shift of U.S. commuters using personal vehicles to public transit could save hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel each year. When all the externalities of car use are factored in, the user of a personal vehicle has a cost value 27 times

higher than that of a biker and 134 times that of a walker (Rastogi, 2011). It is quite clear that the use of a personal vehicle is meant for those with means and is an exclusive form of transport. Policy-makers can change this by implementing changes that promote biking and walking, rather than supporting car use. Some of these policies and infrastructure are seemingly simple: providing continuous walkways and pedestrian friendly intersections, automotive and parking restricted area where only pedestrians are allowed, and simply illuminating walkways for safe nighttime travel. Other policies will take more effort and forward thinking such as new walkable land-use planning and placing transit locations within 5-10 minutes walk distance from living corridors. For bikers, policy makers can support the bike manufacturing industry and encourage employers to subsidize this choice among their employees. In an area unfamiliar to bike commuting, it can be immensely important to include extensive education about the rights of bike users and how to share the road. Additionally, city planners can include extensive bike path networks separated from motorized vehicles to attract the less skilled biker. Without the help of these policies to support non-motorized transportation choices, less and less people will make this transition. 3. Alternative Transportation Choices A major component of the shift towards a sustainable transportation network is the change in behavior of the consumer. Policies can help this transition by promoting and enforcing ordinances and laws that restrict certain types of vehicles or land use. Consumers can further this goal by choosing to adhere to these policies and choosing alternative transportation methods. There are several alternative transportation methods available including hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, fuel cell technology, car sharing, public transit, and non-motorized transportation. It is

estimated that if the proper policies are put into place, there will be a gradual shift from personal car use to extensive public transportation (Khler et al., 2009) 3.1 Alternative Car Technologies At certain times in our history, such as the oil shortage in the 1970s, there has been an increased pressure on the car manufacturing industry to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Unfortunately, when the pressure is relieved, these manufactures slow or halt the progress that has been implemented. Now it is more important than ever to reduce our dependence on traditional petroleum based fuel sources. It is time to shift the focus from the traditional internal combustion engine to new technologies such as electric vehicles, hybrids, and fuel cell technology. In the meantime, during this lengthy transition process, the car industry can shift its focus from non-renewable fuel sources to renewable ones such as biodiesel. Biodiesel constitutes using renewable organic matter for the production of a fuel similar to diesel. Biodiesels are made from long chain fatty acids, or lipids, such as vegetable oil or animal fats. Once processed, these biodiesel can be substituted for diesel in any diesel engine. While this technology certainly wont eliminate the problem of non-renewable fuel sourcing as it is only useful in diesel engines, it can begin the shift in a small way (Salvi & Panwar, 2012). Another alternative fuel source is use of electricity to power a vehicle. This can be accomplished with a rechargeable battery or through the use of fuel cell technology. Both of these methods produce no emissions and thus are very environmentally friendly. The major issue behind both of these methods, however, is the lack of infrastructure supporting their adoption. There are no widely available recharging stations for electric vehicles and without a recharge these vehicles have a fairly short travel distance of about 100 miles. A consumer is often with little choice but to charge their vehicle only at home, in between travel times. Alternatively, the

fuel cell vehicle doesnt need to be recharged per se, but it does need to be filled with hydrogen periodically. The vehicle uses a battery to turn the hydrogen into electricity, powering the vehicle. These vehicles have a longer travel distance, but even less infrastructure supporting them. Unfortunately, as the cars are not widely available, very few industry leaders are willing to invest in building refueling stations. Without refueling stations, there is very little consumer interest in buying such a vehicle (Frank, 2007; Kriston, Szab, & Inzelt, 2010). Studies have shown that only a fuel cell vehicle (as compared to an electric vehicle) can travel distances similar to an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle but without the infrastructure to support it, there have been slow advancements in this arena. If a compromise can be met, it is possible to merge both electric vehicle consumption and renewable energy production to produce a highly sustainable community. If a consumer chooses to purchase an electric vehicle and also consumes electricity produced using renewable sources, there will be a huge shift towards emissions and air pollution reduction across multiple industries (Frank, 2007; Omi, 2009). While electric vehicles and fuel cell technology catches up to the current manufacturing capabilities, consumers are beginning to focus on hybrid-electric vehicles as a transition. These vehicles use both an internal combustion engine, as well as an electric battery to propel the vehicle. The internal combustion engine is highly inefficient, using fuel for every operation, including slowing, stopping, and idling (Frank, 2007). Additionally, the car consumers like a powerful vehicle that can accelerate fast. In order to accommodate this, ICEs must be built with more horsepower that remains unused for the rest of the travel time. This further increases the inefficiency of ICE vehicles. The hybrid vehicle can eliminate some of this fuel consumption by using the battery for some of these tasks. The younger generations of car consumers consider

10

themselves to be consistent green travellers and would choose a hybrid vehicle over a petroleum based vehicle if given the choice (Prillwitz & Barr, 2011). Kohler et al. have produced a model that shows over the next 10-30 years biofuels and ICE-electric hybrids will be the most widely used alternatives. They are developed technologies that need little additional funding and infrastructure to implement widely (2009). As the shift begins, attitudes will change as well, leading to a greater acceptance of the increased initial costs of alternative transportation choices. They predict that as these transportation attitudes change, so will the attitude towards increased dependence on information and communication technologies, i.e. telecommuting, Internet shopping and Internet schooling. With this modal shift, the era of the personal vehicle will begin its decline. The personal vehicle will no longer be economical for such reduced travel needs and the consumer will shift almost entirely to a public transit system. The few that still insist on using personal vehicles will have switched from petroleum-based vehicles to much enhanced fuel cell vehicle. They estimate this process will likely take at least half a century (Khler et al., 2009). 3.2 Alternatives to Personal Vehicle Use As the era of the personal vehicle declines, there will be an increased demand for public transit systems and car sharing program to shoulder the load of those not living in a walkable, sustainable city; especially those living in the new age of mega-cities. While these mega-cities are often made up of smaller districts that the savvy city dweller can choose based on proximity to work and market, there is still often a need to travel to other areas of these large cities that will require public transportation as the increased crowding of these areas makes personal vehicle use unwieldy. In China and India, for example, there is an increased immigration to large cities from the rural areas. As these people move into the cities, there is less room for the vehicles they may

11

want to bring with them and instead they become dependent on a public transportation system. This is a good thing, as long as the public transportation system is able to facilitate their needs. These cities can use bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, rail systems, biking infrastructure, and car sharing programs to meet the needs of their residents. BRT systems involve the use of several buses and a set of traffic rules that favor the bus system. Often, these buses have the right of way at intersections and their own lanes of travel. These systems allow for rapid movement of people over considerable distances at an economical cost (Shrivastava, 2006). These systems are very similar to rail systems. The two can be used in conjunction; the rail brings rural consumers to the city and the BRT moves them around the city itself. With proper urban planning, these two systems can all but eliminate the need for a personal vehicle. Along with BRT systems is the design of intelligent transportation systems that improve routing and schedules of public transit. These systems can provide up to the minute travel information for the user, which allows the user to coordinate their travel, plans. The user can choose the closest transit station with the soonest departures, reducing both travel time to station and waiting times once there (Chakroborty, 2011). These systems can be programmed into hand held devices such as cell phones to provide rapid dissemination of information. Additionally, the intelligent transportation system can make fare payments less hassle. The combination of public transit and the intelligent systems can make for a very successful, sustainable system overall. A new program quickly gaining ground is the car-sharing program. In this program, users either purchase a vehicle in concert with several other users or they pay for a membership to a program that provides access to cars and trucks whenever the user may need them. Several European nations already employ an extensive network of car-sharing programs, such as

12

Germany. Membership in these programs generally entitles a user to set amount of drive time per month. The membership also includes fuel, maintenance and insurance. While these programs dont sufficiently address the need for a reduction in car dependence, they are making a difference. Equitably speaking, a user may be more able to afford a car-sharing program than a personal vehicle. With the inclusivity of these programs, an occasional driver will find these program considerably more economical than owning a personal vehicle. The programs do address the need to reduce emissions by providing a price break for more fuel-efficient cars or hybrids. A consumer has their choice of vehicle and this price difference does sway some towards a more sustainable transportation choice. Additionally, these programs do a good job of forcing the consumer to pay per use. The more a person needs a personal vehicle, the more they must pay for that privilege. A consumer that lives close to public transit and uses it on a regular basis may occasionally find themselves in need of a personal vehicle, perhaps when moving residences. In these instances, a user can pay a one-time fee for access to a car-share. Zipcar is the most widely used car-share program, seeing a 100% increase annually (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012). Some have even suggested combining both car sharing programs and fuel cell vehicles, to provide the most sustainable car experience possible. Not only would these cars produce no emissions, they would economically priced and available to the consumer on as needed basis (Kriston et al., 2010). The last alternative this paper will discuss is the non-motorized vehicle option, i.e. walking and biking for transportation. These modes are the pinnacle of sustainable transportation. Not only do they produce no greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution, they are low cost or free in the case of walking, and provide health benefits to the consumer. Everyone can utilize walking as a method of transportation if they live in an area that supports their choice.

13

Poorly planned urban centers and very rural areas make biking and walking a poor choice for the consumer, but this should not be a deterrent. Properly planned cities promote this choice and actively support it. Copenhagen and Vienna are excellent examples, with up to 40% of short distance trips taken by bicycle (Shrivastava, 2006). These modes can be supported with tax breaks for bicycle commuters, purchase subsidies and extensive rental programs for those that dont want to commit to owning a bicycle. 4. Conclusion The problem of producing an economical, environmentally friendly, equitable transportation system has been plaguing our nations for some time. Cars have become the standard in many developed nations such as America. This has led to increased urban sprawl, which in turn leads to a great dependence on a private vehicle. Public transit systems, walking, and biking are most efficient when they have high usage numbers and the suburban areas cant provide this, thus the personal car. This personal car signals a desire to be independent and private, while clogging our roadways, increasing traffic and producing copious amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. A lack of policies on the part of the public bodies has limited the number of compact cities in existence and has contributed to this urban sprawl. Over decades of car use, our attitudes and behaviors have been cemented with the need for a private vehicle. A person is not normal and lacks status without a car of their own. Going forward, it is time to change these attitudes and societal norms. There needs to be a shift towards alternative modes of transportation and urban planning that supports these choices. Policy makers need to remove the obstacles and impediments that prevent sustainable land use. They need incentivize and support decisions that lead to a more compact city that provide equitable transportation options for its residents. The residents, in turn, need to embrace these policy changes and recognize the benefits

14

that will follow: less reliance on a personal vehicle means a lower overall transportation cost, lowered air pollution, less CO2 emissions, and shorter commute, preserving their time, money, and health. Only with this shift will we find a way to meet the needs of today and preserve our world for the next generation.

15

Resources Al-Fouzan, Saleh Abdulaziz. (2012). Using car parking requirements to promote sustainable transport development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cities, 29(3), 201-211. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.009 Banister, David. (2011). Cities, mobility and climate change. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1538-1546. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.009 Bardhi, Fleura, & Eckhardt, Giana M. (2012). Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881-898. doi: 10.1086/666376 Chakroborty, Partha. (2011). Sustainable transportation for Indian cities: role of intelligent transportation systems. Current Science (00113891), 100(9), 1386-1390. Deakin, Elizabeth. (2011). Climate Change and Sustainable Transportation: The Case of California. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 137(6), 372-382. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000250 Frank, Andrew A. (2007). Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles for a Sustainable Future. American Scientist, 95(2), 158-165. Kennedy, Christopher, Miller, Eric, Shalaby, Amer, Maclean, Heather, & Coleman, Jesse. (2005). The Four Pillars of Sustainable Urban Transportation. Transport Reviews, 25(4), 393-414. doi: 10.1080/01441640500115835 Khler, Jonathan, Whitmarsh, Lorraine, Nykvist, Bjrn, Schilperoord, Michel, Bergman, Noam, & Haxeltine, Alex. (2009). A transitions model for sustainable mobility. Ecological Economics, 68(12), 2985-2995. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.027 Kriston, Akos, Szab, Tams, & Inzelt, Gyrgy. (2010). The marriage of car sharing and hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(23), 12697-12708. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.08.110 Loo, Becky P. Y., & Chow, S. Y. (2006). Sustainable Urban Transportation: Concepts, Policies, and Methodologies. Journal of Urban Planning & Development, 132(2), 76-79. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:2(76) Matsumoto, Naoko, King, Peter N., & Mori, Hideyuki. (2007). Policies for Environmentally Sustainable Transport. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 7(1), 97116. Mercier, Jean. (2009). Equity, Social Justice, and Sustainable Urban Transportation in the Twenty-First Century. Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe), 31(2), 145-163. doi: 10.2753/ATP1084-1806310201 Omi, Koji. (2009). Alternative Energy for Transportation. Issues in Science & Technology, 25(4), 31-34. Prillwitz, Jan, & Barr, Stewart. (2011). Moving towards sustainability? Mobility styles, attitudes and individual travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1590-1600. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.06.011 Rastogi, Rajat. (2011). Promotion of non-motorized modes as a sustainable transportation option: policy and planning issues. Current Science (00113891), 100(9), 1340-1348. Rehan, G. M., & Mahmoud, H. S. (2011). The Integration between Transportation Solutions, Economic Development and Community Development as an Approach for

16

Sustainability -- A Case Study of Curitiba, Brazil. World Academy of Science, Engineering & Technology, 73, 705-711. Salvi, B. L., & Panwar, N. L. (2012). Biodiesel resources and production technologies A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3680-3689. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.050 Shrivastava, Paul. (2006). Sustainable Transportation Strategies: China. Greener Management International(50), 53-63.

17