TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD Professor of Transportation

Department of Civil Engineering pdp@hawaii.edu

Presented at Korea University, Seoul, South Korea, April 27, 2012

In 1972, a team of experts from

MIT presented a groundbreaking

report called The Limits to Growth

In 2012 Australian

physicist and sustainability

analyst Graham Turner updated it

with data from 1970 to 2000

Outline

i. SUSTAINABILITY

ii. FRAMEWORK

iii. ANALYSIS

iv. CASE STUDY

v. POLICY & DM

vi. CONCLUSION

Sustainability Sustainability can be applied

to any system, to describe the maintenance of a balance within the system

Integrates Environment, Economy, 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? Transportation impacts on:

Environment

Society

Economy

1. Transportation system sustainability definition

2. Standard method for assessing transportation systems

Not Available

Incorporation of

sustainability into

transportation planning

Sustainability and LCA

Life Cycle Models

Cradle to Grave

Vehicle Cycle

Well to Pump

Fuel Cycle

The Sustainability Framework (1/3)

The 7 dimensions:

1. Environment

2. Technology

3. Energy

4. Economy

5. Users (and other

stakeholders)

6. Legal framework

7. Local restrictions

The generic structure components of a transportation system and the restrictions

The 7 goals seek to:

1. Minimize environmental impact

2. Maximize technology performance to

help people meet their needs

3. Minimize energy consumption

4. Maximize and support a vibrant economy

5. Maximize users’ satisfaction

6. Comply with legal framework

7. Comply with local restrictions of each

place

The Sustainability Framework (2/3)

Sustainability Decomposition Prism

Transportation mode - Component

Sustainability dimension - Component

Environment

Technology

Energy

Economy

Users

Legal Framework

Local Restrictions

Sustainability Prism

Environment

Technology

Energy

Users

Economy

All activities within environmental limits • Human made

components • Sustainable

technology

• Limits set by other layers

• Sustainable economy

• Set of stakeholders • System’s output

control user’s choice

• Existing legislation of a community

• Feasibility constrains

• Cultural heritage • Archeological sites

• Important & complex participation

• Short and long term impacts

• Needs are not met

Sample Applications

Transport systems

Transport modes

Other applications Hydroelectric, coal, nuclear plants

Wind, solar power generation

Construction

Waste treatment

Other infrastructure

Focus Urban transportation modes

The Sustainability Framework (3/3)

Urban transportation mode

System operator

Traveler

Components

Attributes

Different technologies and fuel types

Components

Vehicle Infrastructure

Vehicle

Manufacture Fuel Operation Maintenance

Infrastructure

Construction Fuel Operation Maintenance

Adjusted to assess sustainability in transportation

Sustainability Indicators (1/2)

From literature developed indicators for sustainable transportation assessment grouped under 4 sustainability dimensions: 1. Transportation system performance 2. Environment 3. Society 4. 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

Framework

Local

Restrictions

Objectives

E1…Ei

Indicators

E1…Ej

Environment

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

T1…Ti

Indicators

T1…Tj

Technology

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

EN1…ENi

Indicators

EN1…ENj

Energy

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

EC1…ECi

Indicators

EC1…ECj

Economy

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

U1…Ui

Indicators

U1…Uj

Users

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

F1…Fi

Indicators

F1…Fj

Legal Framework

Sustainability

Index

Objectives

R1…Ri

Indicators

R1…Rj

Local Restrictions

Sustainability

Index

Overall Sustainability Index

Assumptions All vehicles use the same infrastructure

Indicators focus on the component vehicle, and 5 sustainability

dimensions:

1. Environment 2. Technology 3. Energy 4. Economy 5. Users

The remaining two dimensions (legal framework and local

restrictions) are imposed by communities and they are applicable only

to the deployment of specific transportation projects

Transportation Vehicles

1. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle or ICEV (2010 Toyota Camry LE)

2. Hybrid Electric Vehicle or HEV (2010 Toyota Prius III)

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)

6. Gasoline Pickup Truck or GPT (2010 Ford F-150 base)

7. Gasoline Sports Utility Vehicle or GSUV (2010 Ford Explorer 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 Characteristics 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

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

(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, data for each vehicle is found from different sources

Life Cycle Models

V e h i c l e

Manufacturing

GREET 2.7

Manufacture

Fueling

GREET 1.7

Feedstock Fuel

Operation

MOBILE 6.2

GREET 1.7

EIO-LCA

Run, Start, Tire, Brake,

Idle, Insurance,

License, Registration,

Taxes

Maintenance

GREET 2.7

EIO-LCA

Maintain Dispose Recycle

Emissions and Energy

Environment Sustainability

Dimension Goal Objective Indicator

Envi

ron

me

nt

Minimize

environmental

impact

Minimize global warming

Carbon Dioxide - CO2

Methane - CH4

N2O

GHG

Minimize air pollution

Volatile Organic Compound

Carbon Monoxide - CO

Nitrogen Oxides - NOx

Particle Matter - PM10

Sulphur Oxides - SOx

Minimize noise Noise

Minimize externalities on living

humans and species Health

Technology Sustainability

Dimension Goal Objective Indicator

Tech

no

logy

Maximize technology performance to help people

meet their needs

Maximize vehicle lifetime Vehicle lifetime

Upgrade potential

Maximize used resources Capacity

Minimize time losses

Fuel frequency

Maintenance frequency

Minimize land consumption Vehicle storage

Maximize supply Supply

Maximize mode choices for all users

Feasibility of use by social excluded groups

Readiness

Maximize vehicle performance Engine power

Energy

Sustainability Dimension Goal Objective Indicator

Ene

rgy

Minimize energy consumption

Minimize energy consumption

Manufacturing energy

Fueling energy

Operation energy

Maintenance energy

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

ICE

V

HE

V

FC

V

EV

PH

EV

GP

T

GS

UV

DB

BR

T

CS

-Cam

ry

CS

-Priu

s

En

erg

y (

Mj/V

MT

)

Energy Consumpion per VMT

Maintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

ICE

V

HE

V

FC

V

EV

PH

EV

GP

T

GS

UV

DB

BR

T

CS

-Cam

ry

CS

-Priu

s

En

erg

y (

Mj/P

MT

)

Energy Consumpion per PMT

Maintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture

Economy

Sustainability Dimension

Goal Objective Indicator

Eco

no

my

Maximize and support a vibrant

economy

Reduce cost requirements

Cost

Property damage

Minimize parking requirements Parking cost

Minimize costs for the community Safety cost

Minimize governmental support Subsidy

Promote welfare Job opportunities

Users

Sustainability Dimension

Goal Objective Indicator

Use

rs

Maximize users satisfaction

Maximize transportation performance

Mobility

Demand

Global availability

Reasonable availability

Delay

Reliability

Safety

Improve accessibility Equity of access

Maximize user comfort

Leg room

Cargo space

Seated probability

Fueling opportunities

Urban 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

Index 40.1% 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 Study

Uses our experimental SusTainability RAnking TOol (STRATO) in transportation planning

STRATO reveals the tradeoffs that occur from transportation policies and planning

The results are aggregated to assess the transport sustainability of 3 metropolitan areas by taking into account their transportation characteristics

Methodology Atlanta, Chicago, and a simulated metropolitan area

called OPTIMUS (Optimal Transportation Indicators for Modeling Urban Sustainability)

OPTIMUS combines optimal and average characteristics from U.S. metropolitan areas

The specific metropolitan areas of Atlanta and Chicago were selected due to the availability of recent trip data

29

Data Regional household travel surveys

Sustainability indicators are weighted per area passenger miles traveled (PMT) to eliminate inconsistencies due to different population sizes

Input Data 1. Vehicle fuel price

2. Vehicle parking cost

3. Vehicle ownership ratio

4. Number of passengers per metropolitan area

5. Mode split by trip

6. Avg. miles per trip per vehicle type

7. Cost to purchase vehicle

8. Public transit fare

9. Insurance cost per vehicle type

10. Number of fueling stations available

11. Vehicle occupancy per vehicle

1. Lowest fuel cost

2. Lowest electricity cost

3. Lowest insurance cost

4. Average parking cost

5. Average vehicle ownership ratio

6. Average metropolitan area size

7. Average trips per passenger

8. Average miles per trip

9. Maximum vehicle occupancy

10. Optimal fleet mix

11. Highest public transit use

OPTIMUS Assumptions

STRATO’s Sustainability Indices

Index Atlanta Chicago OPTIMUS

Environment 0.880 0.887 1.000

Technology 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 Scores

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

Environment

Technology

EnergyEconomy

Users

ChicagoAtlantaOptimus

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Business as Usual Model -- Million KWh

Biodiesel

PV

Coal

Wind

Geothermal

Hydro-electric

H-Power

Biomass

Petroleum

Oil usage change since

2008= -4%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Solve-the-Problem Model -- Million KWh

Biodiesel

PV

Coal

Wind

Geothermal

Hydroelectric

H-Power

Biomass

Petroleum

Oil usage change since 2008 = - 41 %

Transit 5.6

Drive Alone 63.8

Carpool 21.2

Other 9.4 Transit 7.0

Drive Alone 57.0

Carpool 25.0

Other 11.0

Transit 6.6

Drive Alone 63.0

Carpool 21.1

Other 9.3 Rail

HOT BRT TeleC BikeW

50%

© P

an

os D

. P

reved

ou

ros,

Ph

D,

2011

HIGH LOW

Best Quadrant

WIDE spread of

COST

NARROW Spread of

COST

WIDE spread of BENEFIT

Best Spot

HOT Lanes

NARROW spread of BENEFIT

Handi-van Service

Ferry Service

COST

3rd Best WIDE NARROW

WIDE City Street Re-paving

Contraflow, temp. lane

closures

NARROW Bicycle Lanes

Parking meters

2nd Best WIDE NARROW

WIDE New

Freeway Truck Only

Lanes

NARROW Japan H.S. Rail

Bridge

Worst Quadrant

WIDE NARROW

WIDE Honolulu

Rail (32km) California H.S. Rail

NARROW San Juan

Rail (15km) Worst Spot

Limitations

The high number of data sources and assumptions impose limitations and uncertainties

STRATO’s inventories for vehicles are based on built-in assumptions 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 vehicles

Research Outcomes (1/2)

1. Developed a comprehensive sustainability framework with

a set of indicators for the life cycle sustainability

assessment of transportation vehicles

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)

3. Assessed transportation sustainability by

disaggregating transportation modes according to

vehicle population and characteristics

4. Developed STRATO, which is composed by a set of

sustainability indices and a visual interface, that can be

used as a planning and policy tool

5. Method is expandable to other infrastructure systems

Future Work

Include a sensitivity analysis to reveal how changes in the 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, etc.

Explore additional indicators per sustainability dimension

Remove indicators if their effect is uniform or marginal

Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD

Professor of Transportation

Department of Civil Engineering

pdp@hawaii.edu

Thank You