sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

Transport
Clean Car Mandates: Tapping “Local-Global” Synergies
A central question of Bose’s paper is whether there are “synergies” between local and global
environmental agendas - namely urban air pollution and global warming - that can be tapped in
addressing transport sector emissions. Evidence that this is indeed the case is supported by the
California ZEV mandate, which was motivated primarily by concern over worsening smog in the
Los Angeles region but has stimulated a race among manufacturers to bring electric, hybridelectric,
and fuel cell vehicles to market - a development could may contribute to significant
GHG reductions in the not-so-distant-future.
Other important points made by Bose are likewise borne out by experience in industrial nations.
The need for an integrated mix of instruments (regulations and incentives, demand and supply
measures) is suggested by the relative ineffectiveness of the piecemeal approach endemic to most
industrial nations. As has been demonstrated in the United States, the provision of public
transport will not by itself bring about a shift among commuters away from private vehicles.
Rather than relieve congestion through comprehensive steps such as traffic management and
pricing, U.S. transport planners have emphasized roadbuilding - with the perverse consequence
of attracting more cars, exacerbating the problem.
Indeed, U.S. transport policy illustrates the unfortunate focus on a “technological quick fix”
which is common in many cities and countries. This focus is to the detriment of what Bose
identifies as the most attractive measure that can be taken: augmenting public transport, along
with the promotion of new fuels and vehicular technologies. But the U.S. “quick fix” focus is
also symptomatic of the nation’s difficulties in linking transport and land use policy - a step that
will be essential for mitigation in developing nations.
Linking Transport and Land Use: the U.S. Experience
In the United States, the hidden costs of a car-centered transport system—with its relative neglect
of public transit - extend beyond petroleum dependence to social inequities and human mortality.
One-third of the U.S. population is either too young, too old, or too poor to drive -
disadvantaging them in an environment where private cars are often the only viable forms of
transport. In U.S. metropolises, car use is so high that per capita traffic fatalities exceed even
those of developing Asian cities, where traffic signals and safety regulations are of poor quality
(See Table 4).
Table 4 Transport Indicators in Selected Cities, by Regional Average, 1990
Commute to Work
Transport Deaths
Region Driving Public Transport Walking Cycling
(percent) (per 100,000)
United States 86.4 9.0 4.6 14.6
Australia 80.4 14.5 5.1 12.0
Canada 74.1 19.7 6.2 6.5
Western Europe 42.8 38.8 18.4 8.8
Developing Asia 38.4 35.7 25.8 13.7
Wealthy Asia 20.1 59.6 20.3 6.6
Source: O’Meara.
These and other costs are related to the phenomenon of “urban sprawl,” in which low land and
fuel prices encourage the unrestrained outward growth of U.S. cities - further increasing vehicle
travel and GHG emissions. Urban sprawl has become a major political issue among Americans,
yet its costs are hard to quantify. Recent studies, however, suggest that the automobile
dependence it fosters can erode economic development through wasted fuel and lost productivity.
On average, drivers in 70 metropolitan areas each spend 40 hours sitting in stalled traffic each
188