Inland Transport and Climate Changea Literature Review

Alain Haurie∗†, André Sceia‡§ and Julien Thénié¶

November 3, 2009

Abstract

This paper contains a review of the recent scientificliterature concerning inland transport and climatechange. It is organized along the following topics: (i)current status and future trends; (ii) the role of trans-port in mitigation policies (technological options andlife style changes); (iii) the vulnerability of transportinfrastructure to damages due to climate change (im-pact and possible adaptation). The main results arereported and the possible gaps in the research activityin this domain are identified.

Keywords: Climate change, inland transport, lit-erature review, mitigation, technology choices, fuelchoices, life cycle analysis, adaptation, life stylechanges.

1 Introduction

This paper provides a summary of the scientific lit-erature dealing with “inland transport and climatechange”. It is based on a review of the most recent∗Professor (emeritus) of Operations Research - HEC-

Management Studies - University of Geneva - 40 Blvd du Pontd’Arve - 1211 Geneva 4 - Switzerland†Director - Ordecsys - Place de l’Etrier 4 - CH-1224 Chêne-

Bougeries - Switzerland‡United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - Trans-

port Division - Palais des Nations - CH-1211 Geneva 10 -Switzerland§Economics and Environmental Management Laboratory -

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne (EPFL),CH-1015 Lausanne - Switzerland¶Ordecsys - Place de l’Etrier 4 - CH-1224 Chêne-Bougeries

- Switzerland

publications in this area of research. Our sources ofdocumentation include the major scientific journals inrelevant fields of research. A special focus is placed on“inland transport modes” which we define as encom-passing terrestrial and fluvial transport (rail, road,inland waterways and oil pipelines). Thus, we shallnot address in detail questions related to shipping orair transport.

An earlier review of the scientific literature on“transport and climate change” has been providedby Chapman (2007). It contains numerous refer-ences already provided in Hensher and Button (2003).Chapman (2007) organizes the review by mode (car,road freight, aviation, shipping, buses, walking andcycling) and focuses on the mitigation aspects ofthe problem. Complementary, Koetze and Rietveld(2009) undertook an extensive survey of the empir-ical literature in the impacts of climate change onthe transport sector. In this paper we complementearlier reviews by presenting and analyzing the mostrecent publications in the field with a specific focuson inland transport modes.

In exploring the connection between inland trans-port and climate change we thus consider the follow-ing topics: (i) the current status; (ii) the role of trans-port in mitigation policies (technological options andlife style changes); (iii) the vulnerability of transportinfrastructure to damages due to climate change (im-pacts and possible adaptation).

1

HubertText BoxInformal document No. WP.29-149-23(149th WP.29, 10-13 November 2009, agenda item 8.5)

2 Current status and futuretrends

2.1 Literature review

The transport sector is a major contributor to climatechange. It is considered to be currently responsible of23 % to 25 % of world energy-related GHG emissions(International Energy Agency (2009)), of which 65 %originates from road transport and 23 % from rail,domestic aviation and waterways (Chapman (2007)).Given current trends, transport energy use and CO2emissions are projected to increase by nearly 50 % by2030 and more than 80 % by 2050.

In light of the above facts and projections, it isnot surprising that the topic of “transport and cli-mate change” has already been extensively reviewedin several reports on top of being widely discussed inthe peer-reviewed scientific literatures.

First, the chapter “Transport and its infrastruc-ture” (Ribeiro et al. (2007)) of the contribution of theWorking Group 3 to the Fourth IPCC Assessment Re-port, presents a detailed status, from the present andfuture energy consumption from the various trans-port modes (see figure 2) to the trends in car ownership.

Second, the International Energy Agency (IEA)provides a multitude of reports of interests and col-lects a wide range of data of interest. Among recentpublications, International Energy Agency (2009)discusses the prospects for shifting more travel tothe most efficient modes and reducing travel growthrates, improving vehicle fuel efficiency by up to 50%using cost-effective, incremental technologies, andmoving toward electricity, hydrogen, and advancedbiofuels to achieve a more secure and sustainabletransport future.

Thirdly, the European Environment Agency under-takes annually a broad review of the transport andthe environment. The latest report (European En-ergy Agency (2009)) presents a rather dark pictureof the environmental impacts of deals with transportand its impact on the recent evolution of environmen-tal impacts of the transport sector in Europe.

Finally, the Stern Review (Stern (2006)) in it’s an-nex 7.a also presents the current status and futurebusiness as usual projections of transport of trans-port relates GHG emissions based on similar sourcesas the IPCC AR4.

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2004

2005

2006

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector

Figure 4.1 Transport sector greenhouse gas emissions 1990–2006

Transport sector greenhouse gas emissions increased by 28 % over the period 1990–2006. This compares with a reduction of 3 % in emissions across all sectors. The increase has occurred even though fleets have generally improved their energy efficiency and therefore reflects increased transport volume.

Index (1990 = 100) 180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

Figure 4.2 Trends in transport sector greenhouse gas emissions by country 1990–2006

The majority of EEA member countries saw an increase in transport emissions principally due to increased transport movements. Austria, Malta and Slovakia were the only states that showed decreases in transport greenhouse gas emission compared between 2005 and 2006.

Estonia – 28 Lithuania – 22 Bulgaria – 21

Germany – 1 Liechtenstein 8

Switzerland 8 Sweden 9 Finland 12

United Kingdom 15 France 17 Latvia 17

Slovakia 19 Belgium 27

Denmark 27 Italy 28

EEA-32 28 Norway 32

Netherlands 37 Hungary 50

Malta 51 Poland 52

Romania 61 Iceland 61 Greece 65 Turkey 69

Slovenia 75 Austria 82

Spain 89 Portugal 100 Cyprus 114

Czech Republic 144 Luxembourg 162

Ireland 165

– 75 – 25 25 75 125 175 % change 1990–2006

Source: European Topic Centre for Air and Climate Change, 2008.

EU-15 EU-12 EEA-32 Turkey EFTA-4

Source: European Topic Centre for Air and Climate Change, 2008.

Box 4.1 Addressing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector

Although climate change will be the main environmental challenge in the years to come, it is important to note that interventions designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may adversely impact on other areas, such as air quality or biodiversity. These issues have to be taken into account when developing future sustainable transport policies. It is also obvious from previous experience that transport demand has to be tackled at the same time as promoting more technology-oriented supply-side measures.

One interesting possibility is the use of emissions trading in the transport sector. So far no part of the transport sector is covered directly by the EU-ETS. Some activities linked to the transport sector are covered, however, for example electricity produced to power rail travel and fuel production in refineries.

A key development is the inclusion of intra-EU aviation emissions in the EU-ETS from 2012. This will make it necessary for the aviation sector to realise greenhouse gas emissions reductions, by either decreasing their own emissions or buying allowances on the market. For 2012 that cap is set to 97 % of average emissions during the years 2004–2006.

Inclusion of other modes of transport has also been mentioned but so far there are no firm proposals.

Transport at a crossroads 17

Figure 2: Trends in transport sector greenhouse gasemissions by country 1990-2006 (European EnergyAgency (2009))

National statistical offices as well a Eurostat forthe European Union, also provide important infor-mation with regard to the statics relative to inlandtransport. The recent trends as presented in Nore-land (2009) are of utmost importance for under-standing the increasing share of inland transport re-lated emissions. This report highlights that “in 2007,EU-27 road freight transport, measured in tonne-kilometres (tkm), was 27 % higher than in 2000. The

2

333

Chapter 5 Transport and its infrastructure

Sustainable Development, ‘Mobility 2030’, also developed a projection of world transport energy use. Because the WBCSD forecast was undertaken by IEA personnel (WBCSD, 2004b), the WEO 2004 and Mobility 2030 forecasts are quite similar. The WEO 2006 (IEA, 2006b) includes higher oil price assumptions than previously. Its projections therefore tend to be somewhat lower than the two other studies.

The three forecasts all assume that world oil supplies will be sufficient to accommodate the large projected increases in oil demand, and that world economies continue to grow without significant disruptions. With this caveat, all three forecast robust growth in world transport energy use over the next few decades, at a rate of around 2% per year. This means that transport energy use in 2030 will be about 80% higher than in 2002 (see Figure 5.3). Almost all of this new consumption is expected to be in petroleum fuels, which the forecasts project will remain between 93% and slightly over 95% of transport fuel use over the period. As a result, CO2 emissions will essentially grow in lockstep with energy consumption (see Figure 5.4).

Another important conclusion is that there will be a significant regional shift in transport energy consumption, with the emerging economies gaining significantly in share (Figure 5.3). EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2005, as well as the IEA, projects a robust 3.6% per year growth rate for these economies, while the IEA’s more recent WEO 2006 projects transport demand growth of 3.2%. In China, the number of cars has been growing at a rate of 20% per year, and personal travel has increased by a factor of five over the past 20 years. At its projected 6% rate of growth, China’s transport energy use would nearly quadruple between 2002 and 2025, from 4.3 EJ in 2002 to 16.4 EJ in 2025. China’s neighbour India’s transport energy is projected to grow at 4.7% per year during this period and countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore

will see growth rates above 3% per year. Similarly, the Middle East, Africa and Central and South America will see transport energy growth rates at or near 3% per year. The net effect is that the emerging economies’ share of world transport energy use would grow in the EIA forecasts from 31% in 2002 to 43% in 2025. In 2004, the transport sector produced 6.2 GtCO2 emissions (23% of world energy-related CO2 emissions). The share of Non-OECD countries is 36% now and will increase rapidly to 46% by 2030 if current trends continue.

In contrast, transport energy use in the mature market economies is projected to grow more slowly. EIA forecasts 1.2% per year and IEA forecasts 1.3% per year for the OECD nations. EIA projects transport energy in the United States to grow at 1.7% per year, with moderate population and travel growth and only modest improvement in efficiency. Western Europe’s transport energy is projected to grow at a much slower 0.4% per year, because of slower population growth, high fuel taxes and significant improvements in efficiency. IEA projects a considerably higher 1.4% per year for OECD Europe. Japan, with an aging population, high taxes and low birth rates, is projected to grow at only 0.2% per year. These rates would lead to 2002–2025 increases of 46%, 10% and 5%, for the USA, Western Europe and Japan, respectively. These economies’ share of world transport energy would decline from 62% in 2002 to 51% in 2025.

The sectors propelling worldwide transport energy growth are primarily light-duty vehicles, freight trucks and air travel. The Mobility 2030 study projects that these three sectors will be responsible for 38, 27 and 23%, respectively, of the total 100 EJ growth in transport energy that it foresees in the 2000–2050 period. The WBCSD/SMP reference case projection indicates that the number of LDVs will grow to about 1.3 billion by 2030 and to just over 2 billion by 2050, which is almost three times

Africa

Latin AmericaMiddle EastIndia

Other Asia

ChinaEastern EuropeEECCAOECD Pacific

OECD Europe

OECD N. America

Bunker fuel

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

EJ

0

50

100

150

200

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

WaterAir

Rail

Freight trucksBuses

2-3 wheelers

LDVs

Figure 5.3: Projection of transport energy consumption by region and mode Source: WBCSD, 2004a.Figure 1: Projection of transport energy consumption by region and mode (Ribeiro et al. (2007))

modal share of road freight transport in inland totalfreight transport (road, rail and inland waterways)has slowly increased over the years and is now 76 %.In 2006, passenger cars accounted for 83 % of the in-land total passenger transport (passenger cars, busesand coaches, and trains), measured in passenger-kilometres (pkm).”Future publications might confirmthat the recent economic slowdown has led to a de-crease in transport activities.

The peer-reviewed literature also contains a num-ber of interesting articles published recently, whichnicely complement the information found in majorreports. They generally target more specific aspectsof the transport and climate change issue.

Among the major challenges for the transport sec-tor highlighted in the various reports, car ownershipis systematically considered a major one. Indeed, thecar ownership trends in some developing countries arequite impressive. Han and Hayashi (2008) look atthe potential for car ownership increase in China’s 31provinces, taking into account current socio-economictransition and consider its likely effect on atmosphericpollution (notably, CO2, CH4, CO, NMVOC, NOxand SO2) up to 2020. Their results indicate that notonly “...the total number of private cars, but also the

volume of related pollutant emissions will shoot up toconsiderably higher levels in the near future if recentbehavioral trends and the present technical aspectsof private car use persist. Despite the introductionof stricter controls on private car purchase and pollu-tant emissions, China will come under much greaterpressure to cut back on emissions.”

Creuztig and He (2009) analyze a wider range ofexternalities of car transportation (e.g. congestion)restricting their scope to the city of Beijing and showthat social costs induced by motorized transportationare equivalent to about 7.5–15.0% of the city’s GDPand underline the uncertainty of climate change costs.They nevertheless show that “...a road charge couldnot only address congestion but also has environmen-tal benefits”.

On the political side of the Chinese transportgrowth, Hu et al. (2009) present an overview of theinitiatives launched in energy supply and consump-tion and the challenges encountered in sustainableroad transportation development in China. Afterhaving highlighted the trends from 2000 to 2007,where “China has witnessed a 156% increase in to-tal motor vehicle stock, 51% increase in passengertraffic volume and 65% increase in freight traffic vol-

3

ume”, the authors present a multitude of initiativesput forward by the Chinese government to control thegrowth and identify issues such as low emission stan-dards and the higher relative costs of public trans-portation. They conclude by advising the govern-ment to “...strengthen fuel economy technology...”,“promote high efficiency vehicle market penetration”or “give priority to public transport in mega-cities”but also advice on the promotion of “large-scale com-mercialization of coal-based alternative fuels” whichmight not solve the climate problem if not associatedto carbo capture and storage technologies.

In developed countries, the public awareness of theclimate problem is considered a prerequisite to behav-ioral changes. In this context and on the basis of aquestionnaire administered in the Sacramento, Cal-ifornia metropolitan region, Flamm (2009) assessesthe effects of environmental knowledge and environ-mental attitudes on the numbers and types of vehiclesowned per household, annual vehicle miles traveled,and fuel consumption. Interestingly, he finds that“first, environmental knowledge and environmentalattitudes are strongly related: respondents who in-dicate that protecting the natural environment is im-portant to them know more about the environmentalimpacts of vehicle ownership and use. Second, envi-ronmental knowledge is significantly related to aver-age fuel efficiency of household vehicles. The house-holds of respondents who know more about the envi-ronmental impacts of vehicle ownership and use own,on average, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Third, envi-ronmental knowledge is not, however, associated withthe ownership of fewer vehicles, less driving, or lowerfuel consumption.” This underlines the gap betweenthe awareness of the climate change problem and theactual actions and provides an additional rational tothe use of economic instrument such as CO2 taxes.

Chen and Zhang (2009) examine adoption of fuelefficiency technologies by the US automobile industrybetween 1985 and 2002 and consider the environmen-tal implications. The analysis is based on the estima-tion of an efficient frontier between weight and fuelefficiency. They conclude that their analysis “showsthat the technology efficient frontier of the US auto-mobile industry did not improve significantly for anextended period in the 1980s and 1990s, indicatinga lack of systematic adoption of new fuel efficiencytechnologies. While the firm with inferior technol-

ogy capability did push its efficient frontier outwardto close the technology gap, the two leading manu-facturers’ efficient frontiers first showed signs of re-gression in the early 1990s, and were not pushed outsignificantly until the late 1990s. As a result, the in-dustry might have missed an opportunity to reducethe economic and environmental impacts.” This kindof study provides sound arguments for promoting theimplementations of governmental fuel efficiency reg-ulations.

The contribution of the transport sector to theclimate change problem is often taken in isolationform other economic sectors. O’Donnell et al. (2009)present a case study of a life cycle assessment of thecontribution of transport to greenhouse gas emissionsin the supply chain of the American wheat grain. Aninteresting concluding remark is that “... given thecontribution of sequestration to the GHG footprintof the supply chain, efforts to green supply chainsshould consider changes in transportation togetherwith the resultant changes in emissions from produc-tion if transportation changes result in changes inproduction location.”

Along the same lines, Liska and Cassman (2008)make a proposal for standardized life-cycle methods,metrics, and tools to evaluate biofuel systems basedon performance of feedstock production and biofuelconversion at regional or national scales, as well as forestimating the net GHG mitigation of an individualbiofuel production system to accommodate impend-ing GHG-intensity regulations and GHG emissionstrading.

2.2 Analysis and possible gaps in thereported research

Statistical data as well as surveys regarding the evo-lution of inland transport provide the main sources ofinformation for analyzing the role of inland transportin the climate change problem and the underlyingphenomenons that drive it. A vast amount informa-tion are available in reports of various national andinternational institutes and organizations.

A lot of research is currently focusing on develop-ing countries such as China (e.g. Han and Hayashi

4

(2008), Creuztig and He (2009), Hu et al. (2009)),where the GHG emissions due to inland transportare growing extremely rapidly and add up to otherexternalities such as congestion or local air pollution.

Regarding developed countries, we mentioned twopapers analyzing the consumers and producers be-haviors (Flamm (2009) and Chen and Zhang (2009)).Interestingly, no peer-reviewed study seems to havebeen published on the impact of the current economicdownturn on the reduction of the emissions of the in-land transport. This is certainly due to the fact thatthe relevant statistics are not available yet.

Life-cycle assessment analysis such as in O’Donnellet al. (2009) and Liska and Cassman (2008)) are ex-tremely useful in the analysis of the climate problembecause of its inter-sectoral nature. The next sectionalso addresses this issue in the context of electric andhydrogen vehicles, as the energy production issuesalso need to be adequately considered.

3 Mitigation

3.1 Literature review

Mitigation of climate change effects will involve trans-formation of the transport sector. New technologieswill be used to provide the needed services and alsonew lifestyles should emerge from the necessity tocurb GHG emissions due to transport. In this sec-tion we review documents that are dealing with mit-igation or abatement actions, including technologicaloptions and modal or lifestyle changes.

3.1.1 Technological options

Technology choices to be made in the transport sec-tor in order to achieve substantial abatement ofGHG emissions are considered in several publica-tions related to “bottom-up” systems analytic mod-elling of the energy system. Labriet et al. (2005) de-scribe abatement scenarios obtained with the worldMARKAL1 model which includes a description of 15

1MARKAL and TIMES models are developed under theaegis of ETSAP an implementation committee of the IEA.

interconnected regions. These scenarios show, in par-ticular an evolution toward the following choices offuels in the different demand sectors, including thetransport sector, for the long term:

Figure 3: Fuel choices in world-MARKAL scenarios- Shares of final energy in end-use sectors (Labrietet al. (2005))

These authors report similar results obtained withthe TIMES integrated assessment model (Labriet andLoulou (2008)). The advantage of considering thetransport sector within a fully fledged worldwide en-ergy system is to relate energy choices in the trans-port system to some key choices made elsewhere inthe energy supply system, like e.g. the developmentof electricity or hydrogen supply with zero emission.

In the same vein, Krzyzanowski et al. (2008) usea global MARKAL model to assess the possible de-velopment of a hydrogen economy in the transportsector. They explore in particular the ways one canestablish an efficient support of the transition to-wards hydrogen based transportation. They arguethat Hydrogen based transportation is an environ-mentally sound alternative to the current, oil-basedtransportation. Based on their simulations they pre-dict that this transition could take place in the longrun. The analysis shows that despite high initialcosts, a transition to hydrogen based transportation

These models are described on the web site http://www.etsap.org/Tools.asp

5

http://www.etsap.org/Tools.asphttp://www.etsap.org/Tools.asp

could be feasible in the long run provided a numberof concurrent developments take place. In particu-lar, long-term transition would require significant ex-ternal support, such as governmental aid in form ofRD&D support and in learning investments to helpthe technologies to follow their learning curve andbecome competitive in the long run...”

Figure 4: The representation of the transport sectorin GMM (Krzyzanowski et al. (2008))

In Figure 4 we reproduce the simplified descriptionof the transport sector used in the global MARKALmodel.

This line of research can also be applied to the anal-ysis of the future of transport in developing coun-tries. Cadena and Haurie (2001) use a MARKALmodel to analyse energy and environmental Issues forColombia, studying in particular the clean develop-ment mechanism (CDM) projects.

In Figure 5 we reproduce part of the RES ofMARKAL-Colombia which indeed encompasses thetransport sector.

The same type of analysis can also be performed ata more local level as shown by Caratti et al. (2003)who study the potential of fuel cell cars in an ur-ban environment subject to severe limitations con-cerning GHG emissions. They use for their studya model called MARKAL-Lite which is a version ofthe MARKAL model adapted to the representation ofenergy/technology choices at a city or regional level.

Figure 5: The reference energy system considered inMARKAL-Colombia (Cadena and Haurie (2001))

The interesting aspect of this analysis is the explo-ration of the links that could exist between the de-velopment of a large fleet of electric or fuel cell basedcars of trucks and the integration to the electricitysupply system. Electric cars will provide electricitystorage capacity whereas fuel cell cars could providedecentralized production units.

The transport sector is also considered in the com-putable general equilibrium models that have recentlybeen developed to study the economics of climatechange policies. For example Bernard and Vielle(2008) have developed the computable general equi-librium model GEMINI-E3 which contains a descrip-tion of the transport demand and of the marginalabatement cost curves used to build “top-down” sce-narios of the economics of climate change mitigation.

In Figure 6 we reproduce part of the nomenclatureof GEMINI-E3 which shows the general economic en-vironment in which the transport sectors are consid-ered.

Interesting results are obtained when one couplesa “top-down” CGE model that describes the macroe-conomic interactions and a bottom-up “techno-economic” that represents the technology choices indetail and thus permits a better evaluation of the“marginal abatement costs”. Schafer and Jacoby(2006) propose a linked CGE-MARKAL model sys-

6

Figure 6: Sectors, fuels and countries considered inGEMINI-E3 (Bernard and Vielle (2008))

tem capable of simulating the macro-level economyand micro-level technology detail of the transport sec-tor. Furthermore, in this approach, a mode choicesubmodel is used, based on a limited travel time bud-get of 1.2 hours per person and per day, The issuesof calibration of such a hybrid system are delicate toaddress. In this application the calibration was es-sentially one-way, from MARKAL to EPPA.

Figure 7: The coupling procedure (Schafer and Ja-coby (2006))

In Figure 8 above we reproduce the schematicrepresentation of the coupling method between the

“bottom-up” model like MARKAL, “modal split”models and the “top-down” model like EPPA.

There are other detailed energy models permittingan assessment of the evolution of the transport sec-tor under stricter climate policies. Yan and Crookes(2009) analyze the future trends of energy demandand GHG emissions in China’s road transport sectorand assess the effectiveness of possible reduction mea-sures. To do that they use the Long-range Energy Al-ternatives Planning (LEAP) System2. They analyzefuture trends of total energy demand, petroleum (in-cluding gasoline, diesel and LPG) demand and GHGemissions in China for a “Business as usual” (BAU)and for a “Best case” (BC) scenario. The analysisshows relative reduction potentials as large as 40.5%for energy use, 46.5% for petroleum use and 39.9%for GHG emissions. We reproduce below one of thefigures summarizing these results.

Figure 8: GHG abatement in BC compared withBAU in China and role of each policy measure (Yanand Crookes (2009))

The measures considered are Private vehicle con-2More information on the LEAP model is available at:

http://www.energycommunity.org/default.asp?action=47.

7

http://www.energycommunity.org/default.asp?action=47

trol (PVC), Fuel economy regulation (FER), Promo-tion of diesel and gas (PDG), Fuel tax (FT) and Bio-fuel promotion (BFP). They are not including pene-tration of new carbon free technologies.

Technology assessment can also be performed at avery local level. Haseli et al. (2008) make a compar-ative assessment in terms of CO2 emissions from apassenger train in Ontario, Canada, using four spe-cific propulsion technologies (i) conventional diesel in-ternal combustion engine (ICE), (ii) electrified train,(iii) hydrogen ICE, and (iv) hydrogen PEM fuel cell(PEMFC) train. The travel under scrutiny is about60 kilometers long between Oshawa and Toronto.

Figure 9: Energy consumption (upper graph) andcorresponding travel cost (lower graph) of trains withvarious power train technologies (Haseli et al. (2008))

It is also interesting to know that according to theseauthors “... only an electric car based on scenario1 of electricity production [renewable energy sourcesincluding nuclear energy], with [3 or 4 people per car],

may be competitive with a modern powertrain ... ”

Lutsey and Sperling (2009) compare transporta-tion greenhouse gas mitigation options with other sec-tors by constructing greenhouse gas mitigation sup-ply curves of near-term technologies for all the ma-jor sectors of the US economy. To do that they usemarginal abatement cost curves, also called “GHGmitigation supply curves” that are constructed usinga bottom-up approach. The authors do not detailthe models that have been used to obtained thesemarginal cost curves. In their conclusion they claim“... [The] analysis shows that many transportationstrategies are cost-effective when compared directlywith options in other economic sectors under con-sistent assumptions. Many transportation efficiencymeasures generate cost savings over the life of theenergy-efficiency equipment investment, when futureenergy savings are calculated using normal discountfactors. [One finds] that such measures within thetransportation sector represent half of all of the “no-regrets” options that are available in all the economicsectors...”

A Kaya3 framework that decomposes greenhousegas emissions into the product of population, trans-port intensity, energy intensity, and carbon intensityis used by Yang et al. (2009) to analyze emissions andmitigation options in California to reduce transporta-tion greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levelsby 2050 (called 80in50 scenarios).

They first observe that in California, the trans-portation sector is the largest contributor of GHGemissions, making up over 40 % of the state’s totalin 2006. They also observe that no mitigation op-tion can singlehandedly meet the target goal becausetravel demand is expected to increase significantly by2050 and advanced technologies and fuels may not besuitable for use in all subsectors or may be limited inavailability. The “silver-bullet” scenarios explore thepotential impact of a new “greener” technology andconclude that none of them can achieve the 80in50goal (see Figure 10 reproduced from the paper).

3The Kaya identity is an equation relating factors that de-termine the level of human impact on climate, in the form ofemissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. It states thattotal emission level can be expressed as the product of fourinputs: population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit ofGDP, carbon emissions per unit of energy consumed...

8

Figure 10: Reduction in GHG emissions for each ofthe Silver Bullet scenarios relative to the 1990 leveland the 2050 Reference scenario. None of the SilverBullet scenarios achieve the 80in50 goal (Yang et al.(2009))

The 80in50 scenarios consist of: The Efficient Bio-fuels scenario which relies heavily on advanced tech-nologies for biofuels production entirely from cellu-losic sources with negligible “land-use change” LUCimpacts; the Electric-drive scenario which reliesheavily on advanced electric-drive technologies andlow-carbon hydrogen and electricity. Limited avail-ability of low-carbon biofuels constrains their use;and the Actor-based scenario which presents a worldwhere, because of much high energy prices, all actors(companies, governments, and individuals) are moti-vated to reduce energy consumption and GHG emis-sions, mainly through smaller, more efficient vehicles,reduced per-capita transportation activity, and in-creased vehicle occupancy load factors.

The authors conclude that “...The 80in50 scenariosillustrate that the 80 % reduction goal could poten-tially be met in multiple ways. The Efficient Biofu-els 80in50 and Electric-drive 80in50 scenarios showthat if vehicle and fuels technologies become cleanenough, California can preserve its current levels ofmobility. The former requires more primary energyand relies heavily on biomass, while the latter usesfuel more efficiently and has the potential for a sig-nificantly more diverse resource mix. The Actor-based80in50 scenario shows that large shifts in social andtravel behavior are valuable mitigation options, espe-cially if technology is not as successful. This scenariohas the lowest energy resource requirements. ... ”

This research can be complemented by the anal-

Figure 11: Transportation fuel use by 2050 in the80in50 scenarios (Yang et al. (2009))

ysis of Sperling and Gordon (2008). In a very de-tailed survey they examine the possible technologicalchanges in vehicles, in particular for electric and fuelcell cars. They also debate about two fundamentalchallenges: (a) transforming vehicles to dramaticallyreduce oil use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsand (b) transforming the larger transportation sys-tem to expand personal mobility options and reducetheir environmental and spatial footprints. Interest-ingly, they see in the fact that they provide “mobileelectricity” the element which may prove most piv-otal in determining the success of fuel cell vehicles,thus rejoining Caratti et al. (2003). In their con-clusion they claim that “...The challenge of reducingcar dependency is especially urgent for China, India,and others in the rapidly expanding economies of thedeveloping world. The car-centric motorization pathpioneered by the United States is very costly, not justin terms of energy and environment, but also becauseof the huge financial and social cost of shoehorning anetwork of new roads into their already large, densecities. These developing countries need to find a newpath. That new path is unlikely to be characterizedby leapfrog technologies...”

Considering a problem which is particular to Tai-wan, Liao et al. (2009) examine carbon dioxide emis-sions of truck-only inland transport and comparethose with intermodal coastal shipping and truckmovements. They use an activity-based emissionmodelling approach. “...This study has illustrated

9

possible positive changes in CO2 emissions if inter-modal of coastal shipping and truck is adopted in theplace of truck-only transport for export/import con-tainer movements in Taiwan. The reductions in CO2emissions is mainly driven by the efficiency of mar-itime fuel (heavy oil and diesel) use compared to thediesel used by trucks...”

In a case study concerning Australia Stanley et al.(2009) investigate two targets for road transportgreenhouse gas emissions, in 2020 and 2050 respec-tively and what they might mean for the sector.

For the 2020 target (20 % below 2000 emission lev-els) the paper suggests the following six key ways toattain it: (1) Reduce urban car kilometres travelled.(2) Increase the share of urban trips performed bywalking and cycling. (3) Increase public transport’smode share of urban motorized trips. (4) Increaseurban car occupancy rates. (5) Reduce forecast fueluse for road freight. (6) Improve vehicle efficiency.

For the 2050 target (80 % below 2000 levels) theauthors claim that the only way to make it compat-ible is in significantly changing travel behaviour toincrease the role of low carbon modes and/or, low-ering the emission reduction target for the transportsector, which increases the burden to be taken up byother sectors.

Finally let us mention the multi-criteria analysismade by Granovskii et al. (2006)] who compare con-ventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell ve-hicles using both economic and environmental indi-cators. The method produces a technology ranking.

3.1.2 Lifestyle Changes

The domain of research consisting of evaluating lifestyle changes leading to sustainable transport is muchless developed than the technological options one.

In a paper related to the one of Yang et al. (2009),McCollum and Yang (2009) investigate the potentialfor making deep cuts in US transportation greenhousegas (GHG) emissions in the long-term (50–80% be-low 1990 levels by 2050). Scenarios are used to en-vision how such a significant decarbonization mightbe achieved through the application of advanced ve-

hicle technologies and fuels, and various options forbehavioral change. They concludes that “...[ the sce-narios] confirm results from other studies, showingthat no one mitigation option can single handedlymeet the ambitious GHG goals, especially since to-tal travel demand in each subsector is expected toincrease significantly by 2050. This puts a large bur-den on vehicle and fuel technologies to decarbonize,and by our estimates it is unreasonable to think asingle technology approach can shoulder this burdenentirely on its own, given the diversity of vehicle typesand requirements in the transportation sector.”

Grazi et al. (2008) analyze whether urban form af-fect travel choices, by decomposing travel demandinto components related to modal split and commut-ing distance by each mode. “...All taken together,urban form, and therefore policies that affect urbanform, such as spatial and transport planning, deservemore attention in climate policy debates, as they cancontribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases. Forexample, transport planning may try to stimulatemodal shift by increasing density through the devel-opment of new public transport, such as the plannedadditional subway line in the centre of Amsterdam,and thus allow the design of a more effective transportinfrastructure network as well as the creation of fastlanes for buses and separate lanes for bicyclists....”

Caulfield (2009) examines the patterns of ride-sharing, in Dublin, and estimates the environmentalbenefits of ride-sharing both in terms of reductions inemissions and the vehicle kilometers traveled.

Wright and Fulton (2005) employs scenario anal-ysis to examine the size and cost of potential emis-sion reduction options from the urban transport sec-tor of developing nations. In particular, the analysiscompares the cost of greenhouse gas emission reduc-tions from fuel technology options to reductions frommeasures promoting mode shifting. This compara-tive analysis indicates that a diversified package ofmeasures with an emphasis on mode shifting is likelyto be the most cost-effective means to greenhouse gasemission reductions.

10

3.2 Analysis and possible gaps in re-ported research

The analysis of technological options to mitigateclimate change due to transport is tackled mostlythrough the use of bottom-up models. LEAP,MARKAL or TIMES models have been used to rep-resent technology and energy choices for transportin relation with the evolution of the whole energysupply system (Labriet et al. (2005), Caratti et al.(2003), Krzyzanowski et al. (2008), Cadena and Hau-rie (2001)). A top-down approach, based on theuse of computable general equilibrium models canalso be coupled with the bottom-up analysis per-formed by MARKAL like models (Schafer and Ja-coby (2006)). The linking concept between bottom-up and top-down models is the “marginal abatementcost” curve which can be constructed using an inte-grated energy supply model like MARKAL or moretransport sector specific model (Lutsey and Sperling(2009), Yan and Crookes (2009)). The other papersin this section analyse specific technological options(Granovskii et al. (2006), Liao et al. (2009), or coun-try/region specific options (Stanley et al. (2009), Yanand Crookes (2009), Yang et al. (2009)). One paper(Sperling and Gordon (2008)) examines the larger de-bate of improving current technologies vs. transform-ing the transport system.

Our perception of the possible gaps in research isthat the recent development of better top-down andbottom-up description of the world economy and ofthe world energy system, including a more precisedescription of emerging economies (BRIC), as wellas the progresses in coupling methods to link BU andTD models, should be exploited to generate scenariosfor the implementation of sustainable transport sys-tems in emerging and developing countries. A similaranalysis could also be undertaken for EU, consideringthe availability of CGE (GEMINI-E3, , Bernard andVielle (2008)) and technology rich (TIMES Labrietand Loulou (2008)) models well calibrated for thisregion of the world.

There is a need for the development of quan-titative models, like LEAP, MARKAL, TIMES orGEMINI-E3 which would include actions oriented to-ward the modification of the demand pattern for en-ergy or transport services. A modeling effort should

be undertaken to generalize and to incorporate in a“bottom-up” approach the trade-off between technol-ogy and system-wide improvements in the transportsector as proposed by Sperling and Gordon (2008). Inparticular the need for an active governmental sup-port to invest in the needed infrastructure to permita development of electric or fuel cell cars should befurther studied.

4 Vulnerability and adaptationissues

4.1 Literature review

The increasing evidence that climate change is hap-pening seems to have triggered an increased interestin the other side of the medal, i.e. the impact of cli-mate change on transport and the potential ways ofadaptation. Events such as hurricane Katrina, havedemonstrated the vulnerability of our societies, in-cluding our transportation systems, to climate varia-tions. In the extensive report on the US Gulf CoastStudy on the Impacts of Climate Change and Vari-ability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure,Savonis et al. (2008) deal with impacts of Katrina ontransport infrastructure, and especially on pipelines.They underline that “At the peak of the disruptioncaused by Hurricane Katrina, [...] all major pipelinesin the area were inoperable due to power outages.By September 4, 5 days after the storm, [...] all ofthe major crude or petroleum product pipelines hadresumed operation at either full or near-full capac-ity”. In their conclusions, they stress the implicationsof climate change for transport planing, i.e. longerplanning timeframes, connectivity of the intermodalsystem and teh need for integrated analysis. Finally,they list Climate Data and Projections, Risk AnalysisTools, Region-Based Analysis and InterdisciplinaryResearch as the major requirements for and adequateassessment of the of the impacts of a changing climateon transportation infrastructure and services.

Another detailed report (National Research Coun-cil (2008)) describes the potential impacts of climatechange on the whole U.S. Transportation. It presentsthe major impacts of climate change on transport

11

infrastructure and operations, as reproduced in ta-bler̃efnat. It finally concludes by presenting 14 rec-ommendations for future transport planning, such asextending the planning horizon beyond the standard20-30 years thus allowing one to take climate changeinto adequate consideration.

The transportation chapter in Lemmen and War-ren (2004)] also provides an overview of research inthe field of climate change impacts and adaptationfocusing on Canada. They stress that “it is to beexpected that many gaps exist in our understand-ing of potential climate change impacts and adapta-tion strategies in the transportation sector. Giventhe limited amount of work that has been completed,virtually all impact areas and adaptation strategiesrequire further investigation. Specific priorities iden-tified within papers cited in this chapter include:

• greater attention to impacts and adaptation is-sues for road transportation in southern Canada;

• increased research on the vulnerability of Cana-dian roads to changes in thermal conditions, in-cluding freeze-thaw cycles and extreme temper-atures;

• studies that assess the significance of extremeweather events and weather variability in the de-sign, cost, mobility and safety of Canadian trans-portation systems;

• a more thorough evaluation of existing adaptivemeasures and their relative ability to defer in-frastructure upgrades, reduce operational costs,and maintain or improve mobility and safety;

• comprehensive studies that focus on key issuesfor shipping and navigation, including the open-ing of the Northwest Passage and lower waterlevels in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seawaysystem;

• an analysis of how changes in factors externalto climate, such as technology, land-use patternsand economics, affect societal vulnerability to cli-mate and climate change; and

• studies that integrate mitigation (greenhouse gasemissions reduction) and climate change-relatedimpacts and/or adaptation issues.”

In their survey of the empirical literature on theeffects of climate change and weather conditions onthe transport sector, Koetze and Rietveld (2009) alsostress that far less literature has been published onthe impacts of and adaptation to climate change thanon mitigation. They summarize part of their findingas follows. “On a global scale especially the increasein temperatures may influence patterns in tourismand skiing holidays, with the associated changes inpassenger transport. We may also expect global shiftsin agricultural production, with associated changesin freight transport. The predicted rise in sea levelsand the associated increase in frequency and intensityof storm surges and flooding incidences may further-more be some of the most worrying consequences ofclimate change, especially for coastal areas. Empir-ical research for Europe is limited, but research forthe US East Coast and Gulf area shows that the ef-fects on transport and transport infrastructure maybe substantial. However, because flood-defenses thatare already in place are included in none of the stud-ies, the insights may have limited value for assessingfuture flood-risk and exposure for specific locations,and likely also overestimate total exposure and dam-ages due to climate change. Climate change relatedshifts in weather patterns might also affect infrastruc-ture disruptions. For road transport most studies fo-cus on traffic safety and congestion. With respect totraffic safety by far the most important variable isprecipitation, most studies finding that precipitationincreases accident frequency, but decreases accidentseverity. The mediating effect in here is likely thatprecipitation reduces traffic speed, thereby reducingthe severity of an accident when it occurs. Further-more, most studies show a reduction in traffic speeddue to precipitation and especially snow. Interest-ingly, the effect is particularly large during peak hoursand on congested roads. The few existing insights forrail transport show that high temperatures, icing, andstrong winds, among others, may cause considerabledelays. For the aviation sector, wind speeds, winddirection and visibility have clear effects on safetyand delays and cancelations. This has large cost im-plications, both for airlines and travelers. However,implications of climate change on wind speeds butespecially on wind directions and developments withrespect to mist, fog and visibility are highly uncer-tain. Finally, changes in temperature and precipita-tion have consequences for riverine water levels. Lowwater levels will force inland waterway vessels to use

12

Table 1: Potential Climate Changes and Illustrative Impacts on Transportation (National Research Council(2008))

Potential ClimateChange

Examples of Impacts on Operations Examples of Impacts on Infrastructure

Increases in veryhot days and heatwaves

Impact on lift-off load limits at high-altitude or hot weather airports withinsufficient runway lengths, resulting inflight cancellations or limits on payload(i.e., weight restrictions), or bothLimits on periods of construction activ-ity due to health and safety concerns

Thermal expansion on bridge expansionjoints and paved surfacesConcerns regarding pavement integrity(e.g., softening), traffic-related rutting,migration of liquid asphaltRail-track deformities

Increases in Arctictemperatures

Longer ocean transport season andmore ice-free ports in northern regionsPossible availability of a northern searoute or a northwest passage

Thawing of permafrost, causing subsi-dence of roads, rail beds, bridge sup-ports (cave-in), pipelines, and runwayfoundationsShorter season for ice roads

Rising sea levels,combined withstorm surges

More frequent interruptions to coastaland low-lying roadway travel and railservice due to storm surgesMore severe storm surges, requiringevacuation or changes in developmentpatternsPotential for closure or restrictions atseveral of the top 50 airports that liein coastal zones, affecting service tothe highest-density populations in theUnited States

Inundation of roads, rail lines, and air-port runways in coastal areasMore frequent or severe flooding of un-derground tunnels and low -lying infras-tructureErosion of road base and bridge sup-portsReduced clearance under bridgesChanges in harbor and port facilitiesto accommodate higher tides and stormsurges

Increases in intenseprecipitation events

Increases in weather-related delays andtraffic disruptionsIncreased flooding of evacuation routesIncreases in airline delays due to con-vective weather

Increases in flooding of roadways,rail lines, subterranean tunnels, andrunwaysIncreases in road washout, damagesto rail-bed support structures, andlandslides and mud-slides that damageroadways and tracksIncreases in scouring of pipelineroadbeds and damage to pipelines

More frequentstrong hurricanes(Category 4-5)

More frequent interruptions in air ser-viceMore frequent and potentially more ex-tensive emergency evacuationsMore debris on roads and rail lines, in-terrupting travel and shipping

Greater probability of infrastructurefailuresIncreased threat to stability of bridgedecksImpacts on harbor infrastructure fromwave damage and storm surges

13

only part of their maximum capacity, which may con-siderably increase transportation costs in the future.”

More specifically, Jonkeren et al. (2009) assess theeffect of low water levels on the costs of transport op-erations and modal split for inland waterway trans-port in North West Europe under several climate sce-narios. They find that “climate change is likely toaffect inland waterway transport prices via low waterlevels which may lead to a deterioration of the com-petitive position of inland waterway transport com-pared to rail and road transport. We studied thisissue using NODUS, a GIS-based strategic freightnetwork planning model that combines supply, de-mand and cost functions to assign flows on a multi-modal network. At first, a base scenario was createddescribing a fictitious year with average daily waterlevels, as modelled from 1986 to 1995. The alterna-tive scenarios were based on several climate scenarioswhich implied increases in the costs for inland wa-terway transport due to low water levels. Relative tothe base scenario, we estimated a reduction in the an-nual quantity transported by barge of about 2.3 % inthe case of KNMI’06 climate scenario M+, and about5.4 % in the case of scenario W+, in the Kaub-relatedRhine market.13 As a result, the volume of road ve-hicle kilometres and the volume of CO2 emission in-crease with about 1 %.”

If inland waterways are very likely to be affected,other modes of transport are also at stake. Lind-gren et al. (2009) summarize a case study on the fu-ture vulnerability to climate change of the Swedishrailway transport system and its adaptive capacity.They also make a recent and complete literature re-view at the crossroad of adaptation and transporta-tion. They conclude that “without doubt, it will bea challenge for the railway sector to cope with fu-ture climate change, and its adaptive capacity willbe thoroughly tested during the coming decades. Theresults from this case study highlight several climate-related threats that could have severe negative con-sequences for the railway system. The most impor-tant of these relate to high water levels, both instreams and groundwater, high wind speeds and rapidchanges in temperature. All of these are potentialconsequences of climate change. A positive aspectof climate change that may reduce the vulnerability,especially for Northern Europe, relates to milder con-ditions in winter. ”

In chapter 4.3 of Savonis et al. (2008) we find somecase studies of adaptation of transport infrastruc-ture to climate changes, for instance adaptation tosea level rise by elevation of an highway. They pro-vide the example of Louisiana Highway 1, which is inprocess of getting some of its portions elevated, andstress the importance of hurricane Katrina in raisingthe awareness of vulnerability.

Climate change is also very likely to have significantimpacts on urban transportation systems of costalcities. Suarez et al. (2005) study the impacts of flood-ing and climate change on urban transportation inthe the Boston Metro Area. They conclude that “...the Boston Metro Area is already heavily built andtherefore there will not be much change in urban in-frastructure compared to other metropolitan areas inthe US and worldwide. The transportation networkhas great redundancy and therefore it is not too vul-nerable to extreme events from a system wide per-spective. Consequently, there is little margin of ac-tion in terms of modifying the existing infrastructurebased on the results of this modeling effort. How-ever, for urban areas experiencing more rapid landuse conversion, or located in more hazard- prone ar-eas, the methodology presented in this work can provevery useful for exploring choices in terms of how toguide urban growth and how to develop an integratedplan for managing transportation systems facing thethreat of increased flooding.”

More globally, Jaroszweski et al. (2009) empha-size the need to utilize an interdisciplinary approachto Climate Change Impact Assessment (CIA) takinginto account both climate and socioeconomic scenar-ios. They emphasize that “... the nature of futuresociety cannot be predicted. However it is possible topresent a range of plausible scenarios that may hap-pen. It is this concept of scenarios which is key todeveloping a useful CIA. Depending on the dominantsocio-economic drivers present over the coming cen-tury, the transport network of the future may be moreor less vulnerable to the impacts of meteorologicalevents. It will both drive the type of infrastructuralprojects which are commenced during this period andinfluence the way in which they are used. By provid-ing a range of scenarios it is possible for governments,organisations and companies to have a greater insightinto the ‘futures’ into which their investments will beplaced.”

14

Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2008) exam-ines climate change predictions, using the GENIE-1 model (http://www.genie.ac.uk/), for three ge-ographical regions (UK, Shanghai in China andBotswana), chosen for their differing maritime, mon-soonal and continental climates, and different stagesof economic development. The Institution of Mechan-ical Engineers has a strong belief that “... unless weadapt, we are likely to face a difficult future.” It alsoviews adaptation as the next challenge for engineerand state that “... all current modes of transport willstill be in use in 100-200 years’ time, albeit in modi-fied forms. Much of the built infrastructure will needto be assessed for vulnerability and resilience to cli-mate change. Master planning will need to consideralternative routes and extra capacity as well as buildin redundancy, particularly in the case of rail wheremuch of the infrastructure is sited on flood plains andcoastal fringes.”

4.2 Analysis and possible gaps in thereported research

The climate changes that could have a direct im-pact on transport infrastructure are sea level rise(oceans), low water levels (rivers), storm surge andflooding (Koetze and Rietveld (2009)). Impacts ontransport demands (freight, agriculture, passenger)are more difficult to assess but the possible availabil-ity of a northern sea route or a northwest passagemight have significant consequences on internationalfreight transportation.

The question of evaluating climate impact on trans-portation is a key point (Jaroszweski et al. (2009))and needs a global approach to be answered. It couldbe interesting to develop this field of research, prob-ably by a global modeling approach.

Several researches have been carried out in theU.S (National Research Council (2008), Savonis et al.(2008),Suarez et al. (2005)), Canada (Lemmen andWarren (2004)) and Europe (Jonkeren et al. (2009)),with some focusing particularly on flooding and sealevel rise impacts. There are still few researches onadaptation in developing countries and papers suchas Molua (2009) do not deal with climate change im-pacts on transportation. Therefore, research could

be extended to developing countries and more specif-ically in Middle East, North Africa and East Asia,regions known to be highly vulnerable.

So far, it remains very difficult to assess adapta-tion policies (Lemmen and Warren (2004), Lindgrenet al. (2009)). Today, most adaptation measures arestill taken as a response to current climate variabil-ity. The major question governments are facing isis how to include long term climate change in thetransport systems strategy and planning. Finally, itwould also be interesting to evaluate current adapta-tion projects.

5 List of journals by domain

5.1 Transport science

• Transportation research Part A

• Transportation research Part D

• Transport Reviews

5.2 Geography and economics

• Journal of Transport Geography

5.3 Political science

• Political Science

5.4 Engineering

• European Journal of Transport and Infrastruc-ture research

• The IES Journal Part A: Civial and structuralEngineering

5.5 Energy

• Energy

• Energy Journal

15

http://www.genie.ac.uk/

• Energy Policy

• International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

5.6 Environmental science

• The Annual Review of Environment and Re-sources

References

A. Bernard and M. Vielle. GEMINI-E3, a generalequilibrium model of international–national inter-actions between economy, energy and the environ-ment. Computational Management Science, 5(3):173–206, 2008. 6, 11

A. Cadena and A. Haurie. Modelling energy and envi-ronmental issues for a developing country. Journalof the Operational Research Society of India, 38(1):44–66, 2001. 5, 6, 11

P. Caratti, A. Haurie, D. Pinelli, and D.S. Zachary.Exploring the Fuel Cell Car Future: an IntegratedEnergy Model at the City Level. WIT Press,Southampton, 2003. 6, 9, 11

Brian Caulfield. Estimating the environmental bene-fits of ride-sharing: A case study of dublin. Trans-portation research Part D, 14:527–531, 2009. 10

Lee Chapman. Transport and climate change: a re-view. Journal of transport geography, 15:354–367,2007. 1, 2

Chialin Chen and Jung Zhang. The inconvenienttruth about improving vehicle fuel efficiency: Amulti-attributes analysis of the technology efficientfrontier of the us automobile industry. Transporta-tion research Part D, 14:22–31, 2009. 4

Felix Creuztig and Dongquan He. Climate changemitigation and co-benefits of feasible transport de-mand policies in beijing. Transportation researchPart D, 13:120–131, 2009. 3, 4

European Energy Agency. Transport at a crossroads.TERM 2008: indicators tracking transport and en-vironment in the European Union, volume 3. Eu-ropean Energy Agency, 2009. 2, 3

Bradley Flamm. The impacts of environmentalknowledge and attitudes on vehicle ownership anduse. Transportation research Part D, 14:272–279,2009. 4

Mikhail Granovskii, Ibrahim Dincer, and Marc A.Rosen. Economic and environmental comparisonof conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuelcell vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, 159(2):1186 – 1193, 2006. 10, 11

Fabio Grazi, Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, andJos N. van Ommeren. An empirical analysis of ur-ban form, transport, and global warming. EnergyJournal, 29(4):97 – 122, 2008. ISSN 01956574. 10

Ji Han and Yoshitsugu Hayashi. Assessment of pri-vate car stock and its environmental impacts inchina from 2000 to 2020. Transportation researchPart D, 13:471–478, 2008. 3, 4

Y. Haseli, G.F. Naterer, and I. Dincer. Compara-tive assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation of hy-drogen passenger trains. International Journal ofHydrogen Energy, 33(7):1788 – 1796, 2008. 7, 8

D. A. Hensher and K. J. Button. Handbook of Trans-port and Environment. Number 4 in Handbooks inTransport. Elsevier, 2003. 1

Xiaojun Hu, Shiyan Chang, Jingjie Li, and YiningQin. Energy for sustainable road transportation inchina: Challenges, initiatives and policy implica-tions. Energy, 2009. 3, 4

Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Climate changeadapting to the inevitable? Technical report, In-stitution of Mechanical Engineers, 2008. 14

International Energy Agency. Transport, Energy andCO2: moving towards sustainability. InternationalEnergy Agency, 2009. 2

David Jaroszweski, Lee Chapman, and Judith Petts.Assessing the potential impact of climate changeon transportation: the need for an interdisciplinaryapproach. Journal of Transport Geography, 2009.14, 15

Olaf Jonkeren, Bart Jourquin, and Piet Rietveld.Modal-split effects of climate change: The effectof low water levels on the competitive position ofinland waterway transport in the river Rhine area.

16

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-tice, 2009. 14, 15

Mark J. Koetze and Piet Rietveld. The impactof climate change and weather on transport: anoverview of empirical findings. Transportation re-search Part D, 14:205–221, 2009. 1, 12, 15

Daniel A. Krzyzanowski, Socrates Kypreos, andLeonardo Barreto. Supporting hydrogen basedtransportation: case studies with global MARKALmodel. Computational Management Science, 5(3),2008. 5, 6, 11

Maryse Labriet and Richard Loulou. ETSAP-TIAM:the TIMES integrated assessment model part i:Model structure. Computational Management Sci-ence, 5(1-2):7–40, 2008. 5, 11

Maryse Labriet, Richard Loulou, and Amit Kanudia.Global Energy and CO2 emission scenarios: analy-sis with a 15-region world markal model, chapter 8.Springer, 2005. 5, 11

D.S. Lemmen and F.J. Warren, editors. ClimateChange Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Per-spective. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON,2004. 12, 15

Chun-Hsiung Liao, Po-Hsing Tseng, and Chin-ShanLu. Comparing carbon dioxide emissions of truck-ing and intermodal container transport in taiwan.Transportation research Part D, 14:493–496, 2009.9, 11

Johan Lindgren, Daniel K. Jonsson, and AnnikaCarlsson-Kanyama. Climate adaptation of rail-ways: lessons from sweden. European Journal ofTransport and Infrastructure Research, 9(2):164–181, 2009. 14, 15

Adam J. Liska and Kenneth G Cassman. Towardsstandardization of life-cycle metrics for biofuels:Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and net en-ergy yield. Journal of Biobased Materials andBioenergy, 2(3):187–203, 2008. 4

Nicholas Lutsey and Daniel Sperling. Greenhouse gasmitigation supply curve for the united states fortransport versus other sectors. Transportation re-search Part D, 14:222–229, 2009. 8, 11

David McCollum and Christopher Yang. Achievingdeep reductions in US transport greenhouse gasemissions: Scenario analysis and policy implica-tions. Energy Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof:–, 2009. 10

Ernest L. Molua. Accomodation of climate change incoastal areas of cameroon: selection of household-level protection options. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global change, 2009. 15

National Research Council. Potential impacts of cli-mate change on U.S. Transportation. Transporta-tion Research Board, 2008. 11, 13, 15

Jonas Noreland. Inland freight and passenger trans-port in the EU-27 up to 2007. Technical report,Eurostat, 2009. 2

Brendan O’Donnell, Anne Goodchild, Joyce Cooper,and Toshi Ozawa. The relative contribution oftransportation to supply chain greenhouse gasemissions: a case study of american wheat. Trans-portation research Part D, 14:487–492, 2009. 4

S. Kahn Ribeiro, S. Kobayashi, M. Beuthe, J. Gasca,D. Greene, D. S. Lee, Y. Muromachi, P. J. Newton,S. Plotkin, D. Sperling, R. Wit, and P. J. Zhou.Transport and its infrastructure, chapter 5, pages323–386. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2007.2

Michael J. Savonis, Virginia R. Burkett, andJoanne R. Potter. Impacts of climate change andvariability on transportation systems and infras-tructure: Gulf coast study, part i. Synthesis and as-sessment product 4.7, U.S. Climate Change ScienceProgram and the subcommittee on global changeresearch, 2008. 11, 14, 15

Andreas Schafer and Henry D. Jacoby. Experimentswith a hybrid CGE-MARKAL model. EnergyJournal, 27:171–177, 2006. 7, 11

Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon. Advanced pas-senger transport technologies. Annual review of en-vironment and ressources, 33:63–84, 2008. 9, 11

John K. Stanley, David A. Hensher, and ChrisLoader. Road transport and climate change: step-ping off the greenhouse gas. Transportation Re-search Part A: Policy and Practice, 2009. 10, 11

17

Nicholas Stern. The economics of climate change: theStern review. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,2006. 2

Pablo Suarez, William Anderson, Vijay Mahal, andT. R. Lakshmanan. Impacts of flooding and climatechange on urban transportation: a systemwide per-formance assessment of the boston metro area.Transportation research Part D, 10:231–244, 2005.14, 15

Lloyyd Wright and Lewis Fulton. Climate changemitigation and transport in developing nations.Transport Reviews, 25(6):691–717, 2005. 10

Xiaoyu Yan and Roy J. Crookes. Reduction po-tentials of energy demand and GHG emissions inchina’s road transport sector. Energy Policy, 37:658–668, 2009. 7, 11

Christopher Yang, David McCollum, Ryan Mc-Carthy, and Wayne Leighty. Meeting an 80% re-duction in greenhouse gas emissions from trans-portation by 2050: a case study in California.Transportation research Part D, 14:147–156, 2009.8, 9, 10, 11

18

1 Introduction2 Current status and future trends2.1 Literature review2.2 Analysis and possible gaps in the reported research

3 Mitigation3.1 Literature review3.1.1 Technological options3.1.2 Lifestyle Changes

3.2 Analysis and possible gaps in reported research

4 Vulnerability and adaptation issues4.1 Literature review4.2 Analysis and possible gaps in the reported research

5 List of journals by domain5.1 Transport science5.2 Geography and economics5.3 Political science5.4 Engineering5.5 Energy5.6 Environmental science

References