TRANSPORTATION  SUSTAINABILITY  ANALYSIS

Panos D. Prevedouros, PhDProfessor of Transportation

Department of Civil EngineeringDepartment of Civil Engineeringpdp@hawaii.edu

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

In 1972, a team of experts from MIT presented a 

db ki  groundbreaking report called The Limits to Growth

In 2012 Australian h i i t  d physicist and 

sustainability analyst Graham 

Turner updated it Turner updated it with data from 1970 to 2000

OutlineOutline

i. SUSTAINABILITYii. FRAMEWORKii. FRAMEWORKiii. ANALYSISiv CASE STUDYiv. CASE STUDYv. POLICY & DM

CONCLUSIONvi. CONCLUSION

Sustainability  Sustainability can be applied 

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

Integrates Environment, E E S i tEconomy, 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?yTransportation impacts on:

I ti   Environment Society 

Incorporation of 

sustainability into 

Economy transportation planning

1. Transportation system sustainability definition2. Standard method for assessing transportation systems

Not AvailableNot Available 

Sustainability and LCASustainability and LCA

Life Cycle Models

Cradle to Well toCradle to Grave

Well to Pump

Vehicle Cycle  Fuel Cycle

The Sustainability Framework (1/3)y

The 7 dimensions:

The generic structure components of a transportation system and the restrictions

The 7 goals seek to: The 7 dimensions:

1. Environment

2 T h l

The 7 goals seek to:

1. Minimize environmental impact 

2 Maximize technology performance to 2. Technology

3. Energy

2. Maximize technology performance to help people meet their needs

3 Minimize energy consumption4. Economy

5. Users (and other 

3. Minimize energy consumption 

4. Maximize and support a vibrant economy 

5 Maximize users’ satisfaction stakeholders)

6. Legal framework 

5. Maximize users  satisfaction

6. Comply with legal framework

7 Comply with local restrictions of each7. Local restrictions

7. Comply with local restrictions of each place

The Sustainability Framework (2/3) y ( / )

Transportation mode ‐Component 

Sustainability dimension ‐Component  

Environment

Technology   

Energy   

Economy   

Users 

Legal Framework

Sustainability  Decomposition Prism

Framework

Local Restrictions

Sustainability P i

All activities within environmental limits• Human made components

• Limits set by other layers

• Set of stakeholders• System’s output • Existing legislation of a community

• Feasibility constrains

• Important & complex 

ti i tiPrism • Sustainable technology

y• Sustainable economycontrol user’s choice

y• Cultural heritage• Archeological sites

participation• Short and long term impacts

• Needs are not met

Economy

TechnologyEnergy

Economy

Environment

gy

Users

Sample Applications Transport systems

Transport modesp

Other applications

Hydroelectric, coal, nuclear plants

Wind, solar power generation Wind, solar power generation

Construction

Waste treatment Waste treatment

Other infrastructure

Focus  Urban transportation modes

The Sustainability Framework (3/3) 

Urban transportation mode

Adjusted to assess sustainability in transportation

p System operator Traveler Different technologies and fuel types Components Attributes

fuel types

ComponentsComponentsVehicleInfrastructure

Vehicle InfrastructureManufacture Fuel Operation MaintenanceConstruction Fuel Operation MaintenanceVehicle InfrastructureManufacture Fuel Operation MaintenanceConstruction Fuel Operation Maintenance

Sustainability Indicators (1/2)y ( / )From literature developed indicators for sustainable transportation 

t d d 4 t i bilit di iassessment  grouped under 4 sustainability dimensions: 

1. Transportation system performance2 E i2. Environment3. Society4. 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 FrameworkLocal

RestrictionsFramework Restrictions

ObjectivesE1…Ei

ObjectivesT1…Ti

ObjectivesEN1…ENi

ObjectivesEC1…ECi

ObjectivesU1…Ui

ObjectivesF1…Fi

ObjectivesR1…Ri

IndicatorsE1…Ej

Environment Sustainability

IndicatorsT1…Tj

Technology Sustainability

IndicatorsEN1…ENj

Energy Sustainability

IndicatorsEC1…ECj

EconomySustainability

IndicatorsU1…Uj

UsersSustainability

IndicatorsF1…Fj

Legal FrameworkFrameworkSustainability

IndicatorsR1…Rj

Local RestrictionsSustainabilitySustainability

IndexSustainability

IndexSustainability

IndexSustainability

IndexSustainability

IndexSustainability

IndexSustainability

Index

Overall Sustainability Index

AssumptionsAssumptions All vehicles use the same infrastructure 

Indicators focus on the component vehicle, and 5 sustainability 

dimensions: 

1. Environment2. Technology3. Energy3. Energy4. Economy 5. Users

The remaining two dimensions (legal framework and local 

restrictions) are imposed by communities and they are applicable onlyrestrictions) are imposed by communities and they are applicable only 

to the deployment of specific transportation projects

Transportation VehiclesTransportation Vehicles1. Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle or ICEV (2010 Toyota g ( y

Camry LE)2. Hybrid Electric Vehicle or HEV (2010 Toyota Prius III)3 Fuel Cell Vehicle or FCV (2009 Honda Clarity FCX)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)g y ( )6. Gasoline Pickup Truck or GPT (2010 Ford F‐150 base)7. Gasoline Sports Utility Vehicle or GSUV (2010 Ford Explorer 

Base)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 CharacteristicsVehicle CharacteristicsICEV    HEV    FCV      EV       PHEV  GPT   GSUV DB     BRT  CS  CS

Camry Prius Clarity Leaf Volt F‐150 Explorer New   fl

New fl

Camry PriusCamry Prius Clarity Leaf Volt F 150 Explorerflyer 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 $ per U SFuel 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 dataDue to the variable character of the proposed indicators, data for each vehicle is found from different sources

Life Cycle ModelsLife Cycle ModelsEmissions and Energy 

V e h i c l e

Manufacturing Fueling Operation

MOBILE 6 2

Maintenance

GREET 2.7 GREET 1.7MOBILE 6.2GREET 1.7EIO‐LCA

GREET 2.7EIO‐LCA

Manufacture Feedstock Fuel Run, Start, Tire, Brake, 

Idle, Insurance

Maintain Dispose Recycle

Insurance, License, 

Registration, Taxes

EnvironmentEnvironmentSustainability Dimension

Goal Objective Indicator

Minimize global warming

Carbon Dioxide ‐ CO2

Methane ‐ CH4 

N O

onmen

t Minimize 

environmental

N2O

GHG

Volatile Organic Compound  

Enviro environmental 

impactMinimize air pollution

Carbon Monoxide  ‐ CO 

Nitrogen Oxides ‐ NOx 

Particle Matter PMParticle Matter ‐ PM10

Sulphur Oxides ‐ SOx

Minimize noise Noise 

Minimize externalities on living 

humans and speciesHealth

TechnologyTechnologySustainability Dimension

Goal Objective Indicator

Vehicle lifetimeMaximize vehicle lifetime

Vehicle lifetime

Upgrade potential

Maximize used resources  Capacity 

gy 

M i i t h l

Minimize time losses

Fuel frequency

Maintenance frequency

Techno

lo Maximize technology performance to help people 

meet their needs Minimize land consumption Vehicle storage

Maximize supply Supplypp y pp y

Maximize  mode choices for all users

Feasibility of use by social excluded groups

Readiness

Maximize vehicle performance Engine power

EnergyEnergy

Sustainability Dimension Goal Objective Indicator

gy Minimize energy

Manufacturing energy

Fueling energy

Energ Minimize energy 

consumptionMinimize energy consumption 

Fueling energy

Operation energy

Maintenance energy

60.0

Energy Consumpion per VMT

40.0

50.0

MT)

20.0

30.0

Ener

gy (M

j/VM

0 0

10.0

0.0

ICE

V

HE

V

FCV

EV

PH

EV

GP

T

GS

UV

DB

BR

T

CS

-Cam

ry

CS

-Priu

s

Maintenance Operation Fueling ManufactureMaintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture

Energy Consumpion per PMT

12.0

Energy Consumpion per PMT

8.0

10.0

MT)

4.0

6.0

Ener

gy (M

j/P

0 0

2.0

0.0

ICE

V

HE

V

FCV

EV

PH

EV

GP

T

GS

UV

DB

BR

T

CS

-Cam

ry

CS

-Priu

s

Maintenance Operation Fueling Manufacture

EconomyEconomySustainability Dimension

Goal Objective IndicatorDimension

Reduce cost requirementsCost

Property damage 

my  Maximize and

Minimize parking requirements Parking cost

Econ

om

Maximize and support a vibrant 

economy Minimize costs for the community Safety cost

Minimize governmental support Subsidy

Promote welfare Job opportunitiesPromote welfare  Job opportunities 

UsersUsersSustainability Dimension

Goal Objective IndicatorDimension

Mobility

Demand

Maximize transportation performance

Global availability 

Reasonable availability 

Delay

Users Maximize users 

satisfactionReliability

Safety

Improve accessibility Equity of access

Maximize user comfort

Leg room

Cargo space

Seated probability

Fueling opportunities

Urban Mode Sustainability ScoresUrban 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 

Index40.1% 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 Studyy Uses our experimental SusTainability

RAnking TOol (STRATO) in transportationRAnking TOol (STRATO) in transportation planning  

STRATO reveals the tradeoffs that occur STRATO reveals the tradeoffs that occur from transportation policies and planning

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

MethodologyMethodology Atlanta, Chicago, and a simulated metropolitan area 

called OPTIMUS (Optimal Transportation Indicators for ( p pModeling Urban Sustainability)

OPTIMUS combines optimal and average characteristics f U S lifrom U.S. metropolitan areas

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

Data  Regional household travel surveyssurveys

Sustainability indicators are weighted per area passenger miles traveled 

29

(PMT) to eliminate inconsistencies due to different population sizes

Input DataOPTIMUS A i

p1. Vehicle fuel price 2. Vehicle parking cost  

1. Lowest fuel cost  2 Lowest electricity cost

OPTIMUS Assumptions

p g3. Vehicle ownership ratio  4. Number of passengers per 

t lit

2. Lowest electricity cost  3. Lowest insurance cost  4. Average parking cost  

metropolitan area5. Mode split by trip  6. Avg. miles per trip per vehicle 

5. Average vehicle ownership ratio  6. Average metropolitan area size g p p p

type  7. Cost to purchase vehicle  8 Public transit fare

7. Average trips per passenger  8 Average miles per trip8. Public transit fare  

9. Insurance cost per vehicle type  10. Number of fueling stations 

8. Average miles per trip  9. Maximum vehicle occupancy  10. Optimal fleet mixg

available11. Vehicle occupancy per vehicle   11. Highest public transit use  

STRATO’s Sustainability IndicesSTRATO s Sustainability Indices

Index Atlanta Chicago OPTIMUS

Environment  0.880 0.887 1.000

Technology 0.845 0.842 0.999Technology  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 ScoresSTRATO s Sustainability Scores1.000Environment

0.600

0.800

1.000

0.200

0.400Technology Users

Chicago0.000

ChicagoAtlantaOptimus

Energy Economy

13,000

Business as Usual Model ‐‐Million KWh

Biodiesel

10,000

11,000

12,000 PV

Coal

Wind

Geothermal

7,000

8,000

9,000Hydro‐electric

H‐Power

Biomass

Petroleum

5,000

6,000

Oil usage change since

2,000

3,000

4,000change since 2008= ‐4%

0

1,000

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

12 000

13,000

Solve‐the‐Problem Model ‐‐Million KWh

Bi di l

10,000

11,000

12,000 Biodiesel

PV

Coal

Wind

Geothermal

7,000

8,000

9,000

Geothermal

Hydroelectric

H‐Power

Biomass

Petroleum

5,000

6,000

2,000

3,000

4,000Oil usage 

change since 2008 = ‐ 41 %

0

1,000

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

Transit 6.6Drive Alone 63.0s, PhD

, 201

1

Transit 5.6D i Al 63 8

Carpool 21.1Other 9.3Rail

anos

D. P

reve

dour

os

Drive Alone 63.8Carpool 21.2Other 9.4 Transit 7.0HOT

© P

Drive Alone 57.0Carpool 25.0Other 11.0

HOTBRTTeleCBik W

50%

BikeW

Best Quadrant

WIDE spread of COST

NARROW Spread of COST

2nd Best WIDE NARROWCOST COST

WIDE spread of BENEFIT

BestBestSpotSpot

HOTLanes

WIDENew 

FreewayTruck Only Lanes

NARROW spread of BENEFIT

Handi‐van Service

Ferry Service

NARROWJapanH.S. Rail

Bridge

3rd Best WIDE NARROWWorst 

QuadrantWIDE NARROW

WIDECity Street Re‐paving

Contraflow, temp. lane closures

Quadrant

WIDEHonoluluRail (32km)

California H.S. Railp g

closures

NARROWBicycle Lanes

Parking meters

( )

NARROWSan Juan 

Rail (15km)WorstWorstSpotSpot

HIGHLOW COST

LimitationsLimitations The high number of data sources and assumptions  impose g p p

limitations and uncertainties  

STRATO’s inventories for vehicles are based on built‐in ti d t i GREET MOBILE d EIO LCAassumptions 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 g , pvehicles

Research  Outcomes (1/2)( / )1. Developed a comprehensive sustainability framework with 

a set of indicators for the life cycle sustainability 

assessment of transportation vehiclesp

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)Research  Outcomes (2/2)

3 Assessed transportation sustainability by3. Assessed transportation sustainability by 

disaggregating transportation modes according to 

vehicle population and characteristics

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

sustainability indices and a visual interface, that can be 

used as a planning and policy toolused as a planning and policy tool 

5. Method is expandable to other infrastructure systems

Future WorkFuture Work Include a sensitivity analysis to reveal how changes in the y y g

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 etcLanes, etc. 

Explore additional indicators per sustainability dimension

Remove indicators if their effect is uniform or marginal 

Th k YThank You

Panos D. Prevedouros, PhDProfessor of Transportation

Department of Civil Engineeringpdp@hawaii.edu