# Presentation: 533411

## The WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project – A Status ReportPresentation by George C. EadsCharles River Associates, Inc.Project Lead ConsultantAugust 8, 2002										

## Project Sponsors

## Structure of the WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project

- Part 1 – Survey of the state of world mobility and its sustainability at the end of the twentieth century
- Part 2 – Development of vision(s) of how mobility can be made sustainable in the future and of strategies for the attainment of this (these) vision(s)

## Structure of the WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project

- Phase 1 – Survey of the state of world mobility and its sustainability at the end of the twentieth century – *Mobility 2001*, released October 2001
- Phase 2 – Development of vision of how mobility can be made sustainable in the future and of strategies for the attainment of this vision

## Structure of the WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Project

- Phase 1 – Survey of the state of world mobility and its sustainability at the end of the twentieth century – *Mobility 2001*, released October 2001
- Phase 2 – Development of vision of how mobility can be made sustainable in the future and of strategies for the attainment of this vision – now underway; *Sustainable Mobility 2030* to be completed by December 2003

## Outline of today’s presentation

- Summary of *Mobility 2001*
- Scope of report
- Major influences on the sustainability of mobility
- Sustainability “scorecards” for the developed and developing worlds
- “Grand challenges” to achieving sustainable mobility
- Description of work underway in Part 2
- Additional details on fuels-related work

## Scope of Mobility 2001

- Addresses *multiple dimensions* of sustainability
- Focuses on *urbanized areas* of both the *developed and developing worlds*
- Includes *all transportation modes*
- Includes *freight mobility* as well as *personal mobility *

## Study team	

- MIT academic departments and research units represented:
- Center for Transportation Studies
- Energy Laboratory
- Materials Systems Laboratory
- Department of Urban Studies and Design
- Sloan Automotive Laboratory
- Department of Mechanical Engineering
- Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
- Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
- Center for Technology Policy and Industrial Development
- Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
- CRA representation:
- Senior research staff of CRA’s Transportation Practice

## Major influences on the sustainability of worldwide mobility

- Evolving patterns of human settlement and economic activity
- Dominant role played by the personal road vehicle in providing personal mobility in the developed world
- Certain regularities in personal travel patterns
- Enormous growth in freight transportation
- Transport’s almost total dependence on petroleum-based fuels
- CO**2** and “conventional” emissions from transport
- Rapid urbanization and motorization of urbanized areas in the developing world

## Evolving patterns of human settlement and economic activity 

- Two phenomena are shaping this evolution
-  Urbanization – “the most powerful anthropogenic force on earth”
- “Suburbanization” -- reduction in population density of urbanized areas
**Neither** could be occurring to the extent they are without the mobility improvements of the post WWII era
**Both** have important implications for the sustainability of mobility

## Slide 11

**Notes:**
Slide shows evolution of world population and the extent to which it resides in urban areas from 1950 through today and as projected by the UN to 2030.
1950 – world had population of approx 2.5 billion.  About 1/3 lived in developed world.  Developed world population roughly evenly divided between urban and rural. (55% to 45%)
In 2000 – world had population of 6.1billion.  Less than 20% lived in developed world.  Of these, over 75% lived in urban areas.  Urban population of Developing world almost 2 billion
By 2030, UN projects that world population will be 8.1 billion.  Only about 15% of these people will live in the developed world.  Of those who do, almost 85% will live in urban areas.  Just over 50% of the developing world’s population – or nearly 4 billion people – will live in urban areas.

Explains Mobility 2001’s focus on urbanized areas of the world; attention it gives to developing-world urbanized areas

## Urban population densities are falling 

- Source: Demographia (2001).

- Data are for “urbanized area” as defined by local and/or national authorities

**Data for illustrative *****developed***** world urban areas**

**Notes:**
While world is urbanizing, it is also “suburbanizing.”  That is, the city centers are declining as a share of urban areas’ total population.
Not just in the United States.  Happening almost everywhere in the developed world and in many places in the developing world (not shown).  

## II. 	Auto* ownership has been rising throughout most of the developed world

- *Vehicle ownership per 1000 population

- *Auto = all light-duty, personal use vehicles

**Notes:**
Data for 1960, 1980 and 1995
Note pattern of changes over time

US always higher than others
Big increase in US occurred between 1960-1980.  Not much increase in US 1980-1995
Most European countries increased in 1960-1980; “late bloomers” (Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain) grew a great deal 1980-1995
Note extremely low level of vehicle ownership in Japan (Greece in 1995 higher than Japan in 1980)

## So has the utilization of autos*

- *Autos = all personal use light duty vehicles

**Notes:**
US approximately twice the level of most European countries
Note again the position of Japan relative to Europe and US

## The auto now dominates personal travel in most developed-world urbanized areas 

- Passenger

- -

- km/person/year

- Passenger

- -

- km/person/year

**Notes:**
Chart shows the extent to which the automobile dominates travel in developed-world urbanized areas.
US cities between 16,000 and 17,000 pkm/capita (NY the only outlier – but still 12,000 pkm.
Compare with major European cities – almost all are between 7000 and 9000 pkm/yr
Notice Tokyo.  About the same total pkm/capita as many European cities.  However, is the only major urban area where auto provides less than 50% of per-capita pkm

## Public transport share has been declining

- Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999)

- Public transport share of motorized passenger kilometers

**Notes:**
Public transport plays an important role in many cities.  But this role is generally declining as a share of total personal travel.  The final three cities – Vienna, Zurich, and Washington – are the only ones reporting share increase 1960-1990.  (Washington at very low level).
Note Tokyo’s dependence on public transport.  But share is declining even in Tokyo.

What is going on?
Motorization enables reductions in urban population densities
Reduced urban population densities undercut competitiveness “conventional” forms of public transport
Decline in ability of public transport to serve needs of lower-density urban areas encourages further motorization
Also impairs mobility of those who can’t or who don’t want to be automobile-dependent 

## The auto also dominates long-distance travel in the developed world

**Notes:**
1995 Data for US (trips over 100 mi) – c. 80% trips by auto; 16% by air; 4% all else.  Auto share drops below 50% only for trips over 1000 miles.
However, few people purchase cars in order to use them on long-distance trips
Purchase decisions dominated by local travel needs (commute, shopping, etc.)

## Regularities in personal travel across different countries and times

**Notes:**
Interpretation:

As people’s incomes grow, they travel more and they travel further
However, they don’t spend much additional time or an increased share of their income to do so
Rather, they substitute faster means of travel for slower ones
“Faster” and “slower” relates to total trip time, not just to maximum vehicle speed

## Commuting data for US – 1990 and 2000

**Source: US Census**

**Notes:**
This represents data that has just been released from the 2000 US Census
Overall average commute time rose slightly:
1980 – 21.7 minutes
1990 – 22.4 minutes
2000 – 24.3 minutes

However, was definitional change for “long” commute; change probably not quite as large as raw figures indicate

## Growth in freight transportation – all modes except ocean freight 

**Worldwide tonne-kilometers, 1970-1994; All modes *****except***** ocean freight**

**Notes:**
Data for worldwide freight transport less available.  However, from 1970-1994, total of modes shown grew by over 75%

## Growth in ocean freight

- New Mode

- 2.0

**Worldwide tonne-kilometers, 1975-1995; Ocean freight**

- Note: Red numbers
- show total freight
- movements except
- for ocean freight

**Notes:**
Note the relative magnitude of ocean freight vs. other freight (red figures show levels from previous diagram)  Also note how much of ocean freight is petroleum.  Finally, note the appearance of containerization between 1975 and 2000.  Represented about 7% of all ton-kilometers, but much greater share of all ocean freight by value. 

## Road freight has been growing everywhere

- Tonnage figures understate _value_ of freight hauled by road

**Notes:**
Weight understates share of value of freight carried by truck
In 1997 for US, truck provided 39% of ton-miles,  69% of tons, 72% of value of freight

## Rail freight traffic growing in a few regions

- Tonnage figures _overstate_ value of freight hauled by rail

**Notes:**
Tonnage overstates value share

In 1997 for US, rail provided 38% of ton-miles, 14% of tons,  5% of value of freight (Air accounts for negligible amount of tons and ton-miles, but 3% of value)

## V.	Transportation’s almost total dependence on petroleum-based fuels

- 96% of fuel used in transportation is petroleum-based (gasoline, diesel, residual fuel oil, jet fuel)
- Transport uses just over half of all petroleum
- Presently, two-thirds of transport fuel is used in industrialized countries, but industrializing country use is climbing fast; by 2020, projected to be almost equal

**Notes:**
I’m not one who believes that world is about to “run out” of petroleum.

## VI.	Emissions from transportation – CO2

**Share of worldwide C0****2**** emissions from the combustion of fuel, by sector -- 1998**

- Of which:
- Road (passenger
-    and freight) = 16.9%
- Rail, domestic air, and
-    inland waterway = 6.1%
- International air = 1.4%
- International water = 1.7%

**Notes:**
Transport is a major source of CO2 emissions
Road transport dominates, but air travel is growing most rapidly.
According to ATAG, CO2 emissions from air transport may triple by 2050 compared to 1990.

## Emissions of “conventional” pollutants

- Source: US Data – Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 21 – 2001
-               EU 15 Data – ACEA, “Commentary on the TERM 2001 Report”

**Transport and road vehicles as a share of total emissions of pollutant (%)**

**Notes:**
In spite of major efforts in most developing countries, transport still is major source of emissions of “conventional” pollutants.  Totals for several of pollutants have declined, however.

For US: (million short tons – all sources)
		1970	1999
Carbon Monoxide	129 	  97
Nitrogen Oxides	 21	  25
VOCs		 31	  18

## VII.	The rapid urbanization and motorization of the developing* world

**	**
**	****The twin forces of urbanization and motorization are threatening to overwhelm whatever improvements in mobility that citizens in a number of developing countries have begun to enjoy in recent decades**
*** includes “emerging” economies of Eastern Europe**

## As incomes have risen, vehicle ownership rates in some developing world countries have begun to approach Western European and Japanese rates of 30-40 years ago

- Source: Ward’s/Pemberton, *World Vehicle Forecasts and Strategies: The Next 20 Years*, 1996.

- Vehicle ownership per 1000 population

## Lower income groups in developing world countries are heavily dependant on public transport

- <$117

- $208

- –

- $316

- $494

- –

- $750

- $1,160

- –

- $2,865

- $117

- –

- $208

- $316

- –

- $494

- $750

- –

- $1,160

- >$2,865

- Percentage of all trips

- Monthly income (1991 US$)

- Note: Santiago does not add to 100%; not all modal shares include

- ed.

- <$117

- $208

- –

- $316

- $494

- –

- $750

- $1,160

- –

- $2,865

- $117

- –

- $208

- $316

- –

- $494

- $750

- –

- $1,160

- >$2,865

- Percentage of all trips

- Monthly income (1991 US$)

- Note: Santiago does not add to 100%; not all modal shares includ

- ed.

- Data for Santiago

## Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are an especially serious problem

## Accidents victims aren’t just vehicle occupants

- -

- Mode share and road accidents in Delhi, 1994

- Mode

- Mode Share

- (%)

- Fatalities

- (%)

- Ratio (fatalities/

- mode share)

- Car/taxi

- 5

- 2

- 0.6

- Bus

- 42

- 10

- 0.2

- Motorized 2

- -

- wheelers

- 12

- 27

- 2.3

- Bicycle

- 5

- 14

- 2.8

- Pedestrian

- 32

- 42

- 1.3

- Source: Mohan and Tiwari (1999).

## Motor vehicle-related air pollution an especially serious problem in many urban areas

- 15

- 11

- 86‡

- São Paulo

- 1990

- 94

- 89

- 92

- 64

- 39

- Sources: WRI (1996); West et al. (2000); CONAMA (1998); Fu and Yuan (2001)

- .

- * PM10.

- † Does not include evaporative emissions from refueling.

- ‡ PM10, includes fugitive road dust.

- NA: Data not a

- vailable

## What are the implications? Mobility 2001’s sustainability “scorecards”

**Notes:**
Wanted to summarize all this information in a compact but understandable manner.

Came up with the idea of “scorecards.”
How are we doing? – green, yellow, red
Which direction are we going relative to where we would like to be going? -- + or -

## Developed world

- –

- Disruption of communities

- –

- Transportation

- -

- related accidents

- +

- Transportations' demand for nonrenewable e

- nergy

- +

- Transportation

- -

- related solid waste

- +

**Notes:**
Divided “scorecard” into two parts – measures that we would like to see increasing, and measures we would like to see decreasing.

Results were subjective

## Developing world

- –

- Disruption of communities

- –

- Transportation

- -

- related accidents

- –

- Transportations’ demand for non

- -

- renewable energy

- +

- Transportation

- -

- related solid waste

- ?

**Notes:**
Major thing to note is the overall situation relative to the developed world.

## The “grand challenges” identified by Mobility 2001

**Notes:**
O.k. – if that represents where things are and where they appear to be headed, what can we do about it?

Summarized the issues facing mobility into a set of “grand challenges”
Things that, if successfully addressed, could move mobility much closer to being sustainable

## Group 1

- Adapting the personal use motor vehicle to the future accessibility needs/requirements of the developed and developing worlds
- Drastically reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector
- Providing mobility for those not having access to personal motor vehicles in both the developed and developing worlds

**Notes:**
Grouped these challenges depending upon what our stakeholders, correctly or incorrectly, seem to expect of mobility providers

First set – challenges that stakeholders expect mobility providers to play a major role in solving 

## Group 2

- Resolving the competition for access to infrastructure between personal and freight transportation
- Dealing with growing problem of congestion in inter-city personal and goods transportation

**Notes:**
Second set – issues that are vital to mobility industry, but that industry can’t solve alone.  (Couldn’t do that for earlier set, but stakeholders expect more.)

## Group 3

- “Reinventing” the process of planning, developing, financing, and managing mobility infrastructure
- Improving institutional capability to identify, build consensus about how to solve, and implement approaches that promote sustainable mobility
- And, while doing all of this:
- Ensuring that our transportation systems continue to play their essential role in economic development and, through the mobility they provide, serve essential human need and enhance the quality of life

**Notes:**
Third set – Challenges relating to the way that institutions – including government institutions – operate

Unless these somehow dealt with, everything that industry might do likely won’t help all that much

## From Mobility 2001 to Mobility 2030

*Mobility 2001* provides us with a “situation analysis”
- How do we now develop a “vision of sustainable mobility” and “pathways” for reaching it?

## Developing Mobility 2030

- Work has been divided into ten separate tasks, or “work streams”
- Purpose of each work stream – to provide a major piece of the information and analysis

## Work Stream #1 -- Indicators

- “We will agree upon a set of sustainability indicators that will enable the project to develop an operational definition of sustainable mobility.”
***Action team being chaired by Norsk Hydro; recommendations presented to Working Group in mid-July meeting***

**Notes:**
We are not planning to invent any new indicators.  We have been looking at indicators used by others and tried to identify a compact set (less than a dozen or so) that also is complete.

## Why indicators?

- To permit individual action teams to know how the information they are producing will be used;
- To permit the project as a whole to assure that it is focusing on the most relevant issues;
- To permit those involved in the later work streams to measure the impact of potential actions; and,
- To assure that our “vision” is grounded in reality and addresses the major challenges to achieving sustainable mobility.

**Notes:**
For this project, indicators aren’t an output – they are a tool.

## Work stream #2 – transport vehicle design and technology

- “We will assess the potential impact on sustainability of mobility of developments in transport vehicle technology and design”
***Action Team being chaired by VW; preliminary report to be presented to Working Group in September***** **

**Notes:**
This workstream is largely self-explanatory.

## Range of transport vehicles

- Passenger vehicles
- 1-2 passenger (including mopeds, etc.)
- 3-6 passenger (“conventional” cars)
- 6-15 passenger (small vans, etc.)
- buses (city, suburban, intercity)
- Goods-hauling vehicles
- Light, local use
- Medium, local use
- Heavy, local use
- Medium, intercity use
- Heavy, intercity use
- Multi-purpose vehicles
- Purpose-built vans
- Car-derived vans
- Vans derived from pickups or similar vehicles
***Information to cover both developed and developing worlds***

**Notes:**
WS 2 isn’t just focusing on cars.  It is focusing on goods-hauling vehicles as well as passenger-hauling vehicles.  It also is looking at powered vehicles smaller than cars – mopeds, powered rickshaws, etc.  These vehicles provide a major share of mobility in the developing world.

## Range of performance attributes

- Powertrain types, their fuel requirements, and their performance characteristics
- Materials used in vehicle construction
- Safety performance
- Occupant protection
- Crash avoidance
- Interaction with pedestrians, etc.
- Emissions performance
- Conventional
- Greenhouse gas
- Recyclability
- Potential for use of on-board electronics

**Notes:**
Here are the attributes we are interested in understanding.

These attributes only provide a potential for sustainability improvement.  Whether they end up realizing this potential is something that is being investigated in other parts of the project. 

## Work stream #3 – transport fuels

- “We will identify the potential impact on sustainability of fuels used in transportation
- Objectives:
- Develop a shared understanding of fuel pathways which can contribute to sustainability goals by 2030
- Identify enablers and blockers for each pathway
- Ensure that regional differences are taken into account, ensure adequate focus on developing world issues.”
***Action team being chaired by Shell and Toyota***

**Notes:**
This is a very important area.  Not just fuel manufacture and on-vehicle fuel storage, but also infrastructure for producing and distributing fuel.

## Work stream #4 – infrastructure

- “We will assess the infrastructure requirements resulting from the developments in transport technology and design and by the impact of the changes in fuels used by transport analyzed in Work Streams 2 and 3.  We also will assess the potential impact on sustainable mobility of addressing – and of failing to address – these and other infrastructure requirements.”
***Action team being chaired by GM***

**Notes:**
Mobility systems can’t operate without roads, track, airports, seaports, terminals, garages, etc.
How these get built, paid for, maintained, and used efficiently probably as important to sustainability as the technological characteristics of the vehicles that use them.
Infrastructure represents some of the most difficult challenges as well as the most interesting opportunities.

## Work stream #5 – demand for personal mobility

- “We will assess the impact on the demand for personal mobility of (a) the developments identified in transport vehicle design and technology, fuels used in transport, and associated transport infrastructure requirements, and (b) expected developments in population, urban form, growth in per capita income, changes in income distribution, etc.”
***Action team being chaired by Ford and Honda***

**Notes:**
WS 1 provides the measuring tape
WS 2, 3, and 4 provide the building blocks
The next two WS examine how effectively these building blocks can deliver on the public’s demand for personal and goods mobility
Effectiveness depends upon the nature of the building blocks.  But it also depends upon what else is going on with regard to population, demographics, income levels and distribution, form of urban areas, etc.
This is also the workstream where are putting principal focus on what is going on in developing world.

## Work stream #6 – goods and services mobility

- “We will assess the impact on the demand for goods and services mobility of (a) the developments we have identified in transport vehicle design and technology, fuels, and infrastructure, and (b) expected developments in population, urban form, growth in per capita income, changes in the composition and structure of industry, changes in logistics requirements, etc.”
***Action team being chaired by DaimlerChrysler***

**Notes:**
This workstream looks at the ability of transport systems to meet the needs for goods and services transport.
(I include services, because much of commercial travel in urbanized areas involves moving service providers to and between jobs)
Major interaction between personal and goods mobility
Trying to have these two workstreams work closely together  -- some joint meetings of Action Teams; much cross-communication 

## Work stream #7 – policy instruments and institutional issues

- “We will identify the range of policy measures that appear to be available to influence the demand for personal mobility and the demand for goods and services mobility, indicate what is known about their effectiveness in various situations, identify institutional barriers to their use as well as the institutional barriers to the implementation of other actions showing promise for improving the sustainability of mobility, and suggest how these institutional barriers can be overcome and the consequences for achieving sustainable mobility if they are not.”
***Action team leadership not yet assigned***

**Notes:**
This workstream inventories the tools with which we might influence the supply and demand of mobility; also the institutional constraints that exist to limit or enhance the use of these tools.
Effectiveness of governmental and legal institutions

## Work stream #8/#9 – mobility in the urban and long-distance context

- “We will assess how personal mobility and goods and services mobility may evolve over the next 30 years in the urbanized areas of the developed and developing worlds, assess the impact of this evolution on the sustainability of mobility, and identify actions that could render mobility more sustainable.  We will make the same assessment for long-distance personal and goods and services mobility.”
***Action team co-chaired by Nissan and VW***

**Notes:**
I mentioned earlier that vehicle technology, fuels, infrastructure only create potential to achieve sustainability. Whether sustainability is achieved or not determines how they interact with policy tools, institutions, and personal demand in particular settings.  This WS and the WS that follows is designed to try to estimate the impact that certain actions or developments might have on the sustainability of mobility – in the urban setting and in the long-distance setting.  Hope to be able to provide quantitative measures, but may not be able to do so.

## Work stream #10 – scenario design, “vision” development, coordination

- We will assess the cumulative impact of anticipated changes in urbanized area and long-distance personal and goods mobility on the sustainability of mobility and assess the impact of various possible actions on the sustainability of mobility
***Action team being chaired by Shell and Ford***

**Notes:**
This is workstream that Working Group recently added.  

## Coverage of fuel-related issues

- At least three workstreams logically have some role in addressing fuels-related issues
- WS2 – Vehicle technology
- Vehicle fuel use and on-vehicle fuel storage
- WS3 – Fuels
- Fuel production and distribution
- WS4 – Infrastructure
- Local siting issues (NIMBY)
- Some “boundary” issues still under discussion

## WS3 --Fuels and primary sources

- _Final Fuels_
- Diesel
- Gasoline
- Methanol
- Ethanol
- Hydrogen
- LPG
- Methane
- Bioethanol
- Biodiesel

- _Primary Sources_
- Crude oil
- Natural gas
- Crops
- Geothermal
- Wind
- Hydro/wave
- Solar

## Issues being addressed by WS3

- Fuels for transportation in 2030 – sources and availability
- Production technique prospects – infrastructure, costs, environmental impact
- Customer acceptance issues
- Sustainability of the fuel
- Route to “end game” and implications
- “Quick win” options in different regions
- Variances between urban and long distance/rural travel for the optimal fuel options
- “showstoppers” for various options in the different regions
- Categorization of niche and mainstream options
- Actions to bring most promising sustainable fuels to reality in different regions
- Regional variations for the above issues
- Potential fuels for non-road transport and implications for road transport fuels

## Contractor for WS3* presently conducting interviews with wide range of  stakeholders

- Renewable and non-renewable fuel producers including industrial gases
- Vehicle/power train manufacturers
- NGOs including transport assocations, consumer groups, fuel associations (i.e., OPEC), World Bank, etc.
- Regulatory bodies
- * Frost & Sullivan

## Emerging themes from interviews

- Significant reliance on oil based fuels at least through 2030
- Political pressure for change
- Widespread support for “Well-to-Wheel” analysis
- Unanimous support for hydrogen in long term

## Some suspicion of unanimity re. hydrogen

- WS10 undertaking formal scenario analysis
- GBN is the contractor
- Scenario analysis designed to assure that we are examining an appropriate range of future political and economic conditions
- Bears on “robustness” of likelihood of hydrogen