Recently, carsharing has entered a phase of commercial mainstreaming as carsharing providers and urban transportation planners aim at broadening the customer base. In this context, knowledge about the motives of carsharing usage is essential for further growth. Based on a qualitative means-end chain analysis this paper therefore explores usage motives, thus expanding the existing insights from analyses of usage behavior. In a series of laddering interviews with users of a US carsharing service, the underlying hierarchical motive structure is uncovered and four motivational patterns are identified: value-seeking, convenience, lifestyle, and environmental motives. Implications are drawn for applying these insights.
Sustainable mobility policy for long-distance transportation services should consider emerging automobiles and aircraft as well as infrastructure and supply chain life-cycle effects in the assessment of new high-speed rail systems. Using the California corridor, future automobiles, high-speed rail and aircraft long-distance travel are evaluated, considering emerging fuel-efficient vehicles, new train designs and the possibility that the region will meet renewable electricity goals. An attributional per passenger-kilometer-traveled life-cycle inventory is first developed including vehicle, infrastructure and energy production components. A consequential life-cycle impact assessment is then established to evaluate existing infrastructure expansion against the construction of a new high-speed rail system. The results show that when using the life-cycle assessment framework, greenhouse gas footprints increase significantly and human health and environmental damage potentials may be dominated by indirect and supply chain components. The environmental payback is most sensitive to the number of automobile trips shifted to high-speed rail, and for greenhouse gases is likely to occur in 20–30 years. A high-speed rail system that is deployed with state-of-the-art trains, electricity that has met renewable goals, and in a configuration that endorses high ridership will provide significant environmental benefits over existing modes. Opportunities exist for reducing the long-distance transportation footprint by incentivizing large automobile trip shifts, meeting clean electricity goals and reducing material production effects.
The full paper and supplemental data can be found here.
For big cities like New York it is high time to abandon outmoded zoning codes from the auto-boom days requiring specific ratios of parking spaces per housing unit, or per square foot of retail space. These rules about minimum parking spaces have driven up the costs of apartments for developers and residents, damaged the environment, diverted money that could have gone to mass transit and created a government-mandated cityscape that’s largely unused. We keep adding to the glut of parking lots. Crain’s recently reported on the largely empty garages at new buildings like Avalon Fort Greene, a 42-story luxury tower near downtown Brooklyn, and 80 DeKalb Avenue, up the block, both well occupied, both of which built hundreds of parking spaces to woo tenants. Garages near Yankee Stadium, built over the objections of Bronx neighbors appalled at losing parkland for yet more parking lots, turn out never to be more than 60 percent full, even on game days. The city has lost public space, the developers have lost a fortune.
Tomorrow's TRANSOC Friday Seminar is with Joan Odgen of the UC Davis STEPS program presenting, "Transitions to Alternative Fuels: Comparing H2, Electricity, and Biofuels":
We analyze and compare alternative scenarios for adoption of new light duty vehicle and fuel technologies that could enable deep cuts in gasoline consumption and GHG emissions by 2050. We also estimate the transitional costs for making new vehicle and fuel technologies economically competitive with gasoline vehicles. We estimate future GHG emissions and gasoline use for the following scenarios:
·Efficiency—Currently feasible improvements in gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) technology are introduced.
·Biofuels—Large-scale use of low-carbon biofuels is implemented.
·PHEV success—Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) play a major role beyond 2025.
·HFCV success—Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) play a major role beyond 2025.
·Portfolio—More-efficient ICEVs+biofuels+PHEVs+HFCVs implemented in various combinations.
All scenarios assume the same total number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled, but the vehicle mix over time is different for each scenario. We compare each scenario to a reference scenario where modest improvements in efficiency take place and use of biofuels increases but no electric-drive vehicles are implemented. We also explore transition dynamics using a “learning curve” model, and estimate the cumulative investments that would be required to bring new technologies to “breakeven” with gasoline ICEV technologies.Finally, we suggest future work to better understand transition costs.
The seminary will be this Friday, Septermber 9 2011, from 4-5 p.m. in 406 Davis Hall. Don't forget about Cookie hour before hand at 3:30 in the library. See you there!
And today, these outstanding companies are committing to doing a lot more. The companies here today have endorsed our plan to continue increasing the mileage on their cars and trucks over the next 15 years. We’ve set an aggressive target, and the companies here are stepping up to the plate.
By 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles will nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon. (Applause.) So this is an incredible commitment that they’ve made. And these are some pretty tough business guys. They know their stuff. And they wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t think that it was ultimately going to be good business and good for America.
Using less oil also means our cars will produce fewer emissions. So when your kids are biking around the neighborhood, they’ll be breathing less pollution and fewer toxins. It means we’re doing more to protect our air and water. And it means we’re reducing the carbon pollution that threatens our climate.
The President took time to thank California for leading the charge for better fuel efficiency in vehicles. You may remember when the state sued the EPA in 2008 over emissions rules where Federal standards did not meet the aggressive targets of AB 32.