Win-win transportation emission reduction strategies: smart transportation strategies can reduce pollution emissions and provide other important economic, social and environmental benefits

Win-win transportation solutions are cost-effective, technically feasible market reforms that solve transportation problems by improving mobility options and removing market distortions that cause excessive motor vehicle travel. They provide many economic, social and environmental benefits. If implemented to the degree economically justified, win-win solutions could achieve the transport component of Kyoto emission reduction targets while helping to address problems such as traffic congestion, accidents and inadequate mobility for non-drivers, and supporting economic development. This report discusses the win-win concept and describes various win-win strategies.

[1]  B. Lefèvre,et al.  Urban Transport Energy Consumption: Determinants and Strategies for its Reduction.. An analysis of the literature. , 2009 .

[2]  Todd Litman.  Recommendations for improving LEED transportation and parking credits , 2008 .

[3]  Robert Gross,et al.  What policies are effective at reducing carbon emissions from surface passenger transport? - a review of interventions to encourage behavioural andtechnological change , 2009 .

[4]  Alex Wilson,et al.  Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Buildings , 2007 .

[5]  W. Ross Morrow,et al.  Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Analysis of Policies to Reduce Oil Consumption and , 2008 .

[6]  Todd Litman,et al.  Transportation Market Distortions , 2011 .

[7]  Philip L Winters,et al.  Economics of Travel Demand Management: Comparative Cost Effectiveness and Public Investment , 2007 .

[8]  G. Nemet,et al.  Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking , 2010 .

[9]  P. Higgins,et al.  A healthy reduction in oil consumption and carbon emissions , 2005 .

[10]  D. Belzer.  Location Effi ciency and Housing Type — Boiling it Down to BTUs , 2011 .

[11]  T. Litman.  Efficient vehicles versus efficient transportation. Comparing transportation energy conservation strategies , 2005 .

[12]  Todd Litman,et al.  Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? Evaluating Mobility Management Policy Objectives Such As Targets To Reduce VMT And Increase Use Of Alternative Modes , 2009 .

[13]  Christian Brand,et al.  Success stories within the road transport sector on reducing greenhouse gas emission and producing ancillary benefits , 2008 .

[14]  S. Sorrell.  The rebound effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency , 2007 .

[15]  David Banister.  Looking over the Horizon Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy , 2005 .

[16]  Environmental Systems.  Driving and the built environment : the effects of compact development on motorized travel, energy use, and CO2 emissions , 2009 .

[17]  Jane Romero,et al.  Mainstreaming Transport Co-benefits Approach: A Guide to Evaluating Transport Projects , 2011 .

[18]  R. Ewing,et al.  Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change , 2008 .

[19]  A. H. Robertson.  European Conference of Ministers of Transport , 1976 .

[20]  Cornie Huizenga,et al.  The Co-Benefits of Responding to Climate Change : STATUS in ASIA , 2008 .

[21]  Steve Winkelman,et al.  CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook. Part One: Land Use, Transit & Travel Demand Management , 2008 .

[22]  Robert Salter,et al.  Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation - Transport Sector , 2011 .

[23]  Lloyd Wright,et al.  Climate Change Mitigation and Transport in Developing Nations , 2005 .

[24]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Climate change mitigation and co-benefits of feasible transport demand policies in Beijing , 2009 .

[25]  Marcelo Sampaio Dias Maciel,et al.  Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation (IMT): A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas , 2012 .