Cost-effectiveness of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from High-Speed Rail and urban transportation projects in California |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 3320 Public Affairs Building, Mailcode #951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656, USA;2. Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering, Arizona State University, 660 S College Avenue, Tempe, AZ 85287-3005, USA;1. School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, United States;2. IHS Markit, Southfield, MI, 48076, United States;3. Industrial & Systems Engineering Dept, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines;4. Institute of Innovation and Circular Economy, Asia University, Taichung City, Taiwan;5. Environmental and Ecological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, United States;1. City and Regional Planning, Knowlton School of Architecture, The Ohio State University, 275 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA;2. Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.15 ZhongGuanCunBeiYiTiao Alley, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China;3. Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, 3710 McClintock Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA;4. School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, George Mason University, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, USA;1. Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK;2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Room 305A, Toronto, ON M5S 1A4, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | A rising trend in state and federal transportation finance is to invest capital dollars into projects which reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, a key metric for comparing projects, the cost-effectiveness of GHG emissions reductions, is highly dependent on the cost-benefit methodology employed in the analysis. Our analysis comparing California High-Speed Rail and three urban transportation projects shows how four different accounting framings bring wide variations in cost per metric tonne of GHG emissions reduced. In our analysis, life-cycle GHG emissions are joined with full cost accounting to better understand the benefits of cap-and-trade investments. Considering only public subsidy for capital, none of the projects appear to be a cost-effective means to reduce GHG emissions (i.e., relative to the current price of GHG emissions in California’s cap-and-trade program at $12.21 per tonne). However, after adjusting for the change in private costs users incur when switching from the counterfactual mode (automobile or aircraft) to the mode enabled by the project, all investments appear to reduce GHG emissions at a net savings to the public. Policy and decision-makers who consider only the capital cost of new transportation projects can be expected to incorrectly assess alternatives and indirect benefits (i.e., how travelers adapt to the new mass transit alternative) should be included in decision-making processes. |
| |
| Keywords: | California High-Speed Rail Greenhouse gas Cap-and-trade Bus rapid transit Light rail transit Life-cycle assessment Economic assessment |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
