01334665

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2244-01

http://scholar.google.com...etta&publication_year=2011

A major body of transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies is contained in state-level climate action plans (CAPs). There has been some concern among major stakeholder groups that CAPs are not rigorously developed documents and that the reductions estimated in CAPs are unrealistic given real constraints on funding and implementation authority. This paper analyzes a subset of 84 strategies in nine states’ CAPs to determine how reliable reduction estimates are and where significant sources of uncertainty arise. Measures from these CAPs are evaluated according to requirements for enactment, external factors that play a role in implementation, quantification methods, and variables used in the quantification. For enactment of strategies, nearly all of the transportation GHG reductions estimated in state CAPs would require new state legislation or state agency rulemaking. Half of the reductions would require major new funding. For implementation factors, one-third of state CAP GHG reductions relies heavily on assumptions about the future price of transportation. A relatively small portion (10%) of the estimated GHG reductions depends on changes in land use. Some of the greatest uncertainty stems from strategies that are quantified with goals rather than empirical data and are not supported by a feasibility study. The authors judge that if state CAP transportation strategies are enacted as stated, roughly one-third of the estimated reductions in GHG emissions is highly uncertain. As states develop and revise CAPs in the future, they can focus on developing and quantifying strategies in a way that increases the likelihood that strategies will achieve at least the reductions estimated.

01359893

11-3896

English

pp 1-8

2011

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309167642

Print

Figures (1) ; References (12) ; Tables (5)

Climate change; Environmental policy; Greenhouse gases; Policy analysis; State government agencies; States; Strategic planning; Transportation policy

Action plans; Emissions reduction

Environment; Planning and Forecasting; Policy; Transportation (General); I15: Environment; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Feb 17 2011 6:41PM

• Administrative Structure and Hosting of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
• Assessing China’s Megaregional Mobility in a Comparative Context
• Creating Liveable Neighborhoods Through Context-Sensitive Multimodal Road Planning
• Determining Fair Share Regional Targets for Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation and Land Use: California’s Experience Under Senate Bill 375
• Developing and Applying Models for Estimating Arterial Corridor Travel Time Index for Transportation Planning in Small to Medium-Sized Communities
• Identifying Surface Transportation Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment Opportunities Under Climate Change: Case Study in Portland, Oregon
• Impact of Jobs–Housing Balance on Average Jurisdiction Commuting Times: Virginia Macroscopic Analysis
• Integrating Travel Demand Model and Benefit–Cost Analysis for Evaluation of New Capacity Highway Projects
• Lessons Learned from Four Alternative Transportation System Partnership Endeavors in Public Lands
• Modeling the Effects of Shuttle Service on Transportation System Performance and Quality of Visitor Experience in Rocky Mountain National Park
• Operating a Metropolitan Planning Organization: Internal Funding, Work Programs, and Consultant Balance
• Resource Guide for Enhancing the Incorporation of Safety into the Regional Planning Process
• Using Traffic Simulation Software to Manage Recreational River Boats on Public Lands