Annex IV. Transport policies assumptions and impact on activity levels

Policies that seek to improve the energy efficiency and reduce the emissions of transport typically target various strategies to reduce operational fuel use while providing the same level of service. This approach is understandable and effective. Fuel consumed by cars, trucks, ships and aircraft accounts for the most visible energy security, emissions and environmental impact of transport (including emissions of local air pollutants with the consequent health impact). It also accounts for most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) and pollutant emissions associated with transport from a life-cycle perspective. In this context, the most broadly applied regulatory and fiscal measures to reduce externalities make good pragmatic sense as measures to achieve societal and environmental goals. These measures include the following:

vehicle efficiency (or fuel economy) standards

fuel quality regulations (fuels of a certain minimum quality are required for vehicle emissions control technologies to function properly)

other fiscal and regulatory policies to promote more-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels and powertrains (e.g. electric vehicles).

However, other policies and metrics that are less prominent are also crucial to reduce the energy, emissions and materials intensity of transport. Policy measures that address systemic inefficiencies across transport services are best encapsulated by the “avoid, shift and improve” paradigm. Smart urban planning can avoid the need to rely on motorised vehicles through mixed-use and transit-oriented development and by planning multicentric cities. Together with densification, these measures can reduce the annual distances travelled by road vehicles. Infrastructure planning and policies that promote convenient, accessible, reliable and attractive public transport, as well as walking and cycling alternatives to cars, can similarly shift transport activity to lower energy and emissions intensity modes. Similar shifts can be realised in freight.

For vehicles and infrastructure, the energy and emissions benefits of the avoid, shift and improve paradigm in transport tend to lead to emissions and energy use reductions in terms of final energy or direct (exhaust-pipe) CO2 emissions, and also from a life-cycle perspective. The upfront energy and emissions incurred from investments in public and non-motorised transport infrastructure are typically quickly paid back through reduced activity – and hence lower fuel use and emissions – in high-intensity modes such as road and aviation. On the vehicles side, energy-efficient and low-emissions powertrains (e.g. electric vehicles) tend to incur higher energy use and emissions in vehicle (and battery) production and recycling as a trade-off for lower operational emissions intensity. A comprehensive view can inform the degree to which investments in more energyand emissions-intensive material use pay for themselves in operational fuel and energy savings. It is hence a useful basis for analysing the trade-offs between materials and production-phase impact and operational (use-phase) impact.

The Clean Technology Scenario (CTS) incorporates policy levers that change the structure and nature of transport demand. A portfolio of national and city-level policies promotes all three key policy levers (avoid, shift and improve). Some of the main policy elements are34:

taxation of transport fuels (including biofuels and electricity), based on their well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions

34 For details on the full suite of policies, their regional stringency and roll-out over time, see Chapter 5 of the 2016 and 2017 Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 2016, 2017).

Page | 148

taxation of vehicle purchase and usage including differentiated taxation (rebates), as well as annual insurance and registration charges

city-level travel demand management measures such as congestion pricing, parking pricing and low-emission zones.

In addition to a more rapid diversification of powertrains, primarily to electric drive (plug-in hybrid and battery-electric vehicles), the result of these policies is a reduction and substitution of road vehicle activity. This translates into lower vehicle stocks in the CTS. The substitution of road vehicle activity for other modes is shown in Figure 63. In the CTS, buses, trains and twowheelers provide many of the same services provided by cars and trucks in the Reference Technology Scenario (RTS). This has implications on the build-out of transport infrastructure and the material composition of the road vehicle fleet.

Figure 63. Effects of avoid-shift policies in transport

Notes: Avoid-shift policies are needed to mitigate a growing modal share of passenger light-duty vehicles (PLDVs) and especially passenger aviation. pkm = passenger kilometre.

Avoid-shift policies promote modal shifts in the CTS, resulting in a reduction in vehicle use and road infrastructure and an increase in rail.

In the CTS, the reduction in vehicle activity translates into reduced road building. The shift to rail activity requires more infrastructure building, for urban (metro or light rail) and for intercity (including high-speed) rail modes.35 Most of the recent historical growth in road and rail infrastructure has been in developing and emerging economies. This trend is expected to continue over the coming half century. However, specific development and sustainability policies can have a determinant impact on the degree of expected growth. In advanced economies, strategies and policies to diversify mobility away from roads could lead to strategic abandonment of rarely utilised or redundant paved roads, as well as reallocation of urban paved areas (including roads and parking) to alternative uses (e.g. parks, pedestrian and cycling paths). In emerging economies, the growing demand for private vehicles, and hence the volume of road building needed to accommodate it, can be mitigated through policies to shift travel to rail (and bus). Strategic development of high-speed rail can globally dampen demand for

35 The fundamental assumption for road utilisation is that current levels of congestion are maintained in the future. For rail activity, it is assumed that track utilisation converges to high levels of utilisation (downward in the case of modes with very high utilisation, such as the metro in the People’s Republic of China, and upward in the case of modes with lower utilisation, such as intercity passenger rail in North America).

Page | 149

passenger aviation and long-distance car trips. Cities in the developing and emerging world, many of which have yet to be built, could lock in lower-carbon mobility patterns early by developing metro and light rail. The potential for urban rail to substitute for car travel is more limited, but nevertheless exists in cities in advanced economies.

References

IEA (2017), Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations, OECD/IEA, Paris.

IEA (2016), Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: Towards Sustainable Urban Energy Systems, OECD/IEA, Paris.

Page | 150