Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2012

Achieving Goals of San Francisco, California, for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Transportation Sector: What Would It Take?

Abstract

Although several studies analyze strategies for reducing transportation's contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, few do so at the local level, particularly for a city such as San Francisco, California, that is already a leader in climate-friendly transportation. This study examined nine GHG-reducing strategies within the San Francisco context, where local ordinance establishes a goal to reduce the city's GHGs 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Strategies that were analyzed included infrastructure improvements, expansion of demand management policies including pricing, and accelerated penetration of electric vehicle technology. The study used a combination of travel demand model and sketch-planning methods to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies in reducing GHGs and their cumulative ability to achieve San Francisco's goal. The analysis results showed roadway pricing and electric vehicle strategies to have had the largest potential to reduce GHGs, although these two strategies differed significantly in cost-effectiveness. The results also showed that strategies involving share costs between public sector, private sector, and individuals had great promise in delivering reductions. Although investments in transit alone may not produce large GHG reductions, they are necessary to accommodate the mode shift of other strategies and can be paired strategically with pricing strategies. According to analysis results, San Francisco's policy goals appeared unachievable, even with ambitious assumptions about funding and policy change. These findings point to the need for policy change at a higher scale and for unprecedented changes in individual behavior to achieve GHG goals.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Economist Intelligence Unit. US and Canada Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Performance of 27 Major US and Canadian Cities. Siemens AG, Munich, Germany, 2011.
2. Metz B., Davidson O.R., Bosch P.R., Dave R., and Meyer L. A. (eds.). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007.
3. 2011 Climate Action Strategy for San Francisco's Transportation System. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Calif., 2011.
4. Climate Action Plan for San Francisco: Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. San Francisco Department of the Environment, Calif. 2004.
5. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2008.
6. Clean Car Standards–Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2010.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2010.
8. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2009.
9. Creyts J., Derkach A., Nyquist S., Ostrowski K., and Stephenson J. Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative Executive Report, McKinsey & Company, and Conference Board, New York, 2007.
10. Ewing R., Bartholomew K., Winkelman S., Walters J., and Chen D. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2008.
11. Greene D.L., and Plotkin S. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, Va., 2011.
12. Gallivan F., Ang-Olson J., and Turchetta D. Toward a Better State Climate Action Plan: Review and Assessment of Proposed Transportation Strategies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2244, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2011, pp. 1–8.
13. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2010.
14. Bansal M., and Morrow E. Meeting Transportation Goals to Reduce Greenhouse Gases in the National Capital Region: “What Would It Take?” Scenario. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2252, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2011, pp. 135–143.
15. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. BART Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, Calif., 2008.
16. Gallivan F., Ang-Olson J., Liban C.B., and Kusumoto A. Cost-Effective Approaches to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Through Public Transportation in Los Angeles, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2217, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2011, pp. 19–29.
17. Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant (CAPPA) User Guide. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Bonn, Germany, 2010.
18. Outwater M.L., and Charlton B. The San Francisco Model in Practice: Validation, Testing, and Application. Innovations in Travel Demand Modeling: Summary of a Conference, Volume 2: Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 24–29.
19. EMFAC 2007, version 2.3. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 2006.
20. Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects. Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2005.
21. California Air Resource Board. Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) Pursuant to Senate Bill 375: A Report to the California Air Resource Board. Regional Targets Advisory Committee, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/report/092909/finalreport.pdf.
22. California Department of Transportation. California Motor Vehicle Stock Travel and Fuel. Forecast (MVSTAFF). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/mvstaff.html.
23. Current Regional Plans. Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, Calif. 2011.
24. Dill J., and Carr T. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2003, pp. 116–123.
25. Pucher J., and Buehler R. Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2008, pp. 495–528.
26. American Community Survey, 2005–2009. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010.
27. Litman T. Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004, pp. 37–58.
28. Transit Effectiveness Project Market Analysis. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Calif. 2009.
29. Martin E., and Shaheen S. Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America. Report 09–11. Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, Calif., 2010.
30. Concas S., and Winters P. L. Quantifying the Net Social Benefits of Vehicle Trip Reductions: Guidance for Customizing the TRIMMS Model. Final draft report. Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa, Fla., 2009.
31. San Francisco Board of Supervisors. San Francisco Youth Commission, 2010. http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17354.
32. Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Program Evaluation: 2004–2005. Transportation Authority of Marin, San Rafael, Calif. 2005.
33. Marin County Safe Routes to Schools: Program Evaluation and Recommendations: 2005–2006. Transportation Authority of Marin, San Rafael, Calif. 2006.
34. TransForm. TravelChoice Alameda Evaluation. http://www.transformca.org/campaign/travelchoice.
35. Smart Trips North/Northwest. Final report. Bureau of Transportation, City of Portland, Oregon, 2010.
36. Mobility Access and Pricing Study. San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Calif. 2010.
37. Sall E., Bent E., Koehler J., Charlton B., and Erdhardt G. D. Evaluating Regional Pricing Strategies in San Francisco—Application of the SFCTA Activity-Based Regional Pricing Model. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
38. Kahn M.E., and Vaughn R. K. Green Market Geography: The Spatial Clustering of Hybrid Vehicles and LEED Registered Buildings. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, Art. 2, 2009. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol9/iss2/art2.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2012
Issue published: January 2012

Rights and permissions

© 2012 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Elizabeth M. Brisson
San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Elizabeth Sall
San Francisco County Transportation Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Jeffrey Ang-Olson
ICF International, 630 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 101

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 4

  1. Why is traffic congestion getting worse? A decomposition of the contri...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Do transportation network companies decrease or increase congestion?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Can regional transportation and land-use planning achieve deep reducti...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Achieving reductions in greenhouse gases in the US road transportation...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub