There are many reasons to reduce our reliance on cars—they are polluting, inefficient, dangerous, and expensive to own. In dense urban areas, travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and public transit can be reasonable alternatives for many peoples’ transportation needs.

But what about suburban and rural areas with lower population densities and longer distances between destinations? Land use patterns in these regions make it challenging to get around without a private vehicle. Can emerging mobility options reduce car dependence in these environments?

Based on our research so far, the answer appears to be yes. Our research teams are at the forefront of evaluating how new mobility services such as microtransit (on-demand, small shuttles providing shared rides), carsharing, and ridesharing are being used and the extent to which they are substituting for private car travel in California’s suburban and rural contexts.

Microtransit in Suburban Sacramento

Suburban communities around Sacramento are not well served by fixed-route transit. In 2018, Sacramento Regional Transit launched a microtransit service called SmaRT Ride to fill this gap. SmaRT Ride is available in eight outlying areas and the downtown core that allows travelers to request a “door-to-door” or “corner-to-corner” ride via a smartphone app. Rides cost the same as fixed-route transit.

Dr. Xing’s team studied early adopters of SmaRT Ride, conducting surveys and focus groups of both users and non-users of the service. When asked about transportation choices, more than 40% of riders said that, without SmaRT Ride, they would have made their last microtransit trip by car instead. This suggests that microtransit has real potential to reduce dependence on driving.

The study also found that more than half of SmaRT Ride users had an annual household income of less than $50,000, and that users of the service are more likely than non-users to have physical limitations. Finally, people who do not like fixed-route transit or have a neutral attitude towards it are more likely to use SmaRT Ride than are those who like fixed-route transit. This suggests that microtransit is more of a complement to, rather than a replacement for, fixed-route transit.

Innovative Mobility in the San Joaquin Valley

Dr. Rodier has been engaged with regional partners since 2014 to plan, launch, and evaluate three mobility pilots in the rural San Joaquin Valley. The region is characterized by high levels of poverty and air pollution and long distances between destinations, presenting particular challenges for providing clean and affordable transportation.

In 2019, three services were launched in the region: Míocar, an electric carsharing program with vehicle hubs at affordable housing complexes in Tulare and Kern counties; VOGO, a volunteer ridesharing service; and Vamos, a Mobility-as-a-Service app that facilitates trip planning and ticket purchasing across the valley’s many transit services.

So far, the research shows that each of these services is helping people move around the region in new ways. More than 60% of Míocar trips would not have occurred without access to the service, and three-quarters of the miles traveled on these “new” trips were made by travelers from households below the median income level in their county. People who would have used another mode to make their trip in the absence of Míocar would have traveled almost exclusively by gasoline-powered cars. So the service reduces greenhouse gas emissions for those trips.

Similarly, most of those using the VOGO ridesharing service would not have otherwise been able to make their trips. Most VOGO riders do not have access to a personal vehicle and are uncomfortable driving vehicles due to medical issues or other concerns, leaving them with few options for trips that cannot be made via existing transit services. Finally, early study results suggest that Vamos is a valuable transit fare payment tool and contributes to an improved transportation experience for its active users. More study is needed to assess the effects of Vamos on transit use and mobility as this app expands its service area and user base.

Key Takeaways

Small mobility programs like these are proliferating as communities seek affordable, sustainable alternatives to private vehicle ownership. Our research is showing early indications that these programs can be successful in meeting rural and suburban transportation needs, particularly for low-income travelers. However, these services need continued support. Private ridehailing and carsharing companies typically offer their services in higher-income urban areas that already have plentiful transportation options. To increase clean transportation access in underserved communities, new business models may be needed. These may include direct service provided by a transit agency, such as SmaRT Ride, or a non-profit service operated with public subsidies, such as Míocar. Further coordination among transportation providers and community-based organizations will be essential in identifying and developing transportation solutions to meet the needs of individual communities. Rigorous evaluations of these programs as they develop can assess their contributions to policy goals related to transportation equity and climate change, and inform longer-term investments.

Further reading:

NCST SmaRT Ride report and policy brief: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/project/exploring-consumer-market-and-environmental-impacts-microtransit-services

UC ITS Míocar report and policy brief: https://www.ucits.org/research-project/2019-44/

NCST San Joaquin mobility report and policy brief: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/project/before-and-after-evaluation-shared-mobility-projects-san-joaquin-valley

Yan Xing is a postdoctoral researcher at ITS-Davis.

Caroline Rodier is a researcher at ITS-Davis and the associate director of the Urban Land Use and Transportation Center at UC Davis.

Brian Harold is the policy evaluation specialist at the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy.

Mike Sintetos is the policy director at the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) and UC ITS Statewide Transportation Research Program.

(Photo: Courtesy of the National Wildlife Federation)

The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in Agoura Hills, California, which will soon be under construction, is unprecedented in its size, cost, and primary purpose. Estimated to cost $90 million, it is the first major wildlife over-crossing primarily aimed at bringing genetic diversity to isolated animal populations rather than preventing roadkills—though it will do that, too.

The crossing, also known as the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing, will be an overpass covered with vegetation, spanning ten very busy lanes of US Highway 101. It will allow mountain lions and other species to cross between the Simi Hills to the north and the Santa Monica Mountains to the south. Without this crossing, the mountain lion populations in the area would likely disappear in the next few decades because of inbreeding, vehicle strikes, and limited space to escape from wildfires.

Traffic Light and Noise

The planned crossing features design elements that will encourage mountain lions and other species that are sensitive to light and noise to actually use it. Barriers and berms will be built to reduce the amount of traffic-generated noise and light that reaches the areas that animals will use to approach the crossing. Three of our research projects at the Road Ecology Center on roadway light and noise helped influence this design. These projects were supported through state (SB1) and federal (USDOT) funds to the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies and the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, respectively. 

In the first of our related projects, we found that wildlife crossings are used by larger proportions of nearby, light- and noise-sensitive animal species if the crossings are comparatively dark and quiet. Our second study showed that the different behaviors among animal species in response to traffic noise and light determined how much they used wildlife crossings with varying traffic disturbance conditions. In the third study, we investigated ways of mitigating light and noise near the Wallis Annenberg crossing and a proposed over-crossing for I-15, near Temecula, California. First we found that light and noise from traffic could be detected more than 100 meters away from the highway in the animal approach zones of both crossings. We then used 3D-design software and traffic-noise modelling software to show that changing the configuration of barriers and berms near the crossings could reduce the traffic noise and light in the approach zones (Figure). Based on the results, we made recommendations to the designers to increase the chance that wildlife will approach the crossings.

Figure: Noise and glare mitigation in the approach zone to the crossing. (A) Typical approach to crossing structure without noise and light abatement. (B) Quiet and dark paths created by excavating and redistributing landscape materials (tan areas) and adding barriers along the highway.

The Need for Fencing and Crossings

Every year, more than 7,000 vehicle collisions with large, wild animals (e.g., deer, black bear) are reported in California, according to our California Roadkill Observation System (https://wildlifecrossing.net/California), and this is likely a significant undercount. For example, State Farm Insurance Co. estimates that there are upwards of 20,000 claims/year for deer-vehicle collisions in California. Not only can these crashes lead to loss of human life, property, and animal life, they can also affect the balance of ecosystems. 

One way to slow the decline of wildlife species is by lowering direct and indirect mortality from traffic. We know that we can reduce the number of vehicle collisions and alleviate genetic isolation with simple tools: 1) traffic calming and reduction, 2) fencing alone, and 3) fencing combined with wildlife crossing structures. Research done in California by the Road Ecology Center has shown where wildlife crossings and fencing are most needed and could provide greater economic benefits than their cost (https://wildlifecrossingcalculator.org). The state is already home to more than 100 wildlife crossings, used by a wide range of reptile, amphibian, and mammal species. But there is a grave need for at least ten times as many. 

Policy Environment

In the past few years, public support for wildlife crossings has grown significantly. Knowledge and awareness of crossings has spread from research scientists, to transportation planners and engineers, to the wider world. But policies and related budgets remain inadequate to the needs. Two Legislative efforts reflect this picture. 

First, the 2021 Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law initially authorized $350 million for new wildlife crossings. Ultimately, however, Congress appropriated $0 of the $350 million for crossings. Second, California Assembly Bill (AB) 2344 initially required the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation) to investigate areas that are essential to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, to develop a plan to address these areas, and for Caltrans to implement 10 crossing structures per year. This last and strongest requirement was supported by hunting and environmental groups, but was recently removed from the bill. Although compromise of environmental legislation is an all-too-common occurrence in California, the future will tell whether this critical requirement will be negotiated back into the bill. 

In California, Road Ecology Center research shows that wildlife-vehicle collisions cost the state upwards of $250 million per year. While the state’s transportation budget is $20-25 billion per year, Caltrans has claimed that only two to three wildlife crossings are built per year in California, which, at most, would account for about 0.1% of the annual transportation budget. Yet, surveyed taxpayers consistently report that they would be willing to pay more taxes in order to protect wildlife. And state policy may finally be starting to reflect this outlook. SB 790, signed by Governor Newsom in October 2021, included $61 million for building wildlife crossings, $7 million of which was allocated for the Wallis Annenberg crossing. 

In sum, we know where to build wildlife crossings and fences; research is improving the effectiveness of these tools; and we can approximate their cost and benefits. We have a lot of information for decision support on how to address habitat fragmentation, wildlife deaths, vehicle accidents, and the cost to humans and nonhuman animals. While the policy and transportation planning response has grown significantly, we still need more from implementing transportation agencies to protect wildlife and from legislative bodies to require action and allocate more funding to make it possible.

Fraser Shilling is the director of the Road Ecology Center at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis); Seth Karten is a senior writer at ITS-Davis.

If we are going to operate ground transportation, we are going to need pavement, regardless of how those vehicles (cars, trucks, bicycles, feet) are powered. Leaving aside the question of how much pavement we want or need, pavements directly contribute to global warming throughout their life cycle. They require: materials extraction and production, transport, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and demolition (“end-of-life,” although they seldom really die, they get reused or repurposed). Pavements also affect vehicle emissions by impacting vehicle life-span and the amount of energy needed to propel vehicles.

To reduce emissions and help local governments maximize the value of their pavement dollars, a group of California universities and local governments created the City and County Pavement Improvement Center (CCPIC). The center provides cities and counties with training, tools, guidance, and outreach regarding advanced, cost-effective, and sustainable pavement practices. Many of these are available through the CCPIC website.

The CCPIC resources address the three main strategies that are currently used to reduce global warming emissions from the pavement life cycle:

• Better engineering and construction quality at the outset of a project to minimize the environmental impacts of subsequent maintenance and rehabilitation. About 95% of all pavement spending is on keeping existing pavement functional.
• Keeping pavements smooth and choosing the best pavement type to reduce vehicle fuel use and prolong vehicle life.
• Better timing and treatment selection in pavement maintenance and rehabilitation through improved use of pavement management systems. These systems include low-impact preservation treatments and selection of optimal rehabilitation strategies for the pavement type and condition, climate, and traffic.

One of the projects that used CCPIC resources was the Fulton Road Reconstruction, in Santa Rosa, which won the 2021 overall award in the California’s Outstanding Local Streets and Roads Project Awards. The section of road reconstructed has 25,000 vehicles traveling on it in each direction every day. The project used a draft version of the model PCC Pavement Specifications from the CCPIC for the design of the materials and construction. Because of these and other strategies used on the renovation project, it is expected to require minimal maintenance and last longer—which will conserve funding, reduce environmental impact, and eliminate additional road work leading to traffic delays and hazards.

The CCPIC will continue expanding its training program, launching a pavement engineering and management certificate program, producing more model specifications, software tools, and technical guidance, and continuing outreach to local agencies. Support for CCPIC comes from SB1 funds from the UC Institute of Transportation Studies (Davis, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine) and the California State University Transportation Consortium (Mineta Transportation Institute).

———

John Harvey is a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Davis and Director of the UC Pavement Research Center and the City and County Pavement Improvement Center.

Vaccinations are offering restored hope, but questions remain about whether transportation access will restrict an equitable vaccine distribution strategy. According to Pew, millions of people who may be higher-risk for contracting COVID-19 also don’t have a reliable transportation option to a vaccine location. Older adults, medically frail individuals, and those living in communities hardest hit by the pandemic often overlap with those with limited transportation access.

Vaccination campaigns across the U.S. are addressing these transportation challenges. In Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Denver some programs are offering door-to-door vaccine distribution. These vaccine distribution programs may be the ticket to address the fact that COVID-19 has disrupted all forms of transportation, and particularly harmed the vulnerable in a number of ways. UC Davis research on the impacts of COVID-19 shows that the pandemic has exacerbated income inequalities.

Those who need periodic non-emergency healthcare have been particularly vulnerable during the pandemic. Even now, during the transition back to normalcy, this group is facing many new challenges, as well as some unique opportunities.

Who has Access to Telehealth

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare delivery in the United States. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rapidly expanded telehealth services for many patients in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Telehealth has been promoted as a way for patients to minimize their risk of infection and to reduce exposures to healthcare teams.

Despite these expansions, many patients and clinics, particularly those that service vulnerable populations, have not benefited from this rapid transition to telehealth. Some patients lack the technology (computer, tablet, phone), broad-band internet, or comfort to access these services. In addition, language barriers add an additional barrier at times. Finally, despite the rise of telehealth, certain patients require continued in-person visits. Clearly, vaccines or physical treatments cannot be administered digitally. Given the changing landscape of transportation due to the pandemic, this may be placing already vulnerable patients at even higher risk.

Addressing the Unique Needs of Dialysis Patients

Individuals with End Stage Kidney Disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis are one such group of patients who need in-person medical care despite the ongoing pandemic. The vast majority of patients on hemodialysis need to travel to a dialysis center about three times a week for their scheduled treatment. The pandemic transformed clinical practice for dialysis centers and patients. Additionally, with changing public transportation schedules and opportunities during the pandemic, these patients potentially face additional challenges. Many patients on dialysis may require shared rides or non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services, such as paratransit services. Such services typically combine multiple riders into one van. Given the increased risk of COVID transmission in enclosed spaces and the higher risk of COVID to patients with ESRD, many paratransit operators are offering single-ride service. Some paratransit operators are restricting rides for non-essential trips to keep service vehicles available for people who need medical appointment support. The CDC also suggests considering the use of larger cutaway buses for paratransit vehicles to ensure adequate distance between riders.

Is Paratransit Service Meeting the Need?

However, as the pandemic wanes, these strategies may have a profound and long-term effect on paratransit riders, and delayed or avoided healthcare visits may harm those most vulnerable. Increasing paratransit service vehicles can be cost prohibitive for many cash-strapped transit agencies because paratransit service is typically the most expensive option.

Several cities and agencies have partnerships that divert paratransit trip requests to taxi or ridehailing companies to provide additional service options and reduce costs of paratransit service, which can be as much as $45 for a wheelchair accessible ride. In Boston, paratransit riders can call an Uber or a Lyft ride for as little as $2 with the MBTA covering up to $40 of the ride costs. In Southern Nevada there is a similar program offering $3 rides on Lyft, with the rest of the ride cost subsidized by the Regional Transportation Commission.

To design the best electric vehicle policies—affecting their sale, manufacturing, and charging—we need to know whether electric vehicles can function as replacements for gasoline vehicles. Addressing this question is controversial and important. Bringing clarity is critical because some interest groups opposed to electric vehicles state that less usage indicates that electric vehicles are an inferior substitute for gasoline cars, and thus not deserving of government support.

Some studies from 2019 and 2021 suggest that electric vehicles are driven much less than gasoline vehicles. Our research and data tell a very different story. We find overwhelming evidence that electric vehicles are driven as much as, if not more than, gasoline vehicles. We focus on battery electric vehicles (EVs), since those are the most hotly debated, though we also present data from plug-in hybrids.

Using multiple sources of data, we find that battery EVs are driven on average about 11,000 to 13,000 miles per year, while gasoline vehicles are driven about 9,000 to 11,000 miles per year. Our estimate of annual EV miles is much higher than previous studies report. There are three explanations: (1) prior studies used data mostly from short range EVs; (2) the range of newer EVs is much greater; and (3) data collection methods in earlier studies had certain biases and limitations.

On the issue of increasing driving range: five years ago, most EVs had a range of around 80 miles. These vehicle models have been largely phased out. Today there are 13 EV models with more than 200 miles of range. These longer-range models tend to be driven more and now dominate the market. In 2020, only 448 EVs with less than 100 miles of range were sold in the United States, compared to 251,333 EVs with more than 200 miles of range.

On the issue of data collection: previous studies were based not only on shorter range vehicles, but, in some cases, they underestimated vehicle miles traveled based on measures of at-home charging, without accurately measuring away-from-home charging or hybrid miles traveled by plug-in hybrid vehicles.

To address the debate on EV use, we analyzed four datasets—from the outdated 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), the California Energy Commission 2019 Consumer Vehicle Survey, and two UC Davis studies. One of these two UC Davis studies used the most reliable source of electric miles traveled—measurements from data recorders on board vehicles. The second used data from multi-year questionnaire surveys completed by 19,304 EV and plug-in hybrid owning households, a far larger sample with a greater variety of households and vehicles than the samples in other data sets (for information on this survey see here and here). The figure below shows the results from each data set for all EVs (i.e., all ranges), short-range EVs, long-range EVs, plus plug-in hybrids, gasoline hybrid vehicles, and gasoline cars.

EVs are driven as much as, or more than, gasoline vehicles. In this chart, the average annual vehicle miles travelled for each vehicle type is shown, with the bars color coded to indicate the source of the data. (Figure adapted from this UC Davis report.)

As the figure shows, the NHTS data (dark blue bar at the top of each set) gives the lowest estimate of miles traveled for EVs of different ranges and plug-in hybrids (top vehicle types in the figure). The NHTS data set is, however, the least current of the data sets shown and the most affected by factors that lead to underestimating electric miles traveled. Namely, it is based on early, short-range models of electric vehicles and early adopter households with older drivers, retirees, and multiple vehicles. All of these differences would lead to lower overall electric vehicle mileage.

In contrast to the NHTS data, the more current data sources, and those more representative of the existing EV market, indicate that even newer short-range EVs (ranges under 120 miles) are driven an average of 10,060-10,980 miles annually; with long-range EVs (range over 200 miles) reaching 10,940-14,996 miles annually; and plug-in hybrids logging 12,500-13,640 miles annually.

Before discounting the benefits of electric vehicles based on how much they are driven, we need to keep in mind the limitations of the different sources of data, as well as the characteristics of the electric vehicle owners surveyed. Large-scale data from automakers’ telematic systems or on-board recorders would be optimal but are not available. For now, data from surveys like the UC Davis survey and data from on-board recorders may offer the best available estimate of how EVs and plug-in hybrids are being used in the real-world.

In summary, all the recent direct sources of data that we investigated indicate that, contrary to some reports, both EVs and plug-in hybrids are driven at least as much as gasoline vehicles. These results and the debates around electric vehicle use highlight the need for research and data collection focused on understanding how electric vehicles integrate into households. This research will become even more relevant as regions, including California, work towards goals of 100% new vehicle sales being electric, and as these regions base their regulations and incentives on how those vehicles are used.

—

Debapriya Chakraborty, is a postdoctoral researcher with the Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at ITS-Davis

Scott Hardman, Ph.D. is a professional research scientist with the Plug-In Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at ITS-Davis and manages the International EV Policy Council   

Seth Karten is the Science Writer at ITS-Davis

Gil Tal is the Director of the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at ITS-Davis

Here’s a major policy success of 2020 that probably slipped by most people in the United States: Korea, the sixth-largest producer of automobiles and home to the third-largest automotive group in the world (Hyundai-Kia), successfully implemented its own zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales regulation—with help from ITS-Davis researchers.

Korea’s ZEV rule is fashioned after California’s ZEV mandate, which is widely credited with the commercialization of ZEVs globally and is one reason California is the leading US state for electric vehicle sales. ITS-Davis researchers have contributed to the evolution of the ZEV regulation since the early 1990s by providing independent analysis of vehicle technologies; environmental and economic impact studies; and consumer behavior research to enhance market understanding.

ITS-Davis’s involvement with Korea’s ZEV rule grew out of a relationship between the UC Davis Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle (PH&EV) Research Center and the Korea Transport Institute (KOTI), a government think tank responsible for ZEV policy and research. KOTI participates on the International EV Policy Council, a PH&EV Research Center-led program that brings together international scientists, academics, and researchers to build an in-depth understanding of global electric vehicle market developments backed-up by empirical evidence.

In 2018, a team of researchers from the PH&EV Center—including Alan Jenn, Jae Hyun Lee and Scott Hardman—traveled to Seoul to meet with researchers from KOTI to exchange research findings. The ITS team learned that although Korea offered strong financial incentives for ZEVs and had ample charging infrastructure, vehicle supply was lacking. Most of the ZEVs produced in Korea were being exported to markets like Norway and the United States. Few were available domestically.

The Korean government, which until then had not adopted national EV policies, was shaken by severe air pollution episodes in 2018 and 2019 and widespread public demand for cleaner air and eco-friendly car policies. As a result, it appointed KOTI to research and design the Korean ZEV sales regulation.

KOTI tapped the collective expertise of ITS-Davis and the International EV Policy Council. ITS-Davis provided direct and indirect assistance in the drafting of Korea’s ZEV regulation. The EV Policy Council provided international policy expertise to inform Korea’s policy development process. It also facilitated a 2019 workshop in Davis attended by a Korean delegation and representatives from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The ITS-Davis team and CARB experts provided feedback on a draft of the Korean regulation and suggested changes to increase its effectiveness in meeting its goals of ZEV sales and improved air quality. Their recommendations included increasing the ZEV sales target, adjusting the credit calculating system, and implementing a penalty system for non-compliance. Korean officials incorporated the recommended changes into their regulation and it continued through the regulatory process.

In large part due to the work of KOTI, Korea’s ZEV regulation was introduced and passed in April 2020 as the Clean Air Conservation Act Chapter 4 Article 58-2 “Deployment of low-emission Vehicles”. Korea’s ZEV credit target, like California’s, is 22% of vehicles sold in 2025. The regulations in Korea and California require automakers to annually accrue a minimum number of ZEV credits, which are awarded for each ZEV sold, based on vehicle characteristics such as range. Korea’s per-vehicle credit calculations mirror California’s, though credits are capped at 3 per vehicle rather than 4. (For background on how California’s and other jurisdictions’ ZEV policies work, see this International EV Policy Council brief.) Unlike California’s rule, Korea’s credit calculation accounts for vehicle efficiency in addition to ZEV range (see figure). Also unlike California’s rule, compliance with Korea’s ZEV rule is voluntary at present to allow automakers time to plan their compliance strategies. After 2023, penalties for non-compliance will be introduced.

The regulation does not yet set overly ambitious targets for ZEV sales. However, Korea now has a regulatory framework into which larger ZEV sales targets, including 100% ZEV sales, can be introduced. Furthermore, the regulation signals Korea’s desire to support a transition to ZEVs to improve urban air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As more nations consider ways to transition to 100% electric vehicle sales, a ZEV requirement may provide a regulatory route for reaching these targets. A ZEV regulation can create certainty for automakers by providing a clear pathway of ZEV sales that ramps up from single digit percentages to 100% of the market.

Low efficiency Korea calculation assumes battery electric vehicle (BEV) efficiency of 5.3 km/kWh (Kia Niro BEV). High efficiency Korea calculation assumes 8.2 km/kWh (Hyundai Ioniq BEV). Electric driving range assumes EPA ranges for California and WLTP ranges for Korea (converted to miles from kilometers).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge ClimateWorks Foundation and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for funding the work of the International EV Policy Council.

 —

Scott Hardman, Ph.D. is a professional research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis and manages the International EV Policy Council 

Jiyoung Park, Ph.D. is a senior researcher at The Korea Transport Institute (KOTI) and a member of the International EV Policy Council