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

With more states and individuals observing stricter limits on in-person shopping, and with holidays coming, what can we do to limit the environmental and societal impact of online shopping? And even beyond this moment, how do we minimize the harm—or maximize the benefit—of online shopping to society and life on our planet?

The short answer: Buy what we need, and do what we can to allow packages to be consolidated for the most efficient delivery routes, so the fewest miles possible are traveled for each package brought to the door.

Theoretically, e-commerce—the buying and selling of goods and services using the internet—should be an environmentally friendly alternative to shopping in a store. A full delivery van driving an optimized route to deliver 50 packages contributes far less pollution and traffic congestion than 50 people driving their personal cars to the store and back. However, consumers tend to buy one item at a time when shopping online but bundle several items on a shopping trip. Plus, online shopping becomes less environmentally friendly as retailers offer perks such as free returns and expedited shipping, to attract shoppers and gain market share.

Our research examines how different types of e-commerce transactions affect local air pollutant emissions, carbon dioxide emissions, and vehicle miles traveled—as well as traffic congestion.

We found that expedited delivery times were among the most important determinants in worsening emissions and increasing the number of vehicle miles traveled. As delivery times get shorter (e.g., 2-days to 1-day to 1-hour), the environmental and societal costs dramatically increase, as the figures here show.

Figure: As the time from order to delivery lengthens, the emissions (top) and vehicle miles traveled (bottom) for each package decrease. (NOx, nitrogen oxides; CO2, carbon dioxide)

To meet shorter delivery times, delivery vehicles operate at reduced capacity (i.e.,  depart before they can be completely filled). We calculated that a vehicle with a one-day time window can make 120-300 deliveries, while a vehicle constrained by a one-hour time window can only make about 10-15 deliveries, depending on the characteristics of the geographic location.

So what does this mean for us as consumers? Factors that increase the number of items per vehicle mile of travel in a delivery or shopping trip will reduce the pollution and traffic impacts of our purchases. We should consider the following actions, when possible, to reduce the environmental impact of our online purchases:

1. Allow longer time windows for delivery whenever possible, even if we do not save out-of-pocket expenses for it.
2. Group orders together as much as possible by pooling orders into a single delivery and do not impose additional constraints on the delivery, such as specific days and times.
3. Minimize returns and consider buying clothing, shoes, and electronics in-person, as these have high rates of return from online shopping (clothing/shoes 56%, electronics 42%).
4. Avoid driving to the store to decide on—but not purchase—an item, and then ordering it online to save money, thereby increasing the miles traveled for one purchase.
5. For recurring purchases, take advantage of subscriptions, which can save money and allow the vendor to optimize planning and delivery.
6. Select, when possible, an alternative delivery location (e.g., pickup facility, lockers) at a place that you are already going to travel to, preferably by walking or biking.

Besides consumers, governments, including local planning and permitting agencies, and other businesses, including e-commerce and delivery companies, affect how e-commerce impacts society, the environment, and climate. In an earlier blog post, we considered the impact of these many government and business entities on the shifting locations of warehouses and distribution centers, and the resulting impact on  pollution and congestion in disadvantaged communities. In future blogs we will consider other ways agencies and companies can help reduce emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

For more information, please see our journal article comparing e-commerce to in-store shopping and our in-depth report on the research tools and findings regarding determinants of e-commerce externalities.

Miguel Jaller is Co-Director of the Sustainable Freight Research Center at ITS-Davis. He studies freight transportation, sustainable transportation systems, and humanitarian logistics.

Anmol Pahwa is a Ph.D. candidate in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at UC Davis. His blog is at https://the-world-of-transportation-science.blog/.

Seth Karten is the Science Writer at ITS-Davis.

California recently announced plans to electrify nearly all new cars and trucks by 2035. Is this possible? If so, how?

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 on September 23, directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations to require that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold in the state be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, all drayage trucks (at ports) be ZEVs by 2035, and all medium- and heavy-duty trucks be ZEVs by 2045 (not just sales) “everywhere feasible.”

As the past few decades have shown, the road to a ZEV future won’t be an easy one. How, then, can we realize these ambitious goals? Research from ITS shows that new policies and new behaviors are needed to achieve these targets.

First, for the market to expand beyond early adopters, more incentives, rather than fewer, will be needed. We expect this pattern to continue until up-front prices for electric vehicles achieve parity with conventional vehicles—which will be many years in the future. If one considers the lower energy and maintenance costs of electric vehicles, the total cost of ownership will start to reach parity in just a few years. But consumers do not generally take the total cost of ownership into account in making purchase decisions.

Second, research from Ken Kurani shows that even though electric vehicles have been available to Californians since before 2014, most mainstream consumers have not shown much interest in them. Instead, a select group of consumers who are predisposed to buying electric vehicles are responsible for most of the sales so far. To sell electric vehicles to the mass market this must change.

Third, the electric vehicle market has been dominated by high-income consumers. These households have purchased around 50% of electric vehicles, despite accounting for only about 4% of all California households. To continue growing the market, many of the other 96% of the population will need to begin purchasing ZEVs.

It is clear we must address these issues of increasing reliance on incentives, lack of consumer engagement, and lack of electric vehicle sales to the vast majority of Californians.

While research shows incentives are becoming more important for consumers, many of those incentives are being reduced or phased out. The incentive for battery electric vehicles from the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Program recently fell from $2,500 to $2,000. The federal tax credit for ZEVs phases out after each automaker sells 200,000 ZEVs nationwide; several automakers have surpassed that number. To continue to grow electric vehicle sales, incentives will need to persist. Current incentive designs are a strain on budgets, so federal and state governments are unlikely to continue funding them. One solution that has been deployed in Sweden and France is a feebate. It imposes no burdens on taxpayers. This is where an adjustable purchase fee on the highest-emitting gasoline vehicles funds consumer rebates on ZEVs. Another key to growing the ZEV market will be incentives that diminish the cost of using ZEVS, like discounts on parking, tolls, and electricity. Even when ZEVs reach (average) price parity with conventional vehicles, incentives will still be needed for those cases where EVs are especially costly or inconvenient, for instance in rural areas, for apartment dwellers, and for larger vehicles that need extra-large batteries. Moreover, many consumers are likely to be resistant for a variety of reasons, such as those related to their circumstances or politics.

Methods to increase consumer awareness might include: increased exposure to ZEVs through electrification of ride-hailing and car-sharing fleets; public education programs like that by Veloz or through trusted community-based organizations; and education and motivation programs for car dealers. There are the crucial and so-far missing considerations of vehicle availability and advertising. Automakers are slowly introducing more models—some committing to electrifying their whole production lines—but consumer options remain limited and ZEVs are not widely available throughout the state and certainly not throughout the country. Automakers will have to begin shifting more of their marketing budgets to support ZEVs and away from the lower-risk (and higher profit margin) gasoline-car market, in response to either regulations or internal plans to increase ZEV production.

To broaden the ZEV market, especially to include consumers who can’t install a home charger, we will need to consider how to develop a charging network that is convenient and easy to access. Determining where to add these chargers will be an ongoing challenge, but studies of current electric vehicle drivers’ charging choices offer helpful insights. For example, most charging occurs at home from 6 pm to midnight, so making charging more available for renters and at multi-family dwellings and low-income housing areas will be key. Evidence also shows that charger availability and pricing can influence when and where people charge. We should expand publicly accessible charging sites that people can use while they are at work during the day—as daytime charging optimizes abundant and clean solar power. Ideally, these same chargers could be accessible to nearby residents who can only charge at night.

With this executive order, California continues to lead the charge in the U.S. to transitioning to a 100% ZEV future. Yet, this monumental societal shift must be guided by sensible local, regional, and state policies and programs, based on research and global experience. There are ample challenges to overcome. Industry and the public must be engaged at all levels of the process to address these three big needs—for ongoing incentives, increasing consumer awareness, and charging infrastructure. Only by working together to create the supply needed from the industry and the demand from the market can we ensure that future ZEVs meet society’s transportation needs while achieving our ambitious climate goals.

—

Seth Karten is the Science Writer at ITS-Davis.  

Austin Brown is the Executive Director of the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy at UC Davis

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

Scott Hardman is a researcher at the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Research Center at ITS-Davis

It’s not just the wind at their back. That bicyclist you saw with a comfortable cadence flying down the road is a part of a new transport trend that’s good for rider health and the environment—the electric assisted bicycle, or e-bike. However, barriers and inequities in e-biking signal a need for new policies to promote bicycling in US cities and make bicycling safe and accessible for all people.

Much has been written in recent months about the increase in bicycle sales due to COVID-19. My colleague, Susan Handy, recently commented on this topic in A COVID Boost for Bicycling. It turns out that US e-bike sales have experienced impressive growth, both before and since the pandemic began, with June 2020 reporting a 190% sales increase over June 2019.

This growth is a good sign for the sustainability of transportation because e-bike use tends to increase bicycling frequency, resulting in greater physical activity (even if intensity is lessened by the electric assist). It also tends to reduce driving and could greatly reduce greenhouse gases if adopted widely.

One of the greatest benefits of e-bikes over conventional bikes is the added distance a bicyclist can ride in a given time. This benefit is greatest in areas where the distances between places of interest are relatively short but perhaps perceived as too long or too arduous for conventional bicycling. And this leads to an important additional aspect of e-bike growth: e-bikes now come in different shapes and sizes, from light folding bikes suitable for commuters to heavier-duty cargo bikes designed for parents to transport groceries and children, or for delivery companies to carry goods.

Here at UC Davis, our early research on e-bicycling pointed to some specific barriers for e-bikes such as fear of theft, perception of cheating, and increased cost. Some of these barriers seem to be decreasing, but many others remain. E-bikes tend to share one of the strongest barriers to conventional bicycling, the lack of safeand comfortable environments to ride in. We found that road environments affect the psychological stress of bicyclists and perceptions of comfort for current and prospective bicyclists. Furthermore, research by our group and others shows that bike lanes and paths that are protected and separated from car traffic are much preferred by current and prospective bicyclists and provide important safety benefits. This evidence indicates that refocusing selected streets away from cars and towards bicycles could help normalize this sustainable travel mode.

In light of policing inequities and the recent experimentation in US cities with open streets to support walking and bicycling during the pandemic, many questions remain as to how to successfully and equitably implement changes that encourage more bicycling. Infrastructure planning that fails to engage with and benefit marginalized communities will continue to make the bicycle a “symbol of gentrification and displacement” instead of a “path to freedom” for those most in need. As highlighted in our last blog by Jesus Barajas, inequities and racism in land use development and the policing of public space, along with specific policies that target low-income, black, and immigrant bicyclists keep safe biking and e-biking unavailable to many. Guidance and recommendations for bike planning and policy by my colleague Sarah McCullough and coauthors demonstrate many additional steps that are needed to make bicycling equitable.

Another equity concern specific to e-bikes is their high cost, which prohibits their adoption by low-income households, who may have the most to gain from this new vehicle. This year, one California bill (AB-2667) attempted to put e-bikes on the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, giving e-bikes a more equal footing with electric cars. Although this particular bill was unsuccessful, policies in Europe to reduce e-bike costs are widespread and growing, giving policy makers in the US a suite of strategies to try.

Increasing people’s exposure to e-bikes is another key to getting more of them on the road. Our ongoing research suggests that people who have had a chance to ride an e-bike are more likely to consider using one as a primary commuting vehicle. One way to expose more people to e-bikes is through sharing programs. With Lime’s acquisition of Jump bikes and the general shift from dockless bikes to dockless scooters in the micromobility service industry, cities may need to play a more active role in providing e-bike share or leasing services. Indeed, many city-owned docked bike shares in places like Portland, Toronto, and Chattanooga are now transitioning to e-bikes. These places will offer a great natural experiment on the general influence of shared e-bikes on e-bike buying and use.

With the COVID pandemic likely to last many more months, the time is right for targeted and equitable investment in e-bicycling as a physically-distanced and sustainable mode of travel that should be safe and available to all. The current growth in demand for e-bikes should be seen to reflect a public enthusiasm for more bicycling-friendly infrastructure, policies, and services in US cities.

—

Dillon Fitch is Co-Director of the BicyclingPlus Research Collaborative at ITS-Davis. He studies travel behavior and transportation planning and develops tools to improve planning for bicyclesand emerging small vehicles.

Last week, community members took to the streets yet again to protest two fatal shootings of Black people at the hands of the police, one of which occurred right here in California. On August 31, 2020, Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies shot and killed Dijon Kizzee in South Los Angeles. The details of the incident are still emerging as of this writing, but the encounter began as deputies tried to stop Kizzee for an unspecified vehicle code violation as he was riding his bike.

Traffic stops are the most common form of interaction between the police and the public. Cases of “driving while Black,” in which Black drivers are disproportionately stopped, are well documented. But the evidence points to cases of “bicycling while Black” too. In New York City, Black and Latino cyclists were given 86 percent of the tickets for riding on the sidewalk in 2018 and 2019, but made up just about half of all cyclists. Those data follow a 2014 report that showed 12 of the top 15 NYC neighborhoods for bicycle tickets were in majority Black or Latino neighborhoods. In Tampa, Fla., eight out of every ten bicycle tickets were issued to Black cyclists between 2012 and 2015. And in Chicago, a city where I have done work recently, bicycle tickets have been issued twice as often in majority Black neighborhoods compared to majority Latino or white neighborhoods since 2008.

The Chicago case offers further insights about how planning intersects with policing. I have done some preliminary analysis examining whether infrastructure availability plays a role in the patterns of bicycle tickets issued in the city, on top of the racial disparities others have identified. About 90 percent of all bicycle tickets issued in Chicago are for riding on the sidewalk. I found that these tickets are more likely to be issued along streets with higher traffic volumes that lack bike infrastructure. Both traffic volume and the overall absence of bike infrastructure tend to be correlated with neighborhoods where there are higher shares of people of color. This tells us that deliberate attention to racial justice principles in bicycle infrastructure design and implementation could prevent other needless deaths.

Each day, bicycling is celebrated as an economically and environmentally sustainable means of transportation, and as a way to stay fit and healthy—even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anyone can do it, bicycle planners and enthusiasts argue, especially if there is high quality, safe infrastructure and nearby places to get to with convenient and secure places to park. But this hopeful vision is not always realized, as prominent Black scholars, transportation practitioners, and advocates have vociferously called out of late because of the recent killings. They point out that Black bodies in public space—no matter the mode of transportation—are always at risk and will continue to be until we address the root causes of that risk. In so many cases, that comes down to racist policing practices. And further still, transportation planning is complicit in those disparities and inequities.

These issues call for a careful review of not only unjust policing practices but also the racist effects of transportation planning, whether or not they are intentional. Vision Zero, the traffic safety strategy designed to eliminate preventable traffic deaths, offers an example of how to move in the right direction. The strategy is rooted in a framework that says crashes can be reduced through better engineering, education, and enforcement. But even these strategies need to be reviewed and modified as new information becomes available. In light of renewed calls for racial justice this summer, the Vision Zero Network is stepping away from highlighting traffic enforcement as a pillar of safety, replacing it instead with guidance for anti-racist policies and processes. Advocates have been sounding this message for some time, and in some places those with the power to make policy changes are starting to come around.

These issues also call for scholars to revisit what it means to research and teach about bicycles. The emerging field of mobility justice urges us to think about how identity plays a central role in how people move around, and how marginalized groups are often denied the freedom of movement that others enjoy. Incorporating a mobility justice lens in research could push scholars to examine whether their work considers these intersections of transportation and identity, and if it doesn’t, then why not. In order to encourage other transportation researchers to engage with these weighty issues in the classroom, my colleagues and I have created a constantly-updated reading list as a resource that faculty can use to address and amplify questions of equity and justice in their teaching. The list highlights Black, Indigenous, or People of Color authors who have been giving voice to these issues for quite some time.

Although important and necessary, examining and changing transportation research practices within academia won’t be sufficient to prevent more deaths of Black cyclists. It will require hard work within all of the institutions that enable such violence today. Tamika Butler, a leading voice for racial justice in the transportation world, put it best: “Bicycling cannot solve systemic racism in the United States. But systemic racism can’t be fixed without tackling it within bicycling.” I hope that we can all be part of that solution.

—
Jesus M. Barajas is Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis. He teaches courses on environmental justice and his research focuses on transportation equity.

Mobility has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. With social distancing and people working from home, travel has decreased significantly. However, as the economy has started to reopen, single-occupant car travel and bicycling have increased, while the use of public transit, ride-hailing, carpools, and shared e-scooters remains low.

At the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program of UC Davis, we are investigating the temporary and longer-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on transportation. Our current research project features online surveys and phone interviews focusing on how people are adjusting to the pandemic in terms of household size and organization, work activities, and transportation use. So far, we have data from more than 11,000 survey respondents in the US and Canada. Many of them participated in our previous mobility surveys, so we can compare their responses to see how the pandemic has changed people’s activity organization and travel choices. Findings from the study help us understand how the pandemic is disrupting transportation (and society) and inform policies to minimize the negative effects and promote more desirable equity and environmental impacts.

Telecommuting – Disparities

As would be expected by the nature of work that can be done remotely, higher-income workers are more likely to have started telecommuting during this time. Prior to the pandemic, only 8% of respondents telecommuted every day of the week, independent of income level. During the pandemic this share grew to 50% for the high-income group but to only 20% of the low-income group. These numbers add up to the already unequal impacts on employment, as low-income workers more often report that they have lost their jobs or have been furloughed without pay during the pandemic. The differences are even starker if we compare occupations. The adoption of telecommuting has increased by nearly four times for white-collar workers but has remained unchanged for blue-collar workers. Lower-income workers are also more concerned about the economic impact of the pandemic than about its health impact, an additional indicator of the difficult challenges facing low-income workers.

Increased Car Use, Less Use of Other Travel Alternatives

Comparing responses from 2019 versus 2020 shows a drop in the use of all modes of transportation. But 35% of those who are using less transit have also increased their driving. This is not surprising considering concerns about shared modes of travel; solo and family car travel is more compatible with social distancing. More concerning is that, this year, respondents are far less interested in adopting a lifestyle with limited car use or increased use of multiple transportation modes. In 2020, fewer respondents reported interest in forgoing car ownership, even if they had access to viable alternatives or could use or rent a car when they needed it. They were also less inclined to rely on Mobility as a Service (MaaS)—bundle subscriptions that provide access to transit, bikesharing, shared e-scooters, etc. When asked what they expected to do in the fall of 2020, about 60% of respondents agreed that they would drive their own vehicle more because it makes them feel safer from disease transmission, further signaling an increased reliance on private cars for the foreseeable future.

Ridehailing

The apparent impacts of COVID-19 on ridehailing, as provided by Uber and Lyft, again point to underlying inequities. Ridehailing was particularly popular among higher-income groups prior to the pandemic, but those respondents have significantly decreased their use of the service, which is in line with their ability to telecommute and their reduced social travel. On the other hand, ridehailing has remained more common among lower-income groups, who are less likely to work from home, often have limited access to a private vehicle, and are using transit services less frequently.

Walking

Both before and after the onset of the pandemic, a significant number of our respondents (40%) said  they never take leisurely walks, yet the number who walk every day increased from 10% prior to the pandemic to 16% during the pandemic. In addition, the study suggests that those who seldom walk are increasing their activity levels. This is one silver lining in an otherwise troubling time, and we should take advantage of the momentum gained during the pandemic to solidify these healthy habits in the community. Our colleague at UC Davis, Susan Handy has also written about the increase in bicycling during this period.

Policy Implications

The current increase in car use and decrease in the use of alternative, shared modes of transportation raise important policy questions about how to manage future transportation needs while addressing the equity and environmental side effects of the pandemic. Working from home and social distancing have decreased overall travel, but transportation needs remain, especially among those with lower incomes. As transit fare revenues continue to decline, the challenge of funding public transportation will only become more difficult. Further, the increased reliance on cars makes the shift to low- or zero-emission vehicles even more important (assuming the primary energy mix for electricity production is clean, as is the case in California). In addition, now is a time for cities and agencies to promote solutions and provide incentives that can further increase walking and bicycling, for leisure or for transportation. Potential actions include judicious expansion of open streets, as discussed in our previous blog. The highlighted equity issues should also compel policymakers to develop programs to assist the most vulnerable—to ensure that they are not further affected in this time of disruption—and mitigate existing inequities. In the transportation sector, this means providing access to as many safe transportation options as possible, including for those that do not own a vehicle, and ensuring that nobody is left behind.

The COVID-19 data described above was collected between April and July 2020. Previous mobility surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2019. Additional rounds of data collection for this project are planned for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021. More information is available at postcovid19mobility.ucdavis.edu and in the recorded webinar from July 15, 2020.

Giovanni Circella is the Director of the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program at ITS-Davis and the UC Davis Honda Distinguished Scholar for New Mobility Studies.

Rosa Dominguez-Faus is the Program Manager for the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program at ITS-Davis.

Davis, California in July 2020 (Photograph by Dahlia Garas)

In most cities in the United States, streets are for cars, not for people, but that may be changing. In California, Sacramento’s R Street restaurant strip is open for business, but closed to vehicle traffic to allow for more room to breathe for outdoor diners. In the city of Davis, shade tents are popping up throughout the downtown area on weekends, to make outdoor dining more comfortable in the summer sun. This is a part of an international trend, as evidenced by the list of more than 50 U.S. cities with street closures on the Covid Mobility Works website and in the open catalogue of street changes inspired by the pandemic. These street closures, also called “slow streets” or (our preferred term) “open streets,” reflect a worldwide movement to reclaim city streets from cars for people to sit, dine, or travel on foot and bicycle. It is unclear whether these open streets experiments are a passing fad or whether they offer a window into the urbanist dream of a future without cars.

These changes are new and growing organically, so it takes some work to understand the total scope so far. As more data is assembled we can piece together whether open streets benefit (or challenge) community resilience.

In some ways, these open streets emulate the short-term repurposing of roadways common for marathons, musical events, art walks, and, ironically, even for car shows. But the pandemic-induced open streets movement has energized supporters of more permanent car-free areas while also stoking resentment from critics who point to a lack of community engagement in the decision-making process. This hurried strategy is unsurprising, given the circumstances, but if the streets stay open, efforts to ensure community buy-in will mean more successful progress towards an urban space that serves everyone.

Open streets can be found in major cities around the world. They are a permanent fixture in Paris’ downtown pedestrian-only district. Bogatá opens streets every Sunday for Ciclovia, which is a community celebration of biking. Seattle has made their street closures permanent, and other cities, like New York City, are considering following. More permanent open streets can be an opportunity for community building. While encouraging biking and walking in downtown areas, they can also affect attitudes on car reliance. Research from our UC Davis colleague Susan Handy shows that reducing car dependence can save money, save time spent in traffic, reduce emissions, and increase health-promoting activities like walking and biking.

However, as with many efforts at reducing car traffic, there have been moments of trial and error in the pandemic-related open streets efforts. The Untokening Project questioned whether city planners considered the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), people with disabilities, and the unhoused in developing open streets. Some community members called into question who can capture the benefits of open streets. New York City was criticized for its police presence, ostensibly to enforce social distancing rules, when they opened streets to pedestrians and bikes. This reportedly made many people of color feel like they couldn’t appreciate the open streets, given the long history of racially biased harassment from police in that city. Closures that were not well planned have reportedly also cut-off routes for essential workers, who tend to be disproportionately low-income, while providing more space for wealthy people who can work from home.

Additional concerns have been raised that pandemic street closures were offering an opportunity to expedite planners’ wish lists, without engaging with residents to get buy-in. Changes to streetscapes should be led by residents and business owners working with planners, but this community empowerment-model of planning is difficult to accomplish during a pandemic. We remain optimistic, as many permanent positive changes have begun with a temporary change–putting up cones to test out a pedestrian only zone, for example.

Yet as the lockdowns linger, cities may need to work harder to reach community members. They might consider building in clear sunset periods for these experiments. These sunsets can always be revisited if the changes work for the full community of residents and users. Aaron Paley is president and co-founder of Community Arts Resources (CARS), a group that canvasses neighborhoods and talks with each business owner before closing streets for the annual CicLAvia in Los Angeles, which he founded. Paley emphasized the need for choosing sites where there are businesses that can benefit from open streets, such as small shops and restaurants.

Community engagement is essential for ensuring that open streets are inclusive, and that they avoid being created by and for predominantly white and wealthy people. Cities should also evaluate the results of these projects and ensure that they are delivering solutions that community members want. This could include engaging community members on each block opened and assessing how it is working across various groups. Cities will also need to better identify criteria for deciding if streets should be returned to car use, and when this transition should occur. This process needs to be clearly communicated to people on the closed streets and to the broader public.

Current social-distancing efforts allow for the possibility to experiment with how we use our public spaces. Car-free streets offer exciting opportunities for fun, safe, and efficient reuse of our public right-of-ways, but cities need to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the past and ensure these spaces are truly for everyone.

Mollie Cohen D’Agostino is Policy Director for the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis

Austin Brown is Executive Director of the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy at UC Davis

***

UPDATED: September 4, 2020

Bicycling Justice

A few weeks ago, in this blog, I wrote about the sense of freedom that bicycling evokes as one of the reasons why bicycling has grown in popularity since the COVID pandemic. But bicycling does not equate to freedom for everyone, as events in Los Angeles tragically brought home this week.

Dijon Kizee, a young Black man, was riding his bicycle when he was stopped by deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for “violations of the vehicle code.” The events that ensued ended with Kizee dead of multiple gunshots in his back.

That an act as trivially illegal as bicycling against rather than with traffic—an act that I observe in my own community on a daily basis—can lead to death at the hands of law enforcement is unfathomable to me. But the events of this summer demonstrate that it is indeed all too possible for those whose skin is darker than mine.

The discriminatory policing of Black people on our streets, whether they are walking, bicycling, or driving, denies them the freedom of movement that we white people take for granted as our right. My colleagues Sarah McCullough and Jesus Barajas are doing important work in support of mobility justice. Please take a look at recent examples of Sarah’s work here, here, and here, and at Jesus’s website. Stay tuned for perspectives from them in this space in the future.

***

One small silver lining in the world of transportation amidst this tragic COVID pandemic is a resurgence in bicycling. News outlets are reporting booming sales of bicycles, with bike shops scrambling to keep up with demand. “They’re buying bikes like toilet paper,” one industry expert was quoted. My husband experienced this problem firsthand last week in Davis, California, when he decided he had to have a new mountain bike. The local shop still had some inventory, but they had 40 bikes to prepare for pick-up before they could get to his! Demand has not looked like this since the bike boom of the early 1970s.

The current pedal-powered resurgence is taking two forms.

The first form is recreational. Bicycling is a good source of exercise at a time when gyms are closed. Research shows that bicycling is good for mental health as well as physical health. It is also a good form of recreation–a socially distanced way to get out of the house. A recent paper of mine identifies the various aspects that people enjoy about bicycling, from the feeling of freedom, to a means of escape, to a sense of movement–all things which are perhaps more important in these times than ever before.

The second form is utilitarian. The earliest reports of an increase in bicycling came in the first days of the pandemic, when people were still traveling to work but were reluctant to use transit systems. New York saw a 52% increase in bicycle counts on bridges into Manhattan in early March compared to a year ago, and ridership has continued to grow. Persistent health concerns with traveling via transit systems coupled with significant cutbacks in transit service mean that bicycling will remain an important option as more of us return to work.

These two forms are interdependent. The resurgence in recreational bicycling could help to fuel a more widespread and long-lasting increase in utilitarian bicycling as a substitute for transit and potentially for driving. Recreational bicycling builds comfort with and confidence in bicycling, as well as liking of biking. Our research shows that these factors are key predictors of bicycling as a mode of transportation.

Better bicycling infrastructure would further encourage this welcome trend. As our studies as well as those done by other researchers have found, most bicyclists feel substantially more comfortable when they are protected from traffic through either a separate bike path or a buffered bike lane. And that’s another silver lining of this pandemic: Cities across the U.S. and throughout the world have been repurposing their street space to provide a safer and more appealing environment for bicyclists and pedestrians. Oakland, California, for one, announced in April that it would close 74 miles of streets to through traffic; actual closures total a much-lower-but-still-impressive 21 miles as of mid-July.

A sustained increase in utilitarian bicycling will require a sustained commitment to funding bicycle-friendly infrastructure. California’s State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, adopted in 2017, set an ambitious goal to double bicycling by 2020. To achieve this goal, the state allocates $110 million each year to the Active Transportation Program, which funds local bicycle and pedestrian projects. But this amount is dwarfed by state budget allocations of $5 billion per year for building highway projects, plus $2.2 billion for designing these projects, and an additional $2.1 billion for maintaining existing highways. Compare California’s commitment to Ireland’s recently announced commitment to spend 20% of its transportation budget on walking and bicycling. Just imagine what our cities could do with a doubling of funding for bicycle infrastructure.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the big new development in bicycling was bike-share systems, which have proliferated in cities around the world in the last decade and attracted people who would not otherwise have been bicycling. Our study in Sacramento shows that these systems can help normalize bicycling as a mode of transportation across the population. Although the pandemic and the industry retrenchment it triggered have hit some systems hard, many are now rebounding. Parisians, for example, are now using the city’s Velib system in record numbers. Portland is planning to triple its bike-share fleet in September. Supporting these bike-sharing systems–financially and/or institutionally–is another way that cities can promote bicycle use.

The resurgence of bicycling during the pandemic is just one example of how this flexible, self-propelled mode of transportation has the potential to contribute to the resiliency of our cities. Time and time again following natural disasters, bicycling and walking have remained viable when other modes of transportation have proved risky or unreliable. During the Camp Fire in Northern California in November 2018, for example, several residents of Paradise got on bicycles to bypass traffic jams to escape the flames, according to a UC Davis survey. Bicycles are also economically resilient, in that they cost a tiny fraction of what it takes to own and operate a car. A newly established “transportation library” in upstate New York will be loaning out bikes salvaged from defunct JUMP bike-share systems–for free! Programs like this can help to get bikes into the hands of those who can benefit from them the most.

The bicycle has sometimes been called “the world’s greatest invention.” In recent months, we have perhaps come to appreciate its value more than ever. Now is the perfect time to put in place the policies and programs that will enable us to take full advantage of its potential as an essential component of our transportation systems, past, present, and future.

Susan Handy is the Director of the National Center for Sustainable Transportation at UC Davis. Her research focuses on the relationships between transportation and land use, particularly the impact of land use on travel behavior, and on strategies for reducing automobile dependence.

The path to zero-carbon transportation may be cheaper than you think. It need not cost trillions nor even billions. And it could even be “free” to taxpayers.

Electric and fuel cell vehicles are the primary strategy for achieving near zero-carbon transportation. But these zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) will cost more than gasoline and diesel vehicles for a number of years, and also require extra costs for building charging and hydrogen stations. Eventually these vehicles will be cost competitive, but until then who pays for these additional costs: companies, consumers, or taxpayers?

Over the last few years, research teams at UC Davis—and others around the world—have modeled the costs of transitioning to a zero-carbon transportation system by 2050. While some studies project significant and at times prohibitive costs, our studies show that the overall costs are small. In fact, depending on circumstances (price of oil, cost of maintenance, etc.) and speed of innovation, this transition may cost taxpayers and consumers very little. How is this possible? The primary reason is that technology has advanced faster and costs have declined more rapidly than expected. For example, in 2010, battery costs were around $1,000/kWh, and as recently as 2014 the International Energy Agency used $500/kWh to project future battery costs. Now, battery costs are projected to drop to $100/kWh by 2025 or sooner. As time goes on, estimates of future cost tend to decline due to faster-than-expected technology innovations, faster learning, and scale economies. It is quite possible that with additional advances, costs could dip well below the $100/kWh mark.

Our own work reflects this trend. In 2016, we published a paper that estimated the additional cost for achieving high shares of zero emission light-duty vehicles—beyond the cost of owning and operating gasoline vehicles. In the United States, that additional cost, between 2020 and 2032, would be about $250 billion above a business-as-usual scenario (one without many ZEVs). Since California accounts for about 10% of the country’s population and travel, this translates to roughly a $25 billion transition cost for the state. After 2032, in that analysis, there would be no additional costs, since the cost of owning and operating electric vehicles would be about the same as conventional gasoline vehicles.

In 2019, our group published a paper that expanded the analysis from just light-duty vehicles to also include buses and trucks for California. We found that the additional costs would fall to zero beginning in 2030, two years earlier than previously expected. The total transition cost from 2020 through 2030 also decreased for California, from $25 to $14 billion. Our latest update of this analysis (conducted earlier this year and as yet unpublished) projects even lower transition costs—just $7 billion between 2020 and 2028, hitting zero another two years earlier. So, a 2016 estimate of an additional $25 billion for electrifying just light-duty vehicles in California fell to $14 billion for all cars, trucks, and buses in 2019, and is now projected to be only $7 billion. Equally important, after 2030, the costs of owning and operating ZEVs are projected to be lower than gasoline and diesel cars and trucks. The savings, from 2030 to 2045 could reach $100 billion. Note that all of these estimates were for an 80% reduction in CO2 from transportation by 2050; for a 100% CO2 reduction scenario, things will have to happen faster, and costs through 2030 could be significantly higher. We are investigating that question in our current work.­

Additional cost of replacing gasoline and diesel cars, buses, and trucks with battery and fuel cell electric vehicles, as estimated in 2016, 2019, and 2020. Incremental costs include vehicle purchase and fuel. (The 2016 study includes only light duty vehicles; the 2019 and 2020 studies include light duty vehicles, trucks, and buses.)

These downward revised estimates are mostly due to steady reductions in the estimated cost of battery and fuel cell vehicles. These cost reductions are likely to be even greater, since we did not include the lower vehicle maintenance costs for ZEVs. Our future studies will incorporate maintenance costs.

These additional costs, even if now projected to be lower than before, may still seem significant. But in terms of overall spending on vehicles and fuels, they are not. The $7 billion incremental costs we currently estimate between 2020 and 2030 for California are less than 1% of the costs residents of the state will otherwise be paying over those 10 years for gasoline and diesel vehicles and fuels.

This $7 billion cost (roughly $70 billion for the US) need not fall on the back of taxpayers. The cost could be shouldered by those buying legacy gasoline and diesel vehicles—with either a tax or a feebate style program where buyers of new gas guzzlers pay a fee, and buyers of ZEVs get a rebate (as already exists in several European countries). Some cost could also be borne by those oil and automotive companies that lag in making investments, for instance if the government  imposes aggressive greenhouse gas performance standards on fuels and vehicles and allows those companies exceeding the standards to sell the credits to those that lag. Indeed, this is already the practice with national CAFE-style standards, and with ZEV sales requirements and low carbon fuel standards in California. Through these mechanisms, some car companies are subsidizing Tesla, and oil companies are subsidizing clean electricity.

These cost estimates and forecasts of electric vehicles might seem optimistic. But they apparently are not for Wall Street investors. Tesla is now more highly valued than Toyota, GM, Ford, and FiatChrysler combined, despite losing money and selling only about 1/50th as many vehicles. And Nikola, a new company hoping to sell fuel cell and battery electric trucks—is now valued greater than General Motors and Ford. It looks like an electric future is in our future—at little cost to society and perhaps none to taxpayers.

Lew Fulton is Director of the Sustainable Freight Research Center and the Energy Futures Research Program at ITS-Davis. He helps lead a range of research activities around new vehicle technologies and new fuels, and how these can gain rapid acceptance in the market.

Dan Sperling is Founding Director of the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, the world’s leading university center on sustainable transportation. He also serves on the California Air Resources Board, overseeing policies and regulations on climate change, low carbon fuels and vehicles, and sustainable cities.