By Seth Karten

Last month in Washington, D.C., Dr. Patricia (Trish) Hendren, Executive Director of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, was presented with the Distinguished Alumni Award from the Eno Center for Transportation for her public service and contributions to the field of transportation. Eno is a D.C.-based non-partisan think tank that promotes policy innovation and provides professional-development opportunities in transportation. The Distinguished Alumni Award recognizes former participants in Eno’s training and leadership programs who have made notable contributions to the transportation industry or to Eno.

Dr. Hendren, an alumnus of the Transportation Technology and Policy (TTP) Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis (ITS-Davis), said “I was amazed and honored to receive this award. It is a huge compliment—from an impressive organization that looks out for the transportation field and addresses issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner.”

Robert Puentes, President and CEO of Eno said, “As a 1999 graduate of our Leadership Development Program, there is no better person for this award than Trish. She has spent her career turning data into useful information, helping agencies overcome barriers to information-based decision making, and demonstrating investment needs to a range of stakeholders.”

Dr. Hendren is currently the Executive Director of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, a partnership of over 100 state transportation agencies, toll authorities, and public safety organizations from Maine to Florida. Under Dr. Hendren’s leadership, the Coalition has embarked on and enhanced initiatives related to incident management, traveler information, supply chain performance, freight planning, truck parking, toll reciprocity, connected and autonomous vehicles, and funding alternatives.

Dr. Dan Sperling, the director and founder of ITS-Davis and founder of the TTP program, noted, “Trish was a pioneer. She was in the very first TTP class. In fact, she came before the program was formally approved, in the hope and expectation it would be approved. We are so proud and have been so appreciative of Trish from Day 1!”

Dr. Hendren credited the TTP program for helping her to make an impact in the transportation world. “The program is unique in preparing students with a broad mix of skills that are needed to tackle transportation planning: engineering, urban planning, economics, social science, and public policy,” she remarked.

After majoring in English as an undergraduate, Dr. Hendren’s early career focused on enhancing energy efficiency. This led her to feel that transportation can have a significant impact on people’s lives while addressing problems in energy and the environment. Dr. Hendren’s graduate work at UC Davis provided an opportunity to explore her newfound passion.

“I appreciated how the [TTP] program could take an English major like me and bring me into a field typically thought of for engineers. What I learned at Davis continues to inform my approach to addressing our transportation challenges on a daily basis,” Dr. Hendren commented.

Seth Karten is a science writer for the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis.

“Self-driving” or fully automated vehicles (AVs) will likely have major, though largely unpredictable, effects on transportation in the coming years. Meanwhile, transportation agencies need to plan infrastructure projects that will endure 30 years or more. To address this need, modeling experts from around the United States and Europe met at UC Davis on April 29–30 to discuss how to update travel demand forecasting tools to accommodate AVs and other disruptive technologies (including shared mobility and alternative-fuel vehicles).

This “AV Modeling Expert Group Meeting” was hosted by UC Davis researchers in the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program of ITS-Davis. The meeting was funded in part by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is concerned with the potential impacts of AVs on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The meeting included approximately 50 researchers and practitioners—i.e., researchers who develop new transportation models and study travel behavior, and practitioners who use transportation models to inform planning decisions. The participants came from academic institutions, state and federal agencies, U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories, metropolitan planning organizations, and selected consulting firms.

The meeting organizer and director of the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program, Dr. Giovanni Circella, said, “The overall aim of the meeting was to discuss what modeling assumptions should be introduced (and what data should be used) in large-scale travel demand modeling applications to account for AVs. Within this larger aim, we discussed expected impacts of AVs on roadway capacity, value of travel time, travelers’ activity patterns, household interactions, mode choice, vehicle ownership, and residential location.”

Until recently, models have relied on information from current transportation conditions and historical data to forecast travel demand with some reliability. “However, current models were not designed to and are not able to predict the impacts of emerging technologies, like shared mobility and electric vehicles, or technologies not yet in the market, like automated vehicles,” explained Circella. As a result, modelers are experimenting by testing assumptions—for example, about the percentage of AVs that will be on the road, or the degree to which people may change their travel patterns with the emergence of AVs. “The aim of this meeting and our ongoing work is to help agencies adopt modeling assumptions that are based on state-of-the-art research and the best experiences of practitioners,” Circella said.

The 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program will incorporate the findings from the meeting in an upcoming white paper on modeling the impacts of AVs on travel demand, which will be available to the public this summer. The output from the workshop will also support the modeling work that the research team will conduct during the upcoming stages of an ongoing project for CARB.

For additional information on the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program, please visit 3rev.ucdavis.edu.

By Seth Karten

 

On Tuesday, February 26, ITS-Davis’ founding director and California Air Resources Board (CARB) member Daniel Sperling was the first to testify on one of two panels before the U.S. Congressional House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure at a hearing entitled “Examining How Federal Infrastructure Policy Could Help Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change.” Dr. Sperling shared his “experiences from California” and “insights from over 30 years studying the transportation system of this country.”

Throughout his testimony, Dr. Sperling identified policy strategies for promoting more environmental, equitable, and efficient transportation in ways that support the economy and promote innovation without necessarily burdening taxpayers. He said, “The point of this hearing and my testimony, is to address the goal of aligning transportation spending with environmental goals—as well as with social goals.”

In his opening comments, he highlighted how the current transformative revolutions in transportation—electrification, automation, and shared mobility—present government with the challenge and opportunity to “refocus and restructure how we fund and manage our transportation system, such that we direct these many innovations toward the public interest.” A key role for government in supporting innovations is to support “pilot and demonstration programs” to enable necessary experimentation.

Other members on the panel included Vicki Arroyo, of the Georgetown Climate Center; Thomas P. Lyon, of the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan; Ben Prochazka, of the Electrification Coalition; and Nancy Young, from Environmental Affairs at Airlines for America. Ms. Arroyo, whose organization has partnered with ITS-Davis on several events and initiatives, spoke about how multiple states and cities have implemented programs that are “promoting adoption of cleaner vehicles and fuels, improving public transportation, and enacting pathways to fund clean transportation innovation.”

After opening remarks from each of the five panel members, congressional members asked questions and spoke about their concerns over a two-and-a-half-hour period. During this Q & A, Dr. Sperling responded to questions posed by representatives including Julia Brownley (D-CA), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Abby Finkenauer (D-IA), and Salud Carbajal (D-CA), who recognized Dr. Sperling for his “testimony and leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

In responding to questions, Dr. Sperling highlighted California’s policies and programs that could inform federal policies to promote sustainable transportation. For example, he described how the California Cap and Trade Program “funds probably $1B per year in clean transportation and is also used for affordable housing near transit stations and the greening of communities to reduce emissions—with no taxpayer money.”

Dr. Sperling was also asked about his recommendations regarding “carrots and sticks” in policies to promote sustainable transportation, such as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). He emphasized the importance of carrots: “We need to reward communities that invest in putting in more chargers, bike lanes, transit, etc., because they don’t have the resources.” He added: “That is my biggest plea, to somehow restructure transportation funding so it acknowledges and rewards these environmental goals as well as the vehicle-miles travelled goals.”

Click on the following links to view: video footage of the entire hearing and Dr. Sperling’s written testimony and opening statement.

 

Seth Karten is a science writer for the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis.

 

 

The Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis (ITS-Davis) will be a major presence at the 98th meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in Washington, D.C. from Jan. 13-17, 2019 with faculty and students represented at many program sessions and honorees recognized at award ceremonies. Additionally, ITS-Davis will host its popular annual reception and legislative briefings on Capitol Hill.

Nearly 60 ITS-Davis academic and research faculty and students from the Transportation and Technology Policy (TTP) graduate program are participating in the conference. Faculty will preside over TRB committee and meetings, and faculty and students will present their research findings at workshops, lectern sessions, and poster sessions. Their presentation topics will cover a wide range of topics from the local to the global, investigating the current revolutions in transportation that are a hallmark of today’s innovative ITS-Davis research. View a complete list of ITS-Davis presenters and presiders and the sessions in which they’re participating.

Two ITS-Davis/TTP faculty members will also be presented with awards at TRB-week events.

• Dan Sperling, Distinguished Blue Planet Prize Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy, and founding Director of ITS-Davis, will be presented with the annual 2018 Roy W. Crum Award at the TRB Chairman’s Luncheon on Jan. 16. The award recognizes outstanding leadership in transportation research or research administration. As described in the award announcement, Dr. Sperling is “recognized for his distinguished achievements in transportation research in the areas of energy, air quality, climate change, and policy; as well as for the research achievements of the many students he has mentored.”
• UC Davis Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Miguel Jaller will be presented with the 2018 Cambridge Systematics New Faculty Award from the Council of University Transportation Centers, at the Council’s Annual Awards Banquet on Jan. 12. The award is given annually to a tenure track faculty member in transportation education who demonstrates “outstanding teaching and research contributions to the transportation field,” as well as public service.

ITS-Davis will continue its longstanding tradition of hosting a TRB reception, with the opportunity to meet with faculty, students, alumni, and friends. The reception-celebration will be held on Jan. 15 at 8 p.m. in Shaw Ballroom, Courtyard by Marriott, Washington Downtown/Convention Center, 901 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20001. No RSVP is required and light refreshments will be served.

ITS-Davis also will be hosting two Capitol Hill research briefings:

• On Jan. 16, 11:45 a.m.–1:30 p.m. a briefing entitled “The 3 Revolutions in Transportation: Governance Needs & Opportunities”— at the Rayburn House Office Building and is hosted by the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy along with the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program at ITS-Davis. Register here.
• On Jan. 17, 12:30–1:30 p.m. a briefing entitled “Research Highlights from the National Center for Sustainable Transportation: Better Governance Through A Strong Workforce and Effective Incentives” — at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Register here.

Learn about Opportunities to Study or Work at ITS-Davis

With so many faculty, students, and alumni gathered in D.C., TRB offers a great opportunity to find out firsthand about the renowned Transportation Technology and Policy (TTP) Graduate Program, hosted by ITS-Davis, as well as transportation postdoctoral research position opportunities that are available at ITS-Davis in our STEPS+ Program.

Professor Susan Handy, TTP’s faculty director, and Dr. Gil Tal, TTP’s graduate advisor for recruitment and admissions, will be in D.C. for the TRB annual meeting.  Other faculty, students, and alumni at the meeting can provide their unique insights and describe their experiences in transportation study and research at UC Davis while pursuing their M.S. and Ph.D. degrees.

In addition, ITS-Davis Graduate Program Coordinator, Annemarie Schaaf, will be at the Careers in Motion Networking Fair, Sunday, January 13, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. On, Jan. 14–15 she will also be in D.C. and available for in-person meetings. Contact her at aschaaf@ucdavis.edu with questions or to set up an appointment.

Several postdoctoral research positions are currently available at ITS-Davis, with the Sustainable Freight Research Center, the Energy Futures Program, and the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program.

By Seth Karten

 

A study published on December 7 in the journal Science and co-authored by UC Davis Associate Professor of Economics David Rapson identifies significant problems with the analysis by Trump administration federal agencies to justify proposed rollbacks of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. According to the Science study, the cost-benefit analysis described in the administration’s 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is deeply flawed, as it deviates from “existing research and basic economic principles.”

Rapson said, “We have to be careful in the ways that we justify the policies that we propose, implement, and spend billions of dollars to support. In this case, we [the authors of the article] do not think that the NPRM met an acceptable threshold for rigor and accuracy.”

Rapson noted that “although the authors come from various fields of expertise, and we even differ in our beliefs about the impact of fuel economy standards on carbon abatement, we all advocate for sound logic in a cost-benefit analysis and the use of the best available evidence. The NPRM does not meet these standards.”

Rapson, a faculty member of the Transportation Technology and Policy Graduate Group hosted by the Institute of Transportation Studies at Davis, gave considerable credit to the lead author, USC Price School of Public Policy Professor Antonio Bento, and his co-authors of the study.

The CAFE standard, originally enacted in 1975, stipulates the average fuel efficiency that must be met by a fleet of vehicles produced by a manufacturer for sale in the U.S. in a given model year. In 2012, the CAFE standard for 2025 was set at 55 mpg. A 2016 draft technical assessment report (TAR), affirmed by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concluded that the 2022-2025 standards were technologically achievable and the benefits outweighed the costs. However, in the 2018 NPRM, the Trump administration’s EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reversed these conclusions, stating the costs outweigh the benefits. These agencies thus proposed freezing the CAFE standard for 2021-2026 at the 2020 level, claiming this would save over $500 billion and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700. They emphasized the alleged fatality reduction in the NPRM title: ‘‘Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.’’

The study in Science makes two major points: (1) neither the 2016 TAR nor the 2018 NPRM meet the requirements of what should be included in a thorough cost-benefit analysis of fuel economy standards; (2) the 2018 NPRM cost-benefit and fatality conclusions are based on modeling that contradicts basic economic logic and current research.

On the first point, the Science study outlines the items that should be included in a cost-benefit analysis. The necessary variables are: (a) effects on consumers, such as vehicle costs, fuel costs, and mobility; (b) effects on manufacturers, such as profit; and (c) effects on other parties (“externalities”), such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy security, congestion, traffic fatalities, and local air pollution. The authors find that the NPRM misses several of these elements and comes to inaccurate conclusions.

The NPRM’s findings regarding costs and fatalities are based on a prediction that contradicts the principle that if the price of a good drops, consumers will buy more of it. The NPRM claims that rolling back the CAFE standards in 2021-2026 will reduce the total number of vehicles on the road in 2029 by 6 million. However, this violates fundamental economics. Lowering the fuel efficiency standard will lower the cost of vehicles, causing people to buy more, not fewer, vehicles, noted Rapson and his co-authors.

An important factor contributing to the high fatality claims was the NPRM’s use of a ‘rebound effect’ estimate that is twice that used in the 2016 TAR. The rebound effect states that if the cost of travelling a mile decreases—for example, because of a higher fuel efficiency standard—people will drive more and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will increase. While there is ongoing debate about the size of the rebound effect, the NPRM justifies a doubling of the rebound effect by cherry-picking some publications while ignoring others. Such an assumed increase will inflate the apparent number of CAFE-induced fatalities, making for provocative headlines.

Another important difference between the NPRM and the TAR is that the former uses the domestic rather than the global social cost of carbon to value reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This approach runs contrary to recommendations in the scientific literature and from the National Academy of Sciences, and it allows the NPRM to place a low cost on the CAFE standard rollback.

Finally, the Science study finds errors in the NPRM that lead to overestimating the costs of complying with fuel efficiency standards. For example, the NPRM does not account for projected technology options or the future presence of state mandates for zero-emission vehicles. These factors would reduce the incremental national cost of meeting higher fuel economy standards.

Ultimately, the authors of the Science study propose using a “safety valve” rather than a rollback to address legitimate concerns about projecting costs of compliance that will be influenced by predicted technology. A safety valve effectively sets the maximum cost of a policy to a manufacturer. For example, manufacturers could purchase compliance credits at a predetermined price in case the technology is not sufficiently advanced to reduce the cost of meeting the current CAFE standard.

For further coverage, see the article in E&E News/Scientific American.

Seth Karten is a science writer for the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis.