Evolution of the household vehicle fleet: Anticipating fleet composition, PHEV adoption and GHG emissions in Austin, Texas
In today's world of volatile fuel prices and climate concerns, there is little study on the relationship between vehicle ownership patterns and attitudes toward vehicle cost (including fuel prices and feebates) and vehicle technologies. This work provides new data on ownership decisions and owner preferences under various scenarios, coupled with calibrated models to microsimulate Austin's personal-fleet evolution. Opinion survey results suggest that most Austinites (63%, population-corrected share) support a feebate policy to favor more fuel efficient vehicles. Top purchase criteria are price, type/class, and fuel economy. Most (56%) respondents also indicated that they would consider purchasing a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) if it were to cost $6000 more than its conventional, gasoline-powered counterpart. And many respond strongly to signals on the external (health and climate) costs of a vehicle's emissions, more strongly than they respond to information on fuel cost savings. Twenty five-year simulations of Austin's household vehicle fleet suggest that, under all scenarios modeled, Austin's vehicle usage levels (measured in total vehicle miles traveled or VMT) are predicted to increase overall, along with average vehicle ownership levels (both per household and per capita). Under a feebate, HEVs, PHEVs and Smart Cars are estimated to represent 25% of the fleet's VMT by simulation year 25; this scenario is predicted to raise total regional VMT slightly (just 2.32%, by simulation year 25), relative to the trend scenario, while reducing CO2 emissions only slightly (by 5.62%, relative to trend). Doubling the trend-case gas price to $5/gallon is simulated to reduce the year-25 vehicle use levels by 24% and CO2 emissions by 30% (relative to trend). Two- and three-vehicle households are simulated to be the highest adopters of HEVs and PHEVs across all scenarios. The combined share of vans, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and cross-over utility vehicles (CUVs) is lowest under the feebate scenario, at 35% (versus 47% in Austin's current household fleet). Feebate-policy receipts are forecasted to exceed rebates in each simulation year. In the longer term, gas price dynamics, tax incentives, feebates and purchase prices along with new technologies, government-industry partnerships, and more accurate information on range and recharging times (which increase customer confidence in EV technologies) should have added effects on energy dependence and greenhouse gas emissions.
Volume (Year): 45 (2011)
Issue (Month): 8 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dubin, Jeffrey A & McFadden, Daniel L, 1984. "An Econometric Analysis of Residential Electric Appliance Holdings and Consumption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(2), pages 345-362, March.
- Small, K.A. & Kazimi, C., 1994.
"On the Costs of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicules,"
94-95-3, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
- Small, Kenneth A. & Kazimi, Camilla, 1995. "On the Costs of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0sx81025, University of California Transportation Center.
- Kenneth A. Small & Kurt Van Dender, 2007. "Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 25-52.
- Kenneth A. Small & Kurt Van Dender, 2006. "Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect," Working Papers 050603, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
- Puller, Steven L. & Greening, Lorna A., 1999. "Household adjustment to gasoline price change: an analysis using 9 years of US survey data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 37-52, February.
- Molly Espey & Santosh Nair, 2005. "Automobile Fuel Economy: What Is It Worth?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(3), pages 317-323, 07.
- Nair, Santosh & Espey, Molly, 2004. "Automobile Fuel Economy: What is it Worth?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20102, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Mannering, Fred & Winston, Clifford & Starkey, William, 2002. "An exploratory analysis of automobile leasing by US households," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 154-176, July.
- Fang, Hao Audrey, 2008. "A discrete-continuous model of households' vehicle choice and usage, with an application to the effects of residential density," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 736-758, November.
- Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2004. "What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 201-222, March.
- Choo, Sangho & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2004. "What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7vg1057g, University of California Transportation Center.
- Kurani, Kenneth S & Turrentine, Tom, 2004. "Automobile Buyer Decisions about Fuel Economy and Fuel Efficiency," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt6zq891d1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
- Bhat, Chandra R. & Sen, Sudeshna & Eluru, Naveen, 2009. "The impact of demographics, built environment attributes, vehicle characteristics, and gasoline prices on household vehicle holdings and use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-18, January.
- Kenneth Train, 1980. "A Structured Logit Model of Auto Ownership and Mode Choice," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 357-370.
- Berkovec, James & Rust, John, 1985. "A nested logit model of automobile holdings for one vehicle households," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 275-285, August.
- Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2011. "Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15, January.
- Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2008. "Giving Green to Get Green: Incentives and Consumer Adoption of Hybrid Vehicle Technology," Working Paper Series rwp08-009, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Kurani, Ken & Turrentine, Thomas, 2004. "Automobile Buyer Decisions about Fuel Economy and Fuel Efficiency," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt5hh5k3j3, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
- Berkovec, James, 1985. "Forecasting automobile demand using disaggregate choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 315-329, August. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)