Energy, Pollutant Emissions and Other Negative Externality Savings from Curbing Individual Motorized Transportation (IMT): A Low Cost, Low Technology Scenario Analysis in Brazilian Urban Areas
This article examines the inefficient use of resources in the Brazilian transportation system. The energy use growth and external cost generation in this essential economic sector are considerable, and the trend is towards an increasing problem in the coming years. The continued expansion of Brazilian cities and the increase in demand for mobility is a result of a substantial growth in the number of road transport users, as increased earnings enable lower income groups to acquire and use individual motorized means of transport. The aim of this paper is to estimate the potential gains from reducing individual motorized transport by the year 2020. This investigation concludes that in a conservationist scenario, by prioritizing low cost, low technology public policiesâ€”which include operation of Bus Rapid Transit systems, walking and cycling facilities and congestion charges, among othersâ€”it should be possible to save over USD 30 billion and USD 26 billion in external transportation and infrastructure costs, respectively, up to 2020. In addition, these public policies can save more than 35 million Tons of Oil Equivalents in energy consumption and avoid almost 4,000 thousand tons of local pollution emissions and 37,500 thousand tons of GHG emissions in the same period.
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.:
- Hau, Timothy D., 1992. "Economic fundamentals of road pricing : a diagrammatic analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1070, The World Bank.
- Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo & Massiani, Jérôme, 2010. "The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 359-375, June.
- Meyer, Michael D., 1999. "Demand management as an element of transportation policy: using carrots and sticks to influence travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 575-599.
- Santos, Georgina & Behrendt, Hannah & Teytelboym, Alexander, 2010. "Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 46-91.
- Todd Litman & David Burwell, 2006. "Issues in sustainable transportation," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(4), pages 331-347.
- Parry, Ian W.H. & Walls, Margaret & Harrington, Winston, 2007.
"Automobile Externalities and Policies,"
dp-06-26, Resources For the Future.
- Jonathan Leape, 2006. "The London Congestion Charge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 157-176, Fall.
- Hymel, Kent, 2009. "Does traffic congestion reduce employment growth?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 127-135, March.
- Gudmundsson, Henrik & Hojer, Mattias, 1996. "Sustainable development principles and their implications for transport," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 269-282, December.
- Gwilliam, Ken, 2008. "A review of issues in transit economics," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 4-22, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:5:y:2012:i:3:p:835-861:d:16811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.