What are the most effective transportation emission reduction practices for dense regions?

More city centre affordable housing would reduce travel demand. Be prepared to fund more frequent, more reliable and safe public transport

Reducing emissions in dense regions requires strategic measures. Enhance public transport, incentivize electric vehicles, and promote active options like walking and cycling. Encourage carpooling, ridesharing, and smart city technologies to optimize vehicle use. Implement policies such as congestion pricing and car-sharing initiatives. Develop pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, bike lanes, and zoning policies supporting mixed-use development. Prioritize transit-oriented development and high-density housing in urban planning. Promote telecommuting and flexible work arrangements to reduce commuting frequency and emissions. In dense regions, a comprehensive approach is crucial for effective transportation emission reduction.

While increasing city density is generally shown to decrease city emissions there is limited evidence that implementation of 'TOD' concepts reduces emissions. In practice if TODs still adopt car-centric base policies then they encourage car-use in neighboring areas. The primary objective of urban planners should be to create sustainable high-quality density - this could be linked to car use for more strategic trips with local trips being walking...etc...I don't believe that you need transit investment to reduce emissions.

Demand management is better than and cost effective than impact management. It also promotes healthy life style beside managing vehicle reliance, encourage shared parking, dense urban developments

The faster you can abandon fossil fuels and head to fully electric, the better. Don't be misguided by Hydrogen, that makes sense only for very long range heavy rail through remote areas only (ie. western China and eventually, North Africa). Do not think that battery storage technology has hit a limit, that criticism has failed over the past 30 years and there is no reason to think it is relevant now.

It's important to realise that these are lower not zero emission vehicles when considering air pollution not just carbon emissions. Particulates are still emitted from non-tailpipe sources e.g. tyres (tires in the USA!) and brakes - possibly more, as batteries may increase the vehicle's weight. The lowest emission vehicles are people's legs and bicycles, with buses, trains, metro systems, trams and other public transport (transit) - not feasible for everyone nor all journeys but usable for far more journeys than currently travelled.

Cities can adopt a range of policies to promote the use of low-emission vehicles (LEVs): - Purchase Incentives - Charging Infrastructure Support - Priority Parking - Access to Restricted Areas - Government Procurement Policies - Stringent Emission Standards - Zoning Regulations - Public Campaigns - Tax Incentives for Businesses - Integration with Public Transit - Promotion of Shared Mobility Services - Emission-Based Pricing

LEVe are an important strategy to move towards sustainable solutions. The combined approach of Interlinking active travel and LEVs together will not only help us to reduce the carbon emissions footprints but, will helps us to improve physical activity of users leading to have a better community all together as a sustainable approach.

Encourage the use of the stop and start technology, green tyre, reduce idling and also switch to HVO petrol, and also encourage people to use electric vehicles.

Again stop looking at the spec in every one’s little life and consider facts.. The cost of out sourcing day to day sustainable life comes at a huge cost to environment and consumer. You want to change climate simply put stop transportation of food crops from around the world and grow food close to home.. Reduce emissions by reducing the need for global transport of what should be locally produced

Why are so many people driving and parking in congested places at congested times? In part, because it appears to be free to do so. Congestion-based roadway and parking fees are part of the solution. But avoid "cordon" pricing. Creating an arbitrary boundary around a downtown and charging a fee to cars that cross it might reduce traffic in short term. But long-term, people will relocate homes and businesses away from the boundary -- creating more sprawl. Instead, congestion pricing should be based on distance traveled. This encourages people to locate homes and businesses closer together to minimize the distance-based fees. Compact development enhances walking, biking, transit and other non-SOV modes of travel.

This could be used as a powerful economic stimulus and urban development density incentive measure. If you were to coordinate the boundary of the charge zone with areas most able to provide mode transfer (car to public transport) you allowed a continuation of the two-way commute and leisure travel by providing options for people to continue to move freely, although without their car for the entire journey. If you then consider these locations as concentrations of people movement, you have a much higher land value for commercial retail and potentially residential developments, further driving the incentive for private AND government to work together to achieve a congestion charge scheme.

The great example of congestion pricing policy is London Congestion Charge zone that is already two decades old. By imposing a financial cost on driving in congested areas, it incentivizes individuals to explore alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, cycling, or walking. Moreover, the reinvestment of the generated revenue into local public transit systems aligns with the idea of using congestion pricing as a tool for sustainable urban development. Investing in equitable transportation solutions ensures that the benefits of the policy are distributed fairly across different socio-economic groups.

Again,, you want to tax people for doing what they need to do to provide.. if you want to change emissions stop the necessity for people to travel 2-4 hours a day to make a living wage.

Street space reallocation is of primary importance due to the fact it is a physical manifestation of the values and priorities of the civic culture. Once there’s space prioritised for people and social/economic life then the transit priorities work in a harmonised way. It never works when transport infrastructure is done first then everything else is shoe-horned around it.

The current discourse on road space allocation is more complex than many portray. Based on our work interviewing professionals involved in the development of road design guidance globally, we found the following: Change needs to navigate a complex ecosystem of norms that are hyper-local: The challenge lies in altering entrenched socio-technocratic systems that prioritise efficiency above all else. Global Guidance on Street Design: Guidance at the global level shows the complexities involved in concepts but this is a starting point and it's not sufficient on its own to bring about meaningful change. Implementing Change: While concepts appeal to many, change requires changes to multiple frameworks

The various levels or road types through the network hierarchy can then play different roles with road space allocated accordingly. Lighter vehicles (active and passive) on smaller roads will also allow maintenance costs and skills to be applied more systematically if the road allocation approach is 'attached' to the already well-understood spatial logic of the network hierarchy.

TDM (Transportation Demand Management) programs often yield mixed results, with a notable outcome being up to a 10% reduction in travel. Economic incentives have shown more effectiveness in influencing travel behaviors. For example, lower car taxes and subsidies encourage car usage, while higher fuel taxes and congestion charges deter it. The UK's 'Cycle to Work' scheme successfully promotes biking by offering significant cost savings. Implementing these strategies involves balancing public acceptance, economic impact, and equity, making the approach straightforward in theory but complex in practice.

Reduce the need to travel (e.g. work fewer but longer days if need to maintain same weekly hours of working; hybrid working where some days are worked at home - OK for office workers but not manufacturing, service providers, etc.) Providing sufficient non-driving options e.g. affordable, accessible, acceptable, (and low emission) public transport; improved walking and cycling infrastructure.

Anyone have the facts handy?? I remember if you or your dad drove 20 minutes to a job that was considered crazy.. now because of the government misinformation and abuse of power. If people want to have a life .. a life not just survival 2-4 hours a day whether it’s transit or personal vehicles is considered a normal life

Green spaces in cities offer a multitude of benefits that contribute to both environmental sustainability and the well-being of urban residents. Here are some key advantages related to reducing emissions and improving citizens' health: 1. Air Quality Improvement 2. Carbon Sequestration 3. Heat Island Mitigation 4. Promotion of Sustainable Transportation 5. Mental and Physical Health Benefits 6. Noise Reduction 7. Biodiversity Support 8. Community Interaction and Social Cohesion

a) reduction of travel demand; b) enabling and encouraging mode-shift; c) best use of technology within modes. Not rocket science. But a lot of detail and options within each of those 3 categories!

The most effective practice is the one that planners avoid like a house on fire: zoning reform. Infrastructure is obviously important if you want people to shift modes from cars to bikes or bus, for example. But most of America's local land use rules outlaw mixed-use places. Survey after survey shows people would like to live in walkable places, but local government after local government outlaws things like a corner market, a front-yard business, a duplex, and a pub in a residential neighborhood. Reform zoning. Better yet, abolish it.

Adding to that, abolish parking minimum requirements and support low-carbon travel options via financial incentives while penalizing high-carbon options.

How about this… make cost of LIVING.. as a family or single person sustainable and affordable within a 50 mile radius of home.. I don’t care what number you put on it.. 100k, 200k doesn’t matter.. You want to change pollution!! One stop blocking Canadian farms! Two stop selling off Canadian fossil fuels to other countries that have no emissions regulations, while criminalizing the Canadian consumers for using Canadian fossil fuels.. Facts technology has not nor can it catch up to fix’s emissions! Get off the bench people and go out and look.. Stop blaming the other people

No caso do Brasil e, em especial, nas suas grandes cidades e metrópoles precisamos realizar duas revoluções conceituais. A primeira é a mudança de matriz modal, migrando a demanda do transporte individual por automóvel para o transporte público de média e grande capacidade. A segunda mudança necessária se deve a necessidade de que a matriz energética dos modos de transportes públicos de média e grande capacidade sejam de tração elétrica de origem limpa! Nos locais onde não for possível tal mudança em razão da demanda, pode-se utilizar biocombustíveis de forma integral ou como aditivos.

In the case of Brazil and, especially, in its large cities and metropolises, we need to carry out two conceptual revolutions. The first is the change in the modal matrix, migrating demand from individual transport by car to medium and large capacity public transport. The second necessary change is due to the need for the energy matrix of medium and large capacity public transport modes to be clean electric traction! In places where such a change is not possible due to demand, biofuels can be used integrally or as additives.