Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 505–545 | Cite as

Determining the Impact of Personal Mobility Carbon Allowance Schemes in Transportation Networks

  • H. M. Abdul Aziz
  • Satish V. UkkusuriEmail author
  • Xianyuan Zhan


Personal mobility carbon allowance (PMCA) schemes are designed to reduce carbon consumption from transportation networks. PMCA schemes influence the travel decision process of users and accordingly impact the system metrics including travel time and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We develop a multi-user class dynamic user equilibrium model to evaluate the transportation system performance when PMCA scheme is implemented. The results using Sioux-Falls test network indicate that PMCA schemes can achieve the emissions reduction goals for transportation networks. Further, users characterized by high value of travel time are found to be less sensitive to carbon budget in the context of work trips. Results also show that PMCA scheme can lead to higher emissions for a path compared with the case without PMCA because of flow redistribution. The developed network equilibrium model allows to examine the change in system states at different carbon allocation levels and to design parameters of PMCA schemes accounting for population heterogeneity.


Low carbon transportation Carbon reduction goals Dynamic user equilibrium GHG emissions Personal mobility carbon credits 



This material is partly based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1017933. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Ahn K, Rakha H (2008) The effects of route choice decisions on vehicle energy consumption and emissions. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 13(3):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn K, Rakha H, Trani A, Van Aerde M (2002) Estimating vehicle fuel consumption and emissions based on instantaneous speed and acceleration levels. J Transp Eng 128(2):182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aziz HMA (2014) Integrating pro-environmental behavior with transportation network modeling: User and system level strategies, implementation, and evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Aziz HMA, Ukkusuri S (2013) Tradable emissions credits for personal travel: a market-based approach to achieve air quality standards. Int J Adv Eng Sci Appl Math 5(2-3):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aziz HMA, Ukkusuri SV (2012) Integration of environmental objectives in a system optimal dynamic traffic assignment model. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 27(7):494–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aziz HMA, Ukkusuri SV, Romero J (2015) Understanding short-term travel behavior under personal mobility credit allowance scheme using experimental economics. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 36:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barth M, Boriboonsomsin K (2008) Real-world carbon dioxide impacts of traffic congestion. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board 2058:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barth M, Scora G, Younglove T (2004) Modal emissions model for heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Transp Res Record: J Transp Res Board 1880:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bottrill C (2006) Understanding dtqs and pcas. Environmental Change Institute/UKERC Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  10. Bristow AL, Wardman M, Zanni AM, Chintakayala PK (2010) Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax. Ecol Econ 69(9):1824–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burtraw D (2002) Markets for clean air: the u.s. acid rain program: A. denny ellerman, paul l. joskow, richard schmalensee, juan-pablo montero, elizabeth m. bailey, cambridge, uk: Cambridge university press, 2000. Reg Sci Urban Econ 32(1):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capstick SB, Lewis A (2010) Effects of personal carbon allowances on decision-making: evidence from an experimental simulation. Clim Pol 10(4):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carey M, Balijepalli C, Watling D (2015) Extending the cell transmission model to multiple lanes and lane-changing. Networks and Spatial Economics 15 (3):507–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen L, Yang H (2012) Managing congestion and emissions in road networks with tolls and rebates. Transp Res B Methodol 46(8):933–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3 (ArticleType: research-article / Full publication date: Oct., 1960 / Copyright 1960 The University of Chicago)Google Scholar
  16. Connection TLE (2009) Defra’s pre-feasibility study into personal carbon trading-a missed opportunityGoogle Scholar
  17. Daganzo CF (1994) The cell transmission model: a simple dynamic representation of highway traffic. Transp Res B 28(4):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daganzo CF (1995) The cell transmission model, part ii: Network traffic. Transp Res B 29(2):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dales J (1968) Pollution, property, and prices. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  20. DEFRA (2008) Synthesis report on the findings from defras pre-feasibility study into personal carbon trading. Department of Environment Food, and Rural AffairsGoogle Scholar
  21. Dresner S, Ekins P (2004) The distributional impacts of economic instruments to limit greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Policy Studies Institute, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. DTA (2011) Dynamic traffic assignment: A primer. Transp Res Circular Report:C153Google Scholar
  23. EIA (2014) Annual Energy Outlook (2014) US Energy Information Administration. US Department of Energy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Eyre N (2010) Policing carbon: design and enforcement options for personal carbon trading. Clim Pol 10(4):432–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fawcett T (2010) Personal carbon trading: A policy ahead of its time Energy Policy 38(11):6868–6876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fawcett T (2012) Personal carbon trading: is now the right time Carbon Manage 3(3):283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fawcett T, Parag Y (2010) An introduction to personal carbon trading. Clim Pol 10(4):329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fleming D (1997) Tradable quotas: using information technology to cap national carbon emissions. Eur Environ 7(5):139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleming D, Chamberlin S (2011) Teqs(tradable energy quotas): A policy framework for peak oil and climate change. London: All-Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, and The Lean Economy ConnectionGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardner LM, Duell M, Waller ST (2013) A framework for evaluating the role of electric vehicles in transportation network infrastructure under travel demand variability. Transp Res A Policy Pract 49(0):76–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grayling T, Gibbs T (2006) Tailpipe trading: how to include road transport in the eu emissions trading scheme (eu ets). Institute for Public Policy Research, LowCVP Low Carbon Road Transport ChallengeGoogle Scholar
  32. Han L, Ukkusuri S, Doan K (2011) Complementarity formulations for the cell transmission model based dynamic user equilibrium with departure time choice, elastic demand and user heterogeneity. Transp Res B Methodol 45(10):1749–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harwatt H, Tight M, Bristow AL, Guhnemann A (2011) Personal carbon trading and fuel price increases in the transport sector: an exploratory study of public response in the uk. European Transport Trasporti Europei 47:47–70Google Scholar
  34. Hearn DW, Ramana MV (1998) Solving congestion toll pricing models. In: Marcotte NS P (ed) Equilibrium and Advanced Transportation Modeling., Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillman M, Fawcett T (2008) Rajan SC. St Martin’s Griffin, How we can save the planet: Preventing global climate catastropheGoogle Scholar
  36. Howell RA (2012) Living with a carbon allowance: The experiences of carbon rationing action groups and implications for policy. Energy Policy 41(0):250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keay-Bright S, Fawcett T (2005) Taxing and trading: Debating options for carbon reduction, UK Energy Research Centre Meeting ReportGoogle Scholar
  38. Keppens M, Vereeck L (2003) The design and effects of a tradable fuel permit system. In: PROCEEDINGS OF THE EUROPEAN TRANSPORT CONFERENCE (ETC) 2003 HELD 8-10 OCTOBER 2003, STRASBOURG, FRANCEGoogle Scholar
  39. Kitthamkesorn S, Chen A, Xu X, Ryu S (2016) Modeling mode and route similarities in network equilibrium problem with go-green modes. Netw Spatial Econ 16(1):33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kockelman KM, Kalmanje S (2005) Credit-based congestion pricing: a policy proposal and the publics response. Transp Res A Policy Pract 39(79):671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin J, Chen Q, Kawamura K (2016a) Sustainability si: logistics cost and environmental impact analyses of urban delivery consolidation strategies. Netw Spatial Econ 16(1):227–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin X, Tampère C M, Viti F, Immers B (2016b) The cost of environmental constraints in traffic networks: assessing the loss of optimality. Netw Spatial Econ 16 (1):349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ma R, Ban X, Pang JS, Liu HX (2015) Submission to the dta2012 special issue: Approximating time delays in solving continuous-time dynamic user equilibria. Netw Spatial Econ 15(3):443–463. JeffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mascia M, Hu S, Han K, North R, Poppel M, Theunis J, Beckx C, Litzenberger M (2016) Impact of traffic management on black carbon emissions: a microsimulation study. Netw Spatial Econ:1–23Google Scholar
  45. Merchant DK, Nemhauser GL (1978) A model and an algorithm for the dynamic traffic assignment problems. Transplant Sci 12(3):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Montgomery WD (1972) Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J Econ Theory 5(3):395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagurney A, Zhang D (2001) Dynamics of a transportation pollution permit system with stability analysis and computations. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 6(4):243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nezamuddin N, Boyles SD (2015) A continuous due algorithm using the link transmission model. Netw Spatial Econ 15(3):465–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nie Y (2012) Transaction costs and tradable mobility credits. Transp Res B Methodol 46(1):189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nie Y, Yin Y (2013) Managing rush hour travel choices with tradable credit scheme. Transp Res B Methodol 50(0):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Niemeier D, Gould G, Karner A, Hixson M, Bachmann B, Okma C, Lang Z, Heres Del Valle D (2008) Rethinking downstream regulation: California’s opportunity to engage households in reducing greenhouse gases. Energy Policy 36 (9):3436–3447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parag Y, Strickland D (2010) Personal carbon trading: A radical policy option for reducing emissions from the domestic sector. Environ Sci Policy for Sustainable Dev 53(1):29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perrels A (2010) User response and equity considerations regarding emission cap-and-trade schemes for travel. Energy Effic 3(2):149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ramadurai G (2009) Novel dynamic user equilibrium models: analytical formulations, multi-dimensional choice, and an efficient algorithm. PhD thesis, Department of civil and environmental engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY)Google Scholar
  55. Ramadurai G, Ukkusuri S (2007) Dynamic traffic equilibrium: Theoretical and experimental network game results in single-bottleneck model. Transp Res Record: J Trans Res Board 2029:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raux C, Marlot G (2005) A system of tradable co2 permits applied to fuel consumption by motorists. Transp Policy 12(3):255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roberts S, Thumim J (2006) A rough guide to individual carbon trading: The ideas, the issues and the next steps, report to defraGoogle Scholar
  58. Sloboden J, Alexiadis V, Chiu YC, Nava E (2012) Traffic analysis toolbox volume xiv: Guidebook on the utilization of dynamic traffic assignment in modeling. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration FHWA-HOP-13-015Google Scholar
  59. Starkey R (2008) Allocating emissions rights: Are equal shares, fair shares. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  60. Starkey R (2012a) Personal carbon trading: A critical survey: Part 1: Equity. Ecol Econ 73(0):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Starkey R (2012b) Personal carbon trading: A critical survey part 2: Efficiency and effectiveness. Ecol Econ 73(0):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Starkey R, Anderson K (2005) Domestic tradable quotas: A policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. Szeto WY (2013) Cell-based dynamic equilibrium models. Adv Dyn Netw Model Complex Transp Syst 2:163–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thumim J, White V (2008) Distributional impacts of personal carbon trading: A report to the department for environment, food and rural affairs. Centre for Sust Energ:1Google Scholar
  65. Tietenberg T (2003) The tradable-permits approach to protecting the commons: Lessons for climate change. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 19(3):400–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ukkusuri SV, Han L, Doan K (2012) Dynamic user equilibrium with a path based cell transmission model for general traffic networks. Transp Res B Methodol 46(10):1657–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. USDOT R (2011) The value of travel time savings: Departmental guidance for conducting economic evaluations (revision 2). US Department of Transportation (http://ostpxwebdotgov/policy/reportshtm)
  68. Verhoef E, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1997) Tradeable permits: their potential in the regulation of road transport externalities. Environ Planning B: Planning and Des 24(4):527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Verhoef ET, Small KA (2004) Product differentiation on roads: constrained congestion pricing with heterogeneous users. J Transp Econ Policy 38(1):127–156Google Scholar
  70. Wadud Z (2011) Personal tradable carbon permits for road transport: Why, why not and who wins Transp Res A Policy Pract 45(10):1052–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yang H, Bell MG (1998) Models and algorithms for road network design: a review and some new developments. Transp Rev A transnat Transdisciplinary J 18 (3):257–278Google Scholar
  72. Yang H, Huang HJ (2004) The multi-class, multi-criteria traffic network equilibrium and systems optimum problem. Transp Res B Methodol 38(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yang H, Wang X (2011) Managing network mobility with tradable credits. Transp Res B Methodol 45(3):580–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S (2006) Internalizing emission externality on road networks. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 11(4):292–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhan X, Ukkusuri SV (2014) Multi-user class, simultaneous route and departure time choice dynamic traffic assignment with an embedded spatial queuing model. 5th International Symposium on Dynamic Traffic Assignment Salerno:ItalyGoogle Scholar
  76. Ziliaskopoulos AK (2000) A linear programming model for the single destination system optimum dynamic traffic assignment problem. Transp Sci 34(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Sciences and Engineering Division, Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Lyles School of Civil EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations