Advertisement

Sustainable Transportation in Mexico

  • Nora Munguia
  • Velazquez Luis
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter shows an interesting unsustainability case study in the transportation sector at the City of Mexico called “HOY NO CIRCULA”, been translated into English as the NO DRIVING DAY PROGRAM. For more than two decades, this program has failed in reducing air pollution and in protecting public human health. In other words, the program has created anger among different groups in the society. The transportation sector certainly contributes to climate change because it is the second largest generators of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions due to fossil fuel combustion. For this reason, it is necessary to decouple the economic growth of this sector and CO2 emissions. To be more sustainable, it is clear that the transportation sector requires smart interventions to change its unsustainable pattern. The NO DRIVING DAY PROGRAM has included unilateral coercive measures that did not work at all in decreasing pollution. The reason is simply because sustainability cannot be decreed; this can only be achieved when the Government is in harmony with the Society.

Keywords

Sustainable transportation Climate change Carbon dioxide decoupling Paris Agreement Sustainability principles Mexico City 

Further Reading

  1. Comisión Ambiental Metropolitana. Programa para mejorar la calidad del aire de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de Mexico 2011–2020. http://respiramexico.org.mx/wp content/uploads/2015/07/proaire2011-2020.pdf. Web Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  2. Costa, A., and R. Fernandes. 2012. Urban Public Transport in Europe: Technology Diffusion and Market Organization. Transportation Research Part A 46 (2): 269–284.Google Scholar
  3. Delgado Diana. 2016. Continua corrupción en los verificentros. El Universal, Mayo 22. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/metropoli/cdmx/2016/05/22/continua-corrupcion-en-los-verificentros.
  4. European Commission. 2014. Reducing Emissions from Transport. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/index_en.htm. Web Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  5. Excelsior TV. 2016. Mancera responde a criticos del nuevo hoy no circula. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCa296dcNVQ. Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  6. Heinrichs, H., P. Jochem, and W. Fichtner. 2014. Including Road Transport in the EU ETS (European Emissions Trading System): A Model-Based Analysis of the German Electricity and Transport Sector. Energy 69: 708–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farago, M.E., E.J. Hutchinson, P.R. Simpson, and I. Thornton. 2005. Recent Increases in Platinum Metals in the Environment from Vehicle Catalytic Converters. Applied Earth Science 114 (3): 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feng, T., and H. Timmermans. 2014. Trade-offs Between Mobility and Equity Maximization Under Environmental Capacity Constraints: A Case Study of an Integrated Multi-Objective Model. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 43 (3): 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gwilliam, K. 2013. Cities on Move-Ten Years After. Research in Transportation Economics 40 (1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hernandez, Angélica. 2014. El Hoy no circula solo sirve para vender más coches: expertos. El financiero. http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/economia/el-hoy-no-circula-solo-sirve-para-vender-mas-coches-expertos.html.
  11. INEGI. Agency Website. http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/df/poblacion/. Web Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  12. Jain, S., P. Aggarwal, P. Kumar, S. Singhal, and P. Sharma. 2014. Identifying Public Preferences Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Assessing the Shift of Urban Commuters from Private to Public Transport: A case Study of Delhi. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 24: 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeon, C.M., A.A. Amekudzi, and R.L. Guensler. 2013. Sustainability Assessment at the Transportation Planning Level: Performance Measures and Indexes. Transport Policy 25: 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, H.J., G.A. Keoleian, and S.J. Skerlos. 2011. Economic Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction by Vehicle Lightweighting Using Aluminum and High-Strength Steel. Journal of Industrial Ecology 15 (1): 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klinger, T., J. Kenworthy, and M. Lanzendorf. 2013. Dimensions of Urban Mobility Cultures – A Comparison of German Cities. Journal of Transport Geography 31: 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mathur, S., and A. Smith. 2013. Land Value Capture to Fund Public Transportation Infrastructure: Examination of Joint Development Projects’ Revenue Yield and Stability. Transport Policy 30: 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mesík, J. 2015. Paris Climate Change Agreement: A Milestone or a Fake? International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs 24 (4): 79–98.Google Scholar
  18. Mitric, S. 2013. Urban Transport Lending by the World Bank: The Last Decade. Research in Transportation Economics 40 (1): 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moreno Alejandro. 2016. Hoy No Circula Divide Opiniones. El Financiero. April 04. http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/nacional/hoy-no-circula-divide-a-ciudadanos-49-esta-de-acuerdo-48-rechaza-medida.html
  20. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2002. Policy Instruments for Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Transport. www.keepeek.com/Digital-AssetManagement/oecd/environment/policy-instruments-for-achieving-environmentallysustainable-transport_9789264176249-en#page1/. Web Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  21. Roberts, D. 2016. A Global Roadmap for Climate Change Action: From COP17 in Durban to COP21 in Paris. South African Journal of Science 112: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Secretaria del Medio Ambiente DF. 2016. Estudio de la reducción de emisiones y los co-beneficios generados por la implementación del programa ecobici. https://www.ecobici.df.gob.mx/sites/default/files/pdf/reduccion_gei_y_co-beneficios_generados_por_la_implementacion_del_programa_ecobici_201020112012.pdf. Web Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
  23. Siemiatycki, M. 2010. Delivering Transportation Infrastructure Through Public-Private Partnerships: Planning Concerns. Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomson Reuters Foundations. 2014. Ranking the Most Dangerous Transport Systems for Women in Major Cities. http://thomsonreuters.com/en/articles/2014/most-dangerous-transport-systems-for-women.html. Web Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  25. Transparencia DF. 2016. Organization Website. http://www.transparenciamedioambiente.df.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&viw w=article&id=172&Itemid=437. Web Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  26. United States Department of State. 2010. US Climate Action Report 2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usa_nc5.pdf. Web Accessed 7 Oct 2016.
  27. Vahdani, B., M. Zandieh, and R. Tavakkoli. 2011. Two Novel FMCDM Methods for Alternative-Fuel Buses Selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling 35 (3): 1396–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zachariadis, T. 2013. Gasoline, Diesel and Climate Policy Implications – Insights from the Recent Evolution of New Car Sales in Germany. Energy Policy 54: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nora Munguia
    • 1
  • Velazquez Luis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SonoraHermosilloMexico

Personalised recommendations