Multicriterion Sustainability Assessment
in Transportation
Private Cars, Carsharing, and Transit Buses
L. K. Mitropoulos and P. D. Prevedouros
The increase in the number of hybrid electric vehicles and carshare users
in the United States in the past decade urges transportation officials to
incorporate vehicle characteristics into traditional transportation plan-
ning and sustainability assessments. This study updates the state of
the art in three main ways: (a) employs a life-cycle approach instead
of focusing only on the operation of modes, (b) disaggregates vehicles
by type instead of assuming a uniform light-duty vehicle fleet, and
(c) assesses conventional and hybrid technologies explicitly for travel
mode combinations instead of assuming only fossil fuel–powered vehicles
and private cars. The sustainability framework used in this study sets
the direction for a multicriterion assessment of urban transportation.
Six highway vehicles and modes are analyzed: an internal combustion
engine vehicle (ICEV), a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), a carsharing pro-
gram with ICEVs, a carsharing program with HEVs, a diesel bus, and a
hybrid diesel–electric bus. The three travel combinations are developed
into three case studies: (a) passenger vehicle only, (b) passenger vehicle
and public bus, and (c) carsharing and public bus. The results show that
the inclusion of carsharing in the travel mix is the best option. The most
sustainable mode, relative to the other five, is found to be carsharing
with HEVs. The superior performance of carsharing over transit buses
reveals opportunities for new policies in sustainable transportation.
The combustion of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, for the
transportation of people and goods is the second largest source of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emis-
sions) and accounted for approximately 26% of total U.S. green-
house gas emissions in 2011 (1). The same year, the transportation
sector used 28% of the total energy consumed in the United States,
and 93% of the energy consumed in this sector was produced from
petroleum. The consumption of petroleum in the transportation sec-
tor surpassed the total oil production in the United States in 1989,
and the trend has been increasing. Conversely, improvements in
vehicle efficiency and changes in vehicle travel have likely contrib-
uted to some pollutant reduction: an 11% decrease in CO2 emissions
was observed between 2004 and 2010 (2).
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) sales in the United States increased
by 30% between 2005 and 2010 (3). Between 2000 and 2012 there
was an exponential increase in carsharing from a few hundred to
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at
Manoa, 2540 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822. Corresponding author: P. D.
Prevedouros, pdp@hawaii.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2403, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2014, pp. 52–61.
DOI: 10.3141/2403-07
52
about 800,000 (4). Carsharing is a service that provides members
access to a fleet of vehicles at low costs that are based on time or
distance. Members book their preferred vehicle online or by phone
and walk to the nearest location to pick the vehicle up. Carsharing
enables more efficient vehicle usage and has resulted in a decrease in
car use and travel distance. Some members of carsharing programs
have avoided the purchase of a vehicle.
In North America, studies have shown that carsharing programs
have reduced the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by their members by
an average of 44% (5). When the benefits of carsharing programs are
aggregated, reductions in pollution, energy consumption, conges-
tion, and parking space requirements are shown. Carsharing results
vary. For example, a carsharing vehicle reduces the need for four to
10 privately owned vehicles in Europe and six to 23 privately
owned vehicles in North America (6). Carsharing members are typi-
cally in their mid-30s to mid-40s and use carshare vehicles mostly for
recreational and social reasons or for shopping (7). Well-established
carsharing programs can be found in Canada, Germany, Singapore,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Carsharing programs are offered by dedicated carsharing companies,
such as Zipcar; car rental companies, such as Avis; and car manu-
facturers, such as Volkswagen’s Quicar. Carsharing fleets include
gasoline, hybrid electric, and plug-in electric vehicles (5, 8).
The current challenge is to upgrade existing planning and evalu-
ation tools to include the new technologies and new modes. New
technological aspects include alternative fuels, such as hydrogen
fuels; alternative vehicle propulsion systems, such as electric drive
propulsion; and the related supporting infrastructure (e.g., hydrogen
stations, chargers, and battery swap stations). New travel character-
istics include changes in ownership regimes (e.g., sharing rather than
owning a vehicle). There is a small but increasing body of knowl-
edge related to alternative fuel and propulsion vehicles; their effects
on transportation sustainability are summarized in the authors’ past
work (9). However, there is no sustainability study on carsharing in
the literature.
Attempts to incorporate sustainability into transportation planning
have resulted in the development of indicators that represent elements
of sustainability (10–13). Transportation indicators that measure
impacts on mobility and environmental effects are mainly applied to
the operational stage of the transportation system. Major components
of transportation, including vehicle manufacture, maintenance, and
disposal, are omitted in this approach (11–13). Past assessments of
transportation sustainability considered only personal vehicles or
all the modes present on a section of a network and used aggregated
measures, such as total vehicle emissions, to evaluate performance
in terms of environmental sustainability. The vehicles considered
in those studies were assumed to be gasoline or diesel and to be
Mitropoulos and Prevedouros
propelled by an internal combustion engine (ICE). This assumption
was valid 10 years ago when the share of HEV and carsharing users
in the United States was minimal, but since approximately 2010 these
newer vehicles and modes have needed to be explicitly accounted for
in methods and models. Additionally, the aggregation of transporta-
tion performance measures restricts one of sustainability’s primary
roles in transportation planning: to assist agencies in evaluating new
and proposed transportation modes. A disaggregate assessment is also
essential for the analysis of subsidies, incentives, and similar policies,
such as the program unveiled by the City and County of San Fran-
cisco, California, on July 17, 2013, to reserve up to 900 downtown
parking stalls for the exclusive use of carshare vehicles; the program
would begin on January 1, 2014 (14).
The sustainability framework used in this study sets the direction for
a multicriterion assessment in transportation that focuses specifically
on vehicles (vehicles and infrastructure being the two key components
of transportation modes). The six vehicle types and propulsion options
examined in this paper comprise an ICE vehicle (ICEV) and an HEV
in three travel modes: private car, carsharing, and public bus.
Sustainability Dimensions and Indicators
The sustainability of a transportation system can be assessed if the
parameters that compose the system can be defined and measured.
To a large extent, available data determine the parameters to be used
in a sustainability assessment.
A framework is necessary to define what to measure, what to expect
from the measurements, and what indicators to use (15). There is no
universally accepted framework for the assessment of sustainability.
Various sustainability frameworks have been developed to suit the
visions of communities and the goals of policies or projects. Usu-
ally, a sustainability framework is divided into different dimensions
of sustainability, and a set of indicators is defined for each dimension.
Several studies in the literature utilize three sustainability
dimensions—environment, society, and economy—to develop indi-
cators for the assessment of transportation systems (12, 16). Maoh and
Kanaroglou developed a tool as an add-on module in an integrated
model for the assessment of urban sustainability (13). Their indicators
reflected aspects of environment, society, and economy.
Renne evaluated transit-oriented development sustainability
with indicators that were based on six categories (17). He argued that
because it is difficult to categorize indicators through the three basic
categories of sustainable development (environment, society, and
economy), and as many indicators cross boundaries, six categories
had to be selected. The categories were travel behavior, local econ-
omy, natural environment, built environment, social environment,
and policy context. Jeon et al. developed indicators for sustainable
transportation assessment and grouped them under transportation
system performance, environment, society, and economy (11). To
compute sustainability indicators, Paz et al. defined three inter­
dependent systems: the transportation system, the activity system,
and the environmental system (18).
Past studies on carsharing have evaluated changes in ownership and
parking demand and decreases in greenhouse gas emissions as a result
of changes in travel behavior among carsharing users (5, 19, 20). Car-
sharing has also been used as an example of how life-cycle analysis is
applied to sustainable consumption patterns (21).
Bevan et al. grouped projects into five major objectives related
to (a) energy reduction, (b) material resource reduction, (c) envi-
ronmental impact reduction, (d) urban community support, and
(e) sustainability support during implementation at the local level
53
(22). The sustainability framework presented in this paper builds on
this background and consists of five dimensions.
Methodology
Sustainability Framework for Urban
Transportation Vehicles
The sustainability framework consists of five dimensions that are
captured by the proposed goals that govern transportation systems:
environment, technology performance, energy, economy, and users.
The goals of the framework are to
• Minimize environmental impacts,
• Minimize energy consumption,
• Maximize and support a vibrant economy,
• Maximize user and community satisfaction, and
• Maximize technology performance to help a community meet
its needs.
The five dimensions are described below:
• Environment. The environmental impact of transportation
vehicles begins when the raw materials required to manufacture
components are extracted and ends when the vehicle is discarded
or recycled. Lighter materials, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels
are three primary areas that vehicle manufacturers pursue to reduce
emissions and minimize the overall environmental impacts of vehicle
manufacture and usage.
• Technology performance. Technology performance refers
to the performance of all the components of transportation systems
made by humans to meet their needs. Sustainable technology helps
people meet their mobility needs in safety and comfort while mini-
mizing the consumption of energy and maximizing the reuse and
recycling of materials. Weight reduction, high-strength materials,
engine and aerodynamic enhancements, and alternative propulsion
systems are some of the technologies that contribute to sustainable
transportation. Performance measures in this sustainability dimension
ensure that improvements in design and technology are reflected in
the appraisal methodology and capture the full range of sustainable
transportation concerns (i.e., balance mobility needs while meeting
long-term environmental, social, and economic goals).
• Energy. Energy is a major component of transportation and is
directly connected with the environment and the economy. Energy
availability, demand, price, and consumption all have short- and long-
term impacts. The consumption of nonrenewable energy sources
generates emissions that are harmful to humans and deprives future
generations of this energy. Globally, vast amounts of energy are needed
for transportation infrastructure development, vehicle m ­ anufacture,
and transportation operations.
• Economy. The creation of a sustainable economy requires the
disciplined use of energy and technology. An unsustainable economy
results in the destruction of the environment, a multitude of social
impacts, and suboptimal transportation services. In this context, a
sustainable economy facilitates a lower cost for urban mobility
through the assessment of vehicle costs, including purchase, registra-
tion, insurance, operation, parking, and fuel, and the promotion of
vehicle types and technologies that minimize total costs.
• Users. Users represent a large set of stakeholders, including
individuals (e.g., residents or travelers), groups (e.g., schoolchildren),
private companies (e.g., taxis or private fleet operators), and public
54 Transportation Research Record 2403

agencies (e.g., regulatory or operation and maintenance agencies).
Transportation mode outputs, including traffic delay, reliability,
safety, comfort, and convenience, determine user choice as to when,
how, and at what level (amount) users choose to use a transportation
mode. User perceptions and preferences vary; therefore, vehicle and
mode choices vary. Vehicles with performance deficiencies are less
attractive to users and become unsustainable in the long term.
The technology performance and users dimensions are used in
this sustainability framework instead of the traditional sustainability
dimension of society. The technology performance dimension explic-
itly takes into account the capabilities and limitations of technology in
transportation. The users dimension takes into account the preferences
and restrictions of system users and other transportation stakeholders
explicitly.
Several performance measures used to evaluate the sustainability
dimensions were collected from the literature and are shown, along
with their sources, in Table 1. These measures have been modified to
address the current objectives through the identification of individual
vehicle features that improve transportation sustainability. Some of

TABLE 1   Sustainable Transportation Indicators

Goal Indicator Reference Indicator Description

Environment
Minimize environmental Carbon dioxide, methane, (11, 23) Emissions are an outcome of all the life-cycle stages of a vehicle, including
impact nitrous oxide, green- manufacture, fueling (primary energy production, including raw material
house gases, volatile recovery and storage, and fuel production including transportation, storage,
organic compound, and distribution), operation (driving, startup, tires, brakes, evaporation,
carbon monoxide, and idling; processes that support the lawful usage of vehicles: insurance,
nitrogen oxides, particle registration, license, and taxes), maintenance, and disposal.
matter, sulfur oxides
Noise (24) Noise is representative of average urban speeds at a distance of 50 ft.
Technology Performance
Maximize technology Fuel frequency (24) Time required to fuel a vehicle; significant for short ranging modes.
performance to help Maintenance frequency (25) Number of times a vehicle has to replace parts and fluids to keep providing a
people meet their safe service to its users during its lifetime.
needs Space occupied (6, 26) Its value reveals that space occupation per passenger can be decreased for
different vehicle types or programs. When not in use, space is a fundamental
requirement affected by parking stalls, garages, depots, etc.
Engine power (27) Maximization of vehicle power.
Energy
Minimize energy Manufacturing energy (28) Energy is required for all vehicle life-cycle stages, as described for the “emissions
consumption Fueling energy indicator.”
Operation energy
Maintenance energy
Economy
Maximize and support a Manufacturing cost (11) The invoice price of a vehicle. The invoice price is the price a car dealer pays
vibrant economy the manufacturer; it is constant for every dealer in the United States.
Operation cost (11) Includes the cost of purchase, operation (fueling or charging or using the vehicle),
insurance, license, registration, and taxes. Indicator values can be replaced
with local data.
Maintenance cost Includes the cost for maintenance and tire replacement.
Parking cost (28) Monthly expenses for parking the vehicle (national average). Indicator values
can be replaced with local data.
Users
Maximize user Mobility (6, 11) Number of passengers per vehicle per hour that choose or desire to utilize the
satisfaction subject mode.
Demand (29) Provision of social and economic opportunities by the transportation network.
Delay (29) Real travel time minus the travel time of a vehicle when it travels at 30 mph.
Safety (29) Number of accidents or fatalities that have been recorded for a specific vehicle type.
Global availability (11) Time during which a vehicle is not available to its users during a day. Indicator
can be changed on the basis of regional–local specific requirements. (It is
expressed as an annual percentage.)
Reasonable availability (11) Time during which a vehicle is not available to its potential users during
the 19 h (5 a.m. to midnight) per day when 98.8% of total trips occur.
Indicator values can be replaced with local data. (It is expressed as an
annual percentage.)
Leg room, cargo space (24, 26) Physical vehicle characteristics that maximize user comfort and convenience.
Access time (11) The time required for a user to reach the vehicle and start the trip. Includes
walking and waiting time. Indicator values can be replaced with local data.
Fueling opportunities (24, 26) Available locations for fueling or charging a vehicle (regional planning). Indicator
values can be replaced with local data. Indicator is not applicable to public
transit modes.

Note: Indicators in shaded cells are proposed for application to specific projects and take values that are based on regional data; therefore, the indicators are not quantified
in the generic version presented here.
Mitropoulos and Prevedouros 55

the indicators in Table 1, such as emissions, energy, and cost, are Quantification of Sustainability
directly adopted from the literature. Indicators including emissions, Performance Measures
energy, trip cost, fuel cost, or trip time that usually apply to vehicle
operation only are generalized over a vehicle’s life cycle. The indica- The indicators for each sustainability dimension shown in Table 1
tor cost includes lifetime purchase, fuel, insurance, registration, tax, were quantified on the basis of the following conditions.
and maintenance costs.
The proposed sustainability framework can incorporate additional
indexes and measures. Emission and Energy Indicators

For the quantification of emissions and energy, the Greenhouse Gases,

Selected Urban Transportation Vehicles
This assessment focuses on road-going vehicles; the component
of highway infrastructure is not included in the sustainability
assessment because that component is common to all the vehicles
assessed. The vehicle characteristics are shown in Table 2. For
each type of vehicle, a representative vehicle was chosen on the
basis of the highest volume of sales (30). The six urban road vehicle
modes examined were
1. An ICEV,
2. An HEV,
3. A carsharing program with ICEVs,
4. A carsharing program with HEVs,
5. A diesel bus, and
6. A hybrid diesel–electric bus.
Carsharing companies tend to take carshare vehicles out of ser-
vice after 1 or 2 years; therefore, in this study the average lifetime
for a vehicle in a carsharing program was assumed to be 2 years
(22). After that time, the vehicle was assumed to be in operation as
a private vehicle for 8.6 years, which is the difference between a
passenger car’s lifetime and the years in carsharing service. In car-
sharing programs, the majority of vehicles are driven for 18,000 mi
per year (34). For the impact of carsharing on passenger miles trav-
eled (PMT) to be estimated, each carsharing vehicle was assumed
to reduce the need for four privately owned vehicles with an aver-
age occupancy of 1.15 people per vehicle. Therefore, each carshare
vehicle had an equivalent occupancy of 4.58. The insurance cost
of a carshare vehicle ranges from $4,800 to $6,000 per vehicle per
year (34); the average value of $5,400 per vehicle per year was used
in this study.
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) 1.7
and 2.7 models, the MOBILE 6.2 model, and the economic input–
output life-cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) were used (35–37). The
details and assumptions for the quantification of life-cycle emis-
sions have been covered in Mitropoulos and Prevedouros and are
summarized below (9).
Manufacturing  The manufacturing emissions and energy in
GREET 2.7 included vehicle materials, batteries, fluids, and vehicle
assembly. The weight and battery properties of each vehicle were
input data, as was GREET’s material percentage composition of each
vehicle component (e.g., body, power train, chassis, transmission, and
generator). The manufacturing emissions and energy inventories for
transit buses were estimated with EIO-LCA.
Fueling  GREET 1.7 was used for the life-cycle analysis of fuel. The
model estimated the emissions and energy associated with (a) primary
energy production (feedstock recovery), transportation, and storage
and (b) fuel production, transportation, storage, and distribution. The
fuel production option for conventional gasoline and low-sulfur diesel
was petroleum.
Operation and Idling  MOBILE 6.2 was used to estimate the emis-
sions generated from gasoline vehicles. Average urban speeds of
28 and 12 mph were used for passenger vehicles and transit buses,
respectively (9). Idling emissions were estimated under the assump-
tion that the 2.5-mph emission factors could be applied to the entire
idling time (36). The study assumed that passenger vehicles and transit
buses idled for 7.5 and 35 min per day, respectively.
Maintenance  Vehicle maintenance included the maintenance and
disposal of vehicle parts. GREET examined the emissions and energy

TABLE 2   Vehicle Characteristics (7, 30–33)

Carsharing Carsharing Hybrid Diesel–

Characteristic ICEV HEV with ICEV with HEV Diesel Bus Electric Bus

Weight (lb) 3,307 3,042 3,307 3,042 26,000 28,500

Average occupancy (passengers) 1.15 1.15 4.59 4.59 10.50 10.50
Average lifetime (years) 10.6 10.6 10.6a 10.6a 12.0 12.0
Average annual usage (mi) 11,300 11,300 18,000 18,000 41,667 41,667
Lifetime usage (mi) 119,780 119,780 133,180b 133,180b 500,000 500,000
Fuel economy [mpg (urban)] 22.0 48.0 22.0 48.0 3.9 5.5
Cost to buy (MSRP) ($) 22,055 26,550 22,055 26,550 319,709 531,605
Fuel price (Jan. 2012) ($/gal) 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 2.94 2.94

Note: MSRP = manufacturer’s suggested retail price; Jan. = January.

a
It is assumed that carshare vehicle has same lifetime as private car. The carshare vehicle stays in service for 2 years; during rest of its lifetime (i.e.,
8.6 years), it operates as private car.
b
It is assumed that carshare vehicle is driven for 18,000 mi per year for first 2 years of its lifetime and thereafter for 11,300 mi per year.
56
associated with vehicle maintenance. EIO-LCA was used to estimate
the emissions and energy inventory associated with automotive
mechanical repair and maintenance and tire manufacturing services
on the basis of maintenance costs.
Environmental Sustainability Indicators
Emissions  The life-cycle tools used to quantify the emission indi-
cators have been presented in the section on emission and energy
indicators.
Noise  At speeds greater than 30 mph, vehicles with advanced
propulsion offer negligible noise benefits because at higher speeds
noise is generated mostly by the tire–road interaction and vehicle
aerodynamics. Noise levels from the literature were used (38).
Technology Performance Sustainability Indicators
Fueling Frequency  The fueling frequency was estimated by divid-
ing the lifetime miles of a vehicle by the product of its fuel tank
capacity and fuel efficiency. On average, a user needs 6 min at a gas
station for fueling (39).
Maintenance Frequency  An ICEV was used as the base vehicle.
An ICEV is required to be maintained 22 times in its lifetime; its
owner spends 2 h dropping off and retrieving the vehicle on each
occasion. Additional time losses attributable to mode shift were not
included. Maintenance requirements for HEVs were estimated at
20 per lifetime on the basis of these vehicles’ mechanical compo-
nents (40). For the carsharing programs, it was estimated that repair
and inspection occurred nine and seven times per year for an ICEV
and an HEV, respectively. For transit buses it was assumed that each
one required an average of 260 h of maintenance per year (41).
Space Occupied  The space occupied was the ratio of vehicle area
per average number of passengers traveling. The space occupied
referred to the physical characteristics of a vehicle.
Engine Power  Engine power was estimated as the ratio of torque
to vehicle weight and was a significant technology indicator as it
showed how technological advances reduced the vehicle weight (i.e.,
material quantities and types) and maintained or increased vehicle
power to improve vehicle performance. In this ratio, torque was used
instead of horsepower to avoid a negative bias for diesel-powered
vehicles.
Energy Sustainability Indicators
The quantification of life-cycle energy indicators was described in the
section on emission and energy indicators.
Economic Sustainability Indicators
The economic sustainability indicators focused on affordable
transportation systems; therefore, user out-of-pocket costs were used.
Manufacturing Cost  The manufacturing cost represents the
invoice price of a vehicle. The invoice price is the price a car dealer
Transportation Research Record 2403
pays the manufacturer and is constant for every dealer in the United
States. For public transit buses, an invoice price of 90% of the manu-
facturer’s suggested retail price was used to account for typical block
orders by transit systems (30).
Operation Cost  The ICEV was the base vehicle; insurance, license,
registration, and tax costs for the HEV were estimated on the
basis of its weight. License, registration, and tax costs were set
at $0.052 per mile (42); they included all government taxes and fees
payable at the time of purchase, as well as the fees due each year
to keep the vehicle licensed and registered. The insurance cost for an
ICEV was set at $0.085 per mile on the basis of a full-coverage policy
(42). Passenger fares for buses were estimated to be $1.50 for a
3.9-mi trip (31). For carsharing programs, an average of 5.5 mph of
city usage and an hourly average cost of $8.25 were assumed (43).
The fixed costs of annual fees and application fees were spread over a
3,850 annual carsharing mileage (7), and 10 years of membership was
assumed. Gas and insurance were included in the membership. The
indicator values could be replaced with local data.
Maintenance Cost  The maintenance cost was the average cost for
maintaining the vehicle over its lifetime. The maintenance costs
of the passenger vehicles were estimated on the basis of an ICEV
maintenance cost of $0.0432 per mile. The HEV has all the com-
ponents of an ICEV, but as a result of the HEV’s regenerative
braking, there is less brake wear. The HEV’s maintenance cost
was estimated at $0.0396 per mile on the basis of the maintenance
schedule and costs relative to an ICEV (44). Tire costs for ICEVs
and HEVs were $0.0113 per mile (2011 figures) (42). The main-
tenance cost, including tires, for transit buses was estimated to be
$0.4700 per mile (41).
Parking Price  For ICEVs and HEVs, the parking price was esti-
mated on the basis of the U.S. national average (45). For carshare
users, it was assumed that free parking was offered in designated
areas. Indirect costs, such as city taxes, subsidize the free stalls for
alternative fuel vehicles; these costs were not included. The indicator
values could be replaced with local data.
User Sustainability Indicators
Availability indicators expressed the possibility that a vehicle
would not be available to its potential user at a given time. Higher
indicator values meant that the vehicle was less available to poten-
tial users. Accessibility indicators were used to measure access to
opportunities, such as activity centers and major services (11);
availability indicators were used to measure the availability of
cycling and pedestrian facilities (46). The availability indicators
in this study were tailored to the highway vehicles examined. The
indicator values could be replaced with local data. Also, regional
applications should consider the inclusion of a factor that favors
bus service as an essential transportation service for people who
do not drive.
Global Availability  Global availability was estimated by dividing
the total hours during which a vehicle was unavailable per year by the
number of hours in a year. The hours of unavailability for each vehicle
were estimated by multiplying the time taken to fuel a vehicle by
the fueling frequency per year. It was assumed that transit buses were
not in operation for 5 h per day (from midnight to 5 a.m.).
Mitropoulos and Prevedouros
Reasonable Availability  Reasonable availability represented the
time during which a vehicle would not be available to its potential
users during the 19 h from 5 a.m. to midnight. Public transit buses
were assumed to be fully fueled at the start of service and to not
require fueling until the end of their shifts.
Comfort and Convenience  Comfort and convenience was
expressed through four indicators: passenger space, cargo space, leg
room space available to each passenger, and access time. For transit
buses it was assumed that the space under the seats was the cargo
space available to each passenger (47). The access time was the time
spent reaching the vehicle and starting the trip. For buses, the access
time was estimated to be 12.3 min on the basis of bus stop spacing
and mean headway. The access time for carsharing programs was
estimated to be 5.0 min.
Fueling Opportunities  Fueling opportunities were expressed by
the number of gas stations (48). This indicator was not applicable
to public transit modes. The indicator values could be replaced with
local data.
Results and Comparisons
Sustainability Index
The summation of the sustainability assessment from each indicator
to a sustainability dimension index and the development of an overall
sustainability index for each urban transportation vehicle are major
tasks. Each of the proposed sustainability indicators has a positive or
negative impact. A larger absolute value of each indicator indicates
a more positive or more negative impact on sustainability. The addi-
tion of indicators with different units is performed only after the dif-
ferent measurement units are normalized into a dimensionless scale,
as detailed in Jeon et al. (11), Maoh and Kanaroglou (13), and Cowan
(38). The normalized values are dimensionless and range from zero
to one. Therefore, on a relative scale, the most sustainable vector for
each vehicle type is Imax = (1,1,1,1,1), and the least sustainable vector
is Imin = (0,0,0,0,0).
Problems that involve multiple criteria and alternatives, such as the
ones associated with sustainable transportation, are defined as multi­
criterion decision-making (MCDM) problems. In an MCDM prob-
lem, weights (w1, w2, . . . , wn) are assigned to alternatives to account
for their relative importance. Weights can be assigned directly by the
decision maker or by a group of experts (e.g., the Delphi method)
or determined by a method such as cluster or factor analysis. Several
methodologies have been adopted in the transportation sector for the
assessment of projects and plans. The analytic hierarchy process has
been used in several sustainability and transportation studies, but it is
a time- and cost-intensive method (49).
Other methodologies, such as the Bayesian decision theory or fuzzy
logic, can be used to account for nonlinear, interrelated, and stochastic
aspects of transportation. Paz et al. used fuzzy theory to aggregate
sustainability indicators and develop an index for sustainable
transportation systems (18).
MCDM methods add a degree of subjectivity to the analysis
because weights indicate the relative preferences associated with
specific indicators. The utilization of equal weights to minimize
bias is less challenging and may be a preferred base assessment. In
this paper, the aggregation of normalized indicators into an index per
type of vehicle was performed through the weighted sum method
57
(50). The determination of weights was not the main objective of this
research, and as a starting point, equal weights were assigned to each
indicator and sustainability dimension, as in various past sustainability
assessments (11, 13, 51).
The commonly used weighted sum model was employed in this
study to aggregate the sustainability indicators. The weighted sum
model was used by Jeon et al. and Maoh and Kanaroglou to evaluate
the sustainability of transportation systems from an assessment of
sustainability criteria (11, 13). Those authors used the weighted sum
model to aggregate normalized values of criteria into sustainability
dimension indices and an overall sustainability index per studied
scenario.
The addition of criteria with different units was performed only after
the different measurement units were normalized into a dimensionless
scale. The utility Vi for each alternative was estimated as follows:
n
Vi = ∑ w j N ij i = 1, . . . , m (1)
j =1
where
wj = assigned weight for each indicator j for alternative i,
Nij = normalized value of indicator j for alternative i,
n = total number of indicators, and
m = total number of alternatives.
Vehicle Sustainability Comparison
The sustainability dimension index and the overall sustainability index
per vehicle type summarize the sustainability performance of each
type of vehicle. The indicator values were quantified and weighted
separately in terms of VMT and PMT. The PMT outcomes are pre-
sented in Table 3 and provide a comparison for the estimation of the
total impact of any fleet mix scenario that contains these six types of
vehicle. The vehicle rankings and overall sustainability indexes for
each type of vehicle are shown for PMT and VMT rates.
As expected, the results vary substantially: when PMT is used as
the base, the hybrid bus ranks third; when VMT is used as the base,
the hybrid bus ranks fifth. However, regardless of the base, carsharing
ranks first. Of the six types of vehicle examined, the most sustainable
for both bases is found to be carsharing with HEVs. The configura-
tion of carsharing with a hybrid vehicle receives near perfect relative
scores for technology and energy: 0.998 and 0.999, respectively.
The superior performance of carsharing over transit buses reveals
the important role of policies for sustainable transportation. The pri-
vately owned vehicles that are ranked in the bottom two positions are
propelled to the top two positions when used in a carsharing program.
A comparison between a carsharing program and a hybrid diesel–
electric bus shows that the environmental index improves by 47%
if a carshare vehicle reduces the need for four privately owned
vehicles. If the cited upper values of auto ownership substitution (six
and 23 for North America) are used, the environmental index improves
by 57% and 75%, respectively. The overall sustainability index
for diesel buses and hybrid diesel–electric buses increases by 31%
and 29%, respectively, when the average occupancy rate observed
in the New York–Newark, New Jersey, region (i.e., one of the highest
national occupancy rates, at 24.5 passengers per bus) is considered
(52). Propulsion systems that depend partially on electric drive did
better than the traditional ICE technology when buses and passenger
cars were compared.
58 Transportation Research Record 2403

TABLE 3   Vehicle Sustainability Indicators and Relative Indexes

Carsharing Carsharing Hybrid Diesel–

Indicator Code Units ICEV HEV with ICEV with HEV Diesel Bus Electric Bus

Environmenta
 CO2 − g/PMT 541 289 135 72 327 260
 Methane − g/PMT 0.75 0.45 0.20 0.13 0.33 0.29
  Nitrous oxide − g/PMT 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
  Greenhouse gases − g/PMT 565 305 141 77 340 272
  Volatile organic compounds − g/PMT 0.94 0.84 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23
  Carbon monoxide − g/PMT 6.95 6.90 1.74 1.72 0.90 0.95
  Nitrogen oxides − g/PMT 0.89 0.76 0.23 0.19 1.04 1.01
  Particle matter − g/PMT 0.18 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07
  Sulfur oxides − g/PMT 0.33 0.35 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.13
  Average noise level − dB 61 57 61 57 78 75
  Environment sustainability na 0.107 0.341 0.903 0.976 0.606 0.665
  vehicle index
Technology performance
  Fuel frequency − h/passenger 25.6 18.3 1.9 1.4 na na
  Maintenance frequency − h/passenger 38.3 34.8 7.8 6.1 24.8 23.8
  Space occupied − m2/passenger 7.6 6.8 1.9 1.7 3.0 3.1
  Engine power + lb-ft./lb 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.035 0.023
  Technology sustainability na 0.250 0.387 0.972 0.998 0.459 0.418
  vehicle index
Energya
  Manufacturing energy − MJ/PMT 0.620 0.633 0.139 0.142 0.335 0.391
  Fueling energy − MJ/PMT 1.260 0.551 0.315 0.138 0.478 0.409
  Operation energy − MJ/PMT 5.055 2.612 1.279 0.673 3.623 2.598
  Maintenance energy − MJ/PMT 0.273 0.262 0.066 0.066 0.201 0.189
  Energy sustainability na 0.006 0.311 0.926 0.999 0.494 0.554
  vehicle index
Economyb
  Manufacturing cost − $/PMT 0.147 0.158 0.033 0.035 0.055 0.092
  Operation cost (user) − $/PMT 0.258 0.174 1.320 1.320 0.385 0.385
  Maintenance cost − $/passenger/year 581.8 544.9 161.7 151.5 1,876.8 1,746.0
  Parking price − $/passenger 140.7 140.7 na na na na
  Economy sustainability na 0.441 0.443 0.749 0.745 0.660 0.605
  vehicle index
Users
  Global availability − Percentage of 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 20.83 20.83
hours of down
time or hours
not operable
per year
  Reasonable availability − Expressed as 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
an annual
percentage
  Passenger space + 3
ft /passenger 88.3 81.6 88.3 81.6 138.1 134.8
  Cargo space + ft3/passenger 13.1 18.8 13.1 18.8 1.9 1.9
  Leg room + in. 41.7 42.5 41.7 42.5 27.0 27.0
  Access time − min 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 12.3 12.3
  Fueling opportunities + Number of 121,446 121,446 121,446 121,446 na na
stations in
operation
  Users’ sustainability vehicle index na 0.390 0.470 0.532 0.571 0.429 0.420
Overall sustainability vehicle index PMT 23.9 39.0 81.6 85.8 52.9 53.3
Overall sustainability vehicle index VMT 75.0 82.6 77.2 84.4 31.4 33.0
Ranking PMT na 6 5 2 1 4 3
Ranking VMT na 4 2 3 1 6 5

Note: na = not applicable.

a
Environment and energy indicators are not fixed but depend on project-specific or regional inputs of vehicle average lifetime, annual miles traveled, weight, and speed.
b
All costs are converted to 2011 dollars. All economic indicators are assumed to have a negative impact on sustainability. The indicators are perceived from the users’
point of view; therefore, the indicators reveal how vehicle monetary parameters affect vehicle utilization and make a transportation vehicle for a chosen network
sustainable or unsustainable.
Mitropoulos and Prevedouros
Assessment of Sustainability
in Travel Scenario Application
Carshare vehicles can be used by both car owners and nonowners;
carshare vehicles can also be used exclusively or for only part of
a trip in conjunction with another vehicle, such as a bus, a bike, or a
train. Can this sustainability assessment framework represent more
realistic situations when more than one vehicle is used to make trips?
Two cases, each with three scenarios, were developed to answer
this question.
In the first case shown in Table 4, the distance traveled per house-
hold was considered to be constant regardless of the mode com-
bination. Specifically, in this case it was assumed that the annual
33,004 PMT (19,850 VMT) per household were constant and did
not change when a public bus or carshare vehicle was used instead
of the private car (52). In the second case shown in Table 4, the
annual traveled distance changed for public bus and carshare users
to reflect the changes in travel behavior when different transporta-
tion modes were chosen. The sustainability assessment framework
should be sensitive to such changes.
For each case, three scenarios were analyzed: (a) passenger vehicle
only, (b) passenger vehicle and public bus, and (c) car sharing and
public bus. The National Household Travel Survey provided data
on annual PMT and VMT by trip purpose (53). On the basis of this
information and the survey on carsharing trip purposes, the usage
share for each type of vehicle was estimated (7). Some indicators
were removed from the assessment. For example, in this application,
the fueling and maintenance frequency indicators for buses were
not applicable because the assessment was performed from the user
perspective and such indicators do not affect a user’s trip.
In Scenario 1, the private car is used for all activities. In Scenario 2,
the public bus is used for to or from work activities, and the private
car is used for the rest of the activities, including errands, shopping,
and recreation. In Scenario 3, the distance traveled by bus is the
same as in Scenario 2, but a carshare vehicle is substituted for
the private car.
In Case 1 the same travel distances were used to evaluate the
vehicles. Typically, however, the annual distances traveled by car
owners, carshare subscribers, and bus users are different. Carshare
and bus users reduce their annual mileage by 40% and 6%, as
suggested by Shaheen et al. and Briceno et al., respectively (5, 21).
Therefore, in Case 2 the annual PMT for Scenario 1 remained the
same, but the annual PMT for Scenarios 2 and 3 were reduced by
6% and 40%, respectively. The distance traveled per activity in
each scenario was reduced by the same percentage. The annual
distance traveled was 31,024 PMT in Scenario 2 and 19,802 PMT
in Scenario 3.
In Case 2, CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 42%
and 41%, respectively, from those of Case 1. This finding was consis-
tent with Shaheen et al., who reported that carsharing lowers average
user CO2 emissions by 40% to 50% (5). The results in Table 4 show
that, for Case 2, the highest overall sustainability indexes are attrib-
uted to Scenario 3 for the carshare HEV when mixed with a hybrid
diesel–electric bus or a diesel bus. When the overall sustainability
performance between the two cases is compared, there is an improve-
ment in ranking for Scenario 3, which relies heavily on carsharing:
from third to first, fifth to second, seventh to third, and ninth to fourth.
For Scenarios 1 and 2 there are no improvements in the ranking.
Our estimates indicate that for an ICEV and public bus mix to be
more sustainable than an HEV private car, the annual distance trav-
eled in Scenario 2 should be reduced by an additional 20%. Clearly,
59
the inclusion of carsharing in the mix of vehicles was the most sus-
tainable option examined. Changes in travel behavior are very sig-
nificant in the planning of a sustainable transportation system, and
this sustainability assessment framework is a sensitive and practical
tool for assessments based on highway modes and conventional and
alternative power plants and fuels.
Conclusion
The incorporation of sustainability into the transportation planning
process was explored through the development of a sustainability
framework that disaggregated vehicle characteristics by technology
and fuel type and accounted for evolving travel regimes.
The sustainability framework was used to assess carsharing—a new
transportation mode—with existing urban vehicles. A conventional
ICEV and an HEV were examined in three travel modes: private car,
carsharing, and public bus.
The vehicle sustainability assessment revealed that carsharing
with HEVs yielded a better performance than private vehicles or
transit buses, conventional or hybrid. This outcome suggests an
important role for policies on sustainable transportation. Privately
owned vehicles, which were found to have the worst sustainabil-
ity performance, shifted to being the best vehicle, relative to the rest
of the vehicles in this assessment, when used in a carsharing plan. The
sustainability performance of transportation systems can be improved
in the short term without relying solely on advanced vehicle technolo-
gies, such as electric and fuel cell vehicles. The implementation of
policies such as carsharing and carpooling is an immediate measure
that could be used to improve the sustainability performance of urban
transportation systems.
Carsharing in this application was found to have the highest
sustainability index when it was combined with changes in travel
behavior, such as a reduced distance traveled. Additionally, to
improve transportation system sustainability, hybrid technologies
and alternatives to driving should be promoted by policies such as
free entry to congestion zones and high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
as well as telecommuting. The up-front membership fees for join-
ing a carsharing program might prevent low-income groups from
using such programs. The minimization of the fee or its incorpo-
ration into the rates per mile or hour might work as an incentive
to use a carshare vehicle.
This study is subject to limitations, but they are not fatal. The over-
all results might be improved by updating the base or assumed values
and conducting a sensitivity analysis of the critical parameters, such
as steel and fuel prices and ridership estimates. The selected life-cycle
tools are robust, but their estimates rely on built-in assumptions and
parameters, all of which are subject to continual updates and forecast
values affected by the regulatory environment.
Overall, this study updated the state of the art in three main areas:
(a) the employment of a life-cycle approach for vehicles instead of
focusing only on the operation of modes, (b) the disaggregation of
vehicles by type instead of using the assumption of a uniform light-
duty vehicle fleet, and (c) the assessment of conventional and hybrid
technologies explicitly for three travel regimes instead of using the
assumption of fossil fuel–powered vehicles and private cars. The
method can also be expanded to assess any mode of transportation,
from light and heavy rail to ferries and airplanes. However, such an
expansion would require the explicit sustainability assessment of the
underlying infrastructure (e.g., road, rail, runway, storage, and related
structures).
TABLE 4   Sustainability Indexes for Two Cases

Scenario 3
Scenario 2
Diesel Bus Hybrid Diesel–Electric Bus
Scenario 1 Diesel Bus Hybrid Diesel–Electric Bus
Carshare Carshare Carshare Carshare
Variable ICEV HEV ICEV HEV ICEV HEV with ICEV with HEV with ICEV with HEV

Case 1. Constant Distance

Distance with car (VMT) 19,850 19,850 14,337 14,337 14,337 14,337 0 0 0 0
Distance with bus (PMT) 0 0 9,166 9,166 9,166 9,166 9,166 9,166 9,166 9,166
Distance with carshare vehicle (VMT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,337 14,337 14,337 14,337
Total distance traveled (PMT) 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004 33,004
Environment sustainability index 0.177 0.651 0.406 0.734 0.465 0.794 0.381 0.711 0.441 0.771
Technology sustainability index 0.243 0.587 0.742 0.990 0.740 0.988 0.429 0.770 0.427 0.768
Energy sustainability index 0.121 0.750 0.192 0.647 0.261 0.716 0.418 0.750 0.488 0.819
Economy sustainability index 0.327 0.468 0.301 0.403 0.345 0.447 0.250 0.333 0.295 0.378
Users’ sustainability index 0.502 0.612 0.367 0.447 0.361 0.441 0.429 0.479 0.422 0.473
Overall sustainability index 27.4 61.4 40.2 64.4 43.5 67.7 38.1 60.9 41.4 64.2
Ranking 10 4 8 2 6 1 9 5 7 3
Case 2. Variable Distance
Distance with car (VMT) 19,850 19,850 14,337 14,337 14,337 14,337 0 0 0 0
Distance with bus (PMT) 0 0 7,186 7,186 7,186 7,186 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Distance with carshare vehicle (VMT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,602 8,602 8,602 8,602
Total distance traveled (PMT) 33,004 33,004 31,024 31,024 31,024 31,024 19,802 19,802 19,802 19,802
Environment sustainability index 0.114 0.438 0.234 0.454 0.269 0.489 0.747 0.879 0.777 0.909
Technology sustainability index 0.000 0.292 0.464 0.675 0.462 0.673 0.840 0.990 0.838 0.988
Energy sustainability index 0.010 0.404 0.166 0.450 0.191 0.475 0.806 0.966 0.825 0.985
Economy sustainability index 0.501 0.596 0.799 0.867 0.465 0.534 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Users’ sustainability index 0.502 0.612 0.367 0.447 0.361 0.441 0.429 0.479 0.422 0.473
Overall sustainability index 22.5 46.8 40.6 57.9 35.0 52.2 76.4 86.3 77.3 87.1
Ranking 10 7 8 5 9 6 4 2 3 1
Mitropoulos and Prevedouros
References
 1. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.
 2. 2012 Vehicle Technologies Market Report. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Tenn., 2013.
  3. U.S. Department of Energy. Hybrid Electric Vehicles Sales by Model.
www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data. Accessed May 10, 2011.
  4. Shaheen, S. The Sharing Economy: Moving People with Shared Bikes
and Cars. Presented at Oregon Transportation Summit, Portland, 2012.
www.otrec.us/images/uploads/OTREC_Shaheen_2012.pdf. Accessed
June 29, 2013.
  5. Shaheen, S., A. P. Cohen, and J. D. Roberts. Carsharing in North Amer-
ica: Market Growth, Current Developments, and Future Potential. In
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1986, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 116–124.
 6. Shaheen, S., and A. P. Cohen. Worldwide Carsharing Growth: An
International Comparison. 2008. www.car-sharing.net/library/UCD-
ITS-RR-06-22.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2013.
  7. Millard-Ball, A., G. Murray, J. ter Schure, C. Fox, and J. Burkhardt. TCRP
Report 108: Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  8. Car2go Carsharing. www.car2go.com. Accessed July 20, 2013.
  9. Mitropoulos, L. K., and P. D. Prevedouros. Assessment of Sustainability
for Transportation Vehicles. In Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2344, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 88–97.
10. Black, J. A., A. Paez, and P. A. Suthanaya. Sustainable Urban Transporta-
tion: Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches. Journal
of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 128, No. 4, 2002, pp. 84–209.
11. Jeon, C. M., A. A. Amekudzi, and R. L. Guensler. Sustainability
Assessment at the Transportation Planning Level: Performance Mea-
sures and Indexes. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
12. Zietsman, J., L. R. Rilett, and K. Seung-Jun. Sustainable Transportation
Performance Measures for Developing Communities. Texas Transpor-
tation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, 2003.
www.tti.tamu.edu/. Accessed May 14, 2009.
13. Maoh, H., and P. Kanaroglou. A Tool for Evaluating Urban Sustainability
via Integrated Transportation and Land Use Simulation Models. Urban
Environment, Vol. 3, 2009, pp. 28–46.
14. Cabanatuan, M. S. F. Experiment to Create Parking for Car Sharing.
SFGate, 2013. www.sfgate.com/bayarea/. Accessed July 10, 2013.
15. Pintér, L., P. Hardi, and P. Bartelmus. Sustainable Development Indica-
tors: Proposal for a Way Forward. United Nations Division on Sustainable
Development, 2005. www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/measure_indicators_sd_
way_forward.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2011.
16. European Council. Transport/Telecommunications: 2340th Council
Meeting. Luxembourg, April 2001. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_
PRES-01-131_en.htm?locale=en. Accessed Feb. 10, 2009.
17. Renne, J. L. Evaluating Transit-Oriented Development Using a Sustain-
ability Framework: Lessons from Perth’s Network City. In Planning
Sustainable Communities: Diversity of Approaches and Implementation
Challenges, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2009, pp. 115–148.
18. Paz, A., P. Maheshwari, and P. Kachroo. Estimation of Performance Indi-
ces for the Planning of Sustainable Transportation Systems. Presented at
91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 2012.
19. Stasko, T. H., A. B. Buck, and H. O. Gao. Impacts of Carsharing in
a University Setting: Changes in Vehicle Ownership, Parking Demand,
and Mobility in Ithaca, NY. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
20. Martin, E. W., and S. Shaheen. Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
of Carsharing in North America. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2011, pp. 1074–1086.
21. Briceno, T., G. Peters, C. Solli, and E. Hertwich. Using Life Cycle
Approaches to Evaluate Sustainable Consumption Programs. Industrial
Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim, Norway, 2005.
22. Bevan, T. A., L. Donna, R. Senner, and S. Seskin. Planning for Sustain-
ability: Planning for Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure. Canadian
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
23. Chester, M. V., and A. Horvath. Environmental Assessment of Passen-
ger Transportation Should Include Infrastructure and Supply Chains.
Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2009. www.iop.org/EJ/
abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024008/. Accessed June 16, 2009.
61
24. Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., A. Perujo, and M. Pregl. Indicators to Assess
Sustainability of Transport Activities. Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra,
Italy, 2007.
25. Pembina Institute. Alberta GPI Blueprint Report. 2001. www.pembina.
org. Accessed Sept. 1, 2011.
26. SHRP 2 Report S2-C02-RR: Performance Measurement Framework for
Highway Capacity Decision Making. Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
27. Paving the Way for EU Enlargement: Indicators of Transport and Envi-
ronment Integration. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2002.
28. Transportation Planning Handbook. ITE, Washington, D.C., 1999.
29. Gilbert, R., and H. Tanguay. Sustainable Transportation Performance
Indicators. Research project. Centre for Sustainable Transportation,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000.
30. Edmunds. www.edmunds.com. Accessed Dec. 5, 2012.
31. Public Transportation Fact Book, 62nd ed. American Public Transportation
Association, Washington, D.C., 2011.
32. Davis, S. C., S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy. Transportation Energy Data
Book, 30th ed. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Knoxville, Tenn., 2011.
33. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Update. 2012. www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/
mogas_history.html. Accessed July 4, 2012.
34. Car Buying Tips. Guide to Used Car Auto Auctions. 2010. www.carbuying
tips.com/auto-auctions.htm. Accessed Jan. 15, 2011.
35. Center for Transportation Research. Operating Manual for GREET,
Version 1.7. Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Ill., 2005.
36. User’s Guide to MOBILE 6.1 and MOBILE 6.2. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2003.
37. Hendrickson, C. T., L. B. Lave, and S. H. Matthews. Environmental Life
Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input–Output Approach.
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 2006.
38. Cowan, P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1994.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA 10 Gallon per Minute
Fuel Dispensing Limit. July 1, 1996. www.epa.gov/oms/regs/ld-hwy/
evap/spitback.txt. Accessed May 14, 2012.
40. Toyota Service. www.smg.toyotapartsandservice.com. Accessed
May 14, 2011.
41. Chandler, K., and N. Walkowicz. King County Metro Transit Hybrid
Articulated Buses: Final Evaluation Results. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colo., 2006.
42. American Automobile Association. Your Driving Fixed Costs. 2012.
www://bit.ly/rikzer. Accessed March 10, 2012.
43. Zipcar. www.zipcar.com. Accessed June 10, 2012.
44. Duvall, M. Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Vehicle
Options for Compact Sedan and Sport Utility Vehicles. Electrical Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 2002.
45. Colliers International. North America, Central Business District,
Parking Rate Survey. 2010. www.//downtownhouston.org/site_media/
uploads/attachments/2010.0716/ColliersInternational_ParkingRate
Survey2010.pdf. Accessed Jan. 15, 2011.
46. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
47. Zimmerman, S. L., and H. Levinson. Vehicle Selection for BRT: Issues
and Options. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2004,
pp. 83–102.
48. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Industry Statistics Sampler: Gasoline Stations.
2002. www.census.gov/. Accessed Dec. 30, 2010.
49. Pohekar, S. D., and M. Ramachandran. Application of Multi-Criteria
Decision Making to Sustainable Energy Planning: A Review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 8, 2009, pp. 365–381.
50. Yoon, K. P., and C. L. Hwan. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: An
Introduction. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1995.
51. Zheng, J., C. Atkinson-Palombo, C. McCahill, R. O’Hara, and N. W.
Garrick. Quantifying the Economic Domain of Transportation Sustain-
ability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, No. 2242, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 19–28.
52. FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation. 2011 National Transit Database.
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/.
53. 2009 National Household Travel Survey. FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2011.
The Transportation and Sustainability Committee peer-reviewed this paper.