(Source: APTA)

Have you ever wondered what is the key to a good health and long life – I knew that it has to be the public transport.  Look at the Europeans —  healthy & happy– riding their bikes, trains, trams, buses, etc.  If you still don’t believe what I’ve said, you now have the proof.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has released a report that explores ways that public transportation affects human health, and ways to incorporate these impacts into transport policy and planning decisions.

Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits, a study conducted for APTA by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute aggregates the findings of several recent studies and concludes that people living in transit-oriented “smart growth” communities enjoy several health benefits, not seen in other communities, including residents drive less, exposing them to a lower risk of fatal vehicle accidents.

People who live or work in communities with high quality public transportation tend to drive significantly less and rely more on alternative modes (walking,cycling and public transit) than they would in more automobile-oriented areas. This reduces traffic crashes and pollution emissions, increases physical fitness and mental health, andprovides access to medical care and healthy food. These impacts are significant in magnitude compared with other planning objectives, but are often overlooked or undervalued inconventional transport planning.

Various methods can be used to quantify and monetize(measure in monetary units) these health impacts. This analysis indicates that improving publictransit can be one of the most cost effective ways to achieve public health objectives, and publichealth improvements are among the largest benefits provided by high quality public transit andtransit-oriented development.

Some of the key findings from the report are listed below:

Related articles by Zemanta

• APTA Report Prescribes Public Transport to Improve Public Health (streetsblog.org)
• Does driving make you fat? Can public transportation, biking and walking keep you skinny? (green.autoblog.com)
• Two transport reports (energybulletin.net)
• Report Says Public Transportation Makes You Skinny (inhabitat.com)
• Transit Benefits Your Health and Saves Your Life (cleantechnica.com)
• Save $9,330 a Year by Riding Transit (cleantechnica.com)
• Residents Who Live Near Public Transportation Live Healthier, Longer Lives (urbanplanningblog.com)
• Evaluating the Economic Impact of Transit-Oriented Development in California (thecityfix.com)

(Source: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change)

Click the image to access a summery of the report

I came across this excellent report, Aviation and Marine Transportation: GHG Mitigation Potential and Challenges, via an article on Washington Post and felt compelled to share with you all.   This report published by The Pew Center on Global Climate Change examines growth projections for emissions from both aviation and marine transportation and options to reduce those emissions.  Aviation and marine transportation combined are responsible for approximately 5 percent of total GHG emissions in the United States and 3 percent globally and are among the fastest growing modes in the transportation sector. Under business-as-usual forecasts, CO2 emissions from global aviation are estimated to grow 3.1 percent per year over the next 40 years, resulting in a 300 percent increase in emissions by 2050.International marine transportation emissions are estimated to grow by 1 to 2 percent per year, increasing by at least 50 percent over 2007 levels by 2050. Controlling the growth in aviation and marine transportation GHG emissions will be an important part of reducing emissions from the transportation sector.

According to the press release, the report explores a  range of near-, medium- and long-term mitigation options that are available to slow the growth of energy consumption and GHG emissions from aviation and marine shipping. These options include improvements in operational efficiency, improvements in the energy efficiency of engines and the design of air and marine vessels, and transitioning to less carbon-intensive fuels and transportation modes. Implementation of these options could result in reductions of more than 50 percent below BAU levels by 2050 from global aviation and more than 60 percent for global marine shipping. For these reductions to be realized, however, international and domestic policy intervention is required. Developing an effective path forward that facilitates the adoption of meaningful policies remains both a challenge and an opportunity.

“Aviation and marine shipping are two of the fastest growing modes of transportation,” said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.  “Their greenhouse gas emissions are growing rapidly as well. To protect the climate, we need to reduce emissions across the entire economy. Aviation and marine shipping are part of the climate problem, and this report shows that they can be part of the solution.”

Aviation and Marine Transportation: GHG Mitigation Potential and Challenges also examines policy options for achieving reductions in GHG emissions from these transportation modes. The paper, authored by David McCollum and Gregory Gould of the University of California at Davis and David Greene from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, explains the challenges, examines policy efforts to date, and explores both domestic and international policy options for addressing emissions from aviation and marine transportation.

Key sections of the paper include:

• An introduction to aviation and marine transportation and a discussion of the determinants of their GHG emissions;
• An overview of current emissions trends and growth projections;
• An explanation of the technological mitigation options and potential GHG emission reductions; and
• Policy options at both the domestic and international level to achieve deep and durable reductions in emissions.

Click here to access the Pew Center’s website or click here to download the entire PDF report.

One of my favorite websites for all things Social Media, Mashable.com, got my attention today with their blog post about the Blog Action Day.  Today (October 15, 2009) is the third annual Blog Action Day, a yearly event in which thousands of blogs around the web pledge to write about a single global issue in an effort to focus global attention.

Two years ago, the inaugural Blog Action Day tackled the environment, last year blogs across the world wrote about poverty, and this year over 8,800 blogs from 148 countries are uniting today to write about an issue of global importance: climate change.

You may ask what difference does it make by simply dropping a blog post on Climate Change? The possibilities are endless..Your one post can inspire someone else to write about this issue..The more people write about, the more people will get to read, and thus we create an awareness about the on going problem.. In the cacophony of today’s world, too many people have no time to even stop and think about this very important issue that threatens our very existence on this planet.  If your blog can divert the attention of someone – a friend on Facebook, or a random reader from Timbuktu who has subscribed to your blog’s RSS – even for a moment and make them think how they have contributed to this generations effort to save the planet, you have done your bit.  Trust me — that’s how we all make a difference in this world – in our own little ways.

For me there is a bit more close to heart on this issue.  Being a transportation engineer/nerd/nut/practitioner/wonk, etc, etc, I’ve first hand knowledge about the impact of fossil fuels on our planet.  In 2006, the world used 3.9 billion tons of oil. Fossil fuel usage in 2005 produced 7.6 billion tons of carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 380 parts per million.  These numbers have continued to rise over the years and is expected to grow rapidly unless we curb the use of fossil fuels.

So what have I done personally towards mitigating this growing threat of Climate Change?

• First, I made some lifestyle choices that have immensely reduced my carbon footprint.  It all started with moving to a house that’s closer to a train station.  Now I take transit (trains and buses) to work and walk a lot when I don’t have these options.
• These days I drive a maximum of 20 miles in a whole week (primarily for groceries & other routine errands  that I need to do on weekends).  Just by doing that, I not only reduced my fuel consumption (which directly contributes to the reduction in Green House Gases which other wise may have come from my driving) but also saved a bunch of money on car insurance.  Now seriously thinking about going the “ZipCar” way, which means no insurance charges at all.
• I started making it a habit to car pool if I know I am going to be in a place with some of my friends.
• Starting to schedule my networking events (Happy Hours, Meetings, etc) at locations that are closer to the Metro rail stations.  (Hey, that way I can have an extra drink without having to worry about getting a DUI or DWI).
• I encourage people in my network to think about leaving their darned cars at home at least for a day at work.
• I recycle like crazy these days.
• Stopped buying bottled water. PERIOD.
• Stopped using plastic spoons, knives and forks as much as I can.
• Buying products that are environmentally friendly (biodegradable).   I’m very determined to not buy products from companies that are not supportive of environmental initiatives (Here I must applaud Apple & Nike for sticking to their stands on the going green initiatives and walking away from the US Chamber of Commerce).
• Hmmm..What else? Ah,   I encourage myself to publish more articles that talk about the various environmental initiatives related to transportation here on Transportgooru.com.

I already hear some of you growling that all these are possible because I live in an urban area or because I have a choice to do so due to my socio-economic status.  I agree with you – only to a degree.  Location matters only on issues such as transportation.  For the rest of the stuff to happen, I have to personally feel the need to do them.  I feel the urgency to act NOW and not tomorrow or the day after.  We already have a lot of  grim news about how fast we are spiraling downwards into a horrible environmental mess, thanks to the mainstream media and the  awesome social media networks.  For example, today there was a report on the possibility of no ice cover in the Arctic region by 2030.

Every generation had its challenge and they stood up to address them issues when they were called into action (World Wars, Pandemic Diseases, Natural Disasters, etc).  For our generation, I consider the Climate Change as the biggest challenge and truly believe that we will stand together and fight this battle to save this planet.  Someday in the future I do not want to hear the children and grandchildren tell us “Your generation screwed us royally by plundering the earth and ignored all the warning signs”.  Here I am doing my little bit, trying to make a difference and I hope you will join me in this fight to preserve the Earth that we all call HOME.   Now, you can go blog about your little bit if you already have a blog or a website.  If you don’t have one, I encourage you to start one and start talking about how you want to save this planet.  If you can’t do that, at least go change your light bulbs to something that is more energy efficient or recycle that trash that you have piled up in the corner of your basement.  Oh, if you are a US citizen, write to your congressman/congresswoman/Sentor telling them how you want the US to contribute towards the Climate Change efforts during the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 2009) . Just do your little bit, that’s all.

Click here to read more and Click here to Take Action.

(Source: BBC)

For five days, millions of people in the Indian city of Calcutta have endured long queues in the stifling heat at bus and taxi stands, metro railway counters and on auto-rickshaw routes.

They are braving both the humidity and the rain in the hope that what has been termed the city’s “great transport mess” will finally be cleared up.

While the difficulties of getting from A to B may be greater now than at any time over the last two decades, the air of the city is much cleaner than before 1 August.

That was when police started seizing all pollution-emitting pre-1993 vehicles to ensure they are kept off the roads in keeping with a Calcutta High Court order.  The decks were cleared for the government to seize the buses, mini buses, taxis and auto rickshaws after the Supreme Court Friday refused to stay the high court order banning commercial vehicles built before 1993.

Images via Apture

Police and Rapid Action Force personnel were deployed in large number to prevent disturbances, as security personnel moved alongside motor vehicles department officials to identify the banned vehicles on the city streets.

Nearly 4,000 private buses, 6,800 taxis and more than 95 percent of the total fleet of 65,000 auto-rickshaws have been barred from the Kolkata Metropolitan Area following the court order.

Meanwhile, following main opposition Trinamool Congress chief and Railways Minister Mamata Banerjee’s accusation that government departments like the police as also the Kolkata Municipal Corporation were running vehicles over 15 years old, Police Commissioner Goutam Mohan Chakraborty said the city police have decided not to deploy such vehicles.

A survey done by the Calcutta-based Saviour and Friend of Environment (Safe) says that around the city’s four most polluted intersections – the Dunlop crossing, the Shyambazar five-point crossing, Park Circus and the Rashbehari Avenue-SP Mukherjee Road crossing – hydrocarbon levels more than halved.

Auto-rickshaw drivers have tried to keep public transport off the roads

That is important because high hydrocarbon levels have been blamed for an increase in liver and kidney illnesses as well as higher level of cancer.

With less traffic on the roads, the oxygen count shot up by around 15 to 20%, leading to a drop in the percentages of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Suspended particulate matter, the main cause of bronchial diseases that makes Calcutta the asthma capital of India, dropped by 50%.

“Calcutta is back to low pollution levels it enjoyed until about 20 years ago,” said Safe’s convenor, Sudipto Bhattacharya.

“The vigil has to continue and none of the 15-year-old vehicles or those older should be allowed to go back on to the streets.”

Mr Bhattacharya said that Safe’s findings vindicated the green activists’ stand against older vehicles.

Many other fresh air fans agree with him.

“The sharp drop in the hydrocarbon level proves that older vehicles are the major culprits,” said green activist Subhas Datta, who lobbied the city’s high court to seek the withdrawal of all vehicles older than 15 years.

“They emit unburnt fuel into the air that pushes up the hydrocarbon level to dangerous levels. Let us hope that Calcutta will breathe freely from now on.”

Back in February Calcutta Tramways announced that it would running the buses it operates on a B20 biodiesel blend — a move which, while motivated by financial reasons, is expected to cut pollution from the buses by 35%

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source:  Green Car Congress & Synovate)

Market research firm Synovate released new study findings showing that nearly six in ten people would choose to buy a green car over a dream car, even if money was no object. In March 2009, Synovate surveyed more than 13,500 people across 18 markets (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom and the United States of America) about “green” versus “dream” cars, vehicle ownership, intent to buy in the next year and attitudes towards cars, traffic, public transport and their need-for-speed.

The top answer across all 18 markets, if money was no object, was to buy a green car, with 37% of respondents saying this would be their preference. Thirty percent said they would buy their dream car and a further 22% claimed that &ldqou;my dream car is a green car”, meaning that 59%—or very nearly six in ten—showed the desire to go green.

This In:fact survey on cars was conducted in March 2009 across 18 markets - Australia (AU), Brazil (BR), Canada (CA), China (CN), Egypt (EGY), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Japan (JP), Korea (KR), Malaysia (MY), South Africa (ZA), Thailand (TH), Turkey (TR), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). It covered over 13,200 urban respondents

• The nation most likely to simply elect green car was Germany, with 58% choosing the environment over their dream cars.
• The 30% of people globally who would still choose their dream car, green-be-damned, comprised of 35% men and 27% women.
• The single biggest result for dream car came from South Africa where over half of all respondents (53%) would go for their fantasy vehicle over a green one.
• In the United States (US), 35% would buy a dream car, 23% chose green and 19% say their dream car is a green car. More American women than men say that their dream car is a green car (20% women versus 17% men).
• Overall, 15% of respondents across all 18 markets surveyed, including 9% in the US, say they will buy a new car in the next 12 months. The new car purchase intenders were topped by India at 38% and Egypt at 24%.
• 6% of survey respondents across the 18 markets say they will buy a used car in the next year, including 7% of Americans. 53% would be happy to pay more for a used car if it came with a manufacturer certification and warranty.
• South Africa (18%) as well as the US, Malaysia and Thailand (all 15%) were tops among the households globally in which more than two cars can be found.
• 14% of respondents across the 18 markets say they will use public transport more often in the coming year. The highest level of agreement was in China at 39%. The lowest level of agreement was in the US at 2%.
• 9% of people globally, including 5% of Americans, said they would be riding bikes or walking more often.

Click here to read the entire study.

(Source:  Government Accountability Office)

Aircraft emit greenhouse gases and other emissions, contributing to increasing concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. Many scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–a United Nations organization that assesses scientific, technical, and economic information on climate change–believe these gases may negatively affect the earth’s climate. Given forecasts of growth in aviation emissions, some governments are taking steps to reduce emissions.

In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed:

(1) estimates of aviation’s current and future contribution to greenhouse gas and other emissions that may affect climate change;

(2) existing and potential technological and operational improvements that can reduce aircraft emissions; and

(3) policy options for governments to help address commercial aircraft emissions.

GAO conducted a literature review; interviewed representatives of government agencies, industry and environmental organizations, airlines, and manufacturers, and interviewed and surveyed 18 experts in economics and aviation on improvements for reducing emissions from aircraft. GAO is not making recommendations. Relevant agencies provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate and EPA said emissions standards can have a positive benefit to cost ratio and be an important part of policy options to control emissions.

According to IPCC, aviation currently accounts for about 2 percent of human-generated global carbon dioxide emissions, the most significant greenhouse gas–and about 3 percent of the potential warming effect of global emissions that can affect the earth’s climate, including carbon dioxide. IPCC’s medium-range estimate forecasts that by 2050 the global aviation industry, including aircraft emissions, will emit about 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions and about 5 percent of the potential warming effect of all global human-generated emissions. Gross domestic product growth is the primary driver in IPCC’s forecasts. IPCC also made other assumptions about future aircraft fuel efficiency, improvements in air traffic management, and airport and runway capacity. IPCC’s 2050 forecasts for aviation’s contribution to global emissions assumed that emissions from other sectors will continue to grow.

If other sectors make progress in reducing emissions and aviation emissions continue to grow, aviation’s relative contribution may be greater than IPCC estimated; on the other hand, if other sectors do not make progress, aviation’s relative contribution may be smaller than estimated. While airlines currently rely on a range of improvements, such as fuel-efficient engines, to reduce emissions, some of which may have limited potential to generate future reductions, experts we surveyed expect a number of additional technological, operational, and alternative fuel improvements to help reduce aircraft emissions in the future. However, according to experts we interviewed, some technologies, such as advanced airframes, have potential, but may be years away from being available, and developing and adopting them is likely to be costly.

In addition, according to some experts we interviewed, incentives for industry to research and adopt low-emissions technologies will be dependent to some extent on the level and stability of fuel prices. Finally, given expected growth of commercial aviation as forecasted by IPCC, even if many of these improvements are adopted, it appears unlikely they would greatly reduce emissions by 2050. A number of policy options to address aircraft emissions are available to governments and can be part of broader policies to address emissions from many sources including aircraft. Market-based measures can establish a price for emissions and provide incentives to airlines and consumers to reduce emissions. These measures can be preferable to other options because they would generally be more economically efficient. Such measures include a cap-and-trade program, in which government places a limit on emissions from regulated sources, provides them with allowances for emissions, and establishes a market for them to trade emissions allowances with one another, and a tax on emissions. Governments can establish emissions standards for aircraft or engines. In addition, government could increase government research and development to encourage development of low-emissions improvements.

Click here to download the entire report.

(Source: Revenge of the Electric Car & LA Times)

It’s been a long time coming, but we have finally achieved the first “cold ironing” of a tanker in the Port of Long Beach. Cold Ironing is the term for plugging a ship’s electrical system into the on-shore grid to supply power so that the ship’s giant diesel engine can be turned off while it’s docked. Normally, these engines crank out massive amounts of pollution, equal to “a day’s worth of driving by 187,000 cars,” according to estimates by the Port of Long Beach.

Port of Long Beach takes ‘giant step’ toward pollution reduction Port officials unveil what is billed as the world’s first electrical shore-side power system for tankers, which are notorious fuel guzzlers and air polluters.  Docked in Long Beach on Wednesday with a fresh load of oil from Valdez, the Alaskan Navigator didn’t look like much of a trailblazer.

The massive tanker sat silently, with a few thin cables draping down to some gray metal boxes. Missing was the incessant rumble of diesel engines, which on an average cargo ship would be running constantly to keep electrical systems going — burning quite a bit of diesel fuel and generating a significant amount of pollution. But the 941-foot Navigator, anchored at the BP oil terminal’s Pier T on the Long Beach port’s main channel, isn’t average. The vessel, owned by Alaska Tanker Co. of Portland, Ore., was plugged into what is billed as the world’s first shore-side electrical grid.

The project cost $23.7 million and took three years to complete, port officials said. The port contributed about $17.5 million to the project and BP paid the rest.  One project partner noted that the emissions reductions amounted to 50% even when factoring in pollution created by power plants in generating the electricity.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) initiated suits against the ports over seven years ago to make this happen, and it was a long difficult fight, but the NRDC’s attorneys persevered and eventually won. This event marks the first of what we hope will be the electrification of all the tanker and cargo ships while docked in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (and probably worldwide?). For too long, the people living downwind of the ports have suffered the ill effects of this pollution with heart and lung disease, cancers and asthma rates that are significantly higher than average.

(Source: AFP via Yahoo & Science Daily)

Image Courtesy: IOP - Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT (The vehicle operation components are shown with gray patterns. Other vehicle components are shown in shades of blue. Infrastructure components are shown in shades of red and orange. The fuel production component is shown in green. All components appear in the order they are shown in the legend.)

Do you worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint? Are you the one who frets about  tailpipe emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change?

If yes,  you must be the one who prefers to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study published in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain’s Institute of Physics.  Often unknown to the public, there are an array of hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple “tailpipe” tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip. Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at theUniversity of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.  By comparison, San Francisco‘s local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston’s. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the “tailpipe” quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure — railways, airport terminals, roads and so on — nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

The researchers also touch on the effect of low passenger occupancy and show that we are naïve to automatically assume one form of transport is more environmentally friendly than another. They conclude from their calculations that a half-full Boston light railway is only as environmentally friendly, per kilometre traveled, as a midsize aircraft at 38 per cent occupancy.  From cataloguing the varied environmental costs the researchers come to some surprising conclusions. A comparison between light railways in both Boston and San Franciso show that despite Boston boasting a light railway with low operational energy use, their LRT is a far larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter because 82 per cent of the energy generated in Boston is fossil-fuel based, compared to only 49 per cent in San Francisco.

Total life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions contribute an additional 155 per cent for rail, 63 per cent for cars and buses, and 32 per cent for air systems over vehicle exhaust pipe operation.

Journal reference:

• Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 2009; 4 (024008) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008

(Source: Business Standard & Green Car Congress)

Image: REUTERS/Zainal Abd Halim via Boston Globe

The international airline industry is committed to achieving carbon-neutral growth by 2020, said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s Director General and CEO in his State of the Industry address at the 65th IATA Annual General Meeting and World Air Transport Summit in Kuala Lumpur.

Two years ago we set a vision to achieve carbon-neutral growth on the way to a carbon-free future. Today we have taken a major step forward by committing to a global cap on our emissions in 2020. After this date, aviation’s emissions will not grow even as demand increases. Airlines are the first global industry to make such a bold commitment.

—Giovanni Bisignani

The commitment to carbon-neutral growth completes a set of three sequential goals for air transport: (1) a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency from 2009 to 2020; (2) carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

To achieve these goals, the air transport industry is focusing on a cross-industry four-pillar strategy on climate change consisting of improved technology; effective operations; efficient infrastructure; and positive economic measures.

In 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport is expected to shrink by 7%. Of this, 5% is due to the recession and 2% is directly related to efficiency gains.

Bisignani said a cross industry four-pillar strategy on climate change focused on improved technology, effective operations, efficient infrastructure and positive economic measures was delivering results noting that in 2009 the carbon footprint of air transport was expected to shrink by 7 per cent.

Bisignani attributed 5 per cent to the recession and 2 per cent to efficiency gains from IATA’s four-pillar strategy.

“No other industry is as united and no other industry can point to such good results and progress,” Bisignani claimed.  He noted that the airlines’ commitment needed to be matched by governments. “We are ambitious, but our success will be contingent on governments acting effectively.”

“International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) must set binding carbon emissions standards on manufacturers for new aircraft. A legal and fiscal framework to support the availability of sustainable biofuels must be established.

“Governments must work with air navigation service providers to push forward major infrastructure projects such as a Single European Sky, NextGen in the US or fixing the Pearl River Delta in China,” Bisignani added.

This post is sponsored by LemonFree.com 

(Source:  Wall Street Journal, Green Car Congress & Tree Hugger)

Image Courtesy: Green Car Congress - Prius sales in Japan by month since January 2007. Data: JADA.

Last month (May 2009), the Toyota Prius was the top selling model in the world’s second-largest economy; the rival Honda Insight hybrid came in third, according to new car sales rankings—excluding minicars with displacements of less than 660 cc—released by the Japan Automobile Dealers Association (JADA).   

In April Honda was quite happy to report that its new Insight hybrid was both the best selling car in Japan for that month (outselling the Toyota Prius) and the first hybrid car to have that honor with 10,481 units. (Earlier post.) In May, the Insight dropped to third place with 8,183 units, behind the Prius and the Honda Fit, with 8,859 units.Toyota’s May performance was all the more surprising, since the third-generation Prius didn’t go on sale until May 18.  

The Prius posted 10,915 units in May, in Japan more than twice the 5,079 units sold in May 2008 and compared to 1,952 units in April 2009, according to the JADA data. (In the US, Toyota reported 10,091 units of the Prius sold in May.)

There are several possible explanations—beyond the fact that both Toyota and Honda have cut prices to make hybrids a little less niche and a little more mass market. First, generous government incentives: Japan’s stimulus package included a range of tax breaks for buyers of hybrid (and electric) vehicles which can knock thousands of dollars off the price tag. Japan has tougher mileage standards—but that affects what kind of cars manufacturers turn out, not what kind of cars consumers flock to. One huge difference is the price of gasoline—which automatically makes the hybrids more attractive, especially in a recession. Japan, like many European countries, slaps a hefty national tax on gas. Right now, Japanese pump prices work out to $4.61 a gallon. That compares to a U.S. national average of about $2.50 a gallon.

Over 1.8 Million new and used cars