Lectures 17-19VMT Reduction

Professor Dan SperlingECI/ESP 163

Fall 2012

• VMT trends and urban sprawl• Strategies to Reduce VMT

– Land-use management– Mode switching (e.g. transit)– Pricing (tolls and taxes)

• VMT reduction Policies and Practices– Land use and transportation planning

efforts– SB 375 (California)

Outline

Paper #3

• Part 1: evaluation of new California law (SB 375) to reduce sprawl and vehicle use

• Part 2: how to allocate cap-and-trade revenues to support SB 375 objectives

Urban densities fell everywhere in 20th century, leading to more VMT and vehicle dependence

Source: Demographia (2001).

pop/sq km (1960) pop/sq km (1990) % chg. (1960-1990)Tokyo 8,565 7,097 -17%New York 2,878 2,086 -28%Paris 6,860 4,614 -33%London 6,539 4,232 -35%Detroit 1,970 1,275 -35%San Francisco-Oakland 1,640 1,602 -2%Washington 2,046 1,373 -33%Melbourne 2,028 1,491 -26%Hamburg 6,827 3,982 -42%Vienna 9,141 6,830 -25%Brisbane 2,095 978 -53%Copenhagen 4,952 3,467 -30%Amsterdam 9,973 5,591 -44%Zurich 5,998 4,708 -22%Frankfurt 8,722 4,661 -47%

Data are for “urbanized area” as defined by local and/or national authorities

SOURCE: Alan Pisarski, "Commuting in America III"

Evolution of Transportation Monoculture1859 ] First U.S. oil well discovered

First internal combustion engine car built by Karl Benz

1885

1908 ] Model T (with ICE) debuts

U.S. transit ridership reaches highest peacetime levels

\ 1926

1930 ] Car ownership reaches 200 for every 1000 Americans

Suburban building boom begins following World War II

\ 1947

1956 ] U.S. Interstate Highway System launched

Arab oil embargo constricts supply \ 1973

1979 ] Iran-Iraq war doubles oil prices

First hybrid-electric cars sold in U.S. \ 2000

2003 ] Car ownership reaches 1.15 vehicles per American driver

Motor vehicle population worldwide exceeds 1 billion

\ 2005

2008 ] Crude hits $140 a barrel

Evolving Infrastructure and Urban Land Use PatternsI. Walking-Horsecar Era (1800-1900)II. Electric Streetcar Era (1890-1925)III. Recreational Automobile Era (1914-1945)IV. Freeway and Beltway Era (1945+)

Cities Are Now Polynucleated (US), With Lower Land Use Densities

Government policies

supported both freeway and

suburb development

Source: Muller, 1998

Increasing Proportion of Americans Living in Suburbs

% of work trips by transit NYC 88%CHICAGO 83%BOSTON 70%SF 64% % of work trips by transit in SF Bay AreaSF FINANCIAL DISTRICT 75%SF CBD 64%SF BAY AREA 14%SF BAY AREA (EXCLUDING SF CBD) 7%

Transit Serves Mostly Work Trips to CBDs

Public Transport Was Losing Share In Most OECD Cities Through 20th Century

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York SanFrancisco

Vienna Zurich

1960

1990

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York SanFrancisco

Vienna Zurich

1960

1990

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York SanFrancisco

Vienna Zurich

1960

1990

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999)

Public transport share of motorized passenger kilometers

Car dominates personal travel in most OECD (rich) cities

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York San Francisco Vienna Zurich

Rail+Tram

Bus

Car

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York San Francisco Vienna Zurich

Rail+Tram

Bus

Car

Passenger km/person/year

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999).

Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC

Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999).

Vehicles per licensed driver by nation, 2005

Sources: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; World Almanac 2006 and 2007.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

ChinaIn

dia

Japa

n

Franc

eUK

Germ

any

Canada US

# V

ehic

les/

Lic

ense

d D

rive

r

A vicious cycle?

VMT/Capita Peaked in US in 2004 (and elsewhere in OECD)?!

Source: Davis and Dutzik (2012), data from FHWA Historical Monthly VMT Reports

VMT/capita in US steadilyincreased until ~2004.

(source: EIA, in NY Times)

End of “Love Affair” with Cars (in US)?• Young people less likely to have license.

– 1978: nearly half of U.S. 16-year-olds and three-quarters of 17-year-olds had driver's licenses.

– 2008: 31 percent of 16-year-olds, and 49 percent of 17-year-olds had licenses.

– The downward trend also holds true for 18- and 19-year-olds as well and those in their 20s.

• Young people drive less. Of those 21-30 years:– 1995: 20.8% of VMT– 2001: 18.3% of VMT– 2009: 13.7% of VMT

• Digital age is reshaping demand for cars and reducing the status appeal? Easier to work on a bus or train, and at home! Car not the iconic symbol of the past?

Source: US FHWA

Challenge of Reducing VMT• Cars have largely vanquished public transport except in large

dense cities• North Americans drive far more than others• Land use densities have been falling in virtually every city in

North America (and the rest of the world)• Transport sector is highly diffuse, involving many public agencies

and regulators (transit operators, taxis, paratransit, PUCs, cities)• Transport is least innovative sector and extraordinarily inefficient

– Car-centric monoculture: All cars serve all purposes, and all roads serve all vehicles

– Transit has atrophied to 2% of passenger travel• Most difficult GHG strategy

– VMT reduction is political 3rd-rail because cars are necessities– VMT is linked to land use, which is local prerogative and influenced by tax

revenue and developers

Conclusion: VMT reduction will be difficult and slow, but peaking of car use means there is some hope of significant change

1. Land-use management (zoning, incentives, compact development, in-fill dev’t)

– Fewer trips (substitution by telecommuting, internet)– Shorter trips– Easier access to transit

2. Mode switching– Increased walking and utilitarian cycling– Carpooling and other paratransit services– Increased transit use

3. Pricing (for road use and parking)– Encourages fewer, shorter trips, more mode

switching

Strategies to Reduce Passenger VMT

Paper #3

• Part 1: evaluation of new California law (SB 375) to reduce sprawl and vehicle use

• Part 2: how to allocate cap-and-trade revenues to support SB 375 objectives

California Senate Bill 375 (Sustainability Communities Act of 2008)

• Enacted fall 2008 (administered by CARB)• Affects passenger travel only (not buildings, goods movement,

fuel substitution, nor vehicle technology improvement)• Imposed on Metropolitan Planning Organizations (who flow the

responsibility down to cities and counties)• Establishes performance targets, expressed as % GHG reduction

per capita (from 2005 levels) for each metropolitan area– 2020: 6-8% reduction/capita for major cities– 2035: 13-16% reduction/capita for major cities

• Indicates political support for enhancing cities—making them more livable, healthy, and vibrant ?!

• So far, no penalties for ignoring law (“sticks”) and only weak “carrots”– Current carrots are expedited approval of new developments and projects– Future carrots are additional funding for cities/counties that meet or

exceed performance targets (topic of Class Paper #3)

Policies and Actions for SB375VMT Strategies to Reduce GHGs from Passenger Travel1) Land Use Management

– Incentives for compact development and infill; disincentives for sprawl; zoning restrictions

2) Public Transportation and Alternative Modes– Provide better transit facilities and service– Encourage carpooling– Encourage biking and walking– Impose employer-based trip reduction programs

3) Pricing Policies– Parking pricing– Road user pricing– Fuel tax– Pay-as-you-drive insurance

Non-VMT Strategies to Reduce GHGs from Passenger Travel1. System Management

– Congestion management: traffic coordination, flow improvements, etc.

– Speed limit reduction2. Driver Management

– Eco-driving

Senate Bill 375

• What would be the most effective way to reduce passenger GHG emissions?– GHG/capita reduction vs. VMT/capita reduction

• Weaknesses in the legislation?– Carrots and sticks?– MPO vs. local governments?

CA Cap and Trade

• Background– Implemented by CARB in 2012– Expected to generate at least $1 billion annually

(to GHG reduction fund) by 2015– Transportation fuels will start generating revenues

in 2015– So far it is uncertain exactly how revenues will be

spent

CA Cap and Trade

• What are the different ways revenues from transportation fuels could be spent?– Who could these revenues be allocated to?

• Local governments, MPOs

– What types of projects should be supported?• Bike/ped projects, transit, alternative vehicle rebates

1) LU Management Association Between Travel Behavior and Built Environment

“Sprawl is the law” (and a local prerogative!)

• Zoning separates land uses• City codes often require minimum lot sizes, minimum

road widths, minimum parking requirements, etc.• Sales taxes reward sprawl

• Traditional approach to zoning:– Separation of land uses– i.e. segregation of residential areas from commercial

and industrial areas• Greater separation of land uses = greater

distances between home, school, grocery store, doctors, etc.

• Greater distances = less likelihood of walking or biking

• Less walking and biking = less physical activity and more time in car

From: Handy & Clifton. Planning and the Built Environment: Implications for Obesity Prevention. Handbook of Obesity Prevention. S. Kumanyika & R.C. eds. Springer Pub.

Zoning

• Designation of mixed use zoning districts– Allows for denser neighborhoods

• Form based codes– Focus on form of buildings vs. use – Relation of building/parking to street– Street settings

• Street interconnectivity ordinances– Easier to bicycle and walk– More intersections = smaller blocks

• More human scale

• Transit-oriented developmentFrom: Handy & Clifton. Planning and the Built Environment: Implications for Obesity Prevention. Handbook of Obesity Prevention. S. Kumanyika & R.C. eds. Springer Pub.

New Land Use and TransportationPlanning Approaches

1. Mix land uses2. Use compact building design3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices4. Foster communities with a strong sense of place5. Preserve open space and farmland6. Direct development toward existing communities7. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-

effective8. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration9. Make communities more walkable10. Encourage a range of transportation choices

From: EPA

Smart Growth: 10 Principles

How can this relationship be influenced?

Bus/metro

Jitneys, Motorcycles

Walking, Bicycling

Cars

Income

Mod

e S

plit

• There are many modes of travel, each with unique attributes. The challenge is to use them “appropriately.”

2) Mode Choice

Pucher , J. and J.L. Renne, Socioeconomics of Urban Travel:Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2003, pp. 49–77

Variation in U.S. Modal Choice By Trip Purpose (2001 NHTS)

Conventional Transit Not Working Well in US

• Buses and trains require high density to be efficient

• Many cities built in era of the car (post 1915) with low land use density

1. Busways: separate bus-only roadway 2. HOV lanes: where buses share HOV lane

with other high-occupancy vehicles (carpools/vanpools)

3. Bus lanes on major streets

Bus Rapid Transit: Wave of the Future?

The Orange Line in LA

Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Cities

Expand Traveler Choice Using ICT

Smarter, Cleaner, and Cheaper!

3) Pricing Very Little Use of Pricing to Manage Transportation in (Capitalist) US?!

– Most parking and road use is free in US– Gasoline taxes are very low

Types of Pricing• High occupancy toll (HOT) lanes

– Charge prices to SOVs who use HOV lanes, usually by time of day• Congestion pricing by time of day (to internalize congestion

externality cost)• Other road taxes and tolls• Fuel/carbon taxes based on fuel use and/or GHG emissions• Parking taxes

(Litman, 2003, p.3)

UK

Nethe

rland

s

Germ

any

Franc

eIta

ly

Denm

ark

EU Min

imum

Rat

e

Japa

n

Canad

aUS

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

Gasoline

Diesel

20

07

US

$/G

allo

nGasoline Taxes Are Low

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International and United States Petroleum (Oil) Price and Crude Oil Import Cost Tables, Washington, DC, April 2007. (Additional resources: www.eia.doe.gov)

Congestion Pricing

• Charging roadway users at peak hours to discourage excessive traffic

• Many co-benefits, incl. making other modes more competitive

• Buses can travel faster because they aren’t stuck in traffic

• Transit becomes less expensive relative to driving • Ex. congestion pricing schemes:

• London• Singapore

• Coming to the SF bay area: HOT Lanes

Which Types of Pricing Are More Effective?• Demand for gasoline is highly inelastic today (and

significantly less elastic than 25 years ago)– Demand elasticity has dropped from about -0.30 in late ‘70s

and early ‘80s to less than -0.10 today.• Small and Van Dender (2007)• Hughes, Knittel and Sperling (2008)

– Why inelastic?– Need huge gasoline or carbon tax to have an impact?

• Parking prices seem to be more effective at changing driving behavior, but most parking is abundant and free except in CBDs

The Challenge Ahead…

History of (Failed) Efforts to Reduce VMT in US

– US DOT in 1975+: Transportation Systems Mgmt (TSM) as way of reducing spending on roads

– US DOT 1980s+: Transportation Demand Mgmt– US EPA 1970+: Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs) as part of regional AQ attainment plans– US EPA 1990 Clean Air Act: required employer-based

trip reduction programs and other actions for regions in non-attainment of AQ stds

Can climate goals/laws provide an effective motivation and framework for reducing VMT and sprawl?

– AB32 has VMT/GHG reduction targets – SB375 law (2008) provides process to require MPOs to reduce VMT – Key is to reward cities/regions for reducing VMT

Need to Pursue Synergistic Strategies1. Create more mobility choices so that new policy

initiatives are possible Use IT for smart paratransit, smart ridesharing, smart car

sharing Encourage neighborhood cars BRT Manage land use to facilitate transit, bikes, walking

2. Create durable policy framework for cities and counties Impose performance standards to make them

accountable (for providing access, reducing costs, reducing GHGs, etc):

For zoning, approvals of subdivisions, transport infrastructure decisions

Given the huge inefficiencies and lack of innovation in the transport sector, many opportunities exist to create a better and less expensive system

Need Integrated Solutions…

Expanding transit by itself does not reduce oil use and GHGs (on average). Energy intensity of buses is worse than “cars.” Need to combine transit reform with other strategies.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Cars

Light Trucks

Bus

Rail Transit

Btu/

pass

enge

r-m

ile

Cars

Ligh

t Tru

cks

Bus

Rail

Tran

sit

Source: US DOE and ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26, 2007

These are averages for US. Actual intensities vary dramatically across time of day, routes, and regions (and by trip purpose for cars).

The Challenge of Guiding Transport and Energy Systems Toward Sustainability

Finance/Economy

Trade-Offs&

SynergiesEcology/

EnvironmentEquity/

Social Dev’t

Three legs of the sustainability stool:Economy, Equity, Environment