public attitudes toward integrated urban design & transport strategies to reduce carbon emissions -...

8/6/2019 Public Attitudes toward Integrated Urban Design & Transport Strategies to Reduce Carbon Emissions - Presentation

1/85

Public Attitudes toward Integrated Urban

Design & Transport Strategies toReduce Carbon Emissions

Kris Wernstedt* and Aurash Khawarzad

Associate Professor, Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia

Tech University, Alexandria, Virginia USA([email protected])

Salzburg Congress on Urban Planning and Development

Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria

May 16, 2008


2/85

thanks to

Randolph, John and Gilbert M. Masters. 2008:

Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning,

Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.


3/85


4/85

Focus on Three Issues

Energy Use in Transportation 1/3 of US energy use today

2/3 of US oil use

32% of carbon emissions

Land Use Patterns consumptive, dispersed, auto-dependent

homogeneous, segregated uses among housing, shopping, office/businessparks, large civic institutions

roadways heavily dependent on collector roads

Energy Use in Buildings

1/2 of US energy use today 40% of carbon emissions


5/85

2005: 468 QWorld Energy Consumption

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year

Quadrillion

BTU

500

Growing Demand for Energy


6/85

U.S. EIA Estimate of Global Oil Peak based on USGS mean ultimate recover(sharp peak postpones peak but would be fatal to the economy)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2125

Billion

Barre

lsper

Year

History

Mean

USGS Estimates of Ultimate Recovery

Ultimate Recovery

Probability BBls

-------------------- ---------

Low (95 %) 2,248

Mean (expected value) 3,003

High (5 %) 3,896

7.8% Growth1963-1973

2% Growth& Decline

High Prices CanAffect Demand4.1% Decline

1979-1983

2016


7/85

T h e En d o f Ch ea p OilOil Reserves


8/85

The Good News:Improved Efficiency of U.S. and (World) Economy (Energy/$GDP)

Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 - 2005

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

thousandBtu/$(in$2000)

If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)

Art Rosenfeld


9/85

$700 Bil l ion in Savings since 1973:1/ 3 from building efficiency, 1/ 3 vehicle efficiency, 1/ 3 structural change in economy

Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Quads

$ 1.7

Trillion

$ 1.0Trillion

New Physical Supply = 25 Q

Avoided Supply = 70 Quads in 2005

If E/GDP had dropped 0.4% per year

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1% per year)

Art Rosenfeld


10/85

U.S. Energy Use by Sector

Industry flat, others growing

P l hi l il fi


11/85

Congestion

Personal vehicles: our oil fix


12/85


13/85

More Transportation Trends

What if the oil-intensive U.S. patterns of transportation,dominated by personal vehicles, are adopted by developingcountries? implication for oil markets, GHG emissions, and urban air pollution?

about 800 million vehicles in the world today

China and India each now has middle class population exceeding thetotal U.S. population.

vehicles could grow to 3.25 billion by 2050

Transportation energy consumption data includes operating energy to fuel transport of people and materials

does not include the embodied energy required for the constructionand maintenance of the infrastructure of roads, parking lots, airports,

and rail, with its energy intensive concrete, asphalt, and steel.


14/85

Growth of U.S. Vehicles per 1000 People,

1900-2002, with 2002 values for selected

countries and regions.


15/85

U.S. Transportation Energy by Mode, 2004


16/85


17/85

U.S. Passenger Travel Intensity, 2004


18/85


19/85


20/85


21/85

Nexus with Land Use


22/85

Loss of Farmland


23/85

BALTIMORE

CITY

WASHINGTON D.C.

CH

ESAPEAKE

BAY

Development Patterns through:

1900


24/85


1910


25/85


1920


26/85


27/85


1940


28/85


1950


29/85


30/85


1970


31/85


1980


32/85


1990


33/85


34/85

Development Patterns:

1900 - 1960


35/85


1961 - 1997


36/85


1900 - 1997


37/85

Costly

Infrastructure


38/85

BALTIMORE

CITY

WASHINGTON

D.C.

CHESAPEAKE

BAY

Highway & Development Patterns through:

1900


39/85

Highway & Development Patterns through:1940


40/85



41/85



42/85


43/85

Smart Growth


44/85

Smart Growth

Healthy

Communities

emphasizes development in

areas of existinginfrastructure, and deemphasizes development

in areas withoutinfrastructure or less suitable

By doing so, Smart Growth supports and enhancesexisting communities preserves natural andagricultural areas saves the cost ofinfrastructure

reduces VMT


45/85


46/85

Transit Oriented Development (TOD)


47/85

King Farm,Rockville, MD


48/85

oc e,


49/85


50/85


51/85


52/85

Portland


53/85


54/85


55/85

The Urban Turnaround


56/85

Simmons and Lang, 2001

The Coming Demand?


57/85

Myers and Gearin, 2001


58/85

TOD 20-30%


59/85

TOD 20 30%

Green mortgages 15-50% Smart School siting 15-50% Municipal Parking programs 15-30%

Infill/BF 10-50% Aggressive Smart Growth 5-30% Commuter incentives 5-25%

Comp. Smart Growth 3-20% POD 1-10% Pay as you drive insurance 1-10% Transit improvements 0.5%/1% freq. Bicycle incentives 1-5% Light Rail 1-2% Road pricing 1-3%

LEED System


60/85

Changes in the Built Environment


61/85

Changes in the Built Environment

Nelson 2004

Regional Differences in the


62/85

Built Environment

Nelson 2004

Growth-Related 1000s of New Housing Units, 2000-2030

(top 10 metro areas)


63/85


0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

Lo s Ange le s Wa s hingto n-

Baltimore

New Yo rk Dallas -Fo rt

Wo rth

P ho enix San Francis co Ho us to n Atlanta Chicago Miami

Nelson 2004


64/85

Replacement 1000s of New Housing Units, 2000-2030



65/85


Nelson 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

New York Los Angeles Washi

ngton-

Baltimore

Chicago San

Francisco

Detroit Dallas-Fort

Worth

Philadelphia Houston Boston

Replaced Housing Units (2000-2030)


66/85

and Current % Use of TransitMetro Area Rank#Units Rank%Transit Metro Area Rank#Units Rank%TransitNew York 1 1 Sacramento 24 15

Los Angeles 2 13 Orlando 25 34

Washington, DC 3 5 Kansas City 26 39

Chicago 4 3 Norfolk 27 25

San Francisco 5 2 Las Vegas 28 16

Detroit 6 41 Milwaukee 29 18

Dallas 7 35 Indianapolis 30 40

Philadelphia 8 6 Charlotte 31 44

Houston 9 26 Columbus 32 31

Boston 10 4 San Antonio 33 23

Miami 11 19 West Palm Beach 34 29

Atlanta 12 22 New Orleans 35 12

Seattle 13 7 Greensboro 36 46

Phoenix 14 17 Nashville 37 42

Cleveland 15 24 Austin 38 20

Tampa 16 32 Raleigh 39 27

Minneapolis 17 14 Jacksonville 40 37Denver 18 11 Oklahoma City 41 43

San Diego 19 9 Salt Lake City 42 21

St. Louis 20 33 Memphis 43 45

Portland 21 8 Louisville 44 36

Pittsburgh 22 10 Grand Rapids 45 38

Cincinnati 23 28 Hartford 46 30

Changes in Washington DC-Baltimore


67/85

Metropolitan Area Built Environment2000-2030

# of housing units square meters office space

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Total Increase Housing Units

New Housing UnitsReplacement Housing Units

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

Total Increase Office Space

New Office Space

Replacement Office Space

Turn Around of the Washington DC Metropolitan Areas


68/85

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM

g p

Office Market (1950-2006)

Source: The Brookings Institutionand RCLCo, using Co-Star primary

data

50%

38%

23%

33%

40%

46%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Jan-50 Jan-94 1995-2004 Jan-05 2005 2006

OfficeMarket

Share

90% +

Washington as the ModelFor the Early 21st Century

Metropolitan Growth

Green Line as the NewRed Line as the Favored

Quarter Expands


69/85

Suburban Tow n: Bet hesda, MD


70/85


Suburban Transi t -Or ient ed: Bal ls t on Ar l ingt on, VA


71/85


Public Policies to Address Energy,

Transportation Land Use and Climate
http://www.schuminweb.com/schumin-web/photography/photo-display.asp?Year=2003&Photography+Folder=urban-dc-area&Extension=jpg&File+Name=34


72/85

Transportation, Land Use, and Climate

Change Problems

advance sustainable energy technologies encourage private provision of more

efficient land use patterns (density)

energy conservation (greener buildings)

carbon friendly choices for consumers and

communities (transit, mixed use)

promote institutional innovations (alternative solo

vehicle trips)

Our Focus: Consumer


73/85

Preferences Regarding

height of residential structures

ground floor use of residential structures

private transportation options

closeness to public transit

energy costs

based on stated-preference survey of consumers

Assessing Preferences


74/85

stronglyagree

somewhatagree

neutral somewhatdisagree

stronglydisagree

height ofstructure

groundfloor

private

transportationcloseness totransit

energycosts

height ofstructure

Ranking Preferences


75/85

height of structure

ground floor of structure private transportation

closeness to public transit energy costs

Ranking Preferences


76/85

height of structure 3 floors

5 floors

10 floors

ground floor of structure grocery, retail, or restaurant

office space

private transportation

parking space subsidized zipcar

closeness to public transit 400 meters

3000 meters

energy costs 1000 euros

2000 euros

Choice Experiments


77/85

Attribute Levels3 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing)

5 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing)

height of structure

10 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing)office spaceground floor

grocery, retail shopping, or restaurant space1 parking space for each unit, included in unit purchaseprivate transportation

no parking space but zip car available with 250 free hours year$1,000/year$1,500/year

annual energy costs

$2,000/year miledistance to transit2 miles

Combinatorial Problem


78/85

5 attributes3 attributes with two levels

2 attributes with three levels

lots of permutation72 possible combinations

2,556 possible pairwise comparisons of these 72combinations

used 32 sets of comparisons each set has 6 pairwise comparisons

no respondent gets duplicated pairwise comparison

in principle each set of comparisons seen by 7 respondents

Choice 1. Consider the following alternative scenarios A and B.

Policy Conditions A B


79/85

Height of Structure 10 floors 3 floors

Ground Floor Office grocery, retail, restaurant

Private Transportationno off-street parking for own carbut zip car w/ 250 free hours/year

no off-street parking for own carbut zip car w/ 250 free hours/year

Annual Energy Cost $1,500/year $1,500/year

Nearest Metro Rail Stop 1/4 mile 2 miles

Which of these alternatives do you find more attractive?____ A____ B


80/85

Basic Model


81/85

attribute

(2)

Coeff.

(3)

t-statistic

(4)

p value

number of floors -0.0648 -3.95 0.000ground floor use 0.9115 9.19 0.000

private transportation -0.8098 -9.01 0.000

annual energy costs -1.0186 -8.76 0.000distance to transit stop -1.3010 -11.83 0.000intercept -0.0475 -0.73 0.468

n=1,252 observations, pseudo-R2 = 0.19


82/85


83/85

Takeaways


84/85

additional floors valued negatively relatively small penalty/floor

energy costs/savings do not appear different than other dollarcosts 21% indicated preference for cash payment

clear preference for grocery, retail, restaurant over office space

strong preference for access to private vehicle compared to subsidized zipcar w/ 250 hours of use/year ($2,000/year)

closeness to transit viewed positively

probably not linear, but not clear what threshold distance is

Next Steps


85/85

test more interactions with respondent

characteristics

enlarge sample

develop visuals for built environment

incorporate more transportation options

enlarge to include non-residential

environments

public attitudes toward integrated urban design & transport strategies to reduce carbon emissions -...

Documents