Smart Growth Impacts on VMT, Energy and Air Quality

Reid EwingNational Center for Smart Growth

Fehr & Peers Associates

Guidance from Judy Corbett

Reid: Please offer a 15 minute summary presentation on your research … This is not a technical conference and few researchers attend. So please gear your talk to the layperson.

Supply Side Measures Aren’t Enough2/3rds of the total reduction in vehicle emissions achieved

through technological emission controls have been offset by increases in VMT

80%

90%100%

110%120%

130%

140%150%

160%170%

180%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

2000

= 1

00%

Vehicle Miles Traveled

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emission Rate (f leet)

CO2 Emission Rate (new )

Raw data from: US DOE, EIA " AEO 2004"

“Toward a Policy Agenda for Climate Change”

• Promising Technologies and Fuels: Costs and GHG Reduction Potential

• GHG Policy Instruments: Costs, Efficiency, and Politics

• State, Regional, and Local initiatives (EU, North America, Japan, other)

• Travel Demand, Land Use, and Vehicle Purchase Behavior

Under ResearchedStudy Area

Scenario Compared to Base

VMT NOX VOC CO CO2 Fuel

Ithaca (2004-25)

County Centers scenario -1.8% -1.7% -1.8% -1.7% -1.8% -1.5%

Orlando (2000-25)

Region Centers scenario -2.4% -1.0% -2.2% -2.1%

Plan scenario -2.1% -2.0%Philadelphia (2000-25)

Region

Recentralization scenario

-3.1% -2.7%

Region

Region

Region

Rural growth scenario

3.3%

Lansing (build-out)

Wise growth scenario

-25% -22% -20%

Los Angeles (2000-30)

Growth vision scenario (mixed)

-4.6%

Infill Scenario -1.0%Olympia (2000-25)

Using VMT as a Surrogate

For conventional internal combustion engines , there's a u-shaped curve with highest mpg (lowest CO2 per mile) around 55mph. This is obviously different for hybrids. Cold starts also increase CO2 emissions per mile, but still, overall VMT is the dominant term.

Geauga County, OH

New York County, NY

Aggregate Travel Statistics

2/3rd VMT Reduction

Daily Vehicle Miles per Person vs. Residential DensitySource: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 2001 Travel Survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Households per Acre

Dai

ly V

ehic

le M

iles

per

Per

son

Charles Street

Hampstead

Odenton

Owings Mills

Dundalk

Reservoir Hill

Butcher's Hill

Brewer's HillBolton Hill

Canton

Federal Hill

Taneytown

Westminster Greens

Westminster Downtown Havre de Grace

Sprawl Index

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

New York

San Fr

ancis

co

Boston

New O

rlean

s

Colorad

o Spring

s

Chicago

El P

aso

Phoenix

Austi

n Tuc

son

Toledo

Tac

oma

Sacram

ento

Sea

ttle

Anaheim

Minnea

polis

St. L

ouis

Houston

Kansa

s City

Washin

gton,

DC

Birming

ham

Hartfor

dNew

ark

Vallejo

Gary

Knox

ville

Greenvil

le

Greensb

oro

Inde

x

Travel and Transportation Outcomes

• Vehicle Ownership (Census)• Walk and Transit Mode Shares (Census)• VMT (HPMS)• Travel Times to Work (Census)• Congestion Delay (TTI)• Fatal Accidents (FARS)• Ozone Levels (EPA)

25% Less VMT with Compact Development

30% Less Ozone with Compact Development

Disaggregate Travel Studies

30% VMT Difference

4D Variables

• Destination Accessibility• Density

– Residential Density– Employment Density

• Diversity– Balance Measures– Dissimilarity Measures– Complementarity Measures

• Design– Street Network Measures– Streetscape Measures

Smart Growth Index Model

Elasticities

Convenient Way of Summarizing Relationships

Dimensionless So Perhaps Transferable

Default Elasticities

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

Densit

y

Diver

sity (

Mix)

Design

Region

al Acc

essib

ility

VTVMT

Regional Simulations

Florida Review of Early Studies (1993)

California Energy Commission Survey (2001)

California Smart Growth Energy Savings

• Survey of All California MPOs• Extrapolated from Five Studies• 3-10% Transportation Energy Savings with Smart

Growth Policies• Policies Assumed

– Transit-Focused Development– Increased Transit Supply– Parking Fees– Improved Jobs-Housing Balance

Bartholomew’s Review of 80 Studies (2007)

The results of these analyses vary widely across projects; median values for measures such as vehicle mile traveled (VMT) and mobile emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the minus 2-3% range compared to trend scenarios.

Wide Range of VMT Results (Scenario vs. Trend)

Sant

ee-L

ynch

es P

lan

(SC

) .

Birm

ingh

am C

orrid

or A

naly

sis

(AL)

.

Alte

rnat

ive

Land

Use

Sce

nario

s (D

C)

.

NJ

Inte

rim S

tate

Pla

n.

2025

Met

ro T

rans

p Pl

an (D

E) .

Cho

ices

for o

ur F

utur

e (M

I) .

Sheb

oyga

n Tr

ansp

Pla

n (W

I)

Mar

tin &

St.

Luci

e La

nd U

se S

tudy

(FL)

.

Alte

rnat

e D

ev P

atte

rns

(SC

) .

Wha

t-If T

rans

p Sc

enar

ios

(PA)

.

Impa

cts

of L

and

Use

Alte

rnat

ives

(MD

) .

Two

Roa

ds D

iver

ge (M

N)

.

Com

mun

ity C

onne

ctio

ns (F

L) .

New

Vis

ions

(NY)

.

RTP

202

5 (D

E)

Plan

ned

Gro

wth

Stra

tegy

(NM

) .

MA

G R

TP (A

Z) .

Pug

et S

ound

Vis

ion

2020

(WA

)

Urb

an F

orm

Opt

ions

(TX

) .

Liva

bilit

y Fo

otpr

int P

roje

ct (C

A) .

Nor

ther

n S

ub-A

rea

Stu

dy (G

A) .

Reg

iona

l Alli

ance

for T

rans

it (C

A) .

Sout

hern

Cal

iforn

ia C

ompa

ss .

Reg

ion

2040

(OR

)

Mt V

iew

Cor

ridor

(UT)

)

Envi

sion

Uta

h .

Met

ro V

isio

n 20

20 (C

O)

.

Blu

eprin

t 203

0 (M

N)

.

LUTR

AQ

(OR

) .

Reg

ion

2020

(CA)

.

Shap

ing

Our

Fut

ure

(CA

)

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

7.17

-17.

33%

median: -2.32%

(trend)

Wide Range of NOX Results (Scenario vs. Trend)

Sant

ee-L

ynch

es R

egio

nal P

lan

(SC

)

Inte

grat

ed In

frast

ruct

ure

Pla

nnin

g P

roje

ct (S

C)

Alte

rnat

e D

evel

opm

ent P

atte

rns

(SC

)

Birm

ingh

am C

orrid

or A

naly

sis

(AL)

NJ

Inte

rim S

tate

Pla

n

Mar

tin &

St.

Luci

e La

nd U

se S

tudy

(FL)

Wha

t-If S

cena

rios

(PA

)

Cho

ices

for o

ur F

utur

e (M

I)

Com

mun

ity C

onne

ctio

ns (F

L)

Sal

em F

utur

es (O

R)

2025

Met

ro T

rans

Pla

n (D

E)

Liva

bilit

y Fo

otpr

int P

roje

ct (C

A)

RTP

202

5 (D

E)

Mar

ion

Cou

nty

Urb

an G

row

th (O

R)

Nor

ther

n S

ub-A

rea

Stu

dy (G

A)

Ham

pton

Roa

ds S

mar

t Gro

wth

(VA

)

Reg

ion

2040

(OR

)

Sout

hern

Cal

iforn

ia C

ompa

ss

Met

ro V

isio

n 20

20 (C

O)

LUTR

AQ

(OR

)

Blu

eprin

t 203

0 (M

N)

-60.00%

-50.00%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

(trend)

median: -2.07%7.17%

-50.47%

Explaining the Variation

• The farther out in time, the bigger the impact

• The more growth that can be redirected, the bigger the impact

• The denser and more centered, the bigger the impact

• The higher the transit investment, the bigger the impact

• The addition of travel demand management strategies

Latest ResultsProjecting the Effects of Land Use Change and

Transportation on Future Air Quality (PLUTO)

% Change in VMT under Smart Growth

% Change in Vehicle Emissions under Smart Growth

Development Simulations

EPA’s Pioneering Study

50% Savings Due to Regional Accessibility

Atlantic Steel Study

Desperate Need of Access

• National pilot program to promote cost-effective environmental protection

• EPA grants regulatory and policy flexibility

EPA Project XL

Brownfield vs. Greenfield Sites

< 1.00 jobs/acre1.00 - 4.004.01 - 10.00> 10.00 jobs/acre

Cobb/Fulton

Sandy Springs

Henry County

Employment Density (1995Employment Density (1995))

Comparison Sites

Original Site Plan

Henry County Project

1/3 Savings Due to Regional Accessibility

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Daily VMT

Atlantic SteelSandy SpringsCobb/FultonHenry County

Conventional vs. New Urbanist Plan

Alternative Site Plan Comparison

5% Savings Due to 3Ds

310000

315000

320000

325000

330000

335000

340000

345000

Daily VMT

TRANPLANJacobyDPZJacoby Redesign

Consistent Picture Emerges

Demand-Side Measure in Other Sectors?

How About Residential Energy?

Good News

The average white household (with two adults and two children, with annual household income between $50,000 to $75,000, and living in a house built in between 1940 and 1959), would be expected to consume about 13 percent less energy annually, more than $200 less, living in a compact county, one standard deviation above the mean sprawl index, than in a sprawling county, one standard deviation below the mean index.