• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
14 15 vmt_sb375-1
 

14 15 vmt_sb375-1

on

  • 161 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
161
Views on SlideShare
161
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Note the pattern of overall personal travel Look at major European cities – almost all are between 7000 and 9000 pkm/yr Tokyo the only major urban area where auto provides less than 50% of pkm
  • RESUME
  • The Pew Center is a non-profit, independent organization that was founded to establish a “middle” in the climate change debate because the issue was so polarized.
  • Rohm & Haas HQ = Philadelphia TARGET: Their only set-in-stone target right now is to reduce energy consumption by 5% per pound of product below 1999 levels by 2001, so maybe want to say this instead of 15% one? POLYMER: Said polymer is Rhoplex—you use it in a roof coating that reduces solar radiation to the roof and also increases roof lifespan.

14 15 vmt_sb375-1 14 15 vmt_sb375-1 Presentation Transcript

  • Lectures 17-19VMT ReductionProfessor Dan Sperling ECI/ESP 163 Fall 2012
  • Outline• 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)
  • 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 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% Source: Demographia (2001).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 Monoculture 1859 ] First U.S. oil well discoveredFirst internal combustion engine car built 1885 by Karl Benz 1908 ] Model T (with ICE) debuts U.S. transit ridership reaches highest ] 1926 peacetime levels 1930 ] Car ownership reaches 200 for every 1000 AmericansSuburban building boom begins following ] 1947 World War II 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 ] 2005 exceeds 1 billion 2008 ] Crude hits $140 a barrel
  • Evolving Infrastructure and Urban Land Use Patterns I. 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
  • Transit Serves Mostly Work Trips to CBDs % of work trips by transit NYC 88% CHICAGO 83% BOSTON 70% SF 64% % of work trips by transit in SF Bay Area SF FINANCIAL DISTRICT 75% SF CBD 64% SF BAY AREA 14% SF BAY AREA (EXCLUDING SF CBD) 7%
  • Public Transport Was Losing Share In Most OECD Cities Through 20th Century Public transport share of motorized passenger kilometers90%80% 196070% 199060%50%40%30%20%10%0% Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York San Vienna Zurich Francisco Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Washington, DC Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999)
  • Car dominates personal travel in most OECD (rich) cities Passenger km/person/year 18,000 16,000 Rail+Tram Bus 14,000 Car 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Amsterdam Copenhagen Frankfurt London New York San Francisco Vienna Zurich Brisbane Detroit Hamburg Melbourne Paris Tokyo Tokyo Washington, DC Source: Kenworthy and Laube (1999).
  • Vehicles per licensed driver by nation, 2005 1.2 # Vehicles/Licensed Driver 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 na da a n y ce UK US an pa di an na i In Ch m Ja Fr Ca er GSources: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; World Almanac 2006 and 2007.
  • 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 steadily increased 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 drivers 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
  • Strategies to Reduce Passenger VMT 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
  • 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 restrictions2) Public Transportation and Alternative Modes – Provide better transit facilities and service – Encourage carpooling – Encourage biking and walking – Impose employer-based trip reduction programs3) Pricing Policies – Parking pricing – Road user pricing – Fuel tax – Pay-as-you-drive insuranceNon-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 ManagementAssociation 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
  • Zoning• 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.
  • New Land Use and Transportation Planning Approaches• 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 development From: Handy & Clifton. Planning and the Built Environment: Implications for Obesity Prevention. Handbook of Obesity Prevention. S. Kumanyika & R.C. eds. Springer Pub.
  • Smart Growth: 10 Principles1. 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
  • 2) Mode Choice How can this relationship be influenced?• There are many Bus/metro modes of travel, each Jitneys, with unique Motorcycles attributes. til p S e do M Cars The challenge is Walking, Bicycling to use them “appropriate ly.” Income
  • Variation in U.S. Modal Choice By Trip Purpose (2001 NHTS)Pucher , J. and J.L.Renne,Socioeconomics ofUrban Travel:Evidence from the2001 NHTS.TransportationQuarterly, Vol. 57,No. 3, 2003, pp. 49–77
  • 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
  • Bus Rapid Transit: Wave of the Future?1. Busways: separate bus-only roadway2. HOV lanes: where buses share HOV lane with other high-occupancy vehicles (carpools/vanpools) The Orange Line in LA3. Bus lanes on major streets
  • Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Cities
  • Expand Traveler Choice Using ICTSmarter, Cleaner, and Cheaper!
  • 3) PricingVery Little Use of Pricing to Manage Transportation in (Capitalist) US?! – Most parking and road use is free in US – Gasoline taxes are very lowTypes 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)
  • Gasoline Taxes Are Low $5 $4 2007 US $/Gallon $3 Gasoline Diesel $2 $1 $0 ly n y s ce k te a UK US an ar nd pa ad Ita Ra an m m la Ja an Fr en er um er C th G D im Ne in M EU Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, International and United StatesPetroleum (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 possible2. Use IT for smart paratransit, smart ridesharing, smart car sharing3. Encourage neighborhood cars4. BRT5. Manage land use to facilitate transit, bikes, walking6. Create durable policy framework for cities and counties7. Impose performance standards to make them accountable (for providing access, reducing costs, reducing GHGs, etc):  For zoning, approvals of subdivisions, transport infrastructure decisionsGiven 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. 4500 4000 These are 3500 averages for Btu/passenger-mile US. Actual 3000 Cars intensities 2500 vary Light Trucks Light Trucks dramatically 2000 Rail Transit Bus across time of Rail Transit day, routes, 1500 and regions (and by trip Bus 1000 Cars purpose for 500 cars). 0 Source: US DOE and ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26, 2007
  • The Challenge of Guiding Transport and Energy Systems Toward Sustainability Three legs of the sustainability stool: Economy, Equity, Environment Finance/ Economy Trade-Offs & Synergies Equity/ Ecology/ Social Dev’t Environment