1. Lectures 17-19
VMT Reduction
Professor Dan Sperling
ECI/ESP 163
Fall 2012

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. SOURCE: Alan Pisarski, "Commuting in America III"

6. Evolution of Transportation Monoculture
1859 ] First U.S. oil well discovered
First 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
Americans
Suburban 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

7. 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+)

8. Cities Are Now Polynucleated (US),
With Lower Land Use Densities
Government
policies
supported both
freeway and
suburb
development
Source: Muller, 1998

9. Increasing Proportion of Americans
Living in Suburbs

10. 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%

11. Public Transport Was Losing Share In Most OECD Cities Through
20th Century
Public transport share of motorized passenger kilometers
90%
80%
1960
70%
1990
60%
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)

12. 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).

13. 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
G
Sources: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; World Almanac 2006 and 2007.

14. A vicious cycle?

15. VMT/Capita Peaked in US in 2004 (and elsewhere in OECD)?!
Source: Davis and Dutzik (2012), data from FHWA Historical Monthly
VMT Reports

16. VMT/capita in US steadily
increased until ~2004.
(source: EIA, in NY Times)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Policies and Actions for SB375
VMT Strategies to Reduce GHGs from Passenger Travel
1) 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 Travel
1. System Management
– Congestion management: traffic coordination, flow improvements, etc.
– Speed limit reduction
2. Driver Management
– Eco-driving

23. 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?

24. 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

25. 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

26. 1) LU Management
Association Between Travel Behavior and Built Environment

27. “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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Smart Growth: 10 Principles
1. Mix land uses
2. Use compact building design
3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
4. Foster communities with a strong sense of place
5. Preserve open space and farmland
6. Direct development toward existing communities
7. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective
8. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
9. Make communities more walkable
10. Encourage a range of transportation choices
From: EPA

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. Bus Rapid Transit: Wave of the Future?
1. Busways: separate bus-only roadway
2. HOV lanes: where buses share HOV lane
with other high-occupancy vehicles
(carpools/vanpools) The Orange Line in LA
3. Bus lanes on major
streets

35. Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Cities

36. Expand Traveler Choice Using ICT
Smarter, Cleaner, and Cheaper!

37. 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

38. (Litman, 2003, p.3)

40. 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 States
Petroleum (Oil) Price and Crude Oil Import Cost Tables, Washington, DC, April 2007. (Additional resources:
www.eia.doe.gov)

41. 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

42. 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

43. The Challenge Ahead…

44. 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

45. 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

46. Need to Pursue Synergistic Strategies
1. Create more mobility choices so that new policy initiatives are
possible
2. Use IT for smart paratransit, smart ridesharing, smart car sharing
3. Encourage neighborhood cars
4. BRT
5. Manage land use to facilitate transit, bikes, walking
6. Create durable policy framework for cities and counties
7. 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

47. 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

48. 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