THE POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING CLIMATE EMISSIONS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND URBAN FORM

Lewison Lem, Ph.D.LemL@pbworld.com

Parsons Brinckerhoff and Center for Climate Strategies

for

Sonoran Institute and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

February 2008

REDUCING THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION AND URBAN FORM

Transportation as a Major Source of Climate Change

How Do We Reduce the Climate Impact of the Transportation and Urban Form? ?

Science-Based Climate Stabilization Targets (450-550 ppm CO2)

2

CLIMATE STABILIZATION GOALS REQUIRE US TOCONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF TRANSPORTATION ANDURBAN FORM

1. Infrastructure –a. Urbanb. Transportation

2. Vehicles –a. Light Duty Vehicles (LDV)b. Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV)c. Rail, Air, and Marine

3. Fuels

4. System Operations and Vehicle Use3

4

• Transportation and Urban Form is particularly important

• Transportation and Land Use together constitute one of the largest sector sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

• Other sectors are working to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gases

• How can transportation and urban form reduce its share of emissions on a fair and reasonable, if not proportional, basis?

4

Source: Stern Review -

5

FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDERCONSIDERATION IN 2007

6

STATES AND REGIONS ARE DEVELOPINGPLANS TO REDUCE CLIMATE CHANGEEMISSIONS

For a number of years, the national government has left a vacuum of climate policy leadership in the United States

Cities, counties, states, and regions have increased activities during this period

Coordinated and consistent policy development and implementation is moving from individual state actions towards regional multi-state cooperation and coordination. New England States Western States Midwestern States

7

8 8

CLIMATE ACTION PLANS IN THE UNITED STATES (2007)

8

EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING TRANSPORTAION PORTIONS OF STATE CLIMATE ACTION PLANS

1. Arizona 20062. New Mexico 20063. Montana 20074. Colorado 20075. Vermont 20076. North Carolina 2007

1. Iowa 20082. Michigan 20083. Florida 20084. Arkansas 20085. Kansas 2008

9

10

10

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONGOALS OF SOME WESTERN STATES

State 2020 or other Near Term Goal

2050 or other Long Term Goal

Arizona 2000 level 50% below 2000

California 1990 level 80% below 2000

Colorado 20% below 2005 80% below 2005

Montana 1990 level 80% below 1990

New Mexico 10% below 2000 75% below 2000

Oregon 10% below 1990 75% below 1990

10

Western Regional Air Partnership Gross GHG Emissions By State

Gross Consumption-based GHG Emissions by State: Historical and Projected

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

MM

tCO

2e

AKAZCACOIDMTNMNVORSDUTWAWY

11

WESTERN REGIONAL AIR PARTNERSHIPPER CAPITA EMISSIONS (GROSS)

0

25

50

75

100

125

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

tCO2

e / P

erso

n

WY

AK

SD

NM

UT

ID

CO

US

AZ

WA

`

12

TRANSPORTATION SECTOR AS PERCENTAGE OFTOTAL STATE GHG FORECAST EMISSIONS (2010)State Arizona Colorado New

MexicoMontana

Total GHG

116 132 78 40

Transport GHG

45 31 18 9

Transport % of Total

39% 23% 23% 22%

Note: GHG Emissions measured in MMtCO2ESource: Gallivan et al (2008)

13

WHAT DRIVES GROWTH OF TRANSPORTATION SECTORGHG EMISSIONS ?

1) POPULATION

2) VEHICLE OWNERSHIP RATES

3) VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT) RATES

4) FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLE FLEET

5) TYPES OF FUELS USED IN VEHICLES

6) PRICE OF VEHICLE OPERATION (e.g. fuel price, etc)

14

WESTERN STATESPOPULATION GROWTH

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

AK AZ CO ID MT NM NV SD UT WA WY

Ann

ual A

vera

ge G

row

th (%

)

1990-2005

2005-2020

15

WESTERN STATESEMPLOYMENT GROWTH

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

AK CO ID MT NV SD UT WA WY

Ave

rag

e A

nn

ual

Gro

wth

(%)

Manufacturing - 1990-2005 Manufacturing - 2005-2020Commercial - 1990-2005 Commercial - 2005-2020

16

Western States Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

AK AZ CO ID MT NM NV SD UT WA WY

MM

tCO

2e

1990-2005

2005-2020

17

WESTERN STATESPROJECTED TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS

050

100150200250300350400450500550

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

MM

tCO

2e

AKAZCACOIDMTNMNVORSDUTWAWY

18

19

There is some difference of opinion among professional analysts about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various strategies for emissions reductions from transportation and urban form.

19

There is significant difference of opinion among professional analysts and political leaders regarding the efficacy of:

(1) Smart Growth and Transit(2) Transportation System Efficiency

as compared with the effectiveness of strategies in other transportation categories:

(3) Vehicle Improvements and(4) Fuels Strategies.

20

Some argue that technology-based vehicle and fuel improvements for the transportation sector may be sufficient to meet the transportation sectors share of GHG emissions reduction goals.

In contrast, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has recently released a report arguing for the viability of GHG emissions reductions through smart growth and ‘growing cooler’.

21

ESTIMATES OF GHG REDUCTION POTENTIALFROM ULI REPORT “GROWING COOLER” (2007) Ewing, Pendall, and Chen (2002) show average daily 27

vmt in 10 most sprawling metros as compared with average daily 21 vmt in 10 most compact metro areas.

Bartholomew study (2005, 2007) showed potential for compact development to on average result in 8 percent fewer vmt as compared to BAU. Maximum reduction found was 31.7%

Infill analysis for Atlanta’s Atlantic Steel site for USEPA showed 35% less driving and emissions than comparable sites.

Overall, ULI Report concludes that 7 to 10 percent range of potential CO2 reductions off BAU for 2050.

22

ESTIMATES OF GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL USED IN CENTER FOR CLIMATE STRATEGIES ANALYSIS FOR STATE CLIMATE PLANS

Ranging from 3 % to 11 % reduction in VMT based on review of regional modeling analyses (eg DRCOG)

Sacramento Blueprint Study found approximate 25% reduction in vmt potential using integrated transportation and land use scenario analysis.

CCS general range of estimates used between 3% to 11%

Climate Commission Members and Stakeholders are asked to ‘turn the dial’ in terms of the strength of the policy actions they seek to include in their plans

23

24 24

ARIZONA PLAN (2006) Transportation GHG Reductions Category MMtCO2e Share

Vehicle Improvements 38.9 39%

Fuels Strategies 6.2 6%

Smart Growth and Transit 26.7 26%

Transportation System Efficiency 12.3 12%

Other 17.0 17%

Low Carbon Fuels6%

Smart Growth and Transit 26%

Transportation System Efficiency

12%

Other17%

Vehicle Improvements

39%

24

25 25

NEW MEXICO PLAN (2006)TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS Category MMtCO2e Share

Vehicle Improvements 15.9 29%

Fuels Strategies 9.1 17%

Smart Growth and Transit 13.4 24%

Transportation System Efficiency 7.6 14%

Other 9.1 17%Transportation System Efficiency

14%

Smart Growth and Transit24%

Low Carbon Fuels17%

Vehicle Improvements 28%

Other17%

25

26 26

MONTANA PLAN (2007) TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS Category MMtCO2e Share

Vehicle Improvements 5.22 74%

Fuels Strategies 0.39 5%

Smart Growth and Transit 0.77 11%

Transportation System Efficiency 0.59 8%

Other 0.13 2%

Vehicle Improvements74%

Low Carbon Fuels5%

Smart Growth and Transit 11%

Transportation System Efficiency

8%

Other2%

26

27

COLORADO PLAN (2007) TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS

Vehicle Improvements33%

Low Carbon Fuels29%

Smart Growth and Transit14%

Transportation System Efficiency

22%

Other2%

Category MMtCO2e Share

Vehicle Improvements 18.8 34%

Fuels Strategies 16.1 29%

Smart Growth and Transit 7.52 14%

Transportation System Efficiency 12.3 22%

Other 0.91 2%

27