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 TO
CONSIDER ALL ASPECTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND
URBAN FORM
1.
Infrastructure –
a.
b.
2.
Urban
Transportation
Vehicles –
a.
b.
c.
Light Duty Vehicles (LDV)
Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV)
Rail, Air, and Marine
3.
Fuels
4.
System Operations and Vehicle Use
3
• 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
4
5
Source: Stern Review -
FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN 2007
6
STATES AND REGIONS ARE DEVELOPING
PLANS TO REDUCE CLIMATE CHANGE
EMISSIONS



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
CLIMATE ACTION PLANS IN THE
UNITED STATES (2007)
8
8
8
EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING TRANSPORTAION
PORTIONS OF STATE CLIMATE ACTION PLANS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Arizona
New Mexico
Montana
Colorado
Vermont
North Carolina
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Iowa
Michigan
Florida
Arkansas
Kansas
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
9
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION
GOALS 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
10
10
Western Regional Air Partnership
Gross GHG Emissions By State
1,800
AK
AZ
CA
CO
ID
MT
NM
NV
OR
SD
UT
WA
WY
1,600
MMtCO2e
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Gross Consumption-based GHG Emissions by State: Historical and
Projected
11
WESTERN REGIONAL AIR PARTNERSHIP
PER CAPITA EMISSIONS (GROSS)
125
WY
AK
100
tCO2e / Person
SD
NM
75
UT
ID
`
50
CO
US
25
AZ
WA
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
12
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR AS PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL STATE GHG FORECAST EMISSIONS (2010)
State
Total
GHG
Arizona
Colorado
New
Mexico
Montana
116
132
78
40
Transport
GHG
45
31
18
9
Transport
% of Total
39%
23%
23%
22%
Note: GHG Emissions measured in MMtCO2E
Source: Gallivan et al (2008)
13
WHAT DRIVES GROWTH OF TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
GHG 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
Annual Average Growth (%)
WESTERN STATES
POPULATION GROWTH
5%
1990-2005
4%
2005-2020
3%
2%
1%
0%
AK
AZ
CO
ID
MT NM
NV
SD
UT
WA WY
15
Average Annual Growth (%)
WESTERN STATES
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
AK
CO
ID
MT
NV
SD
UT
WA
WY
Manufacturing - 1990-2005
Manufacturing - 2005-2020
Commercial - 1990-2005
Commercial - 2005-2020
16
Western States
Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
5%
1990-2005
MMtCO2e
4%
2005-2020
3%
2%
1%
0%
AK
AZ
CO
ID
MT
NM
NV
SD
UT
WA WY
17
WESTERN STATES
PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS
MMtCO2e
550
AK
500
AZ
450
CA
400
CO
350
ID
MT
300
NM
250
NV
200
OR
150
SD
100
UT
50
WA
0
1990
WY
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
18
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
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 POTENTIAL
FROM 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
ARIZONA PLAN (2006)
Transportation GHG
Reductions
Category
Vehicle Improvements
Transportation
System Efficiency
12%
Smart Growth and
Transit
26%
Vehicle
Improvements
39%
Share
38.9
39%
6.2
6%
Smart Growth and Transit
26.7
26%
Transportation System
Efficiency
12.3
12%
Other
17.0
17%
Fuels Strategies
Other
17%
MMtCO2e
Low Carbon Fuels
6%
24
24
24
NEW MEXICO PLAN (2006)
TRANSPORTATION GHG
REDUCTIONS
Category
Vehicle Improvements
29%
9.1
17%
13.4
24%
Transportation System
Efficiency
7.6
14%
Other
9.1
17%
Smart Growth and Transit
Vehicle Improvements
28%
Transportation
System Efficiency
14%
Smart Growth and
Transit
24%
Share
15.9
Fuels Strategies
Other
17%
MMtCO2e
Low Carbon Fuels
17%
25
25
25
MONTANA PLAN (2007)
TRANSPORTATION GHG
REDUCTIONS
Transportation System
Efficiency
8%
Other
2%
Smart Growth and
Transit
11%
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%
Low Carbon Fuels
5%
Vehicle Improvements
74%
26
26
26
COLORADO PLAN (2007)
TRANSPORTATION GHG
REDUCTIONS
Transportation
System Efficiency
22%
Other
2%
Vehicle Improvements
33%
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%
Smart Growth and
Transit
14%
Low Carbon Fuels
29%
27
27