Julia Marie Ellis
Energy Law, Spring 2008
Professor Fred Bosselman, Chicago-Kent College of Law
An Analysis of the Impact of
Urban Sprawl on Energy Use,
the Environment, and the
Potential Benefit of Improved
Land Use Planning
Issue
• Issue Statement: Urban sprawl is an
undesirable land use and development
pattern which imposes significant costs
on environment, private individuals
and businesses, and local, state, and
federal government.
Presentation Preview
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
“Urban sprawl” Defined.
Impacts of Sprawl.
Causes of the Sprawl Trend.
The Perfect Storm for Change.
Possible Solution.
Part I
“Urban Sprawl” Defined
I. Urban Sprawl Defined
Process in which the spread of development across the
landscape far outpaces population growth.*1
60%
60%
50%
49%
40%
30%
39%
32%
32%
22%
20%
10%
7%
7%
0%
Change in
Ubanized
Land 19821997
Change in
Metropolitan
Population
1982-1997
h
ut
t
es
w
id
M
st
ea
th
or
N
So
t
es
W
* 2.
I. Urban Sprawl Defined:
Operationalizing Sprawl
•
Arial photo of sprawl.
Four Components:
•
Low residential density;
•
Little neighborhood mix of
homes, jobs, and services;
•
Weak “activity centers” or
downtowns;
•
Strict categorical land use
and minimal accessibility to
the street net work. *2
I. Urban Sprawl Defined:
Sprawl Index
•
Most sprawling metros in the Unites States:
.
•
(1)Riverside, CA;
(2)Greensboro, NC;
(3)Raleigh, NC;
(4)Atlanta, GA;
(5)Greenville, SC;
(6) Palm Beach, FL;
(7) Bridgeport, CT;
(8) Knoxville, TN;
(9) Oxnard, CA;
(10) Fort Worth, TX.
Least sprawling metros in the Unites States:
(1) New York, NY;
(2) Jersey City, NJ;
(3) Providence, RI;
(4) San Francisco, CA
(5)Honolulu, HI;
(6) Boston, MA;
(7) Portland, OR;
(8) Miami, FL;
(9) New Orleans, LA;
(10) Denver, CO. *3
I. Urban Sprawl Defined:
Comparing Cities
•
Chicago Metropolitan Area
.
–
–
–
–
Street Connectivity Score: 134.9
Centeredness Score: 85. 8
Mixed Use Score: 115.1
Density Score: 142. 9
*Centeredness: Concentrations of residential, economic, or commercial
activity. These activity centers help businesses thrive and are well
served by public transportation.
•
Portland Metropolitan Area
–
–
–
–
Street Connectivity Score: 128
Centeredness Score: 121.8
Mixed Use Score: 102.8
Density Score: 101.3 *2
I. Urban Sprawl Defined:
Template for the Region
(Plainfield, I 2008)
In the late 1990s, Chicago accounted for only 6% of the
land area in its metropolitan region and about 1/3 of the
population. *4
Part II
Impact of Sprawl
II. Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
Staggering Statistics:
• Americans account for only 5% of the world’s
population.
• American automobiles produce 45% of the
world’s CO2 emissions attributable to the
transportation industry. *3
II. Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
Americans have built themselves out of choices…
• Data suggests that car ownership is a necessity for most
American families.
• Closest corollary to the number of cars owned per house
hold?
(a) Net income per family
(b) Number of working residents per household
(c) Sprawlingness of family’s built environment. *1
Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
“Communities designed with the car
in mind give lower-income families
no other alternative. To meet life’s
daily needs, to reach jobs, doctors,
even to get to the store to buy
groceries, most American families,
including those who can least afford
it, must rely on a car.” *5
II. Impact of Sprawl:
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Understanding the Statistics: 5% Population / 45%
CO2 from Autos?
Key Points
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) is the average number of
mile driven per person per day in a given population.
• CO2 emissions correlate exactly with gasoline
consumption.
• Gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions are nearly
perfect corollaries with VMT. *3
II. Impact of Sprawl:
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• VMT increases with sprawl.
•VMT ten most sprawling cities: 27
•VMT ten least sprawling cities: 21
• Case study:
•Atlanta, GA, VMT 34
•Portland, OR, VMT 24 *3
Template for the Region
(Plainfield, IL, 2008)
II. Impact of Sprawl: Forecast U.S. Oil
Demand
• Energy Consumption for Transportation Continues to Rise Even
Though Automobiles Are Increasingly More Efficient.*3
*6
III. Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
#1 Environmental
Damage
• Gasoline consumption
and CO2 emissions are
nearly perfect
corollaries with VMT.
*3
• CO2 is a GHG.*9
• Permanent ice cover is
contracting at a rate of
9% each decade *9
III. Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
#2 Expense to Consumers
•
•
•
•
20.3 mpg*8
6 add. mi. per day*3
365 days
$3.36 per gallon*7
• $362. 48 additional expense
per person per year for those
persons living in a sprawling
environment.
• $1450.00 additional expense
per year for a family of 4 living
in a sprawling environment
III. Impact of Sprawl:
Auto Dependence
#3 Dependence on
Foreign Oil
• 89% imported from top 10 producers) *10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CANADA
SAUDI ARABIA
MEXICO
NIGERIA
VENEZUELA
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ANGOLA
IRAQ
ALGERIA
ECUADOR
KUWAIT
II. Impact of Sprawl
Increased Residential Energy Use
Sprawling Development
1.
Larger houses
2.
Transmission and
distribution losses
3.
Urban Heat Islands
–
–
More cooling days
Fewer heating days
Compact development results
in a combined energy savings
of 20% of the average US
household’s primary energy
use.*3
II. Impact of Sprawl
Decrease in Permeable Surfaces
1.
Increased runoff leads to
downstream flooding.
2.
Wide fluctuations in
water conditions destroy
habitats.
3.
Greater pollutant loads
in the urban
environment serve to
decrease the
effectiveness of natural
processing. *11
Illinois Flood Disaster Area 2007
Illinois Severe Storms and Flooding
Declared Sept. 25, 2007
http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?published=1&id=8985
Part III
Causes of Sprawl
III. Causes of Sprawl
Historical background
1.
Postwar Federal Policy
•
Encouraged highway development.
•
Inexpensive mortgages for suburban homes.*4
III. Causes of Sprawl
Historical background
2.
Euclidean Zoning Law
•
Widely separated residential, commercial, and industrial zones
•
Disallowed mixed uses common in older, more established cities
•
Lot size minimums commonly between 1 and 5 acres
•
Strips of “commercial” development zoned to arterial roads
III. Causes of Sprawl
Historical background
3.
Annexation Laws (Illinois Specific)
•
Req. #1: EPA Approved Waste Water Management Plan
•
Req. #2: Ordinance to annex passed by city


•
(1) Contingent
(2) Unincorporated tract of land
Req. #3: Majority of landowners sign petition for annexation *12
III. Causes of Sprawl:
Motivators of Sprawl
1.
Sales taxes
•
New residents draw new businesses to the area and increase
sales tax revenues
2.
Deferred cost
•
Development capital stimulates economy immediately
•
2 or 3 year cost lag. *19
3.
Lack of knowledge of the consequences of current practices
4.
Insufficient funding for planning
III. Causes of Sprawl:
Percent Change in Pop. by County
(2000-2006)
* 13
III. Causes of Sprawl:
Decision Makers and
Stakeholders
1. Land Use Decision Makers
•
Local government policy makers/elected officials
•
Local voters
2. Stakeholders recognized by Illinois Law (a.k.a. Standing)
•
Land owners holding land immediately affected Municipality
•
EPA and those in watershed (Clean Water Act violation)
3. Stakeholders NOT recognized by Illinois Law, i.e. Standing:
•
Neighboring municipalities & regional community
•
State and federal tax payers
•
Environmental groups
4. Challenges INSUFFICIENT at Law (Annexation Specific)
•
Annexation likely leads to additional annexation
•
Annexing municipality cannot/will not provide infrastructure,
municipal services, etc., to newly annexed land.*12
Part IV
“The Perfect Storm”
for Change
“Simultaneous occurrence of events
which, taken individually, would be far
less momentous than the result of their
confluence.” *3
IV. “The Perfect Storm”
The Perfect Storm Is
Upon Us…
1. Climate policy
2. Consumer
demand
3. Urban planning
*Ref #4
IV. The Perfect Storm: Changing
Policy (2007 - 2008)
Trend towards acknowledging the problems with our current
energy use practices...
1.
Corporate
•
2.
U.S. Climate Action Partnership calls for a 10-30% reduction in CO2
Consumer
•
3.
Pew Int’l Pub. Op. Poll, Environmental degradation as #1 greatest threat
Judicial
•
4.
U.S. Supreme Court rules that EPA can regulate GHG emissions *3
Congressional
•
Leiberman-Warner Act, 2008 *15
*9
IV. The Perfect Storm: Consumer
Demand
55% of consumers prefer “Smart Growth
Communities” to “Traditional Communities”
• Smart Growth Community: Places within a few blocks
of home (walkable or drivable), Commute less than 45
minutes, Mix of detached houses and townhouses, Public
transportation is nearby, Almost all streets have
sidewalks.
• Conventional Community: Single family home on
large lot, Schools and shops a few miles from home, No
sidewalks, Commutes more than 45 minutes, No public
transportation.
*3
IV. The Perfect Storm: Consumer
Demand
• Families without children are predicted to account
for 88% of the growth in the housing market by 2025
• Under current trends, there will be a 71% shortage
of downtown, in-town, and close-in suburban
housing by 2025
• Supply of large lot, single family, homes already
exceeds demand (as of 2006)
*3
IV. The Perfect Storm:
Planning
1.
Trends in urban planning profession to acknowledge weakness
in current models of development.
a. Energy consumption, unsupportable at current levels,
(AASHTO 2007). *18
b. Predict and provide, inefficient and ineffective. *3
c. Infrastructure, expensive. *19
2.
Guinea pig states, such as Oregon, have survived critical
judicial challenges and overcome political obstacles. *20
V. Solution
1.
Planning Power to the “Common” Sovereign,
i.e. the State
2.
Land Use Planning Act Essential Components
1. A Comprehensive Statewide Plan
2. Require Local Governments Plans Consistent
with the State’s Comprehensive Plan
3. State Level Coordination, Administration, and
Review of Local Plans
4. Judicial Review
V.
Solution: Goals for States
1. Statewide Land Use Planning
2. Urbanization Limits
3. Conservation of Energy
4. Transportation
5. Citizen Involvement
6. Agricultural Lands
7. Needed Housing
*17
V. Solution: Oregon’s Model
State
Legislature
LCDC
LUBA
Land Conservation &
Development Commission
Land Use Board
of Appeals
DLCD
Department of Land
and Conservation
State
Agencies
Local
Gov’t
A. Municipalities
B. Counties
*17
V. Solution: Planning Structure
1. Land Development Commission
•
•
Form
– Executive Commission
– Appointed by Governor and approved by Senate
Function
– Adopts planning goals and implementation rules
– Oversees the Department of Land Development
Department
2. Dept. of Land Conservation and
Development
•
•
•
Research and plan development
Develops “Policy Papers” to guide implementation
Certifies municipal compliance with state’s master plan
*17
V. Solution: Planning Structure
3.
Municipalities/Counties
•
•
4.
Create a development plan in compliance with state goals
Implement local plan in compliance with state standards
Judicial Land Use Board of Appeals
•
Independent administrative adjudicative body where
stakeholders can challenge land use decisions.
*17
Conclusion
1.
Current land use system is inefficient and harmful
to the collective good.
2.
Statewide planning would promote more efficient
energy policies and practices.
3.
Market, political, and social changes make “now”
the time to act.
THANK YOU