Michael Tillotson
SMEA 521
December 7, 2011
Final Paper
Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled: Smart Growth, Intelligent
Transportation and Dumb Drivers
Highway transportation is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
worldwide, accounting for approximately 10% of global emissions (Greene and Schafer).
As a large, affluent country the United States has many cars and trucks on the road
traveling many miles in a given year. As a result highway transportation accounts for
over 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US and its contribution continues to grow
as more cars are on the road while fuel efficiency has largely leveled off (US EPA).
Governments have at their disposal many policy actions to address transportation
emissions and generally policies fall in to two distinct categories. The first focus for
controlling transportation emissions is reducing the emissions per vehicle mile traveled
(VMT). The second focus, and the one that will be discussed here, is reducing the number
of vehicle miles driven.
Because reducing VMT does not rely on one technology or strategy there is a
great deal of flexibility in policy actions to address the problem. As a result, governments
at all levels are well suited to take action in one form or another. Furthermore, few of the
policy choices for reducing VMT must be framed explicitly as climate change initiatives.
This characteristic can make VMT reduction policies more politically popular during a
time that climate change has become a nonstarter at the federal level. These two
characteristics strongly influence the types of policies that are considered and
implemented at different levels of government. Despite having technological and political
latitude in addressing VMT policy makers are limited by the fact that what ultimately
must be addressed is human behavior; often times seemingly dumb human behavior. This
is not to say that Americans are generally unintelligent, but rather that as a result of
historic patterns of development, fossil fuel abundance and affluence the United States is
locked in to an antiquated, carbon intensive transportation system. Americans are thus
accustomed to the freedom of diving alone in their car, and overcoming this inertia is not
always as simple as just providing an alternative form of transportation.
Thus, there is a significant behavior barrier that VMT reduction policies must
overcome. In the end each policy must shift the incentive structure a little bit more
toward leaving the car at home if American’s are ever to get over their infatuation with
automobiles. There are essentially four – admittedly somewhat overlapping –politically
feasible categories of strategies for reducing VMT: mandates, financial (incentives/
taxes), infrastructural and development based. The mix of strategies used at the different
levels of government is largely a reflection of the types of issues each government is
most suited to address.
Despite its significant influence over national transportation policy, with regard to
VMT reduction the United States Federal Government is limited in its effectiveness by
sheer size of the nation and its transportation network. It is difficult if not impossible to
effectively address inherently local issues such as development patterns and congestion
issues from three thousand miles away. Thus, as might be expected, the Federal
Government has largely focused on offering financial assistance to local and state
governmental entities in its efforts to reduce VMT. For example, in the 112th congress
Senate Bill 1769, the Rebuild America Jobs Act would provide grants for mass transit
construction and repair, high-speed rail and congestion reduction projects. House
Michael Tillotson
SMEA 521
December 7, 2011
Final Paper
Resolution 995, the Smart Technologies for Communities Act would provide funding for
would provide funding for intelligent transportation system (ITS) pilot projects. These
projects would be intended to demonstrate the emission, congestion, safety and financial
benefits of ITS. Notably, neither of these congressional actions was successful. However,
The Department of Transportation continues to provide significant funding to ITS, as
well as mass transit and high-speed rail through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. For example, Washington State received over $230 million for transit
projects and over $730 million for rail from ARRA (U.S. DOT).
State Government is ideally positioned for addressing transportation issues
including VMT reduction, a fact that is evident in the number and variety of actions
undertaken by the government of Washington State. Notably, Washington is the first state
with statutory benchmarks for VMT with reductions goals of 18%, 30% and 50% by
2020, 2035 and 2050, respectively (Ecology, RCW 47.01.440). While these goals are not
binding they reflect awareness of the issue and government willingness to evaluate other
policy actions. Washington has also used the mandate policy tool to require that all large
employers in the state enact a commute trip reduction plan, essentially placing the burden
on the employer to encourage carpooling, telecommuting and transit use. Washington
utilizes financial tools such as fuel taxes, tolls as well as grants for transit projects such as
Sound Transit’s Link light rail. The State Government’s involvement in transportation
infrastructure is not limited to just financing. Congestion reduction efforts including ITS
on the state’s major highways have been undertaken by the State government in addition
to heavy involvement in the planning efforts of Sound Transit and the adoption of RCW
46.37.470 which calls for the development of electric vehicle infrastructure along
Interstate 5 (Ecology). Finally, the State has been involved in altering development
patterns in such a way that reduces reliance on vehicles. Washington has revised its laws
in order to allow for the exchange of development rights from rural areas to urban areas
to promote compact development or “Smart Growth” (Ecology, RCW 43.362).
Additional provisions for streamlining the legal process for compact development have
been added to state law (Ecology, Chapter 153, Law of 2010).
As noted previously, in many ways transportation is a local issue, and
accordingly, cities such as Seattle have a significant role in addressing VMT reduction.
Similar to Washington State, Seattle has used a variety of policy actions to get people out
of their cars. The Seattle Department of Transportation has introduced incentive
programs such as “Way to Go Seattle” challenge residents to give up a car for a year
(SDOT). The Walk, Bike Ride initiative focuses on development of infrastructure as well
as incentives to make non-car transportation options more appealing through a suite of
bicycle, pedestrian, parking and transit projects. SDOT is also planning for the
introduction of an Intelligent Transportation System (ibid.). In addition to considerations
of transportation Seattle has focused on including Smart Growth in planning for
development. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan includes the goal of maintaining and
promoting the growth of “Urban Villages”. Development is encouraged in these dense
cores of commercial and residential activity such as Ballard, the University District and
Capitol Hill with the goal of developing rapid, reliable and efficient transit corridors
connecting the Urban Villages to Downtown (City of Seattle). Seattle has worked with
the Roosevelt neighborhood, the future location of a Link light rail stop in order to
Michael Tillotson
SMEA 521
December 7, 2011
Final Paper
modify zoning regulations to allow for very dense development around this future transit
hub while maintaining the character of the neighborhood (RNA).
Reducing vehicle miles travelled will be a challenge. While improvements in fuel
efficiency will aid in reducing the impact of each mile, American consumers will also
likely respond to lowered fuel expenses by driving more. Thus, continued efforts to
improve the availability, affordability and convenience of alternative modes of
transportation will be even more important in light of future efficiency improvements.
Federal, state and local governments each have advantages and disadvantages in enacting
policies that address VMT reduction. The Federal Government has traditionally funded
major transportation projects and has great ability to influence the choices states and
regions make in their transportation decision making. State governments are large enough
to be factors in regional transportation and also provide funding and guidance for local
actions. And local governments are most knowledgeable about on the ground conditions,
have influence over development patterns and are most likely to understand what types of
policy tools residents will respond favorably to. Each level has a role in the effort to
overcome the inertia that keeps Americans in their cars.
Sources Cited:
"Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - S.1769." THOMAS (Library of
Congress). Web. 02 Dec. 2011. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s1769:>.
"Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.995." THOMAS (Library of
Congress). Web. 02 Dec. 2011. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00995:>.
City of Seattle. "Urban Village Element." Seattle's Comprehensive Plan: Towards a Sustainable
Seattle. City of Seattle. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/static/Urban%20Village%20element_LatestReleased_DPD
P016169.pdf>.
Ecology. "Policy Framework (2005-2010) | Washington State Climate Policy Laws and
Executive Orders | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology."
Washington State Department of Ecology | Home Page | ECY WA DOE. Web. 04 Dec.
2011. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/laws.htm>.
Greene, David L., and Andreas Schafer. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Rep. Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
RNA. "Sensible Density." Roosevelt Neighborhood Seattle. Roosevelt Neighborhood
Association. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. <http://rooseveltseattle.org/default.aspx>.
SDOT. "Walk, Bike, Ride." Way to Go Seattle. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.seattle.gov/waytogo/>.
U.S. DOT. "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." United States Department of
Transportation Spending. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. <http://arra-gis.dot.gov/>.
US EPA. "2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas
Emissions | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>.