1 / 20

Briefing, U.S. Senate August 31, 2009 Transportation Research Board

DRIVING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: THE FFECTS OF COMPACT DEVELOPMENT ON MOTORIZED TRAVEL, ENERGY USE, AND CO 2 EMISSIONS. Briefing, U.S. Senate August 31, 2009 Transportation Research Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. IMPETUS FOR STUDY and SPONSOR.

jin-chen
Download Presentation

Briefing, U.S. Senate August 31, 2009 Transportation Research Board

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DRIVING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: THE FFECTS OF COMPACT DEVELOPMENT ON MOTORIZED TRAVEL, ENERGY USE, AND CO2 EMISSIONS Briefing, U.S. Senate August 31, 2009 Transportation Research Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

  2. IMPETUS FOR STUDY and SPONSOR • Requested in Section 1827, Energy Policy Act of 2005 • Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy in 2007

  3. STUDY CHARGE and SCOPE Charge: To examine the relationship between land development patterns and motor vehicle travel in the U.S. and assess whether petroleum use and CO2 emissions could be reduced by changes in development design. Focus: Metropolitan areas and personal travel

  4. NRC STUDY COMMITTEE PROCESS • Formation of committee • Committee deliberation • Preparation of draft report • Independent review of report • Report publication and dissemination

  5. Committee on the Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy Consumption José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, Chair, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Marlon G. Boarnet, University of California, Irvine Dianne R. Brake, PlanSmart NJ, Trenton Robert B. Cervero, University of California, Berkeley Andrew Cotugno, Metro, Portland, Oregon Anthony Downs, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Susan Hanson, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Kara M. Kockelman, The University of Texas at Austin Patricia L. Mokhtarian, University of California, Davis Rolf J. Pendall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Danilo J. Santini, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois Frank Southworth, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

  6. KEY CONCEPTS COMPACT, MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: Land use patterns that increase the density, mix of uses, contiguity, connectedness, and pedestrian orientation of development Location matters – high residential density in the middle of nowhere yields few benefits Compact, mixed-use development ≠ multifamily housing only– small-lot, single-family development can yield benefits

  7. STUDY APPROACH • Literature review • Five commissioned papers • Informational briefings • Scenario development to quantify effects

  8. FINDINGS Finding 1:More compact development patterns are likely to reduce VMT.

  9. FINDINGS (cont’d) Finding 2:The most reliable studies estimate that doubling residential density across a metropolitan area might lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.

  10. FINDINGS (cont’d) Finding 3:More compact, mixed-use development can produce reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions both directly and indirectly.

  11. FINDINGS (cont’d) Finding 4:Significant increases in more compact, mixed-use development result in only modest short-term reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions, but these reductions will grow over time.

  12. SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS

  13. Finding 4 (cont’d) Bottom Line Estimate: Reduction in VMT, Energy Use, and CO2 emissions from more compact, mixed-use development in the range of <1 % to 11 % by 2050. Committee disagreed about plausibility of extent of compact development and policies needed to achieve high end estimates.

  14. FINDINGS (cont’d) Finding 5:Promoting more compact, mixed use development on a large scale will require overcoming numerous obstacles.

  15. FINDINGS (cont’d) Finding 6:Changes in development patterns entail other benefits and costs that have not been quantified in this study.

  16. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Policies that support more compact, mixed-use development and reinforce its ability to reduce VMT, energy use, and CO2 emissions should be encouraged.

  17. RECOMMENDATIONS (cont’d) Recommendation 2: More carefully designed studies of the effects of land use patterns and the form and location of more compact, mixed-use development on VMT, energy use, and CO2 emissions are needed to implement compact development more effectively.

  18. HOW TO ACCESS THE REPORT Report, report summary, and commissioned papers are available at http://www.TRB.org/Publications/Public/Blurbs/162093.aspx QUESTIONS?

More Related