1. 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

2. 2 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)

3. C LIMATE S TABILIZATION G OALS R EQUIRE U S TO C ONSIDER ALL A SPECTS OF T RANSPORTATION AND U RBAN F ORM 1. Infrastructure – a. Urban b. 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 Use 3

4. 4 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?

5. 5 Source: Stern Review -

6. 6 F EDERAL L EGISLATION UNDER CONSIDERATION IN 2007

7. 7 S TATES AND R EGIONS ARE D EVELOPING P LANS TO R EDUCE C LIMATE C HANGE E MISSIONS 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

8. 8 8 8 CLIMATE ACTION PLANS IN THE UNITED STATES (2007)

9. 9 EXPERIENCE DEVELOPING TRANSPORTAION PORTIONS OF STATE CLIMATE ACTION PLANS 1. Arizona 2006 2. New Mexico2006 3. Montana2007 4. Colorado2007 5. Vermont2007 6. North Carolina2007 1. Iowa 2008 2. Michigan2008 3. Florida2008 4. Arkansas2008 5. Kansas2008

10. 10 G REENHOUSE G AS E MISSIONS R EDUCTION G OALS OF SOME WESTERN STATES State2020 or other Near Term Goal 2050 or other Long Term Goal Arizona2000 level50% below 2000 California1990 level80% below 2000 Colorado20% below 200580% below 2005 Montana1990 level80% below 1990 New Mexico10% below 200075% below 2000 Oregon10% below 199075% below 1990

11. 11 Western Regional Air Partnership Gross GHG Emissions By State Gross Consumption-based GHG Emissions by State: Historical and Projected

12. 12 W ESTERN R EGIONAL A IR P ARTNERSHIP P ER C APITA E MISSIONS (G ROSS )

13. T RANSPORTATION S ECTOR AS P ERCENTAGE OF T OTAL STATE GHG FORECAST E MISSIONS (2010) StateArizonaColoradoNew Mexico Montana Total GHG 1161327840 Transport GHG 4531189 Transport % of Total 39%23% 22% Note: GHG Emissions measured in MMtCO2E Source: Gallivan et al (2008) 13

14. W HAT D RIVES G ROWTH OF T RANSPORTATION S ECTOR GHG E MISSIONS ? 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

15. 15 W ESTERN S TATES P OPULATION G ROWTH

16. 16 W ESTERN S TATES E MPLOYMENT G ROWTH

17. 17 Western States Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)

18. 18 W ESTERN S TATES P ROJECTED T RANSPORTATION E MISSIONS

19. 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.

20. 20 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.

21. 21 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’.

22. E STIMATES OF GHG R EDUCTION P OTENTIAL FROM ULI R EPORT “G ROWING C OOLER ” (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

23. 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 CategoryMMtCO 2 eShare Vehicle Improvements38.939% Fuels Strategies6.26% Smart Growth and Transit26.726% Transportation System Efficiency12.312% Other17.017%

25. 25 NEW MEXICO PLAN (2006) TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS CategoryMMtCO 2 eShare Vehicle Improvements15.929% Fuels Strategies9.117% Smart Growth and Transit13.424% Transportation System Efficiency7.614% Other9.117%

26. 26 MONTANA PLAN (2007) TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS CategoryMMtCO 2 eShare Vehicle Improvements5.2274% Fuels Strategies0.395% Smart Growth and Transit0.7711% Transportation System Efficiency0.598% Other0.132%

27. 27 COLORADO PLAN (2007) TRANSPORTATION GHG REDUCTIONS CategoryMMtCO 2 eShare Vehicle Improvements18.834% Fuels Strategies16.129% Smart Growth and Transit7.5214% Transportation System Efficiency12.322% Other0.912%