Transportation and the 5Ds

Reid Ewing Department of City and Metropolitan Planning

University of Utah

U.S. Focus

I am not xenophobic

Chapter 3

Fuels Vehicles

Transportation

CO2

VMT

Aggressive Case: 50 mpg in 2030 & -20% Fuel GHG

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

2005 =

100%

Source: S. Winkelman based on EIA AEO 2008 (revised), HR6,

stock model calculat ions and sources cited in Growing Cooler .

CO2

2030 New

50 MPG

Fuel GHG:

-20%

VMT

CO2

Target

1990

Chapter 4

Main Question Addressed

What reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is possible in the United States with compact development rather than continuing urban sprawl?

Aggregate Travel Studies

35% Less VMT with Compact Development

14.7

21.5 22.020.3

22.9

19.9

15.2

26.3

33.2

28.9 29.2

33.4

28.9

22.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

New

Yor

k, N

Y

Provide

nce,

RI

San F

ranc

isco

, CA

Hon

olulu, H

I

Bosto

n, M

A

Portla

nd, O

R

New

Orle

ans, L

A

Dallas-

Fort

Wor

th-,

TX

Knoxv

ille, T

N

Gre

enville

--Spa

rtanb

urg,

SC

Atlant

a, G

A

Raleigh

--Dur

ham

, NC

Gre

ensb

oro-

-Winston

-Salem

, NC

River

side

--San

Ber

nard

ino, C

A

VM

T p

er

Cap

ita

Disaggregate Travel Studies

5Ds of Compact Development

Destination Accessibility Distance

to Transit

Density

Diversity

Design Mobility

Accessibility

Livability

Density

Boardings vs. Residential Density

Boardings vs. Employment Density

TOD Densities

33 Units per Acre (gross)

Diversity

Seamless Pattern

Design

Bethesda – Index of 1.49

Interconnected and Varied Spaces

Design Details

Pedestrian-Friendly Design

Once More for Emphasis

Effect of Density

Effect of Diversity

Effect of Design

The Fourth D

Regional Accessibility

Most Complete System

The Fifth D

Distance to Transit

At Both Ends

Classic Density Gradient

The Sixth D

Parking

Parking Prices vs. Transit Share

Clear Relationship

Limited Parking

Meta-Analysis

Ewing, R., Cervero, R.: Travel and the built environment: a meta-

analysis. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76(3), 265–294 (2010)

Answer to 1st Question

20-40% VMT Reduction for Each

Increment of Compact

Development

Doing the Math through 2050

60-90% Compact

x

67% New Development

x

30% VMT Reduction

=

12-18% Reduction in Metropolitan VMT

Add Smart Growth -15% VMT

2030 CO2 is 14% below 1990

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

2005 =

100%

Source: S. Winkelman based on EIA AEO 2008 (revised), HR6,

stock model calculat ions and sources cited in Growing Cooler .

CO2

VMT:

-15%

CO2

Target

1990

2030 New

50 MPG

Fuel GHG:

-20%

Chapter 8

The Combined Effect of Compact

Development, Transportation

Investments, and Road Pricing

Urban VMT Reduction

Elasticities of

VMT with

Respect to Policy

Variables

Change in Annual

Growth Rates of

Policy Variables (%

above/below Trend)

Effect on Annual

VMT Growth

Rate (% below

Trend)

Population

density –0.30 1 –7.7%

Highway lane

miles 0.55 –1 –11.4%

Transit

revenue

miles –0.06 2.5 –4.6%

Real fuel

price –0.17 2.7 –14.4%

Compact Development

+ Transit

+ Road Pricing

- Highway Expansion

= 38% VMT reduction by 2030

Portland Case Study

Specifically in Climate Action

In 2001, with

Multnomah County

created the Local

Action Plan on Global

Warming

In 1993, became first U.S. city to adopt a Carbon Dioxide Reduction Strategy

Local Action Plan on Global Warming 2001

10% reduction in carbon emissions below 1990

by 2010

150 items on “To Do” list in six focus areas

Policy Research and Education

Energy Efficiency and Green Building

Transportation, Telecommunications, and Access

Renewable Energy Resources

Waste Reduction and Recycling

Forestry and Carbon Offsets

Outside Land Use and Transportation

Compared to the U.S.

Challenge

Waste

disposal

1%

Industry

16%

Commercial

buildings

24%

Homes

20%

Transportation

39%

Multnomah County CO2 Emissions (2007)

17.419.3 18.5

13.2

6.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mil

es

1990 1995 2007 2030 2050

Daily VMT per person (private vehicles)

“Even the Portland version of business-as-usual won’t cut it.”

Michael Armstrong

Senior Sustainability Manager

Land Use and Mobility

VMT Growth

0

5

10

15

20

25

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

VM

T p

er

cap

ita

Portland OR-WA Raleigh-Durham NC

Regional Growth Management

Policy Tools

2040 Plan

Urban Growth Boundary

Density Targets (10/8/6)

Multifamily Targets

Transportation Investments

Open Space Acquisition

Planning Scenarios

Comparing the Concepts

Adopted Concept

2040 Regional Growth Concept (1995)

UGB and Transit

Urban Growth Boundary

Portland vs. Raleigh

Density Targets/Multifamily Targets

Transportation Investments

Open Space Acquisition

Transit and Transit-Oriented Development

LRT Lines

TOD Map

Centers

Streetcar Loop

Pedestrian- and Bike-Friendly Design

Streetscape Improvements

Complete Streets

"Wait Here." One of Portland's new bike boxes

(Courtesy of www.BikePortland.org).

Regional Bicycle Network

Bicycle Commute Mode Split 1990

…and 1990 mode splits

(by census tract)

With 1990 bikeway network...

0 - 2%

2 - 3%

3 - 5%

5 - 8%

8 - 10%

10+%

Bike Commute Mode Split

Bicycle Commute Mode Split 2000

With 2000 bikeway network…

…and 2000 mode splits

0 - 2%

2 - 3%

3 - 5%

5 - 8%

8 - 10%

10+%

Bike Commute Mode Split

Skinny Streets

Traffic Calming

It is a Choice

“The task of holding global emissions constant would be out of reach, were it not for the fact that

all the driving and flying in 2056 will be in vehicles not yet designed, most of the buildings that will be around then are not yet built, the locations of many

of the communities that will contain these buildings and determine their inhabitants’

commuting patterns have not yet been chosen”

Socolow and Pacala 2006