Northwest Hub: More Density Could Reduce Vehicle Travel, Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions

PostGlobe

By Laura Kaliebe

Northwest Hub

The Transportation Research Board (TRB), a division of the National Research Council, today released the report "Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use and CO2 Emissions." Requested by Congress and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the report examines the relationship between land use development patterns and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the U.S. to assess whether petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) could be reduced by changes to population and employment density.

The Findings

The report found that increasing population and employment density in metropolitan areas could reduce vehicle travel, energy use and CO2 emsisions from between 1 percent and 11 percent in 2050, compared to a base case for household vehicle usage.

Even though 80 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas, according to the report, population and employment are increasingly decentralized.

Save and Share this article

Permalink

Tags: + add tags

this new report illustrates the depth of the problem
The generation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the global atmosphere is a cumulative problem. Every ton of GHG generated from this day forward adds to the problem of global warming. A 1% to 11% reduction in USA vehicle emissions out in the 2050 future -- coming from compact development and less driving -- is a trivial, miniscule improvement compared to the magnitude of the global climate change problem. Taken seriously, solving the climate change problem means reducing human-caused GHG emissions to zero for all people on earth living in all levels of developmental densities. This is what's needed if the growing proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is to be eventually leveled off. In the case of cars, this means we need a 100% reduction in all vehicle CO2 emissions to keep cars from contributing to the global atmospheric GHG problem. Zero-emission electric vehicles are possible, backed up by electric generation processes that are zero-emission. The key line in the new TRB report vis a vis vehicles is on page 108 of the report: "To the extent that energy use and CO2 emissions are more of an issue than VMT [vehicle miles traveled], plausible improvements in vehicle fuel economy will generate significantly larger and more rapid improvements than increases in compact, mixed-use development."
Comment by John Niles September 02, 2009	( 0 votes) ( report abuse ) ( reply )

compact development
I come from a culture where the privately owned vehicle was only used by the very opulent. When I came to this (my new) country, I was confronted with an astounding reliance on the POV such that even teenagers had them. The cities here were very sparsely populated with not very many large apartment blocks (except for very large cities). In the old country the cities were quite densely laid out, and we walked to get food, to school, to church. Even though I own a car now, and use it sparingly, I feel wasteful when I drive it. If my new country would adopt a denser layout, intensely discourage the POV, and continue developing the green technology for housing, we could take a real bite out of GHG emissions. Density provides the opportunity for more efficient distribution of food, supplies, and provision of services. While we are at it, we should look at transporting food as short a distance as possible. If we could do these things, our contribution to climate change would be minimized. Plus, once there is density, there is opportunity for vibrant communities which means less travel to work and recreational activities.
Comment by Alysse 12 months ago	( 0 votes) ( report abuse ) ( reply )

density and transport need to be carefully balanced
I think there are serious limitations to density increases in many cities - perhaps the burbs are another story. I recently moved out of NYC for a new job and we totally miss the vibrant communities of nyc and brooklyn (one of the largest, highest density cities in the USA) to a suburb in long island. We have trains and buses, but virtually everyone drives for errands even if they dont drive to work. Density in the cities has to be carefully balanced with community services, transportation options, commercial districts, employment, etc. Many mistakes have been made in places like Coney Island and Far Rockaway that suffer from high density, and poor access, even though both are served by MTA trains and busses - but they are so far form employment / service centers, and the concentration of low-income housing has destroyed these communities. These are both near beaches, so my hope is that sometime in the future the towering prisons owned by NYCHA can be replaced with modern sustainable facilities taking advantage of the abundant renewables on the coast. Additionally, planners need to focus on middle-class residents, with smaller balances of high and low incomes. Density increases work well in cities that already have access to mass transit - but many communities are just out of reach, underserved or pooly planned.
Comment by mosesnbklyn 12 months ago	( 0 votes) ( report abuse ) ( reply )