
|
Dr. John Holtzclaw
Motor Vehicle Emissions
Scale of Impact
In 1987, highway fuel use, including diesel, in the U.S. contributed 309 million tons
of carbon as CO2, or 370 million tons for the full fuel production and use cycle, but not
including construction of roads or production of vehicles (OECD 1993, Table 8). These
comprise 22.4% and 26.9% of total U.S. fossil fuel emissions of CO2. Similarly, highway
fuel use contributed 802 million tons of carbon worldwide, or 955 million tons for the
full fuel production and use cycle. These comprise 13.7% and 16.4% of total fossil fuel
emissions of CO2.
The fraction of CO2 emitted by motor vehicle use is rising. Between 1986 and 1995,
personal vehicle fuel consumption rose 1.6%/year in the U.S., 1.9% in former West Germany,
2.5% in the U.K., 1.9% in France and 5.4% in Japan, with no indication of a decline in
growth, see Table 1 (Davis 1997, Table 1.10). These growths in fuel use resulted from
growths in personal vehicle passenger mile growths of 2.4%, 5.1%, 3.4%, 3.0%, and 4.9%,
respectively, in this same period (Davis 1997, Table 1.9).
Motor vehicles are also the single largest emitter of criteria pollutants. In the U.S.,
vehicles emit 60% of CO, 29% of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 31% of NOx (EPA 1998,
5-2). VOC and NOx are the precursors to the criteria pollutant ozone.
Reduction in the growth of vehicle miles traveled primarily will require changes in
behaviors rather than improvements in technology. This growth results from a higher
fraction of trips by private auto (mode) and longer trips. The challenge is to reduce the
length of most trips and to identify and implement strategies to encourage walking,
bicycling and transit use.
Causes
High levels of motor vehicle ownership and use are driven by sprawling land use
patterns which require long, dispersed trips, by poor public transit service (itself a
consequence of sprawl), and by subsidies to motor vehicle use.
Land use and public transit. In a survey of 32 major cities around the world,
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy (1989) found that the residents of American cities
consumed nearly twice as much gasoline per capita as Australians, nearly four times as
much as the more compact European cities and ten times that of three compact westernized
Asian cities, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo, see Figure 1. Gasoline use increased as
urban density decreased both within the subset of American cities and worldwide. Higher
densities shorten travel distances because increasing density increases the number of
nearby destinations. Higher density areas also tend to be mixed-use, that is they allow
markets, restaurants and services in residential areas while low density areas isolate
these into shopping centers.
Newman and Kenworthys data show that residents of the densest American urban
area, Manhattan, consume 1/7 as much gasoline per capita as the average American.
Using the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), Robert Dunphy and
Kimberly Fisher (1996) reported on the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of the
respondents, aggregating together households from around the country whose ZIP codes had
the same population density. Analysis of Dunphy and Fishers Table 4 shows a decrease
of 21% in daily driving every time population density doubles across the whole density
range. For the five ranges above 4000 persons/square mile (about 5 to 6
households/residential acre, a high suburban density) the decrease is 38% in daily driving
every time density doubles, explaining 86% of the variance.
Using odometer readings taken when private motor vehicle emissions are inspected, John
Holtzclaw, et al, analyzed all the 3000 travel analysis zones in the Chicago, Los Angeles
and San Francisco metropolitan areas. They found residential density to have the strongest
impact on household auto ownership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), giving R2 (amount of
variance explained) of 85% and 86%, respectively, in Chicago; 56% and 63% in Los Angeles;
and 63% and 63% in San Francisco.
Further, the detailed statistical analysis gave similar equations in all three
metropolitan areas. In Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 96%, 79% and 90%,
respectively, of the variance in vehicle ownership is explained by residential density,
per capita income, household size and public transit service. Similarly, 93%, 80% and 87%
of the variance in annual household VMT is explained by residential density, per capita
income, household size, transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness. Figure 1
shows the impact of residential density and public transit frequency on VMT in the San
Francisco area for families with the same income and household size, and living in
neighborhoods with the same pedestrian/bicycle friendliness. Public transit frequency is
the number of buses stopping within 1/4 mile of the average house in the zone, plus the
number of passenger railcars or ferries stopping within _ mile of the average house in the
zone.
Worldwide urban sprawl is lowering average residential densities, increasing auto
ownership and driving. John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996) chronicle these trends in
Europe and North America: since 1970 sprawl has grown and driving has increased faster
than population growth, while the fraction of trips by foot, bicycle or public transit is
down. Fast growing Asian, African and South American cities are following the same trends.
Sprawl is a problem which is increasing trip lengths even in U.S. urban areas where
growth is stagnant. The six-county Chicago metro area grew by only 4% between 1970 and
1990, for instance, while developed land grew 55%. Reversal of these trends is necessary
to reduce VMT growth.
Motor vehicle external costs. Americans external costs of driving (some
call this subsidies) equal $3.00 to $7.00 for every gallon of gas consumed, according to
six recent studies, see Table 2. Where do these external costs occur? Fuel taxes only pay
for highway construction, not for construction and maintenance of local streets and roads.
The external costs include the costs of local roads, policing and motorist protection not
paid for by the gas tax; "free" parking; uninsured accidents; noise; vibration
damage to structures; pollution damage to human health, crops and structures; global
warming; petroleum subsidies; policing the petroleum supply line, or wars in the Mid-East;
and congestion. Non-drivers subsidize driving when they pay income, sales, property and
other taxes used for parking, roads, health care and fighting wars. They subsidize drivers
through health or other costs of pollution, or when goods or services include free parking
or higher worker health care.
Even when drivers bear these costs as a group, they are non-marginal (individual
drivers do not pay in proportion to how much they drive), and so provide little incentive
for efficient travel (Litman 1998b). This is also inequitable, because it forces those who
drive less than average (who tend to be lower income) to subsidize the vehicle costs of
vehicle owners who drive more than average. Fixed internal costs of motor vehicles are an
equally significant problem. In particular, fixed vehicle insurance, registration fees,
free residential parking, and relatively poor residential vehicle rental options represent
"underpricing" that contributes about as much to vehicle overuse as do external
costs (Litman 1998b). It is also unfair because lower-mileage drivers end up subsidizing
the vehicle costs of high-mileage drivers. While it is true that public transit is also
subsidized, Miller and Moffet (1993) calculate that public transit external costs, or
subsidies, about equal private motor vehicle external costs per passenger mile. Since
private motor vehicle trips average 3 to 4 times longer than public transit trips, their
external costs per trip are 3 to 4 times higher than those for public transit.
Most countries have much higher priced gasoline than the U.S., primarily due to fuel
taxes. Stacey Davis (1997, Table 1.3) noted that in 1996 Americans paid an average of
$1.28/gallon, while Canadians paid $1.80, Germans paid $4.32, Britains paid $3.47, French
paid $4.41, Japanese paid $3.77, Indians paid $2.25 and Chinese paid $0.93. In addition
most countries have much higher taxes on automobile purchases and registration. John
Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996) report that European fuel taxes are 5 to 10 times
higher than U.S. taxes. They report that U.S. sales taxes range from 5 to 8% from state to
state while in Europe they range between 25% all the way up to 180% (Denmark). Countries
with fuel taxes above $3.00/gallon have substantially lower external costs of driving than
the U.S.
Freight. Energy use in movement of goods has soared due to increased distances
goods are shipped, and a shift from the more efficient to less efficient modes. Davis
(1997, Table 1.11) reports that total energy use in freight has increased significantly
since 1970, see Table 3. Davis (1997, Table 1.11) further reports that the energy use by
trucks doubled or nearly doubled in every country, while that by ships and rail decreased
in this time period for each country except by ships in Italy and U.K., and by rail in
Australia.
Pastowski (1997) suggests the following reasons for increased shipping distances.
First, shipping is superfluous (and probably resulting from advertising) when products
which are produced locally at comparable or better quality and lower prices are shipped
from long distances. Second, regulations, such as restricting regional specialties to
production within a certain region even thought they could be produced by the same recipe
elsewhere, and subsidies aimed at achieving other goals may increase shipping. Third,
economic integration which allows production to move to where labor costs are lower
increases shipping.
Residential Emissions
The residences of families living in dense urban areas require only a fraction of the
land and construction materials of single family dwellings, and use much less heating and
cooling energy and water. By definition, 1000 urban residences at 100 units/acre covers
only 3% as much land as 1000 single family dwellings at 3 units/acre. Removing the flora
from land for residential development reduces its ability to sequester carbon from the
atmosphere.
Michael Phillips and Robert Gnaizda (1980) compared a recently constructed middle class
single family tract in Davis with a middle class apartment house near downtown San
Francisco, they got the results in Table 4. The single-family home dwellers drove nearly 4
times as much. The run of the mill urban apartments use less than 1/5 as much heating fuel
as the state-of-the-art energy-efficient Davis single-family houses located in a somewhat
warmer climate. Sharing walls and floors/ceilings saves heat. Exposing less wall and roof
area to the sun reduces summer air conditioning loads. Residential and commercial heating,
cooling, lighting and motors consume 20 percent of our countrys oil. And the
single-family houses consumed 40 times as much arable land--farmlands, hillsides and
wetlands. And they required 5 times as much utility pipes. Each of these reductions in
resource consumption at the higher density reduces the production of global warming gases.
The second study, Table 5, is an extensive analysis of two models of suburban growth.
James Frank (1989) compared typical suburban single-family housing with suburban
"high rise apartments." However, at 30 units/acre, these "high rise
apartments" are actually less dense than many urban neighborhoods. Densities of 50 to
100 units/acre are common with 3 to 6 story apartments, and to 400 with occasional
high-rises and no front-yard setbacks. Since the study is of suburban "high rise
apartments" with little transit, much land set is aside for parking lots, driveways
and lawns. Even these modest densities save considerable materials when compared with
single family dwellings. The single family houses consume 4 times as much land for streets
and roads and 10 times as much for the houses themselves. The single family houses use
nearly 6 times as much metal and concrete. They cost 3 times as much to supply with
schools. Each of these reductions in resource consumption at the higher density reduces
the production of global warming gases.
Strategies for Reducing the Impacts on Global Warming
- Increase neighborhood convenience -- increase residential densities. Increasing
residential density reduces construction materials required and motor vehicle use; both
lower global warming gas emissions. Central cities and sprawling suburban areas can both
benefit from creating more convenient pedestrian- and transit-oriented neighborhoods. Most
central cities have brownfields and underused lands which are prime candidates for infill.
Most sprawling areas have ample parking lots and decaying shopping areas, especially along
major streets, which are candidates for infill development.
a. Eliminate front and side yard setback requirements in zoning ordinances.
b. Increase allowed building heights and floor-to-area ratios in zoning ordinances,
especially near public transit centers and along public transit corridors. Zone for and
encourage infill development on unused or underused land (empty lots, parking lots,
abandoned buildings, service stations and brownfields--abandoned industrial land). Promote
interesting diversity by including a variety of housing types, unit sizes, rents and
prices. Site new development near transit, stores and services.
c. Bring neighborhood residents together with planning officials to evaluate the
benefits of infill development, including walkable streets, nearby restaurants, stores,
services and better public transit, and to decide where and how infill should occur in
their neighborhood. Rezone based upon the results of these planning charettes. These
changes support infill housing developers.
d. Bring back downtown living. Encourage apartment and condo development downtown.
e. Replace off-street parking minimums with off-street parking maximums in zoning
ordinances, and severely restrict the ground coverage of any parking facilities.
f. Delink the purchase or rental of parking from the purchase or rental of apartments
or condos so households can buy or rent housing without parking.
g. Legalize second, or "in-law" units, especially in single family areas in
order to put basements, garages or unused rooms to use.
h. Provide adequate public parks and open space for nearby residents. Halt sprawl
development on the periphery by establishing urban growth boundaries.
i. Include an air quality element in each citys Comprehensive Plan.
j. Implement Location Efficient Mortgages. These allow households moving into dense,
transit-served neighborhoods to qualify for a larger mortgage based upon their expected
average saving from owning fewer cars and driving less than households moving into single
family areas. If the expected auto savings is $500 per month, the household should qualify
for a mortgage with $500 larger monthly housing payments. Location Efficient Mortgages are
being developed in Chicago and other American cities.
Cost-effectiveness. Since each of these measures facilitates the development of
more efficient cities, reducing land, construction, operating and transportation costs,
there is a profit rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- increase public transit funding and other rewards to transit systems with higher
passenger-trips per vehicle (not passenger-miles, which rewards long trips serving
sprawling areas).
- prohibit public agencies or utilities from passing the extra costs of serving sprawling
on to those in efficient areas.
- reward local governments for eliminating front- and side-yard setbacks, for increasing
building heights and floor-to-area ratios, for encouraging affordable housing
construction, legalizing second units, and for eliminating parking minimums, especially in
public transit corridors.
- reward local governments for allowing builders height bonuses in exchange for preserving
public open space and habitat, and for establishing tight, enforceable urban limit lines.
- give tax breaks and other rewards for development on brownfields, parking lots and
abandoned buildings.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
- mandate an air quality element in each citys Comprehensive Plan.
- facilitate Location Efficient Mortgages to allow home purchasers in dense areas to
qualify for larger loans based upon their predicted transportation savings.
- Zone residential areas to allow mixed uses. This would allow jobs, markets,
restaurants, video rentals and other neighborhood businesses in residential areas. In
denser areas many of these would be mom and pop markets on residential streets. In less
dense neighborhoods these businesses could be kept on major streets--but in the
neighborhood, not stuck off in a shopping center 5 miles away, accessible only by freeway.
Cost-effectiveness. Since this facilitates the development of more efficient
cities, reducing land, construction, operating and transportation costs, there is a profit
rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- reward local governments for facilitating mixed use developments, especially in public
transit corridors.
- give tax breaks and other rewards for mixed use developments.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
- facilitate construction funding and mortgages for mixed-use buildings.
- Create pedestrian-, bicycle- and transit-friendly walkways and streets.
a. Create an efficient pedestrian street grid not broken by dead ends, freeways, fences
or drainage ditches. The traditional rectilinear street grid, with short blocks, offers
many alternative paths, allowing the walker to explore different streets, find favorites,
and to link trips more easily. Winding streets, intersected by dead-ends and cul d
sacs require longer trips and allow no such variety.
b. Build sidewalks on both sides of all streets; with bus shelters, seating and other
sidewalk furniture; trees, awnings and weather protection; and fountains, interesting
store windows and other attractions.
c. Zone to locate building entrances near sidewalks so pedestrians need not walk
through a parking lot or tread a long path.
d. Calm traffic so it is safe and slow, with drivers alert for pedestrians and children
rather than intent on getting through the area speedily. Or at least protect sidewalks
from traffic and install frequent stop signs and lights to allow safe street crossing.
Traffic calming can help change the culture of neighborhoods and rekindle interest in
pedestrian friendly city living.
European cities have developed traffic calming--attractive street designs to alert
motorists that people are likely to be walking, biking or playing, and that it is
dangerous to drive hazardously (Zuckermann 1991). Sidewalks are widened and streets are
narrowed with on-street parking and plantings to create a sense of closeness and activity.
Cross-walk color and texture, perhaps brick or cobblestone, differs from that of the
roadway. Speed humps, speed brakes, rumble strips or other rough surfaces alert drivers
audibly as well as visually. Narrowing streets at the intersection or mid-block to single
lanes of traffic or off-setting lanes caution the driver to slow down and pay attention.
Stop signs, turn-movement prohibitions and posted speed limits slow traffic. Landscaping
and benches further convey the sense of people strolling and children playing. Some roads
are closed to divert or limit traffic. These neighborhoods convey a sense of being
somewhere, rather than a place to pass through. Since autos are given less land, more is
available for natural habitats, creeks and wildlife corridors.
Strictly limit highway capacity increases, and strategically reduce capacity in some
areas.
Cost-effectiveness. Since these measures facilitate the development of more
efficient cities, reducing land, maintenance, transportation and vehicle crash costs,
there is a profit rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- maximize transportation funding for construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities,
traffic calming.
- increase transportation funding to jurisdictions with the lowest VMT/capita, and with
the highest percentage of trips by foot, bicycle, etc.
- eliminate any prohibitions against local governments reducing traffic speeds or
installing speed-limitation devices.
- mandate provision of secure bicycle parking for employees and shoppers.
- reward local governments for eliminating front- and side-yard setbacks and for
eliminating parking minimums.
- give tax breaks and other rewards for development on brownfields, parking lots and
abandoned buildings.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
- include greenhouse gas emissions in the evaluations of Regional Transportation Plans.
- mandate an air quality element in each citys Comprehensive Plan.
- Improve public transit service. Provide transit-only right-of-ways and rail
service along major transit corridors and between major centers. Give public transit
vehicles stop-light overrides. Coordinate public transit routing, schedules and fares.
Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to public transit. The potential effectiveness of
these measures is shown in Table 6.
Cost-effectiveness. Improving public transit
reduces total transportation costs giving a profit rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- increase public transit capital and operating funding and other rewards to transit
systems with higher passenger-trips per vehicle (not passenger-miles, which rewards long
trips serving sprawling areas).
- increase transportation funding to jurisdictions with the lowest VMT/capita, and with
the highest percentage of trips by public transit.
- eliminate any prohibition against spending gas taxes for capital and operations of
public transit and for sidewalks.
- mandate public transit provision of bicycle access to vehicles and secure bicycle
parking.
- maximize transportation funding for construction of sidewalks, bicycle facilities,
traffic calming.
- eliminate any prohibitions against local governments reducing traffic speeds or
installing speed-limitation devices.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
- mandate an air quality element in each citys Comprehensive Plan.
Counteract the external costs of private motor vehicle use. Table 2 lists the
sources of subsidies to motor vehicle use in the U.S. While elimination of all the
subsidies has not been analyzed, the potential effectiveness of reductions in some of
them, along with land use changes, public transit and traffic improvements, is shown in
Table 6.
Todd Litman (1998a) suggests a package of win-win strategies that would cumulatively
reduce driving by 35% to 60%:
Remove federal subsidies to oil production. These include Petroleum Research and
Development program funding, deductions on drilling costs and on oil wells, and royalty
waivers on deep-water offshore drilling leases.
Make employer provided transit benefits tax exempt. (Canada). Current Canadian
federal tax policy allows most automobile commuters to receive untaxed free parking, while
employer provided transit passes are fully taxed. Eliminating this bias increases transit
commuting 5-20% among employees offered this benefit.
State/Provincial. Distance based vehicle insurance and registration fees. Basing
vehicle insurance and registration fees on distance traveled provides a significant
financial incentive to reduce driving, and makes insurance premiums more fair and
affordable. It would decrease vehicle travel by approximately 10%, reduce crash rates by a
greater amount, increase equity, and save consumers money.
Least-cost (or "integrated") transportation planning and funding.
Least-cost planning means that programs to reduce demand are considered equally with
programs to increase capacity, that all significant impacts are considered, and that the
public is involved in developing and evaluating alternatives. This ensures that demand
management strategies receive appropriate consideration and investment.
Local and regional transportation demand management (TDM) programs. TDM programs
include a wide variety of services, including rideshare matching, transit improvements,
bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements, parking management, and promotion. These can
provide significant financial savings to governments, businesses and consumers, as well as
environmental benefits.
More flexible zoning requirements. Parking requirements are often inflexible and
over-generous. Local governments can reduce parking requirements for businesses that have
travel management programs, or that are located in areas with good transit service. This
gives employees and businesses more choices, and reduces vehicle use.
Parking "Cash Out". "Cashing out" means that employees who
receive free parking are also offered a cash alternative if they commute by other modes.
This typically reduces driving by 10-30%, and increases equity by giving non-drivers a
benefit comparable in value to what drivers receive.
Transportation Management Associations. Transportation management associations
provide services such as rideshare matching, transit information, and parking coordination
in a commercial district or mall. This allows even small businesses to participate in
commute trip reduction programs, and achieves more efficient use of resources.
School trip management. Ten to fifteen percent of peak period vehicle trips
involve parents driving children to school. School trip management programs encourage
travel alternatives for these trips. This gives families more choices, encourages
exercise, and reduces rush hour driving.
Car sharing. Car sharing businesses and cooperatives allow clients to use motor
vehicles by the hour or day, without high fixed ownership costs. This provides a strong
financial incentive to use alternative modes when possible. Drivers who join such
organizations typically reduce their vehicle use by 50%.
Cost-effectiveness. These measures transfer costs from external (paid by the
general public) to payment directly by the user while reducing total transportation costs;
there is a profit rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- calculate and publicize the external costs (subsidies) to motor vehicle use.
- eliminate federal subsidies to oil production.
- equalize the tax treatment between employer-provided parking, transit subsidies and
parking cash-out.
- mandate that all employees offered free or subsidized parking be offered parking
cash-out.
- enact distance based vehicle insurance and registration fees, and smog fees and increase
gas taxes high enough to build and maintain local roads and provide fire, ambulance and
police services to motorists.
- increase transportation funding to jurisdictions with the lowest VMT/capita, and with
the highest percentage of trips by foot, bicycle, etc.
- facilitate implementation of transportation demand management and school trip management
programs.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
- Freight. Pastowski (1997) suggest two strategies for reducing the shipping of
goods and energy use in freight.
Dematerialization:
- frugality.
- share the use of products.
- increase products durability so they last longer.
- reduce the mass of materials used in products.
- design products to enhance manufacturing and recycling of components and materials.
Cost-effectiveness. These measures would reduce consumption and transportation
costs resulting in a profit rather than a cost of implementation.
Federal and state actions to promote implementation:
- calculate and publicize the external costs (subsidies) to motor vehicle use.
- eliminate federal subsidies to oil production.
- enact distance based vehicle insurance and registration fees, and smog fees and increase
gas taxes high enough to build and maintain local roads and provide fire, ambulance and
police services to motorists.
- mandate manufacturers to build products so that a high percentage can be reused and
recycled.
- mandate broad and informed public participation in transportation and land use planning
by requiring public agencies to supply adequate modeling and description of impacts,
design charettes, etc.
Traffic Calming Successes
Europe
Europeans have adopted "home zones," where traffic is slowed by lower posted
speed limits and by traffic calming--redesign of the streets. The Dutch home zone design,
called a 'woonerf', involves complete road resurfacing to create a level highway with no
separate footway (the translation of 'woonerf' is 'living yard'). The Netherlands has had
"woonerf" streets for 25 years, and now has 6,500, so Dutch highway authorities
are adopting other strategies, including the use of 20 mph as a standard speed limit in
residential areas. But local people in the Netherlands can still press for home zone
status. Meanwhile home zones are being actively promoted by the German government. Austria
brought in similar legislation in 1983 and Denmark in 1978. The street sign - showing a
walker, a house, a child with a ball and a distant car - is internationally recognized.
North America
Traffic calming and 4-way stop signs reduce vehicle crashes and save lives (Insurance
Institute 1998). From 1978 to 1992, replacing more than 400 signal lights in Philadelphia
with four-way stop signs at mainly low volume intersections involving one-way streets
reduced crashes 24 percent. Converting intersections with two-way stop signs into four-way
stops reduced crashes by 40 to 60 percent and injury crashes by 50 to 80 percent. Closing
Vancouver, Canada streets, designating one-way streets, installing stop signs and
expanding sidewalks to make streets narrower reduced crash frequency an average 40 percent
and insurance claims by 38 percent.
The United Kingdoms New Transportation Policy
Exerpts from New Scientist editorial of 25 July 1998
Already the Road Traffic Reduction Act, passed this month, encourages local councils to
cut traffic in their areas. Prescotts new measures will beef up this rather vaguely
worded law. Councils will be able to reduce traffic by charging motorists, and any money
they raise this way will have to be spent on alternatives to car travel. In making this
link, Prescott has won an important battle. The Treasury, like finance ministries
everywhere, jealously defends its control over how public funds are spent. But this time
it has had to give way, and allow taxes to be earmarked for a specific purpose.
Thats good news. But it is a pity that Prescott could not go one step further,
and tax parking spaces provided for supermarket shoppers as well as those for companies'
staff.
Exerpts From the Policy White Paper
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: A New Deal for Transport:
Better for Everyone
Developing an integrated transport policy represents a major shift in direction. We
don't just want to stop traffic problems getting worse, we actually want to make things
better for people and goods on the move' John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, 1997
Making it easier to walk
Our New Deal for transport will make walking a more viable, attractive and safe
option. Strategies to make it easier to get around locally by walking will be included in
the local transport plans that we will introduce.
We will expect local authorities to give more priority to walking by:
* reallocating road space to pedestrians, for example through wider pavements and
pedestrianisation;
* providing more direct and convenient routes for walking;
* improving footpath maintenance and cleanliness;
* providing more pedestrian crossings, where pedestrians want to cross;
* reducing waiting times for pedestrians at traffic signals and giving them priority in
the allocation of time at junctions where this supports more walking;
* dealing with those characteristics of traffic that deter people from walking;
* introducing traffic calming measures near schools, in 'home zones' and in selected
country lanes;
* using their planning powers to ensure that the land use mix, layout and design of
development is safe, attractive and convenient for walking.
Living town centres
Thriving town centres are the focus of urban life. They are central to sustainable
development because they are easily accessible by a choice of transport. Good public
transport is essential and so, too, is the quality of environment. People want
well-planned town centres where they can live, enjoy shopping, working and local culture.
Too often, town centres have been sacrificed to busy roads: the New Deal for transport
will give priority to people over traffic.
Despite initial misgivings from some local traders, pedestrianisation schemes have
proved very popular. We will also encourage local authorities to consider traffic calming
and the reallocation of road space to promote walking and cycling and to give priority to
public transport.
Quality residential environments
We want towns and cities to be places where people want to live. The New Deal for
transport will support the urban renaissance that is essential to revitalise urban living
and save our countryside from urban sprawl.
In part, this means people being able to go about their daily business without being
intimidated by traffic. Better planning can contribute to achieving better and safer
residential environments by influencing the design and layout of new developments. Traffic
can be calmed from the outset by designing for low speeds. Sometimes new developments can
be designed to be 'car free'.
In established residential areas we want to see the creative use of traffic management
tools. We want local authorities to make greater use of the wide range of techniques now
available that allow traffic calming to be introduced cost-effectively and with
sensitivity to the environment. This will include more extensive use of '20 mph zones'. In
these zones, the frequency of accidents has been reduced by about 60% and accidents
involving children have fallen by 67%.
'Home zones' have been developed in a number of European countries and involve even
lower traffic speeds, more pedestrianised areas and design features that emphasise the
change in priority to pedestrians and cyclists. They could prove to be a valuable tool in
improving the places where people live and children play.
Table 1. 1985-95 Average Annual Driving and Fuel
Consumption Increases |
|
Personal vehicle passenger miles |
Personal vehicle fuel consumption |
United States |
2.4 %/year |
1.6 %/year |
Germany |
5.1 %/year |
1.9 %/year |
United Kingdom |
3.4 %/year |
2.5 %/year |
France |
3.0 %/year |
1.9 %/year |
Japan |
4.9 %/year |
5.4 %/year |
Source: Davis, S. 1997. Transportation Energy Data Book
17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, ORNL-6919. |
Table 2. Subsidies to Motor Vehicle Use in America
|
X$/gal gas diesel |
Annual Tot ($bil) |
Ketcham & Komanoff |
5.53 |
730 |
Litman |
4.99 |
659 |
MacKenzie, Dower & Chen |
3.03 |
400 |
Miller & Moffet |
2.86 - 5.00 |
378 - 660 |
Office of Technology Assessment |
3.39 - 6.81 |
447 - 899 |
OTA - incl non-monetary personal costs (primarily own accid.
& travel time) |
11.17 - 16.11 |
1,475 - 2,127 |
Delucchi |
3.13 - 7.55 |
413 - 997 |
References
Delucchi, M. Spring 1996. Total Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use. Access.
Ketcham, B. & Komanoff, C. 1992. Win-Win Transportation: A No-Losers
Approach To Financing Transport in New York City and the Region. New York: KEA (270
Lafayette #400, New York 10012
Litman, T. 1998. Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates
and Implications. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute (1250 Rudlin
Street,, V8V 3R7).
MacKenzie, J., Dower, R. & Chen, D. 1992. The Going Rate: What It Really
Costs To Drive. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Miller, P. & Moffet, J. 1993. The Price of Mobility. San
Francisco: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1994. Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation.
Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, OTA-ETI-589.
Conversions
20 mpg average fuel consumption
132 109 gal/yr U.S. gasoline & diesel consumption - all road vehicles
[106 109 gal/yr - autos & lt. tr.]
S. Davis & S. Strang, Transportation Energy Data Book 13, ORNL-6743, 1993,
Table 2.7
189 106 cars, trucks & buses in U.S. Davis & Strang
Sources of Subsidies
1. Police, fire, ambulance; road construction & maintenance; other local gov't
2. Property taxes lost from land cleared for freeways
3. Parking
4. Air, water, land pollution
5. Noise, vibration damage to structures
6. Global warming
7. Petroleum supply line policing, security, petroleum production subsidies
8. Trade deficit, infrastructure deficit
9. Sprawl, loss of transportation options
10. Uncompensated auto accidents
11. Congestion John Holtzclaw
Table 3. Freight energy use in selected countries, 1970-93. (trillion Btu)
|
1970 |
1993 |
Japan |
803 |
1569 |
France |
367 (1975) |
590 |
Italy |
192 |
502 (1991) |
United Kingdom |
346 |
477 |
West Germany |
305 |
434 |
United States |
3164 |
5923 |
Australia |
175 (1975) |
261 |
Adapted from Davis 1997, Table 1.11.
Table 4. Construction and use requirements for urban apartments and single family
dwellings.
Resources |
City Apartments |
Village Houses |
Ratio |
Copper pipe |
2,000 ft |
10,000 ft |
5 |
Arable land |
5,000 sq.ft |
200,000 sq.ft |
40 |
Roadway |
1,000 sq.yds. |
15,000 sq.yds. |
15 |
Concrete |
17,000 cu.yds. |
9,000 cu.yds. |
_ |
Lumber |
25,000 board ft |
1,200,000 board ft. |
50 |
Utility pipe |
450 ft. |
2,500 ft. |
5 |
Maintenance
Daily postal delivery |
10 ft. |
3,000 ft. |
300 |
Landscaping water |
500 gals/day |
35,000 gals/day |
70 |
Heating |
5,000 BTU/day |
27,000 BTU/day |
5 |
Individual auto |
25,000 miles/month |
90,000 miles/mo |
4 |
Phillips, M. and Gnaizda, R. Summer 1980. New Age Doctrine is Out to Lunch on Three
Issues. CoEvolution Quarterly.
Table 5. Construction costs for suburban apartments and single family dwellings. (1987
$)
|
Single family (3 units/acre) suburban location |
Moderate density condos (30 units/acre) suburban
location |
Ratio |
Streets and roads |
7,083 $/unit |
1,843 $/unit |
4 |
Utilities (metal and concrete) |
11,388 $/unit |
1,997 $/unit |
6 |
Schools |
12,313 $/unit |
3,786 $/unit |
3 |
Utilities (metal and |
11,388 $/unit |
1,997 $/unit |
6 |
Frank, J. 1989. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns. Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute. Table 8.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
|
S F |
L A |
D C |
N Y C |
EPA |
Market Based |
|
|
|
|
|
$2/gallon gasoline tax |
-10.3% |
|
|
|
|
$1/gallon gasoline tax |
-4.5% |
|
|
|
|
8¢/mile smog fee |
-8.3% |
|
|
|
|
Smog based registration fee |
|
-0.4% |
-0.4% |
-1.4% |
|
$3/day employee parking |
-1.5% |
-1.5% |
|
|
|
Employee parking cash-out |
|
|
-3.0% |
-1.9% |
|
$2/day vanpool/carpool incentives |
-0.3% |
|
|
|
|
1¢/minute non work parking |
4.9% |
3.5% |
2.1% |
3.9% |
|
15¢/mile average congestion pricing |
|
-5.0% |
|
|
|
Automated congestion-priced toll lanes |
|
|
-2.0% |
-4.5% |
|
Increased bridge tolls |
-2.4% |
|
|
-1.2% |
|
50¢/gallon pay-at-the-pump insurance |
|
|
-1.9% |
-1.9% |
|
Employee trip reduction ordinance |
-2.5% |
|
-1.3% |
-.4% |
|
|
S F |
L A |
D C |
N Y C |
EPA |
Land Use |
|
|
|
|
|
Mixed-use infill, growth management |
|
|
-2.7% |
-2.7% |
|
Zoning changes for density near transit |
-.1% |
|
|
|
-0.2% |
|
S F |
L A |
D C |
N Y C |
EPA |
Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit |
|
|
|
|
|
Pedestrian/bicycle access improvements |
-.1% |
|
|
-1.3% |
-0.03% |
Traffic calming, ped/bike improvements |
|
|
-2.7% |
-3.4% |
|
Prohibiting thru traffic in selected centers |
|
|
-.5% |
-1.9% |
|
Expanded transit, ped/bike access |
|
|
-2.1% |
|
|
Expanded rail service |
-.5% |
|
|
-1.9% |
|
Double transit service |
-1.7% |
|
|
|
-0.15% |
Expanded paratransit |
|
|
-1.2% |
-2.6% |
|
Deregulate private transit |
|
-1.8% |
|
|
|
Free transit |
-1.9% |
|
|
|
|
Discounted universal transit pass (employer subsidized) |
|
|
-1.8% |
-2.0% |
(-10.0%) |
Transit information systems |
|
|
-1.1% |
-2.9% |
|
Public education - alternate modes |
|
|
-1.0% |
-1.6% |
|
|
S F |
L A |
D C |
N Y C |
EPA |
Traffic Improvements |
|
|
|
|
|
Carpool/express bus (HOV) lanes |
-.8% |
|
-.4% |
-.5% |
|
Park & ride lots |
|
|
-.1% |
-.1% |
|
Freeway incident management |
+.1% |
|
+.6% |
+1.6% |
|
Signal timing, intersection flow |
|
|
+.3% |
+1.0% |
|
|
S F |
L A |
D C |
N Y C |
EPA |
Telephone Based |
|
|
|
|
|
Telecommuting |
|
|
-.1% |
-1.3% |
-0.35% |
Smart communities: teleshopping & telelogistics |
|
-1.5% |
-.8% |
|
|
References
SF: Harvey, G. 1989. TCM Task Force. Oakland CA: Metropolitan Transportation
Commission.
LA: Cameron, M. 1991. Transportation Efficiency: Tackling Southern California's Air
Pollution and Congestion. Oakland CA: Environmental Defense Fund. Table 3.
DC: Replogle, M. 1993. Transportation Management Strategies For the Washington DC
Region. Washington DC: Environmental Defense Fund, 7 (year 2000).
NYC: Tri-State Transportation Campaign. 1994. Citizens Action Plan, A 21st Century
Transportation System. New York City. 66 (year 2007).
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Transportation Partners 1997
Annual Report. Table 4-1.
John Holtzclaw
Figure 1. The predicted impact of households per residential acre and public transit
density on vehicle miles traveled per household.
References
Davis, S. 1997. Transportation Energy Data Book 17. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Energy. ORNL-6919.
Delucchi, M. Spring 1996. Total Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use. Access. 7-13.
Dunphy, R. and Fisher, K. November 1996. Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New
Insights. Transportation Research Record No. 1552. Washington DC: Transportation
Research Board. 89-96.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Transportation Partners 1997 Annual Report.
Holtzclaw, J., Clear, R., Dittmar, H., Goldstein, D. and Haas, P. Location Efficiency:
Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Driving ;
Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. manuscript submitted for journal
publication.
Insurance Institute. 1998. Special Issue: Urban Crashes. Vol. 33, No. 4, May 2,
1998.
Ketcham, B., & Komanoff, C. 1992. Win-Win Transportation: A No-Losers Approach
To Financing Transport in New York City and the Region. New York: Komanoff Energy
Associates.
Litman, T. 1998a. Transportation Cost Analysis; Techniques, Estimates and
Implication.Victoria BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Litman, T. 1998b. Socially Optimal Transport Pricing and Markets. Victoria BC:
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
MacKenzie, J., Dower, R. & Chen, D. 1992. The Going Rate: What It Really Costs
To Drive. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Miller, P., and Moffet, J. 1993. The Price of Mobility. San Francisco: Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Newman, P., and Kenworthy, J. 1989. Cities and Automobile Dependence: An
International Sourcebook. Aldershot UK: Gower Publishing.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1994. Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation.
Washington DC: U.S. Congress. OTA-ETI-589.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1993. Choosing an
Alternative Transportation Fuel: Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.
Pastowski, A. 1997. Decoupling Economic Development and Freight for Reducing its
Negative Impacts. Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy. Paper # 78.
Phillips, M., and Gnaizda, R. Summer 1980. New Age Doctrine is Out to Lunch on Three
Issues.
CoEvolution Quarterly.
Pucher, J., and Lefèvre, C. 1996. The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North
America. London: Macmillan Press.
Real Estate Research Corporation. l974. The Costs of Sprawl. Washington DC.
Zuckermann, W. 1991. End of the Road. Post Mills VT: Chelsea Green.
Up to Top | Printer-friendly version of this page |