Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

More People, Less Driving: The Imperative Of Curbing Sprawl


By Ryan Avent

Experience with case studies has made it clear to many urban planners and environmentalists that to maximize the benefits of transit investments, and to slow growth in traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and carbon emissions, you have to focus on land use.

This knowledge has begun working its way into the policymaking world, to the extent that local and state legislatures are beginning to craft rules that explicitly factor the carbon impact of land use effects into decisions about new development and infrastructure construction. In a few years time, the federal government may follow.

But there's not as much in the way of hard studies of the effects of land use as we might like -- mainly because it's been a non-issue, so far as most of the country is concerned, for much of recent history.

Aiming to address this (and acting under a congressional mandate), the Transportation Research Board recently completed a study that has now resulted in a very large report: "Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO Emissions."

The report is actually five mini-papers, and at nearly 200 pages long it makes for a lot of reading. But the findings reported in the introduction give an idea of what it's all about.

The authors conclude that compact development is likely to reduce VMT: "The effects of compact, mixed-use development on VMT are likely to be enhanced when this strategy is combined with other policy measures that make alternatives to driving relatively more convenient and affordable." No surprises there.

Finding No. 2 is: "The literature suggests 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."

They note that were you to move the residents of Atlanta to an area built like Boston, you'd lower the Atlantans' VMT per household by perhaps 25 percent.

Better land use results in reductions in energy use and carbon emissions, the authors report, from both direct and indirect causes. (Direct causes would be a reduction in VMT; indirect include things like longer vehicle lifetimes from reduced use and the greater efficiency of smaller or multi-family housing units.)

But one of the crucial pieces of data included in the report is this:

As many as 57 million new housing units are projected to accommodate population growth and replacement housing needs by 2030, growing to between 62 and 105 million units by 2050 - a substantial net addition to the housing stock of 105.2 million in 2000.

Critics of smart growth efforts or rail and transit investments often wave off the potential gains from building differently by noting that so much of the current housing stock is of the sprawling, single-family home, auto-oriented sort. Convincing the people who currently live in such places to give that up for something different, they say, is sure to be an extremely difficult sell.

But that's not the issue. No one is suggesting we rip down all of suburbia. Rather we, or at least I, am pointing out that between now and mid-century, the country will very nearly have to build itself all over again to accommodate population growth. In addition to the 100 million homes now in America, somewhere between 62 and 105 million more will be built.

The critical question is what the balance of that new construction will look like. The TRB report suggests that if 75 percent of this new construction is of a more compact variety, that emissions could be reduced 10 percent or more from the baseline scenario (and that is not taking into consideration the deployment of cleaner electricity generation and other potential sources of savings).

Ed Glaeser argued -- and this is kind of hard to believe -- that land use shifts from building high-speed rail between Dallas and Houston would not provide much in the way of benefits, since, he guessed, only 100,000 or so people in each city would move from the suburbs to the central city. But this entirely misses the point.

Houston and Dallas may each double their current housing stock between now and 2050. Where are those homes going to go, with what climate impacts? That's the critical question.

Demographic shifts and changes in energy prices are sure to encourage some households that are currently living at low densities to move to more compact developments, and that's a good thing. But that's not the main reason to begin focusing on the significant available savings from smarter land use decisions.

The main reason is the growth that America will continue to face. It's difficult to imagine that the nation can double its housing stock while building in a sprawling fashion without facing major environmental costs and economic difficulties. Land use patterns will need to change. And as this report documents, there will be considerable advantages to facilitating that change.

Related posts in the Worldchanging archives:
Image Of The Day: Walkable Communities
Is 'The Old Economy of Car Dependence' Over?
My Other Car Is A Bright Green City

This piece originally appeared on Streetsblog NYC.

Photo credit: Flickr/Daquella Manera, Creative Commons License.

Bookmark and Share


Comments

I have to say I was disappointed with the report. In trying to be realistic, they set the bar very low. For example, in Atlanta "doubling density" would reducing median lot size from 0.58 acres to 0.29 acres. They basically said most of the country wouldn't accept the type of planning that's been fairly successful in Arlington, VA, and Portland, OR.


Posted by: Joshua Daniel Franklin on 5 Sep 09

Well, not all people are 'city people', if I had to live in a density of more than 1 person/5 acres with all the stupid invasive rules, I'd call it prison and 'shoot' someone. Cities are Hell.


Posted by: need space joe on 5 Sep 09

I need my private 'junk yard' of parts cars and materials, my building code free developemental affordable buildings, windmills, solar collectors, mandan earthship house, humanure compost bins, biodigester, organic garden. cloths line, orchard, woodlot, wood and metal shops and garage. I need my 5 acre 'thoreau' 250 sq. foot abode, to make a living, without anyone having the right to say my lifestyle quirks loud music or grinder disturbs the peace, and necessities are prohibited. I well understand that people rob peter to pay paul separating livelihood pollution from home lifestyle, I just don't like the iherently corrupt and narrow interested city laws where people are all in each other's ways. In short I need my space that addresses most of my needs, if your urban planning tries to force me into a dense prison, people will suffer needlessly. Lower the population. Rowanda went genocidal when dencity hit 7/8s acre/capita, cities are known for crime, feel free to make them work better maybe people will go there by choice. I did when I was young poor and a student, to a prairie town of 40,000. I grew up in suburban, NYC burb 1/3 acre hell to me btw. Don't even try to force me urban. Lower the population to a sustainable 4 billion on the planet by attrision or it will happen by force/disease/etc.


Posted by: need space joe on 5 Sep 09

I need my private 'junk yard' of parts cars and materials, my building code free developemental affordable buildings, windmills, solar collectors, mandan earthship house, humanure compost bins, biodigester, organic garden. cloths line, orchard, woodlot, wood and metal shops and garage. I need my 5 acre 'thoreau' 250 sq. foot abode, to make a living, without anyone having the right to say my lifestyle quirks loud music or grinder disturbs the peace, and necessities are prohibited. I well understand that people rob peter to pay paul separating livelihood pollution from home lifestyle, I just don't like the iherently corrupt and narrow interested city laws where people are all in each other's ways. In short I need my space that addresses most of my needs, if your urban planning tries to force me into a dense prison, people will suffer needlessly. Lower the population. Rowanda went genocidal when dencity hit 7/8s acre/capita, cities are known for crime, feel free to make them work better maybe people will go there by choice. I did when I was young poor and a student, to a prairie town of 40,000. I grew up in suburban, NYC burb 1/3 acre hell to me btw. Don't even try to force me urban. Lower the population to a sustainable 4 billion on the planet by attrision or it will happen by force/disease/etc.


Posted by: need space joe on 5 Sep 09

Not a big deal... THIS IS CALLED URBAN LIVING. This has been known to urban planners for decades and, unless you're already spoiled by sub-urban living and enjoying more space than perhaps we should (if we expect little eco-affect) it's really not that difficult to deal with. Cities are efficient and suburbs have fueled the oil and auto industry - we know this.


Posted by: KeyboardCowboy on 8 Sep 09

Post A Comment

Please note that comments will remain open for only 14 days after the article is posted. While previous comments will remain visible, attempts to post new comments after this period will fail. This helps stop comment spam, so your forebearance is appreciated.

The Worldchanging comments are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the comment being deleted and a likely ban from commenting. We will also delete at will and without warning comments we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it. In short, we'll kill troll posts.

Finally, please note that comments which simply repost copyrighted works or commercial messages will be summarily deleted.

REMEMBER PERSONAL INFO?
Yes No

NAME


EMAIL ADDRESS


URL


COMMENTS



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg