Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...

Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Volume 2
Scenario planning studies using travel forecasting models have estimated that land use
changes, combined with supportive transit investments, could reduce metropolitan VMT
by a median of 16 percent below forecast levels over a 40-year time horizon (Rodier 2009),
which is in the same range as the Growing Cooler results. Because land use change occurs
slowly over time, the impact over a shorter timeframe will be proportionately less; the
Rodier study found a median VMT reduction of 8 percent over a 20-year time horizon.
Again applying this result to the AEO reference case, the estimated emission reduction
would be 75 mmt CO2e in 2030. The potential benefits depend upon the projected growth
in the region, aggressiveness of assumed land use and transit changes, as well as the
forecasting model’s capabilities and specific methodological assumptions. Forty-year
VMT reductions in the Rodier review ranged from a low of 3 percent to a high of
28 percent across all studies.
Cost-Effectiveness
Land use planning and infrastructure planning activities will incur administrative costs for
the development and implementation of incentives, regulations, etc. Based on a review of
past and ongoing regional and Statewide planning efforts, the Moving Cooler study
estimated the costs of a regional visioning and scenario planning effort (planning activities
only) to be on the order of $1 million per year in a large metropolitan area or on a
Statewide level. Extrapolating to all metropolitan areas and also allowing for municipal
code revision, the total planning costs could be on the order of $500 million per year
nationwide. It is likely that these costs would need to be sustained over at least a decade,
with some additional ongoing costs to support plan implementation. These costs are
relatively minor compared to the GHG reductions, and the cost-effectiveness of land use
planning, considering administrative costs alone, has been estimated to be in the less than
$10 per ton of GHG reduced, considering cumulative costs and GHG reductions over the
2010-2050 period. Considering vehicle operating cost savings, a net savings in the range of
-$700 to -$800 is estimated (Cambridge Systematics, 2009).
The calculations cited above did not incorporate other cost savings such as reduced
infrastructure expenditures, which are potentially significant, but also subject to a high
range of uncertainty. There is good evidence that more compact development can lead to
significant savings in infrastructure costs through reductions in the length of local roads
and utility connections that must be provided. Burchell (2005) finds a potential 11 percent
nationwide reduction in local road and water/sewer costs from a future scenario
emphasizing compact development over sprawl, or $126 billion over the 2000-2025
timeframe. Scenario planning studies in locations such as Sacramento, Salt Lake City, and
Charlottesville, Virginia, have also shown a significant reduction in regional road
investment needs because of reduced traffic, although these savings are partially offset by
the need for increased transit investment. For example, Envision Utah (2000) found that a
regional “quality growth scenario” would add $1.5 billion over 20 years in transit costs, but
save $2.6 billion in regional road costs, for a net savings of $1.2 billion. Additional
subregional infrastructure cost savings—including roads, water, and other utilities—
would total $3.3 billion or 26 percent. The savings will accrue both to State and regional
governments (for regional infrastructure) and to local governments, developers, and
consumers (for local infrastructure). However, some public-sector costs will increase—
5-66