WASHINGTON, D.C.—Despite current legislative efforts, thwarting serious environmental damage and possible climate change from greenhouse gas emissions will become impossible if automobile use continues to increase, according to some policy makers and experts speaking at a Capital Hill briefing on April 25.
"In the period 1980 to 2005, the growth in miles driven per person was three times faster than the growth in the population," said Dr. Reid Ewing, research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland.
While recent federal energy legislation is implementing new vehicle efficiencies and clean fuel standards, any gains from this new law are expected to be canceled out as Americans drive more miles each year.
EIA projects automobile and truck use, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to increase 48 percent by 2030. Air pollution caused by increases in VMT would outweigh any air pollution reductions expected from higher fuel-economy standards.
"One-third of U.S. [carbon dioxide] emissions are transportation induced, and so transportation is the source of much of the problem," said Steve Winkelman from the Center for Clean Air Policy.
The briefing was sponsored by the nonpartisan Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the Urban Land Institute.
A Possible Solution
Experts in the field say the solution may, at least partially, lie in changing the way we develop land and in eliminating urban sprawl—basically implementing compact development or what experts like to call "smart growth."
"Compare Portland, Oregon, with Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina," said Ewing. "They show very different development patterns, with Portland having higher density, policies restricting growth, no belt-way around the city, and the reliance on light rail … The result? 25 percent less VMT in Portland."
Ewing's insight comes from independent studies and simulations done on various towns and cities throughout the United States.
Studies have also found in well-planned subdivisions—such as Fairview Village east of Portland, Oregon, and Southern Village, four miles south of Chapel Hill, North Carolina—household VMT is 20 to 40 percent less than at households in comparable subdivisions.
Ewing's favorite example is Metro Square in midtown Sacramento, California. Ewing praised the design where any amenities were within walking distance: schools, supermarkets, convenience stores, and parks. The VMT is 50 percent less than comparable neighborhoods.
"Dozens of studies show that doubling the [population] density and increasing land use mixes reduces VMT 30 to 40 percent," said Ewing.
The book makes clear that it is not simply about building all high-rises and increasing population density. It's about building in ways for residents to get from one place to another without driving, incorporating good regional accessibility, mixing residential and commercial land uses, and using interconnected streets and human-scale design, according to information provided by ULI.
The Public Is Ready
Geoff Anderson made the case that the public is now ready to embrace smart growth. Mr. Anderson ran the smart growth program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency until three months ago when he became president and CEO of Smart Growth America.
His company partnered with the National Association of Realtors to conduct a survey that asked, "Where do people want to see development happening?"
"Eighty-one percent said they want re-development in older areas rather than building new suburbs," said Anderson. "Eighty-three percent said they want communities built where people can walk so that they use their cars less."
Not everyone prefers compact communities, admitted Anderson. "Some people want more compact cities, more opportunities for convenience and walk to their destinations. Other people don't want that."
The changing demography is also working in favor of more compact communities. In 2025, only 28 percent of households will have children compared to 48 percent in the 1960.
Anderson spoke of the "silver tsunami" where the increasing aging of the population is changing the demand for the "large lot, and large house in relatively inaccessible places."
"The market wants compact developments," said Anderson, and "is making money from them."
He cited Lakewood, Colorado, outside of Denver. Lakewood is now a "community" with a mix of housing and retail— "retrofitted" from a "giant box mall and a diamond parking lot." A bonus is that it serves as a town center for the surrounding area.
The number one motive for these developments was not trying to do something for the environment.
"The developers saw a market and wanted to make some money," said Anderson. "However, it is not automatic for such projects to succeed, as the obstacles to overcome are so large for creating this kind of development that you will likely fail."
"You have to be a very sophisticated developer to pursue these projects," said Anderson.
Feeds