Reducing Energy Use through Transport Planning in the United States

Transportation leadership you can trust.

Reducing Energy Use through Transport Planning in the United States: Proven and Promising Practices

presented toIEA Experts’ Group on R&D Priority Setting and Evaluation

presented byChris Porter, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

23 May 2013

Overview

U.S. Context and Trends

Effectiveness of Energy/GHG Reduction Strategies

How do We Get There?

Research Needs

1

U.S. energy and climate change mitigation experience

National-scale assessment studies

» Moving Cooler, USDOT Report to Congress, National Renewable Energy Lab - Transportation Energy Futures

State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) GHG & energy inventories, mitigation plans, & tools

» Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Southern California, Northern New Jersey

2

Transportation declines slightly to about one-quarter of U.S. energy consumption

3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Energy consumption by sector, quadrillion BTU

TransportationIndustrialCommercialResidential

28%25%

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (Reference Case)

Transport energy use expected to hold steady, but modal contributions change

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Energy consumption, quadrillion BTU

Other (+5%)

Rail (+25%)

Shipping & boats (+25%)

Air (+14%)

Commercial trucks &buses (+45%)

Light-duty passengervehicles (-19%)

49%60%

20%29%

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (Reference Case)

9%

Rapid growth in freight truck activity expected

5

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Growth in Activity by Mode (index to 2010)

Commercial trucks &busesLight-duty passengervehiclesAir

Shipping & rail freight

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (Reference Case)

U.S. has low urban densities and high distance traveled

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 10 100 1 000

Population Density (Persons/Hectare)

Africa/Latin America

Asia

Canada/Oceania

Europe

Middle East

United States

Distance traveled, all modes (km/person/day)

Source: CS analysis of UITP Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport (2001)

U.S. has >2x distance traveled per capita compared to European countries

7

-

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

$1 000 $10 000 $100 000

Total Private Vehicle-KM/Capita

GDP/Capita

Africa/Latin America

Asia

Canada/Oceania

Europe

Middle East

United States

Source: CS analysis of UITP Millennium Cities Database for Sustainable Transport (2001)

VMT has stopped growing … will the trend last?

8

Source: Sundquist, E., State Smart Transportation Initiative, 2013

Total VMT (millions)

VMT per Capita

Urban development trends are changing –at least in some areas

9

Large metropolitan regions with the greatest increase in share of infill home construction

Source: U.S. EPA (2012), Residential Construction Trends in America’s Metropolitan Regions.

10

Effectiveness of Energy/GHG Reduction Strategies

Moving Cooler –GHG reduction potential of ~50 strategies

Travel Reduction

Pricing

Land use and smart growth

Nonmotorized transportation

Public transportation improvement

Regional ride-sharing, car-sharing and commuting

Regulatory strategies

System Efficiency

Operational and intelligent transportation systems (ITS)

Bottleneck relief and capacity expansion

Multimodal freight

11

Moving Cooler – sample results

Source: Moving Cooler, Prepared for Urban Land Institute by Cambridge Systematics, 2009

12

Total Surface Transportation Sector GHG Emissions (mmt)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

1990 & 2005 GHG Emissions – Combination of DOE AEO data and EPA GHG Inventory dataStudy Baseline – Annual 1.4% VMT growth combined with 1.9% growth in fuel economyAggressive – GHG emissions from bundle deployed at aggressive level without economy wide pricing measures

2005

1990

Study BaselineAggressiveEconomy-Wide Pricing

18%

35%

12%

30%

7%

19%

Northern New Jersey – 68% GHG reduction feasible by 2050

Source: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Plan developed by Cambridge Systematics for North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, 2012

13

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Reg

ion

Ann

ual m

mt

CO

2e (

TO

TAL) 2006 Base

Baseline - All Vehicles

Alternative Baseline -All Vehicles

Passenger Vehicles -Fuels & Technology

Commercial Vehicles- Fuels & Technology

VMT+SystemEfficiency Bundle

2050 Target

-34%

-53%

-62%

+2%

-68%

-80%

Combined impact of demand management/ efficient driving strategies could be 7-15%

Source: Effects of Travel Reduction and Efficient Driving on Transportation Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, prepared by Cambridge Systematics for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012

14

StrategyPercentage of On-Road Energy/GHG Reduction

Pricing

PAYD Insurance (Mandatory) 2.5%

VMT Fee – $0.02-$0.05/Mile 1.0%-2.5%

Congestion Pricing 0.5%-1.1%

Transit Improvements 0.4%-1.1% (2030); 0.6%-2.0% (2050)

Nonmotorized Improvements 0.3%-0.8%

Parking Management 0.3%

Work Site Trip Reduction/Employee Commute Options 0.2%-1.1%

Telework and Alternative Work Schedules 0.9%-1.1%

Ridesharing and Vanpooling 0.1%-2.0%

Carsharing 0.1%-0.2%

Educational and Marketing Campaigns 0.3%-0.5%+

Eco-Driving and Maintenance 1.1%-5.0%

Idle Reduction 0.1%-0.4%

Speed Limit Reduction/Enforcement 1.7%-2.7%

Combined Effects 7.0%-15.3%

Land use changes are key to long-term benefits

15

TRB Special Report 298

(2009)

Moving Cooler (2009)

Growing Cooler (2007)

2050 % new/re-development

41-55% 64% 67%

% of new devel. thatis “compact”

25-75% 43-90% 60-90%

VMT in compactdevelopment

5-25% lower 23% lower 30% lower

Urban light-duty VMTreduction

1-11% 2-13% 12-18%

Transportation GHG/ energy reduction

0.6 – 6.5% 2.0 – 3.4% 7 – 10%

Sources: TRB (2009); Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (2009); Ewing, et al (2007), as summarized in U.S. DOT Report to Congress: Transportation’s Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2010)

Another look at land use impacts

Source: Built Environment Analysis Tool developed by CS for National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012

16

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%Modest shift Moderate shift High shift

High shift (noped improv.)

Change in VMT vs. Baseline

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%Modest shift Moderate shift High shift

High shift (noped improv.)

Change in Energy Use vs. Baseline

2030 2050

Shift population from lower-density, single-use areas to higher-density, mixed-use areas (up to 15% in 2030, 30% in 2050)

Pedestrian environment improvements

Conclusions regarding transportation energy and GHG reduction potential in the U.S.

Recently-adopted fuel economy standards will reduce surface transport energy by over one-third by 2035, compared to a previously flat baseline

More aggressive vehicle and fuel technology strategies could reduce energy use by over half

Land use and travel demand/efficiencies provide smaller, but still important benefits

» Land use could achieve up to 10% reduction in VMT by 2050, 6% reduction in energy/GHG

» Other travel reduction/demand management could achieve 7-15% reduction collectively (surface transportation)

17

18

How do We Get There?

The U.S. planning context

19

• Vehicle and fuel standards and fuel pricing• Transport planning – procedural requirements,

funding, and technical assistance

• Transport investment priorities (non-metropolitan)• Roadway design standards• Freeway/arterial systems management• Roadway and fuel pricing

• Transport investment priorities (metropolitan)• Transit investment• Freeway/arterial systems management• Voluntary cooperation on land use, etc.

• Land use planning• Local transport investment priorities & design

standards• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

National (Federal)

State

Regional (MPO)

Local (City, County, Town)

Some energy reduction measures look familiar…

1. Improved public transit

2. HOV lanes

3. Employer-based transportation management

4. Trip-reduction ordinances

5. Traffic flow improvements

6. Park-and-ride

7. Auto-restricted zones

8. High-occupancy vehicle programs

9. Spatial or temporal restriction on motorized vehicle use of roads

10. Bicycle parking and lanes

11. Idle control programs

12. Extreme cold-start emissions control

13. Flexible work schedules

14. Programs to facilitate non-automobile travel

15. Non-motorized paths

16. Vehicle scrappage

20

“Transportation Control Measures” in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

… some are fairly new

Demand Management

VMT fees and congestion pricing

Pay-as-you-drive insurance

“Smart” parking management

Dynamic ridesharing

Car-sharing and bike-sharing programs

Real-time, multimodal travel information

Location-based marketing

System Efficiency

Eco-driving with real-time feedback

Dynamic eco-routing

Eco-adaptive traffic signals & corridor management

Low-emissions zones

21

Planning innovations – California’s SB 375

All metro areas required to set GHG reduction targets for passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035 (vs. 2005)

» Met through transport planning and land use strategies

» Target reductions of 5-8% in 2020, 10-15% in 2035 (larger areas)

» Achieve 2.8% of state’s GHG reduction goal for 2020 (5 MMT)

Required to adopt “Sustainable Communities Strategy” as part of Regional Transportation Plan

» Approval by state air agency = environmental review exemptions for certain types of development

» Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) – does not meet target

22

Planning innovations –regional visioning and scenario planning

23

Existing Conditions& Trends

Community Values

Vision & GoalsBusiness as Usual Scenario

Alternative Scenarios

Scenario ImpactsPerformance

Indicators

Regional VisionStrategy

Development

Regional Plan for Sustainable

Development

Multi-sectoral –transportation, land use, housing, economic development, environment

Extensive public and stakeholder involvement process

GIS-based data and technical tools to support indicator development

Planning innovations (example) –Sacramento Blueprint

Increased residential density, mixed-use areas, expanded transit

25% reduction in VMT, 15% reduction in CO2 from base case by 2050

24

Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Planning innovations –Transit-oriented development

Federal criteria for transit-supportive land use, plans & policies - required in assessment of new transit project funding since late 1990s

25

Source: Denver Regional Transit District

Source: C. Porter

Challenges to reducing transport energy use

Historically auto-oriented development patterns

Fragmented/multi-level decision-making environment

Strong private property rights ethic

No appetite for Federal requirements or for pricing of externalities

Gas is still cheap

26

Opportunities

Shifting demographic trends and lifestyle preferences

Changing economics

Interest and innovations in voluntary, regional-scale planning

“Leader” states stepping in where Federal government cannot

New technology to support travel efficiencies

27

Research Needs

Continued demonstration, deployment, and evaluation of new technologies to promote travel reduction/efficient driving

» Pricing (congestion, VMT, PAYD)

» Dynamic ridesharing

» Eco-driving & eco-system operations

» Real-time information

Strategy interactions – land use, transit, pricing, TDM

Long-term impacts of telework, teleshop, etc. (including location decisions)

Urban form – measures and impacts (economic, accessibility, etc.)

28