Bioeconomy & transportation advisory group
Quantification Methods and Key Assumptions
Download 359.93 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Additional Benefits and Costs
- Feasibility Issues
- Policy Design
- Implementation Mechanisms
Quantification Methods and Key Assumptions:Methods are described above, as are key assumptions. Key Assumptions: List/describe Key UncertaintiesProvision of transportation choices requires sound development policy (BT 2.3) for success. If government continues to mandate car-based development patterns through lot size, parking requirements, and other means, then provision of transit may have little effect on GHG emissions. Additional Benefits and Costs
Feasibility IssuesNone cited. Status of Group ApprovalPending Level of Group SupportTBD Barriers to ConsensusTBD BT-2.3 Transportation Infrastructure and Planning Policy DescriptionEven if carbon content of fuels and vehicle efficiency improve, high and increasing transportation demand could negate any climate benefit and make it impossible to reach the MGA’s reduction goals. BT-2.1 addresses mechanisms to rein in single occupancy vehicle (SOV) VMT through fair pricing, and BT-2.2 addresses mode options. Here we address a root cause of VMT growth – transportation infrastructure and related elements of the built environment. Over the course of a generation, per capita vehicle-miles traveled have nearly doubled, from 5,500 miles a year to about 10,000 (Fig. 1). Little of this growth has resulted from the shift from transit to cars, as that shift occurred in the immediate post-World War II era. Rather, often due to government policy, people have made more and/or longer trips to get to work, school, shopping, and other destinations. Figure 1. VMT per capita, U.S., 1970-2008 (FHWA, Census Bureau). 
The deployment of mono-modal transportation infrastructure has spurred this growth, in part through “induced travel.” As new and wider highways reduced the time cost of travel, people consumed more of it, by moving farther from work and other common destinations or by locating their businesses further from customers’ or employees’ homes or from suppliers’ warehouses. Exacerbating the trend, government enacted a host of rules that spurred even more travel – rules that moved schools from population centers to the distant greenfields, for example, and those that banned stores and workplaces from locating near customers’ homes, and those that required more parking than the market required, thus spreading out buildings so that the landscape became unwalkable and difficult to serve with transit. These practices are costly not only in terms of CO2 emissions but also in economic terms. A population and an economy dependent on long car trips is hostage to disruption and lowered living standards from rising fuel prices. The massive roadway infrastructure that supports so much driving requires ever-more money for upkeep. Gas tax revenue is falling compared with the need, and in many states, roads have become a major drain on property tax revenues. Practices that can reduce the disutility of travel, by lowering the frequency and length of trips, will benefit both private and public budgets. The first state to mandate VMT reduction is Washington, whose H.B. 2815 was enacted in 2008, and the goals described here are based on that legislation. Policy DesignGoals: Reduce the number, frequency, and distance of trips made by driving, with the goal of a return to the per capita rate of driving of the early 1980’s. Progress to be measured as a reduction of VMT per capita by 40% from a 2005 baseline by 2050, with incremental goals for intervening years. States’ transportation funding formulas, home rule, and other legal and policy traditions vary, so implementation mechanisms will vary as well, and this policy is purposefully general to allow for local adaptation and innovation. But the goal, which represents a return to traffic levels of the 1980s, is reachable. At the individual project level, research shows drastic reductions in transportation demand by allowing the market to provide compact, mixed use development, and by turning from highway building to provision of complete streets suitable for driving, walking, biking, and transit. As an example of the effects of one particular strategy, Table 1 shows VMT reductions from infill development projects as opposed to BAU. Table 1. VMT reductions from various infill projects (CCAP). 
Timing: The policy has the following incremental benchmarks for VMT reduction: 15 percent reduction in per capita VMT by 2020, 28 percent by 2035, and 40 percent by 2050. Parties Involved: State and local government, primarily DOTs, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and local transportation agencies, and commissions with oversight of development. Other: Implementation MechanismsStates should adopt VMT reduction goals described above. They should strive to reach the goals by exerting their own authority over major transportation infrastructure decisions, and by providing incentives and technical assistance to MPOs and local governments. They should make VMT reduction an explicit purpose and goal of the state DOT, and require the DOT to make annual reports on progress toward the goal, with recommendations for needed policy changes. Specifically, states should choose implementation strategies from a menu that includes:
Download 359.93 Kb. Share with your friends:
|