Public Attitudes toward Integrated Urban Design & Transport Strategies to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Kris Wernstedt* and Aurash Khawarzad Associate Professor, Urban Affairs & Planning Virginia Tech University, Alexandria, Virginia USA (krisw@vt.edu)
Salzburg Congress on Urban Planning and Development Schloss Leopoldskron, Salzburg, Austria May 16, 2008

thanks to

Randolph, John and Gilbert M. Masters. 2008: Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Global Warming: Annual Mean Global Temperature, 1880-2007: 14 of warmest since 1880 in past 18 years

Focus on Three Issues

Energy Use in Transportation
1/3 of US energy use today 2/3 of US oil use 32% of carbon emissions

Land Use Patterns

consumptive, dispersed, auto-dependent homogeneous, segregated uses among housing, shopping, office/business parks, large civic institutions roadways heavily dependent on collector roads

Energy Use in Buildings

1/2 of US energy use today 40% of carbon emissions

Growing Demand for Energy

World Energy Consumption
500 450 400 350 Quadrillion BTU 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

2005: 468 Q

U.S. EIA Estimate of Global Oil Peak based on USGS mean ultimate recovery (sharp peak postpones peak but would be fatal to the economy)
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1900
High Prices Can Affect Demand 4.1% Decline 1979-1983 USGS Estimates of Ultimate Recovery Ultimate Recovery Probability BBls ---------------------------Low (95 %) 2,248 Mean (expected value) 3,003 High (5 %) 3,896

2016

Billion Barrels per Year

2% Growth & Decline

History Mean

7.8% Growth 1963-1973

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

2075

2100

2125

The End of Cheap Oil

Oil Reserves

The Good News: Improved Efficiency of U.S. and (World) Economy

Energy Intensity in the United States 1949 - 2005
25.0

(Energy/$GDP)

20.0

If intensity dropped at pre-1973 rate of 0.4%/year

thousand Btu/$ (in $2000)

15.0

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1%/year)

10.0

5.0

0.0 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Art Rosenfeld

1/3 from building efficiency, 1/3 vehicle efficiency, 1/3 structural change in economy
Energy Consumption in the United States 1949 - 2005
200

$700 Billion in Savings since 1973:

175

$ 1.7 Trillion

Avoided Supply = 70 Quads in 2005

150

125

Quads

If E/GDP had dropped 0.4% per year

100

$ 1.0 Trillion New Physical Supply = 25 Q

75

Actual (E/GDP drops 2.1% per year)

50

25

0 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Art Rosenfeld

U.S. Energy Use by Sector

Industry flat, others growing

Personal vehicles: our oil fix

Congestion

Transportation Energy Trends

U.S. Transportation
25% of total energy, 1975 28% of total energy, 2005

Transportation consumption of oil

68% of U.S. oil consumption 55% of world oil consumption 96% of transportation energy comes from oil

Contributions to air quality

32% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 82% of carbon monoxide emissions 56% of nitrogen oxides 42% of volatile organic compounds

More Transportation Trends

What if the oil-intensive U.S. patterns of transportation, dominated by personal vehicles, are adopted by developing countries?
implication for oil markets, GHG emissions, and urban air pollution? about 800 million vehicles in the world today China and India each now has middle class population exceeding the total U.S. population. vehicles could grow to 3.25 billion by 2050

Transportation energy consumption data

includes operating energy to fuel transport of people and materials does not include the embodied energy required for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure of roads, parking lots, airports, and rail, with its energy intensive concrete, asphalt, and steel.

Growth of U.S. Vehicles per 1000 People, 1900-2002, with 2002 values for selected countries and regions.

U.S. Transportation Energy by Mode, 2004

U.S. Passenger Travel Intensity, 2004

Nexus with Land Use

Loss of Farmland

WASHINGTON D.C.

Development Patterns through:

1900

CH ES AP EA KE

BA Y

BALTIMORE CITY

Development Patterns through:

1910

Development Patterns through:

1920

Development Patterns through:

1930

Development Patterns through:

1940

Development Patterns through:

1950

Development Patterns through:

1960

Development Patterns through:

1970

Development Patterns through:

1980

Development Patterns through:

1990

Development Patterns through:

1997

Development Patterns:

1900 - 1960

Development Patterns:

1961 - 1997

Development Patterns:

1900 - 1997

Costly Infrastructure

BALTIMORE CITY
BA Y

WASHINGTON D.C.

Highway & Development Patterns through:

1900

CH ES AP EA KE

Highway & Development Patterns through:

1940

Highway & Development Patterns through:

1960

Highway & Development Patterns through:

1997

development in areas of existing infrastructure, and deemphasizes development in areas without Smart Growth infrastructure or less suitable
Healthy By doing so, Smart Growth Communities supports and enhances existing communities preserves natural and agricultural areas saves the cost of infrastructure reduces VMT

emphasizes

Smart Growth

Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

King Farm, Rockville, MD

Portland

The Urban Turnaround

Simmons and Lang, 2001

The Coming Demand?

Myers and Gearin, 2001

TOD Green mortgages Smart School siting Municipal Parking programs Infill/BF Aggressive Smart Growth Commuter incentives Comp. Smart Growth POD Pay as you drive insurance Transit improvements Bicycle incentives Light Rail Road pricing

20-30% 15-50% 15-50% 15-30% 10-50% 5-30% 5-25% 3-20% 1-10% 1-10% 0.5%/1% freq. 1-5% 1-2% 1-3%

LEED System

Changes in the Built Environment

Nelson 2004

Regional Differences in the Built Environment

Nelson 2004

Growth-Related 1000s of New Housing Units, 2000-2030 (top 10 metro areas)

2,000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 Lo s Ange le s Wa s hingto nB a ltim o re Ne w Yo rk Da lla s -F o rt Wo rth P ho e nix S a n F ra nc is c o Ho us to n Atla nta C hic a go M ia m i

Nelson 2004

Fastest Growing Metro Areas to 2030, % New Housing Units

A Problem!!

Nelson 2004

Replacement 1000s of New Housing Units, 2000-2030 (top 10 metro areas)

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
New York Los Angeles Washi ngtonBaltimore Chicago San Francisco Detroit Dallas-Fort Philadelphia Worth Houston Boston

Nelson 2004

Replaced Housing Units (2000-2030) and Current % Use of Transit

Metro Area
New York Los Angeles Washington, DC Chicago San Francisco Detroit Dallas Philadelphia Houston Boston Miami Atlanta Seattle Phoenix Cleveland Tampa Minneapolis Denver San Diego St. Louis Portland Pittsburgh Cincinnati

Rank#Units
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Rank%Transit
1 13 5 3 2 41 35 6 26 4 19 22 7 17 24 32 14 11 9 33 8 10 28

Metro Area
Sacramento Orlando Kansas City Norfolk Las Vegas Milwaukee Indianapolis Charlotte Columbus San Antonio West Palm Beach New Orleans Greensboro Nashville Austin Raleigh Jacksonville Oklahoma City Salt Lake City Memphis Louisville Grand Rapids Hartford

Rank#Units
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Rank%Transit
15 34 39 25 16 18 40 44 31 23 29 12 46 42 20 27 37 43 21 45 36 38 30

Changes in Washington DC-Baltimore Metropolitan Area Built Environment

2000-2030
# of housing units
2,500,000 300,000,000

square meters office space

Total Increase Housing Units

2,000,000

New Housing Units Replacement Housing Units

250,000,000

Total Increase Office Space New Office Space

200,000,000 1,500,000 150,000,000 1,000,000 100,000,000

Replacement Office Space

500,000 50,000,000

Turn Around of the Washington DC Metropolitan Areas Office Market (1950-2006)

90% + 50%
50% 45% 40%

46% 40% 33%

38%

Office Market Share

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

23%

Jan-50

Jan-94

1995-2004

Jan-05

2005

2006

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

Source: The Brookings Institution and RCLCo, using Co-Star primary data

METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM

Washington as the Model Green Line as the New For the EarlythestFavored Red Line as 21 Century Metropolitan Growth Quarter Expands

Suburban Town: Bethesda, MD

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM

Suburban Transit-Oriented: Ballston Arlington, VA

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM

Public Policies to Address Energy, Transportation, Land Use, and Climate Change Problems
advance sustainable energy technologies encourage private provision of more
efficient land use patterns (density) energy conservation (greener buildings) carbon friendly choices for consumers and communities (transit, mixed use)

promote institutional innovations (alternative solo vehicle trips)

Our Focus: Consumer Preferences Regarding

height of residential structures ground floor use of residential structures private transportation options closeness to public transit energy costs based on stated-preference survey of consumers

Assessing Preferences
strongly agree height of structure ground floor private transportation closeness to transit energy costs height of structure somewhat agree neutral somewhat disagree strongly disagree

Ranking Preferences
height of structure ground floor of structure private transportation closeness to public transit energy costs

Ranking Preferences
height of structure
3 floors 5 floors 10 floors

ground floor of structure

grocery, retail, or restaurant office space

private transportation
parking space subsidized zipcar

closeness to public transit

400 meters 3000 meters

energy costs
1000 euros 2000 euros

Choice Experiments
Attribute
height of structure

Levels
3 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing) 5 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing) 10 floors (ground floor plus 2 floors of housing) office space grocery, retail shopping, or restaurant space 1 parking space for each unit, included in unit purchase no parking space but zip car available with 250 free hours year $1,000/year $1,500/year $2,000/year mile 2 miles

ground floor private transportation annual energy costs

distance to transit

Combinatorial Problem
5 attributes
3 attributes with two levels 2 attributes with three levels

lots of permutation
72 possible combinations 2,556 possible pairwise comparisons of these 72 combinations

used 32 sets of comparisons

each set has 6 pairwise comparisons no respondent gets duplicated pairwise comparison in principle each set of comparisons seen by 7 respondents

Choice 1. Consider the following alternative scenarios A and B. Policy Conditions A B Height of Structure 10 floors 3 floors

Ground Floor

Office

grocery, retail, restaurant

Private Transportation

no off-street parking for own car but zip car w/ 250 free hours/year

no off-street parking for own car but zip car w/ 250 free hours/year

Annual Energy Cost

$1,500/year

$1,500/year

Nearest Metro Rail Stop

1/4 mile

2 miles

Which of these alternatives do you find more attractive? ____ A ____ B

Washington DC Area Residents Responses to Date

28 April, 2008

VARIABLE
female household income greater than $60,000/year household income greater than $100,000 college or post-graduate degree owner of housing unit living in detached single family housing unit living in apartment living in condominium living in structure with more than 2 floors choiceleft, the lefthand policy package is chosen choiceright, the righthand policy package is chosen *based on 217 respondents (some questions yielded fewer responses)

% sample 56 76 45 83 52 29 27 42 54 48 52

respondents constitute a CONVENIENCE SAMPLE

Basic Model
(2) Coeff. -0.0648 0.9115 -0.8098 -1.0186 -1.3010 -0.0475 (3) t-statistic -3.95 9.19 -9.01 -8.76 -11.83 -0.73 (4) p value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.468

attribute number of floors ground floor use private transportation annual energy costs distance to transit stop intercept n=1,252 observations, pseudo-R2 = 0.19

Metro Use Interaction

(1) attribute number of floors ground floor use private transportation annual energy costs distance to transit stop metrohead*distance intercept n=1,246 observations, pseudo-R2 = 0.20 (2) Coeff. -0.0672 0.9257 -0.8267 -1.0048 -1.1785 -0.8343 -0.0400 (3) t-statistic -4.08 9.29 -9.11 -8.62 -10.21 -2.82 -0.61 (4) p value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.545

Value of the Land Use and Transportation Interventions

(1) (2) attribute AnnualValue number of floors $64 ground floor use $895 private transportation $795 annual energy costs $1000 distance to transit stop $1277 n=1,252 observations, pseudo-R2 = 0.19 (3) 5 year PV $275 $3,874 $3,442 $4,329 $5,530 (4) 10 year PV $491 $6,910 $6,139 $7,722 $9,863 (5) 30 year PV $978 $13,756 $12,221 $15,372 $19,634

Takeaways
additional floors valued negatively
relatively small penalty/floor

energy costs/savings do not appear different than other dollar costs

21% indicated preference for cash payment

clear preference for grocery, retail, restaurant over office space strong preference for access to private vehicle
compared to subsidized zipcar w/ 250 hours of use/year ($2,000/year)

closeness to transit viewed positively

probably not linear, but not clear what threshold distance is

Next Steps
test more interactions with respondent characteristics enlarge sample develop visuals for built environment incorporate more transportation options enlarge to include non-residential environments