who we are what we do advocacy center sga blog support sga support sga housing economy children & schools environment preservation social equity transportation open space health

GOOGLESGA

Get involved today in the push to connect smarter growth with pending climate legislation. Click TAKE ACTION to learn how.


The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change


Meeting the growing demand for conveniently located housing in walkable, accessible, compact neighborhoods will be key to mitigating climate change. Click to find out more information about this seminal book, including information for ordering.


Download the fact sheet
Want to spread the word?

Download a version of this page as a concise three-page fact sheet with sources, prepared by SGA
DOWNLOAD NOW (pdf)


King County (WA) Executive Ron Sims before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. (11/15/07)
DOWNLOAD NOW (pdf)

Dr. David Greene of Oak Ridge National Laboratory before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. (11/13/07)
DOWNLOAD NOW (pdf)

Access detailed data on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from 1980-2005, broken down state-by-state with graphs you can distribute
DOWNLOAD NOW (.xls)

Spreadsheet with 2003 data on state emissions by sector, showing percentage coming from transportation.
DOWNLOAD NOW (.xls)

Driving Down VMT: Curbing Climate Change with Smart Growth. 20 state-level policy recommendations to curb climate change with smart growth strategies.
DOWNLOAD NOW (pdf)

Coming soon: Powerpoint slides - complete with a script - to accompany Growing Cooler. You'll be able to download this and use it for presentations of your own.

Technology alone won't tame climate-change juggernaut San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Tom Steinbach and Mike Howe of the Greenbelt Alliance. (10/21/07)

Land use plays into emissions Contra Costa Times opinion by Daniel Borenstein. (11/02/07)


Read and comment on the latest posts about related topics on the SGA blog:

Climate | Sustainability | Energy | "Growing Cooler" | Environment | Green News



The amount we drive our cars plays a large role in our country’s contribution to global warming and dependence on imported oil. But why do we drive so much?

The United States is the largest emitter worldwide of the greenhouses gases that cause global warming. Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States, and that share is growing as others shrink in comparison. Automobile emissions continue their rapid rise in large part because we have built our cities so that we have little choice but to drive from activity to activity.

It is hard to envision a "solution" to climate change and energy security that does not involve slowing the growth of our transportation emissions. To date, the national discussion of energy and climate initiatives has focused almost entirely on developing more fuel-efficient vehicles or lower-carbon fuels. Experts acknowledge, however, that all foreseeable technological solutions are sure to be overwhelmed by the continued growth in the number of miles we all drive.

The good news, though, is that we can make enormous progress simply by shaping future building so that we create more communities where people can accomplish more by driving less. Numerous studies now demonstrate that when people are given the option to live in a less automobile-dependent place, they do indeed drive less.

According to the groundbreaking report Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, residents of more compact neighborhoods drive 20-40 percent less on average—and less driving equals less emissions.

If you combine that effort with increased investment in public transit of all shapes and sizes, we can reduce dangerous emissions even more.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and land consumption rates are rising rapidly

After the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 highlighted the fragility of depending on foreign oil, automakers began to consider better fuel efficiency and our average miles-per-gallon rates rose for the first time in years. The improvement in efficiency has been overwhelmed by the sheer increase in the miles we drive, thanks to our increasingly spread-out, automobile dependent development patterns.
Where does my state rank? Click to view the graph and access detailed state-by-state VMT data
Since 1973, due in large part to our development patterns, Americans are traveling 250 percent more miles each year.

As our landscapes have become more suited for automobile travel only, the amounts of driving necessary to navigate them have been increasing at alarming rates. Development has become more spread-out, with land consumed for development at twice the rate of population growth during a 20-year period from 1982-2002. Per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person has increased three times that of America's population growth over that same period.

It's no accident that VMT is increasing as we continue to build and develop more areas where residents have no realistic choice but to drive long distances each day to reach their daily needs. A study published by SGA in 2002 found that the degree of sprawl was the greatest link to a high quanity of vehicle miles traveled. (Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact)

Energy consumption and our reliance on oil threatens our national interests and security

The cold hard truth? We don't produce enough oil to meet our own demand—which is rising every year.

The United States currently produces 8.9 million barrels of oil a day, representing only 40 percent of what we consume on any given day (21 million barrels.) A sizable percentage (22%) of our imports come from an unstable Persian Gulf region. Half of our imports come from OPEC member nations. As demand continues to grow—which currently shows no sign of slowing—we will become more reliant on importing oil each year. Imports, which currently supply 2/3 of our daily needs, could rise to as much as 3/4 by 2030 based on current rates of consumption.

It's not only us. Other developing countries like China and India are witnessing huge spikes in the rates of car ownership, and we will be competing with many other countries for a limited supply of imports, becoming more expensive all the time.

Domestic refineries operate at near-capacity, and small disruptions in the supply line can have disastrous consequences on our national economy that requires abundant oil to survive day-to-day. It doesn't take a terrorist act to damage our national security—natural disasters alone can do it. We saw some of this fragility firsthand when Hurricane Katrina knocked refineries offline and cut down supply in some southeastern states. Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue cancelled school after Katrina in an attempt to cut down on driving as gas prices rose to historic levels.

Increases in driving brought on by land-use patterns contribute to global warming.

The overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide agree that greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide (CO2) are linked to the warming of our planet.

Transportation accounts for approximately 1/3 of our greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions. The bulk of those emissions are coming from personal vehicle use, with nearly 60% of transportation emissions coming from fueling and driving our automobiles to get around our car-centric landscapes. According to the US EPA, burning one gallon of gasoline in an average passenger vehicle puts 19.4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. Our VMT numbers are rising year after year, resulting in more dangerous emissions that contribute to global warming.

The "Three-Legged Stool"

Cleaner, more efficient technology for vehicles—though needed and useful—will not be sufficient solutions on their own

Increases in fuel efficiency have not been able to keep pace with the increases in driving, resulting in net increases in emissions even as efficiency has improved. Many proposed solutions include plans for renewable energy, lower carbon fuels, or more efficient vehicles—largely overlooking an obvious component: our ever-growing reliance on driving.

Consider what's happening in California: Though they have been challenged in the courts, the state's new ground-breaking CO2 emission standards would result in a fleet-wide savings of 27 percent by 2030. But in California, VMT is growing so rapidly that those improvements would be negated by the increases in driving. California leaders are aware that improving efficiency and reducing emissions alone won't fix the problem without an attempt to reduce driving. To this end, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 in 2007, a ground-breaking package of legislation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

According to the legislation, 16% of the proposed reductions will come from more efficient land uses. After all, what good does it do to raise mileage standards 10 mpg if everyone has to drive 10 more miles each day?

Atlanta's Atlantic Station: A case study in the power of compact development to reduce driving while also meeting market demand

Smart growth can reduce the need to drive

So rather than hoping technology can catch up with yearly increases in driving, why not just try to make places that don't require so much driving?

Compact, mixed-use, interconnected and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with transportation choices, a balance of homes, jobs, schools, and other uses can help reduce the need to drive and foster walkability. Areas like these, whether dense city cores or small-town neighborhood streets on a grid, generate less vehicle travel because people drive shorter distances and have to drive less due to the ability to walk or take transit. A Seattle study by Lawrence Frank found that the households located in the most interconnected areas of Seattle generated less than half the driving of households located in the least-connected areas of the region, holding true after adjusting for household size, income and vehicle ownership. An Atlanta study by the same researcher (and others) found that people who live in more walkable neighborhoods —with a mix of housing types and streets that connect to shops, offices and other destinations—drive 30 percent less than those in conventional auto-oriented settings, even when they own the same number of cars at the same rate.

In terms of energy consumption, embracing green technologies while living in a sprawling environment still does not match the impact of smart growth. In terms of energy consumption, a “smart location” outperforms even the greenest sprawl house with hybrid cars. (136 million BTU/year vs. 158 milllion BTU/year.)

According to a study comissioned by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, shifting just 10% of new U.S. housing starts to smart growth would save 4.95 billion gallons of gasoline, 118 million barrels of oil, 59.5 mmt CO2, and $220 billion in household expenses over 10 years.

10.1 billion trips were taken on public transportation last year — marking the highest ridership in 49 years. The savings in gasoline each year would be enough to stack gas cans from the earth to the moon. From the American Public Transportation Association.

Investing in alternative transport modes can reduce driving, emissions, and land and energy consumption

A core tenet of smart growth is having access to transportation options. Bus, rail and other forms of public transportation are extremely more efficient than vehicles in reducing consumption, miles traveled, and emissions. We can move more people while also reducing our impact on energy needs and climate through greater investment in public transit. A study by ICF International says that public transportation systems reduce gasoline consumption by a total of 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline each year—the equivalent of a supertanker leaving the Middle East every 11 days.

The impact of land use and transportation decisions is easy to see: People who have access to transit, tend to use it—in addition to other modes. People who have access to roads, but no access to transit, tend to drive.

A study in the Bay Area by the Metropolitan Transportation Comission found that for people who both live and work within half a mile of a rail or ferry stop, 42 percent of them commute by transit. For those who neither work nor live within such proximity, the number falls to 4 percent. Elsewhere, individuals living in higher-density neighborhoods that include convenient access to transit, as well as pedestrian and bicycle-friendly features, reduce their driving by 15 to 50 percent.