This paper assesses the possibility for changing urban development patterns to reduce transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis was carried out as part of a larger project exploring the possibility of using the clean development mechanism (CDM) to reduce transportation GHG emissions in Santiago, Chile. The paper provides an overview of the analytical approach, which includes an integrated travel demand model with sensitivity to mesolevel land use variations, a method to generate optimal land use scenarios that relate to emission reductions, and a process to estimate the level of subsidies needed to produce those land use scenarios. Limitations to the approach and suggestions for future research are discussed. The paper concludes with an assessment of the results in the face of the fairly strict requirements for project development and implementation implied by the CDM.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GilbertG., and DajaniJ. S.. Energy, Urban Form and Transportation Policy.Transportation Research, Vol. 8, 1974, pp. 267–276.
2.
International Energy Annual, 2003.U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2005. www.eia.doe.gov/iea/. Accessed Sept. 20, 2006.
3.
BrowneJ., SanhuezaE., SilsbeE., WinkelmanS., and ZegrasC.. Getting on Track: Finding a Path for Transportation and the CDM.International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada,2005.
4.
LABTUS, Location Efficiency and Transit-Oriented Development: A Potential CDM Option in Santiago de Chile. Final Report. Universidad de Chile, Laboratorio de Modelamiento del Transporte y Uso de Suelo, Santiago, Chile, Oct. 2004.
5.
HeywoodJ. B., WeissM. A., SchaferA., BasseneS. A., and NatarajanV. K.. The Performance of Future ICE and Fuel Cell Powered Vehicles and Their Potential Fleet Impact. Publication LFEE 2003-004 RP. Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Dec. 2003.
World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects.Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, 2002.
8.
HandyS.Methodologies for Exploring the Link Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior.Transportation Research D, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1996, pp. 151–165.
9.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 87–113.
10.
CraneR.On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, 1996, pp. 117–126.
11.
Ben-AkivaM., and LermanS.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
12.
RajamaniJ., BhatC. R., HandyS., KnaapG., and SongY.. Assessing Impact of Urban Form Measures on Nonwork Trip Mode Choice After Controlling for Demographic and Level-of-Service Effects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1831, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2003, pp. 158–165.
13.
JamiesonG. B., MackayW. K., and LatchfordJ. C. R.. Transportation and Land Use Structures.Urban Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3, Nov., 1967, pp. 201–217.
14.
EdwardsJ. L., and SchoferJ. L.. Relationships Between Transportation Energy Consumption and Urban Structure: Results of Simulation Studies. In Transportation Research Record 599, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 52–59.
15.
WeiselW. M., and SchoferJ. L.. The Effects of Nucleated Urban Growth Patterns on Transportation Energy Consumption.Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Aug. 1980.
16.
KimK.-S., and SchneiderJ. B.. Defining Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Energy. In Transportation Research Record 1049, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 43–50.
17.
CheslowM. D., and NeelsJ. K.. Effect of Urban Development Patterns on Transportation Energy Use. In Transportation Research Record 764, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 70–78.
18.
Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection: Analysis of Alternatives, Vol. 5. 1,000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, May 1996.
19.
JohnstonR. A., RodierC. J., AbrahamJ. E., and HuntJ. D.. Applying an Integrated Model to the Evaluation of Travel Demand Management Policies in the Sacramento Region: Year Two.Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif., Sept. 2001.
20.
WaltersG., EwingR., and SchroeerW.. Adjusting Computer Modeling Tools to Capture Effects of Smart Growth: “Poking at the Project Like a Lab Rat.” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, No. 1722, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 17–26.
21.
EPA Guidance: Improving Air Quality Through Land Use Activities.Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2001.
22.
Atlantic Steel Redevelopment. Project XL Progress Report, EPA 100-R-00-026. Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jan. 2001.
23.
ZegrasC., and GakenheimerR.. Urban Growth Management for Mobility: The Case of the Santiago, Chile, Metropolitan Region.MIT Cooperative Mobility Program and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass., 2000.
24.
AmptE. S., and OrtúzarJ. de D.. On Best Practices in Continuous Large-Scale Mobility Surveys.Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 3, May 2004, pp. 337–363.
25.
MartínezF.MUSSA: Land Use Model for Santiago City. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 126–134.
26.
MartínezF., and DonosoP.. Modeling Land Use Planning Effects: Zone Regulations and Subsidies. In Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge (HensherD., ed.), Pergamon–Elsevier, New York, 2001, pp. 647–658.
27.
ZegrasC.Sustainable Urban Mobility: Exploring the Role of the Built Environment. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2005.
28.
WeisbrodG., LermanS., and Ben-AkivaM.. Tradeoffs in Residential Location Decisions: Transportation Versus Other Factors.Transport Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 13–26.
29.
KitamuraR., MokhtarianP. L., and LaidetL.A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area.Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp. 125–158.
