An Analysis of the Impact of An Analysis of the Impact of Urban Sprawl on Energy Use, Urban Sprawl on Energy Use,
the Environment, and the the Environment, and the Potential Benefit of Improved Potential Benefit of Improved
Land Use PlanningLand Use Planning
Julia Marie EllisEnergy Law, Spring 2008Professor Fred Bosselman, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Issue
• Issue Statement: Urban sprawl is an undesirable land use and development pattern which imposes significant costs on environment, private individuals and businesses, and local, state, and federal government.
Presentation Preview
I. “Urban sprawl” Defined.
II. Impacts of Sprawl.
III. Causes of the Sprawl Trend.
IV. The Perfect Storm for Change.
V. Possible Solution.
Part I “Urban Sprawl” Defined
49%
32%
60%
22%
39%
7%
32%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Change inUbanizedLand 1982-1997
Change inMetropolitanPopulation1982-1997
I. Urban Sprawl Defined
Process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth.*1
* 2.
I. I. Urban Sprawl Defined: Operationalizing Sprawl
• Arial photo of sprawl. Four Components: • Low residential density;
• Little neighborhood mix of homes, jobs, and services;
• Weak “activity centers” or downtowns;
• Strict categorical land use and minimal accessibility to the street net work. *2
I. Urban Sprawl Defined: Sprawl Index
. • Most sprawling metros in the Unites States:
• Least sprawling metros in the Unites States:
(1)Riverside, CA;
(2)Greensboro, NC;
(3)Raleigh, NC;
(4)Atlanta, GA;
(5)Greenville, SC;
(6) Palm Beach, FL;
(7) Bridgeport, CT;
(8) Knoxville, TN;
(9) Oxnard, CA;
(10) Fort Worth, TX.
(1) New York, NY;
(2) Jersey City, NJ;
(3) Providence, RI;
(4) San Francisco, CA
(5)Honolulu, HI;
(6) Boston, MA;
(7) Portland, OR;
(8) Miami, FL;
(9) New Orleans, LA;
(10) Denver, CO. *3
I. Urban Sprawl Defined: Comparing Cities
.
• Chicago Metropolitan Area– Street Connectivity Score: 134.9– Centeredness Score: 85. 8Centeredness Score: 85. 8– Mixed Use Score: 115.1 – Density Score: 142. 9
*Centeredness: Concentrations of residential, economic, or commercial activity. These activity centers help businesses thrive and are well served by public transportation.
• Portland Metropolitan Area– Street Connectivity Score: 128– Centeredness Score: 121.8– Mixed Use Score: 102.8 – Density Score: 101.3 *2
I. Urban Sprawl Defined: Template for the Region
(Plainfield, I 2008)
In the late 1990s, Chicago accounted for only 6% of theland area in its metropolitan region and about 1/3 of the
population. *4
Part II Impact of Sprawl
II. Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
Staggering Statistics:
• Americans account for only 5% of the world’s population.
• American automobiles produce 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions attributable to the transportation industry. *3
Americans have built themselves out of choices…
• Data suggests that car ownership is a necessitynecessity for most American families.
• Closest corollary to the number of cars owned per house hold? (a) Net income per family (b) Number of working residents per household(c)(c) Sprawlingness of family’s built Sprawlingness of family’s built
environment. environment. *1*1
II. Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
“Communities designed with the car in mind give lower-income families no other alternative. To meet life’s daily needs, to reach jobs, doctors, even to get to the store to buy groceries, most American families, including those who can least afford it, must rely on a car.” *5
II. Impact of Sprawl:Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Understanding the Statistics: 5% Population / 45% CO2 from Autos?
Key Points
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) is the average number of mile driven per person per day in a given population.
• CO2 emissions correlate exactly with gasoline consumption.
• Gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions are nearly perfect corollaries with VMT. *3
II. Impact of Sprawl:Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• VMT increases with sprawl. •VMT ten most sprawling cities: 27 •VMT ten least sprawling cities: 21
• Case study:•Atlanta, GA, VMT 34 •Portland, OR, VMT 24 *3
Template for the Region(Plainfield, IL, 2008)
• Energy Consumption for Transportation Continues to Rise Even Though Automobiles Are Increasingly More Efficient.*3
*6
II. Impact of Sprawl: Forecast U.S. Oil Demand
III. Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
#1 Environmental Damage
• Gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions are nearly perfect corollaries with VMT. *3
• CO2 is a GHG.*9
• Permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9% each decade *9
III. Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
#2 Expense to Consumers
• 20.3 mpg*8 • 6 add. mi. per day*3
• 365 days• $3.36 per gallon*7
• $362. 48 additional expense per person per year for those persons living in a sprawling environment.
• $1450.00 additional expense per year for a family of 4 living in a sprawling environment
III. Impact of Sprawl: Auto Dependence
#3 Dependence on Foreign Oil
• 89% imported from top 10 producers) *10
1. CANADA2. SAUDI ARABIA3. MEXICO4. NIGERIA5. VENEZUELA
6. ANGOLA7. IRAQ8. ALGERIA9. ECUADOR10. KUWAIT
Sprawling Development
1. Larger houses
2. Transmission and distribution losses
3. Urban Heat Islands– More cooling days– Fewer heating days
Compact development
results in a combined energy
savings of 20% of the average US household’s primary
energy use.*3
II. Impact of SprawlIncreased Residential Energy Use
1. Increased runoff leads to downstream flooding.
2. Wide fluctuations in water conditions destroy habitats.
3. Greater pollutant loads in the urban environment serve to decrease the effectiveness of natural processing. *11
II. Impact of SprawlDecrease in Permeable Surfaces
Illinois Flood Disaster Area 2007
Illinois Severe Storms and FloodingDeclared Sept. 25, 2007 http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?published=1&id=8985
Part III Causes of Sprawl
1. Postwar Federal Policy
• Encouraged highway development.
• Inexpensive mortgages for suburban homes.*4
III. Causes of SprawlHistorical background
2. Euclidean Zoning Law
• Widely separated residential, commercial, and industrial zones
• Disallowed mixed uses common in older, more established cities
• Lot size minimums commonly between 1 and 5 acres
• Strips of “commercial” development zoned to arterial roads
III. Causes of SprawlHistorical background
3. Annexation Laws (Illinois Specific)
• Req. #1: EPA Approved Waste Water Management Plan
• Req. #2: Ordinance to annex passed by city (1) Contingent (2) Unincorporated tract of land
• Req. #3: Majority of landowners sign petition for annexation *12
III. Causes of SprawlHistorical background
1. Sales taxes • New residents draw new businesses to the area and
increase sales tax revenues
2. Deferred cost• Development capital stimulates economy immediately • 2 or 3 year cost lag. *19
3. Lack of knowledge of the consequences of current practices
4. Insufficient funding for planning
III. Causes of Sprawl: Motivators of Sprawl
III. Causes of Sprawl: Percent Change in Pop. by County
(2000-2006)
* 13
1. Land Use Decision Makers• Local government policy makers/elected officials• Local voters
2. Stakeholders recognized by Illinois Law (a.k.a. Standing)• Land owners holding land immediately affected Municipality• EPA and those in watershed (Clean Water Act violation)
3. Stakeholders NOT recognized by Illinois Law, i.e. Standing:• Neighboring municipalities & regional community• State and federal tax payers• Environmental groups
4. Challenges INSUFFICIENT at Law (Annexation Specific)• Annexation likely leads to additional annexation • Annexing municipality cannot/will not provide infrastructure,
municipal services, etc., to newly annexed land .*12
III. Causes of Sprawl: Decision Makers and
Stakeholders
Part IV “The Perfect Storm”
for Change
““Simultaneous occurrence of events Simultaneous occurrence of events which, taken individually, would be which, taken individually, would be
far less momentous than the result of far less momentous than the result of their confluence.” their confluence.” *3*3
IV. “The Perfect Storm”
The Perfect Storm The Perfect Storm Is Upon Us…Is Upon Us…
1.1.Climate policyClimate policy2.2.Consumer Consumer
demanddemand3.3.Urban planningUrban planning
*Ref #4
IV. The Perfect Storm: Changing Policy (2007 - 2008)
1. Corporate• U.S. Climate Action Partnership calls for a 10-30% reduction in CO2
2. Consumer• Pew Int’l Pub. Op. Poll, Environmental degradation as #1 greatest
threat
3. Judicial • U.S. Supreme Court rules that EPA can regulate GHG emissions *3
4. Congressional • Leiberman-Warner Act, 2008 *15
* 9
Trend towards acknowledging the problems with our current energy use practices...
IV. The Perfect Storm: Consumer Demand
55% of consumers prefer “Smart Growth 55% of consumers prefer “Smart Growth Communities” to “Traditional Communities” to “Traditional Communities”Communities”
• Smart Growth Community: Places within a few blocks of home (walkable or drivable), Commute less than 45 minutes, Mix of detached houses and townhouses, Public transportation is nearby, Almost all streets have sidewalks.
• Conventional Community: Single family home on large lot, Schools and shops a few miles from home, No sidewalks, Commutes more than 45 minutes, No public transportation. *3
IV. The Perfect Storm: Consumer Demand
• Families without children are predicted to Families without children are predicted to account for 88% of the growth in the housing account for 88% of the growth in the housing market by 2025 market by 2025
• Under current trends, there will be a 71% Under current trends, there will be a 71% shortage of downtown, in-town, and close-in shortage of downtown, in-town, and close-in suburban housing by 2025suburban housing by 2025
• Supply of large lot, single family, homes Supply of large lot, single family, homes alreadyalready exceeds demand exceeds demand (as of 2006)
*3
IV. The Perfect Storm:Planning
1. Trends in urban planning profession to acknowledge weakness in current models of development.
a. Energy consumption, unsupportable at current levels, (AASHTO 2007). *18
b. Predict and provide, inefficient and ineffective. *3
c. Infrastructure, expensive. *19
2. Guinea pig states, such as Oregon, have survived critical judicial challenges and overcome political obstacles. *20
1. Planning Power to the “Common” Sovereign, i.e. the State
2. Land Use Planning Act Essential Components
1. A Comprehensive Statewide Plan
2. Require Local Governments Plans Consistent with the State’s Comprehensive Plan
3. State Level Coordination, Administration, and Review of Local Plans
4. Judicial Review
V. Solution
V. Solution: Goals for States
1. Statewide Land Use Planning
2. Urbanization Limits
3. Conservation of Energy
4. Transportation
5. Citizen Involvement
6. Agricultural Lands
7. Needed Housing
*17
V. Solution: Oregon’s Model
State State LegislatureLegislature
StateState
AgenciesAgenciesLocal Local Gov’tGov’t
A. Municipalities B. Counties
LUBALUBALand Use Board
of Appeals
LCDCLCDCLand Conservation &
Development Commission
DLCDDLCDDepartment of Land
and Conservation
*17
V. Solution: Planning Structure
1. Land Development Commission• Form
– Executive Commission– Appointed by Governor and approved by Senate
• Function– Adopts planning goals and implementation rules– Oversees the Department of Land Development
Department
2. Dept. of Land Conservation and Development
• Research and plan development• Develops “Policy Papers” to guide implementation• Certifies municipal compliance with state’s master plan
*17
V. Solution: Planning Structure
3. Municipalities/Counties• Create a development plan in compliance with state
goals• Implement local plan in compliance with state standards
4. Judicial Land Use Board of Appeals• Independent administrative adjudicative body where
stakeholders can challenge land use decisions.
*17
Conclusion
1. Current land use system is inefficient and harmful to the collective good.
2. Statewide planning would promote more efficient energy policies and practices.
3. Market, political, and social changes make “now” the time to act.
THANK YOUTHANK YOU
