The Overarching Question:  Is high density, transit-oriented/smart-growth really an “essential strategy” for curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles?  Here I discuss one study I worked on that suggested such strategies may not be very effective, but I’m curious whether other Village 14 readers can point to other equally valid studies that might prove otherwise.  

My Personal Takeaway:   Smart-growth development programs are not likely to contribute any real substance to halting the ravages of climate change from transportation sources.  Most such programs will be scattered and tiny in relation to the overall challenge of GHG emissions from this State’s transportation inventory. I believe that each development proposal should be judged on a full range of societal needs, as well as the benefits and liabilities to affected communities. Saving the planet from transportation-induced climate change should not be an issue in smart-growth development decisions if it isn’t really a tangible factor.      

The Rhode Island Experience and My Own False Expectations:   I first worked on drafting clean-air-related transportation programs about 40 years ago, during an exchange assignment from EPA in Washington to the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program (SPP). The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 directed that we analyze more than a dozen strategies proposed by the EPA for reducing pollution related to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

The Rhode Island SPP that did this work had few direct powers, but it did have a nationally recognized leadership team, a gifted staff of professionals, and a solid reputation for honest, data-driven analysis that carried tremendous weight throughout the state and the rest of New England. I came to Rhode Island convinced that the EPA’s proposed VMT strategies would have strong benefits for improving air quality.  It turned out that almost none of them did.

The Actual Results:   The Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP) accounted for more than 95% of all projected reductions in emissions. The FMVECP mainly involved assembly-line installation of catalytic converters on new motor vehicles and an annual, private-garage-based Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for cars and light-duty trucks. These measures were effective because they involved direct tailpipe controls on the vast majority of gasoline-powered motor vehicles in the state.  

The remaining measures (some of which are included in proposed VMT reduction strategies for GHG emissions) most often had inconsequential benefits for air quality, since they involved just very small fractions of motor vehicles or the commuting public.

Rhode Island Statistical Findings:  Here are the full findings for Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Emissions (NMHC), the major vehicle pollutant being regulated:

 Tons of NMHC Emissions Reduced  (–) or  Added ( + ) from 1977 to 1982

Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVECP)-31,374.7
Emission Inspection Maintenance (I/M) Program-3,049.9
Renew MBTA Contract for RI Portion of Providence to Boston Commuter Rail+6.5
Aggressive Bus Transit Development and Promotion Programs-39.7
Expanding Express Bus Service from 8 existing Commuter Park & Ride Lots-2.3
12 New Fringe Commuter Park & Ride Lots-16.4
Traffic Flow Improvements-7.6
Fleet Emission Controls on R.I. State Vehicles-4.2
Aggressive Statewide Promotion of Carpools & Vanpools-6.1
Employer Programs to encourage ridesharing and bus transit to work-2.5
New Statewide Bike Paths and Bike Lanes-8.3
Variable Work Hours-3.5
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes-0.6
Extensive On-Street Parking Restrictions in downtown Providence-2.5

How Rhode Island Was Different than Now, but also How Alike the Findings Are:  The Rhode Island planning process was time-sensitive, with a federally mandated five-year deadline for achieving air-quality standards, and it had the built-in catalytic converter to achieve success. Reducing GHG emissions is also time-sensitive, but for entirely different reasons that don’t need elaboration here. And it’s obvious that today’s Boston metropolitan area has far different housing, educational, and commuting needs than Rhode Island did in 1980. Still, I believe these Rhode Island’s findings are relevant to this current discussion because they offer convincing proof that big-ticket, statistically verifiable items that directly regulate the vast majority of vehicles are the obvious key to success. There are exceptions for less comprehensive measures such as the steep drop in commuter VMT from work-at-home options during this current pandemic (See below). However, this big-versus-small impact conclusion from Rhode Island does correlate to a comfortable degree with statistical projections in the 2030 interim Clean Energy and Climate Change Plan for Massachusetts.     

Findings From the Interim 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Change Plan for Massachusetts:  The 2020 Clean Energy and Climate Plan for Massachusetts referenced the need for strategies to track the effectiveness of smart-growth, transportation-related strategies, but it acknowledged that “developing credible metrics for evaluating and validating these strategies is a formidable challenge going forward.” The 2030 Interim Plan does set targeted GHG emission reductions by targeting five specific transportation initiatives.

2020 to 2030 Projected GHG Emission Reductions from Five Targeted Initiatives

 MMTCO2e
750,000 New Electric Light Duty Vehicles5.4
Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicle Carbon Controls1.8
Commuter Related VMT Reductions0.7
Cross Investments in Clean Transportation Systems 0.1
Smart Growth Strategies 0.1
  • GHGR = Greenhouse gas Reductions 
  • MMTCO2e = Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

The very low clean-air benefits from smart-growth-oriented development projects anticipated by 2030 may reflect the expectation that few will be completed in this decade but more would be be coming online after 2030. Even so, there will be sharply decreased potency of VMT reductions overall as more stringent fuel economy standards take effect. The relatively large commuter-related VMT reductions that the Commonwealth anticipates from commuters will almost certainly include a healthy chunk from continuation of at least parts of the Covid-19-related work-at-home programs that are proving popular with many employees. The statistical gap between large, comprehensive measures and small, isolated, piecemeal projects here are pretty much in line with what we found with much hard data in Rhode Island.       

First Things First. Two Big Ticket Items:   In terms of dramatic reductions in GHG emissions from most motor vehicles, however, it’s fortunate that we have two highly vetted and broadly encompassing nationwide measures. Both have the capacity to drastically cut the vast majority of motor vehicle GHG emissions by 2050, essentially by turning over virtually the entire vehicle composition of entire states or regions. The first is the full reinstatement of the 2050 Federal Fuel Economy Standards that seek an 80 percent reduction in fuel consumption over the next three decades. The second involves a rapidly growing move to electric and other  zero-emissions vehicles. Massachusetts now believes that at least 750,000 new electric vehicles will be on the road by 2030, making this measure by far the largest of the 5 targeted transportation-related GHG reduction measures noted earlier. What’s obviously needed now is an aggressive federal, state, and private partnership to electrify most of the nation’s motor vehicle fleet. This would involve:

  1. Significantly increasing mileage travelled per charge,
  2. Making electric cars less costly to buy and operate than gasoline-powered vehicles,
  3. Constructing the full infrastructure needed for charging and servicing electric vehicles, and
  4. Cleaning up our electric production and distribution infrastructure that would power what hopefully will be a burgeoning nationwide move to electric vehicles.    

Conclusion: I don’t want to leave the impression that huge technical fixes, including those involving  transportation sources and systems are “silver bullets” for reversing the ravages of climate change. They are not, but reversing current trends will depend on them being in place and functioning. There are too many debilitating attacks from too many sources on the planet and natural environment to think that solving climate change alone will cause the other problems to vanish.   

I worked on air-quality-related programs at EPA in Washington for several years. In the mid 1980s, I had the opportunity to draft the first public information piece on climate change I know of that had the Agency’s logo attached. Hard data and field research were scattered and woefully incomplete, but there were modeling results and “early warning” scenarios from several sources. I still have a copy and so many of the concerns expressed in that booklet are happening now in real time. I was a very small cog in a very giant wheel, but I did have a ringside seat to what for me was a deeply disturbing look into a future where so many of the things we all love would likely be gone. It’s haunted me ever since. I’m concerned about the possibility that some climate change strategies have been oversold only because I think it’s imperative we get as much right as possible in the difficult years ahead. Edward O. Wilson believes that we must set aside at least half the planet for the natural environment only, in order for us to survive as a species.  He also sums up beautifully the humans and institutional constraints we labor under: “We now live in a Star Wars civilization with god-like technology, medieval institutions, and stone age emotions.”   We can and must do better.