Urban sprawl and climate change
A new report from the Urban Land Institute in the US points to the role of urban sprawl in adding to greenhouse emissions by increasing the distance travelled by car.
They point out that reducing greenhouse emissions from transport is a three legged stool consisting of: fuel efficiency of the cars; the carbon content of the fuel; and the distance travelled by car. To the extent that there is attention on reducing US transport emissions, it is focussed on the first two legs. But even if you can increase fuel efficiency and you run cars on a higher proportion of biofuels (with all the problems of biofuels), this will not reduce transport emissions if distance travelled continues to increase.
One of the key ways to reduce distance travelled is to build our cities in a much more compact manner with higher densities and a mix of residential, shopping and offices so that people can walk and bike a lot more. The report assembles evidence that shows that the more compact the city the less car miles travelled. The difference is of the order of 20-40% less car miles, with the spin-offs for health.
This seems particularly pertinent today with the story in the Herald about air quality in Auckland keeping a day care centre from opening. There is extended coverage of the issue in the printed version.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
The Local Government Rates Inquiry recommends that “a common rating system based on capital value be promoted across the country for general rates”. For those few councils that still use land-value based rates, a forced move to capital value would move rates off the valuable central sites being left vacant or derelict by speculators, and on to the expensive buildings which are needed to enable higher density.
So a pro-sprawl law change is being promoted. Are the Greens going to fight it?
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Developers (entrepreneurs) have too much influence on government policy.
Which reminds me who should we vote for in the local body elections?
Who are the developers people?
jh
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
pm67nz, But surely the increased rates revenue from having the vacant lots built on would encourage councils to reduce exhorbitant developers contributions and possibly other hurdles such as density limits thereby speeding up high density developments?
And wouldn’t your original argument also apply to exurban sprawl developments? In which case my first paragraph might also be relevant. In which case the nett effect could be neutral.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I stumbled across this article on the effects of air pollution along main roads:
URBAN POLLUTION-Many long years ago - CARRIAGE HORSE History
http://www.all-creatures.org/nyca/ch-hist-19711000.html
September 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Kevyn, I don’t see how rates on buildings and developer contributions are very different in their efffects so if it’s a trade off I don’t much prefer one over the other. They both reduce the incentive to build.
The argument that rates on buildings are good because they provide an incentive to the council to promote building is a novel (to me anyway) and interesting one. It amounts to saying that the council is more responsive to financial incentives than is the land owner, which I very much doubt. It’s like arguing that taxes on tobacco or carbon emissions are bad because they incentivise the goverment to promote tobacco / fuel consumption. There is such an effect (eg: Japanese govt. being slow to discourage smoking for a few years for fear of losing income) but it is far outweighed by the opposite effect on those who have to pay.
When councils raise density limits the land values go up immediately, regardless of whether the newly legal buildings actually appear, so councils already have this incentive even if they don’t tax buildings.
Anyway there’s no need for us to debate hypotheticals, there is empirical evidence from places such as Victoria and Pennsylvania
September 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
So once again the Greens want to tell me how to live and where to live, and want to shove me into albeit environmentally friendly places i’d prefer not to live. Nice one guys.
note that in the article on air pollutin there were actually no facts on levels. There is some reference to testing but it is not clear what. Bizarre decisions like this can be taken without measurement (but it is not clear).
Views on this issue are not helped by things such as your inflammatory statement re “the disastrous state of Auckland’s air quality” when the facts show it is not disasterous and in fact improving across most measures, and has been for some time.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I think that breaches of air quality are disastrous because they are resulting in ill health and death. According to the ARC there are frequent breaches of acceptable levels of fine particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dixide, and alert levels of ozone. These all cause ill health and premature death.
There is improvement over recent years tho it’s a little unclear. There have been three breaches this year and the recent breach in Henderson was really bad - fine particulates at more than double WHO levels. Not good.
http://www.arc.govt.nz/arc/index.cfm?7AB56726-21F1-4D53-A079-BFC1CE8CD F25
or for more detail see
http://www.arc.govt.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=3E5F CFD0-BCD4-1A24-9CB1-FD8E394972A5&siteName=arc
September 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Insider,
As you are well aware, there is no plan to force anyone to live anywhere, nor do I think anyone is seriously considering it. I think the general idea is that if higher density housing is built, which is well serviced by schools, public transport etc, many people might actually choose to live there. If you don’t want to, no one is going to force you (but you might well find yourself with a problem when peak oil arrives).
September 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Actually Russell, if you believe the literature no level is ’safe’ for some pollutants, so some breaches are irrelevant. I’m not sure I agree with your “frequent breaches” - it depends what you measure.
Is one breach of a daily limit in a year “frequent”, is 10 of an hourly limit in different locations frequent?
Samiuela
It was a royal me - and the Greens tend towards command and control so it was a reasonable inference that choice would be reduced overall.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
them socialist 2021 in Christchurch fwwog,
they try to put us all in concrete block facing south,
poor and miserable, no car, cycle to work,
yous got to be joking,
but we rejected the idea and we going out to Pegasucks,
to eat with them Asian people whats buying up Canterbury,
them have the money fwwog, and will sprawl,
September 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I’d say the developers are out in Singapore etc marketing flat out, and a persons citizenship is worth didily squat.
jh
September 25th, 2007 at 3:01 am
pm67nz, The main difference between rates and developer contributions is that the developer pays the latter before the building is built but rates on the improved value are payed only after the building is built, and by the owner/tenant rather than the developer.
The council and the developer have different financial incentives and expenses in relation to new or renewed buildings. But if they both stand to make more money from high density than low density then they will chose high density over low density. That is where the difference between land value and capital value is important to councils. For developers the change may influence market demands and the cost/price equations but the impact is less direct than for councils.
But the really important questions is whether any of the councils still using land values are urban councils. If not then the change wont affect urban densities one iota. And this debate will have been entirely academic.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
thats right fwog, lets lock them all up in central city high rise concrete blocks, facing south, take bicycles to work, be unhappy, pay taxes, no smoking, always obey socialist rules,
September 26th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Don’t go jumping to the conclusion that 20-40% less car miles produces 20-40% less pollution or uses 20-40% less petrol or generates 20-40% less congestion.
More people per km of road can overwhelm the benefits of less miles driven. And more people per km need wider footpaths which can reduce carriageway width by more than 20-40%. Mind you, that might be the most effective strategy for getting people out of their cars.
Catalytic converters need to reach several hundred degrees before they begin operating. It takes up to 5 km to generate these temperatures. Therefore reducing the number of trips less than 5 km reduces pollution several times more than reducing longer trips by 5 km.
The US CAFE fuel consumption test uses both a cold start stop/start urban cycle, and a warm start constant speed highway cycle. Most cars are 25% to 35% more fuel efficient on the highway cycle. So, as above, it depends on where the 20-40% less car miles is coming from. If it is fewer short trips then increased urban densities could cut carbon emmissions by more than 50%. If it is the long trips getting shorter then carbon emmission might only be cut by 5%.
The challenge seems to be to get the right density in the right place. Around schools, stations and CBDs. And maybe a return to old mixed housing/light industry boroughs of old.
And you ignore the correlation between urban sprawl and temperate climates at your own risk.
There is also strong evidence that the density that is important for public transport isn’t housing, it is employment. The cities with the highest public transport usage were all recognized financial capitals 150 years ago. Since then they have all built subways and skyscrapers. They all have incredibly high central city job densities. Surrounded by varying densities of housing. The laws of supply and demand gaurantee premium prices for parking spaces. That, and the fact that subway stations can be built directly underneath skyscrapers, makes rail the most popular commuter preference in these cities. New Zealand cities will never achieve this idyllic state so we should really be concentrating on mixing apartments and other amenities in with workplaces in our both existing CBDs and the newer suburban and outer urban commercial hubs.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
If jobs can be located within 5km or so of housing, it makes both cycling and plug-in electric hybrid vehicles more attractive.
Trevor.