Imagine if jobs and homes were closer together rather than spread out across the urban fringe. How much less would we have to drive? The answer can be found with scenario planning, a way to compare likely outcomes of two or more alternative land-use designs.

Most scenario plans show that focusing development along transit lines in developed areas–instead of in new developments on the fringe–significantly reduces driving. Because desired destinations are closer to home and work, biking and walking are a more feasible option. And when driving is reduced, so is global warming pollution (the Center for Clean Air Policy offers a Guidebook Emissions Calculator with many more details).

In its April 2008 report, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) –whose members were appointed by Governor Pawlenty–recognized that improved land-use planning and development strategies are an important part of combating global warming. If fully implemented, MCCAG’s recommendations could reduce vehicle miles driven in 2025 by 6 percent and carbon emissions by 2.1 million tons annually. And just in time for action, Minnesota now has a model for implementation. California recently took a big step toward connecting land-use planning, transportation, and global warming pollution with its Senate Bill 375.

Want additional benefits? Compact development along transit lines also saves in personal travel costs and public infrastructure costs. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that the average American could save $9,499 a year by taking transit instead of driving. Additionally, the 2002 Metropolitan Council Blueprint 2030 estimated that the Twin Cities could save a whopping $3 billion in infrastructure costs—water and sewer services, roads, and other utilities—over 20 years by implementing improved land-use planning measures.

Imagine if jobs and homes were closer together rather than spread out across the urban fringe. How much less would