Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

States on the hot seat TCS 21015

Keith Bartholomew, University of Utah; Lauren Michele, Policy in Motion; Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments; Kim Ellis, Metro; Rebecca Lewis, University of Oregon

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

States on the hot seat TCS 21015

  1. 1. States on the Hot Seat Climate Change Laws in California and Oregon (and a little itty bit on Maryland andWashington) Keith Bartholomew, University of Utah Rebecca Lewis, University of Oregon Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis ObispoCOG Kim Ellis,Oregon Metro MPO Lauren Michele, Policy in Motion
  2. 2. Recurring Questions in Climate Mitigation Planning • Appropriate Scale – Local, Metropolitan, or State? • VoluntaryAction – Limitation or Opportunity? • Coalition Building – Good Policy vs. Good Politics? • Sticks, Carrots, and Orange-Colored Sticks –What works best? • Data andTools for Monitoring Progress –Who and how? • Performance-Based Planning –What does the future hold?
  3. 3. Driving down GHG fromTransportation: Assessing Efforts in Four States Rebecca Lewis, Robert Zako, Alexis Biddle, Rory Isbell, Emily Kettell, Elizabeth Miller NITC #789 Assessing State Efforts to IntegrateTransportation, Land Use and Climate.
  4. 4. ResearchQuestions 1. Policy Framework: What is the framework for reducing GHGs from the transportation sector via transportation and land use strategies? 2. Assessment: What are strengths and weaknesses of the transportation-land use-climate policy framework at the state level?What are the obstacles to achieving GHG reduction goals? 3. KnowledgeTransfer: What approaches are working well in the four case study states and what can they learn from each other?What can other states learn?
  5. 5. Conceptual Framework Climate -mitigation -transportation sector (VMT) Land Use -development patterns Transportation -options (modes) -cost of driving
  6. 6. GHG Reduction Targets Other Transportation VMT (Transportation & Land Use) Transportation Strategies Pricing Strategies Land Use Strategies Vehicle Efficiency Fuel Content Targets Sectors Components Strategies “3 legged stool”
  7. 7. Statewide GHG Goals State Goals Key Legislation California By 2020,1990 levels. By 2050, 80% below 1990 levels. (E.O.) 2006: AB32-California GlobalWarming Solutions Act Maryland By 2020,25% below 2006 levels; By 2050, 90% below 2006 levels. 2009: SB 278/HB 315: Greenhouse Gas ReductionsAct of 2009 Oregon By 2020, 10% below 1990 Levels. By 2050, 75% below 1990 Levels. 2007: HB 3543- Global Warming Actions Washington By 2020, 1990 levels. By 2035, 25% below 1990 levels. By 2050, 50% below 1990 levels. 2008: HB 2815: Climate Action and Green Jobs Act
  8. 8. California • Climate • SB 375: Regional per-capita targets, MPOs develop Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs), voluntary local implementation • Transportation • CalTrans updating CTP 2040 • Regional RTPs integrating SCSs • Land Use • Local general plans (no state level growth management program) • Relax CEQA to support infill (LOS toVMT in CEQA – SB743) • Nexus • Coordinated regional level transportation planning to reduce GHGs(SCS)
  9. 9. Maryland • Climate: • GHG Reduction Act Plan of 2013: state level multi-sector and multi-agency plan • Transportation • MarylandTransportation Plan 2035 (updated in 2014); • Annual:ConsolidatedTransportation Program,Attainment Report • Land Use • Required local comprehensive plans addressing key elements and visions • Smart Growth: Priority Funding Areas • PlanMaryland (2011) • Nexus • All 3 plans updated recently: cross-referencing and mention of integration
  10. 10. Oregon • Climate • HB 2001 (2009) & SB 1059 (2010) • StatewideTransportation Strategy - all modes statewide • Metropolitan targets (% per capita) & scenario planning - GHG from light duty vehicles only • Transportation • OregonTransportation Plan + modal plans • Goal 12:Transportation • StatewideTransportation Improvement Program • Land Use • UGBs; 19 Statewide Goals; required local plans • Nexus • OregonTransportation and Growth Management Program (ODOT/DLCD) • StatewideTransportation Strategy / OSTI
  11. 11. Washington • Climate • HB 2815: GHG andVMT Per CapitaTargets – EO 09-05: Delegate to regional level (RegionalTransportation PlanningOrganizations) • Transportation • WashingtonTransportation Plan 2030 (2010) • StatutoryVMTTarget • Land Use • Growth ManagementAct – 14 goals; required Urban Growth Areas in some cities • CountyWide Planning Policy (CWPP) • Nexus • Local plans consistent with regional transportation plans • SB 6580: linkingGrowth ManagementAct to GHG targets and policies
  12. 12. Synthesis GoalsVerticalHorizontalMonitoring
  13. 13. Preliminary Findings: Process Source:Tescher, Mintier, Hammond Source: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/OSTI/Pages/scenario_planning.aspx Source: Portland Metro Source: Portland Metro
  14. 14. Preliminary Findings & Recommendations: Implementation
  15. 15. KeyTakeaways • Initial legislation setting goals and requiring plans is a starting place • But sustained leadership and momentum is essential • Plans and scenarios will not be realized without adequate funding and a reorientation of transportation spending • And selling co-benefits is important to gaining broad citizen support
  16. 16. Outline • Planning for sustainable communities in CA • California MPOs: 1st round of SCS under SB 375 • SLOCOG’s approach to RTP/SCS • Examples of land use + transport strategies • SLOCOG Regional Land Use Model overview • Performance metrics in RTP/SCS • Funding challenges
  17. 17. California MPOs 18 MPOs • “Big 4” Large Metros • San JoaquinValley: 8 single- county MPOs with many common issues • 6 Small MPOs: 3 in Northern California, 3 along Central Coast
  18. 18. Planning for Sustainable Communities: State, Regional, and Local actions related to land use and transportation planning • AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 • SB 375: Sustainable Communities Strategy (2008) • Regional Blueprint Planning (Community 2050) • Local GHG Emissions Inventories and Climate Action Plans • SLOCOG’s 2010 Regional Transportation Plan (and PSCS) • Regional Land Use Model, Regional Travel Model • SLOCOG’s 2014 RTP/SCS (ADOPTION: APRIL 2015)
  19. 19. Elements of RTP/SCS: Consists of four major elements (pursuant to SB 375): • Policy Element: What are the region’s transportation policies? • Action Element: How will we address transportation issues and needs? • Financial Element: How will we pay for transportation improvements? • Sustainable Communities Strategy: What is the regional land use and housing strategy that will meet regional GHG targets?
  20. 20. California MPOs: ARB Regional GHGTargets for SB 375 SCAG Southern California -8% -13% MTC/ABAG SF Bay Area -10% -16% SANDAG San Diego -7% -13% SACOG Sacramento -10% -16% SJCOG San Joaquin -5% -10% StanCOG Stanislaus -5% -10% Merced CAG Merced -5% -10% Madera CTC Madera -5% -10% FresnoCOG Fresno -5% -10% Kings CAG Kings -5% -10% KernCOG Kern -5% -10% Tulare CAG Tulare -5% -10% Shasta RTA Shasta 0% 0% BCAG Butte 1% 1% TMPO Tahoe Basin -7% -5% AMBAG Monterey Bay 0% -5% SLOCOG San Luis Obispo -8% -8% SBCAG Santa Barbara 0% 0% MPO Region 2020 GHG Reduction Target 2035 GHG Reduction Target
  21. 21. Profile of California MPOs: Growth Forecasts Numeric Change (2010-2035) Annual Pct Change (2010-2035) Numeric Change (2010-2035) Annual Pct Change (2010-2035) Numeric Change (2010-2035) Annual Pct Change (2010-2035) SCAG Southern California 4,039,000 0.89% 1,472,000 1.01% 2,216,000 1.23% MTC/ABAG SF Bay Area 2,081,600 1.13% 902,500 1.35% 1,222,000 1.49% SANDAG San Diego 710,269 0.90% 330,000 1.20% 319,025 0.88% SACOG Sacramento 909,000 1.57% 290,000 1.39% 343,000 1.34% Large Metros Averages: 1.13% 1.24% 1.24% SJCOG San Joaquin 318,537 1.86% 87,251 1.62% 79,246 1.56% StanCOG Stanislaus 208,000 1.62% 58,800 1.42% 59,100 1.43% Merced CAG Merced 127,604 2.00% -- -- 20,732 1.26% FresnoCOG Fresno 341,960 1.47% 123,940 1.60% 81,911 0.95% Kings CAG Kings 77,018 2.01% 24,500 2.33% 20,118 1.58% KernCOG Kern 481,400 2.29% 162,590 2.55% 150,000 1.97% Tulare CAG Tulare 222,699 2.01% 64,591 1.82% 73,419 1.73% San Joaquin Valley Averages: 1.90% 1.89% 1.50% Shasta RTA Shasta 37,141 0.84% 18,928 1.08% 20,914 1.33% BCAG Butte 93,930 1.69% 40,159 1.66% 35,189 1.97% TMPO Tahoe Basin 5,892 0.43% 4,160 0.35% 1,199 0.21% AMBAG Monterey Bay 152,292 0.83% 41,851 0.64% 64,400 0.84% SLOCOG San Luis Obispo 45,726 0.68% 21,411 0.73% 24,900 1.04% SBCAG Santa Barbara 83,682 0.79% 18,923 0.50% 49,000 1.02% Small MPOs Averages: 0.88% 0.83% 1.07% Population Housing Units Employment MPO Region
  22. 22. California MPOs : RTP/SCSTransportation Revenues by Source *Note: SCAG, MTC/ABAG, SANDAG, SACOG, SJCOG:Transportation budgets represented inYear of Expenditure (YOE) dollars Federal State Regional Local Other SCAG* Southern California 6% 9% 23% 20% 42% $524,700 MTC/ABAG* SF Bay Area 11% 16% 15% 53% 5% $289,000 SANDAG* San Diego 18% 34% 13% 35% -- $203,423 SACOG* Sacramento 11% 25% 13% 51% -- $49,800 Large Metros Average: 12% 21% 16% 40% 24% $266,731 SJCOG* San Joaquin 16% 25% 33% 26% -- $10,950 StanCOG Stanislaus 35% 29% -- 36% -- $4,458 Merced CAG Merced 30% 40% -- 30% -- $871 FresnoCOG Fresno unclear -- -- -- -- $4,464 Kings CAG Kings 23% 42% -- 35% -- $542 KernCOG Kern 25% 20% -- 44% 11% $11,607 Tulare CAG Tulare 30% 40% -- 30% -- $5,942 San Joaquin Valley Average: 27% 33% 33% 34% 11% $4,854 Shasta RTA Shasta unclear -- -- -- -- $1,629 BCAG Butte unclear -- -- -- -- $312 TMPO Tahoe Basin 19% 23% -- 58% -- $1,600 AMBAG Monterey Bay 14% 23% 1% 62% -- $7,675 SLOCOG San Luis Obispo 18% 8% -- 49% 24% $2,177 SBCAG Santa Barbara 17% 35% 8% 39% 1% $7,397 Small MPOs Average: 17% 22% 5% 52% 13% $3,465 Total Revenues (in millions) Revenue Sources MPO Region
  23. 23. California MPOs : RTP/SCSTransportation Expenditures by Mode SCAG* Southern California 22% 20% 41% 4% 1% 11% MTC/ABAG* SF Bay Area 5% 62% 33% -- -- -- SANDAG* San Diego 28% 50% -- 13% 5% -- SACOG Sacramento 21% 32% 33% -- 8% 6% Large Metros Average: 19% 41% 36% 9% 5% 9% SJCOG* San Joaquin 30% 32% 35% -- 3% -- StanCOG Stanislaus 61% 33% -- -- 5% 1% Merced CAG Merced 31% 37% 19% -- 13% -- FresnoCOG Fresno 39% 36% 23% -- 3% -- Kings CAG Kings 18% 15% 52% -- 2% 13% KernCOG Kern 57% 37% -- -- 7% -- Tulare CAG Tulare unclear -- -- -- -- -- San Joaquin Valley Average: 39% 32% 32% -- 5% 7% Shasta RTA Shasta 75% 22% -- -- -- 3% BCAG Butte unclear -- -- -- -- -- TMPO Tahoe Basin -- 16% 42% 9% 5% 28% AMBAG Monterey Bay 28% 34% -- 22% 13% 3% SLOCOG San Luis Obispo 34% 27% 28% -- 6% 4% SBCAG Santa Barbara 31% 26% -- 39% 3% 1% Small MPOs Average: 42% 25% 35% 23% 7% 8% MPO Region Active Transport Other (TSM/TDM, Aviation, Safety, Rail, Debt Service) Highways Transit Operations + Maintenance Local Streets + Roads *Note: A number of summary charts were not explicitly clear; additional research may be needed to more accurately portray expenditure by mode in some cases.
  24. 24. California MPOs : RTP/SCS Key Performance Measures SCAG Southern California 20.2 68% 51% -- -- MTC/ABAG SF Bay Area 20.0 43% 79% -- -- SANDAG San Diego 26.7 78% 62% density range (du/ac): < 1 (<1%), 1-10 (40%) 10-20 (15%), 20-40 (24%) 40+ (20%) -- SACOG Sacramento 24.1 71% 38% -- -- Large Metros Averages: 22.7 65% 58% SJCOG San Joaquin 26.7 39% 24% 8.6 4,645 StanCOG Stanislaus 15.0 50% -- 11.4 9,400 Merced CAG Merced -- 27% -- 7.4 / 13.5 14,900 FresnoCOG Fresno 18.3 47% 12% 7.4 92 Kings CAG Kings 12.7 -- -- -- -- KernCOG Kern 20.0 44% -- -- -- Tulare CAG Tulare 18.0 45% -- -- 6,000 San Joaquin Valley Averages: 18.5 42% 18% 8.7 35,037 Shasta RTA Shasta 28.5 -- -- -- -- BCAG Butte 17.1 28% -- -- 5,731 TMPO Tahoe Basin 22.4 -- -- -- -- AMBAG Monterey Bay -- -- -- -- 14,316 SLOCOG San Luis Obispo 20.8 35% 30% 3.6 2,724 SBCAG Santa Barbara 20.7 98% 22% 2.1 -- Small MPOs Averages: 21.9 54% 26% 2.8 22,771 MPO Region 2035 Daily VMT per capita 2035 MF Housing Share 2035 Housing in Priority Areas 2035 Residential Density Farmland Consumption (acres)
  25. 25. SLOCOG’s Approach to RTP/SCS: Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals 1. Provide a variety of transportation options 2. Improve accessibility: people closer to products and services 3. Encourage mixed land uses 4. Encourage more compact building design 5. Strengthen and direct development towards communities 6. Encourage preservation of open space, farmland, and critical environmental areas
  26. 26. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Planning and Decision-SupportTools
  27. 27. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Study Area
  28. 28. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): RLUM Flowchart SLOCOG RLUM Flowchart General plans/zoning ordinances (8 jurisdictions, dozens of designations) Generalized Land Use Classifications 31 categories Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-Use, Public Facilities, Agriculture, Recreation and Open Space Informs development capacity Assigned to features Assigned to features Regional land use information (125,000 parcels) Aggregated land use features (53,000 features) 5 Subregions North Coast, North County, Central County, South County, East County 1,766 TAZs RTM Geography RLUM Analysis Areas Analysis areas for Census socio-economic data (55 areas) Estimated population per land use feature Generates RLUM Outputs > RTM (aggregated by TAZ) Residential units by type per feature Employees by type per feature Development capacity per feature Persons per Hh (5 per Planning Area) Housing vacancy rates Population by age category Socioeconomic data Building permits (2000 to 2010) Existing land use Employment data (24 categories, 9 group categories) Housing data (10 categories, 5 group categories) Built environment data
  29. 29. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Generalized Land Use Classifications (GLUCs) GLUC Category GLUC GLUC Name Density Range Average Density Residential RR Rural Residential 2.5-, 5-, 10-, 20-acre lots 0.2 du/ac Residential VLDR Very Low Density Residential 1 du/2.5 ac to 4 du/ac 1.2 du/ac Residential LDR Low Density Residential 4 to 8 du/ac 5.3 du/ac Residential MDR_A Medium Density Residential (Attached) 8 to 12 du/ac 14.2 du/ac Residential MDR_D Medium Density Residential (Detached) 8 to 12 du/ac 8.5 du/ac Residential MHDR_A Med-High Density Residential (Attached) 12 to 16 du/ac 17.7 du/ac Residential MHDR_D Med-High Density Residential (Detached) 12 to 16 du/ac 9.9 du/ac Residential HDR High Density Residential 16 to 20 du/ac 21.6 du/ac Residential VHDR Very-High Density Residential 20 to 38 du/ac 28.3 du/ac Residential MHP Mobile Home Park varies 7.7 du/ac Non-Residential CR Commercial Retail 21.7 emp/ac Non-Residential OFF Office 30.2 emp/ac Non-Residential TOURIST Tourist Accommodation 10.2 emp/ac Non-Residential RELIGIOUS Religious Facility 3.0 emp/ac Non-Residential CMTY_CTR Community Center 4.1 emp/ac Non-Residential BP Business Park 20.0 emp/ac Non-Residential CS Commercial Services 12.3 emp/ac Non-Residential LI Light Industrial 9.1 emp/ac Non-Residential HI High Industrial 6.6 emp/ac Mixed-Use MU Mixed-Use varies 16.1 du/ac; 45.2 emp/ac Public Facilities SCHOOL School 3.1 emp/ac Public Facilities COLLEGE College or University 9.7 emp/ac Public Facilities SPECIAL Special Use (Major Facility) 0.2 emp/ac Public Facilities PF Public Facility 13.2 emp/ac Public Facilities ROAD Road n/a n/a Agriculture AG Agriculture 0.02 du/ac; 0.2 emp/ac Agriculture AG_WINERY Winery 4.2 emp/ac Agriculture RL Rural Lands limited development Recreation, Open Space REC Recreation 0.1 emp/ac Recreation, Open Space OS Open Space n/a n/a Recreation, Open Space RIPARIAN Riparian Corridor n/a n/a
  30. 30. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Housing Units byType Residential Unit Types Description Residential Unit Groups Residential Unit Groups description RU01 Spaced Residential RUG1 SF DetachedRU02 SF Detached (Large-Lot) RU03 SF Detached (Small-Lot) RU04 SF Attached RUG2 SF Attached RU05 MF Residential (2 to 4 units) RUG3 MF Residential RU06 MF Residential (5 to 15 units) RU07 Apartment Complex (Small) (16 to 39 units) RU08 Apartment Complex (Large) (40 or more units) RU09 Mobile Home Park RUG4 Mobile Home Park RU10 Rural Residential RUG5 Rural Residential
  31. 31. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Employment byType Employment sector (2-digit NAICS code) Description Employment Groups Employment Groups description 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Ag_Mining Agriculture and Mining21 Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction 23 Construction Light_Ind Light Industrial 31-33 Manufacturing 42 Wholesale Trade 22 Utilities 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 44-45 Retail Trade Retail Retail 51 Information Office Office 52 Finance and Insurance 53 Real Estate, Rental and Leasing 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 56 Administrative/Support, Waste Mgmt & Remediation 92 Public Administration Government Government 61 Educational Services EducHealth Education and Health62 Health Care and Social Assistance 71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Leis_Hosp Leisure and Hospitality721 Accommodation 722 Food Services 81 Other Services Except Public Administration OtherSvcs Other Services Military Military employment all industries Military Military
  32. 32. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): Proposed Land Use Projects
  33. 33. SLOCOG’s Regional Land Use Model (RLUM): CommunityViz Scenario 360 Interface Set up Indicators Dynamic Attributes Set up New Scenario All Data Layers View Charts
  34. 34. Future Land Use Scenarios: MF Housing as Share of New Housing + Share of New Employment in UrbanizedAreas Scenario Share of New Housing allocated as Multi-Family Share of New Employment allocated in Urbanized Areas Base Year 2010 17% 83% Future Year 2020 Scenario 44% 93% Future Year 2035 Scenario 1 25% 85% Future Year 2035 Scenario 2 35% 90% Future Year 2035 Scenario 3 45% 95%
  35. 35. SLOCOG RTP/SCS: CommunityViz IndicatorTables
  36. 36. SLOCOG’s Approach to RTP/SCS: Recommended Investments
  37. 37. SLOCOG’s Approach to RTP/SCS: Major Investments  Transit service enhancements  Regional bikeways and bike lanes  Bob JonesTrail and Railroad SafetyTrail  Class II bike lanes throughout region  Major highways and roadways  US 101 merging lanes  SR 46 East widening  Interchange improvements  SR 227 widening
  38. 38. SLOCOG’s Approach to RTP/SCS: Major Investments  Livable Communities:  Downtown enhancements  Streetscapes  Boardwalks  Transportation Demand:  Rideshare outreach  Employer outreach  Park-and-ride lots  Vanpools  Safe Routes to Schools
  39. 39. Concerns and Challenges  Socio-economic changes  Increasing traffic volumes  Increasing demand on all transportation modes  Shifting of programming authority to state  Diminishing state and federal funding  Competitive grant programs vs. regional allocations  COG has no land use authority  Jobs/housing imbalance, housing affordability $1.25/gal 36¢ tax tax rate = 29% $4.00/gal 54¢ tax tax rate = 14% 20121993
  40. 40.  20 counties (81% of state’s population) are Self-Help Counties  16 counties aspire to be Self-Help Counties Funding: Self-Help Counties and “Aspiring Counties”
  41. 41. 47 CONNECTING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN REGION Regional Collaboration, Local Solutions Kim Ellis, project manager Oregon Metro MPO September 15, 2015
  42. 42. 48 Regional vision: the 2040 Growth Concept Adopted in 1995
  43. 43. 49 Building toward six desired outcomes Equity Clean air & waterTransportation choices Vibrant communities Economic prosperity Climate leadership
  44. 44. Nearly half the population of Oregon resides in the Portland metro area
  45. 45. 51 Climate Smart Strategy How did we get here?
  46. 46. 52 Understanding Choices in 2011 What we learned in Phase 1 • The region’s land use and transportation strategy provides a strong foundation • Target can be achieved through many ways, but more investment is needed • No silver bullet – a combination of strategies is needed • Need to consider more than carbon pollution
  47. 47. Shaping Choices in 2012-13 What we learned in Phase 2 RECENT TRENDS ADOPTED PLANS NEW PLANS & POLICIES • Ground alternatives in adopted local and regional plans and visions • Investing in communities helps achieve other desired outcomes • We will fall short of the target and other goals if we continue investing at current levels
  48. 48. Shaping Strategy and Adoption in 2014 What we learned in Phase 3 • Focus on outcomes and seek strategies with multiple benefits • Advance social equity with implementation • Be bold and innovative, yet grounded • Provide incentives and flexibility
  49. 49. Community leaders, local governments and the public More than 15,000 individual touch points from 2011-14
  50. 50. 56 Climate Smart Strategy What is included in the final strategy?
  51. 51. 2014 Climate Smart Strategy Implement adopted plans Make transit convenient, frequent, accessible and affordable Make biking and walking safe and convenient Make streets and highways safe, reliable and connected Use technology to actively manage the transportation system Provide information and incentives to expand use of travel options Make efficient use of parking and land dedicated to parking Support Oregon’s transition to cleaner fuels and more fuel- efficient vehicles Secure adequate funding for transportation investments Regional strategy for reducing emissions 57
  52. 52. Source: GreenSTEP Climate Smart Strategy Past leadership and adopted plans exceed the target and support other goals
  53. 53. Climate Smart Strategy Policymakers weighed desired outcomes, cost and public input to shape strategy Transit Technology and “smart” transportation Active transportation Streets and highways Parking Up to $$$ Up to $$$ $ $$ $ Information $ RELATIVE CLIMATE BENEFITS RELATIVE COST POLICY AREA
  54. 54. Climate Smart Strategy The return on investment is significant Source: GreenSTEP and ITHIM
  55. 55. Climate Smart Strategy Our needs outpace expected resources
  56. 56. 62 Collaboration moving forward • Pursue investment dollars • Continue funding discussions • Advocate for cleaner, low carbon fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles • Develop Regional Transit Strategy • Implement through next Regional Transportation Plan • Monitor and report progress
  57. 57. 63 www.oregonmetro.gov/climatestrategy
  58. 58. Coalition Members • California Alliance for Jobs • California Transit Association • CALCOG; Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC); San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG); Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • California State Association of Counties • League of California Cities • Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District • San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council • Transportation California • Self-Help Counties Coalition • Natural Resources Defense Council • Environmental Defense Fund • American Planning Association - CA Chapter • American Lung Association in California • California Center for Sustainable Energy
  59. 59. GHG Research Trends • Implementing various “bundles” of transportation and land use strategies at a regional and local level could achieve 30% greater annual GHG emission reductions than expected baseline levels in 2050. • In particular, land use changes combined with expanded transit services achieve stronger GHG reductions than when only one option is implemented. • Combinations of strategies create synergies that enhance the potential reductions from individual measures.
  60. 60. Note: Estimates represent approximate effects on regional VMT and resulting transportation GHG resulting from aggressive implementation of individual strategies and strategy sets on a regional scale, based on prior research published by CAPCOA, Caltrans, UC Davis, US EPA, TRB, CCAP, and the books Growing Cooler and Moving Cooler. Range of Maximum 2050 VMT Reduction: Multi-Modal Infrastructure, Pricing, Network Management (operations), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Land Use, and Electric Vehicle Deployment Strategies
  61. 61. GHG Reduction Estimates • When attempting to project the full long-range effects of investments on travel and GHG reduction, illustrated above are measures applied at a community- wide or corridor level scale of development such as within a specific plan. • Note: Estimates based on prior research published by CAPCOA, Caltrans, UC Davis, US EPA, TRB, CCAP, and the books Growing Cooler and Moving Cooler.
  62. 62. Program Design 1. Allocate transportation funds primarily on a regional basis: • Direct funds to MPO’s or other regional transportation agency outside of an MPO. • Use an objective standard, such as population, as basis for funding allocation between regions to ensure all parts of the state have equitable funding. • Establish statewide modeling to allow region-to-region consistency in evaluating and verifying the effectiveness of all eligible projects, including those related to travel demand reduction, system efficiency and safety improvements, demographic characteristics, and integrated land use and transportation strategies.
  63. 63. Program Design 2. Allocate funding within regions to achieve optimum mix of GHG reductions and co-benefits: • Structure program whereby regional agencies are required to establish competitive grants for local entities that incentivize integrated strategies that combine land use changes with infrastructure investment at the neighborhood scale to achieve greatest long term GHG benefits. • Authorize funds to be used for local land use strategies and transportation needs that implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy within existing urbanized or developed areas. • Allow areas outside of MPO regions to seek funding for GHG reduction strategies in their Regional Transportation Plan. • Support rural sustainability through funding maintenance, farm to market, and interconnectivity needs that implement the adopted regional strategy
  64. 64. Program Design 3. Allocate funding to administer competitive grant program for intercity and interregional rail modernization, and roadway operational and maintenance improvements that implement or enhance GHG reduction strategies in statewide and regional transportation plans. 4. California Air Resources Board will establish minimum standards for the development of regional and interregional funding programs, including criteria for evaluating GHG impacts that ensure program compliance while retaining flexibility to meet transportation goals. CARB will periodically review each region’s effectiveness in meeting the standards to ensure legal compliance with AB 32 requirements.
  65. 65. Eligible Uses of Funds • Expenditures must implement AB 32 regulatory program and reduce GHG emissions • Evaluation, monitoring, and verification systems
  66. 66. Eligible Uses of Funds TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY MEASURES • Network and demand management (e.g. transit/bike priority signalization; trip reduction programs; roundabouts/roadway modifications; congestion pricing) • Transit service, maintenance and operating costs (e.g. Bus Rapid Transit) • Road and bridge maintenance, operations and retrofits for complete streets, and urban greening (e.g. pavement and striping conditions; streetscape enhancements; bike/ped safety enhancements) • Clean technology infrastructure and planning (e.g. EV station planning and implementation) • Multi-modal network connectivity to reduce travel distances and improve access to parks, schools, jobs, housing, and markets for rural and urban communities (e.g. neighborhood scale planning)
  67. 67. Eligible Uses of Funds LAND USE INCENTIVES AND IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS • Funding to develop and implement land use modifications to support regional plans (e.g. updating zoning codes, parking standards, Level of Service policies) • Other community infrastructure (e.g. water, sewer, greening) to support Transit Oriented Development, affordable housing, urban infill, and small walkable communities in rural neighborhoods • Transit infrastructure and clean technology conversion (e.g. hybrid busses; station enhancements) • Multi-use facilities and accommodations for bicyclists, pedestrians, and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (e.g. multi-use trails) • Multi-modal network connectivity within new development (e.g. street design) • Interregional rail modernization and related community infrastructure (e.g. Capitol Corridor enhancements)
  68. 68. Was it a success? • Cap & Trade Investment Plan Adopted for 2014-15 with 60% of funding for transportation programs: TOD, Housing, Low Carbon Vehicles, Transit/Rail Capital, Transit Operations, HSR • Legislature adopted most but not all of allowable uses (e.g. road maintenance excluded)
  69. 69. Key Differences Coalition Proposal • Integration of land use and multi-modal transportation strategies • Regional choices Adopted Budget • Existing siloed programs • State control • No money for road maintenance, no leveraging of land use strategies, little emphasis on active transportation • Transit & housing dominated transportation money
  70. 70. Lessons Learned • Hard for institutions and agencies to give up siloed thinking • States don’t like to delegate decisions where money is at stake • Assumptions are often wrong about what reduces GHGs (e.g. transit location; housing subsidizes vs land use efficiency) • Honest accounting of GHG results will probably drive future outcomes
  71. 71. By integrating investments in new mobility, new infrastructure, and new jobs we can create healthy communities and better quality of life for all Innovation. Collaboration. Accountability. For more information: info@transfunding.org www.transfunding.org
  72. 72. Recurring Questions in Climate Mitigation Planning • Appropriate Scale – Local, Metropolitan, or State? • VoluntaryAction – Limitation or Opportunity? • Coalition Building – Good Policy vs. Good Politics? • Sticks, Carrots, and Orange-Colored Sticks –What works best? • Data andTools for Monitoring Progress –Who and how? • Performance-Based Planning –What does the future hold?

×