On May 2014 there was a State Hearing called “SB 375:  From Vision to Implementation“

During the hearing NRDC stated “TRANSIT ORIENTATED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) has been shown to work from

PERFORMANCE STUDIES by the TRANSPORTATION COALITION for LIVABLE COMMUNITIES “ .

 

Also at this hearing there was a consensus to NO LONGER use LOS ( Level of Service) to measure traffic congestion.

 

Here is what I found:

Hearing DESAULNIER, Chair May 14th 2014 1:30 p.m.

Committee: Transportation and Housing   (TELEVISED) see it on channel 108  

SB 375:  From Vision to Implementation

 

References

 

California Air Resources Board (2014).

www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm

 

California Department of Finance (2013).

www.sacog.org/calendar/2013/09/planners/pdf/4D2-Attachment%20B.pdf

 

Greenblatt JB (2013) Estimating Policy Driven Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trajectories in California: The California Greenhouse Gas Inventory Spreadsheet (GHGIS) Model.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Publication No. LBNL6451E http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6451e.pdf

 

McCahill C (2014) “Per capita VMT drops for ninth straight year; DOTs taking notice.” State Smart Transportation Initiative.

www.ssti.us/2014/02/vmt-drops-ninth-year-dots-taking-notice/

 

TRANSPORTATION COALITION for

LIVABLE  COMMUNITIES 
LIVABLE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM http://transfunding.org/research_8_294076122.pdf                        http://transfunding.org/research.php

 

The premise of the program concept is that

the Transportation sector’s contribution

to

CA GHG emissions is

38%

we must INTEGRATE transportation and land use strategies – combining livable community infrastructure, maintenance, and operations in order to maximize GHG reductions from neighborhood scale planning and combined projects rather than single purpose investments.

 

 

the strategy

With California’s regions planning for higher density and more compact development patterns, successful implementation of SB 375 and other regional GHG reduction strategies relies on cost-effective and integrated investments in land use and transportation in existing urban and rural communities. Livable Community Infrastructure includes the streets and sidewalks that connect our neighborhoods, the pipes that move water to and from homes and businesses, and the parks and trees needed to improve quality of life in neighborhoods.

 

AB 574 “ fund sustainability & greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction in rural areas using cap and trade auction proceeds “ http://transfunding.org/principles_55_2416069340.pdf 

A key method to reduce transportation emissions is the  development of  sustainable communities strategies and  other regional plans that encourage more compact  development and invest in alternatives to the automobile,  thereby reducing the total amount of driving necessary to meet mobility needs.

 

 

what we propose to fund

 

The Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities proposes funding projects that implement transportation improvements in conjunction with land use strategies. Examples include:


·     bike facilities

·     street repairs

·     frequent and predictable transit

·     clean technology infrastructure

·     rail modernization

·     streetscape enhancements

·     traffic calming

·     pedestrian safety improvements

 

·     multi-use paths

·     water, sewer, & utility improvements

·     urban greening

 

 


the numbers behind it all

 

 

 

 

 

Transportation and Land Use Strategies

 

 

Max GHG reduction if applied as an individual strategy to full neighborhood scale plan

(not additive)

 

Max GHG reduction if applied to full neighborhood scale plan, in combination with other supporting strategies (not additive)

 

 

Transportation Efficiency  Measures

 

 

Travel Demand Management

Commute Trip Reduction

7%

21%

Transit Fare Subsidies

7%

20%

Parking Cashout

3%

  8%

 

 

 

 

Transportation Network Management

Eco-Drive Education

5%

14%

Multi-modal Network Connectivity

7%

21%

Road Maintenance

10%

not yet quantified

Variable Speed Limits

20%

not yet quantified

Transit Service Frequency

1%

   3%

 

Land Use Incentives and Improved Transportation Options

 

 

Neighborhood Design Characteristics

Residential Density

5%

15%

Transit Proximity

8%

25%

Land Use Diversity

10

30%

 

 

 

Multi-modal Infrastructure

NEV Networks

1%

  3%

Bus Fleet Low Carbon Fuels

5%

not yet quantified

Pedestrian Network

1%

  2%

Capital Transit Improvements

8%

not yet quantified

 


what it means

•    The interactions of land use, urban form, and transportation are complex. They vary over time and depend on the context, scale, and intensity of application. Many achieve their greatest impact when they affect the full spectrum of travel purposes, destinations, and trip lengths. 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.

 

•    Transportation efficiency measures such as lowering speed limits, using congestion pricing, expanding transit service, or making operational improvements, could be implemented within a few years to generate reductions in GHGs prior to 2020. Compounding GHG reductions can be achieved when combined with land use strategies and transit infrastructure.

 

•    While strategies that involve land use patterns and improved transportation options take a longer time to implement, notable reductions are realized by 2030, with greater GHG reductions of 9% to 15% by 2050. Early investments must be made in land use in order to achieve these significant reductions.10

 

•    Road maintenance is a transportation system efficiency strategy that can yield up to a 10% decrease in GHG emissions. Maintaining smooth roads allows vehicles to operate more efficiently, and well-maintained bridges keep detours to a minimum – improving traffic flow and reducing associated greenhouse gas emissions.

 

•    Combining land use and transit strategies is projected to yield GHG reductions of 4% by 2020 and 16% by 2050 as compared to 2050 baseline trends.3

 

•    Transportation efficiency measures yield greatest short term (2020) GHG benefits between 4% and 20% from 2050 trends, but infrastructure investments in land use, transit, and complete streets facilities have additional benefits such as improved public health.10

 

•    When streets and transit infrastructure are co-implemented with land use,  greater reductions in  GHGs are realized, especially over a long term horizon. For example, land use code changes combined with expanded transit services achieve stronger GHG reductions than when only one option is implemented.

 


why it’s important

No single strategy can achieve AB 32 goals. Key trends from existing research can help shape an understanding of why an integrated approach must be taken to maximize our investments in GHG reduction. From an initial assessment of research, a policy framework can be built around allocating funding to regions to promote combinations of integrated strategies for transportation efficiency, land use incentives, and improved transportation options at the local level. 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.

 

 


Combinations of transportation and land use strategies create synergies that substantially enhance the potential reductions from individual measures. The diagram and table presented in this document are a synthesis of the latest research on the ranges of GHG reduction from individual and combined strategies based on research published by various Universities, Caltrans, the Transportation Research Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, US Environmental Protection Agency, and other institutions, and also found within the books Growing Cooler and Moving Cooler.

 

how we got here



1.    Handy, Susan. Senate Bill 375 - Research: Transportation Related Policies Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis and UC Irvine. Report for California Air Resources Board. 2010-11 

 http://ultrans.its.ucdavis.edu/doc/policy-design-and-behavior-research-%E2%80%93-policy-briefs   

 

2.    CAPCOA. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010.  http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 

 

3.    Rodier, Caroline J. A Review of the International Modeling Literature: Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-34. November 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/docs/rodier_8-1-08_trb_paper.pdf

 

4.    Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. August 2009. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/162093.aspx

 

5.    Michele, Lauren. Policy in Motion: Transportation Planning in California after AB 32 (Chapter 2). CreateSpace. August 2011.  https:// www.createspace.com/3637804

 

6.    Ewing, Reid, K. Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters and Don Chen. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. 2008. http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/GrowingCooler.pdf

 

7.    Center for Clean Air Policy. Cost-Effective Greenhouse Gas Reductions through Smart Growth and Improved Transportation Choices. June 2009. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ccapsmartgrowthco2_june_2009_final_pdf.pdf

 

8.    Ewing, Reid. CO2 Reductions Attributable to Smart Growth in California. University of Maryland and

Arthur C. Nelson, University of Utah. September 2008. http://www.climateplan.org/resources/transportation/

 

9.    Bartholomew, K. and R. Ewing. Land Use-Transportation Scenario Planning: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 75(1), 13-27. September 2009. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360802508726

 

10.  Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Urban Land Institute. July 2009. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MovingCoolerExecSummaryULI.pdf

 

11.  US Environmental Protection Agency. Potential Changes in Emissions Due to Improvements in Travel Efficiency. Prepared by ICF International. March 2011. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/420r11003.pdf

 

12.  California Department of Transportation. Prioritization of Transportation Project for Economic Stimulus with Respect to Greenhouse Gases. Prepared by Neimer, Harvey. June 2009. http://dn.engr.ucdavis.edu/images/GHG_Report.pdf