E&E News: EPW Democrats bypass Republicans, approve global warming bill

(11/05/2009 at 09:30 AM)

Darren Samuelsohn, E&E Senior Reporter

Link to Article

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats quashed a three-day Republican boycott and passed global warming legislation today using a procedural move that could undermine support from moderate lawmakers should the bill reach the floor.

Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and nine Democrats signed off on the climate bill — without considering amendments — after trying without success to wait out Republicans.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) voted against the legislation because he could not get his issues addressed, including a less aggressive set of emission limits in 2020. Baucus explained that he would play a role as the debate moves forward as chairman of the Finance Committee and as a senior member of the Agriculture panel.

“I’m going to work to get climate change legislation that can get 60 votes through the U.S. Senate and signed into law,” Baucus added.

Ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) urged Boxer not to pass the bill, adding that Republicans still hold firm in their belief that U.S. EPA should conduct a more thorough economic analysis before committee members vote.

“In the history of this, we’ve not been able to find a time when a bill has been marked up without minority participation,” Inhofe said.

Boxer and other Democratic allies insisted that the bill is but one step in the process and that EPA had already done enough work to give lawmakers adequate information.

“We believe that to go back to another analysis when we already have an unprecedented amount of work based on 350,000 pages would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, would be duplicative,” Boxer said.

Boxer’s quick move has brought criticism from several moderate GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. All of the lawmakers are seen as critical to reach 60 votes but signed onto letters this week urging EPA to complete its analysis before the EPW panel moved forward.

A special congratulations to the winners, and our deepest appreciation to those who ran for office and put their names on the ballot to serve our community. Most of all, a special thank you to the families of the candidates who are the unsung heros of public service.

Dow Constantine now faces the reality of a county that is going through a fundamental structural shift in how it thinks, operates, pays its bills and organizes it’s work. He needs to embrace this challenge with conviction and depth of purpose. Mike McGinn or Joe Mallahan will confront not just a short term deficit but a shaky foundation of how to maintain Seattle’s role as the economic engine of our state. We as a community will embrace the winner with heart and soul and move forward together. Mike O’Brien, Nick Licata, Richard Conlin and Sally Bagshaw bring unique personal and professional qualities but share a profound love of our city’s quality of life and will do a fantastic job being fully engaged city councilmembers. I am extremely excited about working with our new mayor, new council, new executive to help build a new relationship with Olympia.

Our state is engaged in the most fundamental systems challenges in generations. Boeing’s announcement is not easy to explain but the anxiety is clear. Our economy is shifting toward a knowledge and service-based economy. The question is whether we have the public infrastructure and educational systems to charge into the new century despite our nagging frustration that low paying jobs seem plentiful but living wage jobs for real people seem more and more difficult to reach.

These core changes transcend old fashioned stereotypes of battles between Olympia and Seattle and other cities. They go so much deeper than shallow arguments about who gets what. It goes to the DNA of our ability to be a light among the states with progressive policies for families, a vibrant and healthy economy, quality infrastructure and a responsive and engaged educational system.

The promise of Washington is not just that we have beautiful resources but that we value rugged individualism with a soul and community spirit.

We are unique and our state can be one of the most insightful, proactive, engaged living laboratories of innovation in the nation. Let’s embrace the challenge of new ideas not as a slogan but as a teachable way of running our government. Let’s learn from mistakes and failure and obstacles instead of hiding from them.

We must have courage to question old assumptions, to reflect deeply upon what it takes to support families in today’s world. Our government must work better and be more responsive to those we serve. We need systems reform in education, health care, transportation and our economy.

My greatest hope is that the different levels of government–Seattle, King County, Washington– can rise up together to see the possibilities if we coordinate our strategies, organize our thoughts together and build a systems approach to our 21st Century challenges. We need to step beyond our comfort zone to ask tough questions about what level of government should provide what service; how we organize ourselves around larger priorities; what it takes to get better outcomes for the public.

Beyond the tactics of efficiency, we need a bolder dialogue about our strategies into the new century. We cannot sustain ourselves with a 62% high school graduation rate; small businesses that struggle to pay a regressive B&O tax; a transportation system that is based on politics instead of objective measures and a new approach to funding; an energy system that is based on yesterday instead of tomorrow; and so much more.

Together we can do all those things we cannot do alone.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.

Transportation for Pennsylvania’s blog yesterday featured a report back from Monday’s summit in Washington, D.C., entitled Rebuilding the Corridors of Prosperity: High Speed Rail and Transportation Investment in the Northeast and Midwest. The summit was put on by the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition, in coordination with the Northeast Midwest Institute, 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, and Smart Growth America. The purpose of the meeting was to bring high-speed rail advocates together from the Northeast and Midwest states as a means of determining which steps will have to be taken to bring rail into these areas (as part of an interconnected network). Here is an excerpt from the T4PA blog:

Judy Schwank, President of 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania described why this effort is important for Pennsylvania. “Pennsylvania has the important and strategic distinction of straddling two mega-regions, the Northeast and the Great Lakes. Linking to these markets is a critical component for the state’s economic prosperity. Investment in rail systems, both passenger and freight, has been and will be important to the cities and towns of Pennsylvania. As we determine the next federal transportation authorization we need to ensure that investments support communities and integrate with existing networks.”

Karen Rae, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Rail Administration, and Roy Kienitz, Under Secretary for Policy at the US Department of Transportation, talked about the role of rail to create more transportation alternatives across the country.

“There needs to be an intersection between rail planning and activities occurring on the ground. Having city to city connections will drive ridership,” Karen Rae added. She emphasized that creating an integrated high speed rail system is a challenging project; however, a step by step approach is needed to build the will and momentum to make it a reality.

…

To continue the momentum of the event, 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania plans to identify and convene key leaders in critical transportation corridors within Pennsylvania that connect the Great Lakes and the Northeast. The organization will continue to educate and build awareness and support for advancing a federal transportation reauthorization that links regions and builds better communities.

To read more about this effort, visit the T4PA blog, and check out the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition website.

What are your thoughts on channeling rail development into these states? How should the government (or any other decision-making body) prioritize which corridors should be first in line for receiving funding for high-speed rail development?

AN E&E PUBLISHING SERVICE

CLIMATE: Boxer gives ‘clean’ transit a push (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)
Josh Voorhees, E&E reporter

The latest draft of the Senate energy and climate bill would more than double the level of funding for public transit and other low-carbon transportation alternatives the House approved this summer.

Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled her chairman’s mark late Friday, setting aside an average of nearly 2.8 percent of the allocations over the first four years for “clean” transportation projects. Under the House bill (H.R. 2454), states would have only the option of using up to 1 percent of the allocations for such work.

The victory left many transit advocates hopeful they will be able to maintain, and possibly even expand, the funding levels as the bill moves toward a vote on the Senate floor.

“In general, this is obviously a victory for clean transportation,” said Colin Peppard, a transportation advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “And we plan on working with Senator Boxer and committee staff to protect and expand it.”

The boost in transportation allocations was the result of a strong push from environmental groups, transportation advocates and a group of like-minded lawmakers backing legislation dubbed “Clean-Tea” (S. 575), which would require 10 percent of any cap-and-trade revenues to go toward low-carbon transportation.

While Boxer’s mark fell far short of that level, it was still being hailed as a triumph within the group.

“Obviously, it’s not 10 percent but given the context of the intense competition for these revenues, it feels pretty good,” said David Goldberg, communications director for Transportation For America, a Washington, D.C.-based transportation advocacy group.

The Clean-Tea legislation was authored by EPW Committee member Thomas Carper (D-Del.) and has steadily picked up increasing support from his fellow committee Democrats. Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have all signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.

Carper applauded the inclusion of Clean-Tea language in Boxer’s chairman’s mark that would tie the funding levels for cities and states to their emissions-reducing efforts. He said it was a “common-sense solution to the problem that we use a gas tax to fund our nation’s transportation system.”

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) has introduced companion Clean-Tea legislation in the House and has lined up 14 co-sponsors including Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio).

“The understanding of the role that transportation — and clean transportation in particular — has in the climate debate has been growing over the past few months,” Goldberg said. “It’s really a major victory.”

Low-carbon transportation projects had already secured a small, but significant victory in an earlier draft of the Senate bill. The House bill gave states the option of using up to 1 percent of allocations to address transportation emissions, but the Senate plan mandates states use all 1 percent.

Friday’s release of the allocation breakdown included a new program specifically to fund transportation projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions. The program’s allocation will begin at 2.21 percent of distributed allowances for 2012 and 2013, fall to 1.35 percent the following two years, and then will be between 0.9 percent 2.5 percent thereafter. Those allocations are in addition to the original 1 percent allocated to states to combat emissions from the transportation sector.

The transportation sector accounts for roughly one-third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and congressional Democrats and the White House have vowed to recast the nation’s roads and rails to curb fuel consumption and limit emissions.

But with the next multi-year transportation bill stalled as lawmakers look for ways to pay for the needed infrastructure investment, many of those advocating for transportation reform have shifted their attention to the climate debate in hopes of making a dent in transportation emissions.

Still, even with their latest victory, transportation advocates say they remain focused on the next transportation bill for the largest gains.

“As much as we need to have a climate bill that addresses transportation, we also need the opposite to be true,” Peppard said. “We have to have a transportation bill focused on climate.”

Want to read more stories like this?
Click here to start a free trial to E&E — the best way to track policy and markets.

ABOUT E&E DAILY

Environment & Energy Daily (E&E Daily) is written and produced by the staff of E&E Publishing, LLC. Designed for policy players who need to know what’s happening to their issues on Capitol Hill, from federal agency appropriations to comprehensive energy legislation, E&E Daily is the place insiders go to track their environmental and energy issues in Congress. E&E Daily publishes daily by 9 a.m. while Congress is in session.

In the McDonnell-Deeds debate in September Deeds stated:”We have a need that exceeds a billion dollars a year. We have to come up with a billion dollars a year of new money. And to arrive at that, everything is on the table.” Then in this past Monday’s debate he said:”I have not proposed a billion dollars in tax increases.” Then during the same debate he said: “The day after I’m elected governor, I’m gonna start assembling a bipartisan commission, if that commission comes forward with a plan to raise new revenue … I will sign it.” Here is another statement of his quoted in the Washington Post: “Let me be clear regarding taxes. I will sign a bill that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution. As a legislator, I have voted for a number of mechanisms to fund transportation, including a gas tax. And I’ll sign a bipartisan bill with a dedicated funding mechanism for transportation — even if it includes new taxes. “ It seems that this politician may have a slight case of schizophrenia, (somehow that sounds redundant).

There is one more debate before the election and it will be interesting to see what new statements Creigh will make when it comes to raising or not raising taxes. How can this man expect us to make a decision on whether or not to vote for him when we don’t know how he stands on how much money he wants to pick from our pockets if he does get elected. This man obviously cannot be trusted to tell the truth when it comes to his policies. He contradicts himself from one moment to the next. Even if he came out tomorrow and said I will not raise taxes or support “revenue enhancements” I would still not believe him. After all the man is proud to have tried to raise our gas tax even when the price per gallon was pushing $4.00.

How could this man consider raising taxes when we are in the middle of a recession and with unemployment at a twenty year high? He could do this because, like your typical politician, he is trying to buy northern Virginia votes with promises of transportation improvements there at the expense of the rest of the state. He can make these promises without having to worry about keeping them because he knows that he will not get these tax increases through and will be able to blame it on others. Some things will never change.

What’s going on with the Senate Climate Bill?

The pace of the climate change/transportation field is so fast these days it has outpaced my ability to keep an up-to-date blog!  Since Congress has been back in session I have been reluctant to post anything new since every few hours a different version of the Senate’s Climate Bill seemed to be circulating.  I did want to put together a quick summary of some of the highlights of the new version and let you know what I’ve heard as of today.

Catching Up

Since the House passed H.R. 2454 (see: Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill) in June of this year, focus has shifted among those in the field of transportation and metropolitan planning to what the Senate will include in their version of the bill.  California Senator Barbara Boxer chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), which is responsible for taking the Senate’s first stab at marking up the Climate Bill.  Senators Boxer and Kerry released a Senate version of the bill on September 30 which EPW will take up on October 27.  This Senate version is known as S. 1733 (Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act) and includes some notable improvements from the House version — including the fact that it is only 821 pages!

Highlights

What was previously Section 222 in Waxman-Markey, has now been broken into three sections in the Senate version: Section 112, 113, and 211.  These new sections appear to be a compromise between Carper’s CLEAN-TEA and the original language in Section 222 — combining some of the original Matsui language that focused on scenario analysis and modeling, and the CLEAN-TEA language that focused on specific strategies for GHG reduction and established the Fund for transportation planning and projects.

Section 112: “Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Through Transportation Efficiency” (Part B: Mobile Sources)

Targets

• Requires GHG reduction targets specifically for surface transportation
• Implies states must have targets too because there is language about MPOs benchmarking their progress to state goals

Models / Methods

• Requires the assessment of GHG reduction strategies to achieve this target
• Standardizes emission models and methodologies
• “may use existing models and methodologies if the models and methodologies are widely considered to reflect the best practicable modeling or methodological approach for assessing actual and projected transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions from transportation plans and projects.”

Monitoring

• Every six years US DOT checks progress toward achieving target via vehicle efficiency, fuels, VMT, changes in consumer demand/use, and management of transportation systems

MPOs and RTPs

• The RTP must demonstrate progress in stabilizing and reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, and must contribute to the achievement of State targets (note: states are required to do the same to meet federal targets)
• The targets and strategies must be integrated and consistent with RTPs and TIPs (note: states are required to be consistent with state TIPs)
• Targets and strategies must be selected through scenario analysis, including transportation investment and management strategies that reduce GHG emissions (bill includes TDM strategies, transit infrastructure, pricing programs, bike/ped, changes to land use regulations to support infill and mixed use

Section 113: “Transportation GHG Emission Reduction Program Grants” (Part C: Transportation Emissions)

• USDOT will administer grants to States and MPOs for developing and updating transportation GHG reduction strategies and targets.
• Planning Grants — 5% of program grants can be distributed to MPOs for updating targets and strategies to reduce transportation GHG emissions (formula based on MPOs population compared to others).
• Performance Grants – USDOT is to establish criteria, including:  reduction in total and per capita GHG emissions, cost-effectiveness, comparison to historical emissions, increased mobility for disadvantaged population, other innovative approaches including health and consumer fuel savings.

Section 211(c): “State Climate Change Response and Transportation Fund” (Part F – page 801)

• Treasury establishes State Climate Change Response and Transportation Fund
• 89% of funds can be used for State and local government programs that include transportation grant programs
• Funds distributed to States based on formula:  per capita income of US / per capita income of State
• States must create a “State Climate Change Response Account” to be eligible for funding

Governor  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last night vetoed a bill that would have limited the options of completing the 710 Freeway, which is considered the missing link of the regional freeway system saypublished reports.If signed, the bill would have put the brakes on any chance of a surface route. It steps up the chances of another option – a 4.5-mile tunnel under South Pasadena, connecting to the 134/210 freeway exchange.

“When we learned that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 545 it came as a surprise, because there were many people, who came together in agreement for the first ever on

a 710 Freeway solution,” former Alahmra City Attorney Leland Dolley and 710 Freeway Completion project consultant. Dolley has been working on the 710 freeway completion since 1971.

“Governor’s vetoe was only a small bump in an long road, because the next step will be to move into a full environmental evaluation of the project.  Now, it’s time to have 710 completion project analyzed under the environmental process,” said Dolley.

“It will be done by the appropriate agencies and transportation clearing houses for funding. It should be clear to everyone involved, that the environmental process should be complete, indepth and agreeable to all parties involved,” explained Dolley.

“The 710 must be completed, because it represents the greatest reduction of air pollution, traffic congestion of any project anywhere in Southern California. Completion is needed and required in order to meet the air quality standards required by law,” he said.

“We’re excited about the project as we believe the 710 Freeway completion  should move forward with due speed. The longer we wait the more its going to cost in terms of  dollars, traffic congestion and health in SoCal,” Dolley said.

Lee Dolley, former City  Attorney for the City of  Alhambra and Longtime 710 Freeway  advocate said, “This is  one of the most  important bills the  governor could sign  into law today that  would clean up the air we breath, relieve traffic congestion and make both sides of 710 Freeway happy.”

“Congratulations should go out to all of the parties, who supported bill and who have the vision to see a better future and improved the quality of life issues in Southern California.”

“I personally salute the City of Alhambra and other 710 Freeway supporters for their perseverance and patience. We look forward to working with everyone.”

Schwarzenegger could end part of 710 Freeway debate — latimes

latimes.com — The half-century battle to complete the 710 Freeway through Pasadena and South Pasadena using a surface route could come to an end as early as today if GovernorArnoldSchwarzenegger signs SB 545.Lee Dolley, former Alhambra City Attorney Longtime 710 Freeway advocate says this is one of the most important bills the governor could sign into law today, and congrats to all.

Is it only a tax if the money goes into the general fund?

Quotes from Creigh:

“It’s not a pledge I don’t take pledges.”
“I am willing to sign a bill to raise money for transportation. As a matter of fact I intend to sign that bill next year.”
“We have to raise money for transportation.”
“Everything is on the table.”
“In the general sense of the term I am not going to raise general fund taxes.”
“Gas tax goes in the transportation trust fund.”

You just heard it from the donkey’s mouth if Deeds gets elected he will be raising the gas tax and who knows what other taxes will go up. Don’t believe for a second that general fund taxes are exempt after all he doesn’t take pledges.

World Carfree Day is September 22. Do you have any special plans? If so, add your event online at: World Carfree Day And join the World Carfree Day Page on Facebook!

World Carfree Day is an annual celebration of cities and public life, free from the noise, stress and pollution of cars. Each year on September 22, people around the world organize events of all sizes to showcase alternatives to the automobile. World Carfree Network invites organisations and individuals everywhere to join!

Every September 22, people from around the world get together in the streets, intersections, and neighbourhood blocks to remind the world that we don’t have to accept our car-dominated society. 2009 should be no different.

After reading about a taxi service in Vermont that allows riders to choose their own fare, I began thinking – what would people pay if they could choose their own fare on the local bus, subway or commuter rail?

photo credit: conbon33

I know I would continue paying the same fares as before. Nothing would change for me. But what about instances where you had no starting point for what the fare should be? How would people decide what was equitable, given that they had to pay something (no free rides)?

Any thoughts?

Government Accountability Office Issues Testimony on States’ Use of Recovery Act Highway Funds

In a testimony to the US House Committee on Transportation and Infastructure last Friday (July 31, 2009), the US Government Accountability Office issued an update to their July 8, 2009 GAO report GAO-09-829, containing more recent data examining “States’ Use of Highway Infrastructure Funds and Compliance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)”.  The report analyzed the ARRA’s allocation of more than $48 billion for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) investment in transportation infrastructure, including highways, rail, and transit.

The testimony stated that “a substantial portion of Recovery Act highway funds have been obligated, with most funded projects focusing on pavement improvements. In March 2009, $26.7 billion was apportioned to 50 states and the District for highway infrastructure and other eligible projects. As of July 17, 2009, $16.8 billion of the apportioned funds had been obligated for over 5,700 projects nationwide. About half of the funds has been obligated for pavement improvements such as reconstructing or rehabilitating roads; 17 percent has been obligated for pavement-widening projects; and about 12 percent has been obligated for bridge projects. Remaining funds were obligated for the construction of new roads and safety projects, among other things.”

It appears that about half of the ARRA transportation funds follow the “fix it first” mantra, with little environmental review being needed to complete existing road rehabilitation.  $2.9 billion will be spent on “shovel-ready” roadway-widening projects nationwide, and $2 billion for bridge projects.  However, of 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus funding so far, 45 percent have passed inspections with high marks according to the National Bridge Inventory.  These 1,123 bridges would not qualify for federal bridge money under the guidelines of the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, however, the language in the ARRA did not require that bridges must be deficient.  Over 150,000 other bridges are listed as structurally deficient or obsolete in the National Bridge Inventory.

Regarding job-creation: State DOTs and transit agencies reported that 2,522 projects have started in all 50 states and D.C., “creating or sustaining” 48,000 jobs involving direct work. Indirect involvement, such as the manufacture of new buses or asphalt for repaving, was credited with “tens of thousands” of jobs.

For the already approved DOT ARRA projects (“first 100 days” projects), here is a basic breakdown of project types:

Bridge Improvement                           $243,224,898
Bridge Replacement                             $317,753,387
Pavement Improvement                   $2,775,746,301
Safety/Traffic Management             $330,693,070
Transportation Enhancements       $116,013,874

New Bridge Construction                  $66,531,440
New Construction                                $445,533,715
Pavement Widening                            $899,796,458

Four Circle Approach: A Proposed Performance- Based Framework for Reducing GHGs from Travel Behavior

My Submission to the 2010 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting: Four Circle Approach to GHG Reduction from Travel Behavior

ABSTRACT

“Even if vehicle fuel efficiency were to reach 55 mpg by 2030, we would still see only modest decreases in transportation carbon dioxide emissions without a decrease in vehicle miles traveled.”  This quote from US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood in his July 14, 2009 testimony to Congress illustrates the growing role that the transportation sector has in meeting climate change objectives through not just vehicle and fuel technologies, but also through addressing travel behavior.  This paper introduces how a “Four Circle Approach” to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction can be used to support climate change stability, economic relief, and communities that encourage healthier lifestyles.  The approach groups GHG reduction strategies into four categories: 1) Complete Neighborhoods, 2) Pricing, 3) Vehicle Capacity Constraint, and 4) Transport System Efficiency. A performance-based framework is necessary to support the Four Circle Approach, and this paper discusses the factors that lead to a successful framework, based on a critique of California’s Senate Bill 375 and developing federal legislation. The framework seeks to ensure implementation and accountability by directly tying funding to GHG reduction strategies and changes to institutional structures that currently create barriers to meeting national climate change and economic objectives.  The Four Circle Approach and supporting framework would send strong signals to the public through pricing mechanisms and funding priorities that climate change is an important issue, while engaging the public as part of the climate change solution by providing them tools to make travel behavior choices for healthier lifestyles and communities.

Click here to view the entire paper proposal: Four Circle Approach to GHG Reduction from Travel Behavior

Make Up a Fake Parking Permit, Park Wherever You Want!

Last year the Bloomberg administration made a big deal about reducing the number of parking placards issued to city employees, slashing them by over 25,000. At the time, the cutback on permits, which allow cops, civil servants, and other lucky bureaucrats to park almost anywhere, was heralded by Paul Steely White of Transportation Alternatives as “a good first step. But the final analysis will be weeks and months from now, when we see how actively these plaques are enforced.”

So last week the group decided to test enforcement themselves, creating a bogus parking placard with the name of a non-existent city agency, the “Citizen Protection Administration.” Spokesman Wiley Norvell spent six hours parking a Mazda Miata at various illegal spots around Manhattan,

Could BRT replace the Second Ave. Subway?

As this week of bad news for the Second Ave. Subway draws to a close, we return again to a question of transit on the Upper East Side? As they do every time another SAS delay is announced, Streetsblog advocated for a BRT solution to the Second Ave. problem. But is that a realistic replacement for a full Second Ave. subway?

In rehashing their BRT argument for Second Ave. — one they explored in February — Ben Fried and Streetsblog made a rather bold claim. “On the east side of Manhattan,” Fried writes, “the right BRT configuration would carry almost as many commuters as the Second Avenue Subway, for a fraction of the cost.”

The Importance of Employment Centers

Jarrett has an interesting post on how LA is more like Paris with their polycentric form than a more monocentric place like New York City. I’ve been looking all week at LEHD data, mapping out job clusters and have noticed that many places in the United States are polycentric. This is also something Richard Layman talks about a lot as well, but in a slightly different way.

And a cool cartoon…

"A long time ago, human beings were devoting such a strong cult to these things, that they offered the lungs of their children as a sacrifice."© Lucile Gomez Here is a beautiful carfree drawing from Lucile Gomez. You can follow her work in French on her website: http://www.lucilegomez.fr/ (Source: CARFREE BLOGOSPHERE)

SB 375: Good Models or Good Planners?

Regional Targets Advisory Committee

As part of the SB 375 process, a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) has been established to help inform the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on a methodology to determine greenhouse gas targets for the state’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).  The current direction of the RTAC is to suggest that CARB applies a greenhouse gas per capita target reduction below a baseline year (e.g. recommendation of X  GHG/capita reduction below 2005 GHG/capita levels).  Through communications with the MPOs, CARB has proposed a framework where they set a uniform GHG/capita target across the state and through feedback from MPOs modify those targets individually.  Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Jerry Walters, Chief Technical Officer of Fehr & Peers, presented excellent frameworks at the July 22 RTAC meeting in Sacramento.  These frameworks were very similar, focusing on the reality that most of California’s MPOs do not have the modeling capabilities required to meet new state requirements through SB 375.  Jerry Walters spoke of the need to bring transportation demand models up to date in terms of increased sensitivity to land use and pricing effects of reducing vehicle travel, while Barry Wallerstein recommended an approach to satisfying the GHG reduction targets through a best practices/checklist approach where an MPO would get X amount of points for each GHG reduction strategy (e.g. pricing mechanisms, transit investments, bikeway infrastructure).  The complete frameworks can be found on CARB’s website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/rtac/meetings/070709/draftframework.pdf

Funding the New Law

The elephant in the room during the RTAC process was largely pointed out at the July 22 RTAC meeting: where are the incentives that were promised to implement this new law?  One point I’d like to stress is that much of the incentive and funding conversation has been focused on the need to update transport demand models and develop local general plans.  While this is absolutely a necessity for the implementation of SB 375, I’d like to point out that local governments are suffering so much from budget cuts that they are not only laying off city and county planners, but entire planning departments are being eliminated from local government.  I’m not kidding; this is a serious problem we need to realize in order to prioritize what little funding is coming into the transport/climate change funding pot.

“In a budget-cutting move, the City of Petaluma is disbanding its Community Development Department. After slashing the department from 23 to 11 employees in September 2008, the City Council more recently voted 4-2 to lay off all remaining planners, including the community development director.” — California Planning & Development Report

The RTAC brought up an excellent point at the latest meeting when they noted the inconsistency from the legislature and the governor moving forward with laws that mandate changes at the local level while at the same time passing a budget that cuts transit, borrows funds from local jurisdictions, and provides no financial help to secure existing planning jobs.  A good use of the federal stimulus money in terms of supporting greenhouse gas reduction goals through transportation and land use planning would have been better spent on retaining existing planning staff rather than creating short-term highway infrastructure jobs.  Outlined below is what is about to hit local government even harder.  However, I should note that $12 million from Prop 84 funds will be going toward model development, and the Strategic Growth Council will be allocating additional funds to assist model development.  I still maintain my position that perhaps we should go with Barry Wallerstein and Jerry Walter’s recommendations and approach GHG reduction through “best management practices” — if we tabled modeling investments for the time being that would free up $12 million that could be used to retain existing planning jobs: equivalent to about 300 entry-level planning positions.  Good models won’t solve our problems, but good planners might.

Here is what the State of California has planned for local government:

• Local transportation (funding withheld) — $1 billion
• Redevelopment agencies (funding withheld)– $1.7 billion
• Local government borrowing — $2 billion

Welcome to California!  You are visiting the portion of this website that highlights exclusively California-specific transportation, land use, and climate change policy and implementation.  I hope you enjoy the information and stay tuned as other state pages are developed.

California Policy

According to the California Air Resources Board (2008), transportation accounts for nearly 40% of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions.  California first addressed climate change in 1988 with the passage of AB 4420 (Sher, Chapter 1506, Statutes of 1988) directing the California Energy Commission (CEC) to study global warming impacts to the state and develop an inventory of greenhouse gas emission sources.  In 2000, SB 1771 (Sher, Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000) established the California Climate Action Registry to allow companies, cities and government agencies to voluntarily record their greenhouse gas emissions in anticipation of a possible program that would allow them to be credited for early reductions.

In 2001 the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”  The following year, AB 1493 (Pavley, Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) was signed, requiring the Air Resources Board to develop regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles sold in California.  The governors of California, Washington, and Oregon adopted a Global Warming Initiative in 2003 with provisions for the states to work together on climate change related programs.  Two years later Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, calling for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  AB 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 later established a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid-term target, and the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize climate.  In January 2007 the Governor issued Executive Order S-01-07 for California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, which will reduce the carbon intensity of California’s passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020.

With new vehicle efficiency and fuel carbon intensity requirements, the State of California has addressed two major aspects of the role transportation emissions play in contributing to global climate change.  However reductions in vehicle travel are still needed in order to meet California’s 2020 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goals.  The aspect of travel behavior is being taken up through SB 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.

SB 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008

Senate Bill 375 – with support from the California Building Industry Association, League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and many environmental groups, affordable housing advocates, and planners – lays out a framework for regional land use and transportation planning supported voluntarily.  This law requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to establish regional greenhouse gas targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in California.  SB 375 also mandates MPOs to create a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS) to plan for how they will achieve their given GHG target.  However, if an MPO cannot meet their GHG target through the development of an SCS, an “Alternative Planning Strategy” may be created to detail additional measures that an MPO could take to achieve the target given other circumstances (i.e. market trends).  Two excellent resources for detailed information on SB 375 requirements and implications include the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee SB 375 Analysis and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s “Guide to California’s SB 375″ (2009)

While the signing of SB 375 into law marks a historic acknowledgment that the status quo of development patterns and auto-dependent communities is unhealthy for both the planet and people, the lack of fiscal or other consequences and the small “incentive” offered for good planning through the California Environmental Quality Act will likely result in a process that has minimal influence on development patterns and resulting vehicle travel.  However, the good news is that there are dozens of cities, counties, non-profits, consultancy firms, state agencies, and academic institutions trying to figure out how to best support a new transportation/land use planning framework that tries to minimize vehicle travel.

The 18-month Surface Transportation Extension Debate

There has been controversy over the proposed 18-month extension of the current federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, as recommended by the Obama administration and supported by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW).  While the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure opposes the extension, many environmental groups in DC are optimistic that this will allow for extra time to work with the Senate EPW to develop stronger language to allocate more funding to local and regional planning needs (e.g. data/modeling needs, plan development, etc).  There is a strong desire by many groups to strengthen and expand the transportation provisions of climate legislation for smart planning tools and funding for clean transportation planning and infrastructure.  Current implications of bill language vs future potential of bill language is what best characterizes this debate.

More details of the extension can be found here: Principles for 18-month surface transportation extension

LATEST NEWS (Josh Voorhees, E&E reporter) — July 22, 2009:

The Senate Banking Committee tomorrow is scheduled to mark up a temporary extension of the public transit programs in the current surface transportation spending law, the penultimate step before the Senate can approve an 18-month extension of the authorization.

The two other Senate panels with jurisdiction over transportation legislation — the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee — have already passed extensions of their portions of the highway and transit bill in an effort to postpone a full reauthorization until 2011.

Assuming the Banking panel follows suit, the three bills will then be merged with a Finance Committee provision that would provide the cash needed to keep the trust fund from running aground.

The extension has the blessing of the White House, which has urged lawmakers to postpone efforts to pass a full bill before the current authorization expires at the end of September.

The White House and EPW Committee leadership have asked Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to find $20 billion to keep the trust fund solvent through the end of the 18-month extension.

On Monday, Baucus floated a proposal to inject roughly $27 billion into the trust fund. Roughly $20 billion would come from interest that the account has earned, but not retained, since 1998, when lawmakers traded the rights to those revenues in exchange for a “firewall” around transportation spending. Baucus’ bill would also return $7 billion to the trust fund that had been removed to pay for natural disasters and other emergency work.

While the Senate is making headway toward plugging the funding hole in the Highway Trust Fund and approving an extension before the August recess, House lawmakers have refused to sign onto the plan.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and ranking member John Mica (R-Fla.) have vowed to pass a full, six-year authorization before the current law expires, but that effort now seems unlikely. In addition to opposition from the White House and Senate, the T&I panel must wait for the House Ways and Means Committee to write the financing portions of their spending bill.

Panelists Speak on VMT Reduction

Winkelman testifies “sidewalks are as sexy as hybrids” when it comes to GHG reduction

Yesterday the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW)  heard from expert panelists representing multiple  levels of government from Portland, Oregon to Salt Lake City, Utah.  The Committee’s hearing was entitled, “Transportation’s Role in Climate Change and Reducing Greenhouse Gasses.”

The panelists included:

• The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
• The Honorable Regina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, United States Environmental Protection Agency
• The Honorable Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Utah
• David Bragdon, President, Portland Metro Council
• Steve Winkelman, Director of Transportation and Adaptation Programs, Center for Clean Air Policy
• Ray Kuntz, Chief Executive Officer, Watkins and Sheperd Trucking

With Secretary LaHood opening that we will not be able to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets within the transportation sector even with a 55mpg fuel economy standard, the panelists continued to chime in today that VMT reduction is an absolute necessity and failure to reduce vehicle travel will result in excess strain on other economic sectors.  The President of Portland Metro and the Mayor of Salt Lake City sat side-by-side noting that while their communities are very different in many regards, they both are moving ahead with visioning and action to plan for compact growth supported by transit, bikeways, and pedestrian infrastructure that allow people to have a lifestyle that is less dependent on the automobile — and thus, a household budget which is less vulnerable to the economic impacts of gas prices.

David Bragdon from Portland noted that a large obstacle for implementing VMT reduction strategies is that federal funding is often only available in large quantities for highway funding, when they would prefer to use the same amount on light rail and surface street projects.  The mayor of Salt Lake City noted his enthusiasm for engaging and educating the public in how they can tackle the challenges of climate change and congestion by working together (or through challenges within the community) to bicycle and take transit more frequently.  Steve Winkelman’s signature comment to the EPW senators was that there is evidence to support that “sidewalks are as sexy as hybrids” when it comes to achieving greenhouse gas reduction through reduced VMT.  Winkelman’s full testimony, complete with references to short-term VMT reduction strategies can be found here: Winkelman Testimony.

Highlights from Steve Winkelman’s testimony:

“I encourage you today to consider “travel efficiency” in crafting climate legislation.  Travel efficiency measures include smart growth, transit, walking, biking, telecommuting, system efficiency and freight improvements. They benefit cities, suburbs and rural towns and are just as important for fast growing as long-established communities. The key is to provide communities with the tools and incentives they need to determine and implement their own solutions.”

• Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is critical for climate protection;
• Travel efficiency measures can reduce per capita VMT by 10 percent, reducing emissions growth by 145 MMTCO2 — equivalent to taking 30 million cars off the road;
• Travel efficiency measures reduce household transportation costs and yield net economic benefits per ton of CO2 reduced, unlike some other mitigation strategies;
• There are many short-term GHG savings opportunities for communities with new, economic developments and those reinvesting in existing infrastructure; and
• The Center for Clean Air Policy and the participants in their VMT and Climate Policy Dialogue recommend that Congress dedicate significant cap-and-trade allowance value to fund the planning, implementation, and measurement of travel efficiency policies and projects.

Federal Policy

Transportation Reauthorization Bill (Oberstar)

Spearheaded by Chairman Oberstar of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, proposed language for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 was released on Monday, June 22, 2009.  This 700+ page document states that it will “transform Federal surface transportation to a performance-based framework to reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation’s highways, address the mobility and access needs of people and goods, improve the condition, performance, and connectivity of the United States intermodal surface transportation system, provide transportation choices for commuters and travelers, promote environmental sustainability, public health, and the livability of communities, support robust investment in surface transportation, and for other purposes.”

While the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill includes a small section on the role of metropolitan planning and greenhouse gas reduction, the Oberstar Transportation Reauthorization language similarly includes a small section on the need for including climate change objectives in regional planning.  Below is a shortened version of the language that is found in both pieces of developing legislation – note from the Climate Change (Waxman-Markey) post that this language from Oberstar was inserted at 3am the day of the passage of the climate bill as a replacement for Representative Matsui’s version (see CLEAN-TEA section in Federal and State Policy).

Language from Waxman page 475 / Oberstar page 336

• Establishment of Emissions Reduction Targets and Strategies
  • In General. Each MPO shall develop surface transportation-related greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, as well as strategies to meet such targets, as part of the transportation planning process under this section.
  • Minimum Requirements.  Each MPO that develops targets and strategies required shall demonstrate progress in stabilizing and reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions in each MPO.  The targets and strategies shall, at a minimum:
    • Be based on the models and methodologies established in the final regulations required under section 841 of the Clean Air Act;
    • Address sources of surface transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to achievement of the national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals;
    • Include efforts to increase public transportation ridership; and
    • Include efforts to increase walking, bicycling, and other forms of non-motorized transportation.  

Analysis of Oberstar Bill Highlights

My first day of interning in Washington DC I was greeted with the release of the 700+ page Oberstar bill.  Here is my “first-day-on-the-job” interpretation of the relevent sections to local and regional transport and land use planning: Oberstar Bill Highlights

Directly related to yesterday’s Crossroads post about the proposed Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA), The Minnesota Star-Tribune published an editorial that addresses the core of the disagreement between Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Obama Administration regarding the authorization of the bill.  Not surprisingly, the reason cited for the tension was lack of funding. Current federal transportation funding relies heavily on the Highway Trust Fund, which comes from gas tax revenue. The fund is in danger of running dry, because gas prices and climate concerns have translated into less driving and the purchasing of fuel-efficient vehicles. Chairman Oberstar has attached a $450 billion figure to the new bill – surely, a hefty sum, but one that accurately represents the challenges that lay ahead with bringing the nation’s transportation system up to date. Two possible solutions for increasing funding - a gas tax raise and the imposition of a vehicle miles tax – have been viewed unfavorably by both the White House and the general public. Given such roadblocks (no pun intended), any movement towards a resolution has stalled, at least for now. It remains to be seen how this debate will culminate.

E-mail us your thoughts on this debate and the worries over funding  at smartgrowth@renewlv.org.

It’s the economy, stupid!

The economy is not in full recovery mode, yet, so we can’t expect Cash for Clunkers – the government program to provide up to $4500 off the purchase of a new car if it is more fuel efficient than the old car – to work the way it was designed. Frankly, how many people do YOU know are going out and buying new cars in these uncertain economic times?

The program is funded for $1 billion dollars – which could help a transit agency upgrade its equiptment, close a budget gap and prevent fare hikes, or ensure preventative maintenance continues on rail lines or buses. I’d rather see the federal government begin funding sustainable, more economical transit than keep throwing money behind Detroit, which seems bent on producing cars with dismal gas mileage, instead of buses, light rail vehicles or train cars. I’m not anti-car at all, but instead looking at the bigger picture. Oil will not last forever, and we have not made significant inroads in alternative fuels to be used mass-market – so we need to get back to what we know will work in the meantime – public transportation and alternative modes of transportation.

Perhaps it will take a partnership between a transit agency and a big 3 automaker to make some major changes in how transportation is funded and thought of in America, so in the meantime, I will be waiting and watching the success (or failure) of the Cash for Clunkers program, which runs from July 1 to November 1, 2009.

After attending last night’s “Moving LANTA Forward” meeting at the Bethlehem Town Rotunda, I came away with a better understanding of the upcoming plans for the planned expansion of the current transportation system in the Lehigh Valley. As mentioned in previous post advertising the meetings, LANTA initated a system-wide analysis as a means of assessing the transportation needs of the Valley. The results of this analysis have now been made public and presented at daily meetings during this week.

The LANTA plan calls for a twelve-year, four-phase expansion of the current system. The first two phases focus on expansion of service in the core urban areas, including late-night and weekend service in the busy trunk corridors of the cities, as well as increased services into the outer suburban ring. The final phases call for an implementation of Bus Rapid Transit and the option of examining rail service potentials.

One salient feature of the presentation was the focus on the intricate connection between transportation planning and land use ordinances. Growth and development in the Lehigh Valley will continue to influence municipal decisions, and it will be important for municipalities to examine aspects of land use as a means of facilitating transit expansion. On the “Moving LANTA Forward” blog, a useful Land Use Design Toolkit, along with the consultants’ presentation, is posted. At a base level, LANTA hopes to reach cooperation with local communities in order to increase transit services and improve the current system.

Finally, kudos to all of you who came out to one of the meetings. The public input during the Q&A sessions will help LANTA in the expansion and will help them better asses the transportation needs of the Lehigh Valley.

To keep up on all the latest details about LANTA, make sure to continue checking their blog, the LANTA website, and, as always, this blog.

If you missed the Regional Rail episode of Tempo PublicSquare this past weekend, don’t fret. Watch it here, or go visit Tempo Signature Series and click on Train Service in the Lehigh Valley.