SB 375 | HealthyCal
 

Posts Tagged SB 375

  

Planning transportation around the Capitol

By Jenn Walker

Sacramento freeways are notorious for traffic during rush hour. Not only is the capitol region flanked by two major rivers, cutting off potential access routes in and out of the area, but its suburbs are expanding at a rapid rate. But help may soon be on the way.

Sacramento’s metropolitan planning organization, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, or SACOG, unanimously adopted a 313-page, $35 billion transportation and development plan last week to remedy such issues within the six-county region.

The council must produce a transportation plan every four years. However, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy for 2035 is the first to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy in adherence to Senate Bill 375, legislation that seeks to integrate transportation planning with the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This graph shows the number of congested miles driven per person per day in the Sacramento region currently and projected under previous metropolitan transportation plans. The lowest line is projected congestion under the latest plan.

The objective of this plan, council CEO Mike McKeever says, is to reduce traffic congestion while increasing transit accessibility and optimizing transportation funding.

A key feature of the plan is promoting mixed-use neighborhoods, locating shopping centers, homes, schools and jobs close together. The assumption is that closer proximity decreases travel time in the car, or the need to use a car altogether, resulting in less vehicle emissions and better air quality.

As obvious as this may seem, planners have advised the exact opposite in the last 60-plus years, McKeever says.

In 2010, the California Air Resources Board set greenhouse gas reduction targets for the Sacramento region that require a nine percent per capita reduction by 2020 and 16 percent per capita reduction by 2035. The plan is expected to meet these air quality standards.

With more alternatives to driving, this should also lower the number of cars on the road.

“Most people say sitting in heavy congestion is the lowest, most hated human activity that they have to experience,” McKeever says. “So we think that there is a quality of life benefit, as well as an economic and air quality benefit, to just giving people back more time in their daily life to presumably spend time at home with their families, or recreate in some way that’s more pleasurable than sitting in your car.”

According to the plan, the area’s current population of 2.3 million will increase by roughly 39 percent in the next 23 years, and the number of commuters in the area will increase more than threefold.

To help absorb that increase, the plan allocates about $7.4 billion to widen roads and create additional river crossings.

Currently, downtown Sacramento is difficult to access, enclosed by the Sacramento River to the west and the American River to the north. To increase accessibility, the plan proposes three new bridges. Two bridges will cross the Sacramento River and one will cross the American River, creating three more entries and exits in and out of the area.

The plan allots another $11.5 billion to maintain the region’s 22,000 lane miles of existing streets and 5,000-plus lane miles of freeways and expressways. As McKeever explains, the plan applies the fix-it-first approach whenever possible.

Some transportation improvements mean simply providing connections between two places. Currently, a 60-acre infill project is separated from Sacramento City College by seven major rail tracks. The plan proposes building a pedestrian bridge over the tracks to connect the neighborhood to the college.

Poor connectivity is a common problem in the region’s transit system, McKeever says.

“It’s literally thousands of little tiny investments like that, that when you add them all up, suddenly you’ve made transit far more convenient for people without them having to move their house or move the train station,” he says. “You’ve just made it easier for them to actually get to the train station.”

Approximately $2.8 billion will apply to bicycle and pedestrian improvements like these, in addition to about a $600 million chunk of the road and rehabilitation budget.

The plan also proposes increasing transit service to 15-minute or less intervals in higher density areas, and increasing transit service hours by 42 percent per capita.

The Coalition on Regional Equity, a partnership of local organizations focused on promoting equity in the Sacramento region, applauded the plan as a step in the right direction in a public comment letter late last year.

It suggested, however, that the plan do more to meet transportation needs of vulnerable populations, namely low income groups, communities of color and people 18 and under, by lowering fares, discounting monthly passes, and providing transit routes that accommodate night shift workers. It also suggested that transit networks provide enough connectivity so that people can access everyday needs without requiring a car, especially for those who are transit-dependent.

Seniors, who inevitably become transit-dependent, are often forgotten about in these plans, says Barbara Stanton, coalition affiliate and founder and director of the transit advocacy group Ridership for the Masses.
What are the alternatives to getting to a bus station when a senior’s license gets taken away, she asks. Walking or riding a bike is not typically an option.

“Then, all of a sudden, you just don’t have access, and I think it’s a panic type of situation,” she says. “Are you going to be able to not have to walk a third of a mile [or] a quarter of a mile to get a bus if you are a senior?”

The plan also implements the Rural Urban Connection Strategy, which focuses on preserving and maintaining the health and profitability of the region’s agricultural sector. It is expected to reduce the acres of farmland affected by development from 333 acres per 1,000 residents to 42 acres per 1,000 residents.

“[SACOG] has done absolutely tremendous work on the needs of the agricultural community and demonstrating the benefits of preserving our agricultural base,” says Matthew Baker, habitat director of the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

Yet an equally sophisticated analysis needs to be applied to development effects on surrounding habitats and ecosystems, he says. Quality data on how development will affect nearby habitats is lacking, he explains, and they are essential to providing people natural spaces for education and recreation.

Overall, Baker says that SACOG has been attentive to the suggestions of the environmental and health community, and that it is already making moves to address these issues.

“I really think that’s one of the success stories of this plan, is the incredible job and responsiveness SACOG has displayed with the public and their engagement with experts in these areas,” he says.

The greatest challenge, he adds, will be local compliance with this regional plan.

“The [plan] is simply a planning tool and has no regulatory authority,” he says. “We really fear that on the ground, local jurisdictions are continuing to move with the boom year status quo, or [are] hoping to, and we feel that would be a detriment to this plan that SACOG has put together.”

 

Law aims to encourage less driving

Photo from Atwater Village Newbie via Flickr.com.

By Daniel Weintraub

California is making early progress toward its goal of reducing the use of motor vehicles, but more creative and aggressive public policies will be necessary to get people to switch from driving to walking, biking and using public transit, according to a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California.

One of the best options, the report concludes, would be to increase the cost of driving by replacing or supplementing the gas tax with fees that charge motorists according to how far they drive on the state’s roadways. The fees might also reflect the type of road used, the time of day and the kind of vehicle driven.

The report looks at the early implementation of a new law known as SB 375, which seeks to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases believed to be responsible for global warming. The bill encourages local governments and regional transportation planners to adopt policies that make it easier for Californians to live, work and play without using a car. The California Air Resources Board, which is implementing the law, hopes to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled per person by 7 percent by 2020 and at least 13 percent by 2035.

The authors noted several areas where progress is visible: transit ridership is increasing, local officials recognize the importance of integrating land use policies with transit, road-pricing policies and parking, and local government are adopting policies to support the goals of SB 375.

But hurdles remain.

The biggest, perhaps, is that the state and local governments have been encouraging the development of housing near transit stations when it is jobs and transit that need to be closer to one another. If people don’t live near a transit station they can still drive or bike to one and take a train to work. But if the train lets them off far from work, it can be difficult to get to their job on the other end.

Rail ridership has increased only from .9 percent of all commute trips in 1990 to 1.4 percent in 2008, a far slower rate of increase than fare hikes and service expansions. Employment density — the number of jobs per square mile — is low and declining as employers move from central cities to roomy campuses in the suburbs. The report suggests relaxing requirements on parking spaces at new job centers and expanding the use of feeder buses to give commuters more options once they get off a train.

The report’s authors also note that while reducing vehicle miles traveled will be difficult and yield only a small portion of the reduced emissions the state is hoping for from all sources, the same policies will also provide broader public health benefits by encouraging people to walk and bike rather than drive.

To see the full report, go here.

.

 

ARB staff moves forward with SB 375 goals

By Daniel Weintraub

The Air Resources Board took another step today toward its implementation of a state law meant to encourage local governments to adopt planning and transportation policies that cut automobile use and lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The ARB released a staff recommendation that will likely lead to goals for regions around the state to reduce their per capita emissions of the gases believed to contribute to global warming.

The targets — which are the result of legislation known as SB 375 — are supposed to result in more support for transit, denser development, toll roads where the rates vary with the level of congestion, and traffic management policies designed to keep freeways and other major roads flowing smoothly.

The staff recommendation is largely similar to a draft recommendation released earlier this summer, and it builds upon decisions already being made at the local level. It will be considered by the full ARB at its Sept. 23 meeting.

In the state’s four largest metropolitan areas, the recommendations call for greenhouse gas reductions of 7 to 8 percent per capital below 2005 levels by 2010. By 2035, the targets would range from a 13 percent reduction Los Angeles and San Diego to 15 percent in the Bay Area and 16 percent in Sacramento.

The staff report also included policy scenarios for each region that gave a crystal-ball look at what kind of changes might be necessary to achieve the emission goals.

In Sacramento, for example, the scenario assumes that 68 percent of new housing will be compact, compared to 60 percent in current land use plans. Growth is focused in the urban core and existing suburban centers, and a higher proportion of the development is served by transit.

The result: a 14 percent reduction in vehicle trips per capital, a 60 percent increase in the use of transit and a 21 percent jump in the walking and biking.

To see the full staff report, go here.

 

ARB moves to limit greenhouse gas from development, transportation

By Daniel Weintraub

The California Air Resources Board is taking the first steps to implement a new state law that will eventually require local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by better coordinating land-use planning, development and transportation.

The board is considering targets for each region that would require the four largest metropolitan areas in the state to reduce their per-capita emissions in 2020 to 5 percent to 10 percent below the levels that existed in 2005.

By 2035, those same areas — Los Angeles and Orange County, San Diego, the Bay Area and Sacramento — would have to reduce emissions related to transportation by as much as 19 percent per capita below 2005 levels.

The targets, which the board expects to finalize in September, will force regional planning boards in those areas to coordinate road construction and transit with development in a way that minimizes vehicle traffic. Generally that will mean more transit and car pool lanes, more infill development on vacant or underused lots in urban areas, and denser suburban development in communities where it will be possible to walk or bike to work, stores and schools.

The targets are the result of SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 is the lesser known but still important sibling to AB 32, the state’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction law. AB 32 will be challenged in a November ballot measure that calls for its suspension until unemployment is reduced to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters.

But even if AB 32 is suspended, SB 375 will live on, and it will soon be affecting how cities and counties plan and approve new development and transportation projects.

The ARB is holding a series of workshops this summer for the public to comment on its draft regional targets.

For a list of the workshop dates, go here.

For the ARB staff report on the draft greenhouse gas reduction targets, go here.

 

Urban Land Institute calls for streamlining of California Environmental law

California’s landmark environmental protection law represents a barrier to building more compact, transit-friendly communities that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report from the Urban Land Institute. The Institute, in a report on SB 375, a new California law that will shape land-use planning in the state for years to come, says reforms are needed to make the California Environmental Quality Act more in tune with the goal of building infill developments in places already close to existing homes and commercial projects.

The report suggests that new regional plans mandated by SB 375 should be substituted in some cases for environmental impact reports required by the Environmental Quality Act. In addition, it recommends that more transit-oriented projects should be exempted or at least get some relief from what the Institute calls CEQA’s “excessive documentation.”

Currently, projects lose the right to win an exemption from the environmental law if they include more than 200 residential units or are larger than eight acres. But those limits, the report says, probably discourage developers of larger projects from moving ahead due to the time and cost of complying with the full CEQA process.

The environmental law should also be changed, the report says, to credit greenhouse gas reductions to commercial and industrial projects served by transit, just as SB 375 already does for primarily residential projects that are transit-oriented.

The report lauds SB 375 as a potential game-changer in California’s land use planning, comparing it to early energy efficiency regulations that were initially controversial but later credited with saving electricity and money for California residents and businesses.

But the report says a failure to finance the expansion and operation of public transit could seriously undercut the new law’s ability to change travel patterns and reduce automobile use.

To see the full report, click here.

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2013 HealthyCal.org