Comment Log Display

Comment Log Display

Below is the comment you selected to display.
Comment 1 for Land Use Comments for the GHG Scoping Plan (sp-landuse-ws) - 1st Workshop.


First Name: Bob
Last Name: Johnston
Email Address: rajohnston@ucdavis.edu
Affiliation: UC Davis

Subject: Land Use Policies
Comment:
Your treatment of local land use policies in the Recommended
Measures (pp. 31-33) is weak.  Policies such as urban growth
boundaries (sliding, not fixed), strong
infill/redevelopment/intensification, and selective densification
near rail stations and bus rapid transit lines are usually
beneficial economically, especially to lower-income households. 
The CEC report of last year and the LUSCAT Subcommittee report did
not cite most of this large literature that evaluates land use
measures and associated transportation policies and investments. 
Upcoming studies by EDF and UC should help with this research gap,
both in terms of modeling studies and also empirical research.  I
hope that stronger policies can be included in the Final Scoping
Plan. 

Also, it is important to observe that investments in transit
generally cannot be effective unless backed up with land use
intensification and mix, sidewalks, and bike lanes.  Also, transit
needs pricing corrections to be made for auto travel, such as
parking charges for worktrips and higher fuel taxes.  Parking
charges, for example, are not a new cost, merely the unbundling of
an existing cost that is hidden in (lower) salaries.  Work by Shoup
at UCLA and others clearly show parking charges to be effective in
reducing SOV commuting and to be economically efficient. 

I know the ARB staff is more comfortable with technology
regulation, but it will not be possible to meet the 2050 standard
without substantial change in land use policies and in
transportation pricing and investments. Pricing corrections take
effect immediately and often are easy to implement. 

Perhaps the Final Scoping Plan can state that the ARB recommends
that Federal and State transportation funding, after 2012, be
conditioned on cities and counties adopting general (land use)
plans and regional transportation plans that show GHG reductions
compatible with the Statewide 2020 standard and generally on track
to meet the 2050 standard, too. Co-benefits of compact growth would
include reduced conversion of ag lands, reduced destruction of
habitat lands, and lower wildfire costs for property losses.  

I fear that the current Draft Scoping Plan does not treat this
issue with enough seriousness to get the attention of cities and
counties.  Without stronger policies, we will lose valuable time
while they, and their representatives equivocate. 

Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-06-27 19:52:35



If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.


Board Comments Home

preload