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.