Comment Log Display

I and my family, and many other citizens of Santa Rosa appreciate
the goals that the MPOs have proposed to reverse VMT increases... 
More is needed!

VMT reductions will produce many benefits:
-	Reduce traffic congestion
-	Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
-	Reduce expenditures for gasoline and other fuel sources
-	Provide job opportunities, shopping and other amenities closer
to residences
-	Improve access to transit
-	Promote communities to be more walkable and bikable which will
also improve peoples health and quality of life
-	Reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

However, the VMT reductions per capita that the MPOs have proposed
are too limited to accomplish all these benefits, because they are
overwhelmed by the projected population increases.  In other words,
the net result from even the proposed 10% VMT reduction per capita
would still mean an 8% increase in VMT by 2020, while 5% VMT target
would mean a 14% increase in VMT compared to 2005. By 2035, a 12%
VMT reduction per capita would mean total VMT would be 28% higher
than in 2005 (using the official California Dept of Finance
population projections ).

To accomplish the needed reductions requires stopping sprawl and
shifting to in-fill development, which, in turn, needs to be
supported by ending highway expansion.  In addition, transportation
planning must involve aggressive transportation demand management
that will support the increased use of transit, car-pooling,
bicycling and walking, in ways such as the following:
1.	Improving transit service and lowering fares.
2.	Increasing the cost of driving per mile to cover all costs.
3.	Appropriately pricing parking (possibly through unbundling
parking costs and distributing parking revenue to those who use
transit, carpools and other means to avoid use of parking).

We note that the latter two are much less costly than the first. 
In fact the second one could generate revenue to support improved
transit service. Our current pricing system is fundamentally unfair
because it effectively causes those that drive less to subsidize
those that drive more. We believe that the combination of land use
change and ending highway expansion plus the three above
transportation management strategies can put California on track to
achieve a 2035 target of no net total increase in VMT.

Although the MPO draft targets are challenging because they
represent a reversal of the historic trend in constantly increasing
VMT per capita.  We need measures to expand local jobs
opportunities, make transit options more accessible, reduce air
pollution and generally improve the quality of life in all our
communities. 

I believe it was Portland, or maybe Denver that compared the cost
of 1/2 mile of freeway wideniing to the cost of a vast network of
bike lanes/paths and pedestrian improvements!  I could do some
research on references for this if that would be helpful.