Comment Log Display

I am grateful that the State has passed SB 375, which improves
everyone’s quality of life through improved transportation planning
that reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

MPOs are proposing to reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions through reducing vehicle miles traveled VMT per person. 
VMT reductions can produced many benefits:
-	Reduce traffic congestion
-	Reduce consumption of gasoline
-	Reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
-	Encourage improve access to transit through better land
development that will be more walkable and bikable
-	Such developments also provides job opportunities, shopping and
other amenities closer to residences
-	Plus reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions providing
a more healthful environment and reduce the impending environmental
disasters 

However, the VMT reductions per capita that the MPOs and CARB have
proposed are limited to accomplish all these benefits, because of
projected population increases.  In other words, the net result
from even the maximum proposed 10% VMT reduction per capita still
means an 8% increase in VMT by 2020, considering the population
increase and a 5% VMT target would mean a 14% increase.   By 2035,
a 12% VMT reduction per capita would mean the total VMT would 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 along with ending highway
expansion.  Transportation planning must include aggressive
coordinated land planning and transportation demand management that
supports increased transit use, car-pooling, bicycling and walking,
unbundling parking costs, pricing of roadway use and parking
pricing

As a past SF BART Director and Member of TRB’s Committee on Transit
Development and Land Use, our current pricing system on BART
transit parking is fundamentally unfair especially because its
improvement cost and the increased land value occupied by parking
is equivalent to $6-7 per space, yet the charge if any is applied
is a fraction of this cost, so non-parkers who are less affluent
and more transit dependent subsidies the more affluent suburbanite
use of BART parking. In turn peak hour feeder transit subsidized at
the same cost as the parking subsidy is seldom used and where BART
could in lieu develop Transit Oriented Development on the acres of
space occupied by parking or costly structured parking.  

Being revenue neutral and driving less will reduce VMT. I believe
that the combination of land use change and ending highway
expansion will put California on track to achieve a 2035 target of
no net total increase in VMT.

I know that the MPO draft targets are challenging because they
represent a reversal of the historic trend in constantly relieving
congestion and increasing VMT per capita.  But the bottom line is
these measures will expand local jobs opportunities and improve the
quality of life in all our communities as well as impending
environmental disasters.