Comment Log Display

June 10, 2010

Air Resources Board
1001 I Street, 2nd Floor
Byron Sher Auditorium
Sacramento, California 95814

SUBJECT: Comments on the Recommendations of the RTAC Pursuant to
Senate Bill 375

Dear Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols and Members of the
Board:

1.0	Introductory Comments
The AB32 Scoping Plan Executive Summary (Table 2) sets an annual
reduction target of 5 MMTCO2E by 2020 for “Regional
Transportation-Related GHG Targets”.
 
However, it also says: “This number represents an estimate of what
may be achieved from local land use changes.” This type of
statement has led to a misconception that zoning changes will be a
predominate strategy to reduce driving by 2020. Given our current
economic situation, only small reductions from “smart growth” can
occur by 2020, and most may not show up until 2030 or later. 

Fortunately, there are some basic pricing policies that could be
implemented within several years that would result in significant
VMT reductions before 2020. These are the pricing of parking and
the implementation of road use fees, especially with congestion
pricing (for both parking and road use). I have prepared a report
on how to price parking, which is attached to

SB375 outlines a 7-step process for setting targets for each MPO.
Step 3, which is strategy selection and evaluation, is the key to
success. I would like to work with CARB staff to determine the
politically feasible approaches that will lead to the required
pricing strategies being accepted across the state and in each
municipality. I understand and accept the challenge.

The SB375 process is far from ideal. Its process for establishing
reductions could result in the MPOs feeling that they are being
asked to determine what reductions they can easily achieve, with a
guarantee that the targets will then be set to those values. Our
climate crisis does not give us the luxury of setting targets to
what the MPOs claim they can achieve, unless those targets are
better than the “AB32 requirements” (by that we will mean both the
AB32 targets for 2020 and the subsequent executive order for 2050
targets). CARB should make it clear that the MPOs must determine
the strategies that are required to achieve the needed targets, in
order to avoid an unacceptable risk of climate destabilization.

Unfortunately, CARB fails to provide statewide benchmark driving
reductions for 2020 and 2035. Although specific reductions would
vary slightly from region to region, these benchmarks would give 
MPOs a feel for the level of driving reductions they will need to
achieve. I provide such benchmarks in Section 2.1, based on Figure
1 of Reference 1.

MPOs are not getting the help they need from the state. California
passed AB32 and SB375 legislation and then failed to identify a
process that would help the MPOs get the pricing strategies that
they need, to give them a reasonable chance of success.

The RTAC membership is impressive. However, I a systems engineer
should have been included. My general observation that the state is
not familiar with systems engineering and the benefits it could
provide. The evidence for this includes passenger trains that
collide; toll booths; California license plates that still have no
RFID chips; primitive parking policies; and, even though we know
that the Netherlands will soon implement a progressive and “green”
road-use fee pricing system, we ignore the fact that our gas tax
accounts are headed downward, as if this is no cause for action.

2.0	Significant Items Either Left Out or Given Insufficient
Emphasis

Although I appreciate the valuable contributions contained within
of the various RTAC and MPO reports, I must report on the
significant items they either lack or fail to sufficiently
highlight.

2.1	A Statewide, Driving-Reduction Benchmark

No where is there an analysis to estimate driving reductions
needed by the target years of 2020 and 2035. This benchmark is
needed to measure the acceptability of the targets that might
result from SB375’s 7-Step process. Since Reference 1 reports that
SB375 sources (cars and light duty trucks) emit 30% (and growing)
of the state’s total GHG in 2005, it is reasonable to assume that
their reductions would have to be near the AB32 targets. This
results in the yellow line, shown on Figure 1 of this letter. Using
Reference 1’s Figure 1 (which is also Figure 1 of this letter), the
following can be computed, with “now” being the July 1, 2009 level
of driving and “BAU” being the Caltrans-provided, “Business As
Usual” level of driving. (Our calculations are available on
request.)

1.)	In Year 2020, Californians can drive 8% more than now, but
this is also 16% less than the 2020 BAU level of driving. Note that
by just 2025, the 8% more must be reduced to 4% less.

2.) 	In Year 2035, Californians must drive 20% less than now and
this is a shocking 52% less than 2035 BAU.
Table 1 of this report shows additional results.

2.2	A Reasonable Expectation for VMT Reductions from “Smart
Growth”

Very few new “smart growth” projects will be reducing VMT by year
2020. In the U.S., smart growth will probably only reduce VMT by
between 7 and 10% by 2050 (Page 9 of Reference 2).
Although “smart growth” is essential, it is clearly no panacea.
The name “Sustainable Communities Strategy” has fostered an
unrealistic expectation, held by many, that “smart growth” with be
the primary, driving-reduction tool. The reports do little to
dispel this dangerous myth. “Dangerous” because it may cause
government to avoid the task of identifying strategies that will
significantly reduce driving, including devising plans for
overcoming the political barriers to achieving these strategies.
 
	Figure 1	Data Supporting Calculations of Target GHG Driving
Reductions

 

	Table 1	Driving Reductions Required to Hit GHG Targets, Based on
Figure 1 Data

2.3	A Reasonable Expectation for New Transit and the Need for
Shifting Spending from Roads to Transit

The urgent need for this shift should be directed to all levels of
government, in plain language. New state funding sources are
indentified in Section 2.6.1 of the recent RTAC report. At the same
time, MPOs should not expect the state or federal government to
bail them out with significant new transit systems. Our state and
federal government’s economies are in precarious states. It is
likely that neither government will be able to help much with new
transit. Our state/regional/local government responsibility is to
meet and exceed AB32 reductions, regardless of budgetary
restraints.

2.4.	A Clear Statement of MPO Guidelines on Pricing and Its
Significance

Compared to business-as-usual levels, driving reductions need to
be substantial. Furthermore, “smart growth” VMT reductions are
necessary (and should be maximized) but are far from sufficient. 
Finally, since transit expansion cannot be counted on for
significant reductions, the only recourse for substantial
reductions is the honest pricing of driving and parking. Page 3 of
Reference 3 says that MPOs must, 

1.	Consider the use of alternative mode programs, congestion
pricing, toll roads, and parking strategies.  Examples include, but
are not limited to the following:
i.	Road pricing and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. To reduce
VMT, MPOs should model adding pricing to existing lanes, not just
as a means for additional expansion. Variable/congestion pricing
should be considered.
ii.	User fees such as fuel taxes and parking charges.
iii.	Free or reduced fare transit fares.
iv.	Expansion of Parking Cash-Out Programs

Although all of this is important, it is particularly interesting
to note the words, “MPOs should model adding pricing to existing
lanes, not just as a means for additional expansion.
Variable/congestion pricing should be considered.” (It is
fascinating that these guidelines come from the California
Transportation Commission, whose agency, Caltrans, is still
planning to build large freeway expansion projects in this state.)
This MPO responsibility (“must consider” and “should model”) 
should have been highlighted, because related reports strongly
suggest that widespread pricing will be absolutely necessary if the
MPOs are to have any chance of meeting their AB32
responsibilities.

For example, consider the following information. The Energy Policy
Initiative Center (EPIC) is the well-respected San Diego “think
tank” that has done the GHG Inventory report for SANDAG. “Cashout”
is a program whereby companies pay their employees an extra amount
of money, each time they get to work without driving, thus allowing
them to, in effect, “cash out” their expensive car-parking. The
EPIC author of Reference 4 found that cashout is one of the key
policies that the San Diego region will need, in order to achieve
AB32 reductions. In fact, Dr. Silva-Send assumed that all of the
employers in San Diego County that had over 100 employees would
implement cashout, and that this strategy alone would achieve a 12%
reduction in driving to work. Dr. Silva-Send also assumed that this
and other policies would lead to 16% of employees using transit to
get to work. The SB375 experts (for example, in Reference 1) speak
of a three-legged stool to get the needed GHG reductions, with the
legs being cleaner fuels, cleaner cars, and less driving. To drive
home the importance of pricing, Dr. Silva-Send speaks of a
“four-legged stool”, with the extra leg being pricing.

2.5	Many MPOs Are Ignoring the CTC’s Guidelines to Model Adding
Pricing to Lanes

Most MPOs are ignoring the guideline to model adding pricing to
lanes. It looks like SANDAG is working on this, but many other MPOs
appear to be ignoring this critical guideline.

2.6	The Social Inequity of the Current Pricing of Driving and
“Free Parking”

Important aspects of social equity are covered in some of these
reports. I am grateful for that. However it is disappointing that
the reports fail to mention other forms of inequity that are
directly related to strategies to reduce driving.

2.6.1	The Pricing of Road Use

A San Diego County newspaper, the North County Times (NCT), in a
February 9, 2009 article, reported that the Chair of the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) wrote that the gas tax currently
contributes nothing to road construction and only provides half of
the money needed annually for repairs.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/02/09/news/columnists/downey/z8591536f3e7332da882575510076fa1e.txt.
This shows that roads are being maintained and built with taxes
that are unrelated to driving. This is means that those that drive
less are losing money to those that drive more. 

Many have written about this form of social inequity. Both the
Sierra Club California and the Environmental Caucus of the
California Democratic Party have passed resolutions in support of a
“comprehensive road-use fee pricing system” that would include all
costs, including environmental and health costs, while protecting
low-income drivers and protecting privacy. From
http://www.planetizen.com/node/41680 comes the information that the
Netherlands is planning a green (polluters pay more) VMT-based fee
by 2012. Every vehicle type will have a base rate, which depends on
its size, weight and carbon dioxide emissions. Charge will also
depend on congestion. Taxes will be reduced to make the
implementation revenue neutral. The net effect will be that those
that drive a lot will pay more than they do now but those that
drive less will pay less than they do now.

2.6.2	The Pricing of Car Parking

Similarly when off-street parking is “free” it often means that
those that park less are being forced to subsidize the car parking
of those that park more. Employee car parking often reduces all
employees’ wages, even those that never drive to work.

Parking costs are often bundled into the rent, at apartments. The
USDA reports that one in seven American households struggled to put
enough food on the table in 2008. If they owned less than the
average number of cars at an apartment complex, they may have been
paying an additional $50 a month for rent, so that their wealthier
neighbors could park numerous cars for free. $50 a month could keep
a family from going hungry at the end of a pay period. It is
disappointing that this never occurs to the authors of the
RTAC/CARB/MPO reports when they write about social justice and
social equity and that none of the RTAC members suggest its
inclusion when they produce reports.

2.7	The State’s Responsibility to Implement Pricing Solutions

The state needs to devise a plan to get the needed pricing, in
spite of the fairly obvious political difficulties within local
municipalities.

2.7.1	The State’s Responsibility to Implement a Comprehensive Road
Use Fee Pricing System

Implementing a road-use fee method of pricing driving could be 95%
revenue neutral. This would mean that the portion of taxes
currently going to roads would be eliminated to the extent that the
total tax reduction would amount to 95% of the new road use fee
revenue. The resulting 5% extra could be used to fund transit. The
Sierra Club California’s “Comprehensive Road-Use Fee Pricing
System” resolution references a 10-page memo that gives more detail
about what such a road use fee would look like. It is available
upon request. The Netherlands is estimating that their system will
drop GHG by 10%, even though their gas tax was $3.50 in 2005. 

The California Transportation Commission’s RTP Guidelines
(Reference 3) can be given a rather negative interpretation. Again,
from Reference 3, “MPOs must consider the use of alternative mode
programs, congestion pricing, toll roads, and parking strategies”.
These words seem to transfer all responsibility from the State to
the MPOs, even though a comprehensive road use fee pricing system
is obviously easier to develop and implement at the state level.
The MPOs are left with the impossible task of implementing crude
HOT lane projects, which are unwieldy, unpopular, and, according to
Reference 5, unprofitable.

Consider the AB1493-driven green line on Figure 1. Although its
units are C02/mile as a function of year, the C02 can be converted
to gallons of fuel, which can be converted to excise gas tax.
Clearly, the excise gas tax is only going to go down as we go
forward in time. How long can road maintenance money be taken, in
ever growing amounts, from education, public safety, and health and
welfare programs? Please ask for immediate legislative help. 

2.7.2	The State’s Responsibility to Begin a Process to Result in
Widespread Pricing of Parking 

One example of such a process is the Cities21 proposal, which can
be read at: http://www.cities21.org/cms/Cities21_CA_pkng_chrg.pdf.
This proposal has been presented to Senator Joe Simitian, as an
entry in his “There Ought to be a Law” competition. 

Another approach is to fund a description of an ideal parking
policy that would universally, efficiently, and conveniently
unbundle the cost of parking for all off-street parking, with a
compatible policy for on-street parking. This would include full
automation and congestion pricing. It would support the sharing of
parking. The next step would be to take bids and award a contract
on implementing the described system as a proof-of-concept and
design, prototype application, to include all debugging, through to
a full and satisfactory conclusion. Adjustments to satisfy all
stakeholders would complete this second step. For the final and
third step, the state would create an agency to implement unbundled
car parking as they see fit. Their choice of order would be to
maximize driving reductions and minimize political opposition. The
law would require that the parking stakeholders, in each case,
would fully cooperation with the state parking agency. This would
work around the need for local governments to adjust their
off-street parking ordinances to require unbundled parking cost.
This local adjustment would be nearly impossible because the ideal
parking policies will cost more to develop than local government
could bear. It is more properly done at the state level, so its
application can be consistent, throughout the state. After parking
costs are unbundled, less parking will be needed and redevelopment
of the freed-up parking land could lead to converting standard
development into mixed use, with more dense development, which will
also reduce the need to drive. Note that this approach will allow
the state to recover its parking policy development costs by
defining parking-lot earnings to be net collection minus collection
costs. The state will claim sufficient collection costs to recover
their development money. Note also that the parking lot earnings
are new, taxable-income amounts. This new state income tax revenue
could be used for transit. The attached report has more details as
to how such a program could work.

2.8	Bicycle Education as a Strategy to Reduce VMT

Many regions have ideal weather for cycling. Few people ride
because we spend little public money on teaching adults the
information and skills they need to bicycle on the roads with cars
and trucks. The information would include bicycle accident
statistics and car-bike accident statistics. Most adults either
never ride or ride poorly because they overestimate the danger
posed by overtaking traffic. Bicycle education could change this.
SANDAG has a budget of $270M for bicycles, out to year 2030. They
are wasting this on bike trails because they have not been tasked
with maximizing riding per unit cost and have therefore not
bothered with doing an alternatives analysis. Trails reinforce the
idea that bikes cannot be safely ridden with traffic. The San Diego
Bike Coalition offers ideal classes on riding. Unfortunately, they
must charge a significant amount of money for the class. Instead,
the class should be set up so that those the pass the class are
given a cash reward. The $270M could educate a million San Diego
County adults on how to safely ride in traffic. Their lives would
be forever changed, for the better. This would significantly reduce
driving. All of the co-benefits are obvious and so will not be
stated.

3.0	Additional Observations

3.1 The Strategic Growth Council

The SGC is funded by Proposition 84. The SGC could work with a 
progressive MPO to create the implementation details of the most
promising strategies, which are the pricing of driving and parking.
In this way, the state would need to add no additional funds to
these efforts.

3.2 How Does an APS “Bridge the Gap”?

Your staff has written that the APS will “bridge the gap” between
what is feasible (the SCS) and what is beyond that, as described in
the APS. Since the MPO will have found that the APS is infeasible,
I do not understand that choice of words. If any MPO finds that it
must resort to an APS, there is an impending failure to meet the
required targets.

3.3	Misleading CARB Information

CARB has written, “California’s strategy for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions from passenger cars includes three elements: vehicle
technologies, low-carbon fuel technologies, and reduced vehicle use
through changed land use patterns and improved transportation.”

It should say, “California’s strategy for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from passenger cars includes three elements: vehicle
technologies, low-carbon fuel technologies, and reduced vehicle use
through changed land use patterns and improved (“green”)
transportation infrastructure and policy.” In that sentence,
“policy” is the key word because it would include pricing policies.


3.4	BMP Items for Pricing Are Meaningless Unless the Pricing Can
Be Implemented

Since the pricing of parking and driving are important, BMP tools
are needed for these strategies. However, having a tool to compute
driving reductions as a function of price is meaningless until a
clear implementation plan has been devised. The development of the
plan needs to start as soon as possible. The attachéd document
contains an implementation plan.

3.5	Travel Demand Models that Have Pricing Capability

Table 1a in the Appendix of the RTAC report shows that only SANDAG
claims to have the capability to model “Tolls/Toll Roads” and
priced parking. We see that they also claim to be bringing their
capability to model HOT lanes up to the same standard. However, it
appears that no other MPO have this capability. This makes it
imperative that either a BMP tool be created that can handle these
cases or SANDAG share their capability with other MPOs. 

SB375 states, where “commission” is the CTC, “This bill would
require the commission to maintain guidelines, as specified, for
travel demand models used in the development of regional
transportation plans by metropolitan planning organizations”.

It appears that the Reference 3 CTC guidelines (must model
pricing) are being ignored by most MPOs. It appears that there is a
lot of work that needs to be done in very little time. The BMP list
was due by January 2010. Of 18 MPOs, 10 have no capability to model
“Tolls/Toll Roads” and of these 10, 8 have no planned improvement
to fix this RTP guideline deficiency. Similarly 9 of the MPOs have
no capability to model the pricing of parking and only 1 of them is
planning to fix this deficiency. This means that the BMP tool to
compute reductions from pricing will probably be the predominate
method used.

3.6	Need to Define “4-Step” Model

The RTAC report refers to a “4-Step” model. This needs a brief
explanation.

3.7	Inconsistent Descriptions of What is in an SCS

The reports make it clear that pricing strategies are going to be
key strategies. 
On the other hand, these reports sometimes imply that no pricing
is needed. 

3.8	A Very Questionable Committee Value Judgment, Presented as
Fact

It has been written that “Committee members agreed that the
targets need to be set to help put California on the path to
achieving the state’s ambitious climate goals by 2050.”
Who says the goal is ambitious? If honest pricing were to be
introduced, the 2050 goal might easily be obtained. Besides this,
the 2050 value is based on 450 ppm, which we now know is too large.
We need to get to 350 ppm as soon as possible. It could just as
well be said that the 2050 goals are irresponsibly lax.

3.9	How to Rationalize Failure?

There are many statements that would concern anyone who wants to
see success.  For example, “most ambitious achievable” is an
interesting phrase but it does little good to “define it” with more
words that are undefined. The physics we are dealing with has
nothing to do with our language. We must do better than the AB32
values so that we can minimize the time we are above 350 ppm.

3.10	Conflicting State Mandates

The AB32 mandate for less driving is in conflict with the state
policy that we have no road-use fee and our gas tax is too low.
State policy makes it artificially cheap to drive.

3.11	State Actions to Support Implementation

There are many appeals to the state for money. The state has no
money. The reports never mention that the state needs to properly
price driving to unbundle the cost of parking a car.

3.12	The Co-benefits Section of the RTAC Report Ignores the 

Fairness of Proper Pricing
Proper pricing is also equitable. This is a significant
co-benefit

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these critically important
matters.

Sincerely,

Mike Bullock

References: 
1.)	Communities Tackle Global Warming.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/files/sb375.pdf
2.)	Growing Cooler.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/growingcoolerCH1.pdf
3.)	Addendum to the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines,
Addressing Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions during the
RTP Process.
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/rtp/Adopted_Addendum_2007_RTP_Guidelines.pdf
4.)	Reducing Greenhouse Gases from On-Road Transportation in San
Diego County (October 2009)
http://www.sandiego.edu/epic/ghgpolicy/
5.)	HOT Tips (July 2008).
http://paleale.eecs.berkeley.edu/~varaiya/papers_ps.dir/HOT-2.pdf