1 Climate & Transportation: Change is Coming Steve Heminger Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission December 2010

2 AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 establishes the first comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms in the nation to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions AB 32 sets GHG emissions limit for 2020 at 1990 level — Acknowledges that 2020 is not the endpoint — Points way towards 80% reduction by 2050 Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted a Scoping Plan to achieve AB 32’s GHG emissions reduction target

3 California’s Three Pronged Approach to Reducing Transportation Greenhouse Gases (with AB 32 Scoping Plan estimates for GHG reductions in 2020) Cleaner vehicles (Pavley Rules) - 38 tons Cleaner fuels (Low-Carbon Fuel Standard) - 15 tons More sustainable communities (SB 375) - 5 tons

4 SB 375 Basics Directs ARB to develop passenger vehicle GHG reduction targets for California’s 18 MPOs for 2020 and 2035 Adds Sustainable Communities Strategy as new element to RTPs Requires separate Alternative Planning Strategy if GHG targets not met Provides CEQA streamlining incentives for projects consistent with SCS/APS Coordinates RHNA with the regional transportation planning process

5 ARB Adopted Targets — September 2010 Percent Reduction in Per Capita Emissions from 2005 to Target Year Bay Area7%15% Sacramento7%16% San Diego7%13% Los Angeles8%13% Central Valley5%10%

6 Bay Area GHG Scenarios (% per capita vs 2035) T-2035 w/ Projections 07 +2%0%-2% T-2035 w/ Projections % Adopted Target More aggressive -18% Planning Scenarios Combined

7 How Do Planning Scenarios Address GHG Targets (2035)? TDM -3% Road Pricing -8% Focused Growth -12% Combined -18%

8 Location Matters Growing Cooler: Compared to sprawl, compact development results in a 20 to 40 percent reduction in VMT and hence in CO 2

County PopulationPercent Change Adopted Plan 2035 Focused Growth 2005 to 2035 Adopted Plan 2035 Adopted Plan to 2035 Focused Growth San Francisco 795,800969,0001,008,50022% 4%4% Santa Clara1,763,0002,431,4002,587,00038% 6% Alameda1,505,3001,966,3002,062,10031% 5% Contra Costa1,023,4001,322,9001,373,40029% 4% Solano421,600506,500497,60020% -2% Napa133,700148,800147,20011% -1% Sonoma479,200561,500564,50017%1% Marin252,600274,300278,8009%2% San Mateo721,900893,000896,30024%>1% Total7,096,5009,073,7009,412,20028%4% Focused Growth Scenario

10 Focused Growth Scenario

11 Price Matters Too Core Pricing: Driving is more expensive in the urban core with higher parking costs and bridge tolls

What is Assumed in the Bay Area’s Road Pricing Scenario? Higher Household Incomes Are a Factor (2008 ACS) $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 MTC SCAG SANDAGSACOG

13 Road Pricing Scenario

14 Road Pricing Scenario Revenue Generated from VMT Fee (2035) $0.25 per mile VMT fee: — generates $14 billion annually — adds $4,500 to avg. household travel cost Cost-Offset Examples: — Infrastructure for PDAs — Additional corridor/subarea transit services — Subsidize low-income commute costs

15 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Scenario Assumes doubling the share of workers who telecommute from current level of 5%

16 Why Not Focus on Infrastructure?

17 Won’t Technology Save the Day?

18 What About “Smart Driving”? Reducing freeway speed limit to 55 MPH would reduce per capita GHG emissions by 5% by 2020

19 APS PlanningRHNA Housing Elements RTAC CARB Targets SCS ModelingRTP Implementing SB 375 Ain’t Easy Interaction/Iteration SCS Investment Plan RHNA CEQA Assistance Housing Elements RTP Modeling Planning RTAC CARB Targets

20 Sustainable Communities Strategy – A Study in Dynamic Tension SCS Must – Accommodate all growth in regional housing demand Achieve CO 2 reduction targets established by ARB But SCS Must Not – Undermine Federal planning requirement for realistic demographic and revenue assumptions Interfere with local land use authority

21 A Local-Regional Partnership is Essential Land UseTransportation Sustainable Communities Strategy Local Authority Regional Authority

22 Resources to Local Government Are Key State and regional capital grants New federal funding models (e.g. joint HUD/DOT/EPA programs) Self-help tools (e.g. value-capture such as tax increment financing) PDA Capital Funding Shortfall Category$ billions Transportation Infrastructure 6.3 Affordable Housing2.0 Parks1.4 Utilities0.9 Other Public Facilities0.9 Pre-Development Activities 0.6 TOTAL12.1

23 Co-Benefits are Compelling (Impacts of 15% per capita GHG reduction) 15% reduction in travel time delay 10% reduction in criteria pollutants $140 million in annual public health savings

24 Changes In Attitude and Behavior Are Essential — Breakthroughs are possible!

25