BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 842
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: jones
VERSION: 1/17/08
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 17, 2008
SUBJECT:
Reducing vehicle miles traveled through regional transportation
plans and Proposition 1C programs
DESCRIPTION:
This bill requires that each regional transportation plan
provide for a 10 percent reduction in the growth increment of
vehicle miles traveled and awards additional points under
specified Proposition 1C programs for projects that are
consistent with regional blueprints or that are consistent with
general plans that will reduce vehicle miles traveled by ten
percent.
ANALYSIS:
Regional transportation plans
Current law requires the regional transportation planning
agencies (RTPAs) to adopt regional transportation plans (RTPs)
directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional
transportation system, including, but not limited to, mass
transportation, highway, railroad, maritime, bicycle,
pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and
services. The RTP must contain a policy element, an action
element, and a financial element and is the source for projects
programmed in the regional transportation improvement plan
(RTIP), which lists all capital improvement projects that are
expected to receive an allocation of state transportation funds
during the following five fiscal years. The California
Transportation Commission (CTC) adopts guidelines that help
RTPAs meet their RTP obligations.
AB 842 (JONES) Page 2
This bill requires CTC to update its guidelines for the
preparation of regional transportation plans, including, but not
limited to, a requirement that each regional transportation plan
provide for a 10 percent reduction in the growth increment of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Prop 1C programs
In November 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1C, the
$2.85 billion Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of
2006. The bond act includes $850 million for the Infill
Incentive Grant Program, which is administered by the Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This program
provides grants for infrastructure necessary to support new
higher-density infill housing. In rating and ranking
applications under this program, HCD must use all of the
following priorities:
Project readiness.
The depth and duration of the housing affordability.
The extent to which the project density exceeds the housing
element density standards.
The inclusion of, or proximity or accessibility to, a transit
station or major transit stop.
The proximity to parks, employment or retail centers, schools,
or social services.
Consistency with an adopted regional blueprint plan or other
adopted regional growth plan intended to foster efficient land
use.
Proposition 1C also includes $300 million for the Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program, administered by HCD,
which provides grants and loans to facilitate the development of
higher density housing within close proximity to transit
stations that will increase public transit ridership. In rating
and ranking applications under this program, HCD must consider
the extent to which the development will increase public transit
ridership and minimize automobile trips. HCD must also grant
bonus points to developments that are consistent with regional
growth blueprints.
This bill requires HCD to use the following as ranking criteria
under the Infill Incentive Grant Program and to grant a
substantial preference for the following under the TOD Housing
Program:
AB 842 (JONES) Page 3
The project's location in a city, county, or city and county
that has adopted a general plan that will reduce the amount of
VMT by at least 10 percent and the project is consistent with
the plan.
The project's location in a region that has adopted a
transportation plan, a regional transportation plan, a
regional blueprint, or similar document that will reduce the
amount of VMT by at least 10 percent and the project is
consistent with the plan, blueprint, or similar document.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, California
faces a great challenge in the coming years to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The measurement of VMT is useful in
that it correlates to the amount of time each household spends
in its vehicles and is a proxy for progress in improving land
use planning. VMT is a widely-used barometer that encompasses
items such as infill development, jobs close to housing,
shorter commute times, better public systems, and many more
important quality of life factors. Reducing VMT closely
correlates with the state goals of improving air quality,
reducing congestion, reducing sprawl, developing energy
independence, and preserving open space.
This bill seeks to direct Proposition 1C funds allocated to
infill and transit oriented development more towards regions,
cities, and counties that have prepared land use plans that
will reduce the growth in VMT by 10 percent. The bill creates
an incentive for cities and counties to adopt more
environmentally friendly general plans and encourage their
regional council of governments to do likewise for the region.
2.Overlap with SB 375 . Last year, this committee approved SB
375 (Steinberg), which, among other things, requires the Air
Resources Board to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for
each region and requires each RTPA to show how it plans to
meet the targets in its RTP. The bill also requires each RTP
to include a sustainable communities strategy (currently
referred to as a regional blueprint), which is a land use plan
for how the region intends to grow over the long term. It is
envisioned that a large portion of the reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved through land use
changes that implement blueprints, emphasize infill
AB 842 (JONES) Page 4
development, concentrate new growth, and thereby reduce VMT.
The portion of this bill that requires each RTPA to show in
its RTP a 10 percent reduction in the growth increment of VMT
overlaps significantly with SB 375 but raises a number of
issues. First, this bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions only by reducing VMT, whereas SB 375 provides much
more flexibility to the regions to achieve the same goal by
reducing VMT or through other means. Second, in most regions
it will be difficult if not impossible to reduce VMT by 10
percent without implementing land use changes. Unlike SB 375,
however, this bill does not specifically require a blueprint
to achieve and guide such land use changes. The committee may
wish to consider deleting the overlapping section of this bill
in deference to SB 375's provisions to achieve greenhouse gas
reductions through RTPs.
3.The limitations of VMT as a metric . VMT is an important
transportation and environmental measurement but has its
limitations from a both a policy and practical standpoint. In
the context of this bill, it is meant to serve as a proxy for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the correlation is not
exact. Even if VMT in a region is flat or increases,
greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced if the fuel efficiency
of vehicles increases (people use less gas to travel the same
distance) or if less carbon-intensive fuels are used (there
are less emissions per gallon of gas).
Moreover, this bill seeks to reward cities and counties for
adopting general plans that reduce VMT by ten percent, but it
is not clear how this would be measured or even who would
measure it. For example, what is the baseline? If it is the
general plan that existed five years ago, are cities and
counties who had environmentally-friendly general plans at
that time penalized? How is commuter traffic that passes
through a city counted? The goal of this bill to incentivize
land use plans that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is
laudable, but it is not clear how the bill's goals can be
incorporated into funding programs in a practical manner.
4.Alternative ways to reward blueprint implementation . In
addition to implicitly requiring the adoption of smart growth
land use blueprints at the regional level, this bill seeks to
help implement regional blueprints by directing state bond
funds more towards projects that are consistent with a
regional blueprint or that are located in cities and counties
AB 842 (JONES) Page 5
that have adopted their own environmentally friendly general
plans. With respect to the TOD Housing Program and Infill
Infrastructure Grant Program funded by Proposition 1C, this
bill provides applicants with additional points if the
projects are consistent with a regional blueprint or a local
general plan that will reduce the amount of VMT by at least 10
percent. Consistency with a regional blueprint already earns
points under both programs, 20 points out of 350 in the TOD
Housing Program and 10 points out of 130 in the Infill
Incentive Grant Program. In order to change the existing
program, the bill would have to go further, perhaps by
granting additional points to projects in cities or counties
whose general plans as a whole are consistent with a regional
blueprint, as determined by the council of governments, or by
awarding negative points to projects that are directly
inconsistent with a regional blueprint.
This bill does change the existing program in one respect in
that it awards extra points to projects in cities and counties
not covered by a blueprint but that have general plans that
reduce VMT by 10 percent. As discussed above, however,
measuring the change in VMT from general plans is problematic.
5.Growth in VMT vs. absolute VMT . This bill refers various
times to reducing VMT by 10 percent. In one instance, the
bill refers to reducing the growth increment in VMT by 10
percent. At other times, it refers to reducing the amount of
VMT (i.e., absolute VMT). These are two very different
numbers, and the former is much more easily achievable than
the latter. If the bill continues to use VMT as a metric,
amendments will be needed to ensure consistency.
6.Arguments in opposition . Opponents believe that the
one-size-fits-all VMT reduction required of RTPs by this bill
could potentially create significant transportation planning
issues for RTPAs. The use of VMT as a metric fails to factor
in the various needs and demands of metropolitan regions and
holds RTPAs accountable for factors largely beyond their
control.
7.Technical amendment . Section 2 of the bill contains no
changes to current law and is not necessary. It should be
stricken from the bill.
Assembly Votes:
AB 842 (JONES) Page 6
Floor: 47-28
Appr: 10-5
H&CD: 5-2
Local Gov: 4-2
RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 375 (Steinberg), among other things, requires the Air
Resources Board to assign greenhouse gas reduction targets to
each RTPA, requires each RTPA to show how it plans to meet the
targets, and requires each RTPA to include a sustainable
communities strategy in its RTP. This bill is in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 11, 2008)
SUPPORT: American Federation of State, Municipal, and
County Employees
American Lung Association
Breathe California
California League of Conservation Voters
City of Sacramento
Gray Panthers
Pacific Gas and Electric
Planning and Conservation League
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sierra Club California
Southern California Edison
OPPOSED: Contra Costa Transportation Agency
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency
Orange County Transportation Authority