California and other jurisdictions have been moving to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a climate solution. Yet some pro-sprawl interests question whether this is necessary, given the advent of electric vehicles. It’s fair to ask: if all vehicles are “zero emission,” do we really need to care any more about how much driving we do, in terms of the climate impact?
The answer is unequivocally yes, and here are the top five reasons:
- Gas cars will be with us for a long time. As the California Air Resources Board noted in the 2022 scoping plan appendix, even with a goal to have only zero-emission vehicles sold in the state by 2035, approximately 30 percent of light-duty vehicles on the road in 2045 will still burn fossil fuels. The less of that we burn through reduced driving, the better.
- Clean electricity generation still has a carbon cost. Even if we move to 100% electric vehicles, that energy has to come from somewhere. And if it’s large-scale solar or wind facilities, they come with their own energy inputs to manufacture, as well as land use impacts to deploy. For example, some studies conservatively estimate it takes 10 acres of solar panels to generate one megawatt of electricity, an hour of which could potentially power about 3,500 driving miles collectively. Using that land for electricity and not food production, carbon sequestration, or open space comes with significant climate costs.
- Low-VMT development patterns reduce carbon pollution from buildings. As CARB noted, infill development (as opposed to sprawl served by publicly-subsidized highways) uses an estimated 10 to 20 percent less residential energy, due to smaller unit types, sizes, and locations — not to mention reduced water use from less outdoor irrigation requirements, which come with their own energy footprint to ship and treat the water.
- Reducing sprawl and VMT preserves open space and working lands as a carbon sink. To achieve carbon neutrality by mid century or sooner, we’re going to need to bury carbon. Natural and working lands are a key part of that equation, as they provide opportunities to bury carbon in soils through natural processes. Developing these lands instead for high VMT sprawl can permanently foreclose that opportunity.
- Electric vehicles come with their own carbon footprint and pollution costs. While dramatically better for the environment than fossil fuel-powered cars, EVs still require significant energy to manufacture, and their use on the road can create particulate matter pollution through wear on the tires and brakes and by kicking up particulate matter from the road. They also require large-scale mining of lithium, graphite and other minerals, which creates local environmental and energy impacts.
I could also mention non-climate reasons for wanting to reduce VMT, such as the equity benefits of building more housing closer to jobs and services in order to reduce transportation costs that disproportionately hurt low-income residents. But I’ll stick with the climate benefits for now.
Overall, we do need to electrify 100% of our transportation modes from a climate perspective. But we also need to simultaneously reduce the demand for transportation by building better and smarter communities in walkable, affordable, and transit-friendly areas.
Without that reduced driving, our climate goals will be much harder to achieve.
California made history this year when Governor Newsom signed a long-sought reform to deregulate local parking requirements on infill projects (as I blogged about back in September). But could one provision of the new law undermine its effect on the ground?
The issue is a provision in AB 2097 (Subdivision 65863.2(f), for anyone following along at home) that ostensibly exempts from this law any local requirements for electric vehicle charging installations in multifamily dwellings or commercial properties or to allow accessibility to persons with disabilities. In other words, if a local government required not just parking (which would now be illegal under the new state law) but also parking specifically for EVs and those with disabilities, what happens to that second part of the requirement?
The implications are significant. A city with such an EV or disability-access requirement on the books could potentially argue that developers will still need to provide some minimum parking that has these features. In fact, they could use the requirements as a backdoor parking mandate where none otherwise now exists. While most people support EV charging and disabilities access requirements for parking spots, doing so in the context of this legislation would clearly contradict the intent and plain language of the law.
When AB 2097 passed, it specifically deregulated parking mandates that typically come from local zoning codes, which have traditionally required developers to build a certain number of parking spaces for each housing unit and/or each 1,000 square feet of building area. EV and ADA parking requirements, however, usually come from a different section of local requirements, namely the building codes. Often these require that a certain percentage of any parking spots meet the additional standards of offering electric vehicle charging and/or accessibility. Crucially, building codes do not usually require that developers build any amount of parking—just that when they do, the parking meets certain standards.
In response, AB 2097 specifically preserved these building-code percentage standards in order to ensure that any parking provided at least advances sustainability and accessibility goals. But the provision was not meant to provide an easy out for local governments to circumvent the law’s fundamental goal of ending parking mandates near transit. Otherwise, cities could simply mandate a minimum number of parking spaces that must include electric vehicle charging (a percentage of which would by law also be handicap-accessible), and then AB 2097 would cease to have any effect at all.
So take a city that requires 30% of all required parking to have an EV charger. In that instance, they might argue that AB 2097 in fact only bans 70% of the parking mandate. Following that logic, if the city mandated 100% of spaces must include EV charging, then AB 2097 would effectively ban zero percent of parking mandates. That outcome would completely negate the purpose and impact of the new law.
The effect could be detrimental to infill projects. Imagine a small-lot developer who wouldn’t otherwise build any parking spots on a site under AB 2097. If cities now insisted that the developer provide EV charging and disabilities access, the developer would have to build parking where none was contemplated. That means providing two discrete accessible paths of travel from the street: one from the sidewalk and one from a parking facility that wouldn’t otherwise be there. This outcome would likely lead to developers continuing to orient buildings around parking spots rather than pedestrian, bicycle and transit access.
Instead, the only defensible read of the provision is that if a city requires a certain percentage of parking spots to have EV charging and be accessible to those with disabilities, those percentages should still apply: but only if the developer decides to build any parking at all. If the developer opts out of on-site parking, then a percent of zero is zero. If the developer wants to provide only half the parking that would have been locally required under the old regime, then the number of EV and disabilities-accessible spots should be halved.
Ultimately, the point of AB 2097 was to reduce dependence on automobiles, enhance access to buildings by non-vehicle modes, and lower the cost of building all types of housing near transit. If there’s parking, then open it to EVs, those with disabilities, and other local requirements. But if none exists, local governments shouldn’t force requirements that run afoul of the law.
We’ll see if cities with these requirements try to exploit this provision. If so, it may take some state agency guidance to make this point, or worst case clean-up legislation to clarify. Otherwise, one of California’s most important climate and land use bills could face some unfortunate headwinds on implementation.
It took a decade, but the California legislature has finally delivered to the governor one of the most critical climate and equity bills in the country. No, it’s not mandating carbon neutrality or increasing renewable energy. It’s finally ending local mandates that all new housing and infill projects must include car storage, even if they’re located within half-mile of transit.
AB 2097 (Friedman) builds on work dating back to 2011 (I blogged about then-Assm. Skinner’s failed attempt) to finally end parking requirements for projects near transit and with a percentage of affordable units. Otherwise, too many local governments have not gotten the memo that California’s climate and equity goals require more housing near transit and reduced need for residents to drive vehicles. Instead, many cities and counties still rely on outdated boilerplate planning requirements that require developers to build parking spots, even if residents don’t want or need them. The spots can run anywhere between $30,000 and $90,000 each to build, increasing the cost of housing and making it less affordable as a result.
So why would the state want to allow locals to mandate car storage? In the past, powerful anti-housing local governments resisted such a state override. But cities and counties have mostly lost that fight. Instead the entrenched interests are those that insist that eliminating these requirements will somehow harm the provision of affordable housing. And if it sounds counter-intuitive to you that making housing cheaper and not mandating car storage hurts affordability, it’s because it is.
Here’s the problem: in California, building new housing requires navigating an incredibly complex soup of state and local requirements. Some advocates for affordable housing use this byzantine system to extract concessions from developers. So if someone proposes relaxing one of these requirements, no matter how nonsensical or counter-productive to the environment and affordability it may be, these advocates will only support doing so if they can extract a concession for more affordable housing in the process.
An example is the state’s density bonus program, in which developers can add more density and reduce parking on a project beyond what the local governments allow, but only if they provide more subsidized affordable units. These advocates therefore worry that ending local parking requirements statewide will eliminate this incentive to build more affordable units.
While that might sound right in theory, in practice it’s not correct at all. Developers make money on increased density — more units on the same parcel. The parking reductions are only valuable in that they allow greater density to be built on the same limited parcel. Basically, developers only request the reduction in parking spaces if it means they can squeeze in extra units.
We’ve seen this in practice. As Mott Smith from USC and Michael Manville at UCLA have documented in multiple years and cities, including in the Los Angeles Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) program, the evidence conclusively shows that reduced parking requirements lead to more affordable housing and does not undermine density bonus programs. Most prominently, in 2019, San Diego abolished parking requirements near transit for all housing projects (which is precisely what AB 2097 would accomplish statewide), and the results were decisive: overall housing units increased 24%, density bonus units increased five-fold, and deed-restricted affordable units via density bonuses increased six-fold.
The evidence is clear. California is behind on meeting its 2030 climate goals, and much of the culprit is due to rising transportation emissions from more driving. We also face a brutal housing shortage, leading to a mass exodus of residents to high-polluting states, pervasive homelessness, and stark income inequalities. AB 2097 would knit a solution to both problems, by making housing more affordable and reducing the need to own a car right near existing transit hubs.
After a decade of waiting, the state’s residents need this crucial reform to abolish car storage mandates. Let’s hope Governor Newsom does the right thing and signs AB 2097.
When California state agencies and other local leaders build or approve projects that increase overall driving miles, state law requires them to mitigate those impacts. A new report from CLEE describes how these agencies can reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by investing in offsite options like bike lanes, bus-only lanes, transit passes, and other measures that can effectively and efficiently reduce a corresponding amount of VMT.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), government agencies and developers are required to mitigate (where feasible) the significant environmental impacts of new projects subject to discretionary approval, including impacts to transportation.
Senate Bill 743, originally enacted in 2013, called for a new transportation impact measure that promotes greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and multimodal transportation. In 2018 state leaders updated the CEQA guidelines to recommend VMT as the preferred impact measurement. VMT focuses on total vehicle trip-miles generated by a new project regardless of where they occur or how much traffic they cause.
Mitigating VMT impacts of new projects has the potential to shift California’s development patterns in a more sustainable, transit-oriented direction. It also creates the opportunity—and potentially the need—to conduct mitigation at locations other than the development site when onsite mitigation is not possible or practical. Such offsite mitigation can address the regional and statewide nature of VMT impacts in the most efficient and cost-effective locations, particularly when mitigation might prove difficult at the site of a suburban or exurban development.
If properly conducted, offsite mitigation could maximize flexible and locally appropriate transit, active transportation, and density investments. But to carry it out, state and local government leaders will need new frameworks to track mitigation obligations, plan investments, and facilitate transactions. CLEE and others have previously proposed “bank” and “exchange” programs to manage these capacities.
CLEE’s new report, Implementing SB 743: Design Considerations for Vehicle Miles Traveled Bank and Exchange Programs advances these proposals with a set of strategies for state agencies like Caltrans (the state agency most likely to be responsible for VMT-inducing projects) and local governments to develop bank and exchange programs that build on their existing environmental mitigation efforts. In addition to analyzing the legal and programmatic setting for VMT mitigation banks and exchanges, the report offers a set of recommendations for policymakers including:
- A state-level program for state agencies to manage mitigation and select locally appropriate investments, likely based on collaboration between Caltrans and other state transportation and land use agencies
- Regional-level programs for local and regional agencies to manage mitigation flexibly and efficiently within appropriate geographic limitations—likely managed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, but potentially run by large cities or counties in some cases
- Frameworks for analyzing the “additionality” of VMT mitigation investments to ensure that bank and exchange program funds support VMT reductions beyond those that would have occurred anyway
- Strategies for defining equity in the context of VMT mitigation and integrating equity into the decision-making of a bank or exchange program
Cities and counties around the state, from San José to San Diego, are in the process of developing their own approaches that could become, or could integrate into, VMT banks and exchanges. Caltrans and local government leaders will require significant time and resources to develop programs that fit the nature of the VMT-inducing projects they oversee and the needs and priorities of the areas they represent—and many questions remain, from prioritizing different mitigation investments to ensuring those investments are made in an equitable fashion. The strategies outlined in the report should help inform these decisions and advance the VMT reduction efforts initiated by the legislature nearly a decade ago.
This post was originally co-authored by Ted Lamm and Katie Segal on Legal Planet.
It’s another double shot today of me hosting shows on KALW 91.7 FM San Francisco Bay Area. First, at 10am PT, I’ll be guest hosting Your Call’s One Planet Series, where we’ll discuss the viability of carbon capture technology in combating climate change. Carbon capture and storage is the process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from polluting sources and storing it deep in the ground.
The just-passed (but not yet signed) Inflation Reduction Act includes a change in a crucial tax credit for the carbon capture industry—increasing the government subsidy for capturing CO2 from polluting sources from $50 to $85 per metric ton.
Some environmentalists call these carbon capture subsidies a handout to the oil industry and a distraction from urgently needed actions. How effective is this technology? Joining us to discuss are:
Tony Briscoe, environmental reporter with the Los Angeles Times
Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
Then we’ll cover the socio-environmental impacts of lithium mining to produce electric vehicles. Joining us will be Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks, a nonprofit organization committed to protecting communities from the adverse impacts of oil and gas and mineral extraction.
Second, later today on State of the Bay at 6pm PT, we’ll cover the latest in San Francisco’s housing saga, as the state threatens to take over land use planning for the City. Plus we’ll discuss the rise of autoimmune disorders and learn about California’s youth governor’s race, covered in a new documentary.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT for Your Call and then again at 6pm PT for State of the Bay. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
The “explainer” channel Cheddar tackled why Los Angeles lost its vast streetcar network and debunks the conspiracy theory that General Motors destroyed it, featuring an interview with me:
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll talk to BART Board President Rebecca Saltzman and San Francisco Chronicle reporter Ricardo Cano about rebounding BART ridership numbers.
Then, novelist and columnist (and childhood friend of mine) Vanessa Hua joins us to talk about her new novel, “Forbidden City.”
Finally, we learn about the return of the surf competition The Mavericks to Half Moon Bay, with Elizabeth Cresson, Founder of Mavericks Ventures LLC and Paul Taublieb, Event Producer and Partner, Mavericks Ventures LLC.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
KCET public television in Los Angeles covered the history of Los Angeles rail for the “Lost LA” series hosted by Nathan Masters, from the Red Cars to the modern Metro Rail system. Nathan interviewed me on the latter system, featured in the video below toward the end.
The episode is worth watching in full for an entertaining and informative recap of Red Car history. Nathan goes for a dive off the coast to try to find old streetcars sunk to create reefs and takes a ride on a preserved car at a rail museum.
I also wrote a companion article for KCET on this history, “From Rail to Roads and Back Again: The Rebirth of L.A.’s Public Transit,” based on my 2014 book Railtown (UC Press). While Los Angeles will never again have such a comprehensive rail transit system as with the Red Cars, the modern Metro Rail system is helping to fill important mobility gaps and helping to build a new city oriented around convenient rail service.
Tonight on State of the Bay at 6pm PT, we’ll learn more about San Francisco’s proposed vacancy tax on empty residential units that lawmakers and advocates hope will put more housing stock into the market. Joining us will be Lauren Hepler, housing reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Then we will talk to self-professed comedy nerds and stand-up comedians Nina G and OJ Patterson, co-author of Bay Area Standup: A Humorous History. Did you know that Phyllis Diller, Mort Sahl and Father Guido Sarducci all got their start in the Bay Area?
Finally, just in time for Valentine’s Day, we’ll hear from Lucie Ebernova, the Dating Coach, who has ideas of how to navigate the wild world of meeting your true love.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
It’s a double-shot of shows on KALW 91.7 FM today, my last two of the year. First, this morning on Your Call’s One Planet Series at 10am PT, we’ll discuss how climate science is being politicized in schools with investigative journalist Katie Worth, author of the riveting new book, Miseducation: How Climate Change Is Taught in America.
In the second half of the show, we’ll cover the mental health impacts of air pollution with reporter Kristina Marusic.
Then tonight at 6pm PT, I’ll be co-hosting State of the Bay to assess recent decisions rejecting or delaying housing projects by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. UC Davis Professor of Law Chris Elmendorf will help us understand the statewide legal implications of these anti-housing decisions, in particular the recent delay of a 500-unit housing development near BART.
Then we’ll discuss the state of the Bay Area’s “slow streets” movement, which close streets to most traffic for improved pedestrian and bike safety. What do you think about these measures? Ask our guests Eillie Anzilotti of the SFMTA and community planner Leah Chambers.
Finally, you’ll hear my interview with with Phil Ginsburg, General Manager of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, who will discuss some of the holiday festivities available in the city’s public spaces.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT for Your Call and then again at 6pm PT for State of the Bay. What comments or questions do you have for these guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
