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 ushered in a whole new way of evaluating the impacts of new projects on our transportation systems when the legislature passed SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013). The implementing guidelines are finally complete, and lead agencies will now be responsible for switching from an “auto delay” metric under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to one that measures the impacts on overall driving miles (VMT).
To discuss the implementation process, Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) is co-hosting a conference with Portland State University this Friday, March 1st, in Downtown Los Angeles from 8:45 to 6pm. In-person tickets are now sold out, but you can register to view it on line or watch as a webinar afterwards. The agenda is here.
Speakers include Sacramento mayor and SB 743 author Darrell Steinberg (via video), officials from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, local leaders implementing innovative VMT mitigation plans, and other experts.
We’ll also discuss our recent CLEE report “Implementing SB 743” on the legal options for creating VMT mitigation “banks” or exchanges. Hope to see you there or that you can tune in live!
It took five years, but California has finally ditched an outdated and counter-productive metric for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With the guidelines finalized on December 28th, a mere half-decade since the passage of SB 743 (Steinberg) in 2013, the state will ditch “auto delay” as a measure of project impacts and instead measure overall driving miles (VMT). You can see the new guidelines Section 15064.3.
It’s a big deal. Now new projects like bike lanes, offices, and housing will be presumed exempt from any transportation analysis whatsoever under CEQA if they are within 1/2 mile of major transit or decrease driving miles over baseline conditions. That means significantly reduced litigation risk and processing time for these badly needed infill projects.
Sprawl projects, meanwhile, will need to account for and mitigate their impacts from dumping more cars on the road for longer driving distances. Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) explored one such mitigation option in the form of a VMT “mitigation bank” or exchange in the recent report Implementing SB 743, where developers could pay into a fund to reduce VMT, such as for new transit or bike lane projects.
The one caveat is that due to political pressure, new roadway expansions are exempt from this requirement under the guidelines. It’s unfortunate, but those roadway projects will still need to undertake VMT analysis anyway for climate and air quality impacts, so perhaps they are not as exempt as their backers hoped.
You can learn more about these changes and what they mean going forward at a March 1st conference that CLEE is co-organizing in Los Angeles with the Urban Sustainability Accelerator at Portland State University. Shifting from Maintaining LOS to Reducing VMT: Case Studies of Analysis and Mitigation under CEQA Guidelines Implementing SB 743 will be a professional educational program for land use, transportation and environmental planners and attorneys in public, private and nonprofit practice, presented by expert practitioners.
- When: Friday March 1, 2019
- Where: Offices of the Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles
Topics to be discussed include:
- VMT impact analysis (methodology; appropriate tools and models, determining impact area)
- VMT significance thresholds (project effects, cumulative effects)
- VMT significance thresholds (project, cumulative)
- VMT mitigation strategies (project level, programmatic, VMT banks and transaction exchanges, legal and administrative framework)
Space is limited to 70 people to attend in person; registrants can view the program online streaming concurrently or subsequent to the program.
Registration Fees:
- Free Staff of state, regional and local governments sponsoring the SB 743 implementation assistance project and of their member governments (use link below for information about affiliations qualifying for free registration)
- $30 General registration, not seeking professional education credits
- $90 Planners seeking 6 AICP credits* ($15/credit)
- $210 Attorneys seeking 6 MCLE credits* ($35/credit)
*The organizer has accreditation for six hours of California Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) credits and is seeking accreditation for six hours of AICP credits.
You can learn more about this conference here and can proceed directly to the online preregistration form here.
California can’t meet its long-term climate goals without reducing its overall driving miles, per a state analysis of greenhouse gas emissions through 2050. This point was echoed in a recent New York Times article on SB 827, the measure to lift local restrictions on transit-adjacent housing. In the Times piece, bill author State Senator Scott Wiener said:
We can have all the electric vehicles and solar panels in the world, but we won’t meet our climate goals without making it easier for people to live near where they work, and live near transit and drive less.
Wiener isn’t just making that claim up. According to the California Air Resources Board’s staff report on regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the state will need a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through 2035 and 2050, even with more zero-emission vehicles sold and renewable energy deployed. They have a simple chart showing the calculations:
Basically, if by 2035 half of all new cars sales are zero emission, with half of all electricity (and thus transportation fuels) coming from renewable sources, we will still need a 7.5% reduction in baseline VMT.
The good news is all that clean technology means there would be slightly less pressure to reduce driving miles. But as the staff report pointed out:
The GHG emissions reduction contribution from VMT is a comparatively smaller in share than the GHG emissions reductions called for by advances in technology and fuels, but necessary for GHG emissions reductions in other sectors such as upstream energy production facilities and natural and working lands, and are also anticipated to lead to important co-benefits such as improved public health.
My one critique of the analysis is that it is conservative on the renewable mix by 2035. California has a statutory requirement to achieve 50% renewables by 2030, and we’re already over 35%. I would guess we’ll be at 60% renewables by 2030 and maybe 65% by 2035, not including greenhouse-gas free hydropower. In addition, bullish estimates of zero-emission vehicles could have the state at 75% battery electric vehicle sales by 2035.
Still, the point remains that VMT reductions are crucial. And worse, these VMT efforts could be badly undermined by autonomous vehicles, which could encourage more driving as people take advantage of having robot chauffeurs for every little errand and trip.
All of this analysis points to the need for much more housing production near transit and jobs — an outcome that SB 827 would directly promote. Because clean technology alone won’t be sufficient when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I’ve heard people refer to self-driving cars as nothing more than a “George Jetsons” future that won’t really happen, or at least is decades away. But Tesla just brought that reality into the present.
Yesterday the automaker announced that all their new cars going forward will be equipped with the hardware for full automation. That includes:
Eight surround cameras provide 360 degrees of visibility around the car at up to 250 meters of range. Twelve updated ultrasonic sensors complement this vision, allowing for detection of both hard and soft objects at nearly twice the distance of the prior system. A forward-facing radar with enhanced processing provides additional data about the world on a redundant wavelength that is able to see through heavy rain, fog, dust and even the car ahead.
The software won’t be activated right away, and customers will have to pay to access both the hardware and the software. Still, the era of autonomy is now within reach, and it will require policy makers to get ahead of the curve to ensure it doesn’t increase traffic.
The no-regrets solutions? Encourage car-sharing instead of vehicle ownership, and start charging drivers for the miles they drive rather than taxing them based on fuel.
You can see Tesla’s promotional video here, showing the self-drive in action:
