Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 - (Page 22)

REGULATION Legislative Leverage Landmark California greenhouse-gas legislation could force actions in support of Smart Growth concepts. to Address Climate Change By Blake Murillo and Joel Miller B y now the alarming stories on the impact of climate change are well known: increased air pollution and respiratory disease, a shrinking snowpack, extensive coastal and forest damage, increased insect-borne diseases, changes in vegetation and crop patterns, flooding, and extensive strain on energy infrastructure. According to a 2006 report by the California Department of Transportation, it is estimated that the economic costs of the rising level in greenhouse gasses could reach 5 percent to 20 percent of the annual global GDP. This looming crisis has not escaped the attention of our nation’s lawmakers. Numerous bills have been introduced in Congress to tackle the issue, but despite the increased shift in the Capitol in favor of doing something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Congress has yet to take action. In California, it’s a different story. AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires a rollback in greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent to 1990 levels by 2020. The passage of AB 32 is bringing a host of global warming issues to the foreground, especially the conflict between traditional environmental/zoning regulations and smart growth measures that would lead to decreased dependence on the automobile. The biggest cause of global climate change is CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. According to Growing Cooler, a recent publication of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), every gallon of gasoline burned produces about 20 pounds of CO2 emissions. Auto use is only increasing as people are commuting longer dis- tances and making multiple trips. Average on-road fuel economy, which correlates with emissions, is declining due to larger vehicles and rising congestion. Emissions due to auto use will far outpace the projected efficiencies in vehicle fleets and low carbon fuels. Auto dependence is a result of some 60 years of local government land-use decisions and the infrastructure expenditures that transportation agencies have made in responses to those decisions. Complicating this picture is that the innovative policies of Smart Growth that would modify travel behavior often are in direct conflict with the conventional governmental approaches that encourage automobile dependence. AB 32 may well be the catalyst that finally forces a confrontation and reconciliation of these often-conflicting approaches to managing how our cities grow. The solutions will require a rethinking of long-held zoning and environmental sacred cows. What happens in California may well set the stage for similar dialogues across the country. hood Development, sets a measurable standard for communities seeking to facilitate the precepts of smart growth. When a Smart Growth residential/retail project with reduced parking is placed along a transit corridor, an explosive demand is created for walking, bike and transit alternatives. “Complete streets” in Smart Growth projects give equal weight to all the different street uses: bikes, walking, and public transit, as well as cars. Instead of requiring more parking and road widening, the emphasis turns to reducing auto dependence by providing “skinny” streets, plentiful bike racks, bike and carpool lanes, and vanpool and carpool parking. Obstacles to smart growth Unfortunately, current land use and transportation policies continue to emphasize automobile use. Traffic mitigation requirements are a key obstacle to Smart Growth. A project’s environmental impact report will typically require road widening to facilitate traffic flow. The traffic generation of a development is modeled to determine expected traffic generation and then the responsible agencies facilitate the anticipated traffic demand by road widening. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Chris Norfas, an analyst for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District notes, “If you design streets for traffic, you’ll get lots of traffic; if you design streets for people, you’ll get people.” Narrow streets are resisted because of public safety concerns and their impact on traffic movement. Yet this is contrary to superior urban design, which values CO2 savings with smart growth The ULI report clearly lays out how much transportation-related CO2 savings can be expected with smart growth: shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 85 million metric tons of CO2 annually by 2030. A variety of development types— walkable communities, new urbanist neighborhoods, transit-oriented developments, infill and brownfield developments, lifestyle centers—fall under the Smart Growth umbrella. The newest LEED® initiative, LEED for Neighbor- 22 September 2008 Sustainable Land Development Today

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 Contents Our Voice The Bottomline Editorial Board SLDT Resources Digging Deep Oases of Capital Build a Better Business on an Interactive, Virtual Landscape Regulation SLDI in Focus �� SLDI Sponsored Summit �� Workshops �� Bookstore Tee’d Up for Sustainability Retention Solutions Wastewater Redevelopment Industry News Marketplace Products/Services Showcase Advertiser Index The Last Word

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.