XXXARB GHG Target-Setting Principles MTC Planning Committee July 9, 2010

AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006AB 32 establishes the first comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms in the nation to achieve GHG emissions reductions

AB 32 sets GHG emissions limit for 2020 at 1990 levelAcknowledges that 2020 is not the endpointPoints way towards 80% reduction by 2050

ARB adopted a Scoping Plan to achieve AB 32s GHG emissions reduction target

Californias Three Pronged Approach to Reducing Transportation Greenhouse Gases(with AB 32 Scoping Plan estimates for GHG reductions in 2020)Cleaner vehicles (Pavley, AB 32) - 38 tonsCleaner fuels (Low-Carbon Fuel Standard) - 15 tonsMore sustainable communities (SB 375) - 5 tons

SB 375 BasicsDirects ARB to develop passenger vehicle GHG reduction targets for CAs 18 MPOs for 2020 and 2035Adds Sustainable Communities Strategy as new element to Regional Transportation PlansRequires separate Alternative Planning Strategy if GHG targets not metProvides CEQA streamlining incentives for projects consistent with SCS/APSCoordinates the regional housing needs allocation with the regional transportation planning process

How Has the Process Changed Under SB 375? RHNAProjectionsRTPRTPProjectionsRHNAOld Sequential SB 375 - Integrated

Key Regional Targets Advisory Committee RecommendationsCalls for ARB to implement a consistent target setting process statewideCollaborate and exchange data with MPOIdentify an initial statewide targetAdjust initial target for particular regions,if needed Set draft and then final targets Target metric: percent per-capita GHG emissions reduction from 2005

Extensive MPO/ARB Cooperation MPO Executive Directors and ARB senior staff developed joint process:Planning Working GroupModeling Working GroupLegal Working GroupPlanning Working Group coordinated target setting analysisMPO Executive Directors and ARB senior staff reviewed key assumptions, methodology and results

*

Conclusions/FindingsAdopted plans move us in the right GHG direction, and also provide important health, mobility and social equity co-benefits (Average Weekday Pounds Per Capita CO2 Emissions from Passenger Vehicles and Light Duty Trucks)

* Corrected results

How Do T2035 and ARB Fuel/Fleet Efficiency Standards Affect Bay Area Gross GHG Emissions? (Average Weekday tons (000) from Passenger Vehicles and Light Duty Trucks)

w/o Pavley and LCF*w/ Pavley and LCF**Implementation of Pavley (AB 1493) and Low Carbon Fuels are part of ARBs AB 32 Scoping Plan

Chart1

66

74

95

93

56

(000s) of Weekday Tons

Sheet1

199020052035 No ProjectT2035 ProjectT2035 Project

6674959356

w/o Pavely 1/2w/ Pavely 1/2

and LCFand LCF

Sheet1

Thousands of Tons

Sheet2

Sheet3

Conclusions/FindingsExisting operations and maintenance obligations limit funding flexibility

Table 2

RTP ExpendituresMTCSCAGSANDAGSACOG

Road Maintenance & Operations30%10%20%34%

Transit Maintenance & Operations51%31%24%28%

Road Expansion (HOV, HOT, ML)2%20%16%3%

Road Expansion (General Purpose)1%5%23%13%

Transit Expansion14%18%14%12%

Other2%16%3%10%

Notes:

SCAG Transit Maintenance & Operations percentage includes expenditures covered by farebox revenues. In the absence of such revenues, this figure would be 23%.

SANDAG Transit Maintenance and Operations percentage includes expenditures covered by farebox revenues. In the absence of such revenues, this figure would be 18%.

SACOG Road Expansion (General Purpose) percentage excludes in-kind developer-built roadways; SACOG excludes this to be consistent with other MPO reporting.

&C&"Arial,Bold"&12Table 2 - Comparison of Expenditures for Large MPOs - Existing Fiscally Constrained RTPs (Expenditures as % of Total RTP Cost)

&R&D &T

Chart1_MTC Template

0.30.510.020.010.140.02

0.10.310.20.050.180.16

0.20.240.160.230.140.03

0.340.280.030.130.120.1

Road Maintenance & Operations

Transit Maintenance & Operations

Road Expansion (HOV, HOT, ML)

Road Expansion (General Purpose)

Transit Expansion

Other

% Expended

Comparison of RTP Expenditures(Expenditures as % of Total RTP Cost)

Chart 1

0.30.510.020.010.140.02

0.10.310.20.050.180.16

0.20.240.160.230.140.03

0.340.280.030.130.120.1

Road Maintenance & Operations

Transit Maintenance & Operations

Road Expansion (HOV, HOT, ML)

Road Expansion (General Purpose)

Transit Expansion

Other

% Expended

Table 2 Chart: RTP Expenditures

Conclusions/Findings

Some regional variations in GHG reductions may be explained by differences in:Levels of highway congestion and capacity investmentAssumptions regarding TDM programsGrowth rates and land use distribution

table 4_land use policy

Table 4. Land Use Scenario Comparison

Change 2005 to 2035 RTPChange 2005 to 2035 Most Ambitious Scenario

Region2005 Base Year Units (thousands)2035 Current Plan Units-2035 (thousands)Numeric Change (thousands)Percent Change /5/Most Ambitious Scenario 2035 Horizon Year (thousands)Numeric Change (thousands)Percent Change /5/

MTC/ABAG

Total Dwelling Units (thousands)2,5823,303+721+28%3,340+758+29%

Attached DU's (thousands) /1/9451,276+331+35%1,391+446+47%

Small Lot SF DU's (thousands) /2/522705+183+35%768+246+47%

Attached Units Shares of Total Units37%39%46%42%59%

Small Lot SF Shares of Total Units20%21%25%23%32%

Compact Growth Shares of Total Units /3/57%60%71%65%91%

Dwellings in Transit Priority Areas (thousands) /4/7781,284+506+65%1,657+879+113%

TPA Share of Total Units30%39%70%50%116%

Regional Jobs/Housing Ratio (Jobs/Dwellings)1.351.55+0.19+14%1.53+0.18+13%

SCAG

Total Dwelling Units (thousands)6,2457,799+1,554+25%7,799+1,554+25%

Attached DU's (thousands) /1/2,5613,291+730+29%3,587+1,026+40%

Small Lot SF DU's (thousands) /2/614820+206+34%905+291+47%

Attached Units Shares of Total Units41%42%47%46%66%

Small Lot SF Shares of Total Units10%11%13%12%19%

Compact Growth Shares of Total Units /3/51%53%60%58%85%

Dwellings in Transit Priority Areas (thousands) /4/3,6794,329+650+18%4,525+846+23%

TPA Share of Total Units59%56%42%58%54%

Regional Jobs/Housing Ratio (Jobs/Dwellings) /6/1.321.32+0.00+0%1.33+0.01+0%

SANDAG

Total Dwelling Units (thousands)1,1081,418+310+28%1,418+310+28%

Attached DU's (thousands) /1/388624+236+61%646+258+67%

Small Lot SF DU's (thousands) /2/209217+8+4%217+8+4%

Attached Units Shares of Total Units35%44%76%46%83%

Small Lot SF Shares of Total Units19%15%3%15%3%

Compact Growth Shares of Total Units /3/54%59%79%61%86%

Dwellings in Transit Priority Areas (thousands) /4/443838+395+89%861+418+94%

TPA Share of Total Units40%59%128%61%135%

Regional Jobs/Housing Ratio (Jobs/Dwellings)1.351.27-0.08-6%1.27-0.08-6%

SACOG

Total Dwelling Units (thousands)8081,188+380+47%1,188+380+47%

Attached DU's (thousands) /1/245374+129+53%392+147+60%

Small Lot SF DU's (thousands) /2/24124+100+417%137+113+470%

Attached Units Shares of Total Units30%31%34%33%39%

Small Lot SF Shares of Total Units3%10%26%12%30%

Compact Growth Shares of Total Units /3/33%42%60%44%68%

Dwellings in Transit Priority Areas (thousands) /4/103480+377+367%555+452+440%

TPA Share of Total Units13%40%99%47%119%

Regional Jobs/Housing Ratio (Jobs/Dwellings)1.241.13-0.11-9%1.13-0.11-9%

Notes:

/1/ Includes all attached housing types: multi-family/apartments, condominiums, townhouses, etc.

/2/ Single family detached units on small lots (< 5,500 square fee)

/3/ Compact growth shares = sum of attached + small lot single family unit shares.

/4/ Transit priority areas are 1/2 mile from frequent (15-minute-or-less headway) peak transit service.

/5/ Omitted from these columns are "percent of percent" or "percent change in growth share" computations.

/6/ Based on other information, SCAG staff believes the 2035 jobs/housing ratio should be 1.29, not 1.32 or 1.33. SCAG staff will be working with local jurisdictions in the

next RTP update to scale down total employment by about 250,000 jobs to result in a jobs/housing ratio of 1.29.

RTPMost Ambitious Alt. Plan

Attached DUSmall Lot SF DU (

What is Assumed in the Bay Areas Most Ambitious Scenario?

Chart1

Sheet1

MTC

Fuel/Maintenance$0.29

VMT/Carbon Tax$0.07

Congestion Pricing$0.43

Parking Charge$0.36

Sheet1

0000

Fuel/Maintenance

VMT/Carbon Tax

Congestion Pricing

Parking Charge

Cost per Mile (Average Trip)

2035 Auto Operating Costs (Most Ambitious Scenario

Sheet2

Sheet3

Chart2

0.290.070.430.36

Basic Fuel/Maintenance

VMT/Carbon Tax

Congestion Pricing

Parking Charge

Cost per Mile (Average Trip)

Auto Operating Costs Increase 4-Fold

Sheet1

MTC

Basic Fuel/Maintenance$0.29

VMT/Carbon Tax$0.07

Congestion Pricing$0.43

Parking Charge$0.36

Sheet1

0000

Basic Fuel/Maintenance

VMT/Carbon Tax

Congestion Pricing

Parking Charge

Cost per Mile (Average Trip)

2035 Auto Operating Costs (Most Ambitious Scenario

Sheet2

Sheet3

Chart3

0

46000

47000

48000

Median Household Income (2000)

Sheet1

MTC

Basic Fuel/Maintenance$0.29

VMT/Carbon Tax$0.07

Congestion Pricing$0.43

Parking Charge$0.36

Sheet1

0000

Basic Fuel/Maintenance

VMT/Carbon Tax

Congestion Pricing

Parking Charge

Cost per Mile (Average Trip)

2035 Auto Operating Costs (Most Ambitious Scenario

Sheet2

MTC$77,000.00

SCAG$60,000

SANDAG$63,000

SACOG$60,000

Sheet2

Higher Household Incomes Are a Factor (2008 ACS)

Sheet3

What is Assumed in the Bay Areas Most Ambitious Scenario?

Bay Area GHG Scenarios? (% per capita - 2005 vs 2035)T-2035 w/Proj 07+2%0%-2%T-2035 w/Proj 09-11%Most ambitious scenario with aggressive pricing + LUMore aggressive

ARB RecommendationFour Large MPOs - 2020 Target RangePercent Reduction in Per Capita Emissions from 2005 to Target Year

ARB RecommendationFour Large MPOs - 2035 Scenario ResultsPercent Reduction in Per Capita Emissions from 2005 to Target Year

ARB RecommendationCentral Valley MPOs Target RangePercent Reduction in Per Capita Emissions from 2005 to Target Year

ARB RecommendationSmaller MPOs

Maintain current level of effort in adopted regional plans

3 New Bay Area Sensitivity Tests(for 2035) TDM assumes additional 5% of workers with incomes above $75,000/yr telecommute daily (compares to 5% of all Bay Area workers that currently work at home)Pricing consolidates previously assumed VMT, congestion and carbon tax charge in Most Ambitious pricing scenario into single VMT charge of $0.50 per mile (compares to Express Lanes that charge $0.10 - $0.50 per mile)Land Use takes Most Ambitious land use scenario and: 1. moves all 2035 forecasted new in-commute growth into Bay Area (approx. 115,000 new households) 2. Increases forecasted population growth in 3 largest cities by an additional: 200,000 in SF (previous); 54,000 in SJ; and 49,000 in Oakland 3. Additional population growth in several other job-rich PDAs

How do the 3 New Sensitivity Tests Compare to Previous Scenarios (2035)? TDM -2%Pricing-5%Land Use -3%Combined-7%New GHG Reduction Range 2 to 18%

Bay Area GHG Scenarios? (% per capita - 2005 vs 2035)T-2035 w/Proj 07+2%0%-2%T-2035 w/Proj 09-11%Most ambitious scenario with aggressive pricing + LUMore aggressive-18%Sensitivity Tests - Combined

What if We Dont Meet GHG Targets? If SCS doesnt achieve GHG targets, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be adopted that demonstrates target achievementARB must accept or reject local determination that SCS/APS achieves targetsCEQA streamlining possible with SCS or APS

Bay Area Principles for Establishing GHG Emission TargetsT-2035 is already climate friendly: - 80% operate and maintain existing transportation system - 14% for transit expansion with TOD Policy - 3% for roadway expansion, most of it pricedT-2035 is estimated to achieve 3% per GHG per capital reduction in 2020 and 2% reduction in 2035Strategies to reduce GHG emissions have co-benefits for mobility, air quality, health and community vitalityMTC & ABAGs new models will be more accurate, but wont produce dramatically different GHG results*

Bay Area Principles for Establishing GHG Emission TargetsPast RTPs have shown pricing and land use can dramatically change travel behavior but significant local consensus-building and new legislation will be needed.ARB should first consider a single statewide target consistent with RTAC recommendation only adopt custom targets based on sound planning assumptions*

Bay Area Principles for Establishing GHG Emission TargetsARB should establish Bay Area target that does not exceed 7% per capita for 2020 and 10% per capita for 2035ARB should work with the legislature to identify financial, regulatory and other incentives that can help regions achieve and exceed GHG targetsARB should regularly review GHG targets*

Greenhouse Gas Target Important DatesJuly 9, 2010 MTC Planning Committee, with ABAGs Administrative Committee and Joint Policy Committee membersJuly 21, 2010, ARB target-setting workshop in OaklandJuly 28, 2010 MTC meetingSeptember 10, 2010 MTC Planning Committee, with ABAGs Administrative Committee and Joint Policy Committee membersSeptember 22, 2010 MTC meetingSeptember 30, 2010 ARB adopts targets

ONE BAY AREAhttp://www.onebayarea.org/

*2. At the same time, all of us have significant limitations on available funding for new transportation system improvements and programs to serve projected population and employment growth due to substantial commitments for maintaining and operating our existing highway and transit systems.

3. GHG emission reduction differences among the large MPOs for 2020 and 2035 in our existing RTPs may be explained partially by differences in:existing and projected levels of congestion on our highway systems, and differing levels of past and future investment in transportation system capacity expansion Differing planning assumptions regarding existing and future deployment of TDM programsforecasted regional growth rates and land use distribution. This chart illustrates the differences in rate of growth between 2005 and 2035 among the 4 MPOs, with SACOG growing at a much faster rate than the other three. It also shows the differences in the distribution of residential land uses among three product types.