|Caltrans is seeking public input on the draft California Transportation Plan 2040 (CTP 2040) that identifies future multimodal mobility transportation needs and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.|
Bring your ideas and prepare to engage.
The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan that will guide transportation decisions and investments in the 21st Century. The CTP provides a policy framework for meeting statewide transportation needs. It defines goals, policies, and strategies to achieve our collective vision for California's transportation future. The plan envisions a sustainable system that improves mobility and enhances our quality of life. Key to this vision is considering "the 3 E's" - a prosperous economy, quality environments, and social equity - in all transportation decisions.
Achieving the vision will take considerable effort. All transportation providers and system users are encouraged to be partners in helping to make the CTP a reality. Communities must plan and use their land wisely, transportation providers must manage the system efficiently, and users must choose services carefully.
The current focus is to review and update the CTP for a 2040 planning horizon by incorporating elements of previous plans and integrating new recommendations. Ongoing community outreach through an interactive website as well as workshops and focus groups throughout the State will be important elements of the plan's development. By collaborating with us, the public can influence the content of the final plan and, ultimately, decisions about investing transportation dollars.
To offer your input on the California Transportation Plan, and to download the fact sheet with the who, what, when, why, and how, please go to www.californiatransportationplan2040.org.
101 8th St
Oakland, CA 94607
Google map and directions
Comments from 350 Bay Area for the California Transportation Plan (CTP) workshop—
March 26, 2015, Oakland
350 Bay Area is an activist organization, working for deep reductions in carbon pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area & beyond. We are working extensively with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve an 80% reduction in fixed sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and we hope to work with Caltrans, the Air Resource Board (CARB), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to do the same with transportation.
Caltrans is to be commended for excellent work in producing the CTP, a groundbreaking document. In particular, the plan successfully shows how to achieve the state’s goal of an 80% reduction in GHGs from transportation. The CTP is a clear example of how California is leading the way in the fight to stop climate change.
The plan has a logical three step approach to reduce GHGs:
Alternative 1. Existing plans—The CTP starts with Sustainable Communities Strategies as mandated by SB375. These are good plans, and they do stop the increase in GHGs, but they do not achieve the significant reductions in GHGs that are needed.
Alternative 2. This adds more aggressive pricing, transit, car sharing, biking, walking, and other strategies. Altogether these aggressive strategies result in a projected 21% reduction in GHGs.
Alternative 3. This practically eliminates emissive (fossil fuel driven) vehicles and assumes a mix of zero emission vehicles to get the 80% reduction goal.
Below are our comments on the draft plan:
1. We strongly support the plan’s 80% goal, and we will urge MTC to adopt this goal and the plan’s overall three step approach as well.
2. The plan needs to be more than “aspirational” document. There needs to be a feasibility analysis of what measures are realistic—both technically and politically. With that in mind, here are some suggestions:
—Ride sharing/car sharing. We believe that California can harness smart phone technology to connect riders with vehicles and with other drivers, especially if there are incentives for participation. The CTP only projects a 2.9% VMT reduction from carpooling and 1.1% for car sharing. This suggests an increase in vehicle occupancy from 1.3 persons/vehicle to 1.35 persons/vehicle. We feel California can do much better than that, combining incentives and education (see #7 below).
—Electric vehicles—CARB calls for all Zero Emission Vehicles by 2040, but why wait that long—why not aim for 2030 or even 2020? California should be leading the way. And why does page 125 list incentives for ZEVs and alternative fuels as " LONG-RANGE"? Some of these incentives are already in place and should be continued (e.g. federal and state tax credits, HOV lane access, no gas tax). The CTP predicts that “ZEVs will represent 12% of total sales by 2030”. However, ZEVs and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) were already 3% of sales in 2014. With continued incentives and public education, this 12% total should be reached much earlier than 2030.
—Land use controls to limit Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)—Prohibiting urban sprawl is important to keep VMT from growing. Local planning agencies should be given incentives to comply with these land use controls. We notice that there is no attempt to estimate an percentage reduction in VMT by promoting transit oriented development; why not?
—Transit improvements—The goal of doubling transit by 2040 is ambitious, and we support it. However, given that it will probably take at least 40 years just to build another BART tube, the plan should clarify the cost of this proposal to double transit and discuss realistic timelines and funding sources
—The pricing proposal for a road user charge equivalent to $4.00 per gallon is not likely to gain political support. This speaks to the need for public education about the true cost of fossil fuels on public health, agriculture, and the economy as a whole. With extensive public education, it is possible that a program such as “fee and dividend” charges on gasoline could gain support.
—Increase Fuel Cell vehicles—We note that CARB reports to the CTP Technical Advisory Committee include an estimate that 50% of all vehicles will be Fuel Cell by 2050. However, the cost of fuel cell vehicles is way above the cost of electric vehicles, so we are not clear why the predictions for already-on-the-market electric vehicles (about 20% of all vehicles in 2050) are so limited.
3. Clarification needed—Figure 7 on page 161 of the CTP predicts that about 2/3 of future fuels will be biofuel blends; this seems to conflict with CARB estimates that future fuels will be about 50% electricity and hydrogen. This should be clarified. We do not think biofuels will be needed for the light duty vehicle market, but may be important for rail/truck/and nautical shipping.
4. Where is the economic analysis? This should include the air quality benefits from eliminating fossil fuels, as well as the health benefits from active transportation, and the costs from inactive transportation—heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc." TREDIS (Transportation Economic Development Impact System), the CTP tool for measuring economic impacts does not appear to include these issues. It also does not include looking at the cost of inaction—i.e. sea level rise, lack of snowpack, drought, floods, forest fires, etc.
5. Active Transportation—The plan calls for doubling bicycle and pedestrian modal splits by 2040, but we feel this is a very modest goal. When taking into account the health benefits of active transportation (which includes transit as well because of the walking that goes along with transit use), the benefits of active transportation are significant. Combining land use changes (discussed in #2 above), education (see #7 below), and development of facilities, we think that these modes can do much more than double by 2040. This result can also be enhanced by expansion of electric bikes that help with hilly or longer trips, and which need to be added to the CTP.
6. Self driving vehicles—These should be ubiquitous by 2040. This will have major implications for car sharing, ride sharing, and transit. The CTP should include measures to ensure that self driving vehicles enhance the mobility and safety of Californians without increasing GHGs.
7. Education—Community members need to understand global warming and understand how they can be an active part of the solution, particularly in the choices they make about transportation. Education campaigns in the spirit of Smokey the Bear’s “Only you can prevent forest fires” or Rosie the Riveter’s “We can do it” need to be launched. Labels on gas pumps should inform motorists that burning gasoline causes global warming and that their city’s Climate Action Plan suggests ways to reduce their gas use. 350 Bay has developed and promoted a community education strategy called Beyond the Pump which we would be happy to share with CTP 2040 planners. This kind of a campaign, like campaigns to require seat-belts, stop drunk driving, or promote anti-tobacco, when combined with policy and environmental changes, have been shown to contribute to social norms change. The new social norm should be that driving an internal combustion engine vehicle is like second hand smoke—it is harmful to you and your family by contributing to climate change. The campaign should also stress that there are viable and accessible alternatives.
—submitted by Jack Lucero Fleck, 350 Bay Area, Beyond the Pump team