 |
| Traffic on the Bay Bridge |
When
I first heard about Plan Bay Area, a regional blueprint for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG) and making housing more affordable around the San Francisco
Bay Area, I was thrilled. One of the major aspects of the plan involves large
transportation investments around the region: improving
streets, connecting regional transit networks and creating more transit-oriented
housing! California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
(Senate Bill 375), which requires metropolitan areas to lower GHG emissions
from cars and light trucks, set Plan Bay Area in motion and has spurred a range
of suggestions for lowering carbon emissions.
The
plan sets some lofty goals for the region. With an expected population growth
of nearly two million people by 2040, the plan sets to lower GHG emissions by
15% per capita by 2035. As Downs states in his article on traffic congestion,
the growth of a region greatly increases their level of congestion. And the Bay
Area is growing rapidly! In order to reduce GHG, the plan hopes to densify
transit corridors and lower vehicle miles traveled. Some of the controversial
ideas for reaching this goal include increases in bridge tolls, implementing a
driving fee based on miles traveled and a potential congestion tax in Downtown
San Francisco and Treasure Island. [1]
As
much as I am excited and proud of my home away from home and the nine Bay Area counties
working together to create a regional plan, I have my doubts. The plan assumes
that 60% of GHG reductions will occur by encouraging job and housing growth
close to transit and the other 40% will happen through car and transit climate
initiatives (costing roughly $640 million to implement). Seeing these numbers, I wonder the
effects of attempting to lower emission by implementing a VMT tax and
supporting densifation of areas around transit. This is all well and good, until
I delved into the complex relationship between VMT and density and how it affects
other regional goals, specifically affordable housing. The results aren’t pretty.
