Transportation and climate change: seven possible steps for the Bay Area

This article presents an overarching vision for greatly reducing the Bay Area's greenhouse-gas emissions from transportation. Not all the measures in this article have been fully weighed by the Sierra Club or are included in Sierra Club policy.

Just over 50% of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are from transportation, mostly from the region's over four million drivers going to work, school, shopping centers, and nightclubs; making deliveries; and the like. Obviously, any serious plan to reduce Bay Area GHGs will have to take on transportation. But the key indicators are going the wrong way.

Vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT - the total of all regional driving) continues its decades-long rise, while miles-per-gallon (MPG), the other half of the GHG equation, has flattened in the last 15 years as consumers have flocked to trucks and SUVs. At 19.5 pounds of CO² per gallon (more if you include the energy required to produce and distribute fuel) our environment-friendly region is certainly doing its part to accelerate global warming.

Population growth is a big factor, but also we are just moving around more. Trips to work are only 25% of the total now; the other 75% is for purposes such as recreation, driving kids to school, and shopping. VMT per capita is up, as is vehicles-per-household. Yes, more people are taking transit, biking, and walking, but even more Bay Area residents are now driving.

We're going to have to be bold and think differently if transportation is going to change. Here are seven ideas.

• Save the Pavley bill. The major automakers (including Toyota and Honda) are suing our state over AB 1493, the landmark 2002 legislation that requires significant GHG/mile reductions starting with 2009 cars. This law is our best on-the-books shot at cutting transportation GHGs; if the lawsuit succeeds we are in very big trouble. Mount a campaign to pull Honda or Toyota off the suit, and the whole case could collapse. Or organize our cities and businesses to file friend-of-the-court briefs on the negative impacts on our coastlines, snowpack, and agriculture. (Note: the trial has been postponed pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision this spring in a related case.)
• Plug in, turn over, and clean up. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (see article above) offer the best near-term vehicle solution, and Plug-In Bay Area (which includes leading business, environmental and government groups) is out to make PHEVs a reality. Let's join them. Since the average car is on the road for 15 years, provide big, meaningful dollar incentives to trade in and crush the biggest gas guzzlers, and generous incentives to buy new fuel-efficient ones. Everyone has their price. Diesel pollution from trucks and ports is a huge Bay Area problem, particularly in places like West Oakland. Get a great twofer by modernizing the entire diesel-truck fleet, cutting GHGs and local pollution.
• Drive slower and smarter. The 55 mph speed limit (or even the enforcement of 65 mph) will significantly increase MPG and reduce GHGs. Around town, studies have shown that driving "smart" (the light touch on the gas) can save 15 - 20% in fuel use. Keep your car tuned and tires properly inflated, take the bowling ball out of the trunk, etc. and save even more.
• Reach out directly to people, as in the new TravelChoice program. The simple concept is to talk to people one-on-one in their homes, providing them with personalized incentives and information - and getting a 14% reduction in drive-alone trips! Recently piloted by the Transportation and Land Use Coalition with 3,000 households in Alameda, the program got the same good results it had achieved in Seattle and other cities. Let's expand TravelChoice to all nine Bay Area counties.
• Cap California gasoline sales - a World War II solution for another worldwide crisis. Everyone gets an e-card giving the right to buy a certain number of gallons per year. People who don't drive as much can sell their surplus to those who need more. Finally faced with a limited resource, individuals, businesses, and local governments will find creative ways to conserve, and will demand better transit, walking, and biking options.
• Really marry transportation and land use. Not just the climate-friendly things like transit villages and denser downtowns, but no more terribly wrong projects like the A's moving from BART to a Candlestick-like drivers-only locale (see article, page 17). Building climate-friendly communities is the long-term answer, but we must find a way to speed up the change in older, slower-growing areas like ours.
• Make transit fare-free and fast. If we really want people to change, show them a positive future. Reward people in a big way for choosing to decrease their driving. Spare the Air free-transit days last summer got a 15% increase in daily transit riders (2/3 of whom had a car available) for somewhat over $2 million per day. A steep price in the "normal" world, but we don't live there anymore. At the same time, Caltrain's Baby Bullet and bus rapid transit by VTA and AC Transit are showing that faster transit brings more riders.

Of course, we have always had a surplus of good transportation ideas. The missing piece is getting the public and political support for implementation. To have any chance in 2007 or 2017, we must start by engaging the Bay Area public in a frank and serious discussion on the choices that face the Bay Area, California, and the planet. If we start with neighborhood groups, faith-based organizations, schools, and other community-level places, we can get agreement on the problem and our need to take action together. With that huge step taken, suddenly transportation "dreams" like those outlined above can begin to look mainstream and do-able.

By Bruce Riordan, Elmwood Consulting