RESEARCHQUESTIONWhatarebestpracticesforreducinggreenhousegasemissions(GHG)fromtransportationincasestudystates—California,Maryland,Oregon&Washington—especiallybyreducingvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)fromlight-dutyvehicles?

CONTEXT•  Nationally,roughlyone-quarterofallGHGresultsfromfossilfuel

combustioninthetransportationsector[1].

•  GHGfrommotorvehiclesisdeterminedbythe“three-leggedstool”ofvehicleefficiency,fuelcontentandVMT[2].SeeFigure1.

•  Approximately32stateshavecreatedclimateactionplans[3];20stateshaveadoptedGHGreductiongoals[4].

•  Scholarshaveexaminedclimateactionplans[5],climatechangeinstatetransportationplans[6],andtheimplementationofSenateBill375inCalifornia[7].

•  PriorresearchonstatutorymandatesforreducingGHGfromtransportationislimited.

STATEAPPROACHESBasedondocumentanalysisandstakeholderinterviews,researchersanalyzedeachstateaccordingtovariousthemes.SeeFigure3.

California•  CreatesMPO-specifictargetsfor

passengervehicleuse;18MPOscreateSustainableCommunitiesStrategies,whichareupdatedevery4years

•  CaltransincludesscenariostoreachGHGtargetin2040CaliforniaTransportationPlan

•  Cap-and-tradeprogramprovidesfundingtoimplementSustainableCommunitiesStrategies

•  UsesVMTthresholdforCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)reviewunderSenateBill743andexemptsinfillprojectsfromCEQAreview(SenateBill226)

Maryland•  CreatesGreenhouseGasReductionAct

Plan(multi-sector&multi-agency)•  Integratesstatetransportation,climate

&landuseplans•  StatutorilycreatesaClimateChange

CommissiontoimplementGreenhouseGasReductionActPlan

•  Reliesonimplementingexistingprograms•  IncludesasunsetprovisioninstatuteinordertoextendGHG

reductiontargets

Oregon•  CreatesStatewideTransportation

Strategyincluding18strategies•  CreatesMPO-specifictargetsfor

light-dutyvehicles;PortlandMPO(Metro)adoptedscenariotomeetGHGreductiontarget(ClimateSmartStrategy)butotherMPOshaven’t

•  LackoffundingtosupportinvestmentstoimplementClimateSmartStrategyandlegislationnotadoptedin2015

Washington•  StatutorytargetsforreducingVMTfor

light-dutyvehicles•  NoMPO-specifictargets;SeattleMPO

(PugetSoundRegionalCouncil)transportationplanmakesprogressinreducingGHG,butdoesnotmeetproportionalshareofstate’sgoal

•  StudyofhowGrowthManagementActcouldbeusedtoaddressclimatechange

•  WashingtonTransportationPlan2035describesmeetingstatewideGHGreductiongoalsthroughvehicle&fueltechnology,systemmanagement&operations,landuse,transportationoptions,andpricingstrategies

FINDINGS&RECOMMENDATIONS•  Researchersdevelopedaseriesoffindingandrecommendations.See

Table3.•  Akeyfinding(#2.1)isthatthereisaneedtobetter“connectthe

dots”fromgoalstoplanstoactionstoresults.The5-stepmanagementbyobjectivesprocessisawaytodoso.SeeFigure4.

StatesontheHotSeat:ReducingGreenhouseGasEmissionsfromTransportationRebeccaLewis,Ph.D.<rlewis9@uoregon.edu>|RobertZako,Ph.D.<rzako@uoregon.edu> http://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/789/

Question Choice Description

Process?

Legislated LegislatetargetswithoutmodelinghowtheserelatetostatewideGHGgoals

Top-Down UsemodelingtosettargetstobeconsistentwithstatewideGHGgoals

Bottom-Up Settargetsbasedonwhatistechnically/economically/politicallyfeasible

Geography?Statewide Setasingletargetforentirestate

ByMPO SetdifferenttargetsforeachMPO

Quantity?GHG MeasurereductionsinGHGasaresultoflocalactions

VMT MeasurereductionsinVMT

Representation?Absolute Targetanabsoluteleveltoachieve

Relative Targetapercentagereductionfromsomereference

Metric?

Total Measuretotallevels(sensitivetopopulationchanges)

PerHousehold Measurelevelsperhousehold(insensitivetopopulationchanges)

PerCapita Measurelevelspercapita(insensitivetopopulationchanges)

Reference?

Baseline Measurechangescomparedtoapastbaselineyear

Trend Measurechangescomparedtothebusiness-as-usualtrendinsomefutureyear

Obligation?Mandatory EachMPOisrequiredtoadoptaplantomeetitstarget

Voluntary EachMPOmaychoosetopursueitstarget

Table1.PolicyOptionsinSettingGHGReductionTargetsforVehicles[8].

State YearStatewideGHGGoals

Light-DutyVehicleTargets

TargetPolicyChoices

KeyLegislation

California

2020 0%below19901%aboveto8%below

bottom-upbyMPOGHG

relativepercapita

baseline(2005)mandatory

2005:EOS-3-052006:AB322008:SB3752011:EOG-11-024

2035 1%aboveto16%below

2050 80%below1990

Maryland

2020 25%below2006 legislatedstatewide

GHGrelativetotal

baseline(2006)n/a

2007:EO01.01.2007.072009:SB278/HB3152014:EO01.01.2014.142016:SB323/HB0610

2030 40%below2006

2050 90%below2006

Oregon

2020 10%below1990 top-downbyMPOGHG

relativepercapita

baseline(2005)voluntary

(exceptPortland)

2007:HB35432009:HB20012010:SB10592011:OAR660-044

2035 17%to21%below

2050 75%below1990

Washington

2020 0%below1990 18%below legislatedstatewide

VMTrelative

percapitatrend(2020)voluntary

2007:EO07-022007:SB60012008:HB28152009:EO09-05

2035 25%below1990 30%below

2050 50%below1990 50%below

Table2.StatewideGHGReductionGoals&Light-DutyVehicleReductionTargets.

GHGREDUCTIONGOALS&TARGETSEachcasestudystatehasadoptedoverallGHGreductiongoalsforallsectors;eachstateexceptMarylandhasalsoadoptedreductiontargetsforvehicles.Policychoicesvaryacrossstates.SeeTables1&2.

SYNTHESISPolicyFramework•  AllstateshavegoalstoreduceGHGinstatute•  Collaborationamongwestcoaststatesimportant(ORandWA)•  Gubernatorialleadershipimportant(CA&WA);advocacygroups

(OR)•  Usingperformancemetricwithflexibilitytoreachtargets(CA)

StateLevel•  RecentLRTPupdates(CA&WA);onlyCArequiresLRTPtoreachGHG

target•  StatewideTransportationStrategy&modalplans(OR)•  Allstates–transportationagencycultureslowtochange•  Stategrowthmanagementkeystrengthinreachinggoals(ORand

WA);keyweaknessinCA

MetropolitanLevel•  DelegateresponsibilitytoMPOs(CA&OR);WAdoesnot•  CArequiresallagenciestoplantoreduceGHGthroughSCSs;inOR

onlyPortlandandEugeneplanand•  onlyPortlandadoptsscenario•  MPOleveleffectiveinCAandPortlandbecauseMPOshavemore

authoritythanmostMPOs;butcapacity•  variesacrossMPOs•  InWA,onlySeattlehasvoluntarilyembeddedGHGsintoplans

ImplementationMechanisms•  OnlyCAadoptednewlegislationandpoliciestoimplementSCSs•  Preexistingplansandprogramshelpachievetargets(ORandWA)•  Capandtradefundsfortransit(CA)andinvestinginmasstransit

(WA)•  Notenoughfundingtoimplementplans,fundingsourcesconstrained

andmustbalancemaintenanceand•  expansion

Monitoring•  AllstatestracklevelsofGHGandVMTtomonitorprogresstoward

goals•  CAandORupdateGHGtargetseveryfewyears•  CArequiresupdatesofMPOplans•  GHGtrackingdisconnectedfromtransportationagencies•  Littlemonitoringofplanimplementation;showthatplansreach

targetsbutnotresponsibleforactually•  reachingtargets•  Reportsbutnooversightorauthority(WAandOR)

LessonsLearned•  Publicsupportandpoliticalwillinthesestates•  Sustainedleadershipandmomentumonpolicieskeytosuccess•  Planswillnotbesuccessfulwithoutadequatefundingand

reorientationoftransportationfunding•  Sellingco-benefitsimportantforgainingcitizensupport

SetGoals

AssignResponsibility

PlanImplement

Monitor REFERENCES[1] U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.InventoryofU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissionsandSinks:1990–2013.PublicationEPA

430-R-14-004,April15,2015.[2] ReidEwing,KeithBartholomew,SteveWinkelman,JerryWalters&DonChen.GrowingCooler:TheEvidenceonUrban

DevelopmentandClimateChange.Washington,DC:UrbanLandInstitute,2007.[3] CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions.“ClimateActionPlans.”

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/climate-action-plans.[4] CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions.“GreenhouseGasEmissionsTargets.”

http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/emissions-targets.[5] StephenWheeler.“StateandMunicipalClimateChangePlans:TheFirstGeneration.”JournaloftheAmericanPlanning

Association74,no.4(2008):481–496.[6] FrankGallivan,JeffAng-Olson&DianeTurchetta.“TowardaBetterStateClimateActionPlan:ReviewandAssessmentof

ProposedTransportationStrategies.”TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,no.2244(2011).

[7] ElisaBarbour&ElizabethA.Deakin.“SmartGrowthPlanningforClimateProtection:EvaluatingCalifornia’sSenateBill375.”JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation78,no.1(2012):70–86.

[8] LaurenMichele.“TargetandGoalSetting.”http://policyinmotion.com/state-transclimate-policy/transclimate-policy/target-and-goal-setting/.

Finding Recommendation Who? Model1 Leadership1.1 Statesleadingdespiteabsenceof

comprehensivenationalefforta) Otherstatesshouldfollowtheleadofthosealready

addressingclimatechangeb) Needcomprehensivenationaleffort

Executive;Legislature;President;Congress

California

1.2 Politicalpolarizationmakesprogressdifficult

InsulateimplementationfromthepoliticalprocessbyrelyingonaClimateChangeCommissionratherthanthelegislature

Legislature Maryland

1.3 Stateslearnfromotherstates,e.g.,WCGGWI,WCI,PCC

Multistatecollaborationcanbehelpfulforencouragingaction Executive;Stateagencies;Regionalcollaborations

Oregon;Washington

1.4 “TragedyoftheCommons”natureofclimatechangediscouragesstate,regionalandlocalgovernmentsfromacting

Focusonco-benefitsofreducingGHG,inparticular,fromtransportationsector

Executive;Legislature;Stateagencies;MPOs

PortlandMPO

1.5 Changesinpoliticalleadershipunderminesconsistentimplementation

Requireinterimreportsandsunsetclausessolegislaturemuststayengaged

Legislature Maryland

1.6 Changesinstateagencyleadershipunderminesconsistentimplementation

Establishacommissionwithbroadauthoritydrawnfromleadersinthepublicandprivatesectorsthatusesstaggeredappointmenttermstoinsulatefrompoliticalchanges

Legislature Maryland

1.7 Emphasisoftenvariesacrossadministrations;eachattemptstomakemarkwithnewpolicies

Needconsistentleadership—executive,legislativegivingadvicetoagencies

Executive;Legislature

n/a

1.8 Advocacygroupsplayimportantroleinpushingpolicyagenda

Advocacygroupspushforincrementalpolicychange,callingformodeststepswithclearaccountabilitytokeepissuepresent

Advocacygroups

1000FriendsofOregon

2 PolicyFramework2.1 Failureto“connectthedots” ConsideraSMARTapproachtoestablishinggoals,thatare

Specific,Measurable,Actionable,RealisticandTime-boundLegislature Maryland;

California

2.2 MPOscanbeeffectiveinstrument IfMPOsarestrong,theycanbeaneffectiveinstrumentforreducingGHG

Legislature California

3 Goals3.1 Goalsoftensetinavacuumby

legislaturewithoutunderstandingofimplications

a) SetSMARTgoalsb) Setgoalswithunderstandingofimpactofexisting

policies,newpoliciesandnewfundingsourcesc) Useahybridapproachof“howfarcanyouget?”and

“whatwouldittake?”

Legislature;Stateagencies

BaltimoreMPO

3.2 Oftendifficulttolinkresultsbacktoactions

Developasetofperformancemeasuresmorecloselytiedtoactions

Stateagencies;MPOs

Oregon

3.3 MAP-21callsforperformancemeasures

Regardlessoffederalefforts,developstateandregionalperformancemeasuresrelatedtoGHGreduction

Stateagencies;MPOs

n/a

4 Planning4.1 IntegrateRTPswithplansto

reduceGHGRequireMPOstoshowhowRTPsreduceGHGandgiveMPOsoversightoverprojectselection

Federalagencies:Stateagencies

California

4.2 MPOsvaryincapacity Providetechnicalandfinancialsupportforplanning Stateagencies Oregon;California

5 InstitutionalRelationships5.1 Transportationagenciesarenot

designedtodealwithGHGUseSSTItoassesstransportationagency Stateagencies California

5.2 Transportationagenciesoftenmakealldecisionsrelatedtotransportationplacement,eventhoughdecisionsimpactlanduseandGHG

Incorporateotherstateagenciesintodecision-making Stateagencies n/a

5.3 MPOsarenotstronginallstates GiveMPOsoversightoverprojectselection Legislature California

5.4 Countygovernmentsarestrong Providelocalsincentivestochangeplans(tiefundingtoplansorUGBexpansion)

Stateagencies n/a

6 Implementation6.1 Stateauthorityoverlanduse

providesanopportunitytoencouragecompactdevelopment

Makeprovisionoftransportationfundingcontingentonapprovaloflanduseplansfocusedoncompactdevelopment.Instateswithstronglanduseplanning,makeboundaryexpansioncontingentonscenarioplanning

Stateagencies n/a

6.2 Lackingflexiblefundingsourcestoimplementplans

Removeconstitutionallimitationsongastax Legislature n/a

6.3 Cap-and-tradefundingprovidesflexiblefundingsourcetoimplementplans

Encouragecompetitivecap-and-tradeprogramsorcarbontaxestoimplementplansandprojects

Legislature California

6.4 Regulationspreventcompactdevelopment

Relaxregulationstoincentivizecompactdevelopment,bicycle/pedestrianinfrastructureandtransitinfrastructure

Legislature California

7 Monitoring7.1 Stateslackinstitutionalstructure

toprovideoversightofimplementationofplans

Providemonitoringandenforcementtostateagencywithstaff,funding,authority

Legislature n/a

7.2 NeedtoholdMPOsaccountable TrackVMTandGHGatMPOlevel Stateagencies California;Oregon

7.3 Plansarenotmonitoredforimplementation

Relyoncivicsectortomonitorplans. Stateagencies;Civicsector

California

8 Regional&LocalSupport8.1 Citizenbuy-inimportantto

sustainedeffortsBuildpublicsupportbyemphasizingco-benefitsofreducingGHG

Publicagencies All

8.2 Difficulttogetbuy-inasstateagencies

Relyoncivicsectortobuildcoalitions Civicsector Maryland;California

Table3.Findings&Recommendations.

METHODOLOGY•  Thisstudylooksatfourinnovativecasestudystates—California,

Maryland,Oregon&Washington—thatarelookingtoreduceGHG,inparticular,fromtransportation.Moreover,eachstateexceptCaliforniahasaninnovativelanduseplanningprogram.

•  Methodsinthisstudyincludedocumentanalysisofstatutes,executiveorders&regulations;state-leveltransportation,landuse&climateplans;andotherplans&programs.

•  Methodsalsoincludesemi-structuredinterviewsasking44stakeholdersaboutgoals,efforts(plans&actions),andresults(monitoring&outcomes).SeeFigure2.

Goals

Plans

Actions

Results

Efforts

Figure2.ConceptualFramework.

Figure1.FocusofResearch[2].

GHGReduction

Goals

Other

Transportation

VehicleTechnology

FuelContent

VMT

Transportation

Pricing

LandUse

Overall Sector Component Strategy

“3-LeggedStool”

Goals

Planning

Implementation

Monitoring

Lead

ersh

ip

Regional&LocalSupport

InstitutionalRelationships

PolicyFramework

Figure3.AnalysisThemes. Figure4.TheFive-StepManagementbyObjectivesProcess.