Global
Warming Target Shifts from Tailpipes to Roads As
the San Diego Association of Governments prepares to adopt a $42 billion transportation
plan, the state Attorney General's Office says it must address global warming. By
ROB DAVIS Voice Staff Writer Tuesday,
July 31, 2007 | In the debate about how to fight global warming, a primary focus
has been on ways to reduce carbon dioxide spewed from cars' tailpipes -- a major
contributor to the greenhouse effect. But
as the San Diego region looks to build new roads to accommodate a million more
residents expected by 2030, state Attorney General Jerry Brown is trying to expand
the fight. The
focus shouldn't just be on the cars, Brown says. It should also be on the roads
underneath them. Brown's
office spelled out the strategy in a letter to the San Diego Association of Governments,
the regional planning agency currently updating a $42 billion plan to improve
the county's local roads, freeways and public transit. He
wants to go beyond the talk of increasing fuel efficiency, employing transportation
plans and road building to also combat climate change. State
law requires the transportation plan to evaluate its impacts on the environment.
The Attorney General's Office says the plan should also explain how the new infrastructure
will impact global warming. The office, which is responsible for enforcing the
state law, recently sued San Bernardino County, saying that its development blueprint
failed to sufficiently address global warming. "The
global warming impact of $40 billion worth of transportation projects that will
be authorized in the [plan] must be considered significant," Deputy Attorney
General Sandra Goldberg wrote in a June 27 letter to Sandag, "even just based
on the [greenhouse gas] emissions from the huge magnitude of construction." The
letter, similar to one sent to the city of San Diego, serves as an indirect threat
of litigation. Its message is clear: Address global warming or face a lawsuit. The
Attorney General's Office offered several suggestions for ways to mitigate the
carbon dioxide increases the plan will bring. Among them: -
Increasing use of public transportation, by expanding routes and hours of operation.
- Building electric
vehicle charging facilities.
- Planting
trees to mitigate for increased greenhouse gas emissions.
- Increasing
bike path construction.
- Withholding
funding for infrastructure built on the urban fringe that would facilitate sprawl.
The
threat highlights the lingering gap between society's understanding of the dangers
posed by global warming and the policy in place to address them. While
California adopted landmark anti-global warming legislation last year, it is still
being implemented. The state aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020 and is expected to create a market for carbon emissions. The system, known
as a cap-and-trade program, would set a limit for carbon emissions and give polluters
a certain amount of tradable credits. Polluters who exceed their limits would
have to buy potentially expensive credits, encouraging them to instead reduce
emissions. But
that system has not been designed yet. In the interim, government agencies are
left to reconcile the need to fight warming with the uncertainty of how best to
do it. "Nobody
knows what to do," said Mary Teresa Sessom, Lemon Grove's mayor and Sandag's
chairwoman. "There is no policy, no comprehensive global warming policy,
that anyone has put forth that people are willing to throw money at." Michael
Hix, Sandag's principal transportation planner, said the agency is "scrambling"
to respond to the attorney general. But he stopped short of promising a comprehensive
answer in the transportation plan, which is due for adoption later this year. Hix
said the agency aims to at least quantify the additional carbon dioxide that will
be generated as a result of the plan. But the plan will likely not incorporate
the suggestions the attorney general offered. Hix said those could be included
during coming years. The transportation plan is next scheduled for revision in
2011 but can be amended in the meantime. "They're
wanting much more information and to much more directly deal with the impacts,"
Hix said of the Attorney General's Office. "Everyone is trying to figure
out how to do that in a region that's still growing." One
option has been hotly debated before in San Diego: Public transit. If more residents
rode buses or trains to work, they'd reduce congestion and cut carbon dioxide
emissions. "We
need a combination of everything," said Kassie Siegel, climate program director
at the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. "It doesnt mean
we're going to eliminate cars on the roads tomorrow. But we need to accommodate
new growth with public transportation, not new highways." But
improving public transit in car-happy San Diego is a challenge. Despite high gas
prices, commuters have increasingly passed up carpools and driven solo to work.
In search of affordable housing, workers are moving farther away from their jobs,
driving farther and longer each day. "We're
all in love with our cars," said county Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents
a large swath of rural San Diego County and has opposed increased transit spending.
"I just dont see in the future that our behavior is going to change
a whole big bunch. In theory, it may sound good to get people out of their cars
and onto buses, but in practice it is not going to work for a majority of San
Diegans." Then
there is the question of funding. Lani Lutar, San Diego Taxpayers Association
president, said she is concerned the attorney general is giving Sandag an unfunded
mandate. If
Sandag adopted the recommendations, "where is that funding going to come
from?" Lutar asked. "How will it impact project priorities? And what
will this mean for taxpayers, if they don't have the funding available? If they
attempt to seek more funding from taxpayers, you need to evaluate whether that's
the most fiscally prudent option based on the science available." Hix
said Sandag is trying to boost public transit, including lanes on Interstate 15,
for example, that can be shared by carpools and buses. Alan
Hoffman, a local transportation consultant, said those lanes will do little to
encourage the public to ride buses. Instead, he said, those lanes should be dedicated
solely to buses, preventing them from getting stuck in the same gridlock as commuters
in cars. "Sandag's
thinking was based on the notion, which sounds good on the surface, of how you
increase the carrying capacity of the freeway system," Hoffman said. "The
only problem is that it doesn't create a system that allows transit to maximize
ridership." Though
bus-only lanes have been considered along El Cajon Boulevard, they're unlikely
to materialize in the near future, said Rob Schupp, spokesman for the Metropolitan
Transit System, in part because of resistance from local businesses concerned
it will eliminate curbside parking. "It's
just difficult to design a system that makes everybody happy," Schupp said.
"So you begin to find solutions that make people less unhappy."
|