Implications of Climate Change for the Transportation Planning Process by hrn94632

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 31

									  Implications of Climate Change for
the Transportation Planning Process

                     TRB Annual Meeting
                       Washington, D.C.
                       January 12, 2008

                              Bill Malley
                       Perkins Coie LLP
        Presentation Overview

 The AASHTO Primer on Climate Change
  and Transportation

 AASHTO Policies on Climate Change

 Implications for Statewide and
  Metropolitan Transportation Planning
                   The Primer

 Science and Impacts of
  Climate Change
 Key Issues in Climate
  Change Policy
 Trends in GHG Emissions
  from Roads
 GHG Emission Forecasts
 Ways to Reduce GHGs
  from Roads
 Issues for Further Study
     Key Sources for the Primer

 Reports on Climate Change
   U.N. Intergov't Panel on Climate Change
   TRB Special Report 290
   Pew Center Climate Change Reports
 Energy and Travel Forecasts
   USDOE
   USDOT
   EPA
       Key Findings in the Primer

 Considered four scenarios involving major
  reductions in transportation GHG emissions.
 Intended to illustrate what it would take to
  achieve 60 to 80% reduction.
 Found that a 60 to 80% reduction in GHG
  emissions from road transportation is possible if:
   Fuel economy rises to 100 mpg by 2050.
   VMT grows at 1% annually instead of 1.5%
The Primer – Four Scenarios
         Other Issues in Primer

      Adaptation            GHG Absorption
 Summarized TRB         "Carbon sinks" help to
  Special Report 290.     offset GHG emissions.
 Climate change will    Opportunities exist to
  have severe impacts     expand sinks – e.g.,
  on transportation       reforestation.
  infrastructure.        DOTs that own large
 Adaptation planning     land areas can help
  must begin now.         expand carbon sinks.
             New USDOE Data
 VMT and GHG data in Primer were based on 2008
  USDOE "Annual Energy Outlook"
 USDOE's "early release" of the 2009 AEO was
  published in December.
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
 Key changes –
   Slight downward shift in VMT growth rate (1.5%)
   Slight upward shift in MPG growth rate (1.5%)
 Overall, DOE now projects a slight decline in net
  GHG emissions from cars & light trucks thru 2030.
       VMT for LDVs thru 2030
           VMT for Light-Duty Vehicles
         (USDOE Annual Energy Outlook)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
  0
  2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

            2008 Report   2009 Report
Fuel Economy for LDVs thru 2030
  Fuel Economy for Light-Duty Vehicles (All On-Road)
           (USDOE Annual Energy Outlook)

 30
 25
 20
 15
 10
  5
  0
  2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

               2008 Report   2009 Report
GHG Emissions from LDVs thru 2030
         GHG Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles
          (USDOE, Annual Energy Outlook 2009)

  1200
  1000
   800
   600
   400
   200
     0
      2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

                       2009 Report
           GHG Reduction Goals
 But how much reduction is needed?
 Economists:
    Reduce GHG emissions as cost-effectively as
     possible, even if that means much larger reductions in
     some sectors than others.
 Political reality:
    The transportation sector will be expected to
     contribute its "fair share" of reductions.
    Room for debate about what "fair share" means.
    Often-cited goal is 60 to 80% from current levels.
AASHTO Policy Positions on Climate
   Change and Transportation
  AASHTO Policy Development Process
  Committee Structure             Approval Process
 Authorization Steering       ASC recommended
  Committee led the effort.     approval in Sept. 2008.

 ASC created from cross-      AASHTO Board formally
  section of Standing           approved in Oct. 2008.
  Committees, incl. SCOP.
                               Policy papers now posted
 "Metro Mobility" work         on AASHTO website:
  team handled climate          www.transportation.org
  change within the ASC.
        Policy on Climate Change
 Paper III-3 addresses
  "Climate Change and Air
  Quality."
 Climate change
  recommendations address:
   Transportation Authorization
   Climate Change Legislation
  AASHTO Policies on Climate Change

 Transportation Authorization
   Require consideration of climate change in the
    planning process
   Replace CMAQ with "Climate Change and Air Quality
    Program"
   Create new stand-alone "Operations" program
   Provide greater flexibility for road pricing
   More funding for transit, intercity rail, ride-sharing, etc.
   Increase emphasis on adaptation to climate change
  AASHTO Policies on Climate Change

 Climate Change Legislation
   Provide major funding for R&D on cleaner
    vehicles and fuels
   Strengthen fuel-economy standards
   Maximize use of market-based approaches
   Dedicate proportionate share of cap/tax
    revenues to transportation uses
   Do not extend conformity requirements to
    GHGs
AASHTO Policy Paper on Consideration of
 Climate Change in the Planning Process
    AASHTO on Climate & Planning
 "The challenge of addressing climate change should be
  addressed as part of the existing statewide and
  metropolitan transportation planning process.

 "The planning process provides the appropriate venue for
  States and MPOs to develop strategies for reducing GHG
  emissions from the transportation system, adapting the
  transportation system to the impacts of climate change,
  and increasing the absorption of GHGs."

AASHTO Authorization Policy Paper # III-3.
Climate Change in the Planning Process

   Policy Paper discusses several specific issues
    relating to climate change and planning:
    1.   Climate as a Planning Factor
    2.   GHG Emission Reporting
    3.   Performance Measures
    4.   Transportation and Land Use
    5.   Conformity
    6.   Flexibility
    (1) Climate as Planning Factor

 Amend the "planning      Title 23 currently calls for
                            consideration of projects
  factors" in 23 U.S.C.     and strategies to "protect
  134-35 to include a       and enhance the
  specific reference to     environment, promote
  climate change.           energy conservation,
 This would require        improve the quality of life,
                            and promote consistency
  consideration of          between transportation
  climate in the            improvements and State
  planning process.         and local planned growth
                            and economic
                            development patterns."
    (2) GHG Emissions Reporting

 Require State DOTs, MPOs, and transit
  operators to report GHG emissions annually.
 Direct National Academies to develop
  methodologies for accounting for GHG emissions
  from surface transportation.
 Data collection procedures should minimize
  duplication of effort.
 There should be an appropriate phase-in period
  for GHG reporting requirements.
       (3) Performance Measures

 States and MPOs should be responsible for
  determining the appropriate measures to track
  progress toward reducing GHG emissions.
 Any climate change performance measures
  should be part of a comprehensive set, including
  measures of mobility and safety.
 Cost-effectiveness should be a key factor in
  planning for GHG emissions reduction
  strategies.
    (4) Transportation & Land Use

 Congress should increase funding for joint
  initiatives to coordinate transportation and
  land use planning.
 This funding should include creation of a
  new "Transportation and Land Use
  Program" to replace the existing
  Transportation Community and System
  Preservation (TSCP) Program.
             (5) Conformity

 GHG emissions should be addressed
  through a "new framework that takes into
  account the global nature of the
  challenge."
 The conformity requirements under the
  Clean Air Act should not be applied to
  GHG emissions.
        (6) Flexibility in Planning

 Any new climate requirements in the planning
  process should be implemented consistent with
  long-established flexibility principles.
 These principles include:
   (1) the level of detail may vary depending on the
    scope and complexity of issues, as well as the
    resources of the State and MPO; and
   (2) the planning process is a State and locally driven
    process, not a federal decision-making process.
Implications of Incorporating Climate
 Change Into the Planning Process
        GHG Emissions Tracking

   How to quantify and track GHG emissions from
    various modes and facilities?
   Will there be a need to standardize the
    accounting methodology nationally?
   How and when will the GHG emissions data be
    reported?
   Will there be reduction targets? What happens
    if the targets are not met?
       Performance Measures

 Who sets performance measures?
 What range of issues will be covered?
 Will the measures be standardized
  nationally?
 What types of climate change measures
  should be included?
 What about mobility and safety measures?
      Transportation & Land Use

 What transportation data do local
  governments need to facilitate coordinated
  planning?
 What technical assistance (e.g., modeling)
  can transportation planners provide to
  local land use officials?
 Will California's SB 375 become a model
  for other States or even federal
  legislation?
             Thank You

William G. Malley
Perkins Coie LLP
607 14th St. NW
Washington DC 20005
(202) 434-1614
wmalley@perkinscoie.com

								
To top