AB 2059 being heard today at California State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. The bill would cap Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) mitigation costs for road widening in rural areas at 5% of the projects cost.
This article is great, driving home the concept of incremental planning
100%!
Was this accomplished in CA by AB 2907, or is more work to be done?
Ride share is part of the solution in more spread out suburban areas of the US.
There’s no such thing as “free money”.
I think the idea with autonomous vehicles is that in an ideal world they would eventually be able to travel in fleets more quickly, closer together, and this would allow for more VMT without necessarily creating as much congestion as we’re accustomed to.
Yes, outside funding sources would still be necessary even with congestion pricing. See OCTAs SR-91 CIP and I-405 toll programs and their reinvestment back into the corridor as an effective means of locally collected tolls being used for projects along the same corridor in which there collected.
I’m in OC California, where bus and rail transit is not as effective/accessible/frequent as it is elsewhere. EVs, AVs, ride share, etc. may all be a part of the mobility/GHG reduction solution in places like mine as we get more dense and allow for a greater mix of land uses.
I’d specifically like to see congestion pricing revenues going back to maintaining and improving multimodal conditions in the area/neighborhoods/corridors where they are collected.
I love policy analysis like this. kudos to the authors!
What if we're overthinking SB743? We've defaulted to using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to implement SB743 under CEQA, but that is not the only path that the CEQA Guidelines allow for. In this article, I propose a simpler, outcomes-based checklist approach to replace VMT. medium.com/p/can-we-pre...
I wish this project actually connected to LA instead of requiring a drive to then hop on the train
Back to teaching urban planning today!
I’m curious how BRT projects figure into your calculations? Here in California bus rapid transit seems to be one of our more popular go to transit solutions
A lot of developers still provide parking.. typically I’ve seen developers provide fewer spaces than required by code, but they’re still definitely building parking in many affordable and transit proximate developments.
The only green land that I need.
It’s not skiddish? 🤣
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) out in force this past week using the CEQA EIR comment process to position for a project labor agreement for their carpenters union client.
In the US we have been subsidizing roads for 20+ years as the gas tax doesn’t cover road repairs
Just like SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project in Riverside… huge project, lots of right of way impacts, and we are back to the same congestion we started with.. unless you wanna pay to use the express lanes
Sounds like folks don’t know much about induced demand.
What about if we were to rework the system so that ICE cannot be used as the president’s own private security force?
No funding.. at all? But what about our border? How about ICE just stop acting a fool?
Shade and electricity. I’m curious why we only usually see this at public schools and government buildings?
I’ve always thought about the tons of wasted fruit in people’s backyards and how we can get that into needy people’s belly
I stand with these people.
Which studies indicate this? I believe these estimates are overstated. A lot depends on other variables. It’s not all about density and transit access!
Does the use of affordable housing as VMT mitigation puzzle anyone else?! @scottwiener.bsky.social
