www.csua.org/u/juh -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/27/MNBBT1SFF.DTL
Traffic on roads like Highway 80 in Berkeley is behind ab... The Bay Area might need smaller houses, higher gas taxes and tolls on busy roads and congested business districts if it is to meet the state's goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases, transportation and land use officials said Friday. The good news, however, is that a new poll shows that many Bay Area residents are ready to take those steps if it means a better future for the state and world. Setting goals is significant, leaders with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments told a crowd of 800 at a conference at the Oakland Convention Center. But making the lifestyle changes to meet them is far more challenging. "The challenge for us is, are we going to be able to walk the talk?" said Henry Gardner, executive director of the association. "We've been talking for a long time about focused growth, smart growth, but there has not been a lot of smart walk." For the Bay Area to meet the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1999 levels, people will need to drive less and growth patterns will need to change to emphasize infill development over suburban sprawl, said Gardner and Steve Heminger, his counterpart at the commission. That is likely to mean smaller homes and more trips on mass transit, bike or foot. Results from a poll taken by the agencies to gauge the mood of the region seem to indicate an understanding of the need to change. The random telephone poll of 1,800 residents of the nine Bay Area counties in late September and early October found that 64 percent thought global warming was the most important factor to consider when developing transportation and land-use plans. Another 28 percent considered it at least somewhat important. Asked whether they would choose to live in a small house with a small backyard instead of a larger house that required a longer commute, 74 percent said yes. On the controversial issue of gas taxes, a 25-cent-per-gallon boost was OK with 45 percent of those responding, but was opposed by 30 percent. At 50 cents, 28 percent approved the tax increase, and 49 percent were opposed. Only 17 percent said yes to a dollar-a-gallon tax increase. The poll, taken by BW Research of Carlsbad (San Diego County), has a margin of error of plus or minus 23 percent. Full results are expected to be released in the next couple of weeks, said Joe Curley, a commission spokesman. Since land-use decisions in California are determined by cities and counties, it's difficult to create a regional development plan, Gardner said. "We're not going to be able to just take the individual (city) plans and staple them together," he said. "How do we get to a regional plan that can make a difference without trampling on local control?" The association of counties is trying to achieve that consensus by developing a regional plan in which cities voluntarily identify areas as "priority development areas" and "primary conservation areas." Fifty local governments have proposed more than 100 areas for focused development, most near transit lines and stations or retail and employment districts. It's just a start, Gardner admitted, saying the program would need funding. But it got a boost when the Metropolitan Transportation Commission announced near the end of the summit that it would dedicate $5 million to the program. Tackling transportation also will be difficult, said Heminger. Since cars are responsible for about half of the Bay Area's production of greenhouse gases, and both driving and population are on the increase, drastic measures will be required. Possibilities include boosting - perhaps sharply - the per-gallon tax on gasoline, imposing a carbon tax based on the number of miles a vehicle is driven, adding a surcharge to parking fees, or charging congestion fees on certain roads or in busy retail and business districts. Such pricing strategies could make a car five times more expensive to operate, Heminger said. But those measures could also make getting around the region too costly for moderate- and low-income residents. Stuart Cohen, executive director of the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, a transit advocacy group, suggested making transit free and offering gasoline tax rebates to people below certain income levels. Meeting the greenhouse gas goals also will require increasing the fuel economy of vehicles in the region to 54 miles per gallon, Heminger said, and boosting the share of zero-emission vehicles on the road to 55 percent. The percentage of telecommuters will need to jump from 3 percent to 10 percent and employers will need to discourage driving and encourage transit use. Friday's summit was the first joint planning meeting between the commission, which is responsible for regional transportation planning, and the association, which attempts to coordinate planning for land use and housing. It was also the start of the commission's preparation of a regional transportation spending plan, which it undertakes every three years. While officials stressed that that the Bay Area's transportation and land-use future will require lifestyle changes, it wasn't a glum gathering. At times it had almost a pep-rally atmosphere, with speakers boasting that the Bay Area has a chance to lead the nation in these areas. "We are all in this together," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the keynote speaker. It should be more than pride and spirit that unite this region. It should be a sense of destiny, a willingness to collaborate and to demonstrate that willingness through action." Sound off: What sacrifices have you made to reduce greenhouse emissions? Walking the walk Most people in the region believe it's time to change lifestyles to help the state meet its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, according to a new poll of 1,800 Bay Area residents by the region's largest transportation and land-use planning agencies. How important a factor should global warming be in transportation and land-use planning? Most important64% Somewhat important28% Not important7% No response1% Would you be willing to live in a small house with a small backyard instead of a larger house that required a long commute? Yes74% No19% Don't know/no answer7% Would you be willing to pay 25 cents more per gallon in gasoline taxes to help alleviate global warming? Yes45% Possibly23% No30% Don't know/no opinion2% 50 cents?
|
http://csua.com/feed/