1 / 33

Subregional Targets – Background and Context

Preliminary SB 375 Subregional GHG Reduction Target Methodologies Plans & Programs Technical Advisory Committee May 7, 2009. Subregional Targets – Background and Context. Not explicitly required by SB 375 May be difficult to reach agreement on method Suggested for three purposes

alisa
Download Presentation

Subregional Targets – Background and Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Preliminary SB 375 Subregional GHG Reduction Target MethodologiesPlans & Programs Technical Advisory CommitteeMay 7, 2009

  2. Subregional Targets – Background and Context • Not explicitly required by SB 375 • May be difficult to reach agreement on method • Suggested for three purposes • Allow subregions full opportunity to prepare SCS, at present time • Provide a reference point for sub-regional planning • Allow for best opportunity to meet regional target through SCS

  3. Subregional Targets – Background and Context(cont’d) • Not a “hard target”, but a guide • Any SCAG proposal on subregional targets will be tentative until ARB finalizes regional targets in September 2010 • Targets to be for 2020 and 2035, but using 2020 for preliminary discussions

  4. Subregional Targets – Background and Context(cont’d) • Process points • Preliminary discussions on methodology options • Numerous opportunities for regional dialogue (thru September 2009) • Part of Regional Framework and Guidelines (to be adopted by Regional Council Fall 2009)

  5. Preliminary Subregional Target Estimation Methodologies 1. Subregional Share of 2020 Regional Socio-EconomicProjections 2. Subregional Share of 2008-2020 Regional Socio-EconomicGrowth Increments 3. Subregional Share of 2020 Projected Regional GHGEmissions 4. Subregional Share of Regional Development Potentialaround Transit Stops and Corridors 5. Combination of Methods 1-4 6. Method Based on GHG Per Capita, Household, or Driver

  6. Method 1. Subregional Share of 2020 Regional Socio-Economic Projections Subregional GHG Emission Reduction Target (Share) =Average of (subregional share of households + subregional share of jobs)

  7. Pros and Cons of Method 1 • Pros • Straightforward approach • Directly based on factors that local jurisdictions have control over • No transportation model runs are necessary • Cons • Does not reflect the interrelation between land use and transportation, both internal and external to a subregion • May place a higher burden on more developed areas

  8. Preliminary Results of Method 1

  9. Method 2. Subregional Share of 2008-2020 Regional Socio-Economic Growth Increments Subregional GHG Emission Reduction Target (Share) =Average of (subregional share of 2008-2020 household growth + subregional share of 2008-2020 job growth)

  10. Pros and Cons of Method 2 • Pros • Straightforward approach • Directly based on factors that local jurisdictions have control over • No transportation model runs are necessary • Cons • Does not reflect the interrelation between land use andtransportation, both internal and external to a subregion • May place a higher burden on faster growing areas

  11. Preliminary Results of Method 2 (2008-2020)

  12. Method 3. Subregional Share of 2020 Projected Regional GHG Emissions Subregional GHG Emission Reduction Target (Share) =Subregional share of regional GHG emissions

  13. Pros and Cons of Method 3 • Pros • Directly linked to GHG emissions • Reflects the interrelation between land use andtransportation, both internal and external to a subregion • Cons • May not be directly based on factors that local jurisdictions have control over • May place a higher burden on more developed areas • Reliance on regional transportation and emissions models

  14. Preliminary Results of Method 3

  15. Method 4. Subregional Share of Regional Development Potential around Transit Stops and Corridors Subregional GHG Emission Reduction Target (Share) =Subregional share of 2020 projected regional (re)development potential adjacent to Major Transit Stops and High Quality Transit Corridors (High Quality Transit Area - HQTA), as defined by SB375

  16. Pros and Cons of Method 4 • Pros • Emphasis on areas with significant transit investment and infill potential • Transportation model runs may not be necessary • Cons • Land use opportunity areas not vetted by local jurisdictions • Does not capture land use and transportationinfrastructure outside transit development areas • May place a higher burden on areas with significantexisting and planned transit investment

  17. Method 5. Combination of Methods 1-4 Subregional GHG Emission Reduction Target (Share) =Weighted average of (subregional share of 2020 socio-economic projections + 2008-2020 socio-economic growth increments + 2020 GHG emissions + 2020 projected regional (re)development potential around transit stations and corridors)

  18. Pros and Cons of Method 5 • Pros • Maximizes regional discussion and balancing ofconsiderations • Cons • May be more challenging to reach agreement onweighting

  19. Preliminary Results of Method 5(Equal Weighting -For Illustrative Purposes) Note: Method 4 not currently included; average of Methods 1 - 3

  20. Preliminary Results of Methods 1-5 Method 4 not included

  21. Method 6. GHG Per Capita, Household, or Driver ReduceGHG emissions by X% per capita, per household or per driver by subregion

  22. Pros and Cons of Method 6 • Pros • Per Capita - Easy to process data • Per Household - Better capture emissions than per capita • Per Driver - Most directly related to contributors of GHG emissions • Cons • Per Capita - Ignores demographic characteristics (e.g., over/under weight certain age populations) • Per Household - Ignores demographic characteristics (e.g., household size and income) • Per Driver - Ignores demographic characteristics. (e.g., driving patterns). Data not readily available for future.

  23. Method 6: 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction 3.9% = 2.5 MMTs/64.3 MMTs

  24. Method 6: 2020 Baseline CO2 Emissions(tons per capita)

  25. Method 6: 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction(tons per capita)

  26. Method 6: Baseline 2020 CO2 Emissions(tons per household)

  27. Method 6: 2020 CO2 Emission Reduction(tons per household)

  28. Preliminary Results of Method 6

  29. Summary of Preliminary ResultsMethods 1 – 6 (% of Regional Target) Method 4 not included

  30. Summary of Preliminary Results (MMTs)Methods 1 – 6 (Assuming Regional Target = 2.5 MMTs)

  31. Components of a Sustainable Communities Strategy • Land Use Scenario • Transportation Investments • Transportation Policies

  32. Sample Menu of TDM Options • Parking Strategies • Compressed Work Schedule and Telecommuting • Staggered School Class Schedule • Park & Ride and Transit Feeders • Employer Financial Incentives • Employer-Based Rideshare Program • Real-Time Information by Transit Providers • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Bike/Pedestrian Programs • Transit Access Improvement • Regional Congestion Pricing

  33. Next Steps • Form P&P TAC Subcommittee to further review and comment • Establish region-wide outreach teams to seek broader input • Presentation to RTAC and ARB on conceptual land use scenario and preliminary methodology • Discussion and input on Framework and Guidelines • SB375 Summit in Fall 2009 to finalize the approach and process

More Related