This post has been updated.
He gave progressives what they wanted.
The plan Mayor Kevin Faulconer released Tuesday to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years met the benchmark set by progressives: The plan has legally binding mandates for reductions, not just guidelines.
If it is implemented by a largely supportive City Council, it will put San Diego on the hook to cut carbon emissions in half by 2035. To do that, the city will have to support new housing in established neighborhoods, expand public transit and access new sources of renewable energy.
It would also give the city a backbone of sorts when future development controversies arise. In the past, the city has quickly caved to neighborhood concerns over new housing or transit projects – if the plan becomes law, the city could argue it’s legally required to support environmentally friendly urban growth principles.
The flip side is that environmentalists will have a new tool to hold the city accountable in the courts.
Support Independent Journalism Today
Has anyone told the city's Planning Dept. about global warming and the need for higher density within 1/2 mile from trolley stops? If so, why did the Planning Dept. in its new planned Community Plan Update down zone much of the property in Logan Heights in the 1/2 mile radius around trolley stops? Parking space bonus, no thanks said the Planning Dept.'s "senior planner" Lara Gates. What increase in density given was only along a narrow corridor( about 200 ft.) that ran parallel to the trolley.
And we have to pay her a salary and then retirement benefits.
A Broaded Look. Two Parts.
Transportation planning to 2035 and beyond, as an energy efficient clean major part of Regional planning needs a dose of reality. On-demand, personal single vehicle direct to destination travel is essential to modern society and an effective economy, even in expected more compact communities. In the near future in overwhelming numbersprovided by increasingly efficient automobiles, that capability will not be abandoned by meaningful numbers. SANDAG2050Regional Transportation Plan numbers show regression to mass transit dogma “solutions”tocongestion, reduced energy and emissions, etc., are ineffective. On-road motor vehicles a 20 times more cost-effective. And doubled mpg starts in 2025. CARB air quality standards are met to 2035. Even by 2050 mass transit will absorb less than 5% of travel growth, but spends nearly half the Region’s transportation capital budget.(~$40billion). Optimistic 12% commute travel share by then, and traffic congestion increases.How dies the City expect a meaningful 25% share? What’s the impact of doubled travel times
that mass transit is forever superior stems form Governor Brown’s 1975 “Era of
Limits”. Mass transit was to absorb growth. Instead on-road vehicles have
absorbed 95% . Unique Mexican Border demographicsBlue Line trolley continues successful. But all
the 3+times route-mile expansion after 25 years, carries 25% fewer than the
Isn’t it time to look ahead to emerging forms of public transportation superior even to SANDAG predictions? Rather than a decades ago rejected mode?
There are two being demonstrated for future on-demand personal transportation the public wants: Self driving autos well media covered. And Personal Rapid Transit. Even lighter with more energy efficient automated vehicles traveling safe from traffic, pedestrians, bikers etc, on narrow electrified guideways.
So far leaders have failed to grasp:
Both can be
public transportaion, thus significant reduction in land use for parking. And
non-drivers receive on-demand personal travel instead of mass transit.
These factors, with some combinations, UBer/Lyft call-up service, are well adapted to dense communities.
Hopefully with leadership support and developments consistent with balanced community designs, superior energy-efficient activities can evolve in both the Climate Action Plan and upcoming Regional Plans.
Some examples to improve already sperior GHG reductions by autos:
Inducements for buying the increasingly efficient cars instead or monster pickups and 500 hp Alpine sports cars.
Let autos use buffer lanes when congested speeds fall below 35 mph.
Replace all managed lanes with modern traffic flow controls for all lanes at peak period speed for least fuel use.
Encourage Uber/Lyft on-demand service for better utilization, less parking, etc.
Hugh density community can benefit in the process
Have you a specific numerical analysis supporting your beliefs, and how they would change Table 3.1 in the Plan?
Have you noticed GHG reductions just from first round Pawley motor vehicle MPG improvements are 10 or more times more effective than transit’s? Including other related it is 16 times.
Less than 2 mpg improvement, happening every couple years, reduces more GHG than the entire transit system. And according to SANDAG’s 2050RTP, 11% transit commute rideshare; almost the 12% assumed here, would cost over $40billion just for capital, and take until 2050. What would the 25% share called out for 2035 cost, and how much land used?
Higher Federal 54 mpg kicks in in 2025. Automation is beginning to show even fewer emissions.
Why in the world should San Diego emphasize transit’s tiny contribution when facilitating more from motor vehicle high leverage to reduce GHG is so superior?
Another good article by Andy. The leadership of San Diego still does not get it. We have to reduce GHG emissions in our cities and region if we have any ability to ask others in the country or world to do so as well. Finding ways to avoiding regulatory standards is not fair nor workable. We have many existing laws which make our homes safer which work well and having laws to make our homes produce less GHGs is very reasonable. GHG emissions from transportation needs can only be solved if we address the entire system. The bulk of the emissions is not from people living within the urban core and focusing on how many of them don't drive is not a good approach. A working transit network, which draws people out of cars in the region is what we need and will ultimately get us to higher mode shares for walk, bike and transit. These changes are good for our economy and the health of current and future generation. Why are we waiting? We are not hear to serve SDG&E, oil companies, auto makers or suburban developers trying make a quick buck.
It's sunny San Diego, fer cryin' out loud! If the City were serious they'd look at something that would be a 10x increase in efficiency and resource reduction like Jpods:
I can't believe Secaucus is going to get a jump on us. Embarrassing. (Oh yeah, they don't have CalTrans/SANDAG)
Residents of older buildings have a reasonable expectation for quiet enjoyment of their homes. I live in a 26 unit apartment building zoned for 55+ and disabled, at Utah and El Cajon Boulevard. The bus stop at the corner, and the many stores and services near us, make this part of North Park eminently walkable -- for residents who CAN walk more than one block. We are interacting with the owners of the new SonicDriveIn at the corner, seeking protection from the nuisance of having ordering speakers direct amplified sound into our bedrooms during sleeping hours. As the city develops new solutions for traffic and energy use, let's seek innovation in ameliorating existing conditions, without forcing home and apartment building owners into bankruptcy. The City of San Diego CAN find smarter solutions to improve the quality of urban life.
Kevin Faulkner : Another empty suit posturing for his next position further up the trough at our expense.
The city that can't even run a golf course is going to save the planet!
On the whole it looks like a good plan.
However, just requiring disclosure of the energy efficiency (or lack thereof) of a property versus requiring improvements before sale I expect will be mostly ineffective in driving improvements It will just be one more form for a buyer to sign.
And I don't see any amount of sweeteners being sufficient to soften opposition by these NIMBY planning boards opposed to development patterns favorable to pedestrians, bikes, and transit. Without real teeth, it will be very difficult to meet the plan's targets. So what are the teeth in the plan?
1) I don't see Carmel Valley in the neighborhood list. So I assume the One Paseo project, which claims to densify this suburban neighborhood, is losing support from the city. Public transit will likely also not expand to CV either then.
2) 100% renewable energy by 2035 sounds awesome! I would love to see the detailed steps from the city on how they plan to accomplish that.
Keep up the good work VOSD! Looking forward to future reports.
For Mira Mesa that's easy, cut off access from I-15 to Sorrento Valley and La Jolla from the north county and San Bernadino County single occupancy commuters. Mira Mesa green house gasses will easily be halved.
@chrisreed99 it's a big number regardless, but remember that it just applies to people in "high quality transit areas."
@chrisreed99 yea, that list isn't the one you'd imagine on your own, by any means.
@andy_keatts Thanks, crucial context.
@andy_keatts 18% bike commuters in "Barrio Logan, Centre City, College Area, Kearny Mesa, Linda Vista, Midway-Pacific Highway ...
@andy_keatts ... Mira Mesa, Mission Valley, Otay Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, San Ysidro, SE San Diego, University, Uptown." That's still insane.
@jemersmith Thanks man.