Mobilizing the Region

As reported in MTR, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection recently released some inspired yet ominously vague recommendations for how to meet the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, spelled out in the Global Warming Response Act (GWRA). Under the Act, NJ must reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and cut emissions to 80% below the 2006 level by 2050. Overall, the report presents a comprehensive approach toward reducing NJ’s carbon footprint that includes progressive solutions aimed at shifting travel patterns, such as an expanded transit network including bus rapid transit, transit-oriented development, complete streets, and zoning and planning reforms that link transportation and land use. However, an overall lack of specificity and prioritization are discouraging, and what few deadlines and concrete goals it proffers will require heavy lifts from state agencies and the legislature, and hard shoves from advocates. Below are summaries of TSTC’s comments on the plan:

Lay off the tailpipe, speed up the land use

Maybe some things are better left in California.

Of the “core” items which the plan relies on to meet its 2020 goals, the only transportation-related ones are a Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) program that will call for automakers to reduce fleetwide emissions from vehicles sold in NJ by 30%, and for all new vehicles sold in NJ to meet California-level emissions standards. While these efforts are laudable, the LEV program relies on the state’s ability to shift consumer behavior during a recession.  It is imperative that other measures, such as reduction in VMT statewide, accompany the 2020 tailpipe measures from the start if the benchmark goals are to be achieved.

Zero Emission Vehicles and “ecodriving” should not be emphasized as integral components of the 2020 recommendations. One recommendation in the plan is to implement the American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials-supported “ecodriving” program, which teaches people to save fuel by changing their driving habits. Fine, but the report suggests that the program could reduce the state’s carbon footprint by up to 22%. Such a large reduction would require every driver in the state to embrace the program, a massive shift in individual behavior that can’t be assumed.  Recommendations to promote Zero Emission Vehicles are equally aspirational for reduction calculations, since they rely on uncertain alternative fuel and electric car technologies.

Could you be a little more specific?

Many of the other transportation recommendations are well intentioned, but lack concrete details needed to measure their efficacy. Without binding interim goals and indicators, NJ could easily go off track.

The state needs to elucidate specific measures necessary to achieve its goal of capping vehicle miles traveled at 1% annually, and include these measures in 2020 goals. As part of the near-term goals, NJDEP must determine how to quantify the impacts of its VMT reduction measures. It also must establish targets and an action plan to reduce VMT growth to 1% or less annually.  Similarly, NJ should define target levels of greenhouse gas output and VMT growth in a way that is sensitive to the context of the state’s varying corridors and neighborhoods. This will help avoid “one size fits all” projects that do not accomodate all road users or reflect surrounding land uses.

Although Tri-State was pleased to see demand management strategies included in the report, the report needs to provide next steps and a timeframe for evaluating pricing mechanisms such as HOT lanes, congestion pricing and pay-as-you-drive insurance. Tactics like HOT lanes promote carpooling and transit use, and provide a viable revenue source for the state. However, simply assessing the strategy will not produce results.

» Continue reading…