Smart growth policy revision needed, some say
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer
Attorney general pressures region to curb greenhouse gases from transportation | ∞
In the wake of the attorney general's sharp criticism of the San Diego area's new transportation plan, some politicians said Monday the region may need to revise its "smart growth" strategy.
Adopted on Friday, the $57 billion plan calls for widening highways, adding car-pool and toll lanes to freeways and building a fast bus system. The plan also budgets $280 million for promoting "smart growth" development.
Smart growth is generally defined as building homes near jobs, shopping or public transit. The idea is to reduce driving, increase use of trains and buses, and reduce emissions of smog and greenhouse gases by building more compact communities, as opposed to far-flung ones many miles from jobs.
Attorney General Jerry Brown predicted last week the San Diego Association of Governments' smart growth strategy would fail miserably at trimming local greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.
Brown, who has been making headlines in recent months by suing local and federal agencies over California's new climate change laws, grabbed regional leaders' attention last week with a letter authored by his deputy, Sandra Goldberg. It charges the benefit of the association's $280 million program will be diluted dramatically if divided among 193 designated smart growth areas, many in far-flung communities such as Ramona.
"They are too widely dispersed," said Goldberg of the smart growth areas, in a telephone interview Monday. "Many of them are located far from areas where there are jobs, and far from areas where it would be efficient to provide public transit. We'd like to see them focus on a more limited number of areas."
Goldberg also said the attorney general would like to see the money go to development along commuter-train or fast-bus lines.
In North County, smart growth zones are predominantly in downtowns and along the Sprinter light rail line to debut soon between Oceanside and Escondido. There also are zones in Ramona, Fallbrook and Valley Center, where there aren't passenger trains and fast-bus service.
"I found the attorney general's comments to be on point in many ways," said Lesa Heebner, Solana Beach mayor and association board member, who served on the regional planning committee that developed the smart growth strategy. "This warrants another look and a review of the whole thing."
Heebner said she agrees the number of smart growth areas should be scaled back and the money should be concentrated in urban areas served by public transportation.
La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid, an association board member who has long complained transportation dollars are spread too widely in a "peanut butter" approach that dilutes the benefit of projects, added that regional leaders should pay attention when the attorney general speaks.
"They've given us a heads up," Madrid said. "Let's check it out before they take us to court."
He alluded to the lawsuit the attorney general filed against San Bernardino County in April, challenging that fast-growing inland county's general plan, or blueprint for new growth. Later in the summer, the parties settled the suit. But not before Brown exacted a promise from San Bernardino County to devise a strategy for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The attorney general has yet to sue a California region over a regional transportation plan, Goldberg said. And she said her office was only making comments about San Diego's plan, as it did for transportation plans in Sacramento and Fresno earlier. However, she did not rule out a suit.
Association spokeswoman Colleen Windsor said Monday the board will invite Brown to its annual January retreat in Borrego Springs to discuss the connection between global warming and transportation planning.
Goldberg said her office had not received the invitation. But, she said, "We would be happy to have a dialogue with SANDAG about these issues."
According to San Diego County's new regional transportation plan, local greenhouse gas emissions will increase by one-third between now and 2030, to about 23 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The plan says the combination of highway improvements and new bus lines would result in less carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere than with a transit-dominated strategy, a conclusion the attorney general takes issue with.
"It seems counter-intuitive," said Rob Rundle, an association planner. "But the fact is that three-quarters of our land-use pattern and population is already here, from what our projections show. So, if you cut back significantly from the (road) improvements that we are planning and put it all into transit, you'll still be serving the same population base and the same land-use pattern. You can't provide transit to a lot of these areas; it's just not cost-effective."
Rundle said the attorney general appears to misunderstand, in part, the intent of the smart growth program. He said the 193 sites are candidates eligible for funding. He said the intent is not to fund projects at all locations but to award money selectively on a competitive basis.
Rundle said the first award is anticipated in early 2009, following a summer 2008 decision on the criteria projects will have to meet. About $7 million will be made available during that first round, he said.
A total of $280 million will be distributed over the 40-year life of TransNet, or 2 percent of the $14 billion the half-cent sales tax is expected to generate. The renewal measure will begin collecting revenue next April.
Escondido Mayor Lori Pfeiler, who serves on the regional planning committee, said, "The bottom line is, the money is not going to be evenly spread. Your significant investment is going to be on the Sprinter line, the Coaster line and the bus rapid transit line."
However, Pfeiler said the money was intended not only to promote compact development in urban cores, but also to encourage efficient projects in outlying areas that conserve scare resources.
"There also is a reality that says there are communities like Ramona and Spring Valley that have significant populations," she said. "You can't just write off those areas. And you can get them to grow smarter."
Information on the smart growth program is available at: www.sandag.org under "land use and regional growth."
-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Engineer Bill: wrote on Dec 4, 2007 5:00 AM: Tell the Attorney General that I will ride the bus or train every time he does. But the best thing he can do is have a plan that coordinates college class schedules with bus schedules. Also coordinate the elderly medical schedules with bus schedules. forget the fast trains unless the bus schedules can be coordinated to get the students, elderly, and ... to and from the fast trains to get them to their destinations on time. Perhaps the county work schedules can be adjusted to provide time for ... construction workers to get to their jobs on the county roads on time. I am not being negative - who else will ride the buses and trains unless you can find away to have the "worker bee" citizens give up their autos. Perhaps you plan to have them working for peanuts to a point where they can not afford a car. It is clear that moving transportation around is not going to rid our breathing air of smog. You are throwing billions of dollars at the problem and it will not solve it.
A Good Politician wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:21 AM:Once again, Lesa Heebner says the intelligent thing. I sure hope Jerome Stocks is replaced by someone like Lesa in 2008 elections and Encinitas starts having good representation at SANDAG and NCTD. Right now, Jerome is all about cramming more development into every little openspace in Encinitas with more traffic and no planning involved. Just to maximize the profit for the developers at the public’s expense.
Classic Heebner wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:48 AM:Her answer to every question is:"This warrants another look and a review of the whole thing." Delay,Delay,Deny. Pfeiler says:"the money was intended not only to promote compact development in urban cores, but also to encourage efficient projects in outlying areas that conserve scare resources." A clear example of the difference between a NIMBY and a leader.
George wrote on Dec 4, 2007 8:55 AM:Stop-and-go traffic generates twice the pollution of vehicles driving at a constant freeway speed. A ninety-minute trip will generate three times the exhaust of a thirty-minute trip at the same speed. To achieve a significant reduction in total emissions, all you have to do is add regular lanes to the freeways to eliminate congestion. Adding unrestricted capacity is a simple, cost-effective way to support our economy and enhance our lifestyle while improving our air. Plus, we could get around quicker!
WAIT A MINUTE wrote on Dec 4, 2007 10:33 AM:Folks forget or don't know that this Attorney General is the one that used to sign bills in the middle of the night when he was governor ala Moonbeam. Between him and his father they ran this state from 1st in Education and 48th in Welfare to 2nd in Welfare and 47th in Education. He just came off from being Mayor of Oakland. Been to Oakland lately? I wouldn't walk down any of their streets without protection. Why do we keep electing these same retreaded politicians. He is so far from reality but the Dems keep electing him.
Walt wrote on Dec 4, 2007 7:25 PM:Of course we want to save energy whether or not greenhouse gases are a major factor in global warming. But why does Mr. Brown want to fiddle with the 1.5% of fuel that San Diego mass transit uses even if smart growth manages to salvage part of transit vehicles low ridership? Auto mpg improvement from 25.0 to about 25.33 for example will save more fuel than the entire transit system uses. Autos have about 50 times leverage for saving fuel and greenhouse gases. Mr. Brown and many others still believe mass transit carries people more efficiently. In theory it would except reasonably frequent service causes vehicles on average to be only one fourth full. Mr. Rundle puts it correctly; measure performance by how well the intended job is done. Transportation is just one element in the economic-social picture, not an end in itself. Smart growth savings are ideology not fact based. Auto design and less congestion are the major factors to improve fuel use and reduce pollution. Mr. Brown is already commendably promoting more efficient cars. But less road construction and SANDAG’s managed lanes are creating more greenhouse gases. Smart growth communities will cause more not less auto congestion as well. Do the math. Short term Support Our Freeways And Roads. Longer-term electric powered light automated cars on narrow guideways save even more energy and land.
Derek wrote on Dec 5, 2007 11:29 AM:Every time you build a freeway or add unrestricted lanes to reduce congestion, people will move here with their cars and congest it up again and increase greenhouse emissions, until the freeways get so bad that people stop moving here. So one way to reach a greenhouse gas emissions plateau is to stop building and widening freeways. Another solution is to find ways to reduce auto use in the first place. Even a 6 mpg bus with only 1/4 of 55 seats full still gets over 80 passenger miles per gallon. I'd say that's pretty good performance, assuming that the goal is to move as many people around, not cars, as efficiently as possible.
Walt wrote on Dec 5, 2007 7:15 PM:For Derek. The first topic assumes people move here because of little congestion on the freeways. Quite the opposite. They have been moving here DESPITE severe freeway congestion. And if SANDAG population projections are correct and fertility doesn't decline, nearly another million will show up by 2030, despite further congestion increase. On the energy subject,cars, city buses, and the trolley are about the same pass-miles per gallon. (6 mpg for a bus is likely not stop and go service.)National data base from USDOE shows bus average about 30 pmpg, trolley is about 26. At current on road average, autos are about 27. Coaster is better, about 42 because of relativly few stops. With autos already available in the 30 to 40 mpg range, e.g. about 38 pmpg to 50, and about 50 times as many trips, the savings potential in actual gallons, and tons of greenhouse gases is obvious for autos. Congrats for not trying, as many do, to compare full buses with 1/4 full autos!
- FALLBROOK: Mom arrested after teen party says she did nothing wrong (13759)
- TEMECULA: Hillside fire prompts evacuations (10142)
- CARLSBAD: Boy who died after drinking was San Marcos student (7896)
- ENCINITAS: Hostess of Busby fundraiser pepper-sprayed, arrested (5402)
- OCEANSIDE: Airport could pose barrier for Bolts (4224)
- CARLSBAD: Boy who died after drinking was San Marcos student (161)
- TEMECULA: Hillside fire prompts evacuations (121)
- FALLBROOK: Mom arrested after teen party says she did nothing wrong (61)
- FOOD: Grocers roll out deeper price cuts (33)
- MILITARY: Camp Pendleton special operations battalion gains footing (30)
Advertisement




