Categories
California Policy Complete Streets GHG Reduction Livable Communities Local Government Metropolitan Planning Modeling/Tools NewsFlash Public Health Public Transit Safe Routes to School SB 375 State Policy Sustainability Transportation Funding

Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities Cap and Trade Investment Proposal for CARB Workshops

Today the California Air Resources Board will be kicking off its first of three workshops on the development of the AB 32 Cap and Trade Investment Plan. On February 25th in Sacramento the Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities – which includes local/regional governments and transit/transportation agencies statewide – will be laying out a vision for how revenues generated from the state’s program could re-shape California’s urban and rural landscape through integrated land use and transportation investments that build on regional SB 375 and GHG reducing plans with competitive grants for local entities. This opportunity to fund beautiful communities would invest billions of dollars in both the critical transportation investments needed in existing communities, while leveraging local land use and policy changes needed to transform how transportation planning and implementation functions in California. This approach of combined land use strategies co-implemented with livable community infrastructure in the hearts of communities will yield significant long-term greenhouse gas reductions as well as numerous community benefits, such as improved public health, open space and habitat preservation, safe routes to school, and needed support for disadvantaged communities.

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT:
-Show up for public support at the workshops tonight in Fresno from 5-8pm, Feb 25th in Sacramento from 3-6pm, or Feb 27th in LA from 4-7pm (location details below)
-Write a support letter with your organization’s logo. Click here to download a template letter to start, and email it to info@transfunding.org
-Submit your written support to CARB easily on their on-line form linked here

The Coalition’s program concept would allocate funds equitably to regional governments under statewide criteria to administer competitive grants to local entities – proposing combinations of investments, including transit service and operating costs, road and bridge maintenance, retrofits for complete streets and urban greening, and clean technology and other community infrastructure – all integrated with land use modifications to support regional plans.

The Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities has developed a series of principles included in a program concept proposal to CARB. You can download the program concept letter here. If you support this program concept please let CARB know that these core concepts should be considered for inclusion in their Investment Plan:

  1. Regional allocation of funds to ensure that every region of the state receives a fair share
  2. Favoring integration of land use strategies and transportation investments to achieve the highest GHG emission reductions.  Studies consistently show that combining transportation investments with complementary land use changes significantly increase the GHG emission reduction and co-benefits.
  3. Use a competitive process at the regional level, under criteria developed by the state, to prioritize local project proposals that co-implement transportation investments with land use changes that most cost effectively meet the goals of the program and further stimulate innovation and flexibility at the local and regional level.
  4. Improved modeling and verification systems for GHG evaluation to ensure effective results.

Members of the Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities

California Transit Association • League of California Cities  • California State Association of Counties • Self-Help Counties Coalition • California Association of Councils of Governments • Sacramento Area Council of Governments • Southern California Association of Governments • Metropolitan Transportation Commission • San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council • Transportation California • California Alliance for Jobs • Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Date Location
5 pm – 8 pm:  

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Mariposa Mall Building – Room 1036 

2550 Mariposa Mall; Fresno

 

3 pm – 6 pm: 

Monday, February 25, 2013

California Environmental Protection Agency,
Byron Sher Auditorium, 2nd floor
1001 I Street; Sacramento
This meeting will also be webcast.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/ 

 

4 pm – 7 pm: 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Ronald Reagan Building – Auditorium
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles

Materials (for all workshops):

 

 

Categories
California Policy Complete Streets Federal Policy GHG Reduction High-Speed Rail Livable Communities Metropolitan Planning Public Health Public Transit Safe Routes to School SB 375 State Policy Sustainability Transportation Funding

Transportation Funding: Past, Present, Future

Funding Beautiful Communities

The nature of transportation funding is a cycle of birth and death. Despite clear state policy goals to address the transportation sector’s 38% contribution to California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory, funding for needed sustainable community investments to implement such goals has seen levels of uncertainty that make progress equally uncertain. From years of local public transit cuts and underfunded local road maintenance needs to recent slashes for complete streets and Safe Routes to School in the federal transportation bill – hope still prevails with billions approved by the State for high speed rail, possibilities for redevelopment reincarnation, and the promise of new cap and trade revenue from fuels. California not only has opportunities like leveraging its investments in high speed rail with cap and trade funding for sustainable communities, but will need to act on them given the dismal federal transportation reauthorization vision for integrated transportation and land use systems.

But it’s not all dismal!

On August 10th Growing Beautiful Communities will depict how an integrated approach to transportation planning and funding can improve community quality of life while meeting California’s environmental and economic goals.

Uncertainty can breed creativity. I made a documentary on that premise. California can make history. The State can leverage the lack of federal vision to do something really innovative for transportation funding in California – the same way the lack of federal GHG reduction leadership led to state climate action plans across the country starting here.

California has the potential to capitalize on its $8 billion investment in high speed rail and do everything the federal transportation bill is missing for transformative transportation — we can achieve a vision for sustainable communities and reduced greenhouse gas emissions through the creation of an integrated transportation funding program which:

  • Draws on a new source of transportation revenues, offering multi-year financial stability to communities and regions implementing projects
  • Creates flexibility to use funds for needed transit operations and maintenance investments
  • Provides funding for road and bridge repair to improve transportation efficiency
  • Expands active transportation, complete streets and transportation enhancement infrastructure
  • Incentivizes transportation innovation from regional and local governments
  • Measures meaningful performance to tie transportation investments to GHG emission reduction, as well as other benefits like health, energy, water, cost-effectiveness, and agricultural resources.
  • Integrates intercity, rural, and local transit, roads, and active transportation infrastructure with regional land use planning and local project implementation
  • Invests in existing communities by offsetting the high cost of infill development
  • Promotes inter- and intra-jurisdictional collaboration between institutions like local/regional planning departments and school and medical campuses

We can learn from the past, capitalize on the present, and make the future a reality through innovative transportation funding.

Categories
Mentorship NewsFlash Public Health Safe Routes to School

First Graduate Scholarship Awarded to Brigitte Driller from UC Davis!

Congrats Brigitte!

Brigitte Driller was awarded Policy in Motion’s first “Growing Leaders” college scholarship for graduate interns in February 2012 and will be working with Lauren Michele on research to inform the Department of Public Health’s “Safe Routes to School Technical Assistance Resource Center” and California Cities Counties Schools Partnership on how local policy makers can promote livable communities through transportation planning and funding changes. Brigitte completed her Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from UC Davis in June 2011 and is now working toward her Master’s in Transportation Technology and Policy with the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. Her educational focus is on bike-ped planning and street design, and she has been involved in numerous research projects — including  a before/after evaluation of a planned road diet in Davis and a series of exploratory interviews with children as part of her transportation planning research. Last spring, Brigitte worked for Policy in Motion as a Research Intern, where she investigated challenges and successes in regulating greenhouse gases in the transportation sector as well as looking at the different regulatory frameworks in Oregon and Washington.

Categories
California Policy Education/Webinars GHG Reduction Livable Communities Mentorship NewsFlash Public Health Publications Research Safe Routes to School SB 375

Interns in Motion :: Seeking Graduate Student for Spring Mentorship Program – Become a “POD” Leader!

You’re doing a good service to the field by helping them get established.  We need energetic blood!

— Office of the Secretary, United States Department of Transportation

Policy in Motion’s “Career Development” Mentorship Program is designed to mentor youth, college students and emerging professionals with an interest in public policy and sustainability planning into careers in transportation or urban planning. The program leverages Sacramento as a learning ground by engaging Mentees in the firm’s current local/state/federal policy research and transportation planning projects. It is designed as a work exchange where students provide project and research support for hands-on learning in business development and policy implementation,  as well as personal mentorship into career networks around California’s Capitol. Aligning with Policy in Motion’s vision for fostering the growth of “PODs” — people-oriented development — this program seeks to mentor budding leaders in the field of sustainable transportation planning and policy.

YOUTH IN MOTION

Jeremy Gray is a senior at the Met Sacramento High School.  With the Met, he has worked at several internship sites which have shaped his interest in film making.  He collaborated with teens and made a documentary on state health insurance through the state organization California Voices.  He was the boom microphone operator on the set of A Cure for the Dead, a miniseries from Misfire Productions.  During the summer of 2011, Jeremy worked on an entry for the Sacramento Film and Music Festival’s 10 x 10 Film Festival.  He co-created the film with Noah Damiani, winner of the festival’s Emerging Filmmaker award.  Currently, Jeremy is starting a youth-run bicycle collective at the Met as his Senior Thesis Project.  As Policy in Motion’s Media Intern, he will be applying his filmmaking skills and interest in sustainable communities towards creating a Policy in Motion Documentary to be released August 10, 2012.

UNDERGRAD STUDENTS IN MOTION

EVELYN :: Local Planning Intern

Evelyn Garcia is currently a senior at UC Davis majoring in Community and Regional Development and minoring in Education.  Evelyn served on advisory board as a liaison for Redwood City’s downtown revitalization efforts and worked closely with City government officials in hopes of bridging the gap between youth and adults in the community.  She mentors independent studies high school students in Sacramento in pursuing higher education and preparing for college admissions through a UC Davis organization called Success Through Educational Mentoring (S.T.E.M.) She is actively involved in her Latina community in promoting professional and educational development while also promoting the advancement of Latinas in higher education to young middle school and high school girls all over the Davis, Woodland, and Sacramento area.  Through Policy in Motion she hopes to gain proper guidance and skills in order to develop her interests within community development and urban planning. As a Local Planning Intern for Policy in Motion she provided support for the Solano County Transportation for Livable Communities Plan Update which focuses on the relationship between transportation and land use through the promotion of smart growth development and sustainable transportation projects in Solano County.

FORMER STUDENTS IN MOTION

AMANDA :: Policy Research Intern

Amanda Bradshaw is currently completing a dual-degree in Latin American studies and urban planning at Columbia University in New York City.  She received a B.A. in economics and a B.A. in international development studies from the University of California, Berkeley. During her undergraduate career, she served as a research assistant for a U.S. Economic Development Administration-sponsored study which assessed labor markets within California’s green economy, as well as a study conducted by the Transportation Sustainability Research Center. As a graduate student, Amanda’s research interests include environmental and transportation planning, especially as they pertain to North and South America. In January 2012 she will begin conducting research in Brazil for her thesis which focuses on Brazilian environmental governance and urban reform. As a Policy Research Intern at Policy in Motion during Summer 2011, Amanda provided research support for the a Caltrans statewide planning project – California Interregional Blueprint – focusing on the implementation of AB 32, SB 375, and SB 391.  Additionally, she provided significant editing contributions to Lauren Michele’s new book, “Policy in Motion: Transportation Planning in California after AB 32.” Amanda is currently completing her M.S. research in São Paulo, Brazil where she is comparing the state environmental policy approaches taken in California and São Paulo — Amanda expresses that her Policy in Motion internship has been the most impressive component to her resume reviewers.

MINDY :: Green Business Intern

Melinda (Mindy) Bacharach is a recent graduate from the University of California, Davis with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning. During her time at UC Davis, Mindy studied abroad in Cambridge England and participated in the University of California DC internship program where she interned at Governor Schwarzenegger’s Washington DC Office. She is now looking forward to a new chapter in life where she will utilize her college experiences and education to pursue a career in environmental policy. It is her goal to attend business school in the future with an environmental policy emphasis. As Policy in Motion’s Green Business Intern over Summer 2011, Mindy learned about the financial and structural operations of a small business through her involvement in the Solano County Transportation for Livable Communities Plan Update overseen by the firm’s principal/owner, Lauren Michele.  Mindy is now working for the California Department of Transportation Headquarters as a Transportation Planner for the Division of Transportation System Information in the Office of Data Analysis and GIS — she was told that her Policy in Motion recommendation review during the interview process was a critical component in the decision to hire her.

 


Categories
Complete Streets Livable Communities NewsFlash Public Health Publications Research Safe Routes to School

When We Have Safe Routes to School We Have Safe Routes for All

I read two articles tonight which caught my attention related to Safe Routes to School – right after a neighborhood bike ride home with my 17 year old nephew from his downtown Sacramento high school where I am volunteering as a mentor to students working on campus bicycle programs.  The first was a tragic article in the Sacramento Bee on Michelle Murigi who was fatally injured just one week before her 17th birthday a few blocks from her high school campus.  The second was on a new report released today by the National Center for Safe Routes to School on how to prevent such tragedy through ways to engage schools in increased safety measures, better infrastructure and education programs.

15% of students in California walk to school each day

— many crossing high speed streets without sidewalks or crosswalks

Key Findings from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model

Source: UC Davis Urban Land Use and Transportation Center

  • 15% of all school trips are made by walking, however, funding to support safe infrastructure, programs and plans at schools are far below the demand
  • High income students produce 19% of total school trips – contributing 17% of total trips by automobile
  • While 40% of low income students walk to school, only 8% of high income students walk – many schools lack adequate facilities to support active transportation.
  • Middle income students bike to school more than low and high income students combined – the fact that bicycle trips only account for 1% of total school trips may reflect the lack of investment, planning, and programs needed to foster bikable neighborhoods

Study Identifies Four Key Strategies of Successful Safe Routes to School Programs

National Center for Safe Routes to School Releases New Travel Mode Report

(Chapel Hill, N.C.) January 24, 2012 — Do Safe Routes to School programs that increase walking and bicycling have some characteristics in common? A new report conducted by the National Center for Safe Routes to School has found that may indeed be the case.

Shifting Modes: A Comparative Analysis of Safe Routes to School Program Elements and Travel Mode Outcomes identifies the following four key factors that successful SRTS programs share:

  1. Identifying an in-school leader, often the principal, to champion SRTS.
  2. Conducting activities that reinforce walking and bicycling, such as frequent walker/biker programs and Walk to School Day events.
  3. Generating parent support for SRTS.
  4. Establishing policies that support SRTS, such as early dismissal for students who walk or bicycle home from school.

“SRTS programs across the country are increasing the number of students walking and bicycling to school, and this research reveals some of the ways they did it, which is important for two reasons,” said Lauren Marchetti, director of the National Center for Safe Routes to School. “For transportation and public health officials, it establishes a baseline of data for future research to extend and enrich; for local SRTS program organizers and leaders, it identifies four distinct similarities among successful programs.”

In the Shifting Modes study, National Center researchers explore how school-level dynamics that underlie planning and implementation of SRTS programs relate to the percentage of students who walk and bicycle between home and school. The National Center examined three schools with SRTS programs that measured increases in walking and bicycling to school and compared them to a sample of schools that shared similar demographics but did not increase walking or bicycling to school. To view the complete report, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/shifting-modes-report.

Because the study was limited to schools with three years of data and only those schools that adopted SRTS programs early and met stringent data collection criteria were examined, the study’s sample is small. The student travel mode data were complemented with structured interviews with local SRTS program coordinators. This approach yielded insights into ways to increase the percentage of students who walk and bicycle to school.

The National Center also developed a brief document specifically for the SRTS practitioner. Getting More Students to Walk and Bicycle:  Four Elements of Successful Programs highlights how practitioners can use the study’s findings to increase student participation in walking and bicycling to school. The four key strategies identified in the Shifting Modes study are compared to two schools that have been nationally recognized for increasing walking and bicycling to school; the programs at both schools shared all four identified strategies. To view Getting More Students to Walk and Bicycle, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/getting-students-to-walk-and-bicycle-for-practitioners.

“We encourage those who are on the ground implementing SRTS programs to consider which of these identified strategies might work for their schools and communities,” Marchetti said. “Every school has different needs; however, the key factors identified in the study were common across programs in urban, suburban and rural settings.”

###

About the National Center for Safe Routes to School

Established in May 2006, the National Center for Safe Routes to School assists states and communities in enabling and encouraging children to safely walk and bicycle to school. The National Center serves as the information clearinghouse for the federal Safe Routes to School program with funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Part of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, the National Center also provides technical support and resources and coordinates online registration efforts for U.S. Walk to School Day and facilitates worldwide promotion and participation. For more information, visit www.saferoutesinfo.org.

 

Categories
Complete Streets Public Health

Free Webinar: Pedestrian Safety Education on June 1st

Next Webinar covers pedestrian safety education, offers free CM credits

CHAPEL HILL, NC — The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety announce the next free Webinar in its Pedestrian Safety Action Plan series:

Pedestrian Safety Education
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
2:00pm-3:30pm E.D.T.
1.5 AICP CM credits

Presented by:
Nancy Pullen-Seufert, Associate Director, National Center for Safe Routes to School

To register, please visit https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/259763731

Educational programs are essential for communicating knowledge about pedestrian safety laws and skills to all audiences, from children and teens to older adults. This presentation will provide participants with an understanding of the various types of educational campaigns and messages, along with a description of different types of audiences. Information about identifying particular audiences will be relayed to attendees, as well as a strategy for tailoring specific messages to those audiences.

This Webinar has been approved by AICP for 1.5 CM credits. The Road Safety Academy, the training and education arm of the UNC Highway Safety Research Center, is a registered provider of CM credits. For more information on the Road Safety Academy, please visit www.rsa.unc.edu.

To register for upcoming Webinars and find out about future Webinar dates as they are released, please visit www.walkinginfo.org/webinars.

The Webinar series is aimed at engineers, planners, traffic safety and enforcement professionals, public health and injury prevention professionals, and decision-makers who have the responsibility of improving pedestrian safety at the state or local level. Detailed information on this and other training opportunities offered by PBIC can be found at www.walkinginfo.org/training.


This PBIC News Brief is a free publication of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Please feel free to redistribute this email freely. No permission is needed to reproduce this news brief, but attribution is requested.

You are currently subscribed to receive periodic information from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, such as research updates, news releases and our e-newsletter the PBIC Messenger. Connect with PBIC on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pedbike.

To unsubscribe: www.pedbikeinfo.org/newsletter/unsubscribe.cfm

Since its inception in 1999, PBIC’s mission has been to improve the quality of life in communities through the increase of safe walking and bicycling as a viable means of transportation and physical activity. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is maintained by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center with funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.


Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

730 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Campus Box 3430
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430
Phone: 1.888.823.3977
Fax: 919.962.8710
www.walkinginfo.org
www.bicyclinginfo.org

Categories
California Policy GHG Reduction Local Government Metropolitan Planning Public Health

California 2011-12 Legislative Session Overview of Relevant Sustainable Development Bills

Policy in Motion is tracking a handful of bills introduced this session pertaining to the integration of land use, transportation, housing affordability, and health within the context of sustainable community development in California. Below are summaries and links to legislative analyses for 21 relevant bills:

Updated April 24th, 2011

AB 147 (Dickinson)Subdivision Map Act

  • Expands the existing eligible uses for transportation mitigation impact fees to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities.

AB 343 (Atkins)Community Redevelopment Act

  • Redevelopment Plans and subsequent projects to be in alignment with climate, air quality and energy conservation goals of Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2008.

AB 345 (Atkins)Caltrans to consult with bike/pedestrian reps on traffic control devices.

  • Caltrans to convene an advisory committee of representatives from groups representing bicycle and pedestrian users of streets, roads and highways and consult with this group regarding the installation of traffic control barriers and/or devices.

AB 441 (Monning)Health issues included in transportation plans.

  • Requires the California Transportation Commission to include health issues in regional transportation plans. The Office of Planning and Research would develop guidelines for local government and regional agencies to incorporate health (improvement) issues into general plans.

AB 539 (Williams)Safe Routes to School speed limits.

AB 605 (Dickinson) – OPR to set standards for VMT reductions and CEQA exemptions.

  • A project could be exempt from CEQA analysis of transportation element if project met percentage reduction in vehicle trip miles.

AB 650 (Blumenfield)Blue Ribbon Task Force on Public Transportation for the 21st Century

  • Requires task force to be comprised of twelve transportation subject matter experts to prepare a written report which would include findings and recommendations regarding the current state of CA’s transit system, costs of creating the needed system, and potential funding sources.

AB 676 (Torres)Expands use of transportation funds.

  • Existing transportation expenditures are currently legally obligated for transportation related administration, operation, maintenance, local assistance, safety and rehabilitation projects. This bill would allocate remaining funds for the study of, and development and implementation of,capital improvement projects to be programmed in the state transportation improvement program.

AB 710 (Skinner)Infill Development and Sustainable Community Act of 2011.

  • Eliminates minimum parking requirements for infill and transit-oriented development. Prohibits city or county from requiring more than one parking space per residential unit and prohibits requirement of more than one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft of commercial units for residential or mixed-use project in a transit intensive area. Also modifies definition of sustainable communities to include communities that incentivize infill development.

AB 819 (Wieckowski)Enhance bicycle safety, complete streets.

  • This bill augments existing Dept. of Transportation responsibility for safety guidelines to include class IV bikeways, in addition to class I, II and III bikeways. The bill defines class IV bikeways as: “segregated bike lanes,” which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles on streets and are demarcated by either a physical barrier or by distinct paint markings, or both, to minimize or prevent travel by motor vehicles.

AB 931 (Dickinson)CEQA exemption rule for infill housing modification.

  • CEQA requirements are exempted for infill development if certain criteria are met. This bill would extend the current criteria for the preparation of a community-level environmental review from 5 to 20 years. It would also lower the density requirement for exemption from 20 to 15 units per acre.

AB 995 (Cedillo)OPR report to legislatureon expediting Transit Oriented Development environmental review.

  • This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, not later than July 1, 2012, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report containing recommendations for expedited environmental review for transit-oriented development.

AB 1285 (Fuentes)Regional greenhouse gas emission reduction program.

  • Legislation to create community greenhouse gas emission reduction program. Would provide state oversight over local government and nonprofit investments relating to greenhouse gasses.

SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)Elimination of state redevelopment agencies.

  • Elimination of state redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and an orderly “wind down” of their responsibilities and assets. Local govt successor agencies would be created to maintain certain existing RDA obligations. Elimination of state RDA’s has been identified as a method to balance the state’s budget. Property taxes that formerly went to RDAs would be directed to schools and public safety operations. The bill will result in $1.7 billion in additional funding for the 2011-2012 budget.

SB 132 (Lowenthal)School citings to reflect state planning priorities.

  • This bill would require the State Allocation Board to revise guidelines, rules, regulations, procedures, and policiesfor the acquisition of schoolsites and the construction of school facilities to reflect the state planning. This bill would also require that advice, standards, surveys, or information regarding the acquisition of school sites or the construction of school facilities provided by the StateDepartment of Education pursuant to this requirement reflect the state planning priorities.

SB 214 (Wolk)Eliminate voter approval requirement for infrastructure finance districts.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval to create and authorize an infrastructure financing district. This bill would authorize a legislative body to create an infrastructure finance district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds by resolutions by resolution, not requiring voter approval.

SB 310 (Hancock).–.Creation of the Transit Priority Project Program.

  • This bill would eliminate the requirement of voter approval for the creation of an infrastructure financing district and would authorize the appropriate legislative body to create the district, adopt the plan, and issue the bonds by resolutions. This bill would also create a streamlined permit process for development that met certain criteria and it would create a program to reimburse developer fees if a project was located within an Infrastructure Finance District.

SB 450 (Lowenthal)Redevelopment agencies housing expenditures.

  • This bill reforms how redevelopment agencies spend their Low &Moderate Income Housing Funds.

SB 468 (Kehoe).–.An act to add Section 103 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.

  • This bill would impose additional requirements on the departmentwith respect to proposed capacity-increasing state highway projects inthe coastal zone, including requiring the department to collaborate withlocal agencies, the California Coastal Commission, and countywide orregional transportation planning agencies to develop traffic congestionreduction goals.

SB 535 (De Leon)California Communities Healthy Air Revitalization Trust.

  • This bill would require a minimum of 10% of revenues generated from fees collected by the Air Resources Board from sources of greenhouse gas emissions would be deposited into a trust operated by the CA Treasury Dept. Funds would be in used in communities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to mitigate health or environmental impacts of climate change.

SB 907 (Evans and Perez) –.Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission

  • This bill would create the Master Plan for Infrastructure Financing and Development Commission, consisting of specified members, and would require the commission to prepare and submit a strategy and plan for infrastructure development in California that meets certain criteria to the Legislature and the Governor by December 1, 2013..
Categories
Complete Streets NewsFlash Public Health

WALKSacramento Bids Farewell to Founder Anne Geraghty & Welcomes Teri Duarte as New Executive Director

The WALKSacramento Board and Staff gathered at Lauren Michele’s midtown townhome for a gluten-free and vegan potluck following a walking tour of the Newton Booth midtown neighborhood. The sun was shining for our walk — which included highlights such as Temple Coffee, Revolution Wines, 29th St Light Rail, Natural Foods Co-op, Alexan Condos, tree lined streets, and walkable alleys. While enjoying all the “food for walking,” we were joined by former WALKSacramento Board Member Larry Greene who surprised Anne with a few old memories. We all enjoyed discussing the past and future of WALKSacramento!

Click here to view the photo album!

Categories
Environmental Justice Federal Policy GHG Reduction Metropolitan Planning NewsFlash Public Health Public Transit SB 375 Transportation Funding US DOT US HUD

Sacramento Region Launches $1.5 Million Grant for Sustainable Community Plans

Last week the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) held its first “Sacramento Regional Consortium” funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program. In partnership with other federal agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT), the joint “Partnership for Sustainable Communities” includes the following six objectives which SACOG’s application reflected strongly:

• Providing more transportation choices.
• Promoting equitable, affordable housing.
• Enhancing economic competitiveness.
• Supporting existing communities.
• Coordinating policies and leverage investment.
• Valuing the uniqueness of communities and neighborhoods.

Lauren Michele highlights key points from the event below.

Federal Presence

Cynthia Abbott, Director of HUD’s District 9 Field Office, opened the event praising SACOG’s grant application as being nearly the highest ranked in the country in an extremely competitive process. She pointed to their plan, vision and partnerships as the key elements on why they received a $1.5 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. Other California-based representatives of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities were present, including those from EPA-Region 9, DOT Federal Highway Administration’s California Division, and DOT Federal Transit Administration’s Region IX. In speaking with all four of the federal representatives after the event, it is clear that SACOG’s leadership is being used as a model across the county. While the impacts of the federal budget situation is highly uncertain, the Partnership is hopeful there will be additional Livability grant in the next fiscal year for applicants who did not receive funding during this year’s cycle.

SACOG’s New Planning Process

Joe Concannon from SACOG spoke on SACOG’s bottom-up and input-first approach to the development of their Senate Bill 375 required Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). With an extensive partnership and steering committee including the Urban Land Institute, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Regional Water Authority, Valley Vision, and the UC Davis Center for Regional Change, SACOG will be using the $1.5 million federal grant to collaboratively develop performance measures for placing the region’s Transit Priority Areas to work toward their regional per capita greenhouse gas reduction target of 7% by 2020 and 16% by 2035. Transit Priority Areas are defined in SB 375 as 20 dwelling units per acre of residential density within a half mile of transit, and SACOG will be leading a new planning process to engage stakeholders in the initial creation of performance measures for equity, health and economic development. They will be utilizing a “Return on Investment Tool” as well as an “Infrastructure Cost Model” to help guide the process of creating a plan which provides access to opportunities as a priority. As part of the federal grant, SACOG will also integrate their SCS with the Draft Council on Environmental Quality Principles/Guidelines at the federal level.

Integration with MTP Update

The Project Manager for SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Kacey Lizon, highlighted that 2/3 of the audience participants has not previously attended a SACOG’s MTP update event. She reviewed the three MTP growth scenarios under review at SACOG, which goals of per capita reductions in vehicle miles traveled between -13 and -15 percent by 2035, and increased transit ridership of up to 82 percent by 2035. While the most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction scenario was selected as the preferred growth option at nearly every MTP outreach workshop, SACOG’s recommended scenario will be a modified version between Scenario #2 and #3 as presented to the public. SACOG’s effort to expand the regional transportation planning process to other sustainability indicators including housing affordability, environmental justice, and economic development is being recognized by the federal government as a well-deserved model on how transportation policy impacts regional health and happiness. In fact, Chris Benner from the UC Davis Center for Regional Change even pointed to relevance of the “Gross National Happiness Index” as used in the country of Butan.

*The next Regional Consortium will be March 23th to gather input on “Health, Access, and Equity” performance measures*

Register Here

Categories
Environmental Justice NewsFlash Public Health Research

Forbes: “World’s Happiest Countries” Determined After Five Year Research Project

Similar to the “Quality of Life” metrics used in Growing Wealthier’s economic analysis of smart growth, Policy in Motion believes that we need to start framing transportation and land use planning and project priorities around factors that do not only consider environmental impacts and funding feasibility — rather we need to assess the full spectrum of social impacts from community design decisions  to include measures for our health and happiness.

Christopher Helman from Forbes highlights which countries are the “happiest” and why in the article below….

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Think about it for a minute: What does happiness mean to you?

For most, being happy starts with having enough money to do what you want and buy what you want. A nice home, food, clothes, car, leisure. All within reason.

But happiness is much more than money. It’s being healthy, free from pain, being able to take care of yourself. It’s having good times with friends and family.

Furthermore, happiness means being able to speak what’s on your mind without fear, to worship the God of your choosing, and to feel safe and secure in your own home.

Happiness means having opportunity — to get an education, to be an entrepreneur. What’s more satisfying than having a big idea and turning it into a thriving business, knowing all the way that the harder you work, the more reward you can expect?

With this in mind, five years ago researchers at the Legatum Institute, a London-based nonpartisan think tank, set out to rank the happiest countries in the world. But because “happy” carries too much of a touchy-feely connotation, they call it “prosperity.”

Legatum recently completed its 2010 Prosperity Index, which ranks 110 countries, covering 90 per cent of the world’s population.

To build its index Legatum gathers upward of a dozen international surveys done by the likes of the Gallup polling group, the Heritage Foundation and the World Economic Forum. Each country is ranked on 89 variables sorted into eight subsections: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, education, health, safety, personal freedom and social capital.

The core conceit: Prosperity is complex; achieving it relies on a confluence of factors that build on each other in a virtuous circle.

“To use economic measurements alone to gauge the success of a nation would be equivalent to assessing the entire condition of a man simply by looking at his bank balance,” writes Peter Mandelson, former U.K. economic minister.

To that end, the inputs used to create the index are both objective and subjective: that’s because it’s not enough to know hard data like a country’s unemployment or inflation rates. It also matters how hard people think it is to find jobs, how convinced they are that hard work can bring success.

This can get complicated. In Nepal, for example, inflation is 11 per cent, unemployment 46 per cent. Yet a surprisingly high 50 per cent of the people say they are satisfied with their standard of living and 81 per cent have confidence in their banks. Could be they’re scared of voicing their true opinion in a shaky democracy, or maybe the Nepalese are just endemically happier people. Legatum adjusts for this, adding a variable called “ability to express political opinion without fear.”

What’s the most prosperous country in the world? Norway. What’s it got that the rest of the world doesn’t? The biggest bump comes from having the world’s highest per capita GDP of $53,000 a year. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95 per cent say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74 per cent say other people can be trusted.

Cynics (particularly those leaving comments on Legatum’s excellent website) say Norway’s ranking is a fluke, that it’s a boring, godless (just 13 per cent go to church) homogeneous place to live with a massive welfare state bankrolled by high taxes. Without massive offshore reserves of oil and gas that it exports to the world through state-controlled Statoil, Norway’s GDP would be far smaller.

And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given — of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren’t.

Being small helps too. Big countries have so many disparate groups (ethnic, geographic, civic) vying against each other that it’s hard for true social cohesion and trust to emerge, and harder to maintain high levels of safety. Among countries with populations of more than 150 million, the United States ranks highest, at No. 10.

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don’t let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum’s scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.

The importance of entrepreneurship

Of perhaps utmost importance, nearly all the nations in the top 10 are adept at fostering entrepreneurship and opportunity. Legatum’s researchers concluded that a country’s ranking in this area is the clearest proxy of its overall ranking in the index.

‘Entrepreneurial societies raise levels of expectation and produce a culture in which human potential is released.’—Alan McCormick, Legatum

This means low business startup costs, lots of cellphones, plenty of secure Internet servers, a history of high R&D spending and the perception that working hard gets you ahead.

That last bit — the perception that working hard pays off — is especially vital. Consider that Denmark and Sweden rank first and second in entrepreneurship and opportunity, but only 77 per cent of Swedes and 84 per cent of Danes think that working hard will get them ahead. Compare that with the U.S., the No. 3 country for entrepreneurship and opportunity. Fully 9 of 10 Americans think that hard work will pay off.

Perception matters. Alan McCormick, a managing director at Legatum, points out that the U.S. remains the envy of the world when it comes to entrepreneurialism, pointing out that during the recession year of 2009, Americans created 558,000 new businesses each month. That’s 27,000 more per month than in 2008 and 60,000 more per month than in 2007.

For countries that want to move up in the prosperity rankings, that care about improving the happiness of their people, one of the best ways may be to cultivate an entrepreneurial culture.

“Over the last three decades, new startups have accounted for nearly all of the increased employment in the American private sector,” says McCormick. “Entrepreneurial societies raise levels of expectation and produce a culture in which human potential is released, healthy risk-taking is encouraged, and where the fledgling business ideas of today become the global-selling products of tomorrow.”

Entrepreneurialism also gives a society a mechanism by which it can address and improve other aspects of the prosperity ecosystem. Want better education, health care or safety? Someone’s ready to sell it to you.

So what else does the U.S. have going for it? High levels of governance, education and freedom. But most surprising, Legatum gives the U.S. the top ranking in the world when it comes to health.

Huh? Didn’t the U.S. spend last year decrying the sorry state of an American health care system that had left 40 million uninsured? This doesn’t mean the U.S. has the best health care system, says McCormick, but $5,500 a year in per-capita health spending has resulted in excellent vaccination rates, water quality and sanitation.

Lacking: the U.S. scored just 62nd in feeling “well rested.” Compare that with China, which ranked 12th in being well rested.

That takes us back to our original question: What does happiness mean to you? Does being well rested fit into the equation? Maybe. But not if all that shuteye is because you don’t have a job to go to. Or if you have no choice but to rest because you don’t have access to real medical care. China ranks 66th in health, spending just $350 per capita per year.

Safety, security drag down China

Overall China is the 58th most prosperous nation in the world. Despite scoring well in economic measures, it’s dragged down by a rank of 92nd in safety and security and 102nd in personal freedom (just edging out Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe).

And the worst? Zimbabwe is the least prosperous country on Earth, followed by Pakistan, according to the study, with most of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa not much better. To be fair, some countries, like North Korea, are so far off the deep end that they don’t publish any data or let in pollsters to quiz their people.

How to improve their plight? Economic growth at all costs. Roger Bate, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that if you live in one of the poorest nations, a doubling of income from $3,000 to $6,000 per year will generate a lot more additional happiness than would a pay raise of the same amount, from $33,000 to $36,000, for a citizen of a prosperous country.

Ultimately how happy you are depends on how happy you’ve been. If you’re already rich, like Scandinavia, then more freedom, security and health would add the most to happiness. For the likes of China and India (ranked 88th), it’s more a case of “show me the money.” What they want most of all? The opportunity to prove to themselves that money doesn’t buy happiness.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/20/f-forbes-happy-countries.html#ixzz1ByXQElgR