Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...

Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Volume 1
This approach would encourage MPOs and State DOTs to be more visionary in
their planning process, to look at a wider range of alternatives including land use
patterns, and to include a broader range of nontraditional planning partners.
Many metropolitan areas already are moving towards this type of approach. The
willingness of many transportation agencies to adopt such an approach is likely
to be low at least in the near-term, as most statutory authority for land use
regulation lies at the local level and many agencies are not yet comfortable with
the concept of being involved in local land use planning, even on a voluntary
basis. Furthermore, strategies developed at a statewide or regional level are
unlikely to be effectively implemented through local action if the region’s
various stakeholders are not willing participants. Local opposition known as
“not in my back yard” often works against denser, more travel efficient
development. Another barrier is fiscal zoning, where it is in the interest of
municipalities to accommodate the most lucrative land uses, which have
historically been considered low-density or auto-dependent. In this regard,
showing examples of vibrant, mixed-used developments with substantial tax
revenue can be of use. An alternative to a requirement for integrated planning
would be to provide technical assistance and funding incentives for this type of
planning.
GHG Reduction Targets
With appropriate congressional direction, the Federal government could either
require State DOTs or MPOs to set their own GHG reduction targets (through the
transportation planning process), or could set a national GHG reduction target
(which could be uniform or apportioned to States and/or MPOs in different
ways). State and regional transportation plans would be compared against these
targets. The emissions targets would not identify the specific GHG reduction
strategies to be implemented, but instead leave these to local planning agencies
to determine. The question of how to enforce compliance with the targets would
need to be addressed, including whether noncompliance would result in
agencies being ineligible for certain highway funding incentives or larger
impacts on broader highway funding.
State and regionally determined targets, if not mandatory, would likely be more
acceptable to State and regional planners than national targets since States and
regions would have the flexibility to set a target that they felt was achievable.
On the other hand, they might lead to less aggressive targets being set than if the
Federal government were to set targets nationwide. They also might lead to
concerns about fairness if regions with more aggressive targets feel that they are
shouldering a greater share of the GHG mitigation burden. Mandatory targets
would be likely to encounter significant resistance from transportation agencies.
A highly prescriptive process could lead to significant additional resource
requirements to demonstrate future compliance with targets, and is not
recommended by DOT.
4-8