Background & Analysis on Visualize 2045 (April 2022)

Background and analysis on Visualize 2045, April 2022 Key points: 1. Despite a new climate action plan by TPB’s parent agency the Council of Governments, this Visualize 2045 makes no real changes and fails to reduce emissions any more than the last one ● ●

●

● ●

MWCOG finalized and adopted its 2030 Climate & Energy Action Plan in November 2020 before the TPB began its project solicitation for Visualize 2045.

TPB endorsed the 2030 CEAP target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to 2005 levels. The COG climate plan included several action recommendations to help achieve this goal that would reduce single-occupant vehicle use; support more transit, walking and biking; and regional land use planning that bring jobs and housing closer together and implement the Regional Housing Targets.

Buried at the very end of Visualize 2045 on page 225 is the plan’s performance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This current plan is forecast to reduce GHGs from on-road transportation by only 17% by 2030 and 18% by 2045 compared to 2005 levels. This falls far short of the 50% reduction by 2030 and the 80% reduction by 2050 in COG’s conservative (and dated goal).

Per person GHG emissions in 2030 and 2045 under Visualize 2045 would be the same as in the previous 2018 plan.

While a significant driver of these reductions is fuel economy standards and adoption of electric vehicles (and the analysis has to make conservative assumptions using adopted standards), the other major component is vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The plan can directly influence VMT through its transportation projects and programs and land use plans. And this plan does not make progress from the last plan in reducing emissions or growth in VMT. See note #4 on VMT below.

2. TPB’s own guidance for this plan required member agencies to prioritize projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions ● The plan update’s submission guide stated: “The TPB requires its member agencies to prioritize investments on projects, programs, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,…” This was a new change made to drive changes in projects. ● A number of agencies when answering questions about whether their roadway expansion projects were consistent with this policy goal, said they would reduce greenhouse gasses - see #8 below ● TPB’s Climate Change Mitigation Study presented initial findings last spring to TPB board members and their Technical Committee members while there was still time to shape the plan’s project list. ● However, as noted below, there were almost no resulting changes to projects.

3. The proposed plan devotes far too much to highway expansion, $28.2 billion, versus only $14.6 billion for expanding our transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks ● ●

See page 174 of the plan.

Note that most expenditures in the plan go to system maintenance (about 80%). These figures above focus only on expansion of the current network, which are still very significant amounts..

●

While the overall figures, including maintenance and operations, do total up to more overall funding in the regional long-range plan for transit compared to highways and roads, what’s included/not included in operations and maintenance for transit versus roads is very different. For example, the plan includes almost all elements of transit maintenance and operations, while the operations and maintenance for the roadway system include many different expenditures not included in the regional long-range plan (e.g., various local street maintenance, law enforcement, private vehicle owner expenditures, etc.).

4. Many residents are stuck driving long trips for daily needs. The plan only makes a very modest reduction in per capita driving, a 3% change by 2045, which is no different than what the 2018 plan would accomplish ●

●

See page 216. This plan does not reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) anymore than the 2018 plan, which only reduced per capita VMT by 3% by 2045. This equates to a 5.6% per capita reduction in VMT from passenger vehicles (travel by residents versus commercial needs) by 2045.

In contrast, local and national studies, including TPB’s own climate study, have found that our communities need to reduce per capita VMT of passenger vehicles by 15-20% by 2030, combined with rapid adoption of electric vehicles to meet our climate targets.

5. The projects and land use plans of member jurisdictions exacerbate discrepancies in job access for Prince George’s County residents compared to the rest of the region ● See pages 220-224 of the plan. ● Job access within 45 minutes by auto decreased for some areas of Prince George’s County relative to the 2018 plan. That previous plan also had a decrease in the county although not as extensive as the current plan. ● Job access by transit generally does not decline in Prince George’s County, and is similar to the changes forecast in the 2018 plan. However, compared to the expansion in job access by transit on the western side of the region and in Montgomery County, there is a clear disparity in job access by transit for Prince George’s residents. ● So the decrease in job access cannot be attributed entirely to dropping the eastern portion of the MD I-495 express toll lanes from Visualize 2045. ● The HOT lanes are not a good deal for Prince George’s County residents, who will have the lose-lose choice of paying very high tolls or sitting in the traffic congestion in the general purpose lanes that the private toll road company counts on. More jobs at transit stations in Prince George’s is the more effective transportation solution. ● Regionwide expanding job access by auto is not an effective strategy compared to expanding job access by land use planning and transit-oriented development in coordination with transit. As a result of regional transit-oriented development efforts, jobs accessed by transit would grow more than jobs accessed by auto from present until 2045, despite the plan spending twice as much on highway expansion as transit expansion. ● TPB members and the State of Maryland could do much more to help Prince George realize its transit-oriented development plans.

6. TPB agencies largely ignored the overwhelming public comments and survey results demanding climate action and more sustainable and equitable transportation investments ● Worsening impacts of climate change occurring in real time and dire forecasts by the IPCC, major new reports, and other bodies. The failure of national governments means that action by cities, states and regions has become even more important.

●

●

Public comments on the draft Visualize 2045 conformity inputs in April 2021: 145 out of 229 total public comments received commented that the draft project list did not meet the region’s climate goals. Other top comment themes were opposition to more highway expansion (24 comments), the need for more sustainable transportation investments (19 comments), and climate equity (5 comments). Only 6 comments supported the plan’s highway and road expansion.

Voices of the Region survey conducted for the plan: 84% of the region’s residents want elected officials to consider the impacts of climate change when planning transportation.

7. Almost no projects changed since the last plan despite member agencies making new commitments to transit-oriented land use and housing and new climate pledges since then ● Since the 2018 plan, there are only 2 new major projects and only 1 major project had a major change to it. Staff said the 2018 plan had more new projects and changes. ● This was despite new policies adopted in the region and other major changes. ● In 2019, the region through its representation of all local governments on the Council of Governments committed to the Regional Housing Targets, which strive to put 75% of new housing near high-capacity transit stations and activity centers and to make it mostly affordable. ● In 2021, the region doubled down by endorsing COG’s planning framework which elevates high-capacity transit stations as important priority areas for planning and investment, with goals to both improve transit station access and to optimize land use in these areas. TPB in October 2021 also separately endorsed the high-capacity transit (HCT) framework (and also equity emphasis areas, EEAs), stating in its resolution: ○ “TPB believes that the COG board action calling for optimizing the land use and transportation around HCT station areas and elevating the EEAs as a planning construct for decision making advances the TPB’s transportation planning priorities and will help provide for a more efficient, safe, affordable, multi-modal, and equitable transportation system…” ○ TPB “Calls upon its member agencies to adopt the principles of the above two resolutions while making transportation planning and programming decisions for future updates to the TPB’s long-range transportation plan and transportation improvement programs.”

8. Several TPB member jurisdictions and state departments of transportation greenwashed their highway expansion projects, claiming they would help the region meet its 50% greenhouse gas reductions target by 2030 ●

For many (and in some cases all) of their highway and roadway expansion projects, several member jurisdictions and transportation agencies claimed they would lower greenhouse gas emissions: ○ Fairfax County: “This project helps to alleviate traffic congestion on [road name] and allows for a more efficient transportation network. The project enhances continuity and lowers emissions from automobiles,” ○ Maryland Department of Transportation: “While the project will increase auto capacity, it also will improve level of service (LOS), reducing congestion, idling, and emissions in the corridor.” ○ Prince George’s County: uses this same language as MDOT for its many highway and arterial expansion projects. ○ City of Manasas: “Project will improve operations and reduce congestion to mitigate GHG emissions,” ○ Prince William County: “Project alleviates congestion to reduce GHG emissions and includes ped/bike facilities to provide non-motorized transportation options.”

○

●

●

●

●

Loudoun County: “The project assumption is that building this project will reduce congested streets and or intersections leading to a reduction in vehicle emissions.”

For some of these projects, there were also vague statements about supporting other modes.

Perhaps a sidewalk will be added next to an expanded six-lane high-speed thoroughfare.

However, these types of road expansion projects induce more driving and more emissions, offsetting any emissions benefits from reducing engine idling and stop-and-go driving due to the usually short-live congestion reduction. See this clear explanation citing the studies that demonstrate this in this article by transportation expert Joe Cortright.

TPB’s additional 900 miles of new highway and major arterial lanes would generate billions of miles of additional driving per year - on top of additional driving anticipated from population and job growth. Using the State Highway Induced Frequency of Travel (SHIFT) calculator developed

by RMI and other groups with expertise in transportation, we calculated the similar and alarming impacts of Northern Virginia’s road expansion plans.

Another clear explainer of induced demand and its relationship to emissions is available here by Transportation for America.