Creating the Framework for State Policy Change on Climate, Land Use and Transportation

Creating the Framework for State Policy Change on Climate, Land Use and Transportation: State Profiles

Johnson Foundation’s Wingspread Conference Facility: November 29 – December 1, 2010

Below are profiles gathered from pre-meeting surveys from 10 states participating in this conference (CO, IL, MA, MD, MN, NH, NJ, NY, VT and WA). Please review them prior to the meeting.

Colorado

What vehicles (if any) exist to connect land use planning, housing, transportation and climate goals? If you were involved in previous campaigns to get these laws enacted, what lessons did you draw from those campaigns?

Colorado has a Climate Action Plan, issued by Executive Order by Governor Ritter in 2007.It contains language about reducing VMT, however it is not enforceable and little to nothing has been done under the VMT heading.CDOT is putting out for RFP a VMT study to look at mileage-based revenue sources. It is not an on-the-ground study but more a research questions study.

At the state level, very little else exists. We worked a few years ago on a bill that would have tied transportation funding to climate and performance goals.It died quickly.The year after that we worked very hard on a bill that would have simply encouraged land use planners and transportation planners in congested corridors to talk to each other when planning for the future of those corridors.With no support from CDOT, the Governor's Office, or the MPOs, and fierce opposition from the homebuilders, it too died.

The lessons I drew from our work to get these laws in place are numerous.First, top-down legislation tying land use and climate goals is very difficult in Colorado because it quickly hits what I call "the wall of local control." Local control, that is all land use decisions are made by local government, is a strong tradition in Colorado, supported by notions of our history of independence and mistrust of central government, be it state or, even worse, federal.Second, climate change is difficult issue to work on directly in Colorado because a fair number of our politicians don't believe in it.In fact, when lobbying at the Capitol, "climate change" are words it is best not to utter.Third, in order to pass this kind of legislation the thing we in the conservation community need most to do is build better relationships with the other interests we need to pass them.So our focus has shifted to finding issues we can work on with these interest groups successfully.A great example of this is a bill we passed last year limiting the use of urban renewal funding to incentivize sprawl on farmlands.Through that effort, we forged stronger relationships with the counties and agricultural interests.

Progress has been made recently at the regional level, through the Denver MPO (DRCOG).They have draft sustainability goals ready to be put into their 2035 plan, as well as new TIP criteria that award points for proximity of development to transit.The sustainability goals include reducing the % of trips to work by SOV by 65%, locating 50% of new housing and 75% of new jobs within urban centers, reducing per capita municipal and industrial water use by 13.5%, reducing VMT by 10%, and reducing per capita GHG emissions from the transportation sector by 60%.These goals are expected to be adopted as part of the 2035 plan update in January, though there is some opposition to them, so some may not pass.

While these sustainability goals at DRCOG are revolutionary in terms of what that body has done in the past (2 years ago the Board never used the words "climate change"), there are some big limitations.First, like all goals in DRCOG's 2035 Metrovision Plan, these goals are lofty and barely enforceable. Second, the definition of "urban centers" upon which the utility of some of the goals rests is way too broad, including big sprawl developments.

Currently there are also efforts by the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) in the Metro Denver and North Front Range area to bring the area into compliance with federal ozone standards.In developing the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for this region, the RAQC is focusing on measures to reduce VMT to achieve the reductions we need.The RAQC Board has been meeting for about 8 months so far and efforts are preliminary, but our Executive Director has been appointed to the effort so we are very involved.

What (types of) organizations do you need to work in a coalition with in order to get a bill or policy changed passed?

The counties, the municipalities, CDOT, the homebuilders, the Administration, the ski resorts, agriculture, the MPOs, business.

Are there any existing proposals, bills, rule changes, etc. that you can build on in terms of smarter planning and transportation? Is it possible to layer on a performance-based (climate or otherwise) approach?

Hopefully as of January, the DRCOG sustainability goals will officially be part of the 2035 plan.We are working with Bob Yuhnke at SWEEP and others to meld the work at DRCOG with the RAQC's efforts to reduce VMT.We hope to get DRCOG to model a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that reduces VMT and achieves ozone reductions by locating jobs and housing near transit and within walking and biking distance of daily needs.The information provided by such a modeling exercise would be invaluable for use in campaigns to better tie land use planning and transportation.In the best case scenario, DRCOG's Board would consider the reduced VMT model RTP against other modeled scenarios in the next RTP update and choose the reduced VMT plan, thereby changing the way transportation dollars are awarded under the TIP.Of course, a lot would have to go our way to have this happen, given current politics at DRCOG, but is something we are working on.

At the state level, given Colorado's dire budget situation, we see no opportunity to pass any legislation this year that would have a fiscal note.Most battles at the Capitol will involve the budget and protecting funding we currently have for various programs across the conservation spectrum.

Are there state climate goals of any kind? If so, is the state already considering smart growth/land use planning as a component of meeting those goals? What stage is that in?

2007 Climate Action Plan which has not really been implemented.Nothing really was done by the Ritter administration to integrate smart growth/land use planning other than give it lip service in the Plan.

What connections exist (if any) between local, regional, and statewide planning rules/regulations, etc (zoning, regional planning) that could be aligned to make this happen?

The State Transportation Plan is created and updated by CDOT and its Transportation Commission.It is a bottom-up process, in that the 5 MPOs and the 10 transportation planning regions submit their plans and then CDOT synthesizes them into the state plan.However, in reality CDOT does the 10 TPR plans, as those TPRs don't have the resources to do them.So there is some opportunity to affect the state planning process by working with the MPOs and TPRs.

The MPOs and CDOT work together but there is definitely suspicion based on past experience.This has been evident when we worked on the legislation tying land use and transportation mentioned in the first response.CDOT and DRCOG in particular handle each other with kid gloves and there appears to be suspicion.DRCOG doesn't want CDOT to have any control over local land use and CDOT is loathe to support anything that makes it seem as though they are trying to take any local land use power.

DRCOG is potentially a strong vehicle for regional planning and from the outside, and seemingly nationally, this body where all the local governments in the metro area have come together to plan regionally seems revolutionary. However, in practice, little that DRCOG does is mandatory.The Metrovision plan is a repository of aspirational goals that often don't trickle down into the decisions the MPO makes about allocating federal transportation dollars.The trick is in shifting the TIP criteria to favor smart growth and sustainable transportation decisions and getting these criteria reflected in the Regional Transportation Plan.As stated above, we are making some progress here.While the Denver metro region is the most populous so this is significant, no such progress is even contemplated in the 4 other MPOs.

What message(s) would sell a proposal to public? How about to legislators or regulators?

To the public: more transportation choices, protect the things you love about Colorado, high fuel prices (if and when gas prices get high enough again); to legislators: budget-positive; to both: good for the economy, creates jobs, New Energy Economy.

Who are the big power brokers that might oppose you? Are there any key changes that can further your agenda while bringing on board typical opponents, (e.g. developers)?

Opposition includes Agriculture, Homebuilders, Commercial developers, Cities and counties. Streamlining environmental review, creating certainty in what is required of business; creating more transportation revenue/more work for contractors and concrete guys; protecting agricultural interests in any way; encouraging homebuilding of any kind, even TOD; and creating sales tax revenue.

How did the climate issue play in the last election? How has it played in the media in recent years?

The climate issue was pretty silent in the last election.It was all economy and jobs. We don't have data offhand on media.Generally doesn't play that well as a significant proportion of the state is conservative and denies climate change.

If your state/community applied for any TIGER or HUD grants, did the projects in the applications correspond with carbon reduction goals? Did any of the applications win?

The Denver Metro Area applied for a $5 million sustainable communities HUD grant.We were part of the effort, along with major power brokers in the area, including the MPO, cities, affordable housing advocates, TOD developers, and academics.The application focused on helping to ensure good TOD in Fastracks corridors as Fastracks is built out.The application included environmental goals such as reduced VMT, more transit use, more walking and biking.We did not win.

However the affordable housing advocates in the Denver west corridor in particular were successful in getting joint HUD/DOT grants to connect affordable housing, jobs and transportation. There may be some environmental benefits from these grants, though the people working on them have different goals. The cities of Denver and Aurora also got area-wide planning grants to help clean up brownfields.
Illinois

Illinois has struggled to address land use planning, even shying away from the term "Smart Growth."Nevertheless, a few years ago, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) was created to address land use planning related to housing and transportation.CMAP has been working to address many of these challenges, but the proof of its effectiveness will come as the organization moves forward with implementation.
In the Chicagoland area, we also have two non-governmental organizations that have worked hard to address regional planning issues: Metropolis 2020 and the Metropolitan Planning Council.

What (types of) organizations do you need to work in a coalition with in order to get a bill or policy changed passed?

In Illinois, it takes a coalition of multiple groups to pass legislation.Unions are very strong and their involvement can be of critical importance.We have extraordinarily powerful units of local government - the Illinois constitution created Home Rule Authority that allows locals to avoid state laws.So, success depends on local units of local government being convinced that regional planning policies have long-term benefit.Most importantly, little happens in the legislature in this area without the support of the City of Chicago.

This will be a problem in Illinois.As noted already, there is resistance to statewide land use planning with any real teeth.The creation of CMAP was a positive step to provide greater coordination and planning. CMAP works with seven populous counties in Northeastern Illinois: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will.The area is the most densely populated area of the state (8.6 million people) and CMAP is working to help planning for 284 communities.For three years, CMAP has worked on their project called Go To 2040.How this is received and embraced will be critical.

Are there state climate goals of any kind? If so, is the state already considering smart growth/land use planning as a component of meeting those goals? What stage is that in?

Three years ago, the Illinois Governor's Climate Change Task Force identified a score of policy changes to address global warming.Some policies have been adopted and some have not.For example, Illinois now has a strong resolution requiring 25% renewable energy by the year 2025; we have enacted legislation adopting international energy efficiency standards for all new buildings in Illinois; and we have enacted strong efficiency programs for both natural gas and electricity.Among the recommendations that have not been adopted are a cap on carbon and a low-carbon fuel standard.
Regarding smart growth, the creation of CMAP was a step in the right direction but otherwise the state has not adopted strong measures incorporating smart growth/land use planning into climate goals.

What connections exist (if any) between local, regional, and statewide planning rules/regulations, etc (zoning, regional planning) that could be aligned to make this happen?

The creation of CMAP was an important step.Also the response to CMAP will have an impact on how well coordination and alignment occur for the next three decades in Northeastern Illinois.

What message(s) would sell a proposal to public? How about to legislators or regulators?

We have to focus on using resources more efficiently.Everyone understands the state and local units of government have limited dollars.Tax dollars are beyond tight and people are very reluctant to raise taxes.A message that we need to coordinate transportation and housing in order to save taxpayer dollars has merit.We cannot waste dollars through duplication of activity.Also, arguments that mass transit ultimately save billions of dollars on highway construction can also resonate.

Who are the big power brokers that might oppose you? Are there any key changes that can further your agenda while bringing on board typical opponents, (e.g. developers)?

On planning issues, there is always the concern that the City of Chicago and other local units of government will fight any planning authority that usurps their respective powers.The state of Illinois can also stand in the way if they think a regional planning authority can override or slow their work. So for them it is about power. Road builders can also stand in the way if they A)think their dollars will be threatened or diverted to other forms of transportation or B)think their projects will be delayed.Similarly, organized labor can also jump into bed with the road builders if they think their jobs could be in jeopardy.

How did the climate issue play in the last election? How has it played in the media in recent years?

Climate has not played well in Illinois.Vulnerable congressional members who voted for the House Climate Bill ran from it.Congressman Kirk, a Republican who was elected to the Senate, voted for and then renounced his support for the bill; he vowed to vote against the bill if elected to the Senate.A Democratic that voted for the House Climate Bill was defeated decisively for reelection.
The media in Illinois has been somewhat silent recently on climate.In general, the media has recognized climate change as a problem, but this year several downstate papers began to run the stories attacking cap-and-trade.Even though most papers here have not attacked climate change thinking, the public has clearly been listening to talk radio.The opposition to climate change legislation is strong particularly in downstate and rural Illinois.We are in the process of doing polling on this matter.

If your state/community applied for any TIGER or HUD grants, did the projects in the applications correspond with carbon reduction goals? Did any of the applications win?