The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-07-14 ph3 BullockKremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Mejja, Anthony Sunday, October 05, 2014 3:32 PM Kremke, Kate RECEIVED OCT 0 6 2014 S10 CITY CLE'1- K Subject: Fwd: Letter and 5 references Pertaining to the LUCE Discussion at the October 7th Meeting of the City Council Attachments: image001jpg; ATT00001.htm; 2SLO_ReLUCE.DOC; ATT00002.htm; Ref(1)_SLO_LUCE_Parking.ppt; ATT00003.htm; Ref(2)_Oct7_Talk.docx; ATT00004.htm; Ref (3)_EmployeeParkingReport.doc; ATT00005.htm; Ref(4)_CAPCOA- CoverTOC_ExecSum.docx; ATT00006.htm; Ref(5)_LDV_Requirements.docx; ATT00007.htm Agenda Correspondence 10/07/14 item PH3 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 1°-7_ H Item #--P—�--5. Begin forwarded message: From: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx(a�slocity.org> To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia(,sloci or > Subject: FW: Letter and 5 references Pertaining to the LUCE Discussion at the October 7th Meeting of the City Council Agenda correspondence. Jan Marx Mayor [City of San Luis Obispo] Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E jmarx(? slocit y.org <mailto:jmarxkslocit�org> T 805.781.7120 slocity.org <http: / /www.slocit�org> From: Mike Bullock [mike_ bullock(? earthlink. net] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 1:54 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael Cc: 'Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club' Subject: Letter and 5 references Pertaining to the LUCE Discussion at the October 7th Meeting of the City Council Mayor Jan Howell Marx 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Via email to niarx slocit .or <mailto :jmarx@slocity_.or•g>; ksmithgslocity. org<mai Ito: ksmithgslocity. org>; cchristinslocit�org <mai Ito: cchristigslocity.org >; dcarpentg slocity.org <mai Ito: dcarpentgslocityorg> jashbaug2slocity.o rg <mailto:jashbaug2slocity.org >; klichtig2slocity. org< mailto :klichtig(2slocity.org >; mcodronkslocit y�org <mailto:mcodron(2slocit . rg> Re: Unbundling the Cost of Car Parking to Increase Fairness, Decrease Driving, and as a Feasible Mitigation Measure within the EIR of the LUCE Dear Mayor Howell Marx, Greetings, from Oceanside, California. Regarding the October 7th meeting, I have attached 6 files: a letter and 5 references. Highest regards and respectfully submitted, [cid:ima eg OOl.jpg_g0lCFE0A3.3047D9E0] Mike Bullock 7650- 754 -8025 Cell: 760 - 421 -9482 Page 1 of 3 Mike Bullock 1800 Bayberry Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 760 - 754 -8025 Mike bullock? earthlink.net October 4, 2014 Mayor Jan Howell Marx 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Via email to jmarxgslocity org; ksmithnslocity.org; cchristinslocity.org; dcarpentkslocity.org jashbaugnslocit .org; klichtignslocity.org; mcodrongslocity.org Re: Unbundling the Cost of Car Parking to Increase Fairness, Decrease Driving, and as a Feasible Mitigation Measure within the EIR of the LUCE Dear Mayor Howell Marx, Let me begin my sending you my greetings, from Oceanside, California. I was surprised and honored to receive an email from Andrew Christie, Director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Andrew informed me that he had referenced my Air and Waste Management paper on car - parking policy and asked if I would attend a city council meeting, introduce myself and answer any questions you might have about the car - parking system described in the paper. We have had several subsequent communications, resulting in this letter and my plan to attend your Tuesday meeting. In preparation for that, I will send you this letter and several items to support my 3- minute presentation, which I assume will follow Andrew's. The paper Andrew referenced is now hosted by the City of San Diego, as part of their Climate Action Plan effort, which is ongoing. http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental- services /pdt /sustainable /parkin cg osts.pdf I will also attach in the email the files listed at the bottom of this letter, as References 1 through 4. Reference 1 is the Power Point file I plan to use. Reference 2 is what I will say. I apologize for needing to write out my speech in that way. I find it is the best way for me to make good use of my 3 minutes. Reference 3 is an unpublished report describing how a reduced - feature demonstration project could be implemented. I just recently created it by converting a slightly more complicated paper on how a demonstration project could be implemented at a school. Reference 4 is the Cover, Table of Contents, and Executive Summary of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, A resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Concerning unbundling the cost of parking in the Transportation Section of its Chapter 7, it says (Section 3.3.2): 3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost Range of Effectiveness: 2.6 — 13% vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.6 — 13% reduction in GHG emissions. Page 2 of 3 Measure Description: This project will unbundle parking costs from property costs. Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking will be priced separately from home rents /purchase prices or office leases. An assumption is made that the parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners /drivers utilizing the parking spaces. I believe my AWMA paper and Reference 3 provide a better approach to implementing a system that will unbundle the cost of parking without needing "An assumption [be] made that the parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners /drivers utilizing the parking spaces ". Instead, there is complete transparency as to what the system is doing and no assumptions are needed. I will not mention the CAPCOA report on Tuesday but I bring it up here because it is important to note the this significant mitigation measure has been recognized by groups other than the City of San Diego and the Sierra Club. Finally, I will attach Reference 5 because it shows the need to reduce driving and the need to unbundle the cost of parking, if we are going to have cars and light duty trucks (the LDV sector) support a realistic climate- stabilizing target. The crux of what I am asking is shown on Slide 31, where I suggest you add the following words to the top of LUCE Chapter 2, Circulation Sections 13 and 14, Parking Management: San Luis Obispo will establish a parking - policy working group to evaluate the feasibility of moving towards a system that will efficiently unbundle the cost of parking, throughout the City, in a way that increases the convenience of parking for drivers, while it both increases economic fairness for all and decreases single- occupancy vehicle driving. An example of such a system is described here: http: / /www.sandieizo og v/environmental- services /pdf /sustainable /parkin costs.pdf. This system was also identified by the local chapter of the Sierra Club in their comments on the DEIR of the LUCE. If found feasible, the first step would be the implementation of a reduced - feature system, as described in a report written by the principal author of the report, perhaps at the parking facility for City employees. The working group would include city - employee union representation, as well as representation from the Sierra Club, City staff, downtown businesses, and neighborhoods. I realize this is a little presumptuous on my part. I trust you will sort this out and take appropriate action. I will help in any way you suggest. Thank you for your service. I look forward to the AMTRAK ride up and staying in your wonderful town. My wife and I plan to make a short vacation out of the trip. I will attend Sierra Club California's California Nevada Regional Conservation Committee meeting at Rancho El Chorro, October 10 -12, representing the San Diego Sierra Club. I always enjoy those meeting, particularly the bike ride up from town and all the wild life around the Rancho El Chorro. This trip, my wife and I will stay at the Garden Inn Bed and Breakfast, for the second time, actually. I also plan to swim at the Master's work out at Sinsheimer Pool. Perhaps I will see you in town. Respectfully submitted, Mike Bullock Page 3 of 3 References Note: These references are attachments in the email sent to you that also contains this letter. 1. Power Point file, to be used by Mike Bullock at the October 7th SLO Council Meeting. 2. Talk, to be used by Mike Bullock at the October 7th SLO Council Meeting 3. Bullock, M.; Equitable and Environmentally Sound Car- Parking Policy at a Work Site; Unpublished report; October 4, 2014 4. CAPCOA Report Cover Letter, Table of Contents, and Executive Summary 5. Bullock, M.; The Development of California Light -Duty Vehicle (LDV) Requirements to Support Climate Stabilization: Fleet - Emission Rates & Per- Capita Driving; Paper 2014 - 30793-AWMA, from the Air and Waste Management Association's 2014 Annual Conference and Exhibition; Long Beach, California, June 24 -27, 2014. Oct. 7, 2014 SLO City Council Meeting Item X Meeting Michael Bullock, Sierra Club Transportation Chair Oct. 7, 2014 1800 Bayberry Drive; Oceanside, CA 92054; 760 - 754 -8025 (405 - 35 =370 words = 3 minutes) Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Staff: I'm Mike Bullock, from Oceanside, Ca. [Chart 1 ] 1 would like to describe a car - parking system which would be feasible mitigation, for your Circulation Element. It unbundles the cost of car - parking. [2] 1 have a Master's Degree in engineering, a BSEE, and worked as a Satellite Systems Engineer for over 30 years. I have presented 3 papers at AWMA. [3] The first paper was on unbundling the cost of car parking. The second was about our lawsuit in San Diego, joined by Kamala Harris. The third develops a set of requirements to ensure that light -duty vehicles will support climate stabilization. [4] This shows why we have a problem. [5] This shows the potential for harm. [6] The famous Keeling Curve. [7] Our industrial revolution. [8] The shocking punchline of Inconvenient Truth, with updates. [9] Our now outdated, 2005 California greenhouse gas reduction targets. [10 &11] Slides 9 and 10 derive an updated target. [12] Shown here. [13] Personal driving is the biggest emitter. [14] LDV Requirement results. It shows we need a very aggressive switch to so- called "Zero- Emission Vehicles "; AND still, a 32% per capita driving reduction. [15] Here's a list of measures to get that reduction. Notice that improving how we pay for parking is required. [16] So we come back to the needed system. [17 -28] 1 will need to skip Motivation, Goals, Definitions, and Methods [29] This shows you are headed towards 2 -hour parking, which is very common but suboptimal. It discourages drivers from patronizing downtown and results in sign clutter. Its fine, until a better system can be implemented [30] This instantaneous, congestion pricing is a key feature. The drivers set the price, by what they are willing to pay, through an algorithm that will prevent vacancy from dropping below 15 %. Time limits are not needed and all parking can be shared. [31 ] But first, a simplified demonstration project is needed. Words such as those shown in red could be added, to create a parking policy working group, to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. It refers to a report describing a demonstration project. [32] Here is that report, which I sent to you, over the week end. [33] Here are words from a vendor who would be willing to design and implement the first system, for your downtown City employees, for example. I was invited here primarily to answer any questions you might have. Thank you 2 Re: Circulation Element Chapter 13: PARKING MANAGEMENT A System to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs • My Background & My Air and Waste Management Association Papers • Climate crisis and required solution (largely not presented) • Light -Duty Vehicle (LDV) Requirements to support Climate Stabilization (largely not presented) • Unbundling Overview • Unbundling Demonstration Project Mike Bullock 760 - 754 -8025 mike_bullock @earthlink.net A &WMA June 22, 2010 Session 7 -2 (1) Paper 2010 -A -S54 -AWMA 1 Mike Bullock • BSEE and Masters of Science Engineering • 36 Years at Lockheed Martin (Sunnyvale, CA) — Control systems & simulations — Satellite systems engineer, over 30 years • Retired, 7 years — Transportation Chair, Sierra Club San Diego — Elected to the San Diego County Central Committee of the Democratic Part — Have presented 3 papers at the Air and Waste Management Association Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 2 10/6/2014 1 Air and Waste Management Papers A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs (2010) A Climate- Killing Regional Transportation Plan Winds Up in Court Background and Remedies (2012) The Development of California Light -Duty Vehicle (LD19 Requirements to Support !' /:m�fn C *�F\ :I :��f :nn • C /nnf_Cmicci�n l7�fnc A VII/IIG 6�i VLG NI/ILG\IVII• ■ ■�i4L— L./IIIVVIV ■■ I \■.■■.�rV Vi Per - Capita Driving (2014) Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA Why a Climate Problem Any Earth Science text book* contains the following facts: Atmospheric CO2 traps heat — CO2 Molecules absorb and then emit, in a random direction, infrared radiation, heat given off by the Earth's surface — This effect is significant Combustion of fossil fuels adds great quantities of CO2 to our Earth's atmosphere — The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is well known — Our yearly emissions are well known * For example, Page 539 of Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, Tenth Edition, published by Prentice Hall, 2003. Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA 10/6/2014 0� How Bad Could It Get? • Scientific American June 2008 issue — 550 PPM CO2 possible in several decades — This could (5% probability) lead to 8 Deg. Celsius of warming — 8 Deg. Celsius could lead to "a devastating collapse of the human population, perhaps even to extinction" • December 24/312012 Issue of Nation magazine: A recent string of reports from impeccable mainstream institutions -the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers -have warned that the Earth is on a trajectory to warm by at least 4 Degrees Celsius [4 Degrees Celsius] would be incompatible with continued human survival. Winter, UU World magazine (p. 57) "Lags in the replacement of fossil -fuel use by clean energy use have put the world on a pace for 6 degree Celsius by the end of this century. Such a large temperature rise occurred 250 million years ago and extinguished 90 percent of the life on Earth. The current rise is of the same magnitude but is occurring faster. We must reduce or eliminate all uses of fossil fuels. Climate Data Currently � Keeling Curve: 400 PPM http: / /en. wikipedia .org /wiki /An_lnconvenient _Truth #Scientificu basis 390 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii Y 3so Q - _ •J _..ti - - -- y a(, -- - - -- 370 � 0 Y i a--� - ___ - -- 360 � N _ -------- ------- -------- T- - - - - -- 350 C 0 ' Annual Cycle 340 N r , - si 1 0 330 -0 c - -4 .fW 1�'I'r +- ------- L - - - - -- 320 r j t r fern Apr Jul Oct Jan I U 310 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA - 10/6/2014 3 2 Our Climate Crisis • rarth &Space Research {ESRj website: I) ttp: / /www.esr org/outreach /climate_ change /mans - impact /man1.h Current level = 400 PPM ..Temperature in degrees mri iprade (compared iNoth 3980 -4999 b rsWdne$ Atmospheric carbon dxw de (CO2 in pelts per milicn) S- 3 -05's Goal is to cap CO2 at 450 PPM, which is off this chart. )M A T 1 11 1T 2?0 '0(10 4017 NXI 700 a00 900 400 300 aw 11'4.1 Y"M 8u14re old" l! Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA .3 .A 0,4 £k e_ (12 0 00 -02 04 } 7 600 Soo 400 300 200 100 0 Thousands of Years Ago Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA n 10/6/2014 =i Our Climate Crisis • From: http: / /en. wikipedia .org /wiki /An_lnconvenient Truth #Scientific_basis Temperature and CO2 Record L5 - Temperat_(EPICA Dame C) �CO, (Vostok) 5 -3 -05's goal is to cap 400 cc) (EPICA Dome CJ CO2 at 450 PPM 1_ -CO, (EPICA Dome C) UCO. (EPICA Dome C) Current Level of 3so E S -3 -05 Achievement Outcomes CO2 is 400 PPM CL E s X% chance > 4 (Extinction ?) or m 30% chance > 3 (very bad) 300 � 50% chance > 2 (bad) m CL { + �I y L 2so 0 FE -' a 200 J ti' -LU' 600 Soo 400 300 200 100 0 Thousands of Years Ago Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA n 10/6/2014 =i Governor's Executive Order S -3 -05 Slide 2 of 4 California's S -3 -05 CO2 a Emissions, MMT Per Year 600 2000 Value 500 by 2010 1990 Value by 2020 400 Area 1 is the net 300 C0�2 e 200 emitted $0 °a Below from -- Area2 -is the net 1990 ValueTyy Year CO2 emitted from 2050 100 _ - _e _ -201 -0 to Year 2020 to 2050, - 2020_ Year 0 _ 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AW MA 9 BRIEF OF SCIENTISTS AMICUS GROUP AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS SEEKING REVERSAL DANIEL M. GALPERN Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, P.C. 941 Lawrence St. Eugene, OR 97401 -2815 USCA Case #13 -5192 Document #1465822 Filed: 11/12/2013 A. Parties and Amici. Except for the following, all parties, intervenors, and amici appearing before the district court and in this Court are listed in the Brief for Plaintiffs - Appellants. James Hansen, David Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh- Guldberg, Pushker Kharecha, Valerie Masson - Delmotte, Camille Parmesan, Eelco Rohling, Makiko Sato, Pete Smith, and Lise Van Susteren are amici curiae in this appeal (referred to hereinafter as "Amici Scientists. "). Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA 10 10/6/2014 5 From the Climate Scientists From Page 21:. . . the required rate of emissions reduction would have been about 3.5% per year if reductions had started in 2005, while the required rate of reduction, if commenced in 2020, will be approximate/ 15% per year. My math: — 15% means a factor of 0.85, year after year — Consider the 10 years from 2020 to 2030 — (.85)10 =.20, which is 80% down _ rl+hnr -\r +;Anr Aorrrr;k;ng W-nncon'c %Atr,rL• V 11 ICI GI I. I%, I%_J, %L4%—.J%, I I "1115 I I%AI IJ\. 11 J YY V11 \. "decarbonization by 2030" New Prescription for Climate Stabilization California's S -3 -05 CO2 —e Emissions, MMT Per Year 600 2000 Value 500 by 2010 1990 Value by 2020 - Climate 400 rnet stabilization Supporting Target 300 - - -- - 200 emitted 80 from Are is h et °6 Below Year CO2 �mittedfrom 050 eby 100 2010 to .. -Year to 2050. 2020. Year 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Sauer ?a•;.s- n.3a'�: =..,xwns. 10/6/2014 0 GHG Emissions, SD County Source: Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC, USD) htt2:!lwww.sandiego.edul EPIC /cih alnventorviGHG- on- Roadl.odf.[)df AWNI(U MAU F0RESTRY/I, =USE OFF-ROAD ANDVZ .0 eS ENT �% ,T iLL ANDV {FII( { {$ WATER -BORNE 4% WA$Tf I �' NAVl. %T14N p,A '.' 0.4% OTHER rUELSIOTNERN 4% •7P.f!!!!+ INDUSTRIALPROCESSES AND PRODUCTS 5% On Road Transportation: 46% NIL n47 RT[L +7! Cms and !►sgfri -drrty Natural Gas En(E trucks., 41.% Users 3% t Electricity 2S% Primary Requirements for LDVs to Support Climate Stabilization • Fraction of Purchased Fleet that are ZEVs — Year 2018: 5% — Year 2019: 10% — Year 2020: 25% — Year 2021 to 2024: 40 %, moving up to 85% — Year 2025 to 2030: 95% • Per capita driving reductions: 32% 'With respect to 2005 levels of driving Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 14 10/6/2014 7 Measures to Get 32 % Estimated Reduction • Predictions, Regional Transportation Plans 10% • Stop expanding most roads and all freeways 2% — No need, Eliminate congestion with less driving • Reallocate freeway- expansion $$$ to transit 2% • Pricing, to increase fairness & choice — Demonstration projects: unbundle parking cost — Legislation (comes after demonstration projects) • Unbundle the cost of most "free" or underpriced parking8% • Equitable and environmentally -sound road -use fees 8% • Smarter growth, complete streets, bike classes 2% 32% Paper 2014 -A- 30793 -AWMA is Background: paper presented at the A &WMA Conference in 2010 A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs • Motivation (5 slides, not presented) • Goals (2 slides, not presented) • Definitions & Methods (7 slides, not presented) • Implementation (2 slides) 10/6/2014 American drivers park "free *" at the end of 99% of their vehicle trips ". *the cost is bundled, reducing wages and /or increasing other costs, such as rent * *http: / /bikesiliconvalley.org /content /1155 Motivation • Fairness to individuals — Costs no longer hidden — Costs mostly recovered, by not using parking • Less driving, to reduce environmental harm — Motivates choosing alternative modes — Less driving to find parking • More Efficient Development — Less parking needed reduces land and building costs Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AW MA 10/6/2014 NJ Results of 3 Actions, Including Cashout Case ( #1), Reference Patrick Siegman's article in Bicycle Pedestrian Federation • Company: CH2M Hill — Location: Bellevue, Wa (Seattle suburb) — Engineering Firm with 430 employees • Actions — $54 /month (1995 $'s), to not drive This case is not used in the tabulation of — Improved Transit pricing results (next chart) C H 2M Hill Work Trips Mode Before After Drive Alone 89% 54% Carpool 9% 12% Bus 1% 17% Bike, Walk 1% 17% 1GI0% 1G1�% — Improved I It shows that double- dirtit reductions in Bike /Pedestrian I driving can cause triple -digit increases in facilities it transit usage. (Quadruple digit here: '1,600 %.) t Cashout Results (11 Locations, 3 Groups, 1995 Dollars) • Reference: How to Get Impact of Financial Incentives on Parkin Demand Paid to Bike to Work: A 1995 dollars Parking Use Guide to Low- traffic, Location Scope permo. Decrease' High- Profit Grp A:AreaswiMYfffeorno ub_ /ictr rtadon Development by CenturyCityDistrict , West Los Angeles 3590 employees at 100+ firms $81 15°x6 PatrickSiegman *. Comell Unnersity. Ithaca, NY 9006 faculty &scat $34 26% Published in Bicycle San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles 1 employm', 950empkryeos $37 30% Pedestrian Federation Costa Mesa, CA $37 2Z9b Average for Group $47 73% of America, 1995. Grp , Areas with fair ublic ¢an rlaefon 3 Largest Responses Los Angeles Civic Center s0000+ employees, 3wwl inns $125 36% 38%,36%,31% Mid- WAshire Blw., Los Angleles 1 midsize Ann $89 W/o W ashingmn DC Suburbs 5500 employees at 9 worksnes 368 26% 3 Smallest Responses - Downtown Los Angeles Memployees, 1186mms $126 Z5% — 15%,18% , 24% Averse WGrou $102 31% Grpu C. Areas wiDh ood ublic Iran orbdon Uni,ersity of Washington, Seattle Wa. 50,090 Faculty, slat& swdents $18 240/a f7lmrttrrrm Dcwra. Caraac!a 35}, mment stag 572 19% *Patrick Siegman, of Nelson Nygaard Avers for Group, butnotBellevue Washin ton S45 21% Over All Average, Excludin Bellevue Washirt tDri 25% 'Parking vacancy would be higher! 2Notused, since transit& walkbike facilities also improved. Mike Bullock, 2012; Engineers for a Sustainable World, National Conference; Workshop 2223 10/6/2014 `K Cashout Results References At http: / /moderntransit.orit /cashout /cashoutref.htmi Reference: How to Get Paid to Bike to Work: A Guide to Low- - traffic, High - profit Development by Patrick Siegman *. Published in Bicycle Pedestrian Federation of America, 1995. Above reference listed the following references: 1.) Cornell University Office of Transportation Services. 1992. "Summary of Transportation Demand Management Program," Unpublished.. 2.) Garcia, Roul. 1993. "TDM at Rockville Center," Urban Land, Nov. 1993, 21 -23. 3,) Miller, Gerald K.. 1991. "The Impacts of Parking Prices on Commuter Travel," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. 4.) Shoup, Donald and Don Pickrell.1980. "Free Parking as a Transportation Problem," (Washington D.0 : U S Department of Transportation). 5.) Shoup, Donald 1992. "Cashing Out Employer -Paid Parking," Report No. FTA- CA -11- 0035 -92 -1 (Washington D.C.: U S. Department of Transportation). 6.) Shoup, Donald and Richard W. Willson.. 1992. "Employer -Paid Parking: The Problem and Proposed Solutions," Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2, 169 - 192, 7.) Surface Transportation Policy Project. 1994. "Employers Manage Transportation: State Farm Insurance Company," Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington DC. 8.) United States Department of Transportation. 1990. 'Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium," USDOT Report No. DOT- T- 91 -14, Washington, DC. 9.) Williams, Michael E. and Petrait, Kathleen L.. 1994. "U -PASS: A Model Transportation Mangement Program That Works," Transportation Research Record 1404,73 -81. 10.) Willson, Richard W. and Donald C Shoup 1990. 'Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence," Transportation, Vol 17b, 141 -157 11.) Willson, Richard W. 1991, "Estimating the Travel and Parking Demand Effects of Employer -Paid Parking," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol, 22 (1992),133-145. Mike Bullock, 2012; Engineers for a Sustainable World, National Conference; Workshop 2223 Goals., 1 of 2 • One agency operates all parking Nearly all parking is shared • Parking costs are in effect (or literally) unbundled — From wages and rents — From costs of goods and services • No change to how parking gets built — Generally, municipalities require & developers build Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 10/6/2014 11 • Priced right Goals, 2 of 2 — Base price derived from costs — Driver demand determines a congestion price • No need to search for parking — Directions to parking that meets user's needs — Accurate price predictions • Each parking space's use is archived — Supports informed decisions • Privacy and the needs of the disabled are supported • Neighborhood interests are protected Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA Definitions and Methods, 1 of 7 • Definition & Examples of Parking Beneficiary Group — Owners • Private investors or governments operating public parking — Those losing money due to provided parking • Employees • Apartment renters or condominium owners • Hotel or restaurant patrons • Shoppers — Those offered specific parking • Driving -age students at a school with parking • Driving -age train riders using a station with parking Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 10/6/2014 12 Definitions and Methods 2 of 7 • How to Unbundle — Price charged per unit time • Base price rate established to cover all costs • Congestion price rate — Dynamically set as a function of occupancy rate — Charge is time average, if rate changes, while car is parked — Parking generally available to all drivers — Earnings distributed to members of Beneficiary Group • Calculation of individual's earnings depends on situation Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 25 Definitions and Methods, 3 of 7 • Calculation of monthly earnings — If parking is provided for several groups, each group's portion of the earnings is proportional to its original contribution to cost (Mixed use case) — Each beneficiary group's total is divided up among its members • Condominium owners: proportional to spaces effectively purchased • Renters: proportional to spaces effectively renting • Shoppers: proportional to money spent • Employees or students of driving age: proportional to time spent at work or school • Train riders of driving age: proportional to time spent on round trips Pa per 2013 -A -13309 -AWMA 10/6/2014 13 Definitions and Methods, 4 of 7 • Definition of Cluster of Parking — 20 to 40 contiguous spaces with similar desirability — All spaces have the same price Cluster Parking Space Pricing Variables Defined reaselineHourly the computed baseline hourly rate to park rinvestmenr yearly return on investment, such as .07 ( "cost of money') V Parking value of a parking space, such as (parking garage) $40,000 C YOPD yearly cost of operations plus depreciation, such as $100 n HoursPerYear number of hours in a year = 8760 f TO fraction of time occupied (yearly), such as .55 rHourlyRate the computed hourly rate to park (could include multiplier) V Erie vacancy rate perceni, such as 17.5, iur 7 vdcdiic1e8 iil a cluster of 40 parking spaces B the base of the multiplier being computed, such as 2.15 Pape, ?0 _.:; Definitions and Methods, 5 of 7 • Pricing 6 �x:zrssMt X ""Darkrrogl � �:t't?FJ — Base price T6a4.��rs�l�o;�rlg (rtHoariPer ear % fTO) • Covers all costs • Report's Pages 13 & 14 provide details — Congestion price, for each cluster r — r k (i3 ",ad -'''y for It r 30, r otherwise Ffa:erf }'Rct• — 8rssi.�PHrsart }" 7 Earl: �fr'los. -:}, • Hourly rate = Baseline hourly, unless vacancy falls below 30% • B is nominally 2; adjusted to keep vacancy above 15% • Report's Eq. 2 and Table 2 (Pages 14 & 15) provide details Paper 2013 -R- 1330 °- ,:+01 %`-. 10/6/2014 14 LUCE Chapter 2, Circulation, Sections 13 & 14 Parking Management Mike's Note: Words in RED were deleted (crossed out): Alternative Transportation Most cities do this by To reduce congestion, people working in the commercial making downtown core should use alternative forms of transportation to get : curb parking have a 2- to and from work. Workers who do drive individual hour limit. However, vehicles should use parking structures or common this inconveniences facilities rather than curb parking. drivers, thereby Value harming downtown 1.0.113.0.1 Curb Parking business. It also The City shall manage curb_parking to encourage short- contributes to sign term use by those visiting businesses and public facilities. clutter. The proposed 1 system avoids these 1.0.113.0.2 City Parking Programs problems with City parking programs shall be financially self - supporting. instantaneous pricing, 21 based on occupancy $1.04 rate. Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWNIA $1.30 Definitions and Methods, 5 of 7 • Congestion Pricing, Table Method — More heuristic than formula (more intuitive) Base Rate Multiplication Factors and Stair -Step Hourly Rates, (HR's) for Two Base Multiplier Values and a Base HR = $0.52 Base Multiplier= 2 Base Multiplier = 2.5 Multiplication Factors Hourly Multiplication Factors Hourly Vacancy Formula Value Formula Value Rate Rate (HR) Rate (HR) Above 30% 20 1 $0.52 2.50 1 $0.52 30% to 25% 21 2 $1.04 2.51 25 $1.30 25% to 20% 22 4 $2.08 2.52 6.25 $3.24 20% to 15% 23 8 $4.15 2.53 15.625 $8.11 15% to 10% 24 16 $8.30 2.54 39.0625 $20.27 10% to 5% 25 32 $16.60 1 2.55 97.65625 1 $50.67 L Price - prediction software will be provided by the private sector, as part of GPS iding the driver to the ideal parking spot (driver specifies walk - distance and pric 30 10/6/2014 15 LUCE Chapter 2, Circulation, Sections 13 & 14 Parking Management San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses in the city. Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees Use of curb -side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas. The following policies identify the City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs. San Luis Obispo will establish a parking- policy working group to evaluate the feasibility of moving towards a system that will efficiently unbundle the cost of parking, throughout the City, in a way that increases the convenience of parking for drivers, while it both increases economic fairness for all and decreases single - occupancy vehicle driving. An example of such a system is described here: hllo'IJwww sand6eu_o goylenvironmentat- servicesfodffsustairT :tkzleloarkinrsr�gstpdf. This system was also identified by the local chapter of the Sierra Club in their comments on the DEIR of the LUCE. If found feasible, the first step would be the implementation of a reduced - feature system, as described in a report written by the principal author of the report, perhaps at the parking facility for City employees. The working group would include city - employee union representation, as well as representation from the Sierra Club, City staff, downtown businesses, and neighborhoods. 1.0.113.0.1 Curb Parking The City shall manage curb_parking to encourage short-term use by those visiting businesses and public facilities. 1.0.113.0.2 City Parking Programs City parking programs shall be financially self - support ing aner 2 13 -A- 13309 -AWMA LUCE Chapter 2, Circulation, Sections 13 & 14 Parking Management Regarding, " described in a re ort written by the adocigal author of the report Refers to this report: Equitable and Environmentally -Sound Car - Parking Policy at a Work Site Introduction This paper describes a parking policy that distributes the benefit of parking to all employees, regardless of how often they choose to drive. It does this by charging a fair price for the parking, per unit of time parked and by giving the earnings to all employees, in proportion to the time they spend at the work site served by the parking. Reference 1 describes a more comprehensive policy that will efficiently and conveniently unbundle the cost of parking in all circumstances. It is available at the following URL: hffi)://www.sandiego.gov/environmental- services /odf /sustainable /parki ngcosts. odf. The system described herein is less complex because it does not include congestion pricing, price predictions, or policies that are unique to on- street parking. These features can be eliminated, because it is assumed that there will be an adequate supply of parking, so no congestion pricing is needed; that the price can be relatively stable, so no price predictions are needed; and finally, that employees can be successfully required to park only in their parking, so there is no need for new, on- street parking policies, designed to protect adjoining neighborhoods from the intrusion of additional parked cars. If the adjoining neighborhoods had permit parking with a 2 -hour limit for cars with no permit, very few employees would ever park there in any case. Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 32 10/6/2014 `11 LUCE Chapter 2, Circulation, Sections 13 & 14 Parking Management Equitable and Environmentally -Sound Car - Parking Policy at a School or Office David R. Carta, Ph.D., CEO TELAERIS Inc. Innovative Solutions and Rapid Development 9123 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123 +1.858.627.9708: Office +1.858.627.9702: Fax +1.858.4493454: Mobile e- mail: skype: davidcarta I reviewed your Intelligent Parking proposal and presentation in their entirety. The identificationofvehicles which you suggest for student parking using commercially available R FID technologies is a fairly straightforward process. There are numerous, inexpensive passive (no battery required) RFID tags which havebeen specifically designed for use on cars and trucks. These tags are installed directly on license p lates or windshields, can be read from up to 30 meters away, and can be read as cars driveup to 60 mph. Additionally, automatic license recognition systems, used in conjunction with RFID, can provide a high level of enforcement making it difficu It to cheat the system, similar to the Fast Track system which allows tolls to be automatically collected. This is not too tough - we probably would integrate with a service that already sends physical mail from a electronic submission instead of re- inventing this wheel. Definitions and Methods, 6 of 7 • Pricing predictions — For any set of dates, start times, durations, and destinations — Availability of predictions • Broadcast into navigational units (GPS) • Website or phone • Pay stations • Help to find desired parking — Driver gives times and locations and stipulates . . • Max price, to get space at minimum walk distance • Max walk distance, to get space at minimum price — Voice - activated navigational system for ease and safety Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA .'i 10/6/2014 17 Definitions and Methods, 7 of 7 • Monthly statements — All parking charges and earnings — Customer selects presentation detail • Less detail for ease and more privacy • More detail to know and adjust parking decisions — Packaged with other statements • All utilities, transit use, road use Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA Implementation Plan • Reduced- feature, demonstration project — No congestion pricing and no predictions — Automated car detection —Automated monthly statements — Success allows next steps • Write a requirements document to support a request for proposal (RFP) • Winning proposal leads to design Paper 2013 -A- 13309 -AWMA 10/6/2014 im rJ CAPCO CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures August, 2010 C qo.Ly + UT24 rundmg .. n Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures August, 2010 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association with Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management National Association of Clean Air Agencies Environ Fehr & Peers Acknowledgements This Report benefited from the hard work and creative insights of many people. appreciates the efforts of all who contributed their time and energy to the project Association thanks the following individuals: Larry Allen, SLOAPCD Aeron Arlin - Genet, SLOAPCD Dan Barber, SJVAPCD Jeane Berry, SMAQMD Elaine Chang, SCAQMD Yusho Chang, PCAQMD Joseph Hurley, SMAQMD Aaron Katzenstein SCAQMD Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD (Chair) Paul Miller, NESCAUM Principal Author Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD Project Coordination Jill Whynot, SCAQMD Project Oversight Panel CAPCOA In particular, the Ian Peterson, BAAQMD Tim Taylor, SMAQMD Tom Thompson, PCAQMD David Vintze, BAAQMD Barry Wallerstein, SCAQMD David Warner, SJVAPCD Jill Whynot, SCAQMD (Vice Chair) Abby Young, BAAQMD Mel Zeldin, CAPCOA Yifang Zhu, SCAQMD External Reviewers Martha Brook, CEC Pete Parkinson, County of Sonoma Bill Loudon, DKS Associates Editing, Proofing & Layout Fernando Berton, CAPCOA Arlene Farol, SCAQMD Jessica DePrimo, NSCAPCD Technical Analysis & Discussion of Methods Shari Libicki, Environ Jerry Walters, Fehr & Peers David Kim, Environ Meghan Mitman, Fehr & Peers Jennifer Schulte, Environ Tien -Tien Chan, Fehr & Peers Disclaimer The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared this report on quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from select mitigation strategies to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local governments. This paper is intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which a city or county chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context ofprojects it reviews, or in the preparation of its General Plan. This paper has been prepared at a time when California law and regulation, as well as accepted practice regarding how climate change should be addressed in government programs, is undergoing change. There is pending litigation that may have bearing on these decisions, as well as active legislation at the federal level. In the face of this uncertainty, local governments are working to understand the new expectations, and how best to meet them. This paper is provided as a resource to local policy and decision makers to enable them to make the best decisions they can during this period of uncertainty. Finally, in order to provide context for the quantification methodologies it describes, this report reviews requirements, discusses policy options, and highlights methods, tools, and resources available; these reviews and discussions are not intended to provide legal advice and should not be construed as such. Questions of legal interpretation, or requests for legal advice, should be directed to the jurisdiction's counsel. Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary_. ................................ ___ ....................................................... ... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ........... ............................... .............. 3 Background........................................................................... ............................... 3 Intentand Audience .............................................................. ............................... 4 Usingthe Document .............................................................. ............................... 4 Chapter 2: The Purpose of Quantifying Mitigation Measures ... ............................... 7 QuantificationFramework ..................................................... ............................... 7 Quantifying Measures for Different Purposes ........................ ............................... 8 Voluntary Reductions ............................................................ ............................... 8 Reductions to Mitigate Current or Future Impacts ................. ............................... 9 Reductions for Regulatory Compliance ..................................... ............................... 17 Reductions for Credit ................................................... ............................... _......... 20 Chapter 3: Quantification Concepts ................................................ ............................... 25 Baseline.................................................................................... ............................... 25 Business -as -Usual Scenario ..................................................... ............................... 26 Mitigation Measure Types ......................................................... ............................... 27 Mitigation Measure or Project Scope ........................................ ............................... 29 LifecycleAnalysis ................................................... ............................... .. 29 Accuracyand Reliability ............................................................ ............................... 31 Additionality............................................................................... ............................... 32 Verification................................................................................ ............................... 32 Chapter 4: Quantification Approaches & Methods ........................ ............................... 33 General Emission Quantification Approach ............................... ............................... 33 Quantification of Baseline Emissions ........................................ ............................... 35 Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ............................... 35 Quantification Methods .................................................... ............................... 37 Limitations to Quantification of Emission Reductions for Mitigation Measures ......... 38 Chapter 5: Discussion of Select Quantified Measures .................. ............................... 43 BuildingEnergy Use ................................................................. ............................... 43 OutdoorWater Use .......................................................................... .............................44 IndoorWater Use ...................................................................... ............................... 45 MunicipalSolid Waste ............................................................... ............................... 45 Public Area and Traffic Signal Lighting. .................................................................... 46 Vegetation (including Trees) ........... ............................... Construction Equipment ............................................................ ............................... 47 Transportation........................................................................... ............................... 47 On -site Energy Generation ....................................................... ............................... 48 Miscellaneous........................................................................... ............................... 48 Chapter 6: Understanding and Using the Fact Sheets .................. ............................... 51 Mitigation Strategies and Fact Sheets ....................................... ............................... 51 Groupingof Strategies ........... ............................... ............... ............................... 56 Rules for Combining Strategies or Measures ............................ ............................... 56 Range of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 63 Applicability of Quantification Fact Sheets Outside of California .............................. 75 How to Use a Fact Sheet to Quantify a Project ......................... ............................... 76 Chapter 7: Quantification Fact Sheets for Individual Measures ... ............................... 81 Introduction............................................................................... ............................... Index of Fact Sheets and Cross References (Table 7 -1) .......... ............................... 82 Measures Energy.................................................................................... ............................... 85 Transportation.............................................................................. ............................... 155 Water........................................................................................... ............................... 332 LandscapingEquipment ............................................................... ............................... 384 SolidWaste .................................................................................. ............................... 392 Vegetation.................................................................................... ............................... 402 Construction................................................................................. ............................... 410 Miscellaneous.............................................................................. ............................... 433 GeneralPlans .............................................................................. ............................... 444 Appendices A. Glossary of Terms B. Calculation Methods for Unmitigated Emissions C. Transportation Methods D. Building Quantification Methods E. Select Data Tables Executive Summary Quantifying �CAPCQA Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Executive Summary This report on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas • Mitigation Measures was prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and with technical support from Environ and Fehr & Peers. It is primarily focused on the quantification of project -level mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use, transportation, energy use, and other related project areas. The mitigation measures quantified in the Report generally correspond to measures previously discussed in CAPCOA's earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. The Report does not provide policy guidance or advocate any policy position related to greenhouse gas emission reduction. The Report provides a discussion of background information on programs and other circumstances in which quantification of greenhouse gas emissions is important. This includes voluntary emission reduction efforts, project -level emission reduction efforts, reductions for regulatory compliance, and reductions for some form of credit. The information provided covers basic terms and concepts and again, does not endorse or provide guidance on any policy position. Certain key concepts for quantification are covered in greater depth. These include baseline, business -as- usual, types of emission reductions, project scope, lifecycle analysis, accuracy and reliability, additionality, and verification. In order to provide transparency and to enhance the understanding of underlying strengths and weaknesses, the Report includes a detailed explanation of the approaches and methods used in developing the quantification of the mitigation measures. There is a summary of baseline methods (which are discussed in greater detail in Appendix B) as well as a discussion of methods for the measures. This includes the selection process for the measures, the development of the quantification approaches, and limitations in the data used to derive the quantification. The mitigation measures were broken into categories, and an overview is provided for each category. The overview discusses specific considerations in quantifying emissions for measures in the category, as well as project- specific data the user will need to provide. Where appropriate and where data are readily available, the user is directed to relevant data sources. In addition, some tables and other information are included in the appendices. The mitigation measures are presented in Fact Sheets. An overview of the Fact Sheets is provided which outlines their organization and describes the layout of information. The Report also includes a step -by -step guide to using a Fact Sheet to quantify a project, and discusses the use of Fact Sheets outside of California. The Report also discusses the grouping of the measures, and outlines procedures and limitations for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures CAPCOA quantifying projects where measures are combined either within or across categories. These limitations are critical to ensure that emission reductions are appropriately quantified and are not double counted. As a general guide, approximate ranges of effectiveness are provided for each of the measures, and this is presented in tables at the end of Chapter 6. These ranges are for reference only and should not be used in lieu of the actual Fact Sheets; they do not provide accurate quantification on a project - specific basis. The Fact Sheets themselves are presented in Chapter 7, which includes an index of the Fact Sheets and cross references each measure to measures described in CAPCOA's earlier reports: CEQA and Climate Change; and Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans. Each Fact Sheet includes a description of the measure, assumptions and limitations in the quantification, a baseline methodology, and the quantification of the measure itself. There is also a sample project calculation, and a discussion of the data and studies used in the development of the quantification. In the Appendices, there is a glossary of terms. The baseline methodology is fully explained, and there is additional supporting information for the transportation methods and the non - transportation methods. Finally, the Report includes select reference tables that the user may consult for select project- specific factors that are called for in some of the Fact Sheets. 4 Quantifying 7.__ Equitable and Environmentally -Sound Car - Parking Policy at a Work Site By Mike Bullock mike bullockCD_earthlink.net Oct. 4, 2014 Intrnrim-finn This paper describes a parking policy that distributes the benefit of parking to all employees, regardless of how often they choose to drive. It does this by • Charging a fair price for the parking, per unit of time parked and by • Giving the earnings to all employees, in proportion to the time they spend at the work site served by the parking. Reference 1 describes a more comprehensive policy that will efficiently and conveniently unbundle the cost of parking in all circumstances. It is available at the following URL: htt i www.santiie o. ov environmental- services df sustainable arkin costs. df. The system described herein is less complex because it does not include congestion pricing, price predictions, or policies that are unique to on- street parking. These features can be eliminated, because it is assumed that there will be an adequate supply of parking, so no congestion pricing is needed; that the price can be relatively stable, so no price predictions are needed; and finally, that employees can be successfully required to park only in their parking, so there is no need for new, on- street parking policies, designed to protect adjoining neighborhoods from the intrusion of additional parked cars. If the adjoining neighborhoods had permit parking with a 2 -hour limit for cars with no permit, very few employees would ever park there in any case. Ratinnale This system of "unbundled parking cost" will allow all stakeholders to see the actual value of the parking. It will reduce single- occupancy driving to work. Less driving will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Parking is expensive to provide. Therefore, if no parking had been provided, the saved money could have been invested to increase employee salaries. The method described in this paper allows employees to gain some of that lost salary back, by driving less. Providing free or underpriced parking only benefits employees that would drive every day, even if they had a method to recover some of their lost salary. October 4, 2014 Page 1 Methods The parking is operated on the behalf of the employees, as if it were their own business. Those that drive are therefore their own customers. Charge for parking is proportional to time parked and is charged to the employee associated with the car. (A charge rate that is acceptable to all must be established.) For example, if sixty cents per hour is selected, the charging software could round off the parking duration time to the nearest minute and apply a one - cent -per- minute charge. The data - collection method could be implemented with RFID's on cars being detected at parking -lot entrances and exits. Unauthorized cars coming onto the campus would be identified with license -plate detection and, if a car belonging to a felon is driven into the parking lot, a warning notice could be sent to authorities, if this is desired by the company leaders. Earnings (net revenue, minus the cost of collection and distribution) are given to the employees; in proportion to the time they spend at the work site. This could be based on an employee's schedule or, for more accuracy, could be based on "time -at- the - work - site" data, collected using personal radio frequency identification units (RFIDs) and detectors that are tied to a central, implementing computer. The variables used to compute the amount of money to be paid to an employee are shown in Table 1. The corresponding formula is shown in Figure 1. Parking statements are automatically sent out monthly, showing the individual's charges and earnings. Table 1 Variables Used to Compute an Employee's Monthly Earnings Definitions to Compute an Employee's Monthly Earnings TEmployee The Employee's Monthly Time at the Work Site TAIIEmployees Total Monthly Time at the Work Site, All Employees EAIIEmployees Total Monthly Earnings from the Employee Parking Figure 1 Formula Used to Compute an Employee's Monthly Earnings EEmployee — Employee AIIEmployees I AIIEmployees October 4, 2014 Page 2 Implementation Since this is a new system, it would be prudent for the company leaders to have the vendor take the full responsibility for operating the system, for the first 10 years. This arrangement would ensure that the vendor would debug the system and continue to look for operational efficiencies, over the 10 year period. A sliding scale of vendor - compensation could be specified in the contract, as follows: The vendor could operate the system for 10% of the revenue, for the first 5 years; 5% of the revenue, for the next 3 years; and 2% of the revenue, for the final 2 years. For example, if it is assumed that, on average, 600 cars are parked for 8 hours, for 200 days per year, at a rate of 50 cents per hour, then the yearly revenue would be $480,000 per year. The vendor would therefore collect $240,000 over the first 5 years, $72,000 over the next 3 years, and $28,800 over the last two years. Figure 2 shows contact information and excerpts of received emails, from a San Diego vendor. This particular vendor has stated that both the design and the installation of a fully- automated system would be easy to perform. Introducing a New Price Differential, for Driving, Compared to Not Driving Table 2 shows that introducing a price differential into the choice of how often to drive will decrease the amount of driving. Other Benefits Depending on the work site's location and the size of its access roads, there could be a substantial decrease in local congestion, improving the health of all employees and those living near the congestion. This parking policy will show neighbors that the company is working to be a good citizen. This program will encourage active transportation, meaning modes that provide exercise for the employees. It will also teach the employees the value of parking. It is recommended that the method of determining the selected rate of charge be shared with both the employees and the community at large. This program can be thought of as a demonstration project of a new approach to parking. Green House Gas Impacts S -3 -05 is a California Governor's Executive Order to drop Year 2020 levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the level of 1990 emissions and to drop our Year 2050 level of GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. If the world achieves similar reductions, the earth's level of atmospheric CO2 will be capped at 450 parts per million (PPM). Figures 3, 4, and 5 show how large 450 PPM is, compared to values over the last 800 thousand years. Reference 2 shows that the goal of S -3 -05 is to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 PPM and it also shows that even if this cap is achieved, the risk of a human catastrophe caused by global October 4, 2014 Page 3 warming is significant. Reference 3's Figure 1 shows that a significant reduction in driving is critically needed. Figure 2 One Set of Identified - Vendor Information David R. Carta, Ph.D., CEO TELAERIS Inc. Innovative Solutions and Rapid Development 9123 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123 +1.858.627.9708: Office i +1.858.627.9702: Fax +1.858.449.3454: Mobile e- mail: Uvi€lmei'� E'ta:rr l c�la.�ris, ��,a skype: davidcarta ~ Conclusion I reviewed your Intelligent Parking proposal and presentation in their entirety. The identification ofvehicles which you suggest for student parking using commercially available RFID technologies is afairly straightforward process. There are numerous, inexpensive passive (no battery required) RFID tags which have been specifically designed for use on cars and trucks. These tags are installed directly on license plates or windshields, can be read from up to 30 meters away, and can be read as cars drive up to 60 mph. Additionally, automatic license recognition systems, used in conjunction with RFID, can provide a high level of enforcement making it difficult to cheat the system, similar to the Fast Track system which allows tolls to be automatically collected. This is not too tough - we probably would integrate with a service that already sends physical mail from a electronic submission instead of re- inventing this wheel. Adopting this program would benefit the employer, the employees, and the community, in many ways. They will all gain an added understanding of economics, technology, and the power of the free - market principle that sometimes it is better to have people pay for what they use and not force people to lose money for something they don't use. All the members of the work -place community could take pride in being part of this pioneering effort to reduce driving and the associated greenhouse gases. It would be a demonstration of the fundamental features of Reference 1. It would set an example for other employers. October 4, 2014 Page 4 Table 2 Eleven Cases of Pricing Impact on the Amount of Driving Figure 3 Atmospheric CO2, Increasing Over Recent Decades Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide _ Measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii - _z - - - - - -_ ------ .- - - -; a -- _ _. - - - - - - - - _ I I i I 1 I 1 I I I I ----- ____ -� - - - - - - _ Annual Cycle I I 1 I I 1 1 I ' Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Lk.1% 380 Q Q 370 0 m 360 C a) 350 c O U 340 X 330 C O 320 U 310 2010 October 4, 2014 Page 5 Impact of Financial Incentives on Parking Demand Location 1995 dollars Scope per mo. Parking U Decreas a Group A: Areas with little or no p ublic transportation Century City District, West Los Angeles 3500 employees at 100+ firms $81 15% Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 9000 faculty & staff $34 26% San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles 1 employer, 850 employees $37 30% Costa Mesa, CA $37 22% Average for Group $47 23% Group B: Areas with fair public trans ortation Los Angeles Civic Center 10000+ employees, several firms $125 36% Mid - Wilshire Blvd., Los Angleles 1 mid -size firm $89 38% Washington DC Suburbs 5500 employees at 3 worksites $68 26% Downtown Los Angeles 5000 employees, 118 firms $126 25% Average for Group 1 1 $102 31% Grou p C: Areas with good public transportation University of Washington, Seattle Wa. 1 50,000 faculty, staff & students $18 24% Downtown Ottowa, Canada 3500+ government staff $72 18% Average for Group, but not Bellevue Washington $45 21% Over All Average, Excluding Bellevue Washington 25% 1Parking vacancy would be higher! 2Not used, since transit & walk/bike facilities also improved. Figure 3 Atmospheric CO2, Increasing Over Recent Decades Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide _ Measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii - _z - - - - - -_ ------ .- - - -; a -- _ _. - - - - - - - - _ I I i I 1 I 1 I I I I ----- ____ -� - - - - - - _ Annual Cycle I I 1 I I 1 1 I ' Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Lk.1% 380 Q Q 370 0 m 360 C a) 350 c O U 340 X 330 C O 320 U 310 2010 October 4, 2014 Page 5 Figure 4 Atmospheric CO2 and Mean Temperature, 800,000 Years Ago, with 450 PPM CO2 Shown Temperature and CO2 Record 15 Temperature (EPICA Dame C) CO, (Vostok) _. co, (EPICA Dame c) Current Level of CO2 is 390 PPM 10 CO, «PICA Dome C) V CO (EPICA Dame C) - a - M E s 0 c t1J S._ v 0 a_ E Q F� -5 -101 800 700 Figure 5 S- 3 -05's goal is to cap CO2 at 450 PPM 600 50o 400 300 200 100 O Thousands of Years Ago Atmospheric CO2 and Mean Temperature, Over the Last 1,000 Years - Temperature in degrees oenttgrada (compared vitn 1W. baseline) - Atmospttenc cartion dioxido (CO2 in parts per mrl"an) S- 3 -05's Goal is to cap CO2 at 450 FPM, c which is off this chart. Current level = 390 PPM L £ { ua 0 # n �x rep �..a 04 fr p arm Wll AY[b U4 i00 1G4? 9 Y.4- 110— PF.""a October 4, 2014 400 350 )` CL CL 0 3004-.) V �L aj C_ rn 250 0 Q .6 Page 6 References 1.) A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs, Paper 2010 -A- 554-AWMA of the proceedings of the 103rd Conference and Exhibition of the Air And Waste Management Association; Mike R. Bullock and Jim R. Stewart, PhD; presented on June 22 "d, 2010. http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental- services/pdf/sust_ainable/parkingcosts.pdf. 2.) Letter from Center for Biological Diversity, to Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; Comments on CAPCOA's Conceptual Approaches Regarding Potential Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions; April 17, 2008. http: / /www.agmd.g_ov /docs /default- source /cega /handbook /henhouse -; aq ses- (ghg)- cega - significance- thresholds /yeas- 2008 - 2009 /ghg- meeting -1 /ghg-meeting-1 -comment- letter-center-for-biological-diversity.pd f 3.) Communities Tackle Global Warming, Tom Adams (California League of Conservation Voters), Amanda Eaken, and Ann Notthoff ( Eaken and Notthoff are employees of the Natural Resources Defense Council); June 2009. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/files/sb375.pdf October 4, 2014 Page 7 The Development of California Light -Duty Vehicle (LDV) Requirements. to Support Climate Stabilization: Fleet - Emission Rates & Per - Capita Driving Paper #30793 Mike R. Bullock Retired Satellite Engineer (36 years), 1800 Bayberry Drive, Oceanside, CA 92054 ABSTRACT An Introduction to the topic is provided, including the importance of cars and light duty trucks (Light Duty Vehicles, LDVs), and an identification of the top -level LDV requirements. The fundamentals of our climate crisis are presented, including its cause, its potential for harm, and existing mandates: California's Executive Order 5 -3 -05, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), and California's Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). An earlier calculation of a driving reduction target is described. Reference year 2005 is identified. The latest climate - stabilizing greenhouse -gas (GHG) reduction target value, for 2030, is calculated, using unambiguous statements by recognized climate experts and California's expected 2020 emissions. The formula for GHG emissions, as a function of per- capita driving, population, fleet CO2 emissions per mile, and low- carbon fuel standards is given. From that expression, a mathematical relationship between defined factors associated with these variables is derived. These factors are the ratio of the value at the specified later year to the reference year. The factor of car - emission - per -mile driven, for year 2015, with respect to year 2005, is obtained. Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) mileage values from 2000 to 2030 are identified, as either mandates or assumptions. A table is presented that estimates LDV fleet mileage, for year 2015. Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) values to support a calculation of equivalent -fleet mileage with a significant fraction of ZEVs (ZEV LDVs) are given. A table is shown that uses assumptions about ZEVs, ICEs (ICE LDVs), and the fraction of electricity that comes from renewables, to compute the LDV fleet equivalent mileage, for year 2030. This set of assumptions is dubbed the "Heroic - Measures" (HM) case. It includes having the fraction of ZEVs quickly climb up to significant values, while the ICEs, for the years before significant fractions of ZEVs appear, are, to a significant degree, taken off the road or otherwise caused to be driven less, due to assumed strong governmental policies. The equivalent fleet mileage computed by this table is used, with population and the needed factor of emission reductions, to compute a needed per- capita driving reduction, for 2030, with respect to 2005. Policies to achieve this per- capita reduction are described, with reductions allocated to each policy. The fleet - equivalent mileage for 2030 that would support a 2005 per- capita driving level is computed. A table is constructed to achieve that equivalent mileage. The assumptions in that table are said to define an "extra- heroic - measures" (EHM) case. They would probably be very difficult to achieve. The electricity required to power the HM case is estimated and compared to current usage. INTRODUCTION Humanity's top -level requirement is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions enough to support stabilizing our climate at a livable level. This top -level requirement must flow down to LDVs, due to the significance of their emissions. As an example, LDVs emit 41% of the GHG in San Diego Countyl. From a systems engineering perspective, the needed requirements are an upper bound on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per mile driven (applicable to the entire fleet of LDVs on the road in the year of interest) and an upper bound on per- capita driving, given population growth. This paper will do a calculation of required driving levels, based on calculations of how clean our cars and fuels could be, predicted population growth, and the latest, science - based, climate - stabilizing target. All three categories of LDV emission - reduction strategies will be considered: cleaner cars, cleaner fuels, and less driving. BACKGROUND: OUR CLIMATE PREDICAMENT Basic Cause Our climate crisis exists primarily because of these two facts 2: First, our combustion of fossil fuels adds "great quantities" of CO2 into our atmosphere. Second, atmospheric CO2 traps heat. California's First Two Climate Mandates California's Governor's Executive Order S -3 -053 is similar to the Kyoto Agreement and is based on the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions recommended by climate scientists for industrialized nations, back in 2005. In 2005, climate scientists believed that the reduction - targets of S -3 -05 would be sufficient to support stabilizing Earth's climate at a livable level, with a reasonably high level of certainty. More specifically, this executive order aims for an average, over - the -year, atmospheric temperature rise of "only" 2 degree Celsius, above the preindustrial temperature. It attempts to do this by limiting atmospheric CO2_e to 450 PPM by 2050 and then reducing emissions further, so that atmospheric levels would come down to more tolerable levels in subsequent years. The S -3 -05 emission targets are as follows: 2000 emission levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It was thought that if the world achieved S -3 -05, there might be a 50% chance that the maximum temperature rise will be less than 2 degrees Celsius, thus leaving a 50% chance that it would be larger than 2 degrees Celsius. A 2 degree increase would put over a billion people on the planet into a position described as "water stress" and it would mean a loss of 97% of our coral reefs. There would also be a 30% chance that the temperature increase would be greater than 3 degrees Celsius. A temperature change of 3 degree Celsius is described in Reference 3 as being "exponentially worse" than a 2 degree Celsius increase. The second California climate mandate is AB 32, the so- called Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. It includes provisions for a cap and trade program, to ensure meeting S- 3 -05's 2020 target 2 of the 1990 level of emissions. It continues after 2020. Over all years, AB 32 requires CARB to implement measures that achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost - effective (words taken from AB 32) greenhouse -gas- emission reductions. California is on track to achieve its second (2020) target. However, the world emission levels have, for most years, been increasing, contrary to the S -3 -05 trajectory. Because the world has effectively failed to achieve S -3 -05, California, if it still is interested in leading the way to human survival, must do far better than S -3 -05, going forward, as will be shown. Failing to Achieve these Climate Mandates What if we fail to achieve S -3 -05 and AB 32 or we achieve them but they turn out to be too little too late and other states and countries follow our example? It has been written R4 that, "A recent string of reports from impeccable mainstream institutions - the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers -have warned that the Earth is on a trajectory to warm by at least 4 Degrees Celsius and that this would be incompatible with continued human survival." It has also been written R5 that, "Lags in the replacement of fossil -fuel use by clean energy use have put the world on a pace for 6 degree Celsius by the end of this century. Such a large temperature rise occurred 250 million years ago and extinguished 90 percent of the life on Earth. The current rise is of the same magnitude but is occurring faster." Pictures That Are Worth a Thousand Words Figure 1 shows (1) atmospheric CO2 (in blue) and (2) averaged- over -a -year- then - averaged- over -the surface -of -the -earth world atmospheric temperature (in red). This temperature is with respect to a recent preindustrial value. The data starts 800,000 years ago. It shows that the current value of atmospheric CO2, which is now over 400 PPM, far exceeds the values of the last 800,000 years. It also shows that we should expect the corresponding temperature to eventually be about 12 or 13 degrees above preindustrial temperatures. This would bring about a human disaster3,4,5 Figure 2 shows the average yearly temperature with respect to the 1960 -to -1990 baseline temperature (in blue). It also shows atmospheric levels of CO2 (in red). The S -3 -05 goal of 450 PPM is literally "off the chart", in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that, as expected, temperatures are starting to rise along with the increasing levels of CO2. The large variations in temperature are primarily due to the random nature of the amount of solar energy being received by the earth. FURTHER BACKGROUND: CALIFORNIA'S SB 375 AND A PREVIOUS CALCULATION OF HOW MUCH WE CAN DRIVE As shown in the Introduction, LDVs emit significant amounts of CO2. The question arises: will driving need to be reduced or can cleaner cars and cleaner fuels arrive in time to avoid such behavioral change? Steve Winkelman, of the Center for Clean Air Policy (CLAP), has worked on this problem. Using CCAP data, an S -3 -05- supporting driving reduction, for San Diego County, will be estimated. 3 SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) has given each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in California driving- reduction targets, for the years 2020 and Figure 1. Atmospheric CO2 and Mean Temperature from 800,000 Years Ago W A E 0 C__ M ry N E tom' tie. it PICA UP Q t_r co, (Vostok) __... _..._CO3 (EPICA 0.r . C1 LO C©, {EPI CA Dome C) CO, (EPICA D. o C) ®E O CO2 currently over 400 I n n -- A n n S n n don Ta nn I on 7 Thousands of Years Ago 400 350 Q O 300(---y v 250 Q .•. Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 and Mean Temperature, Over the Last 1,000 Years Temperature in degrees cenFipnade (compared with 11MG -19W baseline --- ./Atmospheric carbon diaxi (G02 in parts per rntll,an) S- 3 -05's Goal is to cap CO2 at 450 PPM f:ilrrant IPval > 4nn PPM cQa - " 1 00 0? n 4 yr ' f +C^ • +'10 _ W 5&0 4110 °"f-,Z, 2CW0 100 .. Yens Before Presep! 2035. "Driving" means yearly, per capita, vehicle miles travelled (VMT), by LDVs, with respect to 2005. The CARE- provided values are shown at this Wikipedia link, http://en.wikii)edia.org/wiki/SB 3 75. 4 Under SB 375, every Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) must include a section called a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The SCS must include driving reduction predictions corresponding to the CARB targets. Each SCS must include only feasible transportation, land use, and transportation- related policy data. If the SCS driving- reduction predictions fail to meet the CARB- provided targets, the MPO must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which must also appear in the MPO's RTP. An APS uses infeasible transportation, land use, and transportation - related policy assumptions. The total reductions, resulting from both the SCS and the APS, must at least meet the CARB - provided targets. Factors Used to Compute the Required Driving Reduction The definitions in Tables 1 and the two conventions in Table 2 will be used to compute the needed driving reductions, with respect to year 2005, from known and estimated variables and the S -3 -05 GHG reductions that were thought to support climate stabilization, back in 2005. By SB 375 convention, Year "i ", the reference year, is 2005. The fractional reduction in per- capita personal driving, with respect to 2005 driving, needed to achieve any desired level of GHG emission, can be computed using predicted population growth and two of the variables shown in Figure 36. The two needed values are the factor with respect to year 2005 of CO2 emitted per mile driven (the green line, sometimes referred to as "Pavley ", since AB 1493 was authored by Senator Fran Pavley) and the factor with respect to year 2005 of the advantage from achieving the low carbon fuel standards (LCFS, the purple line). The variables plotted in Figure 3 are the factors which can be used to multiply the 2005 values to get the values for the years shown. For example, in 2030, the CO2 emitted from the cars and light -duty trucks in California (the dark blue line), can be computed to be 1.12 times as large as it was in 2005. It can also be said that the value will be 12% larger than it was in 2005. Likewise, the green line, which is the average CO2 emitted per mile driven, for California's fleet of LDVs, is predicted, in 2030, to be .73 times the 2005 value. This means the value is predicted to be reduced 27 %, below its 2005 value. Figure 3 also shows that the 1990 value of emissions (on the light blue line) was about 13% less than it was in 2005. The S -3 -05 trajectory is shown as the gold (or dark yellow) line. It is the factors that can be used to convert 2005 values of emissions to values for the years shown. For example in 2030, emissions will need to be 37% lower than they were in 2005, to meet the S -3 -05 mandate. The SB 375 convention is for CARB to require and for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to estimate and report their predicted per- capita driving reductions. To compute the per - capita driving reduction, the equation for computing the emissions is used. That equation is the product of the following four factors: • the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, "L" (which reduces the CO2 emitted from each gallon of fuel burned), • the fleet- average CO2 per mile driven (using the CO2 per gallon burned without accounting for "L "), Table 1. Variable Definitions _.. _ ........ -- - Variable Definitions �. _ ....... ___ ek LDV Emitted CO2, in Year "k" Lk Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Factor that reduces the Per - Gallon CO2 emissions, in Year "k" Ck LDV CO2 emitted per mile driven, average, in Year "k ", not accounting for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Factor Ck LDV CO2 emitted per mile driven, average, in Year "k ", accounting for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Factor _ Pk Population, in Year "k" k .................. Per - capita LDV driving, in Year "k" Dk LDV Driving, in Year " k' Mk LDV Mileage, miles per gallon, in Year "k" Mk LDV Equivalent Mileage, miles per gallon, in Year "k" accounting for Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Factor, so this is Mk/Lk N Number of pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel but not accounting for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Factor Table 2. Two Conventions Two Conventions: Variable in a Given Year and Factors to Compute a Variable's Value in Year "k" from it's Value in Year "i" Xi Variable "X" in year "P' Ratio of the value of "X" in year "k" to the value of "X" in Year Ilp', which f xkli could also be expressed as xk /xi. Note that this is the factor that could be used to multiply the value in Year 'Y' to get the value in Year "k ". • the per- capita driving, and • the population. (The per- capita driving multiplied by population gives the miles driven.) e = L *C* d *p For Year "V, this is the following: (Eq. 1) ek = Lk * Ck * dk * Pk (Eq. 2) For Year "i ", this is the following: ei = Li * Ci * di * Pi (Eq. 3) Since the two sides of Equation 3 are equal, an equation can be formed by dividing the left side of Equation 2 by the left side of equation 3 and the right side of Equation 2 by the right side of Equation 3. Associating the terms on the right side of this new equation gives Equation 4 z ek Lk * Ck * dk * Pk (Eq. 4) ei Li Ci di pi The convention of the 2 °a row of Table 2 can be used to create Equation 5 from Equation 4. f ekli — f Lk1i X f Ck /i X / dk /i X f Pk1i (Eq. 5) The first factor (from left to right) of the right side of Equation 5 is the purple line of Figure 3; the second factor of Equation 5 is the green line of Figure 3; and the product of the last two factors of Figure 3 The 5 -3 -05 Trajectory (the Gold Line) AND the CO2 Emitted from Personal Driving (the Blue Line), where that CO2 is a Function (the Product) of the California- Fleet - Average CO2 per Mile (the Green Line), The Predicted Driving (VMT, the Red Line), and the Low - Carbon Fuel Standard (the Purple Line) 170% 160% 140°b - _.. __ ..... ....._._... .,...._..--- ------------------------- 130 °6 -- - - - -.�_- _- ...._ ..... ._._»...» .:. ...... .. ------------------------- 100% - -- ,----------- --- . - - -.- 90 °k »_ 1 �0, 806 ° -_ _- ._ ----...__.._.-_--- ------- 70% 60% GHGTorget 1990 ill 202D, 70 i17V 40% 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Scarce; S. Wn4man, rnrvt tw Bawl on CALTRANG VM1T kvscist, AS 1493 and LCFS �t' Icaei fir I'si�7 the right side of Equation 5 is the red line of Figure 3. Figure 3's, dark - blue -line values are the product of the purple -line values, the green -line values, and the red -line values. For example, in 2030, the dark -blue value of 1.12 can be computed by multiplying the purple -line value of 0.9 times the green -line value of 0.73, times the red -line value of 1.7, times the red -line value of 1.7. As a check, (0.9) *(0.73) *(1.7) = 1. 1169, which is reasonably close to the (eye -ball- estimate) value of the dark -blue line, for year 2030, 1.12. The Required Driving Reduction for San Diego County, for 2035, Using Winkelman's LDV and Fuel Efficiency Values and 5 -3 -05 7 As described in Footnote 3 of this report, the GARB- supplied targets are per- capita driving reduction targets. Page 8, of http: / /arb.ca.mov /cc /sb375 /staffreport sb375080910.pdf, says, "The RTAC recommended that targets be expressed as a percent reduction in per- capita greenhouse gas emissions from a 2005 base year ". However, Footnote 3 applies. The Key Relationship and Derivation of the Needed Formula They key relationship is Equation 5. Solving for the fractional reduction in per- capita driving, with respect to 2005, results in Equation 6. f ekli f dkli — f Lkli X fCkli X fpkl i (Eq. 6) This driving reduction is a per- capita value, matching the convention of the CARB- supplied target. Getting the Values to Use in the Equation Figure 3 will supply all of the needed values, except for the factor of population. Neither Figure 3's red -line values nor its blue -line values are used. Getting the Net Factor of the Emissions of GHG, for Year 2035, With Respect to 2005 To get the factor of the emissions of GHG, for year 2035, with respect to year 2005, it is necessary to extrapolate the Governor's Executive Order target values (the gold line of Figure 3), out to year 2035. Figure 3's gold line shows that this factor is 0.87 in 2020 and is 0.64 in 2030. Therefore, in year 2035, the factor will be 0.64 + [(.64 -.87) / (2030- 2020)] * (2035 -2030) = 0.525 Getting the (Pavley) Factor of the Average CO2 per Mile Driven, in 2035, with Respect to 2005 To get the Pavley reduction factor, for Year 2035, it is necessary to extrapolate the average CO2 per mile driven, which is Figure 3's green line, out to Year 2035. It is 0.82 in 2020 and it is 0.73 in 2030. Therefore, in Year 2035 the statewide mileage factor data will be 0.73 + [(.73 - .82) / (2030- 2020)] * (2035 -2030) = 0.685 Getting the Factor of the Reduction of GHG Due to Fuels that Burn less Carbon To get the factor of the reduction of GHG due to fuels that burn less carbon, it is only necessary to observe the purple line of Figure 3. It indicates that the factor will be 0.9 in 2035. Getting the Factor of the Increase in Population The factor for population in San Diego County is computed using the populations estimated in CARB's http: / /arb.ca.gov /cc/ sb375 /mpo.co2.reduction.calc.pdf, namely 3,034,388 people in 2005 and 3,984,753 people in 2035. So the factor, from 2005 to 2035 is 3,984,753/3,034,388 = 1.313. Computing the Required Per - Capita Driving Reduction, for 2035 These 4 values are used in Eq. 6, to compute the required factor of per- capita driving (VMT), for 2035, with respect to 2006. f dkli _ Therefore, 525 — ( .685 x 0.9 x 1.313 ) f dk1i = fPer Capita VMT = .649. 8 This corresponds to a 35.1% reduction in per- capita driving, in year 2035, compared to 2005. Computing the Net Amount of Driving, in 2035, Compared to 2005 and its Significance The net factor of driving in 2035, compared to 2005, is the product of the per- capita factor of driving (.649, as just computed) and the factor of population change (1.313, as computed above). Factor of net driving in 2035 compared to 2005: f VMT = .649 x 1.313 = 0.8515. Based on this set of assumptions, even though San Diego County's population would grow by 31.3 %, from 2005 to 2035, the people would have to drive 15% less than they did in 2005. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S TOP -LEVEL LDV REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT CLIMATE STABILIZATION The above work is obsolete due to our latest understanding of how fast emissions will need to be reduced. It is also clear that cleaner cars will be needed and can probably be achieved. As will be seen, much cleaner cars will be needed if driving reductions are going to remain within what many people would consider achievable. Mileage and equivalent mileage will need to be specified. Some of the above equations will need to be modified, since a significant fleet - fraction of Zero - Emission Vehicles (ZEVs, either Battery - Electric LDVs or Hydrogen Fuel Cell LDVs) will be needed and mileage and equivalent mileage will be used instead of CO2 per mile driven. Since the SB -375 work used 2005 as the reference year, it will remain the reference year here. GHG Target to Support Climate Stabilization The primary problem with S -3 -05 is that California's resolve and actions have been largely ignored by other states, our federal government, and many countries. Therefore, rather than achieving 2000 levels by 2010 and being on a track to achieve. 1990 levels by 2020, world emission have been increasing. Reference 7 states on Page 14 that the required rate of reduction, if commenced in 2020, would be 15 %. That rate means that the factor of 0.85 must be achieved, year after year. If this were done for 10 years, the factor would be (0.85) o = 0.2. We don't know where world emissions will be in 2020. However, it is fairly safe to assume that California will be emitting at its 1990 level in 2020, in accordance with S -3 -05. This situation shows that the correct target for California is to achieve emissions that are reduced to 80% below California's 1990 value by 2030. Note that if the reductions start sooner, the rate of reduction of emissions can be less than 15% and the 2030 target could be relaxed somewhat. However, it is doubtful that the world will get the reduction rate anywhere near the needed 15% by 2020. Therefore, the target, of 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 is considered to be correct for California. Reference 7 also calls into question the advisability of aiming for a 2 degree Celsius increase, given the possibilities of positive feedbacks that would increase warming. This concern for positive feedbacks is another reason that this paper will work towards identifying LDV requirement sets that will support achieving 80% below 1990 values by 2030. Using the top -row definition in Table 1, and this requirement, results in the following equation. From Figure 3, eZoso = 0.2 (Eq.7) e1990 ei990 ` 0.87 (Eq.8) e2oos E Multiplying the equations together give the following: e2030 = 0.87 x 0.2 =. 174 (Eq. 9) e2005 Using the convention shown in Table 2 gives this equation: f eZ030/2005 = • 174 (Eq. 10) How Miles - Per - Gallon (MPG) Updates the LDV Efficiency Estimates The number of pounds of CO2 per mile driven, defined as "C" in Table 1, is equal to the number of pounds of CO2, per gallon of fuel, divided by the number of miles travelled on that gallon of fuel. However, in different years, this amount can change from the standard value of "N" as defined in the last line of Table 1, because of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Therefore, using the definitions in Table 1, the following equation can be written: NxLk Ck = xL (Eq. 11) Mk For the baseline year "i ", this is the following: Ci = NxLi (Eq. 12) Mi Using Table 1's definition of mileage that accounts for the Low Carbon Fuel Standard gives these equations, since in = M /L: Ck = N (Eq. 13) Mk Ci = N (Eq. 14) mi Using Table 2's second convention and dividing Equation 13 by Equation 14 gives: ek = Ti (Eq. 15) f Ck/i = Ci Mk This shows that to get the factor to convert CO2- emission - per -mile from the baseline value to a future -time value, the new value is divided by the baseline value. However, if the mileage values are used, the baseline value must be divided by the newer value. It is also useful to use an intermediate year to get the factor from the baseline year to the year of interest. This can be done by using Equation 13 for different years to result in Equation 14 and Equation 15, where 'J" denotes the intermediate year. f Cj/i = mi Mi (Eq. 14) Mi _ mi f Ck/i Mk (Eq. 15) Multiplying these equations together results in Equation 16. mi 77Lj mi f Cl/i X f Ck /1 mJ x Mk = Mk (Eq. 16) 10 Recognizing the right side of Equation 16 shows that these factors can be strung together, as shown by Equation 17, which is a direct result of Equation 16. 1 Ckli — f Cj/i X f Ck /j (Eq. 17) Since the low carbon fuel standard has been incorporated into the carbon emission per mile parameter, "c ", the following equations result, using the definitions of Table 1. For Year "k", this is the following: ek — Ck * dk * Pk (Eq. 18) For Year "i ", this is the following: ei = ci * di * pi (Eq. 19) Since the two sides of Equation 19 are equal, an equation can be formed by dividing the left side of Equation 18 by the left side of equation 19 and the right side of Equation 18 by the right side of Equation 19. Associating the terms on the right side of this new equation gives Equation 4 ek Ck * dk * Pk (Eq. 20) ei Ci di Pi The convention of the 2nd row of Table 2 can be used to create Equation 5 from Equation 4. f ekli — f Ck/i X f dk/i X f Pk/i (Eq. 21) This can be expanded by using Equation 17 to give the following. f ekli f Cj/i X f Ck /j X f dk1i X f Pk/i (Eq. 22) For the purposes here, the intermediate year "j" is 2015 and, recalling that "c" takes into account the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Figure 3 shows that the following is true, where 0.9 is taken (eyeballed) from the green line at 2015 and the .93 is taken (eyeballed) from the purple line. f cjli = 0.9 x 0.93 = 0.837 (Eq. 23) Using Equation 22, to solve for the per- capita driving- reduction factor, results in Equation 24. fdk1i fekli (Eq. 24) fcj /ixfck /jxfPkli Reference 8 shows that California's population in 2005 was 35,985,582. Reference 9 shows that California's population in 2030 is predicted to be 44,279,354. Therefore, fPkii = 44279354 - 35985582 = 1.2305 (Eq. 25) Using the values in Equation 10, 23, and 25 gives Equation 26, where "j" is the intermediate year of 2015 and Equation 15 is also used. 0.174 f dkli — mj (Eq. 26) 0.837x — x1.2305 Mk Evaluating the values shown and with j = 2015 and k = 2030 gives Equation 27. f dkli = 0.1689 x 11130 (Eq. 27) 2015 11 If the per- capita driving factor was 1 (no per- capita driving reduction needed from 2005 to 2030), the 2030 fleet (all LDVs on the road) mileage would need to exceed the 2015 fleet mileage by a factor of 1 divided by 0. 1689, which is 5.92. For example, if the mileage for the 2015 fleet is 25 MPG, then the 2030 value would need to be 148 MPG. Clearly, most LDVs in 2030 will need to be ZEVs. Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Mileage, from Year 2000 to Year 2030 The years from 2000 to 2011 are taken from a plot produced by the PEW Environment Group, httj2://www.pewenvironmeiit.or 7/u loadedFiles /PEG /publications /Fact Sheet/Histoi %20o[%20 Fuel% 20Economy% 20Clean %2OEnergy %2OFactsheet.pdf The plot is shown here as Figure 6. The "Both" values are used. Figure 6 Mileage Values From the PEW Environment Group >r' Cars 3t7 _.f t - Both 25 CUC'k5 r 20 IR Ilt 1975 1990 19 8.5 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 The values from 2012 to 2025 are taken from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) as shown on their website, http: / /www.c2es.org /federal /executive /vehicle- standards4ldv 2012 to 2025. They are the LDV Corporate Average Fleet Efficiency (CAFE) values enacted into law in the first term of President Obama. From 2025 to 2030, it is assumed that the yearly ICE improvement in CAFE will be 2.5 MPG. Mileage of California's LDV Fleet in 2015 Table 3 uses these values of ICE mileage to compute the mileage of the LDV fleet in 2015. It assumes that the fraction of ZEVs being used over these years is small enough to be ignored. The 100 miles driven, nominally, by each set of cars, is an arbitrary value and inconsequential in the final calculation, because it will divide out. It is never - the -less used, so that it is possible to compare the gallons of fuel used for the different years. The "f' factor could be used to account for a set of cars being driven less. It was decided to not use this option by setting all of the values to 1. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) values are taken from Figure 3. The gallons of fuel are computed as shown in Equation 28, using the definition for Lk that is shown in Table 1. Gallons Used per f * 100 miles = fx100 ( CAFE MPG) /Lk (Eq. 28) 12 How ICE Mileage Values Will Be Used with ZEV Equivalent Mileage Values As will be seen, after 2015, the net (computed using both ICEs and ZEVs) mileage values for each year are assumed to greatly improve by having a significant fraction of ZEVs. The ICE CAFE standards are used in this report as just the ICE contribution to fleet MPG. The ICE MPG values are inadequate by themselves and will therefore need to become less important because ZEVs will need to quickly take over the highways. Federal requirements will need to change dramatically. Currently, federally - mandated corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards have been implemented, from 2000 to 2025. These standards require that each corporation produce and sell their fleet of cars and light -duty trucks in the needed proportions, so that the combined mileage of the cars they sell, at least meet the specified mileage. Table 3.Calculation of the Fleet MPG for 2015 LDV Set Years Old Model Year CAFE MPG LCFS Factor LVe &r Factor Driven f Gallons Used Per f *100 Miles 1 14 -15 2001 24.0 1.0 1.0 4.17 2 13 -14 2002 24.0 1.0 1.0 4.17 3 12 -13 2003 24.0 1.0 1.0 4.17 4 11 -12 2004 24.0 1.0 1.0 4.17 5 10 -11 2005 25.0 1.0 1.0 4.00 6 9 -10 2006 25.7 .9933 1.0 3.87 7 8 -9 2007 26.3 .9867 1.0 3.75 8 7 -8 2008 27.0 .9800 1.0 3.63 9 6 -7 2009 28.0 .9733 1.0 3.48 10 5 -6 2010 28.0 .9667 1.0 3.45 11 4 -5 2011 29.1 .9600 1.0 3.30 12 3 -4 2012 29.8 .9533 1.0 3.20 13 2 -3 2013 30.6 .9467 1.0 3.09 14 1 -2 2014 31.4 .9400 1.0 2.99 15 0 -1 2015 32.6 .9333 1 1.0 2.86 Sum of Gallons: 54.29 Miles = 100 *Sum f s : 1500 MPG = Miles/ Sum of Gallons): 27.63 The car companies want to maximize their profits while achieving the required CAFE standard. In California, the car companies will already be required to sell a specified number of electric vehicles, which have a particularly -high, equivalent -value of miles - per - gallon. If the laws are not changed, 13 this will allow these companies to sell more low- mileage, high profit cars and light -duty trucks, and still achieve the federal CAFE standard. It will be better to apply the CAFE standards to only the ICES and then require that the fleet of LDVs sold achieve some mandated fraction of ZEVs. The ZEVs will get better and better equivalent mileage, as our electrical grid is powered by more renewables. Therefore, their equivalent mileage is not fixed, but will improve over the years. Requirements developed here are for 2030. Therefore a high percentage of all the electricity generated in the state, including both the "in front of the meter" (known as the "Renewable Portfolio Standard" or "RPS ") portion and the "behind the meter" portion is assumed to come from sources that do not emit CO2. The value of 80% is assumed. ZEV Equivalent Mileage Values To calculate the mileage of the 2030 fleet of LDVs, it is necessary to derive a formula to compute the equivalent mileage of ZEVs, as a function of the percent of electricity generated without emitting CO2, the equivalent ZEV mileage if the electricity is from 100% fossil fuel, and the equivalent ZEV mileage if the electricity is from 100% non -0O2 sources. The variables defined in Table 4 are used. Table 4. Variables Used in the Calculation of ZEV Equivalent Mileage Variable Definition mz ZEV Equivalent miles a mzr ZEV Equivalent mileage if the electricity is from renewables mzf ZEV Equivalent mileage if the electrici is from fossil fuels r fraction of electricity generated from sources not emitting CO2 G Gallons of equivalent fuel used D Arbitrary distance travelled Num mzr x mz f Den rxmzf +(1— r)xmzr The derivation of the equation for equivalent ZEV mileage is based on the notion that the ZEV can be imagined to travel "r" fraction of the time on electricity generated from renewables and "(1 -r)" fraction of the time on fossil fuel. If the vehicle travels "D" miles, then, using the definitions shown in Table 4, the following equation can be written. G = rxD + (1 -r)xD (Eq. 29) mzr mz f m z = DIG = DArxD + (1 -r)xD) (Eq. 30) mzr mz f Dividing the numerator and the denominator by D and multiplying them both by the product of the two equivalent mileage values results in Equations 31. mz = mzr x mzf /(r x mzf + (1 — r) x mzr) (Eq. 31) Again, using the definitions in Table 4 results in the following. 14 mZ = Num/ (Den) (Eq. 32) Table 5 shows an assignment of assumed values and the result of a calculation, using Equations 31 and 32, to produce a ZEV equivalent mileage. Table 5. Variable Assignment and the Resulting ZEV Mileage M, mZ 1 r 1 -r Num ( Den mZ 5000 70 f 0.8 0.2 1350000.00 1056.00 331.44 Computing an LDV Fleet Mileage Assuming Heroic Measures (HM) Table 6 shows the additional definitions that will be used in this calculation. Table 7 computes the 2030 LDV mileage, assuming "Heroic Measures" to reduce the miles driven in poor - mileage ICE's, in building and selling a significant fraction of ZEVs, and in getting the Low Carbon Fuel Standards to continue to improve beyond the Table 3 minimum of 0.90. Table 6. Additional Variables Used in the Calculation of 2030 LDV Mileage Variable Definition , Distance travelled by ICE vehicles Di DZ Distance travelled by ZEVs Gi Gallons of Equivalent fuel used by ICE vehicles GZ Gallons of Equivalent fuel used by ZEVs As shown by the values for "f', government policies must be adopted to reduce the miles driven by the ICE's, from 2016 to 2023. The 2016 model ICE's are driven only 30% as much as the nominal amount. The 2017 year ICE's can be driving 10% more. This rate of change continues up to 2023, when the ICE's are doing less damage, due to the large fraction of ZEVs on the road. As shown, the ZEV fraction of the fleet assumes the value of 5 %, just 4 years from now. It then proceeds upward, to 10% in 2019, 25% in 2020, 40% in 2021, and so on, until it reaches 95 %. Achieving these fractions of ZEVs might be compared to what was done during World War II, when automobile productions lines were rapidly converted to produce tanks. This reduced the new cars that could be purchased. Besides this, rationing gasoline made it difficult to drive at times and, due to shortages of leather, which was being used to produce boots for soldiers, some citizens found it hard to even buy shoes. These rapid and inconvenient changes were tolerated, because most people agreed that the war needed to be won. The heroic measures assumed here may not be possible unless citizens and the political leaders they elect understand the dire consequences of climate destabilization and therefore accept, and even demand, the measures that are needed to support climate stabilization. The equivalent miles per gallon of the LDV fleet in 2030, specifically 111.12 miles per gallon, will be considered as a potential 2030 LDV requirement. Computing the Heroic - Measures (HM) Case Per - Capita and Net Driving Factor Requirements, Based on the Result Shown in Table 7 Plugging the 15 equivalent MPG of the LDV fleet in Year 2030, taken from the bottom of Table 7, which is 111.12 MPG, and the MPG of the LDV fleet in Year 2015, taken from the bottom of Table 3, which is 27.63 MPG, into Equation 27, gives the following result: f dkii = 0.1689 x m2030 = 1689 X M7015 111.12 = 6795 27.63 (Eq. 31) This means that the per- capita driving will need to be about 32% less than in year 2005. The net driving can be computed by multiplying the per- capita driving, 0.6795, by the population factor of 1.2305, computed in Equation 25, resulting in 0.8361. This means that, even with the 23% increase in California's population, the net driving will have to drop by about 16 %. If this LDV requirement set is selected, all of California's transportation money can be used to improve transit, improve active transportation (mainly walking and biking), and maintain, but not expand, roads. Computing LDV Requirements that Support 2005 Per - Capita Driving The first step is to use Equation 27 and the value of the mileage in 2015 to compute the needed LDV equivalent fleet mileage for 2030 so that fdkli is equal to 1.0. Table 7. Calculation of 2030 LDV Mileage Assuming Heroic Measures 16 ICE Parameters and Calculations ZEVs Yearly Totals Year CAFE MPG ' LCFS Eq. MPG f D i G i z D G z Total Miles Total Gas�OD 2030 MPG 2016 34.3 .9267 37.01 .3 30.0 .8105 0 0 .000 30.0 .8105 37.01 2017 35.1 .9200 38.15 .4 40.0 1.0484 0 0 .000 40.0 1.0484 38.15 2018 36.1 .9133 39.53 .5 47.5 1.2018 .05 5 .015 52.5 1.2168 43.14 2019 37.1 .9000 40.92 .6 54.0 1.3197' .10 10 .030 64.0 1.3498 47.41 2020 38.3 .8500 42.56 .7 52.5 1.2337 .25 25 .075 77.5 1.3091 59.20 20211 40.3 .8000 47.41 .8 1 48.0 1.0124 .40 40 1 .121 88.0 1.1331 77.66 2022 42.3 .8000 52.88 .9 40.5 .7660 .55 55 .166 95.5 .9319 102.48 2023 44.3 .8000 55.38 1.0 30.0 .5418 .70 70 .211 100.0 .7530 132.81 2024 46.5 .8000 58.13 1.0 15.0 .2581 .85 85 .257 100.0 .5145 194.36 2025 48.7 .8000 60.88 1.0 5.0 .0821 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3688 271.18 2026 51.2 .8000 64.00 1.0 5.0 .0781 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3648 274.16 20271 53.7 1 .8000 67.13 1 1.0 5.0 1 .0745 .95 95 .287 1 100.0 .3611 276.92 2028 56.2 .8000 70.25 1.0 5.0 .0712 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3578 279.48 2029 58.7 .8000 73.38 1.0 5.0 .0681 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3548 281.87 2030 61.2 .8000 76.50 1.0 15.0 .0654 1 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3520 284.10 Sum of Miles and then Gallons of Equivalent Fuel: 1247.5 11.23 Equivalent MPG of LDV Fleet in 2030: 111.12 16 Sum of ZEV Miles = 860. Fraction of Miles Driven by ZEVs = 68.9% M2030 = f d x m2015 X 27.63 = 163.54 MPG (Eq. 32) klj 0.1689 0.1689 Table 8 is constructed, with the fraction of ZEVs selected to achieve the needed equivalent fleet mileage of about 163.54 MPG. Since its ZEV fractions are larger and sooner than in the "Heroic Measures table, Table 8 is the "Extra- Heroic Measures" (EHM) case. The ICE "f' values are unchanged; as are the LCFS values. The EHM ZEV differences from the HM case are the highlighted "z" values. This means that with the 23% increase in California's population, computed in Equation 25, the net driving would also increase by 23 %. If this LDV requirement set were to be implemented, a lot of California's transportation money will be needed to expand the highway system, leaving less to improve transit, improve active transportation (mainly walking and biking), and maintain roads. Comparing the ZEV Fraction Values of the "Heroic- Measures" (HM) Case to the "Extra- Heroic Measures" (EHM) Case Table 9 shows the direct comparison of the ZEV fractions that are ZEV requirements for the HM Case and the EHM Case. The differences are highlighted. ACHIEVING THE REQUIRED DRIVING REDUCTION OF THE HEROIC - MEASURES (HM) CASE As shown in Equation 31, in 2030, the per- capita driving will need to at least 32% below the 2005 value. As shown in this link, http: / /en.wiki edp ia.org /wiki /SB_375, California's Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are adopting Region Transportation Plans (RTPs) that will achieve reductions in year 2020 and 2035. As also shown there, the targets, for year 2035, range from 0% for Shasta to 16% for Sacramento Area Council of Governments Since this is for 2030 instead of 2035, and to be reasonably conservative, it is assumed here that the state will achieve a 10% reduction in per- capita driving, in 2030, compared to 2005. This leaves 22% to be achieved by new programs. The title of each of the following subsections contains the estimated per- capita driving reduction each strategy will achieve, by 2030. Reallocate Funds Earmarked for Highway Expansion to Transit and Consider Transit - Design Upgrades (3 %) San Diego County has a sales tax measure called "TransNet ", which allocates one -third for highway expansion, one -third for transit, and one -third for road maintenance. It has a provision that allows for a reallocation of funds, if supported by at least two - thirds of SANDAG Board members, including a so- called weighted vote, where governments are given a portion of 100 votes, proportional to their population. It is hereby proposed to reallocate the TransNet amount, earmarked for highway expansion, to transit and to do similar reallocations throughout California. 17 This money could be used to fund additional transit systems; improve transit operations; and /or the redesign and implementation of the redesign of existing transit systems. The redesign could include electrification and automation or even upgrading to a different technology. A Comprehensive Road -Use Fee Pricing and Payout System to Unbundle the Cost of Operating Roads (7.5 %) Comprehensive means that pricing would be set to cover all costs (including road maintenance and externalities such as harm to the environment and health); that privacy and the interests of low - income drivers doing necessary driving would be protected; that the incentive to drive fuel - efficient cars would be at least as large as it is under the current fuels excise tax; and, as good technology becomes available, that congestion pricing is used to protect critical driving from congestion. The words payout and unbundle mean that some of the money collected would go to people that are losing money under the current system. User fees (gas taxes and tolls) are not enough to cover road costs 10 and California is not properly maintaining its roads. Reference 10 shows that in California user fees amount to only 24.1 % of what is spent on roads. Besides this, the improved mileage of the ICEs and the large number of ZEVs needed mean that gas tax revenues will drop precipitously. Table 8. Calculation of 2030 LDV Mileage Assuming Extra - Heroic Measures 18 ICE Parameters and Calculations ZEVs Yearly Totals Year CAFE MPG LCFS Eq. MPG f D i G i z D G z Total Miles Total Gallon 2030 MPG 2016 34.3 .9267 37.01 .3 30.0 .8105 .00 0 .000 30.0 .8105 37.01 2017 35.1 .9200 38.15 .4 36.0 .9436 .10 10 .030 46.0 .9738 47.24 2018 36.1 .9133 39.53 .5 35.0 .8855 .30 30 .091 65.0 .9760 66.60 2019 37.1 .9000 40.92 .6 30.0 .7332 .50 50 .151 80.0 .8840 90.50 2020 38.3 .8500 42.56 .7 21.0 .4935 .70 70 .211 91.0 .7047 129.14 2021 40.3 .8000 47.41 .8 8.0 .1687 .90 90 .272 98.0 .4403 222.59 2022 42.3 .8000 52.88 .9 4.5 .0851 .95 95 .287 95.5 .3717 267.66 20231 44.3 .8000 55.38 1.0 5.0 .0903 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3769 265.31 2024 46.5 .8000 58.13 1.0 5.0 .0860 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3727 268.35 2025 48.7 .8000 60.88 1.0 5.0 .0821 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3688 271.18 2026 51.2 .8000 64.00 1.0 5.0 .0781 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3648 274.16 2027 53.7 .8000 67.13 1.0 5.0 .0745 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3611 276.92 2028 56.2 .8000 70.25 1.0 5.0 .0712 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3578 279.48 2029 58.7 .8000 73.38 1.0 5.0 .0681 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3548 281.87 2030 61.2 .8000 1 76.50 1.0 1 5.0 1 .0654 .95 95 .287 100.0 .3520 284.10 Sum of Miles and then Gallons of Equivalent Fuel: 1309.5 8,07 Equivalent MPG of LDV Fleet in 2030: 162.27 18 Table 9. HM Case and the EHM Case Which Supports 2005 Per - Capita Driving Cases 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021i 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 HM 00 .00 .00 .05 .10 .25 .40 .55 .70 .85 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 EHM .00 .10 .30 .50 .70 .90 .9.5 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 This system could be used to help reduce the ICE LDV miles driven in 2016 to 2022, as shown in the "f' column of Tables 7 and 8. This system could probably be implemented in less than 5 years. Unbundling the Cost of Car Parking (7.5 %) Unbundling the cost of car parking R11 throughout California is conservatively estimated to decrease driving by 7.5 %, based on Table 1 of Reference 11. That table shows driving reductions due to introducing a price, for 10 cases. Its average reduction in driving is 25% and its smallest reduction is 15 %. Good Bicycle Projects and Bicycle Traffic Skills Education (3 %) The best criterion for spending money for bicycle transportation is the estimated reduction in driving per the amount spent. The following strategies may come close to maximizing this parameter. Projects to Improve Bicycle Access All of the smart- growth neighborhoods, central business districts, and other high trip destinations or origins, both existing and planned, should be checked to see if bicycle access could be substantially improved with either a traffic calming project, a "complete streets" project, more shoulder width, or a project to overcome some natural or made -made obstacle. League of American Bicyclist Certified Instruction of "Traffic Skills 101 " Most serious injuries to bike riders occur in accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle12. Most car bike accidents are caused by wrong -way riding and errors in intersections; the clear- cut - hit - from - behind accident is rare 12. After attending Traffic Skills 101, students that pass a rigorous written test and demonstrate proficiency in riding in traffic and other challenging conditions could be paid for their time and effort. As an example of what could be done in San Diego County, if the average class size was 3 riders per instructor and each rider passes both tests and earns $100 and if the instructor, with overhead, costs $500 dollars, for a total of $800 for each 3 students, that would mean that $160M could teach $160M/$800 = 200,000 classes of 3 students, for a total of 600,000 students. The population of San Diego County is around 3 million. 19 Eliminate or Greatly Increase the Maximum Height and Density Limits Close to Transit Stops that Meet Appropriate Service Standards (2 %) As sprawl is reduced, more compact, transit - oriented development (TOD) will need to be built. This strategy will incentivize a consideration of what level of transit service will be needed, how it can be achieved, and what levels of maximum height and density are appropriate. Having no limits at all is reasonable if models show that the development can function without harming the existing adjacent neighborhoods, given the level of transit service and other supporting transportation policies (such as car parking that unbundles the cost and supports the full sharing of parking 12) that can be assumed. Net Driving Reduction from All Identified Strategies By 2030, the sum of these strategies should be realized. They total 23 %, resulting in a 1 % margin over the needed 22% (which is added to the existing 10% to get the needed 32 %). ADDITIONAL ELECTRICITY REQUIRED The URL http: / /www.energy.ca.gov /2013 energypolicy /documents /2013 -06- 26 workshop /presentations /09 VMT -Bob RAS 21Jun2Ol3.pdf shows that Californians drove about 325 Billion miles per year, from 2002 to 2011. This value can be multiplied by the 0.8361 factor reduction of driving, computed right after the calculation shown in Equation 31, and the fraction of miles driven by ZEVs, shown at the bottom of Table 7, of 0.689 (from 68.9 %), to give the 2030 miles driven by ZEVs = 325 Billion x 0.831 x 0.689 = 187 Billion miles per year. Using the Tesla information here http : / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki / Tesla Roadster, it is assumed that 21.7 kW -h is used per 100 miles, or 0.217 kW -h per mile. The total energy used per year is therefore 187 Billion miles x 0.217 kW -h = 40,648 GW -h. htt : / /www.c uc.ca. ov /cfa slhowhi hiscaliforniaselectrici demandandwheredoesthe owe rcomefrom.htm, shows that California is using about 265,000 GW -h per year. Therefore the electricity needed to power California's HM ZEV LDF fleet in 2030 is 100% x 40,648/265,000 = 15.34% of the amount of electricity California is currently using. CONCLUSION A requirement set named "Heroic Measures" (HM) is quantified. Table 9 shows that the HM LDV efficiency requirements are much easier to achieve than those needed to allow per- capita driving to remain close to its 2005 level. Strategies to achieve the required HM driving reductions are also allocated and described. They are perhaps about as difficult as achieving the HM LDV fleet efficiency. It is computed that the 2030 fleet of LDV HM ZEVs would require an amount of electricity which is equal to about 15% of what California is using today. ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AB 1493 California's Assembly Bill 1493 AB 32 California's Assembly Bill 32 APS Alternative Planning Strategy ICE Internal Combustion Engine LDV kW -h Kilo Watt -hour LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard CAFE Corporate Average Fleet Efficiency CARB California Air Resources Board CBD Center for Biological Diversity CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CCAP Center for Clean Air Policy CNFF Cleveland National Forest Foundation SB 375 California's Senate Bill 375 CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2_e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent GHG EHM "Extra Heroic Measures" LDV Case GEO Governor's Executive Order GHG Greenhouse gas GW -h Giga Watt-Hours HM "Heroic Measures" LDV Case ACKNOWLEGEMENTS LDV Light -Duty Vehicle MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Pavley Senator Pavley's AB 1493 PPM Parts per Million RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RTP Regional Transportation Plan S -3 -05 Governor's Executive Order S -3 -05 SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCS Sustainable Community Strategy TransNet San Diego County sales tax URL Universal Resource Locator VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle LDV Darrell Clarke, Lead Volunteer for the Sierra Club's "Beyond Oil Campaign "; Dr. Dennis Martinek, Oceanside Planning Commissioner; Sandra Goldberg, formerly California Deputy Attorney General; Dr. Nilmini Silva -Send, Senior Policy Analyst of the Energy Policy Initiative Center; Diane Nygaard, Director of Preserve Calavera and founder of Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates; Jack Shu, CNFF President; Joan Bullock; San Diego Sierra Club Executive Committee Chairs: Caroline Chase, John Stump, and (former Assembly Member) Lori Saldana; Malinda Dickenson, Law Offices of Malinda R. Dickenson; Conservation Committee Chair Mollie Biggers; Ed Mainland and Jim Stewart, Co- Chairs, Energy - Climate Committee, Sierra Club California; Bern Grush, Chief Scientist, Skymeter Corporation; and SANDAG Staff: Susan Baldwin, Senior Regional Planner; Charles Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning; and Stephan Vance, Senior Regional Planner. REFERENCES 1 Anders, S. J.; De Haan, D. O.; Silva -Send, N.; Tanaka, S.T.; Tyner, L.; San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Inventory, September 2008, http://www.sandiego.edu/epic/ghginventory/ 2 Tarbuck, E.; Lutgens, F.; Earth Science; Tenth Edition, published by Prentice Hall, 2003, page 539 3 Vespa, M.; Comments on Survey of CEQA Documents on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Work Plan and Development of GHG Threshold of Significance for Residential and Commercial Projects, Letter from Center for Biological Diversity to Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources of the South Coast Air Quality Management District; dated April 15, 2009. http: / /www.aq -nd og v /cega /iiandbook/GH6`/ 2009 /april22mtg /CBDcominents.pdf 4 Hertsgaard, M; Latino Climate Solution, the Nation, Dec. 24/31, 2012. 5 Whitney E.; How to Meet the Climate Crisis, UU World, Volume XXVI No. 4, Winter 2012. 6 Adams, T.; Eaken, A.; Notthoff, A.; Communities Tackle Global Warming, A Guide to California's SB 375, June 2009, NRDC; http://www,nrdc.org/globalWarming/sb375/files/sb375.vd f 21 7 Hansen, James, Brief of Amicus Curiae, Exhibit A, Case3:1 I- cv -o22o3 -EMC Documentl08 Filed 11/14/11. from http: / /ourchildrenstrust. org/ sites /default/files /Hansen %2OAmicus %20.pdf 8 State of California, Department of Finance, California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2000 -2010. Sacramento, California, December 2011, from http:// www. dof ..ca.gov /research/demograL)hic /reports /estimates /e- 2/2000 -10/, the "E -2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year — July 2000 - 2010" 9 Schwarm, Walter, Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, Total Population Projections for California and Counties: July 1, 2015 to 2060 in 5-year Increments, from httn : / /www.dof.ca.gov /rese, arch /demogWliie /reports /projectionslP -1/, then "Report P -1 (County): State and County Total Population Projections, 2010 -2060 (5 -year increments) link, to open or download the EXCEL spreadsheet file. 10 Henchman, Joseph; Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road Spending; January 17, 2013; htlp://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes- and-tol Is-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending 11 Bullock, M.; Stewart, J.; A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs; Paper 2010 -A- 554 -AWMA, from the Air and Waste Management Association's 103 d Annual Conference and Exhibition; Calgary, Canada, June 21 -24, 2010. http: / /sierraclub.typepad.com /files /mike- bullock - parking- ap_,,er &ff 12 Forester, J. Effective Cycling, MIT Press, 6th Edition, 1993. KEYWORDS Driving, climate, mandates, S -3 -05, SB 375,RTP, CEQA, Unbundled, GHG, CAFE, ZEVs 22