The City of Sacramento has released the preliminary draft (whatever that means) of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. The adaptation chapter is missing, promised for later. The plan’s transit section is in Chapter 6, Transportation section, Measure TR-2: Support Public Transit Improvements to Achieve 11% Public Transit Mode Share by 2030 and Maintain Through 2045 (page 102). The Mayors’ Climate Change Commission recommendations included a transit mode share of 50%, so the city’s goal has fallen back to about one-fifth of that.

The plan acknowledges that 57% of our GHG emissions are from transportation, but then proceeds to focus on other issues, and to set very low goals and actions for addressing transportation. The plan sets a transit goal of 11%, one-fifth of that in the Mayors Climate Change Commission (MCCC) recommendations. And it sets an active transportation goal of 12%, less than one-third of the MCCC.

The transportation strategies (page 66) are:

• Significantly increase the portion of trips completed via active transportation options like walking and biking,
• Transition the majority of remaining trips to public transit and carpools, and finally to
• Transition any remaining passenger and commercial vehicle trips to EVs.

Yet the measures in the document seem focused keeping the ‘remaining vehicle trips’ and de-emphasizing active transportation and transit, resulting in a city that remains dominated by motor vehicles.

Measure E-5: Support Infill Growth is really about creating land us that supports a compact, efficient transportation system. As such, it should be included with Mobility rather than Built Environment, which is about energy and buildings, or in its own Housing section. The Mobility or transportation section should be at the top of the document.

“TR-2.1: Update and implement the City’s Transportation System Management Plan (TSMP)…” This section is so vague that it must be assumed that the city wants to continue its ineffective transportation demand management (TDM) activities. There is no mention of using congestion pricing, or even evaluating congestion pricing, until a single mention in the appendices. Congestion pricing could be a critical source of funding for transit and active transportation, but the city seems to have discarded this idea before even starting.

“TR-2.2: Eliminate parking minimums…” is a great idea, but there is nothing to indicate that the city intends to manage parking to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to charge market rate fees for all parking citywide, and to return parking income to the neighborhoods for transportation and livability improvements. Charging market rates for parking, after that necessary to pay for parking lane and structure maintenance, could also provide significant funds for transit.

“TR-2.4: Collaborate with SacRT in planning and implementing increased transit services…” The word collaborate is meaningless without specific actions. It is hard to speculate what this means, but it does clearly absolve the city of any commitments.

“TR-2.7: Continue to support shared rideables…” The bike share program should be an integral part of the transit system, but the city is depending on the good will of private providers, which has failed in the past. The city should at least be studying a publicly owned and/or publicly controlled bike share system. Bike share is the best option for providing first mile/last mile transportation to transit. The city must ensure that it is available continuously and in an equitable manner.

“TR-2.13: Investigate and lobby for the development of a TNC user tax…” Ride-hailing has decreased and will probably further decrease as the TNCs reduce their subsidy. Not sure why this is even here. It is well known that ride-hail directly reduces transit use, so it should be highly regulated.

More important than what the city says it will do or might do in the CAAP, is that it does not say it will stop doing. We have a highly carbon-intensive city and transportation system directly due to decisions that city has made in the past. It must acknowledge these mistakes before it can move forward into a carbon-free future.

• The city must stop investing in expanding motor vehicle capacity, through adding lanes, freeways, and interchanges. The plan should establish a moratorium, through 2045, on capacity expansion.
• The city must actively reduce VMT, through roadway capacity reductions, congestion pricing, charging for all parking in the entire city, reducing over time the quantity of parking, and returning some parking income to the neighborhoods.
• The city must cease its unofficial policy of only doing transportation improvement projects through state and federal grants. It must spend some of its own funds on supporting safe active transportation and transit.
• The city must take strong action towards reforming zoning to allow housing everywhere, and must reform development guidelines that prevent multi-family housing in many locations. Indications are that the general plan will make progress in this area. The city’s policy of preventing or slowing a variety of housing types is in large part responsible for our sprawling built environment and carbon-intensive transportation system, and that must end.

For additional information on the Sac CAAP, see related posts on Getting Around Sacramento. Other transportation and housing organizations will be making comments on the CAAP, and we will provide links to those.

• CAAP
• City of Sacramento