KC Climate Protection Forums

KC Climate Protection Forums » Transportation Work Group

1. PhelpsMurdock
   Member

   When the KC Climate Protection Transportation Work Group first met (12/14/06) to discuss planning, the following priorities (in order) were identified:

   INCENTIVES had strong support for immediate use + interest in a long term approach;
   ALTERNATIVE FUELS had fairly strong support for immediate + interest in long term:
   TRANSIT had some support for immediate, but mostly long term;
   CARPOOLING had some support for immediate, but more info is needed;
   TRAFFIC CONTROL had fairly strong support for immediate and for more info;
   BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN was viewed as long term approach with need for more info;
   REDUCING SPRAWL was viewed as long term approach;
   EDUCATION-OUTREACH did not get much support from this group, but it was viewed as the highest priority by the four work groups as a whole.

   Overall members were positive about the process and were encouraged to bring new ideas to subsequent meetings. While some expressed concerns about decisions based on this initial prioritization, subsequent discussion will allow change and refinement. It was further suggested that we must be able to pair predicted emissions reductions with the means to make informed decisions when setting goals. There was also concern that comments about "behavioral change" might be viewed as "social engineering" when our efforts are really about making costs-benefits more visible, not about limiting lifestyle options.

   When the Transportation Work Group met the second time (1/16/07), we heard presentations on Alternative Fuels and Transit, two of the top priorities. The next meeting (2/6/07) will include input on Incentives/Disincentives as well as any other subjects work group members wish to discuss. In the interim, Transportation Work Group members will meet in self-formed groups to detail areas they want to be certain are included in the Phase I plan so these can be presented and discussed at the February meeting.

   All citizens are encouraged to submit their recommendations to this forum <www.allspecies.org/forum> and to keep up to date by reading information posted at the Climate Protection page <www.kansascity.com> to be posted by the end of January.

   Posted: 2007-01-19 11:53:41 #

2. ronmclinden
   Member

   We need to start with some relatively simple things that also have a good degree of visibility. What about lowering the speed limit on freeways within the city and then enforcing that limit? Reduced energy use, reduced emissions, less severe crashes (when they happen), reduced incentive to live far away and/or travel long distances -- plus, enforcement will generate far more revenue than will be needed to change all the speed limit signs.

   I didn't say it would be popular -- but then, climate change won't be very popular, either.

   Posted: 2007-01-19 15:42:15 #

3. abhesania
   Member

   Transportation Group: A thought/Concern that we aren't looking into other forms of transportation - currently just passenger/light-duty.

   How can we make sure that our recommendations are representative of the spectrum of transportation modes which impact our air quality? While light-duty (passenger) vehicles make up over 50% of the GHG emissions, heavy-duty vehicles make up over 19%. Additionally, heavy-duty emissions increased by 57% from '97 to '03 versus light-duty which had an increase of only 19%. Heavy-duty vehicles and other modes of transportation (air, rail, construction equipment) will continue to play an increasing role in GHG emissions in this city. There are several successful projects which other cities have implemented to address GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.

   What about adopting and enforcing no idle zones or idle reduction ordinances, this has been successful in several other cities/states. What about working with local over-the-road long-haul truckers based in KC and local delivery services or distribution warehouses to cut idling. This is a significant cause of GHG - I can get #'s if needed.

   Posted: 2007-01-19 16:59:09 #

4. TerryWiggins
   Member

   Just a little input from a member of another group --
   I'm wondering if it would be worth asking a car-sharing company to think about/evaluate coming into Kansas City. I've heard enthusiastic comments from friends who have visted other cities with car sharing, and it would certainly facilitate the decision to reduce car ownership.

   Posted: 2007-01-19 17:09:56 #

5. ronmclinden
   Member

   Car-sharing? A worthy idea.

   Here's another angle on car-sharing: do it within the household. Consider the energy savings if each household member, on needing to drive, would choose the most energy-efficient vehicle (or the one otherwise best suited to the trip purpose) rather than his/her "personal" vehicle.

   Posted: 2007-01-19 21:30:06 #

6. ronmclinden
   Member

   PhelpsMurdock wrote (above):

   >When the KC Climate Protection Transportation Work Group first met (12/14/06) to discuss planning, the following priorities (in order) were identified:

   >INCENTIVES had strong support for immediate use + interest in a long term approach;
   >ALTERNATIVE FUELS had fairly strong support for immediate + interest in long term:
   >TRANSIT had some support for immediate, but mostly long term;
   >CARPOOLING had some support for immediate, but more info is needed;
   >TRAFFIC CONTROL had fairly strong support for immediate and for more info;
   >BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN was viewed as long term approach with need for more info;
   >REDUCING SPRAWL was viewed as long term approach;
   >EDUCATION-OUTREACH did not get much support from this group, but it was viewed as the highest priority by the four work groups as a whole.

   In my view, we should resist the tendency to overlook approaches labeled "long term." While it might take years to realize their ultimate benefits, many such approaches have benefits that can be realized in the near term. The important thing is to begin.

   Here's an initiative that involves incentives, transit, carpooling, and bike/ped:

   PARKING CASH-OUT. This is an employer based program to encourage employees to choose modes of commuting other than a single-occupant vehicle (SOV). Rather than giving each employee a free parking space, the employer would instead give each employee a monthly allowance for commuting. The employee would be free to use that allowance toward the "purchase" of the mode of his/her choice: a parking space (for which the employer would charge market rate), a transit pass, or a cash payment. The employee could use the cash to reimburse a fellow employee for a seat in a carpool, or pocket it (if he/she chooses to walk or bike to work). Parking cash-out would begin with a pilot program sponsored by one or more employers. It would likely work best in the River-Crown-Plaza corridor where the cost of employer-provided parking is high, where that cost might be separated from the employer's lease payment (or parking spaces freed up can be made available to others), and where transit service is good.

   Posted: 2007-01-22 23:08:49 #

7. bhugh
   Member

   If we are really serious about hitting the 50% reduction target (as suggested by Phelps), we've really got to be thinking of some more ambitious initiatives than what we've been proposing so far.

   Transportation is such a huge portion of the total picture (over 50% of the city's carbon emissions) that it is going to have to go the whole way on its own--we can't just say, well, we'll get a 10% reduction and just hope the other sectors will be able to overshoot their goals to make up for it.

   As a first guess, I would say you could reach that goal by getting a 25% reduction in motor vehicle trips (more transit, carpooling, walking, bicycling, etc.) and the other 25% from changing the vehicles themselves: alt fuels, hybrids, more efficient vehicles, better pollution control equipment, idling reduction, and that whole end of things.

   The 25% reduction in trips isn't all that unreasonable when you realize that our walking and bicycling is half the national average (5% rather than 10% of all trips), transit is way below the average for cities like ours (about 1% of trips--could easily be 5%), and carpooling, congestion charges, car pool lanes, and all the rest of never been the subject of a major, organized, well financed push.

   The 25% from the vehicles themselves isn't all that unreasonable when you realize Pres. Bush (!) is promoting a plan tonight in the State of the Union to reduce gasoline use by 20% in ten years.

   * If our goals are going to be that ambitious, and important initiative we ought to get behind as a Phase I transportation initiative (that also affects some of the other groups) is to take a serious look at the ongoing revision of KCMO's planning and zoning ordinances. This only happens once every 50 years and it is in process right now.

   I know they are looking at the proposed zoning ordinances as being more "climate friendly" by far than the current ordinances, but do make a really dramatic change it may need to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb again. Just for example, it would put some real muscle behind our idea of implementing workplace incentives to reduce commuting trips by 25%, if the zoning ordinances required new buildings to be constructed up front with the 25% fewer parking spots.

   These changes could affect future transportation patterns very greatly. One of the reasons KC has far more single-vehicle trips than the average U.S. city is the way our city is built and designed. The zoning ordinances are one of the few chances we have to change that pattern for the better.

   Posted: 2007-01-23 21:47:43 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.