Statement on RTP 2050 from Michael Bullock of Sierra Club
Steve Goetsch
Michael Bullock is chair of the Transportation Committee of the San Diego County Sierra Club. He is a retired engineer and has worked tirelessly for years
to represent the opinion of those of us who favor sustainability as a public policy at groups such as the SANDAG Board of Directors. He asked to share
his response to Solana Beach Mayor Lesa Heebner's discussion on SANDAG RTYP 2050 last week with members of Citizens Against Freeway Expansion.
Here is Mike's response:
Lesa,
Thanks for all the information and especially the attachment (MinExcertp-11OCT28-ITEM9A.pdf). Given the significance of the attachment, it should be front and center on the SANDAG web page, but it is not.
1.) Let us first focus on the 6 bullets that convinced you to vote yes on RTP2050.
None of them will reduce carbon emissions before the 2015 RTP. So, as always, SANDAG's story is that they will do their job (I will explain what their job is below.) in 4 years.
The six bullets in the attachment will only generate paper that may or may not result in improvements in the 2015 RTP. The word "implement" only appears once and its context makes it clear that only paper will be implemented. So of course these 6 items create no need for a Supplemental EIR. Generating more paper will have no impact on the environment.
2.) You said nothing about the only chance we have of getting SANDAG to do its job now. That is the lawsuit that we hope will be filed challenging SANDAG's plan, which fails to do its number one job. That lawsuit would have more public support and perhaps even more support in the eyes of the judge that will make the final decision if there were "No" votes based on the points that will be made in the lawsuit. Only Mayor Madrid's abstaining was helpful in that regard. Mary Sassom's "No" will only show that a "No" vote is possible, but her "no" vote had nothing to do with the environmental concerns that will be raised in this lawsuit, so it is harmful. "No" votes based on the public's opposition to freeway expansion or based on the public's rising anger at our government for doing nothing about climate change would have been helpful. Your failure to vote "No" came with a high cost. I still don't think your citizen's share your acceptance of a 12-lane I-5.
3.) SANDAG had and still has a moral responsibility to adopt a plan that does its part to ensure that the cars-and-light-duty-trucks sector, of San Diego County, emit carbon in accordance with the trajectory that has been described by climate scientists as what the world will have to achieve to have any chance at stabilizing the climate at a livable level. I have tried and tried to get you to see this. I have failed. The fact that the trajectory happens to be described in a Governor's Executive Order (EO) is not the point. I agree that SANDAG may have no legal responsibility to care about any EO, including this one. However, the moral responsibility is clear. Proceeding down a path that will eliminate our species from the face of the earth is unacceptable behavior. Supervisor Robert's point that I (and others concerned with human survival) should, "talk to India and China" is horrifying in its implications. How ironic that our species must act on the Golden Rule or perish. Specifically, we must emit CO2 into that atmosphere (do unto others) as we would have them emit CO2 into the atmosphere (do onto us).
So SANDAG's number 1 job is to do its part to stabilize the climate. And not one single Board member has recognized this, based on their statements.
My job as the SD SC TC is to propose a program that will, for sure, achieve the job number 1. I have attached the Power Point I presented at Bright Green Future. Slides 13 and 14, at a very top level, show the strategies that, taken together, will do what needs to be done. They are difficult and may be viewed as infeasible. My comment letter to the DEIR RTP has more detail on how they could be feasible. Parking could be done regionally. Road-use pricing could also be done on limited access roads (freeways), regionally. This 2nd statement may or may not be true. That would probably be decided in the courts.
Why do I not just specify that the transit and land use be so good that it works by itself? Because there may not be enough money to do that, if driving and parking are left heavily subsidized. We must unbundle those costs.
4.) I promise to work as hard as I can to make the lawsuit succeed and to also get as much positive change as possible out of the 6 bullets.
5.) Regarding your statement suggesting we forget about our climate crisis and SANDAG responsibility, here are your words and my comments.
Regarding, "as a recent report by the CA Energy Commission concludes, the way to meet those EO targets is thru the “de-carbonization of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency.” These are NOT the purview of SANDAG."
Please show us that source of misinformation.
Cars and light-duty trucks emit 41% of the CO2 in San Diego County. This sector must be brought in line with the tranjectory that climate scientists tell use we must achiever to stabilize our climate. Please read the attachment "S-3-05Values&450PPM.pdf". Yes, the trajectory is an EO. Therefore, only the executive branch of the state goverment have any need to worry about it. However, it is also what we must achieve to stabilize the climate. So it provides guidance as to what all responsible goverment entities, all over the world must achieve.
Regarding, "SANDAG deals with transportation and related land use as their tools."
All the experts know that getting cars and light duty trucks to conform to what must be done for the sector to do its part to stabilize the climate will require three things:
Clear cars
Clean fuel
Less driving.
This has been described as a 3-legged stool, to emphasize that all three are needed.
The MPO's job is "less driving"
Regarding, "Nevertheless, Staff modeled what it would look like if SANDAG did make the transportation and land use changes (again, the only areas they have authority over) that would meet the EO. It would require mowing down a few cities and having most people move to the urban core. I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I hope we can put this one to rest!":
Did Staff model unbundling the cost of driving and parking? Consider Slides 16 through 18. Even where transit is "poor", there is a big shift away from drivng when parking is priced.
I can't believe you actually thought we should put the trajectory that we must achieve to stabilize the climate, "to rest". The physical world is what it is. It doesn't care about excuses. It will kill us if we do the wrong thing.
Mike
Steve Goetsch
Solana Beach, California