NRDC: Closing the Climate Investment Gap - California Must Prioritize Climate-Smart Transportation Projects (PDF)

OCTOBER 2023

R: 23-07-B

REPORT

AUTHORS:

Carter Rubin

Rabi Abonour

John Gahbauer

CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP:

CALIFORNIA MUST PRIORITIZE CLIMATE-SMART TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Families cycling down a street in the

Florence-Firestone neighborhood

of Los Angeles, California, during a

CicLAvia event on May 16, 2016.

About NRDC

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an international nonproﬁt environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online

activists. Established in 1970, NRDC uses science, policy, law, and people power to confront the climate crisis, protect public health, and safeguard

nature. NRDC has oces in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, Beijing and Delhi (an oce of

NRDC India Pvt. Ltd). Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

NRDC Chief Communications Ocer: Kristin Wilson-Palmer

NRDC Managing Directors of Communications: Lisa Goredi, Jenny Powers, Rosa Del Angel

NRDC Senior Policy Publications Editor: Leah Stecher

NRDC Director of Peer Review, Science Oce: Laurie Geller

Cover image: © Steve Hymon/Metro, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Design and Production: www.suerossi.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was made possible with support from NRDC’s funders and donors.

The authors are grateful for the review and thoughtful comments from the following individuals:

• Zak Accuardi, NRDC

• Stuart Cohen, TransForm

• Jackie Ennis, NRDC

• Deron Lovaas, NRDC alumnus

• Jamie Pew, NextGen Policy

• Nailah Pope-Harden, ClimatePlan

• Dr. Kelcie Ralph, Rutgers University

• Craig Segall, Evergreen Action

• Dr. Jamey Volker, University of California, Davis

Page 3 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................13

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................................... 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 4 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The danger of climate change to Californians is more obvious than ever, with extreme weather

and climate-related disasters making it clear that the status quo cannot continue. The state’s

climate regulator, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), recently adopted a plan to

achieve carbon neutrality and cut human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 85 percent

below 1990 levels by 2045.

The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions

in California, contributing 38 percent of the total, and is the area most ripe for urgent action.

CARB’s 2030 Scoping Plan Update pinpoints the need to

reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 25 percent by

2030 in order to meet statewide emissions-reduction targets.

Reaching such a goal will require a signiﬁcant refocusing

of available state transportation resources on projects that

help Californians get around via safe and reliable public

transit, biking, and walking, thus reducing per capita

VMT. And to address the disparate impact of highways on

communities of color, these investments in clean, aordable

mobility options should be prioritized for projects identiﬁed

by those communities bearing the heaviest pollution and

displacement burdens from our highway and road system.

The transformative change needed in the transportation

sector presents California with a distinct opportunity to

light a path for states across the country in reimagining how

we plan, fund, and build transportation infrastructure to

minimize burdens and maximize beneﬁts in most-impacted

communities.

However, our analysis ﬁnds a disconnect between the

projects and programs that California funds and the urgency

to decarbonize the transportation system in order to meet

the state’s climate goals. NRDC analyzed state transportation

investment decisions across 10 key funding programs that

span 2019 to 2027—representing $22.4 billion invested

in 4,824 projects—to see to what extent California’s

transportation spending matches the urgency of its climate

goals.

Our analysis shows that California has signiﬁcant room to

improve its transportation funding choices to support its

climate goals. Within the funding programs analyzed, the

state allocated only $4.2 billion (19 percent of the total)

to projects that would help reduce vehicle miles traveled.

The state has committed $2.2 billion to projects that will

encourage more driving and lead to more pollution. An

additional $16.1 billion is allocated to projects that will not

move the needle in either direction but could be leveraged

to achieve climate goals more explicitly. The $4.2 billion

committed to VMT-reducing projects does contribute to

reducing climate-warming emissions, but it does not go

far enough to help the state eliminate pollution from the

transportation sector at the speed required to meet its

climate goals. With less than one-ﬁfth of the total budget

going to VMT-reducing projects, the state must do more to

support sustainable transportation.

We recommend four strategies that should be put in place to

better align California’s transportation investments with its

climate and VMT goals.

Strategy 1: Discontinue funding for VMT-increasing

projects.

Strategy 2: Convert projects that have no VMT impacts to

projects that reduce VMT.

Strategy 3: Build a better pipeline of VMT-reducing

projects.

Strategy 4: Track progress on VMT reduction in state-

funded transportation projects.

Implementing these strategies will require political

leadership from the governor and legislature to shift us out of

our current policy inertia. And these strategies will require

meaningful participation and collaboration from the agencies

that will have to implement them, including the California

State Transportation Agency, the California Department

of Transportation, and the California Transportation

Commission.

Metro announced in October of 2021 the successful completion of its transition

to an all-electric bus ﬂeet on the popular Metro G Line (Orange) in the San

Fernando Valley.

Page 5 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

INTRODUCTION

Faced with the disaster of climate change, Californians

overwhelmingly support climate action by a ratio of 3 to 1,

and many call it their “top priority.”

But reducing greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions in the Golden State will especially

require rethinking how California and Californians approach

transportation, which is the single largest contributor to the

state’s emissions.

Transportation’s outsize contributions to climate pollution in

California result from nearly a century of public investment

totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in car-oriented

transportation in the form of the state’s sprawling freeway

system and car-dependent communities. The construction

of the highway system in California caused the displacement

of thousands of Californians, including more than 10,000

just since 1991.

These displacements disproportionately

occurred in Black and Latino communities, and these same

communities live every day with disproportionate pollution

burdens from the state’s highway system.

To cut transportation emissions quickly enough to reach its

climate goals, the state will need to both rapidly shift to zero-

emissions vehicles and help Californians move around via

public transit, biking, walking, and carpooling. And to address

the disparate impact of highways on communities of color,

these investments in clean, aordable mobility options should

be prioritized for projects identiﬁed by those communities

bearing the heaviest pollution and displacement burdens

from our highway and road system.

CARB notes that “despite increases in fuel eciency and

decreases in the carbon content of fuel, California will not

achieve the necessary GHG emissions reductions to meet

mandates for 2030 and beyond without signiﬁcant changes

to how communities and transportation systems are planned,

funded, and built.”

More speciﬁcally, CARB’s 2030 Scoping

Plan Update pinpoints the need to reduce per capita vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) 25 percent by 2030 in order to meet

statewide emissions-reduction targets.

California has taken several important policy steps in this

direction. Recent eorts to address climate pollution from

the transportation sector include the Advanced Clean Cars

II standard, requiring all new cars and light trucks sold in

California to be zero-emissions by 2035, and the Advanced

Clean Fleets Rule and the In-Use Locomotive Rule, which

curb pollution from freight vehicles. These are critical

components of a zero-emissions transportation system for

California.

Initial steps to better align transportation planning and

investments with climate goals include SB 743 (2013)

and SB 375 (2008), Executive Order (EO) N-19-19, and

policy documents such as the Climate Action Plan for

Transportation Infrastructure, which have begun to create a

new framework for evaluating and prioritizing transportation

projects based on their climate beneﬁts or harms. SB 743

better aligned the California Environmental Quality Act

review of transportation projects with measuring climate

impacts, and SB 375 created a framework for planning

transportation and land use to achieve reductions in climate

pollution. With EO N-19-19, Governor Gavin Newsom

directed the State Transportation Agency to “align the

state’s goals with transportation spending on planning,

programming and mitigation to achieve the objectives of the

state’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, where feasible,” and

to “reduce vehicle miles traveled by strategically directing

discretionary transportation investments” and encouraging a

shift to transit, walking, and biking.

However, these policies alone are not yet solving California’s

transportation emissions problem at the scale needed. A

recent report from the Strategic Growth Council found

a signiﬁcant “gap between the vision for a more climate

friendly and equitable transportation system and actions and

infrastructure spending decisions.”

And a report released

this year by CARB found that “California is still not reducing

GHG emissions from personal vehicle travel as needed to

meet climate commitments and as targeted under SB 375.”

Understanding the gap between California’s climate values

and spending requires following the money. So, NRDC

analyzed state transportation investment decisions across 10

key funding programs that span 2019 to 2027 representing

$22.4 billion invested in 4,824 projects. Our analysis ﬁnds

that California’s transportation spending does not yet match

the urgency of its climate goals.

Of the $22.4 billion in transportation investments we

analyzed, only 18.6 percent go towards projects and programs

that are helping curb Californians’ reliance on private

automobiles by through the buildout of bike lanes, sidewalks,

electric buses, regional rail systems and aordable housing.

The remaining 81.4 precent is allocated towards maintaining

(71.7 percent) and expanding (9.7 percent) the current system

of roads and highways that contribute not only to climate

pollution, but also unhealthy air, urban sprawl and endemic

trac fatalities. To zero out pollution from the transportation

system in California, the state must fully align public

spending with climate and clean air priorities, stop expanding

our roads, and leverage maintenance investments to expand

clean transportation options.

Page 6 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

Previous research conducted by the UCLA Institute of

Transportation Studies for the Strategic Growth Council

found that “the state’s transportation spending is not well

aligned with many of its goals” for climate change. This

conclusion was based on an evaluation of state and regional

transportation programs’ funding levels and their statutory

descriptions and criteria.

Building on this research,

NRDC investigated further to evaluate how well individual

projects within these programs (and others) were aligned

with the state’s goals for reducing vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We looked at

projects within 10 top-level programs, including California

Transportation Commission programs and those speciﬁcally

named in the Climate Action Plan for Transportation

Infrastructure (CAPTI) that received funding augmentations

through Executive Order N-19-19:

Aordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC)

Program

Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)

Active Transportation Program (ATP)

Local Partnership Program (LPP)

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP)

State Highway Operations and Protection Program

(SHOPP)

Local Streets and Roads Program (LSRP)

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP)

See Table A1 in Appendix A for additional details on these

programs.

Our analysis involved looking at each project to determine

whether it was expected to increase VMT, decrease VMT,

or have no impact on VMT (Table A3). We determined the

category of each project using a framework developed by

the Governor’s Oce of Planning and Research (OPR) in a

2018 technical advisory for the preparation of transportation

impact analyses done under the California Environmental

Quality Act.

Projects that increase VMT include new and expanded

highways and roads. Projects that reduce VMT include

improvements in bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems and

access to those systems. Projects that have no impact on VMT

include road maintenance and minor expansions to roads. A

full set of examples is included in Appendix A.

We evaluated 4,824 projects in the 10 programs, reﬂecting

$22.4 billion in funding for projects spanning ﬁscal years

(FY) 2019 to 2027. With an assessment of VMT eects for

each project in place, we calculated the share of projects

that increased, reduced, and had no impact on VMT in each

program; similarly, we calculated the share of funding going

to projects that increased, reduced, and had no impact on

VMT. We then used these summary calculations to come up

with a score for each program (Table 2). The scores provide

a general assessment of the extent to which California’s

transportation programs have recently funded and delivered

VMT-reducing projects.

See Appendix A for further details on methodology.

METHODOLOGY

Installation of intersection crossing panels on the Crenshaw/LAX line.

Page 7 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

This analysis found that, for programming years 2019 to

2027, the state of California has allocated only $4.2 billion

(18.6 percent of overall funding) to projects that would

help reduce vehicle miles traveled. A total of $2.2 billion

(9.7 percent) has been allocated to projects that increase

VMT. The largest share, $16.1 billion (71.7 percent), has

been allocated to projects that would not be expected to

signiﬁcantly impact VMT levels—for example, maintenance

and rehabilitation projects such as repaving roads,

rebuilding bridges, and installing new guardrails. This last

category represents a missed opportunity to leverage state

investments in ways that reduce VMT and help the state

reach its climate goals, while also achieving transportation

system maintenance and rehabilitation objectives.

In analyzing allocations in terms of number of projects and

programs funded, we found that California is investing in a

large number of VMT-reducing projects such as bike lanes,

sidewalks, and other active transportation infrastructure,

as well as transit operations and capital improvements. The

total spending on VMT-reducing projects is nearly twice that

of VMT-increasing projects ($4.2 billion versus $2.2 billion),

but there are more than seven times as many VMT-reducing

projects as VMT-increasing projects (1,304 versus 178).

This means that, on average, each VMT-increasing project

receives nearly four times the funding of a VMT-reducing

project: an average per-project funding allocation of $12.3

million versus $3.2 million.

Of these 178 VMT-increasing projects in recent funding

programs, some entail signiﬁcant highway expansions,

or even entirely new highways, that would be expected to

generate hundreds of millions of new annual vehicle miles

traveled. These VMT-increasing projects are concerning not

only because they will produce signiﬁcant additional GHG

emissions (undermining the state’s climate goals), but also

because they will divert funding from projects that could have

instead reduced VMT.

Table 1 highlights the three largest investments made

during the study period in each category of VMT increasing,

decreasing and no-impact.

FINDINGS

TABLE 1: PROJECTS RECEIVING THE LARGEST STATE INVESTMENT, BY VMT CATEGORY

VMT category Project description Funding allocation Program

VMT decreasing Los Angeles County MTA: East San Fernando Valley North-South Light Rail $167,509,000 STIP

VMT decreasing Los Angeles County MTA: Metro Red and Purple Line core capacity improvements $131,177,000 LPP– Formulaic

VMT decreasing Bay Area Rapid Transit Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Program: vehicle

acquisition

$107,100,000 TIRCP

No impact Caltrans: Interstate 10 in Riverside County, truck climbing lane $231,481,000 SHOPP

No impact Caltrans: State Route 14 Los Angeles County, replacement and maintenance of

roadway and related elements

$169,950,000 SHOPP

No impact Caltrans: Interstate 405 Los Angeles County: Replacement and maintenance of

roadway and related elements; upgrades to Transportation Management System

(TMS) elements; guardrail and facilities to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

standards

$147,305,000 SHOPP

VMT increasing Caltrans and Los Angeles County MTA: 57/60 interchange and other improvements $217,900,000 TCEP

VMT increasing Caltrans and Los Angeles County MTA: I-105 express lanes—construction $150,000,000 SCCP

VMT increasing Caltrans and Solano County Transportation Authority: Solano I-80 managed lanes $123,400,000 TCEP

Page 8 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

We found that VMT-increasing projects are concentrated in

ﬁve programs: Local Partnership Program–Competitive, Local

Partnership Program–Formulaic, Solutions for Congested

Corridors Program, State Transportation Improvement

Program, and Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.

Together these programs spend more than a quarter of their

funding on VMT-increasing projects. Two of them, LPP-

Competitive and TCEP, spend more than half of their funding

on VMT-increasing projects.

The disconnect between policy goals and investment choices

is highlighted by the STIP program. The STIP funding

guidelines are based on numerous state goals, including

those related to reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent

below 1990 levels by 2030 (EO N-19-19 and SB 32 [2016]);

reducing VMT (AB 32 [2006]); improving air quality (SB 1

[2017]); and encouraging active modes of transportation (SB

1), particularly in historically underinvested communities

(EO 79-20).

Despite this, STIP still allocates more funding

to VMT-increasing projects than VMT-reducing ones. In

some cases, this can be explained by STIP continuing to fund

projects that have been in the planning process for decades

and therefore predate more recently adopted climate goals.

SCORECARD

Our ﬁndings are summarized in Table 2, below, which shows

both the funding going to each category of project and a letter

grade for each program. Letter grades were generated by

scoring each program on the basis of the amount of funding

going to VMT-reducing, VMT-increasing, and no-VMT-

impact projects in each program (which received 75 percent

of the weighting), along with the number of each category

of project (which received 25 percent of the weighting). See

Appendix A for more details. As the table shows, eight out

of 14 programs (and subprograms) have no funding allocated

to VMT-increasing projects.

Of those eight, six have a

minimal share of their funding designated to no-VMT-impact

projects. In our scoring methodology (explained in Appendix

A), these six projects score best (and get an A+ grade). All

six programs are focused on transit capital or operations

or active transportation and safe routes to school. These

programs’ funding choices are completely aligned with the

need to shift trips from cars and trucks to sustainable modes

of transportation in order to meet climate goals.

The funding allocated to VMT-increasing projects is

concentrated in only a few of the state’s programs. Four

programs have more funding assigned to VMT-increasing

projects than to VMT-reducing ones: LPP-Competitive, STIP,

SCCP, and TCEP. TCEP has nearly ten times more funding for

projects that increase VMT than for those that reduce VMT.

Three of the four programs include many highway expansions

and widenings, which run counter to the state’s climate

goals and are a missed opportunity for climate-aligned

transportation investments.

While the State Highway Operations and Protection

Program does not have a large share of VMT-increasing

projects, it is by far the largest funding program of those

studied, accounting for nearly three-quarters of all funding

represented by these programs in the time frame analyzed.

SHOPP has 91.5 percent of its funding dedicated to no-

VMT-impact projects. This represents the largest missed

opportunity for using state transportation investment to

leverage greater reduction in fuel consumption and GHG

emissions, which EO N-19-19 directs the State Transportation

Agency to do.

This summary scorecard also makes clear that not enough

funding overall goes to VMT reduction.

A sign separating a lane for parked cars from a bike path as part of the new Better Bikeways network in San Jose, California.

Page 9 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

TABLE 2: PROGRAMS BY SCORE AND GRADE

Project funding for projects (millions)

Program Program name VMT-reducing elements

VMT-

reducing

No-VMT-

impact

VMT-

increasing

Weighted

score Grade

AHSC Aordable Housing and

Sustainable Communities

Program

Transit-oriented development,

bike facilities/access, fare

programs

$721.0 $87.3 $– 100% A+

ATP-MPO Active Transportation

Program—Metropolitan

Planning Organization

Component

Active transportation, Safe

Routes to School

$171.8 $4.7 $– 100% A+

ATP-Small Urban

and Rural

Active Transportation Program

Small Urban and Rural

Active transportation,

Safe Routes to School

$44.0 $0.2 $– 100% A+

ATP-

Statewide

Active Transportation Program

Statewide

Active transportation, Safe

Routes to School

$237.5 $4.0 $– 100% A+

LCTOP Low-Carbon Transit Operations Zero-emission buses, fare-free

programs, expanded night/

weekend service

$81.8 $- $– 100% A+

TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail Capital

Program

Transit vehicles, facility

improvements

$500.0 $- $– 100% A+

SCCP Solutions for Congested

Corridors Program

Complete streets (featuring

bicycle, pedestrian, and public

transit facilities), active

transportation, transit facilities/

vehicles

$222.0 $0.5 $277.5 78% C+

LPP–

Formulaic

Local Partnership Program–

Formulaic

Various active transportation,

transit, streets

$295.0 $52.1 $205.8 77% C

LSRP (Cities) Local Streets and Roads

Program: Cities (project

element)

Complete streets, complete

streets components

$173.4 $202.0 $– 73% C

LPP–

Competitive

Local Partnership Program–

Competitive

Various active transportation,

transit, streets

$69.0 $15.4 $101.0 70% C–

STIP 2022 State Transportation

Improvement Program

Major bicycle and pedestrian

elements, transit vehicles, Link

Union Station

$320.6 $173.6 $338.1 68% D+

TCEP Trade Corridor Enhancement

Program

Rail (LOSSAN) $105.4 $240.0 $1,011.9 53% F

LSRP (Counties) Local Streets and Roads

Program: Counties (project

element)

Complete streets, complete

streets components

$101.0 $387.9 $– 52% F

SHOPP State Highway Operations and

Protection Program

Complete streets, bike and

pedestrian facilities, bus aux

lanes, transit stops, some ADA

curb improvements

$1,137.3 $14,913.0 $250.2 47% F

Total $4.2 billion $16.1 billion $2.2 billion

Page 10 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

FURTHER DISCUSSION: LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS

While our analysis provides a helpful high-level

understanding of the degree to which California’s

transportation investments are aligned with the state’s

climate goals, we encountered some limitations and

constraints with the data available that inﬂuenced our

approach.

First, many projects combine VMT-increasing activities with

VMT-reducing ones, which complicates the assessment of

the probable overall VMT eect. For example, a roadway

project that adds two lanes for cars and two lanes for bikes

may be better than a widening without bike lanes, but the

VMT eect of the lanes for cars is likely to be far greater

than the VMT-reducing eect of the added bike lanes.

This

is because there is a much higher baseline of vehicle travel

and a complete vehicle network, whereas a few miles of bike

lanes do not produce a network eect that would generate

a signiﬁcant shift of trips from cars to bikes. The net eect

is not always clear, however, as when a roundabout (no

impact) is combined with a nearby transit park-and-ride.

The mix of elements in a single funded project complicates

the assessment. Ongoing benchmarking eorts for state

transportation investments should include the development

of a consistent approach for tracking projects that accounts

for this mix of elements.

Second, the GHG emissions resulting from project

construction, which can be signiﬁcant, are not factored into

our evaluation of project impacts. Even a VMT-reducing

project can have construction emissions. Existing modeling

tools (such as CalEEMod) could make self-reporting possible.

Third, this evaluation does not capture the other very

important beneﬁts or burdens of transportation projects on

communities. More analysis is needed to understand whether

California is prioritizing communities already burdened by

environmental injustices when allocating transportation

investments that provide health and mobility beneﬁts, to

ensure that further burdens are not being placed on these

communities.

Finally, our analysis considers only state and federal

transportation funding programmed by California state

agencies for the years 2019 to 2027. Most of the funding

that ﬂows through the 10 programs analyzed comes from

the state and does not require local funding matches.

However, it is necessary to note the increasing importance

of local transportation funding in California. Since 1976,

more than 76 “local option sales tax” (LOST) measures have

appeared on ballots in 30 of the state’s 58 counties. As of

2018, 25 counties, representing 88 percent of the state’s

population, had active LOST measures that generated more

than $4 billion annually for transportation projects and

maintenance.

Further analysis is needed to understand

how locally funded projects contribute to or work at cross-

purposes with state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions.

Corcoran, California received a grant of nearly $2 million from the Active Transportation Program for Safe Routes to School projects.

Page 11 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

Our analysis shows that several transportation funding

programs in California are well aligned with the state’s

GHG emissions-reduction and climate goals. However, there

remains a signiﬁcant degree of transportation spending

that undermines the state’s progress toward these goals,

and California is missing substantial opportunities to gain

climate-related beneﬁts from spending that currently has

neither a positive nor a negative impact on VMT. California’s

environmental priorities and the increasingly dire need

for urgent climate action mean that the state must use its

transportation dollars to reduce VMT now. Those responsible

for making progress on the recommendations we discuss

in this section include the governor, the legislature, the

California State Transportation Agency, the California

Transportation Commission, and the California Department

of Transportation (Caltrans).

We propose four strategies for ensuring that California’s

transportation investments maximize their potential climate

beneﬁts:

1. Discontinue funding for VMT-increasing projects.

2. Convert projects that have no VMT impacts to projects

that reduce VMT.

3. Build a better pipeline of VMT-reducing projects.

4. Track progress on VMT reduction in state-funded

transportation projects.

Our recommendations ﬂow from these strategies, as outlined

below.

STRATEGY 1: DISCONTINUE FUNDING FOR VMT-INCREASING PROJECTS

California has VMT-increasing projects in the pipeline that

are undermining the state’s climate goals and using limited

transportation resources that should be invested in projects

that reduce VMT and emissions. Some were proposed

decades ago but are still in line for funding. Environmental

clearance may be outdated in some cases, and currently no

protocol exists for reevaluating these projects in light of

contemporary climate and equity goals or for soliciting new

public input. For example, the environmental impact report

for Los Angeles County’s SR-71 highway expansion project

was released in 1989, and that was apparently the last time

the public had the opportunity to comment prior to the

groundbreaking in 2021.

Recommendation 1.1: Adopt criteria for reevaluating

old VMT-increasing projects to ensure alignment with

CAPTI. Create a transparent process for lead agencies to

re-scope projects to remove VMT-increasing elements before

they can be considered for further state investment, while

ensuring that those projects and communities still receive

transportation investments.

Recommendation 1.2: Add provisions for additional

public input when VMT-increasing or no-VMT-impact

projects are decades old, as part of their re-scoping prior to

receiving further state funding.

Recommendation 1.3: Allow programs to require

sponsoring agencies to add new VMT-reducing

project elements such as bike lanes, active transportation

infrastructure, and transit stops without triggering additional

review.

STRATEGY 2: CONVERT PROJECTS THAT HAVE NO VMT IMPACTS TO PROJECTS

THAT REDUCE VMT

In the programs we studied, most state transportation

funding goes to highway maintenance and rehabilitation

projects that have no signiﬁcant impact on VMT, and there

are many more of these projects than there are VMT-

reducing projects. No-VMT-impact projects use funds and

program resources that must be leveraged to also include

VMT-reducing undertakings if we are going to reach our

statutory state environmental goals.

Recommendation 2.1: Convert maintenance and

rehabilitation projects to VMT-reducing projects by

directing sta to incorporate elements that reduce VMT, such

as sidewalks, protected bike lanes, and transit-priority lanes.

Prioritize funding for projects that extensively incorporate

“complete streets” elements—i.e., those that provide beneﬁts

to people taking transit, biking, and walking—and thus

reduce VMT and improve safety.

Recommendation 2.2: Leverage the state highway

system for low-VMT networks. For projects on state

highways, Caltrans should prioritize its maintenance

investments to close any gaps in the surrounding community’s

bike, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure to create

connected networks of sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus

lanes where state highways serve a key link in the local

transportation system.

Recommendation 2.3: Accelerate Caltrans’s existing

work on complete streets design standards to promote

greater connectivity and safety in addition to VMT reduction.

Caltrans should ensure that projects meet the highest level

of safety for vulnerable road users. Further, Caltrans should

apply these design standards retroactively to projects still

in the pipeline to ensure that there are no further missed

opportunities to incorporate VMT-reducing elements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 12 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

STRATEGY 3: BUILD A BETTER PIPELINE OF VMT-REDUCING PROJECTS

Most of the 10 funding programs we analyzed are

competitive, meaning that agencies not awarded funding for

their VMT-reducing projects must repeat the time-consuming

and expensive process of applying in the next cycle, which

slows down project delivery. Smaller projects with large

VMT-reduction potential—the low-hanging fruit—may be

too small to justify the expense and eort of repeated grant

applications and will instead die on the vine.

Recommendation 3.1: Help good VMT-reducing

projects get the funding they need by breaking down silos

between programs, such as by establishing referrals to other

programs.

Recommendation 3.2: Shift the Active Transportation

Program away from time-intensive, all-or-nothing

project application cycles to consistent and more

ﬂexible program funding that allows awardees to build

faster and more eciently.

Recommendation 3.3: Help communities across the

state access funding through technical assistance for

VMT-reducing projects, possibly through a clearinghouse

agency that directs applicants to the most suitable programs

and provides grant assistance.

Recommendation 3.4: Conduct a rural ATP needs

assessment to identify where VMT-reducing projects may

be delayed due to a lack of stang and local resources.

Recommendation 3.5: Increase funding to

oversubscribed programs, such as ATP, that invest in

projects that reduce VMT, increase biking and walking, and

improve air quality.

STRATEGY 4: TRACK PROGRESS ON VMT REDUCTION IN STATE-FUNDED

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Tracking progress toward a better alignment of state

transportation funding with VMT-reduction goals is

important for benchmarking, identifying areas and programs

that need additional attention, and enabling better decision

making in general. Measuring this progress, however,

requires project-level assessment of VMT eects (such

as this NRDC analysis) on a recurring basis. To facilitate

benchmarks and increase transparency, we recommend

tracking the VMT impacts of all federal, state, and local

funding spent on California transportation projects.

Recommendation 4.1: Develop a consistent

methodology to track whether projects receiving state

or federal funding increase, decrease, or have no impact

on VMT. One option would be to use as a proxy the air

quality conformity information reported in the Federal

Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). To be used as

a proxy for VMT eect, projects categorized as “non-exempt”

by FTIP can be considered VMT-increasing (see Appendix

B for a detailed explanation and rationale for incorporating

FTIP designations).

Recommendation 4.2: Implement a single tabular

database, published in a standardized, open data format,

for all projects in the state that are seeking state or federal

funding. This database should contain a standard list

of relevant project information, including the expected

directional impact on VMT.

Recommendation 4.3: Report continually on

transportation funding for projects that increase VMT,

decrease VMT, and have no impact on it. As part of each

individual funding program, during each allocation cycle the

responsible agency should provide a summary of how much

funding is being allocated to projects that increase, decrease,

or have no impact on VMT. Regular updates to CAPTI should

provide summary-level information highlighting what

proportion of the state’s transportation investments are

going to projects that increase, decrease, or have no impact

on VMT. The state should further track the impacts of these

investments on racial equity to ensure that communities

most impacted by California’s highways are receiving more

concentrated investments in VMT-reducing projects.

CONCLUSION

As California seeks to rapidly reduce GHG emissions from

the transportation sector, the state can no longer aord to

be in the dark about the impacts of its own transportation

infrastructure investments. Our analysis represents a

ﬁrst attempt to describe the overall VMT impact of these

investments by looking at how budgets are allocated to

projects that increase VMT, decrease VMT, or have no

impact. Looking at the key funding streams the state controls,

we found that less than one-ﬁfth of the money is going to

projects that reduce VMT. To fully align transportation

funding with California’s climate goals, the $2.2 billion spent

on VMT-increasing projects should be reallocated to projects

that decrease VMT. And the state should accelerate eorts to

leverage climate beneﬁts from the large segment of funding

that goes to maintaining and preserving the transportation

system. In a time of climate crisis, we can no longer aord

to spend more than 80 percent of our state transportation

investments expanding and maintaining the very sector that

is contributing more than any other to climate pollution.

Seventeen miles of open streets for cycling, pedestrians, and skaters in South

Pasadena, San Merino, Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, and Azusa

presented by Los Angeles Metro.

Page 13 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

METHODOLOGY

In each of 10 programs, our analysis assessed the number of projects—and the amount of funding—that reduced VMT,

increased VMT, or had no VMT impact.

Because programs’ methods of reporting projects vary and the types of projects also vary across programs, each program

required a dierent methodology for assessing which projects increase, decrease, or have no eect on VMT. (These dierent

approaches are summarized in Table A3.) For all programs, we used the most recent, complete program data, except for the

Local Streets and Roads Program, whose most complete dataset was not the most recent. We downloaded data from ocial

state sources; because most data were available only in PDF format, we extracted table data for analysis using Acrobat PDF

exports or Microsoft Power Query.

Assessing VMT eects for most programs involved manually reviewing individual project titles and descriptions to determine

what elements the projects included and the net eect of VMT. When project titles were ambiguous or unclear, we searched

for details online to determine what elements were included and in what balance. For example, an improvement project with

both a VMT-increasing element (widening a roadway from two lanes to four) and a VMT-reducing element (adding a bike lane)

was assumed to have a net eect of increasing VMT, and we therefore classiﬁed it as VMT-increasing.

TABLE A1: ANNUAL PROGRAM FUNDING AMOUNT,* SOURCE, PURPOSE, AND LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT

Program Establishment Year

Annual funding

(approx.) Funding from

Funds roads/

highways? Local match requirement?

Active Transportation

Program

2013 $100–250 million Federal sources, Greenhouse

Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF)

(since 2016),

SB 1 (since 2017)

No No (but metropolitan

planning organizations can

require matches; leveraging

considered for medium and

large infrastructure projects)

Aordable Housing and

Sustainable Communities

Program

2015 $400 million GGRF No No

Local Streets and Roads

Program

2017 $1.5 billion SB 1 (Road Maintenance and

Rehabilita-tion Account)

Yes No

Local Partnership

Program

2017 $200 million SB 1 Yes Yes, 1:1

Low-Carbon Transit

Operations

2015 Variable, depending

on auction proceeds

GGRF (5% of annual GGRF per

SB 862, since FY 2015–16)

No No

Solutions for Congested

Corridors Program

2017 $250 million SB 1 Yes No, but leveraging is a

criterion

State Highway Operations

and Protection Program

1977 $4.3 billion Federal funds, state funds

including Road Maintenance

and Rehabilita-tion Account

(RMRA) (SB 1)

Yes No

State Transportation

Improvement Program

2007 $110 million SB 1 (since 2018) Yes No

Trade Corridor

Enhancement Program

2017 $300 million

(state), $515 million

(federal)

SB 1 Yes Yes: 30% (unless Caltrans

nominated)

Transit and Intercity

Rail Capital Program

2014 $100 million SB 1, GGRF No No

* Annual funding is approximate, calculated by the total amount of funding in each program’s round/cycle divided by the number of years in that round/cycle. Because program

rounds/cycles dier in the number of years over which funding is programmed (ranging from two to ﬁve or more years), the sum of annual funding amounts diers from the

sum of program funds.

APPENDIX A

Page 14 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

PROGRAM SELECTION

We built on previous work done by UCLA/Strategic Growth Council that focused on state funding programs identiﬁed for

study in AB 285. UCLA/SGC also identiﬁed several additional programs as important in state transportation funding, with

a particular emphasis on transit funding programs such as the Local Transportation Fund (LTF).

Focusing on individual

projects within these programs, we built on this selection and added several others we found were relevant to VMT-reduction

goals (e.g., LSRP). We could not study programs for which there were no available project-level data, such as the LTF.

TABLE A2: PROGRAMS EVALUATED

Program identiﬁed for

study in AB 285

Program evaluated by

UCLA/SGC (2021)

Program projects

evaluated by NRDC

(2023)

Referenced in

CAPTI (2021),

EO N-19-19

Aordable Housing and Sustainable Communities

✔ ✔ ✔

Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program

✔ ✔ ✔

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant

✔ ✔

Transformative Climate Communities

✔ ✔

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Active Transportation Program

✔ ✔ ✔

Interregional Transportation Improvement Program

✔

✔*

✔

Local Partnership Program

✔ ✔ ✔

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program

✔ ✔ ✔

State Highway Operations and Protection Program

✔ ✔ ✔

Local Transportation Fund

✔

Local Streets and Roads Program

✔

State Transportation Improvement Program

✔

Trade Corridor Enhancement Program

✔ ✔

OPR CATEGORIES OF VMT EFFECT

We based our assessment of the VMT eects of project elements on examples given in the California Oce of Planning and

Research (OPR) technical advisory guidelines for projects likely to increase, decre ase, and have no eect on VMT.

The OPR technical advisory lists the following examples of project types that “would likely lead to a measurable and

substantial increase in vehicle travel”:

Addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general-purpose lanes, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)

lanes, peak-period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges.

OPR speciﬁes the following as “projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel”:

Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects that are designed to improve the condition of existing

transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System ﬁeld elements such

as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian

facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity

Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety

Installation, removal, or reconﬁguration of trac lanes that are not for through trac, such as left, right, and U-turn

pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes

Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for

pedestrians, cyclists, and if applicable, transit

Page 15 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

Conversion of existing general-purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane

management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel

Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles or to replace a lane in order to separate

preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks lanes) from general vehicles

Installation of roundabouts or trac circles

Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sucient to mitigate VMT increase

Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake-check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle

capacity along the corridor

OPR’s list of potential measures to reduce VMT include:

Improving or increasing access to transit

Orienting a project toward transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities

Improving pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service

Implementing roadway pricing

Table A3, below, provides examples of project elements in each program that we classiﬁed as VMT-reducing VMT, increasing

VMT, or having no impact, based on the OPR guidelines described above. Because our approach, based on OPR’s, assumes no

increase in VMT from road rehabilitations and improvements that could make it faster and easier to drive, our approach is

conservative and likely underestimates the overall increase in VMT in programs that fund many “no impact” projects.

TABLE A3: CATEGORIES OF PROJECT VMT EFFECT, BASED ON OPR GUIDELINES

Program Methodology VMT-reducing projects VMT-increasing projects No-VMT-impact projects

AHSC: Round 6 R6 award data extracted from

PDFs, merged with application

log details. Projectdescriptions

manually categorized.

Housing projects with robust

orientation toward transit,

bicycle, or pedestrian facilities;

purchase of new transit

equipment; construction of new

bike lanes, pedestrian facilities;

transit passes for residents

N/A Projects that do not explicitly add

(or add connections to) transit,

bike, or pedestrian access

ATP-MPO, Small

Urban and Rural,

Statewide

All projects receiving funding,

including SRTS considered

VMT-reducing,tallied by

“recommended” funding.

Planning grants excluded.

All projects except plans N/A Plans

LCTOP

2020–21

Extracted and converted data

from FY 2020–21 award list.

Project descriptions manually

categorized.

Free fare programs, reduced

fare programs, transit vehicle

purchases, transit service

increase or expansion, transit

stop improvements, zero-

emission vehicle infrastructure,

hydrogen fueling infrastructure,

solar panels, replacement transit

vehicle purchases, security

cameras, onboard technology

N/A N/A

LPP–Competitive

2020

2020 award recommendations

log used. Project descriptions

manually categorized.

Class I, II, IV bike lanes, sidewalk

improvements, multiuse paths,

complete streets, technology

to improve transit operations,

transit mobile validators

Road widening, including

projects with minor modal

elements (e.g., Class III bike

routes), new HOV construction,

new lane/road construction,

new interchange

Road realignment, new turn

pockets, sound walls, roadway

reconstruction, roundabout

construction

Page 16 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

TABLE A3: CATEGORIES OF PROJECT VMT EFFECT, BASED ON OPR GUIDELINES

Program Methodology VMT-reducing projects VMT-increasing projects No-VMT-impact projects

LPP–Formulaic

2020

Amended Program Resolution

used. Project titles manually

categorized (descriptions not

available). Looked up 32 projects

online for details.

Transit capital projects (station

and facility improvements),

transit vehicle purchases,

transit service expansion,

sidewalk improvements, ADA

improvements (if primary),

complete streets, multiuse path

construction

Road widening projects,

including projects with minor

ATP elements; new HOV and

high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane

construction, interchanges,

roadway extensions, auxiliary

lanes 1 mile or longer

Road rehabilitation and road

resurfacing/ maintenance

projects, street drainage

improvements, bridge painting,

signage improvements

LSRP (cities and

counties)

Extracted data from FY 2019–20

Expenditure Report (most recent

available project data with

budget information). Projects

counted and allocations summed

by “project element.”

Projects with self-reported

complete streets project

element(s)

N/A Road rehabilitation,

reconstruction, repair, signals,

all other projects without

complete streets project

elements

SCCP 2020 Extracted data from the Updated

2020 Solutions for Congested

Corridors Program of Projects;

assessed likely VMT eects by

evaluating project descriptions.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities,

multiuse trails, new transit

vehicles, transit equipment and

infrastructure

New HOT lane construction;

new HOV lane construction;

new interchange construction;

auxiliary lane construction

(> 1 mile)

Freeway ramp meters

SHOPP 2020 Caltrans data download was

missing FY 2020–21 projects;

data instead were extracted and

combined from District List PDFs;

1,195 projects were manually

categorized for VMT eects

based on project description per

OPR-based criteria.

New sidewalk construction,

new Class I and II bike facilities,

transit stops, pedestrian refuge

islands, complete streets

elements, bulb out installation,

pedestrian/bicycle barricades/

separation, pedestrian and

cyclist safety enhancements

(if primary project activity),

ADA ramp construction (if

primary project activity), curb

ramps, signal/intersection

improvements for pedestrian

and/or bicycle safety

New lane construction, roadway

widening, auxiliary lane

construction (1 mile or more)

Curve corrections, shoulder

widening, bridge widening, road

realignment, auxiliary lanes (<

1 mile), turn lane construction,

roundabout construction, on-

ramp extensions/lengthening,

declaration lane extension,

retaining walls, roadway

maintenance, roadway

rehabilitation, drainage, lighting,

bridge rail replacement, bridge

replacement, seismic retroﬁt,

vegetation, worker safety, ADA

improvements (if not primary

project activity), sidewalk repair,

erosion control, environmental

mitigation, TMS, Class III bike

lanes, ﬁre damage repair,

rockfall prevention, building

construction, intersection

improvements, signage, zero-

emission vehicle charging station

installations, maintenance

vehicle pullout stations, chain

control area widening, signalized

intersection construction, weigh-

in-motion systems, inspection

lanes, lighting, worker access

STIP 2020 Extracted programmed projects

from 2022 Sta Recommended

Projects List.

Priority transit lanes, bike

lanes, pedestrian facilities,

multiuse path construction,

transit station improvements,

transit vehicle purchases, bus

charging equipment, streetscape

improvements, complete streets

New lane construction, road

widening, new HOV or HOT

express lane/ managed lane

construction, connector

additions, interchange

construction, capacity-

adding transportation system

management

Planning, programming, and

monitoring, bridge replacement,

roundabout construction, truck

climb lanes, road reconstruction,

ramp improvements, intelligent

transportation system

improvements, turnouts

Page 17 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

TABLE A3: CATEGORIES OF PROJECT VMT EFFECT, BASED ON OPR GUIDELINES

Program Methodology VMT-reducing projects VMT-increasing projects No-VMT-impact projects

TCEP 2020 Data from Amended 2020 TCEP

Resolution (Dec. 2021). Project

titles categorized manually (no

project descriptions); multiple

projects looked up for details.

Rail corridor improvements

serving passenger and commuter

rail

Interchange improvements,

bridge widening, road widening,

climbing lane additions,

additional lanes

Grade separations, freight

terminal rail projects, port

of entry lane expansions,

enforcement facility projects

TIRCP 2020 Reviewed 2020 award list

project descriptions.

New transit vehicle purchases,

service expansions and

infrastructure to support service

expansion directly

N/A N/A

The OPR’s advisory provides an authoritative framework for assessing projects’ likely VMT eects categorically. However,

it is worth noting that both the OPR’s categories and our application of them involved assumptions that are open to

disagreement. For example, the OPR’s guidelines identify cycling and pedestrian infrastructure rehabilitation, maintenance,

and replacement and grade separations as causing “no substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel.” However, other

research indicates that active transportation improvements such as these do contribute to mode shift and reduced VMT

and

that microscale improvements (such as adding benches) can signiﬁcantly improve “pedestrian satisfaction” and encourage

mode shift and should be part of VMT-reduction strategies.

SCORING AND WEIGHTING

Our goal in scoring and grading was to arrive at a meaningful summary number and grade that succinctly identiﬁed which

programs excel at advancing projects that reduce VMT, and which programs have deﬁciencies.

Our process for grading each program involved four steps:

1. Assessing each project in each program as VMT-increasing, VMT-reducing, or having no VMT impact, based on the OPR

rubric discussed above.

2. Calculating the statistics for the following in each program:

n

Percentage of projects that are VMT-increasing

n

Percentage of projects with no VMT impact

n

Percentage of projects that are VMT-reducing

n

Percentage of project funding that is VMT-increasing

n

Percentage of project funding with no VMT impact

n

Percentage of project funding that is VMT-reducing

3. Indexing and scoring the results by assigning 1 to 5 points to each program based on the percentage calculations in step

2. For example, a program with 81–100 percent of projects that are VMT-reducing would receive a score of 5, whereas a

program with 0–20 percent would receive a score of 1. Table A4, below, shows how points were assigned. A program could

receive up to 5 points from each of the three VMT eect categories across both indexes, for a maximum of 30 points (15

from the “project number” index, and 15 from the “project funding” index). The results, a percentage up to 100, were then

translated to a letter grade, using the scholastic convention of 98–100 percent = A+, 93–97.9% = A, 90–92.9 = A-, etc.

Page 18 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

Weighting the results. The points from the “project funding” index were weighted 75 percent and the “project number” points

were weighted 25 percent. Mathematically, this means the project funding points were multiplied by 0.75, the project funding

score was multiplied by 0.25, and the result was divided by 15, the maximum number of points a program could have in either

index.

TABLE A4: POINTS ALLOCATED BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAM FUNDING AND PROJECT COUNTS

Index: Project Number Index: Project Funding

Range:

Low

Range:

High

Score

Range:

Low

Range:

High

Score

Project #: VMT-reducing 0% 20% 1 Project $: VMT-reducing 0% 20% 1

Project #: VMT-reducing 21% 40% 2 Project $: VMT-reducing 21% 40% 2

Project #: VMT-reducing 41% 60% 3 Project $: VMT-reducing 41% 60% 3

Project #: VMT-reducing 61% 80% 4 Project $: VMT-reducing 61% 80% 4

Project #: VMT-reducing 81% 100% 5 Project $: VMT-reducing 81% 100% 5

Project #: VMT-no impact 0% 20% 5 Project $: VMT-no impact 0% 20% 5

Project #: VMT-no impact 21% 40% 4 Project $: VMT-no impact 21% 40% 4

Project #: VMT-no impact 41% 60% 3 Project $: VMT-no impact 41% 60% 3

Project #: VMT-no impact 61% 80% 2 Project $: VMT-no impact 61% 80% 2

Project #: VMT-no impact 81% 100% 1 Project $: VMT-no impact 81% 100% 1

Project #: VMT-increasing 0% 20% 5 Project $: VMT-increasing 0% 20% 5

Project #: VMT-increasing 21% 40% 4 Project $: VMT-increasing 21% 40% 4

Project #: VMT-increasing 41% 60% 3 Project $: VMT-increasing 41% 60% 3

Project #: VMT-increasing 61% 80% 2 Project $: VMT-increasing 61% 80% 2

Project #: VMT-increasing 81% 100% 1 Project $: VMT-increasing 81% 100% 1

Page 19 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

FIGURE A1: METHODOLOGY FOR ASSIGNING PROGRAMS A LETTER GRADE

Individual projects assessed

for VMT effect.

Program statistics

are calculated.

Programs are given point

scores based on an index.

Point scores

are weighted

• Each project in each program is

reviewed.

• Each project is labeled as

VMT-reducing, no-impact, or

VMT-increasing according to

rubric based on OPR

classifications.

• Sample outcome: “Project X is

VMT-increasing; Project Y is

VMT-decreasing.”

• Each project in each program

is reviewed.

• Each project is labeled as

VMT-reducing, no-impact, or

VMT-increasing according to

rubric based on OPR

classifications.

• Sample outcome: “Project X

is VMT-increasing; Project Y

is VMT-decreasing.”

• The program statistics are

translated into scores using an

index of points.

• Programs get up to 5 points in

each of six categories (3 project

funding categories, 3 project

number categories), which

correspond to no-impact,

VMT-decreasing, and

VMT-increasing statistics.

• Programs get points for having

high shares of VMT-reducing

projects and funding and low

shares of VMT-increasing and/or

VMT-no-impact projects/funding.

• Programs that get the most

points have a high share of

VMT-reducing projects, a high

share of VMT-reducing funding,

and no VMT-increasing projects

or funding.

• Example: "100% of Program

A's projects and project funding

are VMT-reducing, so Program A

gets the maximum 30 points."

• Programs have a maximum of

15 points from the project

number category (based on the

share of a program's projects

that increase VMT, reduce VMT,

or have no impact) and a

maximum of 15 points from the

project funding category (based

on the share of program funding

that goes to projects that

increase VMT,

reduce it, or have no impact).

• Weighting is applied to

increase the importance of

project funding in the final

score/grade.

• Project funding is given a 75%

weight, project number is given

a 25% weight.

• The calculation is:

(Proj.No.score * 0.25)

+ Proj.Fund score * 0.75)

• The result (out of 100%)

translates into a letter grade

(e.g., 95% = A).

The logic behind the weighting is as follows: Programs that provide a greater share of funding to a smaller number of VMT-

reducing projects are likely to have more of a net impact than programs that have more VMT-reducing projects that are each

minimally funded. A caveat is that many large projects that we counted as VMT-reducing have other elements that do not

necessarily reduce VMT. We did not have a practical way of identifying what percentage of each project’s budget went to

speciﬁed VMT-reducing elements (except when the entire project budget was dedicated to a VMT-reducing purpose, such as

building out Complete Streets improvements, constructing a bike path, or expanding transit service).

Page 20 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

USING FTIP DESIGNATIONS AS A PROXY FOR “VMT-INCREASING” IN FUTURE PROJECT ASSESSMENTS

Currently, tracking the VMT eects of the state’s funded and implemented projects is dicult for two reasons: 1) A robust

rubric for assessing VMT eects is lacking, and 2) many projects commingle elements that have conﬂicting VMT eects,

e.g., a road-widening project that adds transit lanes. A solution to this tracking problem exists—latently—in the Federal

Transportation Improvement Program reporting that the state’s city and county project sponsors and metropolitan planning

organizations already prepare.FTIP holds a key to better VMT-eect reporting and outlines the straightforward changes that

could unlock eective tracking of California’s transportation projects’ VMT impacts.

Using FTIP data elegantly addresses the limitations of VMT analysis. FTIP is a listing that each of California’s 18 Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (MPOs) prepares regularly. The FTIP lists all transportation projects proposed over six years that

will receive federal funding or involve federal action, such as approval from federal agencies (even if no federal funding is

used). MPOs and project sponsors must themselves identify whether each project conforms with regional emissions analysis

requirements or whether it is categorically exempt from conformity.In doing so, they must consider all the components of

each project and assess whether there is any potential impact from any part of the project to any part of the region.As a

result, the FTIP is conservative and comprehensive. Projects are clearly identiﬁed in FTIPs as “exempt” or “non-exempt.”

FTIP’s exempt projects have “no emissions impact” or are “considered to be neutral or de minimis.”

Exempt projects

correspond closely to the “no-VMT-impact” and “VMT-reducing” eect analysis that NRDC performed on the basis of OPR’s

technical advisory. For example, projects exempt from conformity include those that support, include, or fund:

Capital or operating assistance to transit

Ride-sharing and van-pooling

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Roadway safety measures and improvements

Intersection and travel signal improvements

Sound walls and landscaping

Studies

Other project types that are generally FTIP-exempt include replacing vehicle lanes with bicycle lanes, auxiliary lanes under

one mile, and ramp metering.These accord with aforementioned OPR SB 743 guidance on likely VMT eects of various

project types.

FTIP exemption classiﬁcations could provide a way to track state projects and project funding in a robust, consistent, and

transparent way. Instead of analysts needing to assess each project’s likely VMT eects based on OPR guidance not intended

for this purpose, they could instead quickly use exemption categories to determine what number of projects in what areas and

under what programs increase VMT. FTIP potentially allows this sort of analysis to piggyback on an existing program and its

criteria.

Current FTIP reports are mostly unsuitable for this type of analysis. However, some particular adjustments to formats and

a standardization of table formatting (described below) would enable MPOs’ FTIP reports to serve as the basis for tracking

California’s progress toward its VMT-reduction and, by proxy, GHG-reduction goals.

Many MPOs provide project information in non-tabular formats, which makes it dicult, impractical, or impossible for

analysts to glean and use the data contained in the reports. Conventional methods for extracting data from ﬁles require data to

be in clear and consistent tables. This enables analysts to use automated (or mostly automated) methods to pull large amounts

of data from the tables.

APPENDIX B

Page 21 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

DATA REPORTING THAT DOESN’T WORK WELL

It is dicult for spreadsheet software to work with data that are “page formatted” instead of “row formatted.” Page formatting

means that, for example, the project name is listed only once at the top of the page, and details appear in multiple “table

islands” that contain no reference to the project in rows. This format is suitable for people reviewing projects individually,

but it is not machine readable and makes reviewing and summarizing projects with spreadsheet analysis dicult. Figure B1,

below, illustrates several examples of MPO table outputs that are human readable but not machine readable.

FIGURE B1: EXAMPLES OF CURRENT MPO FTIP REPORTS THAT ARE NOT MACHINE READABLE

DATA REPORTING THAT DOES WORK WELL

Simple tables with information stored consistently across rows, even if information is repeated, is machine readable. Analysts

can quickly and easily use these tables to summarize the information. Figure B2 provides a good example of data in machine-

readable, tabular format.

FIGURE B2: EXAMPLE OF A CURRENT MPO FTIP REPORT THAT IS MACHINE READABLE AND USABLE

FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

2022 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECT LISTING (in $1,000)

AGENCY PROJECT ID PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE

ESTIMATED

OPEN TO

TRAFFIC

ESTIMATED

TOTAL COST

($1,000)

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

FRE092602 Remodel Existing Transit Facilities

Engineer and remodel FAX buildings, yard, and facilities

to meet current capacity needs and ADA requirements.

Transit N/A $3,001

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

FRE130077

Install CAD-IVLU System Fleet-

wide

FAX will purchase and install a new Computer Aided

Dispatch - Integrated Vehicle Logic Unit (CAD-IVLU)

system on its revenue vehicle fleet.

Transit N/A $100

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

FRE130081 Project Administration Project administration for FAX capital program. Transit N/A $750

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

FRE210004

Bus Wash/Vault Facility

Improvements

Modernize and relocate FAX Bus Wash and Vault Facility

to improve efficiency and security

Transit N/A $870

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

FRE210005

Zero-Emissions Bus Charging

Infrastructure

Installing charging equipment and necessary

infrastructure to accommodate the charging needs of

new zero-emissions battery-electric buses

Transit N/A $2,631

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP521

FAX Manchester Transit Center

Rehabilitation

Manchester Transit Center (MTC), 3590 N. Blackstone

Ave, Fresno; Rehabilitate MTC including façade revisions,

bus shelter renovations, passenger amenity upgrades,

security lighting, additional security camera

infrastructure, landscaping, ADA compliant pathways, bus

pull-in road repairs, and vehicular traffic upgrades.

Transit N/A $295

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP726 Southwest Fresno Route 29

Southwest Fresno transit service expansion on Route No.

29; to include three years of operating support. Expanded

route to begin at Courthouse Park and end near

intersection of S. Orange Ave and E. Central Ave.

Transit N/A $1,600

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP786

FAX - Purchase Maintenance

Vehicles

Purchase new vehicles and equipment to maintain bus

stops

Transit N/A $425

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP788

FAX - ADA Bus Stop

Improvements

Improve concrete; add ramps, and misc. amenities to

improve access to bus stops throughout the service area.

Transit N/A $463

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP789 Transit Service Adjustments

Implement multi-phase service changes as a pilot project

to increase ridership and better serve currently under-

served areas of Fresno[LCTOP funds: 20/21: $832,000,

21/22: $1,000,000, 22/23: $1,000,000]

Transit N/A $1,100

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP793 COVID Safety Enhancements

Conduct air-flow studies and retrofit buses and facilities

with anti-viral filtration devices and barriers

Transit N/A $953

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP802

FAX Crosstown Service

Improvements - Routes 3, 45, and

Fresno Area Express, Routes 3, 45, and 20; service

extensions and frequency improvements

Transit N/A $6,631

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP846

Handy Ride Facility

Improvements

Conduct repairs and upgrades to the FAX Handy Ride

Facility

Transit N/A $50

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP847

FAX Maintenance Facility

Improvements

Conduct repairs and upgrades to the FAX Maintenance

Facility

Transit N/A $2,947

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP848 FAX Facility Camera Upgrades

Conduct repairs and upgrades to the FAX facility security

camera system

Transit N/A $500

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP849 CNG Bus Rehabs

Conduct repairs and upgrades to CNG buses to extend

their useful life

Transit N/A $692

Fresno Area

Express (FAX)

LSTMP850 Hydrogen FCEB Buses

Purchase hydrogen fuel cell electric buses as replacement

or expansion

Transit N/A $2,418

Fresno Council

of Governments

FRE001101

Planning, Programming and

Monitoring

Planning, Programming and Monitoring. Streets & Roads- Operations N/A $1,995

Fresno County LSTMP675 Biola Community Sidewalks

Biola Ave from Shaw Ave to G St, and C St from Biola Ave

to e/o Biola Ave; Construct concrete sidewalk, curb &

gutter, ADA curb ramps, and drainage facilities. Install

lighted crosswalk signs on Biola Avenue.

Bike & Pedestrian N/A $1,498

Fresno County FRE070201

Rehabilitation, repair,

reconstruction

Rehabilitation, repair, and/or reconstruction of deficient

two-lane roads that connect to Interstate 5, SR 180, SR 41

and SR 99 countywide.

Streets & Roads-

Maintenance

N/A $2,425

Fresno County FRE130007

American Ave Reconstruction

from SR 99 to Temperance

Avenue

American Avenue from SR 99 to Temperance Avenue;

Reconstruction of approximately 1.4 miles of American

Avenue, from the eastern right-of-way of SR99 to Clovis

Avenue, and place approximately 2 miles of HMA overlay,

from Clovis Avenue to 100 feet east of Temperance

Avenue. The work also includes realignment and

signalization of the currently-substandard intersection of

American Avenue and Golden State Boulevard.

Streets & Roads-

Maintenance

N/A $3,233

70 of 75

F-71

Page 22 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

To facilitate further analysis based on FTIP data, we recommend that FTIP table outputs be amended, or that data be made

available separately, as follows:

1. Present data in a simple table format, with rows and columns clearly labeled, and with all data in a single row

corresponding to only one project.

2. Ensure row and column format is consistent across projects.

3. Minimize text that appears outside of the table.

Once FTIP data are available in this machine-readable format, we recommend the use of FTIP project reports for tracking

the number of transportation projects that are exempt (corresponding to VMT-reducing or having no VMT impact) and the

amount of transportation funding for exempt and non-exempt projects by program.

With these small, one-time changes to templates and/or database export settings, MPOs will allow their future FTIP reports

to facilitate ecient, “plug and play” tracking of California’s progress in meeting VMT and GHG reduction goals over time.

Page 23 CLOSING THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT GAP NRDC

ENDNOTES

1 California Air Resources Board (hereinafter CARB), “AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan,” accessed April 3, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/

ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan. Note that CARB measures greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide–equivalent values, calculated using the 100-year global

warming potential values in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

2 CARB, “Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data,” accessed April 3, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.

3 Craig Miller, “Poll: Strongest Support Yet for Climate Action in California,” KQED, July 31, 2013, https://www.kqed.org/science/6401/poll-strongest-support-yet-

for-climate-action-in-california; David Lauter, “Hit by Fires and Droughts, California Voters Call Climate Change Their Top Priority,” Los Angeles Times, December

6, 2019, https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-04/issues-in-the-democratic-primary.

4 Liam Dillon and Ben Poston, “Freeways Force Out Residents in Communities Of Color—Again,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/

california/story/2021-11-11/how-we-reported-the-story-on-freeway-displacements.

5 Liam Dillon and Ben Poston, “How We Reported the Story on Highway Displacement,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2023, https://www.latimes.com/california/

story/2021-11-11/how-we-reported-the-story-on-freeway-displacements; Sammy Roth, “How White and Auent Drivers Are Polluting the Air Breathed by L.A.’S

People of Color,” Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2023, https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-03-09/white-drivers-are-polluting-the-air-breathed-

by-l-a-s-people-of-color-boiling-point.

6 CARB, 2018 Progress Report: California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, November 2018, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/

ﬁles/2018-11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf.

7 California Strategic Growth Council (hereinafter SGC), California Transportation Assessment Report, February 18, 2022, https://sgc.ca.gov/resources/

docs/20220218-AB_285_REPORT.pdf.

8 CARB, 2022 Progress Report: California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, June 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/2023-

05/2022-SB150-MainReport-FINAL-ADA.pdf.

9 Elizabeth Deakin et al., Evaluation of California State and Regional Transportation Plans and Their Prospects for Attaining State Goals, Berkeley Institute of

Transportation Studies, December 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7922/G2MP51KQ .

10 State of California, Governor’s Oce of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, https://opr.

ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

11 John Gahbauer et al., Examination of Key Transportation Funding Programs in California and Their Context, Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies,

December 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.7922/G23N21PX.

12 Fourteen programs appear in this table because LSRP and ATP have separate data for dierent areas (e.g., counties versus cities, small urban and rural versus

statewide). LPP also has a formulaic and a competitive program, and we analyzed these separately as subprograms.

13 Barbara Lee, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, California Air Pollution Control Ocers Association, August 2010, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/

default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf.

14 Martin Wachs et al., Balancing Accountability and Flexibility in California’s Local Option Sales Taxes, Paciﬁc Southwest Region University Transportation Center

and UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, March 2020,https://metrans.org/assets/research/psr-18-33_to-012_wachs_ﬁnal-report.pdf.

15 Projects such as these with multiple project elements required making judgments about net VMT eects. In nearly all such cases, the scale of the VMT-increasing

project element was so much larger than other elements that the net eect of the project was easy to assume. In a few cases, a best guess was harder, as when

multiple VMT-decreasing project elements were involved and the VMT-increasing element was a smaller part of the overall project. Because project sponsors do

not themselves identify VMT eects or even budget breakdowns by project element, judgment calls in this type of analysis were unavoidable.

16 SGC, California Transportation Assessment Report.

17 Brian E. Saelens and Susan L. Handy, “Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review,”Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise40, no. 7 (July 2008):

S550–66, https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31817c67a4.

18 Serena E. Alexander, Mariela Alfonzo, and Kevin Lee, Safeguarding Equity in O-Site Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation in California, Mineta

Transportation Institute, https://doi.org/10.31979/mti.2021.2027.

19 An MPO’s “exempt” designation could be erroneous if it is based only on travel demand model runs and the model does not properly account for induced travel.