During the PSRC's Transportation Policy Board (TPB) meeting this morning, the city of Seattle expressed opposition to the Transportation 2040 plan and asked for an extra year to work out their issues. The prepared statement was read by a city representative and signed by Mayor Greg Nickels and all nine councilmembers.
Despite Seattle's protest, the TPB voted to move the preferred alternative forward and directed staff to prepare an EIS.
Another interesting factoid (and probably Seattle's reason for opposition) is the preferred Transportation 2040 alternative does not achieve the state's targets for reducing emissions or reducing how much people drive, even with PSRC's assumption of more than 160 miles of light rail.
This finding is similar to the conclusions of a new TRB study called Driving and the Built Environment, The Effect of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use and CO2 Emissions. The authors conclude that densities across an entire metropolitan area would need to double to reduce VMT and CO2 emissions by 1 percent to 11 percent by 2050.
While the direct and indirect costs of doubling a city's density are probably unquantifiable, it's not hard to imagine how expensive and onerous the regulations would have to become to artificially manipulate where people live; and all for only a 1-11 percent reduction over forty years.
Vanpools could reduce VMT by between 4 percent to 9 percent for very little costs and with no social engineering, no loss of mobility and without forcing compact development.
UPDATE: here is the video of the TPB meeting.
