By Bee Mittermiller and Craig Jones
It’s simple: VMT = GHG = more climate change. VMT means “vehicle miles traveled.” Of course, GHG means greenhouse gasses—carbon dioxide and other chemicals that humans pump into the atmosphere, creating climate change. The largest single source of GHGs in our San Diego region is transportation: the cars, trucks and other vehicles on our roads and highways burning oil-based fuels. And every mile our vehicles travel, the more GHGs pumped out. New California law requires cities and counties to assess development projects for their production of vehicle miles traveled. There are three critical points to note: - How this assessment is done
- What threshold of “significance” is set for whether VMTs created is OK, or not
- And what, if any, exemptions from VMT assessment are allowed
In our region the key government body to control VMTs is the County. Why? Because the vast majority of undeveloped land is unincorporated properties; and these are also the most remote from jobs, recreation, education, etc.—meaning their development will create the most VMTs. For any hope of containing VMTs and their related GHGs, the County must have stringent regulation. The County is in the midst of deciding its rules for VMTs. And the County Board of Supervisors is being lobbied heavily by land development interests who do not want restrictions on their ability to continue sprawl development. Sprawl means exacerbating climate disaster. There are a few objections being made against VMT regulation and in favor of allowing exceptions: Q: “What about electric cars and trucks? Won’t that solve the VMT=GHG problem?” A: Electric vehicles are a GOOD thing; this needs to be promoted as much as possible. But even in progressive California, the mandate that NEW car sales be all-electric does not go into effect until 2030. Then, it will take decades more for all vehicles on the road to gradually turn over into all or mostly electric. In the meantime, more VMTs will keep producing more GHGs, and make climate change worse. Also, until production of electricity is from all-green sources (not from coal, oil, natural gas, etc.), the plug-in electricity used to run electric vehicles will also be producing GHGs; we’re back at the VMT=GHG problem. Electric cars are not the “silver bullet” that development interests promote. We don’t have more years and decades to wait, and VMT must be reduced as much as possible. Q: “Don’t we need affordable housing? Don’t we need to have new housing construction pushed to the max, including on County unincorporated lands? Doesn’t the critical need for affordable housing justify sprawl and exemptions from VMT assessment?” A: Many parts here. First, the County’s assigned regional housing needs assessment (RHNA)—the amount of new housing construction to meet needs for housing at all income levels—will easily be met without any additional density increases on County lands. Second, the County currently does not have a specific definition of what constitutes AFFORDABLE housing, and without this—and a clear, substantial required percentage allotment for affordable at the low AND very low income levels—our affordable housing crisis will not be addressed. Third, housing in more remote County areas would force low and very low income households into deeper car dependence and its related costs, stressing their incomes further. To reduce VMTs AND meet the needs of working households, development needs to be as close as possible to our already-urbanized communities. Q: “Aren’t there unincorporated County lands where development would not produce ‘significant’ VMTs?”
A: Look at the map below. All of the pink area, unincorporated County lands, are VMT inefficient: development here produces too many VMTs. If you can see the tiny green areas, these are the County lands where development would be VMT-acceptable (VMTs would still be produced, but below the “significance” threshold). But County staff is proposing vastly greater County lands for exclusion from VMT assessment or mitigation. | 
