State agencies and environmentalists are using the Climate Change issue to push a number of related but separate agendas.  One of these is the demand that cities and counties implement policies that reduce the number of miles driven by citizens.  

The Governor’s Climate Change Bill, SB 5735, has been amended to require larger Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RPTOs) to adopt plans implementing such a goal.  Once there is a hard requirement in RPTO plans, that requirement will be cited by others as a mandate to adopt regulations that can be enforced.  Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)  langauge has also been added to the State Agency Climate Change Bill, SB 5560. The goal is to get the VMT reduction into growth management plans and local ordinances. 

National data suggests that VMT growth is already moderating and gasoline consumption has remained flat since 2003.  According to the Sightline Institute per person gasoline consumption in the Pacific Nortwest has declined in seven of the eight last years, and has reached the lowest level since 1966.

If the goal is climate change then vehicle emissions, not vehicle miles traveled, should be the focus.

Some would argue that if Climate Change is really the goal, then the focus should be on reducing vehicle emissions which can be accomplished a number of ways from moving to electric cars or implementing land use policy changes that allow people to live closer to workplaces.  Instead government planners are using Climate Change to achieve a number of goals they have sought for decades, from (1) forcing higher density into local neighborhoods to (2) forcing more people in to mass transit to (3)creating a whole new set of taxes and fees to pay for escalating government overhead costs (particularly in the transportation arena).

Government planners respond that we should push other goals at the same time but this will only lead to suffocating new layers of conflicting regulations and unintended consequences.

In 2008 the Legislature passed House Bill 2815, calling for a review of VMT impacts on low income residents, small businesses, agriculture, and distressed counties.  Before anyone moves forward with ambiguous new goals we need to complete the study and develop rationale guidance that will minimize adverse impacts and costly lawsuits.  Any approach must address these impacts as well as differences between rural and urban counties.

As we have already seen in the electric utility arenas, special interests on the environmental side have passed laws that penalize public utilities that seek to reduce climate change emissions.  The result has placed Washington businesses and homeowners at risk of unnecessarily high gas and electric rates.

What is next; monitoring and taxing the number of miles you drive!

States like Oregon are already piloting devices to monitor the miles you drive and other states are examining a new tax on miles traveled.  Despite the fact that no tax is better than a gasoline tax at reducing climate change emissions, government planners have a political problem.


As any car salesperson or legislator will tell you it is always easier to jack up the cost with smaller options than a big sticker cost.  And it is easier to tax rather than address the excessive growth in government-driven overhead costs, particularly at the local level, for transportation improvement projects.

As the Oregon study documents, the new tax will permit government planners to charge different rates for different times and corridors, as well as allow local governments to apply their own new taxes.  So even if the planners get the transportation plan wrong they can reduce the numbers of low-income drivers during certain times and make it work.

At the same time there is little question that we must move to alternative energy sources and improve our transportation infrastructure. 

With climate change a growing concern and gasoline taxes declining with more fuel efficient cars, there are serious questions to be addressed. 

As the Democratic Majority Whip, Senator Marr, said on March 25 after reminding fellow legislators that it is not “heresy” to question environmental laws:


In many ways the debate here is whether vehicle emissions will be addressed in the usual way with layers of new government controls, or whether “orthodoxy” and unrelated political agendas can be set aside and real cost-effective, outcome-based solutions implemented. 

An alternative to Government mandates:

Summary Recommendations from the Washington Research Council

• Work with, and not in opposition to, market forces and consumer preferences, looking for ways to meet market expectations in more energy efficient ways.
• Concentrate on the energy retrofit of older buildings and neighborhoods, recognizing that market forces by themselves will generate energy savings in newer construction but not always in older buildings.
• Shift the focus of regional planning to a jobs-housing model, expanding housing choices in job-rich areas and expanding employment in residential areas.
• Expand the choice of housing types in all neighborhoods to make the size and configuration of the housing stock better meet the needs of varied household types and to minimize unused spaces that require heating and lighting.
• Before committing to plans that call for expanded use of public transit, be realistic about the cost, net energy benefit and marketability of transit.
• Assume that people will continue to use personal vehicles – of increasing energy efficiency – for most of their trips.
• Be realistic about the contribution that walking and bicycling can make to energy use reductions. Consider the cost-benefit ratio of expensive bicycle facilities.

For details and more recommendations see LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE: EFFECTIVE LOCAL RESPONSES TO A GLOBAL PROBLEM


For another perspective see the State CTED Report and for the opposition perspective on local planning go to the Washington Environmental Council.

To read the Bill or detailed Bill Report for SB 5735 see the Legislative Bill Page and for 5560 see its Legislative Bill Page.