Categories
Uncategorized

Primer on how the UN COP process supports US climate action

The UN climate conferences do not write US law, yet they change what countries, companies, cities, and investors actually do.

COPs create shared timelines and yardsticks, translate science into clear messages, and convene coalitions that make credible action easier to recognize and finance.

That force multiplier reaches Congress and federal agencies, and it reaches governors, utility commissions, mayors, school districts, and tribal and regional governments.

In a federal system where delivery is distributed, the strongest results come when national and subnational actors move in step with global signals.

The COP as a catalyst for decisions that are made at home

No COP can compel votes on Capitol Hill or at a statehouse. What COPs do is synchronize clocks, define credibility, and concentrate attention.

The cycle of national climate plans and the Global Stocktake turn distant goals into near term milestones.

Guidance on net zero claims, methane accounting, and sector road maps sets a reference for regulators, investors, and civil society.

The events themselves gather public and private leaders in one place, which speeds deals that would take months in normal time.

The result is a steady pull on policy, procurement, and investment decisions across US institutions.

How COPs stimulate commitments beyond national decisions

Deadlines bring action forward. As COP dates approach, agencies and companies look for announcements that show momentum. That deadline effect pulls forward rules, grants, and procurements that might otherwise wait.

Shared expectations define what counts as credible. When there is clarity on methane measurement or on steel and cement pathways, federal departments, state regulators, and corporate boards can align their standards and purchasing.

Coalitions reduce risk for first movers. International buyer and producer groups on clean power, zero emission vehicles, shipping fuels, and low carbon materials lower market risk and unlock offtake agreements that justify US investment.

Finance aligns around pipelines. Development banks, green banks, and private lenders use COP to standardize program templates. That makes it easier for smaller US cities and utilities to join and easier for federal programs to blend public and private capital.

Co-benefits move to the center. Health, affordability, jobs, and time saved are now core parts of the COP narrative. That framing helps build durable coalitions for action in the United States.

Why COP outcomes matter for US federal action

Competitiveness and trade are on the line. Global buyers are demanding low carbon materials and clean power. The European Union is phasing in a carbon border adjustment. US producers that can verify lower emissions will protect market share and may gain it. COP signals help justify federal incentives for clean heat, electrified processes, and cleaner logistics and they support Buy Clean requirements that value low embodied carbon.

Federal rulemaking and guidance draw on international norms. Environmental and energy agencies look to global methods on measurement and verification when shaping standards.

Stocktake findings and sector road maps inform rule design at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, and they influence procurement rules at the General Services Administration and the Department of Defense.

When federal purchasing rewards outcomes such as comfort hours, uptime, and low embodied carbon, markets move.

Finance mobilization benefits from convergence on metrics. COP aligned disclosure and transition planning support the work of US financial regulators and voluntary reporting frameworks. Green banks and federal loan programs can use shared metrics to crowd in private lenders at scale while keeping affordability safeguards.

Energy security and price stability improve with the shift that COPs promote. Efficiency, electrification, and diversified clean supply mean more domestic manufacturing of heat pumps, transformers, batteries, and grid controls. Less exposure to fossil price shocks is good for households and for national security.

Health and affordability gains are central. COP emphasis on health gives cover and urgency to rules on soot and ozone, methane and volatile organic compounds, indoor air quality, and urban cooling. These rules cut medical costs and lower energy bills.

Why COP outcomes matter for US states and cities

States set clean power targets and building codes. Municipalities control land use, housing strategies, transit frequency, street design, shade, and cooling centers. Public utility commissions decide how fast utilities invest in grids, demand flexibility, and storage. School districts and hospital systems are giant energy customers. COP road maps and networks offer ready templates and finance that local actors can adopt quickly.

Standards and model policies will spread faster. Building performance standards, clean construction and Buy Clean specifications, zero emission truck and bus rules, and cooling action plans are moving through state and city networks. COP guidance gives these policies a common language and metrics, which lowers the cost of adoption and compliance.

Procurement will tilt toward buying outcomes and services. The services conversation at COP will show up in bids that pay for comfort, reliability, clean air, and trip speed. A school district can procure classroom comfort by bundling envelope upgrades, heat pumps, ventilation, and maintenance with pay as you save tariffs. A transit agency can procure on time service with zero emission fleets rather than only buses. A hospital system or water utility can procure resilience and uptime through performance based microgrids. Once a few large buyers standardize contracts and data, peers can copy them and scale the market.

Finance will move through standardized programs. COP is where multilateral lenders, green banks, and private capital converge on program templates. In the United States that enables state green banks, infrastructure banks, and municipal issuers to package retrofits, distributed energy, fleet electrification, and cooling networks into repeatable portfolios with common verification. Smaller jurisdictions benefit most because templates lower legal costs and protect low income customers.

Utility regulation will absorb global best practice. Breakthrough metrics on system flexibility, demand response, and interconnection speed will inform performance based regulation at state commissions. Expect wider use of outcome metrics such as avoided outages, interconnection cycle time, flexible load enrolled, and hourly carbon intensity of delivered electricity. These will pair with around the clock clean power procurement by cities, universities, and corporate buyers, which strengthens the signal for storage and transmission.

Ports and industry will organize around cross border corridors and buyers clubs. Green shipping corridors create specific routes where ports, carriers, fuel suppliers, and cargo owners commit to lower carbon operations. US ports on the West Coast, the Gulf, and the Atlantic will use these corridors to attract federal and private funds for bunkering, shore power, and efficient landside logistics. Buyers clubs for clean steel, cement, and aluminum will help states implement clean procurement for roads, bridges, schools, and public housing while keeping contractors competitive.

Health and heat will anchor local action. COP attention to health makes it easier for state health departments and city heat officers to justify investments in cooling networks, tree canopy, reflective surfaces, indoor air upgrades, and clean cooking. Expect growth in heat season playbooks, home cooling support for vulnerable residents, and resilience hubs in libraries and community centers.

How federal and subnational action can reinforce each other

As the next round of national climate targets takes shape, states and cities can feed quantified pipelines in power, buildings, transport, and industry into federal planning. In return, federal grants, tax credits, and procurement can prioritize projects that use shared COP metrics and verification, which makes progress provable at home and credible abroad.

Federal agencies can publish short sector playbooks that translate COP road maps into US ready actions with model contracts and data standards. Grant windows and procurement rounds can be timed with global cycles so US announcements ride the same wave as international partners. Technical assistance and open data can help smaller jurisdictions adopt best practice without heavy consulting costs.

States and cities can pick a few COP aligned plays that deliver visible benefits. A district wide comfort program for schools can cut bills and improve learning. A zero emission bus service contract with on time guarantees can boost ridership and air quality. A neighborhood cooling and heat health program can protect residents in the hottest weeks. An interconnection sprint with public dashboards can clear backlogs and enable more rooftop solar and batteries. Each play should use common metrics that peers are adopting to make financing and replication easy.

Illustrative national and local spillovers already underway

The Global Methane Pledge raised the profile of methane across energy and agriculture. The result is stronger satellite detection, more attention from producers, and faster uptake of low cost fixes. US methane standards and voluntary programs draw strength from this momentum and they create service markets for detection and repair that local firms can serve.

The First Movers Coalition gathered buyers for low carbon steel, cement, aluminum, shipping, and aviation fuels. US procurement and domestic investment credits create demand and supply at the same time, which lowers costs for industrial decarbonization and keeps US manufacturing in the race. States can align their Buy Clean policies to the same product rules and labels to amplify that effect.

The Breakthrough Agenda produced road maps for power, road transport, hydrogen, and industry. These road maps inform utility resource planning, state clean transport strategies, and federal purchasing guidance, and they steer demand toward cleaner supply chains that US producers can serve.

Article 6 pilots are improving methods for high integrity crediting. Even before a mature market exists, this signals to US project developers and buyers that better baselines, monitoring, and benefit sharing are coming. States and cities can use the same methods for results based payments in landfills, wastewater plants, building retrofits, and urban nature projects while maintaining safeguards.

The bottom line

COPs do not substitute for US lawmaking, yet they shape expectations, define credibility, and align finance in ways that help both federal and subnational leaders move faster.

The likely future is two way traffic. States and cities will feed concrete pipelines and metrics into national and global processes. Federal agencies will pull down templates and capital that make delivery cheaper and quicker on the ground.

If the United States leans into that exchange, it will get cleaner and more reliable energy, healthier air, safer heat seasons, competitive industries, and communities that see tangible improvements in daily life.

Categories
Uncategorized

Wrap-up of COP30 in Belém: Developments and what’s next

The COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil closed with a familiar mixed message: the headline cover decision reaffirmed the 1.5°C limit and called for “transitions” in energy and economies, but stopped short of a clear, time‑bound fossil‑fuel phaseout and left finance and carbon‑market rules largely unresolved.

That gap between ambition and delivery is where the action now moves—to 2035 nationally-determined commitments (NDCs), to sector transitions guided by the IPCC, to health and wellbeing co‑benefits, and to cities, states, and service innovators who can make climate progress tangible.

Alignment with the IPCC’s “major transitions”

IPCC AR6 lays out the big shifts needed this decade. Power must decarbonize and end use must electrify. Industry needs efficiency and fuel switching. Transport and buildings require strong demand side changes. Land food and nature based solutions must expand. Finance and governance reforms must enable these changes in ways that are feasible and just.

On energy and fossil fuels, the cover decision invoked transitions and allowed for abatement and CCS, but it did not codify a universal fossil fuel phaseout. It reiterated scaling clean energy and efficiency consistent with IPCC least cost pathways, yet without stronger time bound collective targets. The net effect is a political signal to keep shifting capital while continued ambiguity risks a slower drawdown of coal oil and gas.

On 2035 NDCs, parties were urged to submit new economy wide targets aligned with 1.5°C. This matters because it sets a near term deadline for whole economy planning and, if done well, can drive integrated transitions across power transport buildings and industry rather than a set of siloed pledges.

On adaptation and resilience, negotiators advanced work on operationalizing the Global Goal on Adaptation with more clarity on indicators and reporting and less on quantified global targets. This helps countries design risk informed and locally appropriate transitions that remain robust under uncertainty.

On finance and feasibility, delivery pathways for climate finance still lag needs. Without clearer concessional flows and debt relief the feasibility dimension that combines institutions finance and capacity remains a bottleneck for many economies.

On process innovation, the Brazil Presidency draft Mutirão text was described in mid-COP briefings as a menu-based push on implementation. This signals a pivot from one-size-fits-all to practical options that countries can pick up. If carried into the 2035 NDC cycle, it could accelerate uptake of proven transition packages.

The bottom line on transitions is that COP30 nudged system wide planning with 2035 NDCs and adaptation metrics, but it left the core mitigation signal weaker than the IPCC call for rapid deep and sustained reductions. Delivery now hinges on national policy packages and real economy coalitions that move power transport buildings industry and land together.

Role of affordability, health, and other wellbeing

A notable advance at COP30 was the prominence of health and quality of life framing. The WHO Special Report Delivering the Belém Health Action Plan lays out a practical agenda to integrate health into climate action through climate resilient and low carbon health systems, cleaner air, heat health protection, and finance models that value health benefits.

In practice, more parties and partners signaled plans to embed health metrics in climate policy. They plan to track avoided deaths from cleaner air, reduced heat risk, and the resilience of clinics. This reframes climate policy as a public health dividend and not only an emissions ledger.

Demand-side measures for affordability and comfort gained attention. Efficient all-electric homes, passive and district cooling, and clean cooking can reduce bills, improve indoor air, and deliver thermal comfort, especially for low-income households.

Time saved and access also featured. Mobility investments that emphasize high frequency transit, safe walking and cycling, and integrated ticketing reduce commute times and improve access to jobs and services. These multiple benefits are often undervalued in cost benefit analysis.

This matters because policies that foreground lower energy poverty, better air, safer heat seasons, and shorter commutes tend to be more durable politically and faster to scale.

The Belém Health Action Plan offers a template that ministries can adopt now, with indicators that resonate beyond climate circles.

Subnational developments

The Presidency spotlighted cities, regions, tribal, and Indigenous governments as delivery agents. An official evening summary on November 11 emphasized how local and subnational leadership is driving real world climate progress in peoples homes.

Cities and states showcased local implementation plans that braid climate health and affordability goals. Examples include building performance standards, all electric codes for new buildings, rental retrofit programs, and cooling action plans.

They advanced fleet and infrastructure pivots such as zero emission buses, municipal fleets, freight corridors, and EV ready streetscapes, paired with reliability upgrades to distribution grids.

Nature and resilience programs featured urban tree canopies, blue green stormwater systems, fire smart land use, and nature based coastal buffers as no regrets moves that also improve daily life.

Finance innovation is helping smaller jurisdictions attract private capital while protecting low income households by packaging projects into standardized programs such as pay as you save retrofits, green mortgages, and resilience bonds.

This matters because subnational governments control many levers that shape user experience including permits codes service standards transit frequency and cooling centers. Their plans can translate COP speak into renovations routes and shade on the ground.

Focus on services to unite policy with user experience and value

One evolution at COP30 is the treatment of climate solutions as services and not only technologies. The focus is on meeting needs such as mobility, thermal comfort, cooling, clean cooking, and reliable power through integrated offers that align incentives from the start.

A services lens accelerates climate action in several ways. Clear value propositions help because people buy outcomes rather than kilowatt hours, for example mobility as a service that delivers fast reliable and safe trips, comfort as a service that delivers quiet healthy and stable indoor temperatures, and cooling as a service that guarantees performance without upfront cost.

Policy fit improves when service performance standards such as comfort hours trip times and air quality targets sit alongside emissions standards.

Public procurement can buy services for example contracted comfort for schools and hospitals instead of equipment, which enables aggregators to finance upgrades at scale.

Ownership of the user experience reduces friction when one accountable entity handles design delivery maintenance and billing, with bundles that include financing warranties and simple apps that make clean choices the easy default.

Equity by design becomes practical because services can embed affordability through lifeline tiers on bill tariffs and targeted subsidies that guarantee comfort and access for renters and low income households who are often locked out of capital intensive technology.

Data and verification also improve because service contracts create measurable outcomes such as comfort hours avoided outages and on time trips which can anchor results based finance and where appropriate high integrity carbon and health crediting.

Near‑term service plays to watch:

  • Thermal comfort services for social housing and schools, combining envelope, heat pumps, and ventilation with pay‑as‑you‑save tariffs.
  • Cooling‑as‑a‑service in hot cities, linked to heat‑health plans and time‑of‑use pricing.
  • Clean‑cooking service subscriptions that bundle stoves, fuel access, and maintenance.
  • Mobility subscriptions that integrate transit, bike/scooter share, and first/last‑mile shuttles.
  • Reliability‑as‑a‑service for critical facilities, pairing rooftop solar, storage, and microgrids under performance contracts.

Wrap-up

So, did COP30 move the needle? The signal is moderate because the cover text uses transitions language that keeps 1.5°C on the agenda but it avoided a clear fossil phaseout.

The structure is useful since 2035 NDC guidance, adaptation metrics work, and the Brazil Presidency’s menu style implementation push give countries and cities a clearer runway to act.

The substance is still to be delivered, and the most credible progress now lies in national policy packages, subnational implementation, and service based business models that foreground health, affordability, comfort, and time.

Looking ahead, watch for the first wave of 2035 NDCs and whether they are economy-wide, IPCC-aligned, and grounded in just locally led transitions.

Track how quickly countries operationalize the Belém Health Action Plan in budgets, clinics, heat health systems, and clean air rules.

See whether cities and states move building retrofits, cooling programs, and transit upgrades from pilots to standardized and financeable portfolios.

Monitor whether ministries, school districts, and utilities begin procuring outcomes such as comfort, reliability, and trips at scale.

References

UNFCCC (22 Nov 2025). Outcomes Report of the Global Climate Action Agenda at COP 30. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/documents/655037

COP30 Presidency (15 Nov 2025). COP30 Evening Summary – November 15. COP30 Presidency. https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-evening-summary-november-15

European Parliament (17 Nov 2025). COP30 outcome: slow progress, but insufficient to meet the climate crisis urgency. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/press-room/20251117IPR31438/cop30-outcome-slow-progress-but-insufficient-to-meet-climate-crisis-urgency

Categories
Uncategorized

Primer on transit-oriented development

Transit-oriented development concentrates daily life within a 5 to 10 minute walk of high-quality buses, trains, and ferries. The goal is to make transit along with walking and biking the easiest choices for most trips and to reduce car dependence without sacrificing access or opportunity.

Transit-oriented development is a practical way to unite transportation and housing objectives into a single mutually reinforcing framework. When cities plan homes, jobs, shops, parks, and schools around reliable transit the result is shorter trips safer streets lower household costs and stronger local economies.

Key characteristics

Great station areas are compact and mixed use. Homes offices retail schools civic buildings and services sit close together so errands and commutes are simple.

Density belongs at stations. The most active uses and the greatest height are closest to transit and then step down into surrounding neighborhoods.

Design favors people on foot and on bikes. Think short blocks safe crossings active ground floors shade and trees lighting and minimal setbacks.

Access is truly multimodal. Protected bike lanes secure bike parking clear wayfinding and well managed pick up and drop off keep people moving comfortably.

Parking is right sized and managed. Cities reduce or remove minimums unbundle parking from leases share district parking and price the curb.

Transit is frequent and reliable all day. Service every few minutes with seamless transfers and comfortable stations makes the system a default choice.

Mix matters. A range of housing types and prices together with community services supports inclusion and long term stability.

Some examples

Arlington Virginia focused growth along the Rosslyn Ballston corridor with closely spaced Metro stations. Mixed use buildings and excellent streets delivered strong ridership and lively main streets.

Hoboken New Jersey used PATH ferries and frequent buses plus parking reform and infill to enable very low car ownership and thriving street life.

Somerville Massachusetts paired the Green Line Extension with upzoning new housing safer streets and active station plazas.

Cambridge Massachusetts used Red Line station areas and strong bike networks to grow mixed use districts while holding car use down.

Evanston Illinois adopted station area overlays near CTA and Metra reduced parking and enabled missing middle housing near Main and Dempster.

Shaker Heights Ohio created the Van Aken District at a light rail terminus with housing retail and public space on a walkable grid.

Normal Illinois built Uptown Station for Amtrak and local buses then added civic anchors streetscape upgrades and infill that supports small businesses.

Hillsboro Oregon built Orenco Station near MAX light rail with fine grained blocks mid rise housing and neighborhood retail.

Beaverton Oregon intensified around MAX with new housing offices and public spaces at Beaverton Central and nearby stations.

Pasadena California planned around Gold Line stations including Del Mar with mixed use buildings reduced parking and walkable streets.

Santa Monica California anchored the Expo Line terminus with a downtown specific plan plus a strong bike network to support car light living.

Tempe Arizona focused housing and jobs along light rail and the streetcar with unbundled parking and good bike and transit integration.

Rockville Maryland built a town center around Metrorail with housing retail and civic uses and a connected street grid.

Redmond Washington upzoned station areas before Link light rail arrived and is adding thousands of homes and jobs with strong bike access.

Fort Collins Colorado created the MAX BRT with station plans mixed use zoning and safe connections between the university and downtown.

Grand Rapids Michigan aligned BRT corridors with infill housing parking reform and better walking and biking connections.

La Mesa California revitalized its village and trolley stations with small lot infill and safer walking and cycling.

Englewood Colorado redeveloped a light rail site as CityCenter with civic facilities housing retail and a walkable block network.

San Leandro California advanced station area plans for Downtown and Bay Fair with upzoning reduced parking and public realm upgrades.

What it takes to make TOD work

Transit must be frequent reliable and comfortable. Give buses priority in traffic ensure short waits and make transfers easy.

Land use policy must allow mixed use and enough homes near stations. Upzone where the transit is and adopt clear form and design standards. Enable missing middle housing by right in walksheds.

Parking and demand management keep driving optional. Lower or eliminate minimums unbundle costs share parking and price the curb.

The public realm must feel great. Calm traffic shorten crossings build protected bike networks and create welcoming station plazas.

Equity must be built in. Use inclusionary housing community land trusts right to return policies rent stabilization where allowed anti eviction measures and small business support.

Governance and finance matter. Coordinate across departments use value capture such as tax increment financing and special districts and pursue joint development and air rights where feasible.

Market readiness and phasing help projects stick. Lead with civic anchors allow flexible ground floors and deliver projects in manageable phases.

Operations count. Keep stations and public spaces clean well lit secure and easy to navigate and program them with regular activity.

Benefits

Mobility improves and emissions fall. People make more trips by foot bike and transit which reduces vehicle miles traveled and traffic injuries.

Housing supply increases where access is best. Families spend less on transportation which improves overall affordability.

Local economies gain. Foot traffic supports small businesses and mixed use districts improve productivity and resilience.

Public finances benefit. Compact neighborhoods use infrastructure efficiently and produce more tax revenue per acre.

Health and social connection rise. Daily physical activity increases streets get safer and access to opportunity expands.

Pitfalls to avoid

Displacement can occur if values rise without protections. Plan for mixed income housing and small business stability from the start.

Transit without supportive land use underperforms. Upzoning without credible transit also disappoints. The two must move together.

Too much parking and fast arterials undermine walkability and transit use. Create people first streets and manage parking supply and price.

Isolated megaprojects with inward facing superblocks and blank podiums deaden the street. Favor a fine grained public network.

Mandated retail on every ground floor can create vacancies. Concentrate active uses where foot traffic supports them and allow other lively frontages elsewhere.

Ignoring buses and bikes harms first and last mile access. Make bus service great and bike access safe.

Putting park and ride lots on prime station land wastes opportunity. Reserve those sites for homes jobs services and public space.

Common misconceptions

You do not need skyscrapers. Mid rise buildings on a connected street grid often deliver excellent outcomes.

Rail is not the only path. Bus rapid transit and frequent bus networks can support strong transit oriented places when speed and reliability are protected.

Building transit does not guarantee development. Zoning the public realm and market conditions all matter.

Transit oriented development does not mean zero parking. It means the right amount shared and priced in a way that supports the street.

Density alone is not TOD. Without walkability mixed uses and frequent service it will not change travel habits.

TOD does not automatically cause gentrification. Outcomes depend on policy design protections and region wide housing supply.

What city councils need to do

Adopt a clear station area vision that prioritizes homes near transit safe streets and economic inclusion.

Change the rules to allow mixed use and mid to high rise buildings within a half mile of stations.

Eliminate or cap parking minimums and require parking to be unbundled from leases. Allow missing middle housing by right in walksheds.

Hardwire equity through inclusionary housing right to return protections and support for community land trusts and small businesses.

Enable by right approvals when projects match the plan and use objective design standards.

Create value capture districts dedicate a share to affordable housing and the public realm and authorize joint development.

Set measurable targets and report progress each year.

What city managers and local government executives need to do

Stand up a cross functional implementation team that includes planning transportation housing public works legal and finance.

Align the capital plan so utility upgrades complete streets station plazas and bike networks arrive when or before private projects do.

Improve transit reliability with bus lanes signal priority and thoughtful curb management and coordinate service and fares with transit agencies.

Negotiate development agreements that deliver mixed income housing public space and district parking solutions and use joint development and air rights where assets allow.

Use public parcels to de risk early phases and favor long term ground leases over fee sales when possible.

Budget for cleaning lighting security and activation of public spaces and enforce parking and curb policies.

Communicate clearly about tradeoffs construction mitigation and benefits throughout delivery.

What staff planners and subject matter experts need to do

Write station area zones with clear standards for form height floor area and frontage. Allow flexible ground floors and a range of housing types.

Set low or zero parking minimums require unbundling and allow shared and off site parking and demand based curb pricing.

Design streets for people with low stress bike networks shorter crossings daylighted corners slower design speeds and shade and stormwater features.

Plan first and last mile access with wayfinding secure bike parking and well managed pickup and drop off. Bake in inclusionary requirements anti displacement strategies and small business support and monitor outcomes by income and race.

Where applicable use programmatic CEQA and NEPA strategies objective standards and pre approved plan sets to accelerate compliant projects.

Track mode share VMT parking use housing delivery affordability retail performance and safety and publish the data.

Partner early with transit agencies schools utilities employers hospitals universities and community organizations.

Categories
Uncategorized

“Level of service” concepts for equitable access and mobility

The concept of “level of service” (LOS) is performance metrics for the services that local governments should be providing–the expectations and standards they should be committed to.

What follows are illustrative LOS metrics for access and mobility that shift performance management from the conventional topic of vehicle delay to people-centered, equity-first outcomes.

They quantify how safely, affordably, and reliably residents—especially in equity-priority areas, and including youth, seniors, and people with disabilities—can walk, roll, bike, and ride transit to reach daily needs. The metrics emphasize outcomes people experience and can be disaggregated by geography and demographic groups to reveal and close equity gaps.

Agencies can use metrics like these to set baselines, adopt equity‑weighted targets, and link planning, project selection, design, operations, and maintenance to measurable outcomes. Public dashboards and routine reporting make tradeoffs transparent, reward investments that move more people safely and sustainably, and ensure ongoing accountability for safety, climate, health, and opportunity gains.

Overall

  1. Safety risk exposure: Killed or seriously injured (KSI) per 100,000 residents—especially for people walking and biking—in equity areas; share of high-injury network covered and fixes delivered.
  2. Access to opportunities: Share of residents who can reach X jobs/clinics/grocers/schools within 15 minutes by transit/walk/bike; break out by youth and seniors; compare equity areas to regional averages.
  3. Affordability burden: Share of household income spent on transportation; fare-to-wage ratio for typical trips; enrollment and coverage of reduced-fare programs.
  4. Environmental burden and co-benefits: Population-weighted exposure to PM2.5/NO2/traffic noise and proximity to high-volume roadways; per-capita GHG and changes attributable to service improvements.

Walking and using a wheelchair

  1. Safe and convenient crossings: Marked crossing density/spacing; average wait to cross at signals and unsignalized locations; percent of crossings with high-visibility markings, refuge islands, and LPIs. Targets: average pedestrian signal delay ≤30 s at arterials; crossing spacing ≤120 m in centers.
  2. ADA accessibility at corners: Percent of corners with compliant curb ramps and detectable warnings.
  3. Exposure and conflicts along the path: Percent of sidewalk length adjacent to traffic ≥30 mph without a buffer; driveway conflicts per km on pedestrian-priority corridors.
  4. Safety outcomes: Pedestrian KSI per million walk-miles; near-miss reports per 1,000 trips.
  5. Comfort, amenities, and lighting: Percent of walk-km with shade/trees; benches per km; drinking water availability; percent of corridors meeting pedestrian-scale illumination standards.
  6. Access and directness: Cumulative opportunities within a 15-minute walk (jobs/schools/parks); average circuity ratio vs straight-line for typical walk trips.

Bicycle travel

  1. Low-stress access, connectivity, and wayfinding: Percent of residents/jobs within 1,000 ft of all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) bikeways; percent of key origin–destination pairs connected via LTS 1–2 network; percent of network with continuous signage and destination/time information.
  2. Bikeway protection and intersection design: Percent of bikeway-km that are physically protected vs painted; percent of bikeway junctions with protection (setbacks, signals, refuge/islands).
  3. Stress, conflicts, and terrain exposure: Share of typical bike trips requiring LTS 3–4 segments; driveway and bus stop conflicts per bikeway-km; percent of network-km with grades >5% (or elevation gain per typical trip).
  4. Surface condition and maintenance: Percent of bikeway-km with PCI ≥ good; sweeping frequency and debris clearance; snow/ice clearance compliance time.
  5. Travel time reliability: 80th/50th percentile bike travel time ratio on key corridors.
  6. Safety outcomes: Bike KSI per million bike-miles; crash rate at protected vs unprotected segments.

Bicycle parking

  1. Short-term supply and proximity: Percent of storefronts and key destinations with properly placed inverted-U racks; racks within 50 ft (≈30 m) of main entrances. Suggested targets: ≥2 rack spaces per storefront; racks within 30 m at ≥90% of destinations.
  2. Short-term utilization and turnover: Peak-hour utilization (%) and average daily turnover per rack; maintain peak utilization in a 50–85% range.
  3. Long-term supply and equity coverage: Secure spaces per 10 employees and per 10 multifamily units; percent of buildings meeting code/targets; coverage in priority/equity areas vs citywide. Suggested targets: ≥1 secure space per 10 employees; ≥1 per dwelling unit in new multifamily.
  4. Long-term security and theft: Percent of spaces in access-controlled rooms/cages/lockers with CCTV; thefts per 100 spaces/year. Suggested target: 100% access-controlled.
  5. End-of-trip amenities: Percent of major employment sites providing showers, lockers, repair stands, and e-bike charging.
  6. Micromobility parking management: Designated corral density (per km²) and compliance (share of devices parked in corrals).

Transit service

  1. Service availability and proximity: Percent of households within a 10–15 minute walk (≤0.25 mi) of frequent transit (≤10–15 minute headways); average walk time to a stop with ≥4 buses/hour.
  2. Frequency and span of service: Headways and hours of operation by time of day/day of week to equity communities, airports, job centers, schools, neighboring towns, regional recreation/trailheads, and regional/statewide transit; percent of the day with ≤10–15 minute headways.
  3. Person-throughput: People moved per hour by corridor and mode (peak/off-peak), emphasizing people-moving capacity over vehicle throughput.
  4. Universal/ADA accessibility: Percent of stops/stations with compliant boarding, curb ramps, tactile surfaces; shelters with benches; elevator/escalator uptime; percent of trips that are step-free.
  5. Crowding and comfort: Peak load factor; percent of trips exceeding agency crowding standards on routes serving equity areas; seat availability by time of day.
  6. Travel time and reliability: Median and 80th/95th percentile travel times (or buffer time index) for representative trips; on-time performance by route in equity areas.

References

NACTO (2019). Don’t Give Up at the Intersection: Designing All Ages & Abilities Intersections. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/

FHWA (2019). Bikeway Selection Guide. Federal Highway Administration. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf

Mekuria, M. C., Furth, P. G., & Nixon, H. (2012). Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. Mineta Transportation Institute. https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/low-stress-bicycling-and-network-connectivity

NACTO (2016). Transit Street Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/

TRB (2013). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition. Transportation Research Board. https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx

U.S. EPA (2023). EJSCREEN Technical Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/technical-documentation-ejscreen

U.S. DOJ (2010). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm

USDOT (2022). National Roadway Safety Strategy. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS

Vision Zero Network (2018). Core Elements for Vision Zero Communities. Vision Zero Network. https://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/core-elements/

Litman, T. (2024). Evaluating Transportation Equity: Guidance for Incorporating Distributional Impacts in Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf

Owen, A., & Levinson, D. (2015). Access Across America: Transit 2015. University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory. https://access.umn.edu/publications/annual-reports

WHO (2021). WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228

NACTO (2017). Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-ages-abilities/

FHWA (2023). Proven Safety Countermeasures. Federal Highway Administration. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/

ITDP (2017). The TOD Standard, 3rd Edition. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. https://www.itdp.org/publication/the-tod-standard/

Categories
Uncategorized

Where “level of service” comes from and what we need it for now

“Level of service” (LOS) is one of the most enduring ideas in public-sector management. It started as a technical grading system for traffic flow and evolved into a broader way governments define what residents can expect from public services.

Along the way, it shaped zoning decisions, capital budgets, environmental reviews, and day-to-day operations—for better and worse.

Where LOS began

In 1965 the Highway Capacity Manual, produced under the Transportation Research Board, introduced LOS as a way to describe how roads and intersections operate.

Engineers translated speed, density, and delay into A through F grades that non specialists could grasp. Fast and free flowing traffic tended to earn higher grades, while slow and congested conditions earned lower ones. The report card format moved quickly from manuals to meetings because it made choices visible to elected officials and the public.

Cities and counties adopted LOS in their plans and codes, often as part of development review. Many jurisdictions set minimum standards for intersections or corridors and asked developers to fund mitigations when new projects pushed grades below the threshold. Florida’s concurrency era became a well known example.

LOS also shaped environmental review practice. In California, analysts long treated a drop in intersection LOS as a significant impact under CEQA, which led to capacity oriented mitigations. Public works and transportation departments used LOS to size roadways, choose signal control, and justify capital projects. In many places it became the default performance target for surface transportation.

Driving our car problems

By the 2000s, a consensus in academic and advocacy communities emerged that LOS for vehicles delay wasn’t working.

There were lines of critique:

Expanding capacity to “preserve” LOS often filled quickly, pushing agencies into expensive widening cycles with limited long-term congestion relief.

Designing for higher vehicle LOS typically produced wider, faster corridors that degraded safety for people walking and biking and undermined main-street vitality.

And a car-delay metric sidelined transit, walking, and biking, disproportionately burdening people without reliable access to a car.

Calls for moving away from vehicle delay LOS grew.

Towards fuller transportation management

Gradual reform began. Slowly, agencies started to add different measures—those for people on foot, on bikes, and on transit.

Planners tracked person throughput rather than only vehicle throughput, as well as complete streets commitments, low stress bike networks, sidewalk continuity, crossing frequency, and multimodal mitigations in development review.

Transit targets emerged for frequency, span, reliability, crowding, and access to frequent routes.

Measurement emerged for numbers of jobs, schools, and services residents could reach within a set time by different modes.

Freight and curb programs set expectations for travel time, delivery windows, and turnover.

Vision zero emerged, the target for zero deaths or serious injuries.

Climate and health objectives came to sit within LOS style frameworks, including VMT reduction, mode share, and exposure to air and noise pollution near major roads and freight lines.

Agencies disaggregated performance by race, income, age, disability, and place to see whether every neighborhood meets the floor standard and whether gaps are closing year over year.

In 2020, California passed SB 743, which shifted transportation analysis under CEQA from intersection delay to vehicle miles traveled.

Next, Federal performance management under MAP 21 and the FAST Act emphasized reliability, safety, and asset condition. The center of gravity moved from delay to outcomes that people experience.

Today, LOS for vehicle delay is still with us. The changes haven’t reached every agency, and others still use the metric but more narrowly, like for freight routes, evacuation corridors, and certain intersections.

Others continue to use it alongside other measures. Corridor planning now puts vehicle LOS next to safety, reliability, transit travel time, and access, and in many cases the people centered measures are decisive.

Operations teams monitor real time reliability, incident clearance time, and headway adherence. Equity reporting has matured as well.

Most agencies now use a dashboard rather than a single grade, and they tune targets to context. A downtown main street needs different goals than a neighborhood collector or a heavy industrial corridor.

Overall though, the importance of vehicle delay LOS has declined as its shortcomings have become more widely understood, and it is being increasingly replaced by other measures that deliver better results.

Good service now means safe, reliable, affordable, and accessible mobility for people, not only fast movement for cars.

It’s also understood that the benefits, costs, and issues around transportation are inextricably to linked land use, housing, and other disciplines and departments.

And furthermore, people don’t need transportation for transportation’s sake—it is ultimately to access opportunities and resolve needs for wellbeing, of which strategies besides transportation are available.

Beyond transportation

Meanwhile, local governments have borrowed the LOS idea for services beyond transportation.

Fire and EMS agencies published response time and coverage goals that guide station siting and staffing.

Public works tracked snow clearance time, pothole repair, street sweeping cycles, and signal uptime.

Parks departments measured access to green space and program availability. Utilities set standards for water pressure, outage duration, sewer overflow prevention, and flood risk tolerances.

Customer service teams set response and resolution times for 311.

Airports and terminals managed comfort and processing time in key areas.

In each case leaders defined the service, measured delivery, and managed to a public standard.

A language for executives

LOS has also become a language of executives. Mayors, city managers, and county administrators use it to compare priorities across departments and to focus leadership attention.

As such, it has lets transportation proposals sit at the same table as water, parks, housing, and public safety.

Departments present LOS targets with timelines and budgets, and executives see tradeoffs, assign resources, and hold teams accountable.

Chief financial officers use it to link funding to promised service levels.

Budget offices use cross-agency scorecards to coordinate action, for example faster bus travel times that require both transit priority and signal timing, or safer corridors that require design changes, targeted enforcement, and maintenance.

LOS has led to a common language that makes technical management visible at the highest levels, where decisions are made that span multiple disciplines and power exists to create shared ownership.

Looking ahead

Advocates of equitable transportation can find LOS to be a sore spot. It is one of the drivers of historic and still ongoing widespread public policies and investments that lead to, and lock in, destructive car-centric planning. So there can be an understandable impulse to write LOS off.

But its impact and power is the point. The idea of LOS is performance measurement. Its proposition is to define the service, measure it in a transparent way, and manage to a public standard.

And so what began as a traffic report card using a lot of assumptions that have needed to be updated has grown into a practice of performance management to describe what government will deliver. It has become a language that helps executives set priorities, align budgets, and give sustained attention to the work that matters.

A question for policymakers looking ahead: What are the services should we be providing now, and what are the expectations and standards that we should be committed to?

References

Litman, Todd (2024). Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf

California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2020). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/guidance/

California Natural Resources Agency (2018). CEQA Guidelines Update implementing SB 743. California Natural Resources Agency. https://resources.ca.gov/ceqa

Federal Highway Administration (2016). Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/

Transportation Research Board (2016). Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Transportation Research Board. https://hcm.trb.org

Florida Department of Transportation (2013). Quality Level of Service Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. https://www.fdot.gov/planning/systems/programs/sm/los/

National Association of City Transportation Officials (2013). Urban Street Design Guide.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/

California State Legislature (2013). Senate Bill 743 Environmental Quality. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743

Categories
Uncategorized

Home rule in a warming world: Balancing autonomy versus avoidance

Climate change is rewriting the job of local government. Towns face floods, heat waves, wildfire smoke, drought, and stronger storms.

Home rule can help because local authority allows speed, fit, and trust.

It can also backfire when local choices block housing, push growth outward, and raise climate and infrastructure costs for everyone in the region. When towns refuse to work on shared problems together, they hurt their neighbors and invite the same harm back.

The work is to keep the agility of local action without exporting costs and risks to others.

What home rule is and why it matters now

Home rule lets a town set many of its own rules for land use, public health, infrastructure, procurement, and programs.

The details differ by state, but the idea is simple. Decisions made close to the ground can match local risks and values and can adapt as conditions change.

That proximity matters in a fast shifting climate. Hazards vary block by block. Tools like microgrids, cool roofs, and nature based flood control need real world pilots. People are more likely to engage with plans designed and explained by their own community.

Where local autonomy helps

The value shows up in day to day work. During heat waves, a town can extend library hours, open cooling centers, set cool roof rules, and check on seniors and residents without stable housing.

Flood prone places can map small watersheds, upgrade culverts, add street trees and rain gardens, and update setback rules in repeat loss areas.

Communities on the fire edge can strengthen defensible space, encourage ember resistant retrofits, plan neighborhood evacuations, and create clean air rooms in schools.

Municipal utilities can try demand response, rooftop solar, batteries, and resilience hubs that keep power and cooling on during outages.

Planning and zoning can steer growth to safer and already served locations and reduce exposure in floodplains and fire corridors.

This is home rule at its best. Responsive, practical, and tuned to real conditions.

The myth of local exceptionalism

Every place has real differences. A mountain town faces wildfire. A legacy industrial city faces heat islands and old pipes. A coastal village faces surge and saltwater intrusion.

Yet many communities overstate how unique their needs are. Housing markets respond to supply and demand in familiar ways.

When zoning and permitting choke homes near jobs, prices rise and workers move farther out.

Traffic fights look similar across regions even though the deeper cause of congestion is spread out growth that forces more driving for daily needs.

Infrastructure costs follow the same math everywhere. Low density leapfrog growth needs more road miles, pipe miles, and emergency coverage per household.

Climate physics are universal. More pavement means more heat. Building in flood zones and fire corridors raises loss. Longer commutes raise emissions.

Because the patterns rhyme, proven playbooks travel well: Accessory dwelling units with clear design rules. Small multifamily near transit with form standards that fit context. Green infrastructure guided by flood and heat maps. Resilience hubs in libraries and schools. Tree canopy targets focused on the hottest blocks.

Local distinctiveness should shape how we apply these tools, not whether we apply them at all. Too often the claim that a place is uniquely special becomes a way to avoid action to create crucial housing, cut emissions, and build resilience.

How refusing to work together harms neighbors—and causes them to harm you

Local land use does not stop at the town line. When one town takes the jobs and blocks homes, workers must live farther away and drive through other towns. Commutes lengthen on the same regional roads. Emissions rise across the whole air basin.

The costs show up in traffic, noise, and pollution for neighbors who had no vote on the original decision. Budgets feel the strain as well. Sprawl forces more miles of roads and pipes and spreads police, fire, and school service areas thin. The bill arrives in higher state aid needs, regional taxes, and utility rates paid by everyone.

Risk spreads too. Pushing growth outward often pushes it into hotter exurban zones, floodplains, and fire prone hills. Disasters do not honor jurisdictional maps. Evacuations, smoke days, and water rescues ripple through mutual aid networks. Insurance markets price regional losses and can raise premiums even for towns that planned well.

The harms compound in equity. When towns chase revenue rich commercial uses while resisting homes, they bid against each other, drive up rents, and still end up short on workforce housing. Workers travel farther, spend more on transportation, and lose time with family. Access to schools, parks, and jobs becomes more unequal.

Going it alone feels protective in the short run but it can mulitpky shared costs and shared risks for the whole region.

Recognizing defensive exceptionalism

There are warning signs when a home rule claim masks avoidance rather than stewardship:

Endless hearings and bespoke studies for projects that meet adopted code.

Shifting objections that move from traffic to neighborhood character to school capacity without a workable plan for any of them.

Absolute bans on multifamily homes, shelters, or renewables where performance standards could manage real impacts.

Fast tracking low wage commercial projects while slow walking homes for the same workforce.

Genuine uniqueness exists and deserves careful standards and siting. It does not justify a blanket refusal to add homes or share regional responsibilities.

The trap of over-indexing on historic preservation

Historic preservation can be a public good. It protects craft, keeps memory alive, and saves embodied carbon through reuse. It can also become a cudgel that blocks needed homes and climate upgrades when harms outweigh benefits.

But preservation is selective: streetcar cities thrived without cars; the same places sit atop stolen Indigenous land; later, redlining and Jim Crow shaped neighborhoods. We cannot comprehensively preserve our history by cementing facades.

History matters, yet towns live by change. On a warming planet, the most urgent preservation is a livable habitat—safe from heat, flood, fire, and bad air. If we miss that, nothing else we save will endure.

Towns must adapt. They need to allow middle housing in walkable areas, and enable retrofits, solar, and electrification. In doing so, the ought to be explicit about goals and opportunity costs of landmarking—what important principles guides preservation, and at what price in homes, emissions, risk, and equity? Count homes foregone, emissions added, and who pays.

Landmarking needs to yield to developing communities that are designed to live in, allowing compatible additions, missing-middle infill, and climate upgrades by right. It should value adaptive reuse, step back added floors, and pair limits with tools like TDRs and grants. In sum, honoring memory without immobilizing it so history has a future to live in.

Where higher level orchestration is needed

This is not an argument for stripping local agency. It is a call to pair local action with clear and fair regional and state frameworks for outcomes that are shared.

States can set fair share housing targets by region and by municipality and require zoning that allows those homes near jobs and transit. They can back those targets with steady accountability. Climate aligned guardrails can legalize accessory dwellings and missing middle homes in walkable areas while keeping new growth out of the most fire and flood exposed zones.

Public money should follow outcomes. Transportation and infrastructure funds should reward places that align zoning with transit, reduce driving, permit homes in job rich areas, and plan for risk. Subsidies should not extend pipes and roads into the riskiest sprawl.

Regional planning bodies can align transportation, housing, and climate with shared data, scenario modeling, and performance measures for equity and emissions.

Statewide building and energy codes can set a strong floor for efficiency and resilience while allowing vetted local stretch codes so innovators can lead and others can follow with confidence. State produced maps for flood, heat, smoke, wildfire risk, and neighborhood level emissions and access can anchor local choices in shared facts.

Subsidiarity as a guide

Use subsidiarity to decide who does what. Make decisions at the lowest level that can handle them well and lift decisions to higher levels when impacts are regional or statewide.

Local governments are the right place for emergency response, site specific risk mitigation, tree canopy and street design, local mobility, community engagement, and the design of infill that fits context.

States and regions are the right place for housing supply targets and fair share zoning, major transit and highway investments, siting rules that keep growth out of the highest risk areas, regional growth strategies, and utility and insurance regulation. Shared data standards and open permitting work best when built once and used by all.

Policy ideas that respect difference without indulging exceptionalism

The balance is practical. Set statewide rules that legalize modest, climate friendly homes in walkable and transit served places, then let towns shape form and design to fit local character.

Offer preapproved building plans that cut permitting timelines and reduce soft costs.

Draw no build zones where risk is extreme and build better zones where services already exist, and pair limits with buyouts and transfer of development rights so owners are treated fairly.

Align funding with climate and housing goals by tying transportation and water or sewer money to steady progress on homes in safer and lower driving locations.

Use revenue sharing to reduce the incentive to chase commercial tax base while resisting homes.

Build capacity for small towns with technical help, shared climate staff across clusters of places, and statewide procurement tools so smaller communities can move as fast as big cities.

Publish simple dashboards that track homes permitted against targets, driving per person, risk adjusted growth, and infrastructure cost per new household.

Create safe harbors for good faith localism so towns that meet housing and climate thresholds keep wide design discretion while state backstops apply where progress lags.

How to tell the difference

Here are some questions to help discern a do it our way problem from a collective action problem:

Would delaying or shrinking this project shift costs or risks to nearby towns?

Are the benefits and harms mostly inside our borders or mostly regional?

If every town behaved as we plan to, would the region be better off or worse off?

Are we blocking homes or climate tools that peer communities use while offering no workable alternative?

Are we invoking local character when the real issue is supply, access, emissions, or risk?

Do our residents depend on regional roads, schools, hospitals, water, and job markets that our choices make more expensive or less reliable?

Could a shared standard, shared data, or shared funding approach solve this more fairly and faster than a town by town fight?

If we say no, who pays and how do they pay in time, money, health, or safety?

If we say yes with conditions, which conditions actually mitigate real impacts rather than simply stop change?

What evidence would change our minds, and are we ready to act on it?

The bottom line

Climate change pushes decisions down to where impacts are felt and up to where externalities can be managed.

Towns need the agility of home rule to protect residents and to innovate.

Regions and states need the authority to ensure that essentials like housing, emissions cuts, and risk aware growth are produced at the scale the moment demands. Claims of local specialness cannot become a veto on shared solutions.

When towns refuse to work together on shared problems, they harm one another and raise costs for everyone.

The goal is a coherent system where local creativity thrives within clear and fair guardrails that keep us from undermining our neighbors.

Categories
Uncategorized

Key climate solutions for communities

To unlock new climate progress, apply the power of local communities. Communities are key to most of the climate action needed as well as types of action that can make daily life safer, healthier, and more affordable for everyone.

What follows is a list of community‑oriented solutions that:

  • Are key areas of climate action overall;
  • Offer some of the most effective climate opportunities for communities;
  • Fall within local authority and influence, representing unique power by communities; and
  • Advance equity and public wellbeing, which can lead the way to support for doing more.

Estimates reflect typical North American urban conditions and results vary by context.

#1. Make it legal and attractive to put housing near destinations, and amenities near homes: Reform zoning for more homes in job‑ and transit‑rich areas, permit “missing middle” housing and accessory units, reduce minimum parking, enable small mixed‑use corner stores, clinics, and childcare, and streamline approvals for affordability and inclusion. 

Infill homes lower household VMT 20–40% versus sprawl; shifting 10–20% of growth to infill can cut regional on‑road emissions ~2–6% over a decade, while multifamily/attached homes use 10–30% less energy per unit. If 40%+ of new housing is transit‑oriented, metro transport emissions can fall 10–20% by 2040, with shorter trips, lower costs, and inclusionary policies reducing displacement pressures.

#2. Neutralize the threat of being killed or seriously injured by a driver: Design streets to self‑enforce safe speeds, build connected, protected bike networks, daylight intersections, prioritize pedestrians at crossings, and target high‑injury corridors with data‑driven design, paired with fair enforcement and universal access to safe mobility. 

Such programs typically cut VMT 3–10% citywide within 5–10 years (about 2–8% on‑road CO2e, or 1–4% of total community emissions), with sustained mode shift reducing per‑capita transport emissions 20–50% over 10–20 years. Fewer severe crashes, reliable low‑cost mobility during fuel price spikes or outages, and better access to jobs and services especially benefit low‑income residents, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities.

#3. Deliver high‑quality walking, bicycling, and public transit for everyone: Build safe, direct bike routes and frequent, reliable transit with all‑door boarding, bus lanes, and integrated fares, and complete trips with wayfinding, lighting, benches, shade, and safe crossings. Network upgrades and service improvements reduce corridor VMT 5–15% and citywide 3–10%, and over time enable car‑light lifestyles that can halve household transport emissions. Redundant, multimodal networks also keep people moving during storms and outages while cutting mobility costs and improving access to essentials.

#4. Create abundant places to meet, interact, and belong outside of commerce: Invest in parks, plazas, libraries, greenways, and car‑free streets with free programming, designed for comfort—trees, water, seating, restrooms—and cultural expression. 

Nearby amenities reduce short car trips (often 0.5–2% VMT citywide) and shaded, tree‑rich public spaces lower cooling demand for adjacent buildings. Social infrastructure strengthens mutual aid, and shade and cooling reduce heat risk while free programming expands wellbeing without raising household costs.

#5. Restore and steward nature in the city with climate‑resilient landscaping and urban forestry:  Install bioswales, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and green roofs; landscape with native, drought‑tolerant species; expand and equitably distribute tree canopy; and restore wetlands, riparian corridors, dunes, and living shorelines. 

Shade and evapotranspiration cut cooling loads 5–30% for shaded buildings (roughly 0.05–0.3 tCO2e per home per year), while each new street tree sequesters 10–25 kg CO2 annually; 100,000 trees store 1–2.5 ktCO2e per year and avoid more via energy savings. Citywide canopy gains of 10 percentage points can reduce peak electricity demand 2–5%, while bioswales and rain gardens reduce flooding and heat in historically underserved neighborhoods.

#6. Grow local, plant‑rich food for health, climate, and resilience: Support community gardens, urban farms, edible landscaping, school gardens, greenhouses and rooftop farms; expand farmers markets and CSAs with SNAP matching; prioritize culturally appropriate crops and cut food waste. 

Plant‑rich diets reduce 0.5–1.6 tCO2e per person per year, while shorter cold chains for local produce trim 10–50 kg per person annually and compost‑amended soils store additional carbon. These measures increase food security, lower food bills, build community cohesion, and create local jobs and skills.

#7. Turn waste into soil with municipal composting: Provide universal organics collection (including multifamily) and business service, convenient drop‑offs, clear bin standards, and edible food recovery, and apply finished compost in parks, street trees, and urban agriculture. 

Diverting 1 t of food scraps from landfill avoids 0.2–0.6 tCO2e; with 75% diversion, communities avoid 20–80 kg CO2e per person annually, and compost use adds soil carbon and displaces synthetic fertilizer, totaling 40–120 kg per person per year. Programs create local jobs, improve soils that retain water, support urban food, and reduce odors and pests near facilities often sited in low‑income areas.

#8. Create systems for water conservation and efficiency: Offer instant‑rebate upgrades for high‑efficiency fixtures and appliances, smart irrigation, and turf replacement with climate‑appropriate landscaping; deploy smart meters with leak alerts; promote rainwater harvesting and safe graywater reuse; and set fair, affordability‑protected rates. 

Hot‑water efficiency (fixtures plus heat‑pump water heaters) lowers 0.6–1.8 tCO2e per home per year, while outdoor water efficiency and smart irrigation save 50–200 kg per home via the water‑energy nexus; utility‑scale leak detection and efficiency can cut water‑system electricity use 10–30%. The result is lower bills, improved drought resilience, reduced shutoff risk, and cooler neighborhoods where turf gives way to drought‑tolerant landscapes.

#9. Make buildings efficient and electric: Require and finance tight envelopes, passive cooling (shade, ventilation), and all‑electric systems; add rooftop solar and vehicle‑to‑home readiness; and harden for heat, smoke, fires, and floods. 

Typical retrofits and heat pumps save 1–3 tCO2e per home per year, heat‑pump water heaters 0.5–1.5 t, and induction 0.1–0.3 t; retrofitting 2–3% of stock annually cuts building emissions 3–7% in five years, and with grid decarbonization achieves 60–90% cuts by 2040–2050. Efficient envelopes keep homes habitable during outages, indoor air is healthier without combustion, and targeted no‑cost programs reduce energy poverty.

#10. Make electrification available for virtually everything—and beneficial to users: Provide simple, up‑front rebates for heat pumps, induction, electric water heaters, cars, e‑bikes, and chargers; implement equitable rates, managed charging, and community solar; and invest in workforce training and local contractors. 

Accelerated adoption increases cumulative 2030 reductions 10–30% versus slow rollout; each e‑bike that replaces car trips avoids ~0.3–1 tCO2e per year, and each home fuel‑switch avoids 1–3 tCO2e annually. Lower operating costs and cleaner air accrue broadly when access programs ensure renters and low‑income households benefit first.

#11. Build shared, neighborhood‑scale clean energy and resilience: Create resilience centers with solar, batteries, clean‑air rooms, and cooling/warming, link buildings via microgrids, deploy district geothermal/geoexchange networks, organize block commitments to decommission gas laterals and upgrade electrical capacity, and add curbside and hub EV charging. 

District geothermal cuts heating/cooling energy 30–60% and GHGs 40–80% today; microgrids with solar+storage reduce feeder peaks and displace diesel backup (1–3% local electricity emissions), and coordinated gas retirement plus electrification can eliminate 10–20% of total city emissions from building combustion and leakage over two decades. Shared systems keep critical services powered, lower costs for renters and small businesses, and should be prioritized in frontline neighborhoods.

#12. Keep people collectively safe from disasters, shocks, and stressors: Combine nature‑based defenses (trees, wetlands, dunes) with modern standards (cool roofs, updated codes, elevation, floodable parks), add resilient hubs, cooling centers, and clear risk communication, and plan jointly for heat, smoke, floods, and outages. 

These measures safeguard crucial clean energy and other assets that reduce emissions, contribute to a faster adoption of such systems and reduce the likelihood of maladaptations such as increased use of diesel generators, and prevent high‑emission disaster recovery and support reliable operation of clean energy systems. Clean air and cooling access, language‑inclusive alerts, and social infrastructure protect those most exposed.

#13. Tamp down air pollution across its many sources. Tackle tailpipes and smokestacks together with land use, travel‑demand fixes, and clean technology: legalize compact, mixed‑use infill near jobs and transit and pair it with transportation demand management (congestion and curb pricing, employer commute benefits, school travel plans, demand‑based parking, delivery consolidation) to shorten trips, cut VMT and idling, and curb non‑exhaust PM. Accelerate zero‑emission cars, buses, and trucks; electrify buildings; restrict the dirtiest vehicles in dense areas; and expand urban forests and cool corridors. Focus on ports, freight corridors, and overburdened neighborhoods with shore power, yard‑equipment electrification, clean‑truck rules, and fenceline monitoring. Drive down PM2.5 (including diesel black carbon and brake/tire/road dust), PM10, NOx, SO2, VOCs and air toxics (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3‑butadiene), carbon monoxide, and methane leaks that fuel ozone—verified with continuous monitoring and transparent public reporting.

Greenhouse‑gas benefits start with light‑duty vehicles: citywide VMT reduction of 3–10% from compact development and TDM typically yields ~2–8% on‑road CO2e cuts in 5–10 years; sustained mode shift to walking, biking, and transit can lower per‑capita transport emissions 20–50% over 10–20 years; and rapid LDV electrification adds 60–90% per‑mile CO2e reductions as grids decarbonize, with each e‑bike that replaces car trips avoiding ~0.3–1 tCO2e per year. Building electrification removes on‑site combustion; each e‑bus avoids ~50–80 tCO2e annually; and medium/heavy‑duty truck electrification cuts 60–95% per‑mile CO2e, while area‑focused clean‑air zones deliver additional, localized multi‑percent transport‑sector cuts. Health gains are largest for residents near ports, warehouses, and arterials, and fewer combustion appliances indoors reduce asthma triggers.

#14. Invest in public infrastructure efficiently and price disproportionate impacts fairly: Use lifecycle cost and carbon accounting, standardized designs, open data, and fair user fees such as weight‑ and distance‑based road charges, curb and congestion pricing, demand‑based parking, and stormwater fees tied to impervious areas, all with protections for low‑income users. 

Congestion and curb pricing reduce VMT 10–20% in priced zones and 2–5% citywide, demand‑based parking trims 2–4%, and stable revenue enables sustained transit and active‑mode expansion that underpins 10–20% transport‑sector cuts over time. Pairing pricing with income‑based discounts and reinvestment delivers fairer outcomes and lowers long‑run costs.

#15. Save money and materials with sharing and lending: Launch tool, toy, sports‑gear, and baby‑gear libraries; repair cafes and fix‑it clinics; clothing swaps and reuse marketplaces; and shared equipment for schools and small businesses, in partnership with public libraries for memberships and reservations. 

Avoided production dominates the climate benefit—sharing a handful of seldom‑used items can avert 50–200 kg CO2e per person per year, with mature programs achieving 0.1–1% community‑wide cuts and broader normalization of reuse delivering 2–5% consumption‑based reductions by 2035. These programs provide low‑cost access to essentials and skills and build social networks that matter in emergencies.

#16. Offer local services and experiences as affordable alternatives to high consumption:  Invest in arts and culture passes, maker spaces, community kitchens, skill‑shares, recreation, local tourism, and nature access, and support small businesses that provide repair, care, wellness, and learning, using vouchers and memberships to ensure inclusion. 

Shifting 5% of household spend from goods to low‑carbon services and experiences reduces ~0.2–0.8 tCO2e per household per year, with scaled programs cutting community consumption‑based emissions 1–3% over time. The result is more wellbeing per dollar, local jobs and skills, and inclusive access to community life.

#17. Organize public decision‑making around measurable collective wellbeing: 

Use participatory budgeting, citizens’ assemblies, language access, evidence‑based pilots and A/B tests, transparent dashboards, and delivery‑focused timelines that give frontline communities real power, not just voice. 

Faster, smarter adoption increases cumulative reductions—programs that double deployment rates can boost 2030 impact 10–30% versus business‑as‑usual rollout—while policies reflecting lived experience deliver fairer, more durable outcomes.

#18. Make large‑scale change possible and practical: Build project pipelines and pattern books, pre‑approve typical designs, procure at scale, train a climate‑ready workforce, and start with quick‑build projects that become permanent as data show benefits.

Standardization and bulk buys lower costs and speed deployment across sectors, compounding reductions, while predictable pipelines create local careers and let small and minority‑owned firms compete and thrive.

Putting it all together

Communities that pursue these strategies in parallel can plausibly cut total emissions 35–60% by 2035 (from a 2020s baseline) while reducing heat and flood risk, improving air quality, lowering household bills, and creating good local jobs. The fastest paths pair demand reduction (land use, mobility, efficiency), rapid electrification, neighborhood‑scale clean energy, water and materials stewardship, and joyful, lower‑consumption ways of living—implemented through equitable programs that prioritize those with the greatest energy and health burdens.

Categories
Uncategorized

Instead of blaming “greedy developers” for a lack of good housing, change the rules

It’s easy to look at a crane over a luxury condo in a town where housing is unafforable and conclude developers are the problem. But developers don’t set the rules of the game—they play the one we’ve written. They build what pencils out under today’s zoning, fees, parking mandates, timelines, interest rates, and lender requirements. If the outcome is too many high-end units and too little “missing middle,” that’s a policy failure, not villainy.

Why so much “luxury”? Because it’s what survives our cost stack and risk. Urban infill is expensive: land is dear, materials and labor have climbed, interest rates and insurance are up, and years of hearings, appeals, and environmental reviews add carrying costs. Lenders then demand proof the project can fetch top-of-market rents or pre-sales to cover that risk. When you finally clear the hurdles, you’re left with a pro forma that only works at the higher end. The “luxury” label is often a finance outcome, not a gold-plating decision; the granite countertops are a small line item compared with land, structured parking, code compliance, utility upgrades, and delay.

Meanwhile, blocking infill does not stop growth—it displaces it to the fringe, where it consumes more land, locks in car dependence, and pushes housing even farther out of reach. If you care about affordability and about preserving rural nature, you need cities to add homes where infrastructure already exists.

Developers respond to incentives just like everyone else. Few people blame “greedy farmers” for growing almonds in a drought; we recognize that water rights, subsidies, crop insurance, and market prices shape what farmers plant. If we want different crops, we change the farm bill, not the farmer’s personality. Housing is no different. If towns want more middle housing and below-market options, they must rewrite the incentive structure so those homes are the easiest, least risky thing to build.

What that looks like:

Legalize abundant, gentle density. Allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and small apartments on residential lots. Right-size setbacks, lot sizes, and height limits so “missing middle” actually fits.

Remove parking minimums. Mandatory parking is a hidden tax that kills small infill and adds tens of thousands of dollars per unit. Let the market and curb management handle parking.

Make infill by-right and fast. Predictable, swift approvals cut risk and cost. Use clear form-based codes, pre-approved plan sets, and ministerial review for code-compliant projects.

Upzone near transit and jobs. Pair added capacity with great transit, safe walking and biking, and reduced car dependence to lower household costs.
Calibrate inclusionary tools. Use inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, and in-lieu fees where the economics support them; don’t set requirements so high that nothing gets built. Publish feasibility studies and adjust as markets shift.

Put real money on the table. Fund social and affordable housing via bonds, tax credits, public land, land banks, and revolving acquisition funds. Deep affordability requires subsidy everywhere.

Support diverse builders. Create small-site loan programs, reduce impact fees for smaller units, legalize mass timber, and simplify condo liability so small and non-profit developers can produce starter homes, not just mega-projects.

Protect tenants and prevent displacement. Right-to-counsel, relocation assistance, anti-harassment, targeted rent stabilization where allowed, and community land trusts can stabilize households while production ramps up.

Align taxes and infrastructure. Use value capture and tax-increment tools to fund local improvements, and stop expanding highways that spur sprawl and raise per-unit costs in cities.

When we do these things, developers will still seek profit—but the profitable projects will increasingly be the ones communities want: abundant, pro-social housing close to jobs and transit, with a healthy share of income-restricted homes. Blaming “greedy developers” feels satisfying for a moment; changing the rules harnesses private capacity to deliver public goals.

So the next time you see a proposal for infill, don’t ask, “Why are they building luxury?” Ask, “Have we made it legal and feasible to build anything else?” If the answer is no, fix that.

Categories
Uncategorized

To speed up large-scale climate solutions, call on local communities

Faster deployment of climate solutions would benefit us all, and local communities, through local governments, residents, advocates, and regional partners, are one of the most powerful vehicles to do it.

In almost every aspect of climate action, local communities enable, multiply, and sustain what is possible.

1. Where the opportunity is

Local communities are where most of the action happens. Roughly four in five Americans live in urbanized areas, and a majority live in large metropolitan regions. That share has risen for a century and is projected to grow toward 85 to 90 percent by mid-century. The urban archipelago, local communities and their surrounding suburbs, shapes daily life, culture, and economic activity. It is also where most state and national climate commitments must ultimately be implemented.

Urbanized areas large and small drive much of global emissions and can bend the curve fast. These areas account for roughly two-thirds of global energy-related CO2 emissions, a share that tends to rise with urbanization and income. Decisions at the community level about land use, transport, buildings, energy, and waste determine regional emissions pathways and long-lived infrastructure lock-in. Per capita, dense communities often have lower operational emissions for buildings and transport than car-dependent suburbs, yet high-income households can have larger consumption-based footprints. Both territorial and consumption emissions matter, and community decisions can influence each.

Local communities are also on the front lines of climate impacts and equity. They concentrate people, infrastructure, and services, which increases exposure to extreme heat, flooding, storm surge, drought, wildfire smoke, and power outages. Historic underinvestment and discrimination leave low-income communities, communities of color, renters, older adults, people with disabilities, and outdoor workers disproportionately vulnerable. Equitable investments such as tree canopy and cool roofs, flood protection and green stormwater systems, resilient microgrids and backup power for critical services, tenant-focused retrofits, and heat-health programs reduce risk while improving health, safety, and economic opportunity.

2. Specialized authority

Local communities hold specialized authority over the building blocks of decarbonization and resilience. Through planning, zoning, building codes, public works, public health, and emergency management, they set the rules and deliver the projects that shape emissions and vulnerability.

On the demand side, communities can accelerate building efficiency, electrification, and distributed energy through permitting reforms, incentives, bulk-buy programs, and performance standards. Many measures save money and improve comfort, health, and air quality. Demand-side actions across buildings, transport, and food systems can deliver a large share of needed emissions reductions by mid-century when backed by policy, infrastructure, and behavior change.

Local land use, mobility, and public realm decisions shape how people travel and how much energy they use. Zoning, street design, parking policy, pricing, and transit and active-mobility networks, often in concert with regional agencies, change mode share and trip length. Tools include transit-oriented development, complete streets, low-traffic or zero-emission zones, and congestion and curb pricing.

Communities influence buildings and energy systems as well. While states often set base energy codes, many local governments adopt reach codes and enforce strong standards for performance, benchmarking, and disclosure. They manage permitting and inspections and, where authorized, can require all-electric readiness in new construction. Municipal and community-choice utilities, franchise agreements, interconnection rules, and public procurement can speed clean electricity and distributed energy.

Materials, waste, and food systems are also in local hands. Zero-waste strategies, organics collection and compost, producer responsibility, low-embodied-carbon procurement, and construction material standards address hard-to-tackle, consumption-based emissions while creating local jobs.

3. Fertile ground

Local communities provide fertile ground for practical solutions because proximity creates scale, efficiency, innovation, and markets.

Compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development reduces per-capita energy use. Well-designed urban form and active mobility can cut building and transport energy demand by a significant margin compared with sprawled patterns. Shared infrastructure, such as transit, district energy, and water and waste systems, lowers unit costs and speeds deployment.

Communities can coordinate large, multi-year programs that deliver benefits at population scale. Examples include mass retrofits, EV charging networks, bus and truck electrification, district-scale thermal networks, and nature-based resilience. When demand is large and predictable, local governments can reshape markets through bulk procurement of heat pumps, induction stoves, electric buses and garbage trucks, green concrete and steel, renewable electricity, and recycled materials. Local circular-economy policies such as deconstruction, organics diversion, and reuse reduce upstream emissions and stimulate new businesses.

Proximity also accelerates learning. Pilots move to practice when staff, universities, startups, utilities, and community organizations work together. Open data, challenge programs, living labs, and public-private partnerships help successful ideas spread across neighborhoods and into regional standards.

4. Sized for transformation

Communities are ideally sized for transformation. They are large enough to marshal real resources and small enough to move quickly and build trust. A neighborhood or district, hundreds to thousands of households in close proximity, shares streets, substations, schools, and social networks. That shared fabric makes investments like frequent bus service, contiguous bikeway systems, microgrids, resilience centers, and geoexchange loops both technically efficient and socially legible. Residents can see the benefits block by block, from quieter streets and lower bills to safer cycling and cleaner air. Because the boundaries are tangible, the outcomes are too, which makes it easier to organize, prioritize, and deliver.

At the household level, the transition fragments. Each home negotiating its own heat pump, panel upgrade, EV charger, or rooftop solar faces high transaction costs, variable quality, and equity gaps. Aggregating demand at the community scale unlocks bulk procurement, standardized designs, and trusted workforce pipelines. A shared geoexchange loop or neighborhood microgrid becomes viable when dozens or hundreds join, which lowers per-home costs and improves reliability. The same logic applies to electrification programs, since coordinated wiring upgrades by block, not by doorbell, minimize street disruptions and optimize grid capacity.

By contrast, state or national initiatives are often too distant to match local conditions and too slow to iterate. Communities can pilot a car-free corridor, a bus-priority grid, or a heat-pump buying club this year, measure results next year, and scale what works the year after. Local planning can align land use, permitting, and construction schedules, which is critical for building out bikeway networks or converting gas lines to electric-ready corridors. Because residents and small businesses are close to decision-makers, they can co-design projects, troubleshoot early, and build the social license that accelerates delivery rather than delaying it.

Communities also have practical tools to finance and deliver change. Special assessment districts can fund shared infrastructure. Community choice energy can procure clean power. Public or cooperative ownership models can support microgrids. Neighborhood retrofit programs can bundle insulation, heat pumps, and rooftop solar at negotiated prices. Peer effects amplify adoption as one block follows another, and local job training ties opportunity to place. Package climate upgrades as community upgrades, and you create a replicable module that is big enough to matter, small enough to manage, and ready to scale across a region.

5. Built for speed

Local communities create opportunities for change faster than any other level of government. While states often pass major legislation only every year or two and Congress moves in intermittent bursts when national coalitions and timing align, the United States has more than 90,000 local governments that are constantly updating codes, adopting plans, and approving budgets. The steady cadence of council meetings, school board votes, and special district actions creates a continuous pipeline of decisions where climate-forward choices can be made now, not at the next big legislative window.

Local government cycles move quickly. Staff draft an ordinance, the planning board reviews it this month, the council adopts it next month, and implementation begins with the next permit or paving season. Councils can also authorize staff to make decisions with streamlined community engagement so that execution does not stall between meetings. Budgets are annual and often adjusted midyear. Procurement windows are frequent. Departments can pilot, measure, and iterate in months rather than years. Fewer veto points and closer alignment between policymakers and implementers compress the design, enactment, and delivery loop in ways statehouses and Washington rarely can.

This speed shows up on the ground. Transit agencies can add bus-priority lanes with quick-build materials and adjust service in the next schedule change. Public works can stripe a protected bikeway network segment by segment as streets come up for resurfacing. Building departments can adopt reach codes where permitted, require EV-ready wiring, or roll out performance standards that apply with the next round of permits. Utilities under local or regional governance can approve demand-flex programs, neighborhood microgrids, or accelerated electrification pilots and refine them after a single season of data.

Local authority varies and state preemption is real, but even within those bounds local communities move fastest, and they learn fast. A successful ordinance in one place is copied by the next. Professional networks share model policies. Results travel as quickly as a council agenda. If the goal is to turn climate ambition into action at scale, harness the places that are always in session. Call on communities.

6. Coalition power

Local communities working together can create unique kinds of leverage.

Greater population density correlates strongly with voters and leaders who are more supportive of strong climate policy, from clean electricity standards and building performance requirements to zero-emission transportation initiatives. That means towns and cities are reliable political blocks that together can form formidable national coalitions.

On the economic front, mayors and local governments, including Climate Mayors, C40, ICLEI, and the Global Covenant of Mayors, negotiate with states, utilities, and major suppliers, align standards, and scale solutions across regions. Because many state economies hinge on metropolitan areas, organized local coalitions can accelerate statewide and national progress.

Local communities also hold the keys to creating formidable legal forces. Local governments vastly outnumber the relatively small set of large corporate polluters and their enablers.

Conclusion

Local communities concentrate the people, capital, tools, and know-how to cut emissions quickly, protect residents from escalating climate risks, and build healthier, more prosperous places. Empowering communities, and holding them accountable, can turn climate ambition into results at the speed and scale this decade demands.

Categories
Uncategorized

Local governments have uniquely influential powers for climate policy

Most of the focus of US climate policy to date has been at the federal level—for example, US EPA regulations and the Inflation Reduction Act.

And most of the rest has been with states, in particular, the work of California and other section 177 states to develop statewide climate laws, regulations, and investments.

An area of climate policy in the US that’s gotten less attention is that of local governments. Yet local governments, which represent the homes of the vast majority of people and sources of emissions, have uniquely influential power. 

Those powers include:

#1. Control over land use that governs the potential for efficient transportation choices and compact development;

#2. Ability to readily raise funding for communities for the broad public interest;

#3. Everyday communications with the public on matters of well-being and planning for the future;

#4. Hosting of public elections that provide a means to educate the public about key issues; 

#5. Jurisdiction over communities that represent the  scale of adaptation and mitigation projects that can be influential; and

#6. Relative physical accessibility as a public body to people.

#7. Standing to influence state governments.

#8. A natural center of organizing for national advocacy and movement-building.

Categories
Uncategorized

A “community” lens

Communities are cities, towns, neighborhoods, and counties.

A community is a place where people live near one another, interact, and go about life together.

People in a community share infrastructure and amenities, like streets, transit, water, parks, libraries. They share common problems and opportunities.

Communities are served by one or more local governments.

Communities are shaped by the people who set out to lead and improve them. Those with roles in local government of course, but also providers of housing and healthcare, representatives of groups and causes, teachers, journalists, faith leaders, small business owners, volunteers, and others.

Communities influence higher levels of government. They are also the places where much of the work of higher levels of government is carried out.

Categories
Uncategorized

Primer on subnational climate action

Subnational climate action means everything that happens below the federal level. Cities, counties, regional agencies, states, multi state coalitions, and interstate institutions set rules and invest public dollars.

Subnational policy shapes markets, unlocks private capital, and builds the record that supports durable national standards. It spreads a few ways.

First, it creates working examples. A city or state proves a rule or program can work, then peers copy it and vendors standardize around it.

Second, it builds markets that lower costs. Public procurement and utility programs create steady demand that pulls in manufacturing and finance.

Third, it uses planning and permitting authority to direct dollars and projects.

Fourth, it establishes a technical and legal record that supports stronger federal standards later. The result is a set of local and regional moves that add up to national behavior long before a federal rule arrives.

Cities and counties

Cities and counties control land use, zoning, building codes, building performance standards, and permitting. Building performance standards, often shortened to BPS, set energy or emissions limits for large buildings and drive demand for heat pumps, smart controls, and retrofits. Local governments run fleets and buy buses, trucks, and construction materials. Electrification ready codes and streamlined permits reduce soft costs and speed adoption.

Local action can also advance national practice when done together. Cities can adopt common templates for electric vehicle ready requirements, clean construction, and benchmarking. They can pool purchases of buses and trucks, share compliance tools and data, and align timelines. When many cities move in concert, vendors face one clear set of expectations, which speeds product development and lowers costs across the country.

Intrastate (or “sub-state”) regional agencies

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, known as MPOs, program federal transportation dollars through long range plans and a Transportation Improvement Program, called a TIP. Plans must conform to the emissions budget in the State Implementation Plan, or SIP. Some states also set greenhouse gas targets for MPOs. When MPOs shift funds toward transit, maintenance, safe streets, managed lanes, and charging depots, vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, grows more slowly and fleets electrify faster.

Transit agencies operate bus and rail systems and manage large depots and right of way. They plan service, buy vehicles, install chargers and grid upgrades, and coordinate street design with cities and MPOs. Major procurements of zero emission buses and charging equipment create predictable demand that manufacturers serve nationwide. Service that is frequent, reliable, and safe also reduces driving, which cuts emissions and improves local air quality.

Air quality management districts write rules and permits that feed into the SIP under the federal Clean Air Act. They target nitrogen oxides, called NOx, and volatile organic compounds, called VOCs, to meet health standards. Many regulate pollution from freight hubs through indirect source rules for warehouses, ports, and airports, and through tighter limits on combustion equipment. Because logistics networks operate across state lines, strong rules in major hubs push markets for zero emission trucks, cargo handling equipment, and cleaner industrial heat across the country. These rules also generate data and legal precedent that support stronger Environmental Protection Agency standards later.

States and utility regulators

States set greenhouse gas targets and pass laws that require cleaner electricity such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard or a Clean Electricity Standard. They update building codes and BPS, adopt appliance standards, regulate methane and industrial emissions, and manage siting for energy projects. States deploy funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, often written as IIJA and IRA. Many run green banks and use public purchasing through Buy Clean programs that prefer lower carbon materials.

Public Utility Commissions and Public Service Commissions, often shortened to PUCs and PSCs, regulate utilities. They approve resource plans, transmission and distribution upgrades, interconnection reforms, demand side programs, and rates. Early state action proves feasibility and lowers costs. PUC decisions unlock large clean power builds and improve reliability, which reduces national prices and risk for private investors.

Multistate coalitions and agreements

Governor led coalitions such as the United States Climate Alliance and sector agreements on zero emission cars and trucks align targets, timelines, and model policies. Harmonized rules reduce compliance friction, speed replication across states, and signal a stable market to investors and manufacturers.

Interstate regional agencies

Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, known as RTOs and ISOs, operate wholesale power markets and plan transmission under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. They manage interconnection queues and resource adequacy. Stronger regional transmission, better queue management, and fair rules for storage and demand response enable gigawatt scale clean energy additions across multiple states. These changes lower costs for wide areas and make federal standards easier to implement.

Interstate carbon and fuel markets also create durable price signals. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, caps power sector carbon dioxide across several Northeast and Mid Atlantic states and invests allowance revenue in clean energy and efficiency. The Western Climate Initiative links California and Qu├ębec in a cap and trade system that covers multiple sectors. Low Carbon Fuel Standard programs, or LCFS, in California, Oregon, and Washington create credits for lower carbon fuels and for electricity used in transportation. Shared methods for measuring emissions and credits let firms operate at multi state scale and provide evidence that informs future federal rules.

Coalition of “Section 177” states

Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, states can adopt California vehicle emission standards after the Environmental Protection Agency grants California a waiver. These programs include Advanced Clean Cars II for light duty zero emission vehicle sales and Advanced Clean Trucks for medium and heavy duty sales. When many states adopt these programs without change, their combined market share creates a national trajectory for zero emission vehicles in practice. Automakers and fleet operators then plan and invest on a national basis, which supports stronger Environmental Protection Agency standards later.

Why subnational action matters

It accelerates scale and speed because local, regional, and state programs can move before federal rules arrive. It lowers costs because public procurement, utility programs, and regional power markets create steady demand that pulls down prices for vehicles, chargers, heat pumps, storage, and clean power. It protects public health because air and transportation actions reduce NOx and fine particles where burdens are highest. It builds the technical and legal record that federal agencies need to issue durable nationwide standards. It strengthens economic competitiveness because coordinated subnational demand anchors domestic supply chains and skilled jobs. It also preserves momentum if federal policy pauses because state and local action keeps progress moving.

Local codes and BPS spark demand for clean buildings and fleets. Intrastate regional agencies focus that demand at freight hubs and along major corridors and translate it into real projects and service. State laws and PUC decisions scale clean power and building electrification while deploying IIJA and IRA funds. Interstate agencies unlock transmission, fair market access, and consistent carbon and fuel signals, which lowers costs across many states. Multi state coalitions and Section 177 adoption align methods and timelines so companies face consistent expectations across very large markets. Federal agencies can then lift and lock in these proven approaches through nationwide standards.

Subnational action is the engine that turns goals into markets, turns markets into standards, and turns standards into durable national progress.

Categories
Uncategorized

Primer on local government

Local communities are served by one or more local government agency (e.g., municipality, county government, and school, transit, and water districts). 

Local governments:

  • Deliver essential day-to-day services like emergency response, transportation, water, wastewater, waste management, and the provision of shared public places like parks, recreation centers, and libraries;
  • Plan and solve common problems around public safety, land use and zoning, permitting, budgeting, and the levying of taxes and fees;
  • Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and other outside partners;
  • Represent residents to higher levels of government and other entities: and
  • Provide an elected government with democratic processes that is typically closest to people

Local governments have some important differences compared to their federal and state counterparts. For one, they possess specialized authority to manage land use, transportation, buildings, public health, and emergency preparation and response, all key building blocks for climate solutions and quality of life in communities.

They also operate differently. What they are able to accomplish, and what they are not, is constrained by personnel bandwidth and management practices to a higher degree than higher jurisdictions. 

By extension, mic governments can be inhibited by processes of change and disruption, which tend to require involvement from legal, public engagement, and coordination across multiple departments.