Tag: services

Categories
Uncategorized

To scale up climate solutions, local governments need to accelerate system changes

Note: This article is by Ryan Schuchard and was first published by Federation of American Scientists.

When I ran for city council in Boulder, Colorado in 2023, everyone talked about climate change. Forum after forum, all ten candidates spoke up for the climate. 

And cities saying climate change matters is typical. The number of US cities with adopted climate action plans is in the hundreds. 

That’s what we need, since cities drive the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions and are on the front lines of climate havoc. 

More specifically, for large-scale climate solutions to work, cities have to really stretch. That’s according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says cities need to rapidly become compact, efficient, electrified, and nature‑rich urban ecosystems where we take better care of each other and avoid locking in more sprawl and fossil‑fuel dependence. 

Yet, big-picture progress in the United States is critically insufficient. Those are the words of Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis evaluating climate commitments. The US has pledged to reduce 2030 GHG emissions levels by 50–52% below 2005, yet the latest projections show we are on track to achieve at best only 29–39%—assuming no further backsliding.

And earlier this month, the Trump administration withdrew our federal government from the international climate agreement process.

So when local governments say “we’re on it,” what is a concerned citizen to think?

What Local Government Climate Solutions Look Like 

Climate advocates are used to talking about climate action. But for local governments, the measuring stick for climate progress isn’t simply action. What counts is measurable progress towards specific, substantive transitions.

Transitions to walkable, compact neighborhoods where abundant, space-efficient middle housing near jobs and services let most residents meet daily needs within a short walk or bike ride, reducing trip lengths and housing and transport costs.

To transit-rich, highly bikeable towns where frequent, accessible service and a connected, protected network allow seniors and youth travel independently and where per-capita car dependence falls.

To fully-electrified communities in which homes and transportation run on clean, distributed power, working efficiently, that delivers lower bills, healthier indoor air, and outage resilience, with benefits accruing equitably to residents.

To enhanced landscapes of bioswales, permeable streets, restored wetlands, and drought- and fire-resilient shade trees that cool neighborhoods, absorb stormwater, and buffer heat, flood, and smoke risks.

To resilient local food systems that blend urban agriculture with regional producers, food hubs, cold storage, and compost-to-soil loops to deliver reliable, affordable, nutritious food even during heat, drought, or supply disruptions.

There is good news: The transitions we need, and the solutions and capacity we need to implement them, are showing new signs of life. That’s evident in two trends. 

One trend is local governments playing a bigger role in climate solutions. The number of U.S. cities reporting to the CDP, a global system for disclosing climate progress, has grown to over 150. Now more than 200 US cities have committed to 100 percent clean electricity. And cities’ climate action plans are showing a visible shift from a focus on municipal operations to community‑wide impacts of buildings, transportation, and waste, and more sophisticated thinking about resilience.

As the federal government has retreated, advocates are increasingly realizing cities and counties have tools to lead. Local governments manage streets, land use, buildings, public fleets, transit, and major service contracts. They can strongly influence state-level actors, like energy utilities and air quality programs, and be providers of those services directly.

There is proof of this awakening in the large numbers of people suddenly running for local office on climate. Political organizing coalitions such as Run on Climate and Climate Cabinet helped elect more than 50 local leaders running on climate in 2025. One of the year’s most high-profile candidates, Zohran Mamdani, won with “fast and free” buses–one of the measures IPCC has highlighted as a meaningful mitigation measure that saves more money than it costs–as a centerpiece of his campaign.

The other trend is a greater focus on wellbeing. Research included in the latest IPCC report shows demand-side measures can cut end-use emissions by roughly 40 to 70 percent by 2050 while improving daily life and making communities stronger. And wellbeing is the currency of local governments and local politics. Concrete quality of life issues dominate local elections and policymaking, which is where climate action takes root—or doesn’t.

Climate action prompted by a desire for healthier, happier, and less expensive lives is happening. People are adopting electric cars, e-bikes, heat pumps, and induction stoves because they workbetter, are cheaper to operate, and healthier. The intersection of climate solutions and wellbeing is central to a 2025 bestseller Abundance  and to the national conversation it kicked off about defining and achieving “abundance.” The topic of wellbeing was a bright spot at the COP30 climate talks via the World Health Organization’s report, “Delivering the Belém Health Action Plan.”

These two trends reinforce each other. Local governments oversee the services where wellbeing, decarbonization, and resilience meet. When those services are designed as a system, investments can compound to create more value for more people, who then have a stake in continuing the transition. And the importance of rallying around local governments to carry climate solutions forward is becoming clearer as U.S. national policy looks structurally less reliable than most experts used to think.

Difficult Conditions For Change 

But local governments face headwinds. Existing policies and markets, like those that have created widespread car dependence and extensive natural gas systems, create momentum that favors the status quo and encourages continued investments that lock us in further. Simply put, it’s easiest to keep doing it the way we’ve done it before, and then we dig ourselves in deeper.

Local governments purposefully design systems to keep things stable. Most likely, whatever your town or county is doing is based on the direction of long-term plans, from departmental plans to bigger comprehensive plans. Those plans often come up for renewal only every few years or longer, and if you miss that window or fail to follow procedures, making big change is nearly impossible. Related, local governments tend to have policies and practices for conducting community engagement that deliberately create a high bar for making major turns.

On top of all that, local governments in the U.S. are suffering a long-term decline in investment that leaves them with significant and growing cash flow constraints, heavy workloads, limited time to deliberate, and pressure to deliver. The pandemic and recent national political forces reduce their maneuverability even more.

Political Will Necessary But Not Sufficient—Concrete Transitions Are Needed

In order to drive climate transitions under such tough conditions, political will is necessary but it is not sufficient. For local governments to scale up climate solutions, they need to take tangible, visible steps to change systems, consistent with evidence-based recommendations, outlined by institutions like the IPCC. 

Here is what that can look like – and what advocates can look to encourage:

1. Transition plans  

Climate issues touch everything, so all local governments can point to doing climate things. But the difference between lists of activities and high-reward strategic commitments that make good use of time is everything. The latter requires a clear plan to make transitions happen, with defined outcomes and milestones, and dogged pursuit.

Ambitious climate action at the local government level means being clear about the transition(s) the community is focused on, which could include the previously mentioned examples, along with what successful completions looks like and by when. This involves working on at least two tracks concurrently—both integrating ambitious transformations into long-term planning exercises, for which adopting changes may or may not be available right away, and taking whatever more tactical action is possible now to support such planning and concrete action to the fullest extent possible.

  • Transition plans might consider: What needs to be different? Who are the elected officials and partners needed to make the transition work? What barriers could inhibit progress, and what is the strategy for overcoming them? What are the key inflection points in behavior adoption, and what is the change model to reach them? 

2. User experience  

Cities often add a bike lane in one place or restore a bus line in another. What truly changes behavior is a complete experience that makes the pro-climate option the intuitive choice. Kids can bike around town without parents fearing they could be hit by a driver. You can count on bringing a large electric bike anywhere and park it safely. Buses are within a 10-minute walk of home and arrive every 10 minutes. Utility investments in electrification actually lower monthly bills. To make climate transitions attractive and sticky, we have to confront gaps that get in the way of people’s experience from their vantage point.

A practical opportunity for local governments is to use the tools of user experience (“UX”) and be responsible for how the ecosystem works and feels from the immersive standpoint of users. UX is an interdisciplinary field that uses research, psychology, and design to remove friction and ensure a seamless journey for users.

  • Some questions for managing the user experience: Who is/are the transition(s) for—who are the “users” involved that will experience change? What do they need to do and stick with to make the transition work? What performance measures are needed to constitute progress, and how do we get elected officials and executives to care about them? Where are there persistent, hard-to-reach gaps that can be spotlighted as “known issues” for partners and other jurisdictions to see and possibly be helpful with? What are the gaps between our intent and reality, and how can we overcome them?

3. Public service delivery  

One of the core jobs of local government is to provide public services like zoning, safe transportation, building standards, air quality protections, and emergency management. Providing services is also generally the justification for spending public money. And services are where the planning activities that local governments tend to be so careful about materialize in the real world. So if local governments are going to be engines of climate action, then day-to-day service delivery—their core product—is where most of that action will show up. Climate action will appear in what gets approved, funded, built, maintained, enforced, measured, and improved.

Local governments already deliver public services. So the opportunity is to evaluate how core local government services can or should be tuned and/or reorganized to drive climate and resilience outcomes. This includes formal adoption in comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, and strategic plans, and clear alignment with budget priorities. When leaders routinely report on progress and adjust course publicly, it signals that climate transitions are a core organizational responsibility rather than a side project.

  • An evaluation of services might consider: How is climate action aligned with where money is actually spent?  What changes in standards, contracts, and operations are needed to lock in better outcomes? How can the thinking and tools of service development improve user experiences?

4. High-level ownership 

Plans only come to life when people who have the right level of power and accountability own delivery. Inside local government, that means both the elected body (mayor, city council, and/or their equivalents) and executives (city manager, their deputies, and in the case of a “strong mayor” form of government, the mayor) adopt the initiative as their own. Roles and accountability are defined and gaps are addressed. Resources are allocated through direct investments and through partnerships that expand capacity.

High-level ownership of climate solutions in local government happens when transitions are included in the agency’s highest-level plans and strategies.This includes formal adoption in comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, and strategic plans, and clear alignment with budget priorities. It also looks like leaders routinely communicating to the public about the transitions under way, the progress against them, and how community members can help support the journey.

  • Some ways to gauge high level ownership: Do staffing, partnerships, procurement, budgets, and intergovernmental advocacy support transition intent?  Is change management happening as needed, with a clear vision and ongoing communication expressed to the public? Is the work of transitions integrated into core functions and the day-to-day responsibilities of staff necessary for success? How are electeds supporting and leading?

5. Playbook of procedures

Local government commitments are heavily shaped and constrained by procedure, like protocols for what gets a hearing and when, annual or biennial work plans, and comprehensive plans that may come around only every few years or longer. Communications between elected officials and staff may be limited by city ordinance, and communications among elected officials may be very limited by state law. There are also often arcane, highly-localized meeting customs. Getting things done requires working through these procedures and often landing decisions in small windows that are easy to miss. 

A playbook for how climate transitions are going to make their way into staff proposals, planning processes,and budgeting is fundamental to turning a good idea into something real. Such a playbook is needed to spell out who does what, when, and through which formal channels, so that key decisions do not depend on heroic one-off efforts. It also helps new staff and elected officials quickly understand how to use existing procedures to advance climate goals, rather than be derailed by them.

  • Some questions to ask: What are the relevant scheduled planning processes and upcoming meetings, and who is required to fully elevate the work there and how? What learning systems or listening structures exist, and how are they being used to surface discrepancies and continuously drive improvement?

Conclusion

To scale up climate solutions through local government, we need at least two things. First, political will, which is familiar to most advocates. Looking into 2026 and beyond, climate advocates have great opportunities to continue increasing the proportions of elected local bodies who are led by politicians serious about climate solutions. Everyone has a role to play: run for local office, support local climate candidates, use whatever powers of creativity and persuasion you have–from writing to speaking to organizing and beyond–to help make climate action a core election issue in your community. 

The second—and where we need greater shared focus—is to make local governments responsible for specific, strategic commitments to systems change. To do that, help build transition plans that commit to providing great user experiences, an approach to public service delivery that is aligned with those objectives, ownership by city council and the city manager or mayor, and a clear playbook for how strategic climate commitments are going to be adopted and rolled out.

Not everything is going right for the climate movement. But there are some fantastic bright spots, and one of those is big new local government innovations that are starting to unfold.  

Looking into 2026, I’m excited to be a part of the movement to help local governments drive the next generation of climate progress. And a big hat tip to FAS with its regulatory rethink and government capacity work as well as ICLEI USA, both partnering with local officials like me to map out how cities can translate ambitious climate goals into durable systems change. 

There are great things ahead, and so much room to work together.

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

“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

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.