This study investigates the development and performance of an innovative approach to the management of transportation, land use, air quality, housing, and a variety of other regional development issues, called “blueprinting.” Blueprinting refers to a process that brings together planning experts, local political leaders, and ordinary citizens; arms them with current planning ideas about “smart growth” and data visualization tools, to develop long-range regional development plans. As such, blueprinting represents a recent manifestation of regionalist approaches to environmental policy and planning. Focusing on the Sacramento region, an early adopter of blueprint planning, we use archival data and media sources to reconstruct the development of blueprinting and then we turn to an analysis of the performance of the blueprinting approach in relation to three successive planning efforts. We find that despite the promise of blueprinting, very little progress has been made toward actually changing the regional transportation system and land use patterns. The net result of this long-term planning effort aimed at achieving sustainable transportation land use is that total CO2 emissions increase over time at historical rates. We close with a discussion of what this means for regional planning and achieving goals set by California's landmark climate change legislation.
Altamaier M, Barbour E, Eggleton C, Gage J, Hayter J, Zahner A, 2009, Making it work: Implementing Senate Bill 375 (University of California Transportation Center Research Paper No. 896)
2.
Baird G, 2004, “City's future at center of debate—a regional planning agency and elk grove officials both claim to have a better plan” The Sacramento Bee, Sunday, 21 March, page N1
3.
Barbour E, Teitz M, 2006, “Blueprint planning in California: forging consensus on metropolitan growth and development,” Occasional Papers. San Francisco, Public Policy Institute of California 88
4.
BartholomewKEwingR (2008) “Land use–transportation scenarios and future vehicle travel and land consumption: a meta-analysis”. Journal of the American Planning Association75(1): 13–27
5.
Bizjak T, 2006, “Easier road ahead, area planners say—with shorter commutes projected, agency seeks residents' input on 25-year transportation plan” The Sacramento Bee Thursday, 16 November, page B1
6.
BulkleyHBetsillM (2006) “Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change”. Environmental Politics14(1): 42–63
7.
BuserM (2013) “Democratic accountability and metropolitan governance: the case of South Hampshire, UK”. Urban Studies50: 1–18
8.
ByrneJHughesKRickersonWKurdgelashviliL (2007) “American policy conflict in the Greenhouse: divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy”. Energy Policy35: 4555–4573
9.
CerveroR (1996) “Jobs-housing balance revisited”. Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 492–511
10.
CerveroRDuncanM (2006) “Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs-housing balance or retail-housing mixing?”. Journal of the American Planning Association72(4): 475–490
11.
DeakinE (2011) “Climate change and sustainable transportation: the case of California”. Journal of Transportation Engineering137(6): 372–382
FultonW (1997) The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles, Point Arena, CA: Solano Press
14.
GiddensA (1999) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Oxford: Polity Press, Blackwell
15.
Hanemann M, 2007, How California came to pass AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (CUDARE Working Papers)
16.
Horowitz CA, 2010, “Planning at the intersection of state and main: update on California's SB 375,” in California Policy Options Ed. D. Mitchell (UCLA School of Public Affairs, Los Angeles) pp 10-27
17.
JonasAEGPincetlS (2006) “Rescaling regions in the state: the new regionalism in California”. Political Geography25: 482–505
18.
Kalb L, 2004, “City is still working on SACOG plan—Elk Grove fears the council will try to impose its Blueprint Project” The Sacramento Bee, Thursday, 25 November, page B1
19.
MacLeodG (2013) “New urbanism/smart growth in the Scottish highlands: mobile policies and post-politics in local development planning”. Urban Studies50: 2196–2221
20.
MolotchHLoganJ (1984) “Tensions in the growth machine: overcoming resistance to value-free development”. Social Problems31(5): 483–499
21.
Ostrom E, 2009, “A polycentric approach for coping with climate change” Available at SSRN 1934353
22.
PastorMBennerC (2011) Planning for Equity, Fighting for Justice, Organizers, and the Struggle for Metropolitan Inclusion, Cambridge, MA: Regional Planning in America: Practice and Prospect. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
23.
Philip T, 2004, “What kind of future? Select your scenario – making room for 1.7 million more by 2050” The Sacramento Bee, Sunday, 25 April, page E1
24.
PincetlS (1999) Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Government), 2006, Results of citizen input on preferred scenarios for nine corridors. Tall Order Forum (Sacramento Council of Governments, Sacramento )
27.
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Government), 2007, Draft/Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 (Sacramento Council of Governments, Sacramento)
28.
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Government), 2008, Chapter 4, Summary of Plan Performance. Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 (Sacramento Council of Governments, Sacramento)
29.
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Government), 2010a, “How the Blueprint was created: workshops” News Release (Sacramento Council of Governments, Sacramento)
30.
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Government), 2010b, Special Report: The Blueprint's Impact on the Region and Residents' Quality of Life (Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento, CA)
31.
Schwarzenegger A, 2005, Executive Order S-01-05. S. o. California
32.
Sherwin E, 2004, “Meeting mulls region's future growth”, Davis Enterprise (The Davis Enterprise, Davis, CA) pp A-1
SternH (2008) “A necessary collision: climate change, land use, and the limits of AB 32”. Ecology Law Quarterly35(3): 611–637
36.
StoneBMednickACHollowayTSpakS (2007) “Is compact growth good for air quality?”. Journal of the American Planning Association73: 404–418
37.
Vellinga LM, 2004a, “Forum favors a new direction for development – most at SACOG-sponsored workshop want to halt the advance of suburban sprawl” The Sacramento Bee, Saturday, 1 May, page B1
38.
Vellinga LM, 2004b, “Steering growth is a tall order – 1,300 people will get a say – electronically—at a workshop on regional development” The Sacramento Bee, Wednesday, 28 April, page B1
39.
VictorDG (2011) Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet, New York: Cambridge University Press
