{"id":91163,"date":"2025-12-12T03:29:18","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T03:29:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/91163\/"},"modified":"2025-12-12T03:29:18","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T03:29:18","slug":"californias-road-to-climate-progress-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/91163\/","title":{"rendered":"California\u2019s road to climate progress, Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

California\u2019s Road to Climate Progress<\/a> aims to answer a central question: Even with multiple laws and focused rulemaking, why has California struggled to reduce driving distances and increase infill development? The first piece<\/a> explained California\u2019s goals, the transportation and land use policies set up to meet them, and the structural issues with the current approach. The second piece<\/a> explored the state\u2019s current legal and programmatic regime in greater detail, while the third piece<\/a> examined the local view of the state\u2019s regime. This piece introduces principles that could guide the next wave of state reforms and is accompanied by a policy playbook<\/a> for interested decisionmakers.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tIntroduction<\/p>\n

For two decades, California has functioned like a living laboratory when it comes to reducing driving distances and promoting infill development. No other state has come close to passing as purposeful of laws, including the Sustainable Communities Strategies<\/a> (SCS) mandated by SB 375<\/a> and the switch to vehicle miles traveled<\/a> (VMT) standards within SB 743<\/a>. As those laws and others became administrative rules, lawmakers had a chance to witness how local governments and private developers responded.<\/p>\n

Like any policy implementation at this scale, performance is mixed. Many of the laws and policies aren\u2019t working as intended, both for the state lawmakers<\/a> who crafted statewide policies and the local officials<\/a> and developers who feel their effects. Other laws and policies reveal how state programs can elicit the kind of market-driven responses lawmakers want. It\u2019s now up to California\u2019s leaders to use the lessons they\u2019ve learned over 20 years and adjust accordingly.<\/p>\n

This opportunity comes at a pivotal moment. In barely more than a year from now, a new governor and incoming class of legislators will arrive in Sacramento. Many of these policymakers will be new to their office, with every reason to take a forward-looking approach while learning from their predecessors. And for current leaders leaving office who publicly support changing California\u2019s land use, this may be their final shot to adjust the state\u2019s course.<\/p>\n

If current and future state leaders are ready to consider the next wave of transportation and land use policies, we recommend building those reforms around certain core principles. These leaders should be realistic about what kinds of behaviors consumers can actually change. They should be respectful of the limited time local officials have to comply with state requirements by avoiding requirements that don\u2019t result in desired outcomes. And they should be laser-focused on delivering public and private capital to the places best able to support low-VMT travel.<\/p>\n

This report outlines six core principles that summarize the crucial lessons of the last two decades, around which current and future lawmakers should orient their reforms. Respecting these principles would go a long way to making the next wave of state transportation and land use laws deliver more sustainable, resilient, and affordable communities for decades to come. They are:<\/p>\n


\n \t\"Principle
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\tCalifornia laws and policies\u00a0we assume will\u00a0not change<\/p>\n

There\u2019s plenty of room for policy reform in California. However, some laws are unlikely to change simply to achieve transportation-related goals. When designing the six principles in this report, we considered the following issues off-limits.<\/p>\n

First, local governments will retain current land use authorities<\/a>. Since the state\u2019s inception, California\u2019s cities and counties have written their own zoning code, created standards for all manner of urban amenities, and approved local building permits. That autonomy has allowed them to address both local and statewide issues in a manner appropriate to their unique circumstances. In an effort to address the lack of homebuilding in California, recent state laws such as AB 130<\/a> and SB 79<\/a>\u00a0preempt that authority in certain cases. Across most locations and in most instances, however, local governments are still in control of how their land is developed.<\/p>\n

Second, we assume Proposition 13<\/a> and Proposition 218<\/a> will not be repealed or otherwise overturned. Proposition 13 gave the state legislature final say over property tax increases, while Proposition 218 required most tax increases to be voted on before going into effect. Legitimate critiques<\/a> of these measures exist, and their effects have not been uniformly or even generally positive. Even so, in-state experts said that reforming Prop 13 and 218 is politically infeasible.1<\/a><\/p>\n

Third, transportation revenues will stay in the lockbox. In 2017, the state Constitution was amended<\/a> following the passage of the SB 1<\/a> transportation funding bill. That amendment resulted in Article XIX<\/a>, which requires transportation revenues to be used for transportation-related expenditures. This affords the state some wiggle room, primarily its ability to direct transportation funds to affordable housing and other land development activities when its express purpose is to mitigate environmental harm (e.g. induced VMT) as disclosed through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Experts were clear that undoing the lockbox would be infeasible, but they are more sanguine about the possibility of adding qualified expenses (i.e., broadening what counts as a \u201ctransportation-related expenditure\u201d).2<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 1: Regional development pushes commuters to drive, but more highway lanes can\u2019t solve congestion.<\/p>\n

Like most states, California went beyond just the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System when it built out its highway network. Those new roads coincided with and incentivized a kind of land development that prioritized single-family housing and scattered job hubs where zoning allowed.<\/p>\n

One certainty of a land use model like that\u2014whether in California or elsewhere\u2014is the large geographic footprint that follows. The state\u2019s highway network and all that nearby developed land result in longer driving distances<\/a>; workers consider jobs spread across their metropolitan area and even neighboring regions<\/a>, families lives further from daycare and school, and everyone travels a little longer to get to parks and restaurants.<\/p>\n

California can\u2019t simply unwind all that development. From the houses, offices, and industrial buildings to the highways that connect them, the state is now stuck with expansive regions and their current bias toward private vehicles. The distances are too long, and too few people are starting or ending in the same places for transit or bicycling to offer competitive travel times. It\u2019s no wonder Californians feel like they have no choice but to drive, especially for those who relocate far from their jobs and other key activities in pursuit of affordable housing.<\/p>\n

\n Map 1\n <\/p>\n

\t\t\t\"Depending<\/p>\n

With so many people driving (especially families with school-age children and workers during rush hour), frequent congestion<\/a> on the state\u2019s metropolitan freeways is practically inevitable.3<\/a> There is simply no amount of new lane miles that can relieve all that traffic\u2014not least because new lane miles almost inevitably<\/a> induce so much travel that the bigger roadway congests again. Of course, the state knows<\/a> they can\u2019t build their way to smooth travel, but for many legislators and officials, the tantalizing prospect of adding a few lane miles to just one more freeway in someone else\u2019s backyard remains.<\/p>\n

State officials should heed their own advice and not add new lane mileage. Not only will those new lanes not solve congestion, they will add long-term liabilities<\/a> to state and municipal budgets and expose nearby communities to a host of negative externalities. Even concerns about the flow of freight should be critically examined, where reducing household vehicle use could more affordably free space for freight traffic.<\/p>\n

If state leaders want to get serious about reducing roadway congestion on highways or in the busiest activity centers, then road user charges (RUCs) are the best route. Global evidence<\/a> consistently finds that road pricing shifts travel demand and reduces congestion, with New York\u2019s early results<\/a> confirming American drivers are no different than their global peers. Constituents also like the decreased traffic, leading to greater political support<\/a> than some elected officials may initially assume.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 2:\u00a0Neighborhood design shapes the length of local trips\u00a0and can be transformed faster than regional-scale land uses<\/p>\n

Commutes may be the most important journey many people take each day, but they represent less than a fifth<\/a> of all trips.4<\/a> Households spend far more time and drive much more when shopping for groceries, running errands, going to school, and socializing. Critically, these trips are more sensitive to neighborhood design than commutes. Researchers consistently find<\/a> that the relative proximity and connectivity between locations significantly impact people\u2019s trip distances.<\/p>\n

This matters because it\u2019s far more possible to change a neighborhood\u2019s built environment than the region-scale conditions that shape commutes. Adding more homes, businesses, and civic amenities within one neighborhood can shorten trips<\/a> in relatively little time. Those effects can also compound, as locating more people and destinations in networks of adjacent neighborhoods creates a virtuous cycle<\/a> of greater demand to travel within those areas.<\/p>\n

Once neighborhood design shifts\u2014including more residents living closer to where they shop, eat, and play\u2014transportation improvements have an even greater impact on VMT. It\u2019s easy to assume that the \u201cif you build it, they will come\u201d axiom applies to transit and active transportation intervention, but the reality is more complicated. Enough residents and destinations must surround<\/a> those new stations and bike lanes for them to get used. Put simply, increasing even \u201cgentle density\u201d<\/a> in neighborhoods and prioritizing human-scale design<\/a> create greater demand for transit and active transportation, and generally reduces VMT.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tHow other places have attempted to reduce vehicle miles traveled\u2014and who\u2019s accomplished the goal<\/p>\n

Achieving lasting reductions in VMT has been one of the most challenging goals in American public policy. The rigidity of community designs, housing stock, and transportation assets creates a kind of vehicle lock-in where people feel like they have no choice but to drive. However, there are emerging models of planning and investment that can meaningfully reduce VMT. States and cities have taken novel approaches to tie funding to this issue, and some have seen a real decline in VMT as a result.<\/p>\n

The most encouraging results come from places that fundamentally rebuilt neighborhoods and their transportation connectivity. From 1996 to 2014, Arlington, Va., welcomed 50,000 new residents<\/a> into relatively dense housing built along the area\u2019s new heavy rail transit line; traffic counts on many urban streets declined over roughly the same period. Similarly, before a light rail connection between Portland and Hillsboro, Ore., was opened in 1998, the latter town let developers write<\/a> new zoning regulations\u2014and the area densified<\/a>. Now, Hillsboro boasts non-auto mode shares far beyond<\/a> regional averages.<\/p>\n

More recently, states are experimenting with direct fiscal incentives to promote specific land uses. In Massachusetts, Section 3A<\/a> of the Zoning Act requires municipalities served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to rezone to allow multifamily housing in specific locations. Communities that don\u2019t comply are ineligible<\/a> for certain funding streams. Likewise, to reach a state-defined housing production goal, counties and municipalities in Colorado with a certain amount of transit acreage must create transit centers<\/a>\u2014areas with dense residential or mixed-use zoning. If the state certifies that they\u2019ve rezoned enough area to reach their goal, localities become eligible for both a grant program<\/a> and tax credit<\/a>. Across three Colorado laws related to housing production, this one reported the highest rate<\/a> of compliance.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 3: Infill locations need flexible funding to accelerate real estate development<\/p>\n

California\u2019s leaders must act with urgency and precision to make good on their commitment to reducing VMT. State officials and staff should invest in the right assets in the places best suited to support shorter trip lengths. That requires two steps. First, California\u2019s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) must stop investing in roadway capacity expansion projects that enable low-density and wildfire-prone land development. Second, California should put its transportation revenue to the best immediate use: supporting infill development by densifying and transforming neighborhood characteristics in areas where the most people will be served.<\/p>\n

California will immediately realize savings by ceasing investment in new roadways\u2014and should invest those newly freed-up funds, as well as others, in projects that subsidize and support infill development, all while maintaining spending on roadway maintenance and operations. California\u2019s transportation decisionmakers should not limit themselves to traditional roadway or transit projects, either\u2014or transportation projects generally. The state should prioritize spending these funds on projects that improve supportive infrastructure in low-VMT areas, such as upgrading a water main that connects to a new apartment building, breaking ground on a new park, and physically redesigning local roadways to improve multimodality. Though not every such project is an eligible transportation expense under Article XIX, they should qualify if they will help reduce VMT, which is one of the state\u2019s most desired transportation-related outcomes.<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s new VMT mitigation bank<\/a> demonstrates a path forward.5<\/a> It confirms the state can channel revenues to infill locations for flexible needs, and its fee collection mechanism should stymie VMT-inducing projects. However, the mitigation bank alone won\u2019t reduce VMT enough.6<\/a> The bank is only capitalized when a project that would induce VMT is undertaken, and only at an amount commensurate to that potential VMT. That means that if a VMT-inducing project goes forward, the fees its sponsors pay will, at most, mitigate the VMT the project would cause, making a net-zero VMT impact the best possible outcome. In the best-case scenarios for its supporters, the mitigation bank will stop VMT-inducing projects because developers would abandon them due to higher costs. But in that case, too, the money dries up and leaves the state with no additional funds to underwrite VMT-reducing projects.<\/p>\n

The state should think wider, focusing on funds beyond those the mitigation bank will deliver. Using existing transportation revenue flexibly on various infill infrastructure projects can support lower VMT and is in line with national best practices. If the 20th century saw the state purposely build connections to an ever-growing urban fringe, this century\u2019s lawmakers should purposely invest in infill areas.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 4: More creative use of gas taxes can better deliver economic and climate returns<\/p>\n

California isn\u2019t using its transportation funds to their full potential. Instead, it invests the clear majority of funds exclusively in roadway assets. That focus is shortsighted and narrow-minded. Roads are liabilities; they cost considerable money to build, and even more to maintain. Time and time again, research<\/a> has affirmed that highway investments are no longer correlated with increases in aggregate economic activity.7<\/a><\/p>\n

The sheer scale of California\u2019s transportation funds puts their underutilization into full perspective. Fiscal Year 2025 alone saw total state revenue from motor vehicle taxes and fees top $20 billion<\/a>. In the state\u2019s recently enacted budget<\/a>, transportation agencies are only outspent by those in charge of health and education. That kind of capital can be a powerful catalytic force if used correctly. Not only does Caltrans have billions of dollars at its disposal, but California also has a good bond rating<\/a> and stable fiscal outlook. And gas taxes are just another excise tax\u2014there\u2019s nothing predetermined about spending them on roadways, and the state should be thoughtful in how to best use its funds to achieve the goals it sets for its transportation network.<\/p>\n

The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and its subordinate agencies could use those funds to promote redevelopment. It could leverage its dollars to support the development of infill infrastructure, capturing tax revenue from the new development. Whatever creative way legislators come up with to use the state\u2019s transportation revenue, there\u2019s more than enough money to get them started.<\/p>\n

Once lawmakers have settled on how to flexibly use transportation revenues, it\u2019s incumbent on CalSTA to direct its subordinate agencies on how to do so equitably. The question of where to invest will be paramount. Of course, regions with higher levels of density have more complex approaches to developing their land, while sprawling areas will likely take a different tact. Sensitivity to existing neighborhood contexts will be crucial, and even supporting gentle density through less dense development can reduce VMT.8<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t\tNew ways to use transportation funds<\/p>\n

It\u2019s up to California\u2019s leaders to reimagine where, how, and on what to use their transportation revenues. Fortunately, there are domestic and international examples of governments that have leveraged their transportation dollars in different ways. State leaders can look to these places as they draft their own reforms.<\/p>\n

Even with its transportation revenues in a lockbox, Maryland has supported transit-oriented development (TOD) through its Transit-Oriented Development Capital Grant and Revolving Loan Fund<\/a>. This loan fund distributes transportation revenues to capital and planning efforts meant to enhance development around existing transit stations.<\/p>\n

A bit further away, Japan and Australia had versions of the same debate over how transportation funds should be spent. In 2009, Japan decided that its growing transportation revenue was leading them to fund unnecessary roadway infrastructure<\/a>; now, those dollars are completely free and counted among the country\u2019s general funds<\/a>. Since Australia loosened its restrictions on transportation dollars, its government has announced hundreds of millions of dollars<\/a> to develop homes and parks in TOD precincts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 5: The state should strive to impose the lowest possible compliance burden to still deliver desired outcomes<\/p>\n

Local and regional governments will always be partners with the state in lowering VMT. Right now, though, officials must undertake onerous processes<\/a> that can be easily manipulated to produce compliant plans but limited results. Even localities that try to achieve state-set goals are still often left with lengthy documents and little progress. Worst of all, those governments\u2019 staff are taxed beyond their capacity. Without sufficient resources to meet state demands, they often shirk training permanent staff and opt for short-term fixes with consultants. As reforms to the state\u2019s system are proposed, legislators should remember: Demands for local compliance should match local capacity.<\/p>\n

State legislators should take two crucial steps. First, they should make the state\u2019s regulatory regime less burdensome. That will likely include both unraveling some of the complexity of the current legal framework<\/a> and ensuring that new laws don\u2019t increase compliance costs. In the pursuit of reducing VMT and environmental risks, state decisionmakers should solicit feedback from local and regional officials to design more streamlined planning and compliance laws, as long as they are equally or more capable of hitting climate and VMT targets.<\/p>\n

Second, lawmakers should provide funding to cover the administrative costs of complying with the state\u2019s legal regime\u2014whether new laws are passed or old ones amended or rescinded. Not only will that funding act as a carrot to ensure local and regional governments comply with state requirements, but that kind of fiscal support will also only make those requirements more politically palatable to the entities and the associations that represent them. Critically, and per the first step, the state must resist increasing compliance alongside funding levels. If they do, officials we spoke to worried that the new funding would have to be spent on consultants to maintain compliance instead of building enduring staff capacity.<\/p>\n

On the margins, state agencies can do more to set localities up for success. At the very least, these agencies should issue timely and clear guidance to accompany all new laws with which localities must comply. The state can also be more proactive by facilitating peer learning through a repository of successful practices from cities, counties, and regions on public engagement, financing development, transportation planning, project design, and more.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tPrinciple 6: Culture change demands top-down leadership and buy-in from rank-and-file staff<\/p>\n

Caltrans was conceived to build roads<\/a>. And throughout the 20th century, delivering on that core purpose was a boon to the state. But while expanding California\u2019s roadway network led to an explosion of new homes<\/a>, it destroyed others<\/a>. Though connecting some residents and businesses increased aggregate economic productivity<\/a>, it permanently displaced many communities of color<\/a> at the same time. Still, without its roads and the agency that built them, California would never have grown into the fourth-largest economy<\/a> in the world.<\/p>\n

Last century\u2019s core purpose, though, is no longer aligned with the state\u2019s current long-term goals. With interregional connectivity complete, lawmakers are understandably turning their attention toward household affordability, environmental justice to write Caltrans\u2019 historical wrongs, climate resilience interventions, and long-term stewardship of the state\u2019s treasured natural environment through climate mitigation. Delivering on that wider vision requires staff up and down Caltrans\u2019 organizational chart to execute old tasks in new ways. Simply put: Caltrans must change what has been core to its work for a century.9<\/a><\/p>\n

Change like that doesn\u2019t come easy. Previous research<\/a> has shown that Caltrans employees\u2019 skills and how they\u2019re organized in the department are misaligned with the state\u2019s climate goals.10<\/a> A reorientation of departmental culture away from roadway building and toward VMT reduction will require an enormous effort by upper and middle management as well as significant buy-in from rank-and-file staff.<\/p>\n

We recommend adopting techniques that prioritize teaching\u2014not telling\u2014staff the benefits of the new goals the legislature has embedded in law. Whether for engineers, planners, project managers, or administrative leaders, Caltrans can use its orientation period for new staff and require periods of professional development for current staff to demonstrate firsthand the value of infill-focused projects. That might mean site tours to a Main Street that\u2019s been revitalized by the addition of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, or showing the hazards wildfire-prone communities face. It can include applied accounting classes that compare costs and returns from different project types. It can be peer exchanges with colleagues in the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Governor\u2019s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, local utilities, and private developers. For leadership\u2019s part, acting with strength and conviction by halting roadway-widening projects and diverting the revenue will strongly signal a new direction for Caltrans.<\/p>\n

The need for that kind of cultural change may be best documented and most obvious at Caltrans, but other state agencies need the same. Multiple experts told us that the California Air Resources Board was far too focused on the technocracy of greenhouse gas measurement and modeling than actually achieving targeted reductions. A recent San Francisco Chronicle article<\/a> argued housing in California is detached from economics, noting HCD has no staff economists. Even further, some experts argued the CTC and the California Coastal Commission may be more focused on applying their own rules and preserving their own power than achieving statewide goals.<\/p>\n

Without a state workforce both willing and eager to act, the impact of even the best state law will be muted. Bold efforts should excite well-intentioned<\/a> staff about a new vision for their departments.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tWhere has cultural change spurred transportation policy forward?<\/p>\n

California isn\u2019t the only state attempting to fundamentally shift culture within its department of transportation (DOT). Research<\/a> on state DOTs has shown that their cultures and workforces are often ill-suited to tackling contemporary challenges. Some<\/a> states<\/a> have worked within the bounds of workforces that are mostly comprised of engineers and builders by encouraging experimentation with active transportation solutions. Other states have changed how they interview and hire<\/a> to recruit younger, sustainability-focused staff.<\/p>\n

The shifts abroad have been much more pronounced\u2014and offer successful examples of a path forward. The Rijkswaterstaat<\/a>, the agency responsible for managing and building road and water infrastructure in the Netherlands, is a particularly instructive example. Beginning in the mid-1800s, the Rijkswaterstaat became dominated by civil engineering approaches<\/a>. The monumental public works projects those engineers delivered were heralded by the public until 1970, when environmentalists and elected officials<\/a> began to see those megaprojects differently. In response to shifting views, the agency changed. It hired biologists and ecologists, and, most importantly, it framed new environmental concerns through an engineering lens. Though its priorities and interventions increasingly centered on environmental concerns, the agency continued to prioritize an engineered approach to solving problems.<\/p>\n

\t\t\tConclusion<\/p>\n

Embodying these six principles would be a fundamental shift in how California plans for transportation and invests its significant revenues. It would mean acknowledging the kind of projects and places best suited to reduce VMT, and directing big, flexible sums of money there. It would revitalize the state\u2019s relationship with local governments and offer a bold vision to energize agency staff. And it\u2019s all based on the goals policymakers have expressed in law, executive action, and their public commentary. These principles are an affirmative approach for state leaders to deliver the resilient, clean, affordable future they sincerely want.<\/p>\n

To help put these principles into practice, we prepared a playbook of policy interventions<\/a> as a companion to this article. From a completely new funding regime to enhanced workforce education, policymakers in Sacramento have at their fingertips the tools to make good on their climate ambitions.<\/p>\n

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders<\/a>. In line with our values and policies<\/a>, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"California\u2019s Road to Climate Progress aims to answer a central question: Even with multiple laws and focused rulemaking,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":91164,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[847,33310,7,9,8,33308,33309,27383,8076,6080,1967],"class_list":["post-91163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-article","tag-brookings-metro","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-cities-communities","tag-climate-energy","tag-climate-policy","tag-infrastructure","tag-research","tag-transportation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91163\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/91164"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}