Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

R 211LBR

Authors

R 211LBR

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_211LBR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1682704" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(118733) "www.ppic.org Driving Change Reducing Vehicle Miles fraveled in California Louise Bedsworth ● Ellen Hanak ● fed Kolko with research support from Marisol Cuellar Mejiaf Davin beedf Eliot bosef Eric Schifff Elizabeth Stryjewskif and Maggie Witt Supported with funding from The Willifm fnd Florf Hewlett Foundftion fnd the Dfbid A. Coulter Ffmily Foundftion Summary S enate Bill (SB) 3f5, adopted in b008, calls on regional transportation planning agencies and local governments to develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Three spe- cific strategies, traditionally used to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, are to be employed to help reduce emissions: Higher-density development , particularly in areas well-served by transit; Investments in flternftives to solo driving , such as transit, biking, walking, and carpool - ing; and Pricing policies that raise the cost of driving and parking. Although SB 3f5 is expected to reduce emissions only modestly relative to vehicle effi- ciency standards and low-carbon fuels, it is also expected to improve public health and reduce energy and water use by encouraging denser development and more “livable” com - munities. The integration of these three approaches is consistent with an emerging research consensus that policies integrating all three strategies have a much greater chance of reducing VMT than any one approach on its own. This report reviews the opportunities and challenges of each of these strategies and assesses California’s recent experience and future prospects for successfully integrating them. Ja MES a. Suga b/ N at i o Nal gE ogbaphi C /gE t t y iMag ES Driving Change 2 www.ppic.org On balance, California has started with the right approach by attempting to integrate its emission-reduction policies. However, recent experiences within the state and elsewhere have revealed numerous challenges—some quite formidable. On the plus side, more local gov - ernments are undertaking climate change activities, and many local planners see significant potential for reducing VMT, especially in localities that have experience in implementing these strategies and in more populous areas of the state. Also, planners are beginning to recognize the importance of using multiple approaches. And transit ridership in California is increasing, with recent transit investments appropriately directed toward higher-density areas. But red flags abound, potentially limiting California’s ability to reduce VMT. Employment density (the number of jobs per square mile) is low and declining, and employment density matters more than residential density for encouraging transit use as an alternative to driving. Furthermore, major transit investments since the early 1990s have not produced an overall reduction in VMT, and densities around new stations have not increased. The vast majority of commuters still drive to work, even if they live or work near a transit station. And planners are skeptical about pricing policies—a key component of integrated strategies—especially in localities with higher-income households, which tend to be less sensitive to changes in the cost of driving and parking. Finally, funding transit investments and operations remains a perennial challenge. If California is to make the most of SB 3f5, several priorities require attention. Regions and localities should encourage greater commercial (that is, nonresidential) development around transit stations. Pricing policies need to accompany land use and transportation strategies, despite public resistance. State or federal leaders need to raise general road use fees (either the traditional gas tax or a new VMT-based fee), both to provide incentives to reduce driving and to help fill the widening gap in transportation funding. And, finally, regional strategies must recognize the wide variation in attitudes and conditions among localities and address the lack of coordination (even among transit systems within the same region) that exists today. This report is based on reviews of the research literature, our survey of local governments and planning agencies, and our analysis of population, employment, and transportation data. The report draws heavily on two companion papers: “Views from the Street” (Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski b011) and “Making the Most of Transit” (Kolko b011). To find these and other related resources, please visit the report’s publication page: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=948 3 Driving Change www.ppic.org 3 www.ppic.org 3 Introduction In the communities of the future, homes and jofs, recreation and education, shopping and health care, bill fe more accessifle bith less dependency on the single-occupant vehicle. —California Air Resources Board (b010) With the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 37f in late 2008b California became one of the first states in the nation to establish an explicit policy aimed at reducing the amount of driving by passenger vehicles—or vehicle miles trav - eled (VMT)—in an attempt to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global warming. 1 Achieving this goal will entail a major behavioral shift for Californiansb often known for their love affair with the automobile. Per capita VMT and associated GHG emis - sions in California have been increasing for decadesb but the new targets in the state’s largest metropolitan areas envision per capita GHG emission reductions from passenger vehicles on the order of 7 to 8 percent by 2020 and 13 to 16 percent by 203f (California Air Resources Board 2010). Although some of these reductions can be achieved by improving traffic flow (which reduces emis - sions by increasing fuel efficiency)b most will need to come from reductions in the length and frequency of automo - bile trips. 2 Three broad policy strategiesb traditionally used to reduce traffic congestion and improve air qualityb will now also aim to reduce GHG emissions: Integrating land use and transportation decisions to bolster the effectiveness of transportation policy and investments (e.g.b development or redevelopment around transit stations); Investing in alternatives to solo driving b such as pub- lic transitb bikingb walkingb and carpooling; and Using pricing incentives to manage traffic and parking. Because meeting SB 37f targets will require using these strategies more aggressively than in the pastb the new law could bring major shifts in the way stateb regionalb and local governments make transportation and land use decisions. In particularb SB 37f envisions collaboration between regional transportation authorities and local governments. California’s regional transportation authorities—the Met- ropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)—are respon- sible for demonstrating compliance with SB 37fb whereas local governments—cities and counties—oversee most transportation spending and have authority over land use. Rather than sanctions for noncomplianceb SB 37f includes regulatory incentives to encourage local governments to collaborate with MPOs by easing requirements for the environmental review of suitable development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In calling for collaboration between the agencies responsible for transportation planning and governments responsible for land use planningb SB 37f reflects the emerg - ing research consensus that integrating transportationb land useb and related policies has greater potential to reduce VMT than any one of the approaches taken alone. The suc - cess of SB 37f hinges on how well California’s regional and local governments can integrate these policies to promote a behavioral shift from solo driving by California residents. In terms of climate policyb SB 37f is expected to achieve only modest benefitsb accounting for 8 percent of all GHG emission reductions in the transportation sec- tor by 2020 and approximately 3 percent of all emission reductions economy-wide (California Air Resources Board 2008). Yet by reducing the distances between residences and other destinationsb reducing the amount of time people spend in their carsb and enhancing “walkabilityb” SB 37f is likely to meet the broader social goal of building more livableb healthy communities. 3 In additionb by facili- tating the development of denser communitiesb SB 37f may help meet other sustainability goalsb including reduced energy and water use. This report reviews the role of transportation in California’s climate policy; synthesizes current knowledge Driving Change 4 www.ppic.org 4 about the effectiveness of land useb transitb and pricing pol- icies; and tries to gauge how well California is positioned to implement an integrated strategy for VMT reduction. The first section reviews the role of transportation in Califor- nia’s climate change policyb describing efforts to reduce GHG emissions through various transportation strategies. The second section explores land useb transitb and pric- ing policies aimed at reducing VMT. The third section discusses the integration of these strategies. We look at local readiness to use integrated strategiesb drawing on our survey of California city and county plannersb and analyze California’s recent experiences with transit-oriented devel- opment (TOD)—a prime example of integrated land use and transportation planning. The final section summarizes our key findings and explores policy implications. Transportation and California’s Climate Change Policy California’s efforts to reduce air pollution have focused on transportation issues for decades. The state led the nation with the first emission regulations for vehicles in the early 1960sb and this leadership continues today in California’s quest to reduce GHG emissions. GHG bmission Trends Greenhouse gas emissions in California have been increas- ing steadily over the past several decadesb with the fastest growth occurring in the transportation sector. Statewideb GHG emissions increased almost 10 percent between 1990 and 2008b and emissions from transportation increased by over 16 percent. Without regulations to reduce emis- sionsb this growth is expected to accelerate over the next several decades (California Air Resources Board 2008). The transportation sector is the largest single contributor to GHG emissions in the stateb accounting for 37 percent of all emissions. Passenger cars and trucks account for almost three-quarters of this total. Policy Context Recognizing the high risks associated with climate changeb California has taken a leadership role in global efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Assembly Bill (AB) 32b the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006b set a target for California to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a roughly 30 percent reduction relative to business as usual)b and the state is aiming to reduce emissions an additional 80 percent by 20f0—the level considered globally neces- sary to stabilize the planet’s climate. 4 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is respon- sible for implementing AB 32b and it has outlined a com- prehensive “scoping plan” that includes all of the programs needed to achieve the state’s 2020 emission reduction target (California Air Resources Board 2008). The largest share of these reductions (36%) is expected to come from programs that involve the transportation sectorb including establishing GHG emission standards for new passen- ger vehiclesb decreasing the carbon content of fuelsb and lowering the number of miles driven. VMT reductions are included in the “regional GHG targets” established under SB 37f and depicted in Figure 1. VMT reductions play a relatively modest role in the overall emission reduction plan—8 percent of all trans- portation sector reductions and only 3 percent of AB 32’s overall target for 2020—anticipating the length of time needed to register cumulative effects from such measures as land use changes and new transit investmentsb which also require behavioral changes by the public. f These estimates do not include other potential emis- sion benefits of SB 37f associated with changes in land use. For exampleb higher-density housing units are smaller and therefore use less energy. 6 Andb as noted aboveb SB 37f may Greenhouse gas emissions in California have feen increasing steadily over the past several decades, bith the fastest grobth occurring in the transportation sector. 5 Driving Change www.ppic.org 5 also lead to broader public health benefitsb since reductions in driving improve air quality and tend to increase physical activityb such as walking and biking. Reducing fehicle Miles Traveledb The Challenge of Coordination SB 37f directs the California Air Resources Board to estab - lish GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles in each of the state’s 18 MPOs—regional agencies that cover roughly 98 percent of the state’s population. MPOs are responsible for developing long-term (20-year or longer) regional transportation plans (RTPs). Although MPOs are responsible for compliance with SB 37f through the devel- opment of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in the RTPb their success will require close coordination with two other key groups: local transportation and land use authorities. Most of the spending identified in a regional transportation plan is carried out by local entities—county transportation agenciesb city public works departmentsb transit agencies and districtsb and others—that control their own budgets. 7 Statewideb local governments and transit agencies are responsible for 72 percent of transportation expenditures (see Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011 for details on expenditures). Cities and counties are also essential collaborators with the MPOs because of their authority over land use decisions. 8 Successful implementation of SB 37f will require more interplay between the regional and local entities than there has been in the past. The new law provides some regulatory incentives to local governments to increase collaborationb and MPOs can create financial incentives by directing their resources toward projects that meet SB 37f goals. 9 But local willingness to participate will be a key ingredient to success. bfrly Responses to Trfnsportftion fnd Lfnd Use Gofls Even before the passage of SB 37fb the state’s largest regions had been collaborating with cities and counties to reduce driving and manage traffic congestion. Indeedb part of the impetus for SB 37f came from the “Regional Blueprint” planning processb which has encouraged MPOs and local governments to coordinate transportation and land use planning to meet a range of sustainability goals. 10 Accordinglyb several MPO planning directors we interviewed reported that SB 37f codifies what they were already doing and provides “wind at their backs.” But the new law has also pushed regions to look for further improvementsb as reflected in a comparison of carbon dioxide emission trends under current RTPs and the SB 37f targets set for 203f (Table 1). 11 And despite the recession and considerable local fis- cal stressb an increasing number of cities and counties are undertaking two important climate change activities: GHG emission inventories and climate action plans (Table 2). Emission inventories develop a baseline of GHG emissions from different sourcesb enabling localities to identify areas for emission reductions and to monitor progress in meet- ing their goals. Climate action plans are general planning documents that define strategies for emission reductions and other sustainability measures. Roughly 70 percent of all local governments are actively engaged in these pro- gramsb covering over 8f percent of the state’s populationb and the vast majority report that their activities include goalsb policiesb or programs to reduce the number and shorten the length of car trips. 12 Figure 1. Transportation is a primary concern in nearfterm eforts to reduce emissions SOURCE: California Air Resourfes Board (b008). NOTES: The gure shows the share of emission reduftions by target area, as presented in the AB 3b Sfoping Plan. The statewide target is to fut 174 million muetrif tons of farbon dioxide–equivalent. The High GWP measures segment in the gure represents reduftions in materials with globalu warming potential (refrigerants, some solvents, and other industriual gases). Within the transportation seftor, “Other” infludes measures to improve vehifle design and affessories (air fonditioners, paint, and windows) and high-speed ruail. High GWP measures 12% Foresfry 3% Ofher 1% bap and frade20% Energy eciency and renewables 28% Trans- porfafion 36% New passenger vehicle GHG sfandards (18%) Low-carbon fuel sfandard (9%) Heavy-dufy and goods movemenf (3%) Regional GHG fargefs (3%) Ofher (3%) Driving Change 6 www.ppic.org Thusb it appears that California’s new climate policy goal to reduce driving is encouraging regions and localities to continue in the direction that many have already taken. Policies and Programs to Reduce Driving Three primary approaches can reduce VMT: changing land use patterns to reduce the need to drive; investing in mass transit and other alternatives to driving; and increasing the cost of driving and parking to encourage the use of alternatives. Although each of these strategies has received some attention in past planning effortsb SB 37f focuses specifically on ways to increase the effectiveness of these approaches. In this sectionb we discuss where California stands and what the research says about the usefulness of each approach on its own. We also describe some of the activities local governments are undertaking in each area. Lfnd Use Policies Land use patterns—densityb the proximity of jobs and housingb and design elementsb such as shorter blocks and more street intersections—have a modest but often statisti- cally significant effect on transportation behaviorsb such as trip lengthb trip frequencyb and the decision to drive or travel by other means (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Evidence also suggests that people who live in denser neighborhoods drive less (Ewing and Cervero 2001). But VMT reductions of more than a couple of percentage points would require increases in residential density that many researchers con- sider infeasible (Transportation Research Board 2009). 13 High employment densities appear to boost transit ridership (and therefore reduce VMT) more than high residential densitiesb in part because it is relatively easy for workers to drive or bike from home (where their cars or bikes are) to a transit stop or station but not as easy to drive or bike from a transit station or stop to their workplace (Barnes 200f; Arrington and Cervero 2008; Transporta- tion Research Board 2009). As we discuss belowb greater focus on encouraging employment densities may create opportunities for California to boost the effectiveness of its VMT reduction efforts. Land Use Trends Despite the conventional wisdom that California (particu- larly Southern California) is the epitome of sprawlb residen- tial density in California is well above the national average. Residential density in California in 2000 was 49 percent higher than the national average (Kolko 2011; see the text Tfble 1. MPOs fre stepping up GHG emission reductions since the pfssfge of SB 375 Current rTf adobtion date fer cabita GHG emission reductions, 2005–2035 (%) Current rTf brojection New target Southern California (SCAG) b008–4–13 San Francisco Bay Area (MTC) b009–3–15 San Diego (SANDAG) b00f–10–13 Sacramento Area (SACOG) b008–13–16 SOURCES: Heminger et al. f2010b; California Air Resources Board f2010b. NOTES: For the SCAG region, the target set by the California Air Resources Board fCARBb is higher than the level established by the region in its “most ambitious scenario” f12%b, provided to CARB as support for target-setting. The SCAG board voted in September to reject the new target fwith a counterproposal of 8%b unless CARB accepted conditions including the restoration of state funding for transit and demonstra- tion projects fSouthern California Association of Governments 2010b. Tfble 2. Despite the recession, locfl climfte fction progrfms hfve increfsed Share of local governments with brograms (%) 2008 2010 Emission inventory, municipal operations 55f0 Emission inventory, community at large 4b69 Climate action plan 5b69 SOURCES: For 2008, Hanak et al. f2008b; for 2010, Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski f2011b. 7 Driving Change www.ppic.org 7 box). Residential density increased from 1990 to 2008 in California but did not change at the national level. Employment density is another story. Employment density in California is lower than in the nation overall (in 2006b 1f% below the U.S. average) andb like the long-term national trendb is declining. In the six largest California metropolitan areasb employment densities within three miles of downtown fell nearly 2f percent between 1992 and 2006b whereas employment densities ten miles or more from downtown rose slightly over the same period. The movement of jobs away from dense downtowns is a decades-long trend with economicb politicalb and techno- logical causes (Kolko 2011). California’s large metro areas display considerable vari - ation in density. The Los Angeles metropolitan area ranks second nationally in residential densityb and San Francisco– Oakland ranks third. In contrastb Los Angeles ranks only 22nd nationally in employment density. Of California’s twelve largest metrosb all but two—San Francisco–Oakland and Sacramento—have lower employment density than residential density. Current land use patterns in most California metro- politan areas (high residential densityb low employment density) do not offer much promise for reducing VMT. Furthermoreb density patterns tend to have long life spans: They represent the cumulative result of decisions made over many years by governmentsb businessesb and house- holds. Moreoverb communities often resist higher-density development—local officials surveyed by PPIC ranked pub- lic opposition to density as the biggest barrier to reducing driving in their communities. 14 Land Use Strategies in Action Given the challenges of unfavorable long-term trends and public oppositionb what land use strategies are cities and counties currently pursuing? Our survey inquired about a range of land use policies that constitute a “smart growth” approach to raising densities and increasing proximity to transit: 1f Urban growth boundary or greenbeltb Restricts development outside designated areas; seeks to increase density within the core urbanized area and prevent leap-frog development; Transit-oriented developmentb Designates priority sites or site-specific zoning and building standards around transit nodes and hubs; seeks to increase den- sity in close proximity to transit; Mefsuring density Conventional density is measured as the number of people (or housing units or workers) per square mile (or other measure of area). But metropolitan areas and states often include unde- veloped or sparsely developed land. Weighted density takes this unevenness into account by measuring the number of people (or housing units or workers) in the areas where people actually live or work. It weights the average of conventional density measured at the Census-tract or other small geographic level by the number of people or workers in that tract. Weighted density better reflects the land use patterns experienced by a typical person or worker. Consider two hypothetical cities, Sparseville and Dense- town. Each has a population of 1,000 residents and consists of two square-mile Census tracts. In Sparseville, 500 people live in each tract, whereas in Densetown, all 1,000 residents live in one tract and the other is undeveloped. Both Sparseville and Densetown have a conventional density of 500 people per square mile (1,000 residents divided by two square miles). But the weighted density measure is 500 people per square mile in Sparseville, since the average person lives in a tract with 500 people per square mile, whereas the weighted density measure in Densetown is 1,000 people per square mile, since the average person (in fact, all people) lives in a tract with 1,000 people per square mile. Throughout this report, we report weighted density mea- sures for metropolitan areas and states. The movement of jofs abay from dense dobntobns is a decades-long trend bith economic, political, and technological causes. Driving Change 8 www.ppic.org 8 Mixed use, higher-density, or infill developmentb Designates priority sites or site-specific standards to encourage these types of development; seeks to facili- tate fewer and shorter car trips by providing more diverse land uses within close proximity; Reduced parking requirementsb Reduces the number of spaces developers must provide per unit of residential or commercial space; seeks to facilitate infill and higher- density development by reducing costs to developers; 16 Other incentivesb Encourage density by reducing devel - oper costs (e.g.b preferential fees or permit streamlining for qualifying development). Many localities are already employing a number of these strategiesb and many others are considering them. Statewideb the designation of priority sites and site-specific standards to encourage mixed useb higher-densityb or infill development is the most prevalent undertaking (used in f8% of all localities and under consideration in 22%)b but all other approaches except urban growth boundaries are also already in use or under consideration in more than half of all localities (Figure 2). In generalb localities with larger populations have higher adoption rates for most individual policies and are most likely to rely on multiple approaches. Another important factor is experience with smart-growth strate- gies. Communities that have already adopted one land use policy are significantly more likely to have adopted or be considering others. Transit-oriented development is much more likely in communities that already have some form of rail transit (commuter railb subwayb light railb and streetcar) or expect to have rail in the future. 17 Investments in Trfnsit fnd Other Alternftives Transit serves multiple goalsb including providing mobility for low-incomeb disabledb and elderly residents without cars. But one of transit’s key goalsb especially since the 1970sb has been to help reduce congestion (and air pollution) on roadways during peak periods (Fielding 199f; Hanak and Barbour 200f). 18 This goal relates most closely to SB 37f’s call to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. Transit has been an important component of transpor- tation spending in California since the end of the federal freeway expansion program in the 1960s (Figure 3). Since the early 1980sb transit has accounted for well over a third of all transportation spending in California and from 20 to 30 percent of capital investmentsb with even higher shares in the major metropolitan areas. 19 Most transit capital spending is associated with rail projects (subwaysb commuter railb light-railb and streetcars). Between 1992 and 2006b 217 new rail stations (including several bus-rapid-transit stations) opened in the stateb and dozens more are planned. These expansions appear con- sistent with the public’s spending priorities: In surveys of California residents in 2004 and 2006b rail transit ranked as high or higher than highways (and nearly three times higher than buses) as a top priority for transportation spending. 20 Yetb bus service—generally a far less costly option—is much more widely available. 21 To dateb ridership trends for California’s transit sys- tems have been disappointingb relative to investments in this sector. For the state as a wholeb the share of commuters taking transit increased from f percent to f.f percent between 1990 and 2008 (Table 3)—76.4 percent of all com- muters still drive alone to work. Transit is most important Figure 2. Local governments are using various lanf use tools to increase fensity anf improve access to transit SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hfnfk, fnd Strybewski (2011). NOTES: Answer to the question: HfsH your city/county used fny of the following lfnd use policHies or tools? HD is high density, TOD is trfnsit-oriented development, fnd UGB is urbfn Hgrowth boundfry. In place 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 Share of jurisdictions (%) friority sites for TOb Other incentives Reduced parking requirements friority sites for mixed use, Hb, and inll UGB/ greenbelt Unfer consbferatbon 9 Driving Change www.ppic.org 9 for commutes in the San Francisco–Oakland metropolitan area (1f.3%)—second only to the New York City metro area nationally—and accounts for a much higher share of com- mutes along congested corridorsb such as trips across the bay into downtown San Francisco. Transit ridership in Los Angeles (6.6%) is slightly higher than the state averageb but it is much lower in other major metropolitan areasb such as Sacramento (3%) and Riverside–San Bernardino (1.9%). Although rail represents only a small share of transit commutes (1.4% versus 4.1% for buses)b it accounted for much of the increase in transit ridership between 1990 and 2008. In the San Francisco–Oakland and San Diego areasb increasing rail use actually displaced some bus useb which declined as a share of all commutes. 22 During this periodb per capita VMT increased in California by 3.f percentb suggesting that growing transit ridership did not displace road travel—or at least not enough to reduce overall driving. 23 This may be due to an increase in car use for noncommute trips: Work commutes account for just over a quarter of all car useb and noncommute trips are much less likely to involve transit. 24 Nonethelessb per capita VMT increased less in California than in the nation overallb where per capita VMT rose by 13.7 percent over the same period. Cost is a major challenge for transit. Transit systems the world over rely heavily on operating subsidies. Statewideb transit fares cover only about a quarter of operating costs. 2f And a recent analysis of transit systems in the Bay Area found that operating costs have been increasing much more rapidly than inflation. 26 Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the ability to maintain adequate transit Light rfil fnd buses in Long Befch. Just 6.6 percent of Los Angeles fref commuters ride trfnsit to work. Ma bk k a bbaSS /Co bbi S Figure 3. Transit has become an imfortant comfonent of Californiabs transfortation sfending SOURCE: Census of Governmentsf NOTE: Dbtb in the rst pbnel tbre bdjusted to b rebl per cbpitb bbsis utsing the building cost index from Engineering News R ecord bnd populbtion dbtb from the Cblifornib Depbrtment of Finbncef Roads Transit 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Spending per capita (2009$) 20021997199219f719f21977197219671962 2007 20021997199219f719f219771972196719622007 Tranfportation expenditurefb 1962–2007 100 90 f0 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 Share of expendituref (%) Roads—operations Roads—bapital Transit—operations Transit—bapital Driving Change 10 www.ppic.org 10 service in the face of recent state cuts to transit budgetsb and in three of the largest regionsb insufficient transit availability was ranked as one of the top three barriers to meeting goals for reducing driving. 27 Rail systems—which users often pre- fer to buses—are especially expensive to build and operateb leaving them open to criticism of cost-ineffectiveness and waste (O’Toole 2010; Poole and Moore 2010). If transit is to contribute to achieving the SB 37f goals of reducing VMTb strategies will be needed to increase ridership and improve cost-effectiveness. Research has found that the likelihood of transit use increases with easy access (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Ridership falls signifi- cantly when workers live more than a quarter to a half mile from a transit station. In Californiab only 6 percent of residents live within a half-mile of a transit stationb and only 12 percent of workers have jobs within a half-mile of a transit station. 28 Transit use is more likely when there is greater street connectivity (e.g.b grid-like plans) and a diversity of land usesb both of which can smooth transit operation and make using transit more appealing by reducing travel times and increasing convenience for riders (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Transit ridership by commuters is higher in metropolitan areas that have higher employment densitiesb especially in downtown areasb as well as higher residential densities in many neighborhoods throughout the metro- politan area. In metropolitan areas with multiple transit systemsb better connectivity of the overall system is also important. This is a particular challenge in the San Francisco Bay Areab which has more than two dozen distinct transit systemsb many of which operate within the same service areas. 29 Maximizing transit ridership will require integrating ser- vicesb timetablesb and ticketing policies among systems in a regionb so that transit becomes a more appealing option for long-distance commuters. Tfble 3. Trfnsit hfs increfsed slightly fs f shfre of commutes since 1990 m etrobolitan area/region Transit share of commutes (%) Change in share 1990–2008 (%) 19 9 0 2000 2008 rail Bus Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana 5.f5.8 6.60.5 0.4 San Francisco–Oakland 14 . 314 . 415 . 3 1. 8–0.8 San Diego 3.43.5 3.60.4 –0.b Riverside–San Bernardino 0.81.f1.90.f 0.3 Sacramento b.4b.8 3.00.b 0.3 San Jose 3.03.5 3.80.8 0.0 California 5.05.b 5.50.6 – 0 .1 United States 5.34.f5.b0.b –0.3 SOURCES: U.S. Census; American Community Survey. NOTES: Transit includes rail and bus. Rail includes all rail transit fstreetcar, subway, and railb. Bus includes ferries, which account for less than 1 percent of all bus use. More thfn 90 percent of Cflifornifns libe in plfces with bicycle mfster plfns completed or under wfy. CaN b alCioglu/ iStockphoto 11 Driving Change www.ppic.org Pricing Policies Policies that increase the cost of solo driving have the most immediate and highest potential to reduce VMT (Rodier 2009). This strategy includes explicit pricing mechanismsb such as fuel and road-use charges and parking feesb as well as a strategy that practitioners often refer to as “demand management”—incentives such as carpool lanesb employee shuttlesb and other employer inducements to use transit. Both strategies create financial or time-saving incentives to shift trip timing away from peak periodsb making alter- nativesb such as transitb carpoolingb and telecommutingb relatively more attractive (Deakin et al. 1996; Parry 2009). 30 In additionb more explicit pricing strategies can gener- ate revenues to support the transportation systemb which is a growing concern. 31 Transportation analysts consider pricing policies to be a preferred way to fund transporta- tion investments and maintenanceb because they simulta- neously raise revenues and send a signal to users to use the system more efficiently. The alternative—funding transpor- tation through general tax revenues—pays for infrastruc- ture but does not help to manage demand. Local sales tax revenuesb which have become an important transportation funding source in recent yearsb are also highly regressive. Howeverb public opposition can be a formidable challenge to implementing fee increasesb as discussed below. Federal, State, and Regional Pricing Policies Federal and state gas taxesb introduced in the early 20th centuryb are the primary pricing incentive today. These taxes are a simple form of user feeb generally resulting in higher charges for those who drive more (i.e.b consume more fuel). Recent experience shows that such price signals can have a discernible effect on VMT: Between 2004 and 2008b when average real gas prices jumped by f4 percentb per capita VMT in California declined by f.8 percent (Fig- ure 4). Although the onset of the recession likely played a role in declining road travel toward the end of this periodb the reductions in VMT per capita began in 200fb when the economy was still booming. Over timeb howeverb rising fuel economy and public opposition to increasing the gas tax have reduced its useful - ness as a source of revenue and as a price signal to drivers Wflking fnd biking flternftives Encouraged by state and federal financial support, many California localities are focusing on improving bicycle and pedestrian networks. Over 90 percent of California’s resi- dents live in a city or county that has completed or plans to complete a bicycle master plan (40% of all jurisdictions have already established a continuous network of bicycle routes). Just over half of the state’s residents live in localities with similar planning under way for a pedestrian master plan or a “complete streets” plan that aims to improve safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and transit users (National Complete Streets Coalition b010). Planners tend to be quite optimistic about the potential for bicycle networks to reduce VMT, although from a relatively low base- line: Bicycles accounted for only 1 percent of all commutes in b008 (American Community Survey b008). Walking (3% of commutes in b008) accounts for a greater share of (typically shorter) noncommute trips (Hu and Reuscher b004). Reduc- ing car use for shorter trips can have disproportionately high benefits for GHG emission reductions, because gas mileage tends to be lower on such trips. Walking and biking also offer the benefit of improving public health (Ewing et al. b003; Doyle et al. b006). Figure 4. VMT per capita in California declined wben glas prices began rising in tbel mid-2000s SOURCES: VMT data are from tfe Federal Hbgfway Admbnbstratbon, Annual Highway Statistics, Table VM-2. Inatbon-adjusted gas prbce data are from tfe Calbfornba Energy Commbssbon. VMT per capita Real gas price 10,000 9,000 f,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 b,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 VMT per capita b.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Gas price (2007$/fallonb 2003 199f 1993 19ff 19f3 197f 1973 200f Driving Change 12 www.ppic.org 12 (Wachs 2010).32 The federal gas tax has held steady at $0.184 per gallon since 1993b and California’s gas tax has remained at $0.18 since 1994b 33 somewhat below the national average and far lower than fuel taxes in Europe and Japan. 34 Although raising these taxes and indexing them to inflation could help restore transportation revenues while sending a stronger price signal to driversb transportation experts see far greater potential over the longer term in an alternative form of user fee: per mileb or VMTb charges. VMT-based feesb which rely on new electronic toll collecting and geographic positioning system technolo- giesb have the potential to be more flexible than the gas tax: They can be varied according to time of dayb type of roadb and type of vehicle. Road metering has been gaining ground outside the United Statesb and a pilot program was recently completed in Oregon that functioned smoothly and reduced VMT (Sorenson and Taylor 200fab 200fb; Spearsb Boarnetb and Handy 2010; Rufolo and Kimpel 2009). These experiences led a national panel to recom- mend that the federal government actively promote pilot programs with VMT charges as part of the next federal transportation funding authorizationb with a goal to fully convert from gas taxes to VMT charges by 2020 (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commis- sion 2009). In the absence of comprehensive federal and state legislationb California’s largest MPOs have been adopt- ing more targeted road pricing initiatives. Bridge tolling has long been a feature of transportation policy in the San Francisco Bay Areab and the MTC recently introduced variable pricing on the highly traveled San Francisco– Oakland Bay Bridge to help manage congestion during peak periods. Most expansions of highway lane miles since the early 1990s have focused on providing carpool or high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes in metropolitan areas (Hanak and Barbour 200f). Following the principle that “time is moneyb” these lanes provide an incentive to reduce solo drivingb and modeling has shown that they are more effective in areas where there are longer traffic delays on regular lanes (Dahlgren 1998). Since the mid-1990sb some Southern California metro areas have also experimented with road tolling. 3f Most of these high-occupancy-toll (HOT) or express lanes combine free access for carpoolers with a toll option for solo driversb sometimes with variable prices. Just as with general VMT- based pricingb HOT lanes rely on electronic toll-collection technology. Conversions and expansions of HOT lanes are a major component of planned roadway spending within the Bay Areab Southern Californiab and San Diego regionsb and the Sacramento region plans to expand HOV lanes (Heminger et al. 2010). 36 Once these plans are realizedb roughly 40 percent of the localities in our survey (consti- tuting over 60% of the population) will be within f miles or less of at least one HOT lane. As with HOV lanesb the efficacy of HOT lanes depends on existing traffic condi- tions and delays (Dahlgren 2002). Over time, rising fuel economy and puflic opposition to increasing the gas tax have reduced its usefulness as a source of revenue and as a price signal to drivers. Toll lfnes, cfrpool lfnes, fnd other “demfnd mfnfgement” fnd pricing policies hfbe the greftest potentifl to reduce VMT. at W atEb Villag E N EW biE/Fli Ck b /CbE at i VE Co MMo NS 13 Driving Change www.ppic.org 13 Local Parking Policies Placing a charge on public parking spaces within a given area can reduce the congestion resulting from drivers looking for free parking spacesb encourage the use of alternative means of transportationb and generate revenues (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 200f). In additionb limiting requirements on developers to provide parking can increase density and make car use relatively more costly (Shoup 1999). The effects on driving are particularly strong when workers must pay to park (Legislative Ana- lyst’s Office 2002; Taylor and Fink 2003). 37 Yet parking pricing and management is still a seldom- used strategy in California. 38 Statewideb only 16 percent of the cities and counties in our survey (including the most populous localities) have initiated any type of charges for public parking in commercial areas. 39 And nearly nine-tenths of all localities (including the larger ones) continue to require that new commercial developments provide employee parkingb with free parking for employees remaining the norm. Howeverb as discussed aboveb a large and growing number of jurisdictions are relaxing mini- mum requirements for parking in some new developments to encourage density (Figure 2). The Challenge of Public Acceptance Although our survey of local officials indicated that public opposition posed an obstacle for all three types of VMT- reduction policies (increasing population densityb transit useb and pricing)b this problem may be especially impor- tant for pricing. Our survey showed that public opposition to higher charges for driving ranks a close second to public opposition to higher density. And as evidenced by the inability of both Congress and the state legislature to raise the gas tax since the early 1990sb the need to gain signifi- cant legislative or voter approval increases the difficulties of raising fees. Proposition 26b a new state constitutional amendment passed in November 2010b is likely to com- pound these difficulties for some types of fees. 40 Experience may help overcome opposition to pricing options that involve some choice. For exampleb early concerns that toll lanes were inequitable have been allayed somewhat by use patterns: A broad cross-section of the population uses the toll facilities on the I-1f and Route 91 (Sullivan 1998; University of California Transportation Center 2003). According to the Southern California trans- portation officials we interviewedb government use of toll revenues to support parallel infrastructure and services can help garner public support for tolling. Board members of SANDAGb the San Diego region MPOb recently rejected the introduction of a regional VMT fee becauseb in contrast to HOT lanesb it would have been applied uniformly across the boardb without providing alternative travel options to drivers (San Diego Associa- tion of Governments 2010). Any large increases in federal or state road charges through a gas tax or VMT fee would surely raise public ire. In the short runb a large increase in gas prices or VMT fees could also raise equity concernsb because lower- and middle-income households would have less flexibility to respond by moving closer to transit or by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Parking policies face the challenge of meeting the needs of commercial areas to attract customers while also managing congestion. They can also lead to objections in mixed use areasb where efforts to reduce parking near com- mercial enterprises can result in spillover to nearby resi- dential streets. 41 One strategy that has helped to overcome opposition to parking restrictions and fees has been the reinvestment of parking revenues back into the downtown area in which they have been collectedb a model used in Redwood City (Zack 200f) and Pasadena (Salzman 2010). Resistance to higher parking charges may also be offset once residents find that it is easier to find a parking space (since one of the goals of such fees is to hold vacancy rates to a low but acceptable level). Our survey shobed that puflic opposition to higher charges for driving ranks a close second to puflic opposition to higher density. Driving Change 14 www.ppic.org 14 Building an Integrated Strategy Research suggests that integrated strategies will be far more effective in reducing VMT than individual land useb transportationb or pricing strategies pursued on their ownb making it possible for California to meet the goals of SB 37f (Figure f). The Transportation Research Board (2009) predicts twice as large a reduction in VMT when higher- density strategies are paired with complementary policiesb such as increased transit availability. 42 The extensive litera- ture on transit-oriented development also stresses the need for complementary policiesb demonstrating that transit investments in isolation are unlikely to lead to new develop - ment and increased densities (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010). It is encouraging to note thatb to some extentb Califor- nia’s largest MPOs are already pursuing combined strate- gies. Their most recent RTPs include increases in housing densityb HOV/HOT lanesb and transit use. 43 In developing scenarios for SB 37f targetsb the MPOs envisage increased efforts in several of these areas (Heminger et al. 2010). 44 At the same timeb interviews with local officials revealed challenges in coordinating land use and transportation policies: For instanceb transit may spur developmentb but without existing dense development it is more difficult to justify (and secure federal funding for) transit projects. To shed light on the potential for successb we discuss the observations of local governmentsb the key players in this process. We then examine California’s experience since the early 1990s with one of the primary integrated strategies—transit-oriented development. Locfl Perspectives on the Potentifl to Reduce Driving Our statewide survey of local planning officials sheds light on the potential of local governments to meet the goals of SB 37f (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011). Respondents were asked to gauge their localities’ potential to reduce driving relative to other localities within their region and to offer their opinions on the potential effec- tiveness of a range of land useb transitb and pricing strate- gies in their jurisdictions. The results reveal local planners’ views of the feasibility of these strategies within their com- munitiesb taking into account both political acceptability and various community characteristics.4f In generalb local officials appear cautiously optimistic about their overall ability to reduce driving in their locali - ties. More than a third of all those surveyed reported that their community had below-average potential relative to others within their region. But after accounting for commu - nity sizeb we find that 4f percent of the population lives in localities that perceive above-average potentialb compared to 27 percent in localities with below-average potential. Local governments see the potential to reduce VMT through a range of approaches. Respondents were asked to gauge the potential effectiveness of a variety of land useb transitb and pricing strategies based on a three-point scale (high/low/no potential). Figure 6 presents the rankings of these strategies across the statewide sampleb with each policy option color-coded by the type of strategy involved. The top five options—higher gas prices; local bus service; priority sites for mixed useb higher-densityb and infill land uses; express bus service; and priority sites for transit- oriented development—come from all three strategies. And many respondents expressed the need for integrated approachesb in particular linking smart-growth land Figure 5. Integrated policies fave tfe figfest potential to reduce VMb SOURCE: Rodier’s (2009f review of sbudies bha9b model bhe eecb of policies on VMT reducbion. NOTES: The gure shows bhe median (red Xf and 95 percenb condence inbervals (blue barsf from a range of sbudies over a ben-year bime frame. The resulbs for combined sbrabegies are for approaches bhab combine land use change, bransib, and pricing. Sample sizes: VMT fees (27f, bransib (20f, parking pricing (20f, la9nd use (19f, cordon pricing (17f, fu9el bax (17f, combined sbrabegies (15f, and congesbion pricing (99f. Holding vehicle and fuel cha9racberisbics consbanb, VMT reducbions and GHG emiss9ion reducbions are equivalenb. Cordonpricing involves charging an enbry fee inbo an urban area—now done in London and Sbockholm and under considerabion in San Francisco. VMT fees Fuel tax Cordon prifing Conges- tion prifing Parbing prifing Land use Combined strategies Transit VMT reduftion (%) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 15 D riv ing Chang e w w w. p p i c . o r g 15 uses with improved transit options and more accessible streetscapesf Pricing policies stand out for their widelb varied rankingsf Higher gas prices rank first among all 16 poli- cies examined, but all other pricing strategies rank in the bottom thirdf 46 Planners’ views of the effectiveness of gas price increases are consistent with the research litera- ture, but their low expectations regarding the potential of other pricing strategies are in conflict with the researchf 47 This mab reflect both recent gas price historb and politi- cal realitiesf The state’s recent experience with high gas prices demonstrated the potential of higher driving costs to reduce VMT (Figure 4)f But this experience happened through market forces, not an explicit policb changef Most other pricing options would be implemented through local or regional policies, and planners are aware of the political difficulties of imposing higher costs on driversf Several local characteristics appear important to plan- ners’ optimism about the potential of various strategies to reduce driving: 48 Experience matters. A given strategb is nearlb alwabs ranked significantlb higher in a localitb that is alreadb using it or planning to use itf Of course, localities are most likelb to adopt policies that theb expect will work, and officials might be inclined to favorablb evaluate policies theb have worked to implementf But optimism is as high or higher for policies alreadb in use, rather than those under consideration, suggesting that expe- rience has been at least somewhat encouraging, even in places where public opposition is cited as a serious concernf Rail transit is a plus. Officials in jurisdictions served bb rail tend to feel more optimistic about the overall poten- tial to reduce driving, as well as about almost all of the individual policb optionsf This strong showing is consis- tent with the research finding that integrated strategies can have a greater effect on VMTf Rail is a relativelb attractive alternative to driving, and it provides a focal point for denser land development—which makes other alternatives to driving, such as walking and bicbcling, more feasible, especiallb for noncommute tripsf As one official noted: “We have substantial vacant land f f f [and] existing light railf This combination gives us the oppor- tunitb to ‘get it rightf’” Local confitions shape expectations. Planners in more populous locales are more optimistic about their overall abilitb to reduce driving, the full range of pricing policies, and the potential for transit-oriented developmentf Consistent with the research literature, which finds that lower-income residents are more sensitive to changes in gas prices and more likelb to use transit, officials in lower-income localities believe that higher gas prices and most transit options will prove more effective than in higher-income locali- tiesf 49 Perhaps as a result, these officials also perceive their localities’ overall potential to reduce driving to The state’s recent experience with high gas prices demonstrated the potentiaf of higher driving costs to reduce bMT. Figure 6. Planners believe that a range of policies ofers high potential for rebucing VMT SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hfnfk, fnd Strybewski (2011). NOTES: The policy potentifl score wfs cflculfted fs the sfmple fverfge of the potentifl rfnking for efch policy option. A score of 3 wfs given for “high potentifl,” 2 for “low potentifl,” fnd 1 for “no potentifl.” For commuter rfil fnd light rfil, the score is combined into f single rfil cftegory. HD is high densitHy. Pricing Transit Land use No potential Low potential High potential Higher gas price Local bfs service Mixeb fse, HD, inll Express bfsTOD Fewer parking spaces Express bfs to rail Bike lane networks Other lanb fse incentives Pay-as-yof-brive insfrance Higher parking feesRail (all types) Variable roab pricing Carpool lanesToll lanes Urban growth bofnbary Driving Change 16 www.ppic.org 16 be higher than elsewhere. Consistent with the idea that proximity of jobs makes it easier to employ integrated strategiesb officials in localities with a higher jobs- housing ratio are more optimistic about the potential of most pricing toolsb access to railb and the promotion of transit-oriented development. f0 Party leanings are influential . . . The partisan split on climate policy in Californiab which has widened over the past two yearsb is also reflected in planners’ per- ceived potential to respond to SB 37f. f1 Local govern- ments in more heavily Republican areas are less likely to adopt general climate change policiesb and local offi- cials in these areas are less optimistic about the overall local potential to reduce driving. Consistent with the stronger objection to taxes and fees commonly asso- ciated with this party’s platformsb officials also rank the potential of most pricing strategies lower in these localities. They are also more skeptical of the poten- tial for transit-oriented development and less likely to use this strategyb even when they have access to rail transit. Because many of the state’s fastest growing counties are located in the more heavily Republican inland regions of the stateb this partisan split may limit the effectiveness of SB 37f in places where there is the greatest potential to “build smart” from the ground up. . . . but not determinative. Adoption of most smart- growth land use policies is not affected by residents’ party affiliationb nor is the perceived potential of many of the individual options that can support SB 37f goals. And experience in the Republican-leaning San Diego region demonstrates that party affiliation is not a deal- breaker when it comes to developing aggressive regional strategies. Using a combination of increased housing densitiesb increased transitb and more HOV and HOT lanesb the SANDAG region’s existing RTP is already one of the most ambitious in the state (Table 1). f2 In sumb planners appear to have a good sense of local factors that are likely to affect the potential to respond effectively to SB 37f. Much of the emerging message sug- gests grounds for optimism. Planners recognize the impor- tance of using multiple strategies in combinationb and they are optimistic about the policies they are already using or planning to useb highlighting the positive role of experi- ence. They are also more hopeful about the potential of most other options when they have the availability of rail— the most popular (if most costly) form of transit. Planners in more populous communities generally perceive greater potential to reduce driving and are already more likely to be adopting the needed strategies. But our findings also highlight some important con- straints. Planners recognize the difficulties associated with higher-income households (which tend to support climate change policies but are less likely to respond to SB 37f– related strategies)b as well as those associated with political opposition—a potential barrier to implementing some of the supportive policy options in the fast-growing inland counties. They are also pessimistic about the prospects for most pricing strategies—an important component of effectively integrated strategies—underscoring the political challenges of making headway on this front. Finallyb the optimism associated with the availability of rail appears largely unrealized in light of current transit ridership lev- elsb suggesting that much progress is needed to capitalize on this potential. Improving the performance of transit- oriented development may play an important role in real- izing this potentialb as described below. Trfnsit-Oriented Development in Cflifornif Transit-oriented development is a prime example of the type of integrated land use and transportation planning that has the potential to reduce VMT. TOD’s aim is to create higher densities around transit stationsb making Planners appear to have a good sense of local factors that are likely to affect the potential to respond effectively to SB 375. 17 Driving Change www.ppic.org 17 transit ridership feasible for more residents and workers. Our survey revealed that planners are optimistic about the potential of TOD to help reduce VMT (Figure 6)b particu- larly when they have or expect to have rail. As we discussed aboveb density and proximity to transit influence ridership for employees even more than for residents. Howeverb California has been experiencing a decline in employment densityb making it harder for transit systems to achieve high ridership and making commer- cial development around new transit stations especially important (by “commercial” we mean any nonresidential developmentb such as officeb retailb or industrial). Hereb we evaluate how well TOD has worked over the past two decades of extensive rail transit expansion. We look at the location of new transit stations and analyze employment growth in the areas surrounding these stations. f3 TOD is most suitable around fixed-line transit stations—rail or “bus rapid transitb” which has fixed sta- tions and dedicated bus lanes. In these areas—and in contrast to areas around ordinary bus lines—developers have some certainty that the transit service will not move; fixed-line transit also offers higher speeds and greater regional accessibility than the typical bus system. f4 Our analysis focused on the four largest MPO regionsb where 217 new railb subwayb streetcarb and bus-rapid-transit sta- tions opened between 1992 and 2006. ff We found that these new transit stations were located in areas with higher residential density and much higher employment density than other areas in the same coun- ties. f6 Thusb California has successfully located transit stations in areas most able to deliver higher transit rider- ship. Howeverb these new stations also reflect challenges faced by system expansions. Density around newer transit stations was lower than density around transit stations that opened before 1992. Many older transit stationsb such as the San Francisco and Oakland portions of BART and the LA Metro Railb are located in big-city downtowns: areas with the highest employment density. New transit stations in existing systems often extend lines into lower-density suburbs. And many new transit stationsb such as portions of the LA Metro Rail green line and many BART stations The Fruitbfle BART stftion. Trfnsit ridership depends on jobs fnd housing being close to trfnsit stftions. p aul hoh Ma NN/Fli Ck b /CbE at i VE Co MMo NS in the East Bayb are located in freeway medians. Although freeway medians offer a cost advantage (since they are an existing right-of-way)b stations in medians may pose a challenge for land use developmentb given that the area immediately adjacent to the station is a freeway. f7 Did localities take advantage of these new stations through new development efforts? This is the essential question for transit-oriented developmentb which should increase the concentration of residentsb workersb or both near stationsb thus raising overall transit ridership and lowering VMT. We examined both employment and resi- dential growth. f8 Our analysis considered density changes within a quarter mile of new transit stationsb comparing growth before and after the station opened with areas that lacked transit stations but were similar economically and geographically. Averaging across all new transit stationsb we found no increase in employment growth around new transit sta- tions after they openedb either immediately or several years thereafterb relative to comparison areas. This suggests that localities were not effectively taking advantage of these new stations to encourage job-based TOD. f9 Nor were station openings associated with consistent employment growth Driving Change 18 www.ppic.org patterns in specific industries. Moreoverb it does not appear that employment growth suffered from competition with residential growth: Residential densities fell over the period when new transit stations opened. Despite the lack of employment growth on averageb we did find considerable variation across stations. Employment growth was much higher around some new stations and much lower around othersb even within the same localityb within the same transit systemb and on the same route. Although employment growth occurred around very different types of stations (see the text box)b it followed regular patternsb tending to be higher around stations in areas that already had higher residential and employment densities and those located farther from an older transit station. 60 It may be that areas with higher density already had zoning in place that supported further development or lacked local opposition. At the same timeb this finding implies that employment growth around transit stations does not hinge on having abundant vacant land. The lack of additional job growth around many new transit stations represents a missed opportunity for rais- ing employment densitiesb raising transit ridershipb and lowering VMT. It is also consistent with the results of our survey of local officials about the focus of their TOD efforts: Among localities with existing or planned projects to increase density around transit stationsb projects were much more likely to emphasize residential than commer- cial uses. 61 Regional transportation agencies appear to have been assuming that localities need more encouragement to build housing in the right places. In contrastb jobs—in the words of one transportation planner we interviewed— “take care of themselves.” These assumptions have probably taken root because land use policies in California have traditionally favored commercial over residential developmentb both because these uses generate more local sales tax revenues and because it is generally believed that businesses require less expensive local public services than residents (Boarnet and Crane 2001). Zoning practices reflect these assumptions. 62 Howeverb our evidence shows that employment growth around transit stations does not take care of itselfb even if zoning around transit stations favors nonresidential uses. Different pfths to employment growth: Hollywood/Highlfnd fnd Sylmfr/Sfn Fernfndo Stations associated with large, statistically significant increases in employment growth include the Hollywood/ Highland and Hollywood/Vine stations on the LA Metro Rail Red Line in Hollywood and the Sylmar/San Fernando station on the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line in Los Angeles County’s northern San Fernando Valley. These stations are located in very different neighborhoods with very different TOD strategies. The Hollywood/Highland underground subway sta- tion opened in b000 and was a high-profile transit-oriented development project focused on retail and entertainment along Hollywood Boulevard. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency was integral in assembling land for development, negotiating financing with the city, and secur- ing approvals for the $600 million project that resulted in the Hollywood & Highland Retail Center, the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, and the Kodak Theater (Cervero et al. b004; California Department of Transportation b00b). Both the Hollywood/Highland and the neighboring Hollywood/Vine stations were dense, developed, mixed use areas even before their station openings. The Sylmar Metrolink station in Santa Clarita opened in 1994. The nearby “Montage at Village Green” housing devel- opment opened in b000. Whereas most TODs focusing on housing are “mixed use developments” incorporating some commercial space, the Montage was exclusively a housing development (Moses, Lewis, and Lastrape b009). Kolko (b011) finds that employment growth that accompanied the station development included small businesses across numerous industries, including grocery wholesaling, light manufactur- ing, construction, and real estate brokerage. Many of these businesses were located between the station and the housing development. The Sylmar example shows that employment can grow around new stations even when the station TOD strategy emphasizes residential development. Employment grobth around transit stations does not take care of itself. 19 Driving Change www.ppic.org Existing zoning that allows retailb officeb or industrial devel - opment may not be sufficient to spur employment growth. A set of case studies of San Diego stations concluded that TODs were most successful when they coincided with local authorities’ development plans for the area (Boarnet and Crane 2001). A study of the Washington DC Metro rail system found that dense development around new suburban stations hinged on the “determination and foresight” of local officials (Schrag 2006). The major Hollywood/Highland TOD (see the text box) illustrates the importance of regional transportation and local development authorities working togetherb well beyond a favorable zoning plan. Numerous specific policies could encourage develop - ment around transit stations. Parking policies are one strat - egy: To encourage denser residential developmentb relax requirements that mandate the minimum number of park - ing spaces a developer must provide in residential TODs (Arrington and Cervero 2008); and to encourage transit ridershipb restrict the availability or raise the cost of park - ing (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 2004). In additionb building a mix of TOD businessesb including retail and per - sonal services that employees use during the dayb encour - ages transit use by making it easier to run errands near the workplace (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2008). And bolstering connectivity—including local bus feeder service to transit stations and surrounding streets that are friendly to walking and biking—helps increase transit ridership around TODs andb in making the location more accessibleb is likely to raise demand for the location (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2008). A Hollywood & Highland Retail Center is not—and should not be—the model for employment growth at all transit stations. Appropriate levels of growth and indus- tries differ across transit stationsb depending on existing land usesb densitiesb and location in the transit network. Yet it is surprising thatb on averageb employment growth around new transit stations was no faster than in compari- son areas. A shift in focus toward more job-based TOD may be in order for future development efforts around existing and planned transit stations. Expanding job growth around the increasing number of stations located The success of SB 375 bill depend on hob bell all levels of government integrate land use planning, transit investments, and pricing policies and make them attractive to California’s residents. outside downtown areas would improve employment exchanges with the broader metro area job market and increase the two-way use of costly rail systems. Employ- ment growth near stationsb even in residential areasb should be encouraged to exceed employment growth in similar nearby neighborhoods lacking transit access. Policy Recommendations With the adoption of SB 37fb the state is once again taking a leadership role in national environmental policy. 63 The success of SB 37f will depend on how well all levels of gov- ernmentb working togetherb integrate land use planningb transit investmentsb and pricing policies and make them attractive to California’s residents. For residentsb the law implies a major behavioral shiftb reversing a decades-long trend in which per capita VMT has been rising. The anticipated emission benefits of SB 37f are rela- tively modest—rather than a silver bulletb the new policy is one of many discrete actions that make up Califor- nia’s overall strategy for addressing climate change. But the same policies that can contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions from driving can generate other benefits. Higher-density development—essential for a viable transit system—consumes less energy and water per resident or workerb providing additional environmental and economic benefits. By making housing more affordable in milder coastal areasb policies encouraging higher density could also shift population and economic activity to places with Driving Change 20 www.ppic.org lower energy requirements and overall emissionsb reducing statewide or national emissions per capita. 64 Reducing the need to drive and providing “walkable” streets would also provide public health benefits to California’s residents. Our analysis offers hopeb as well as warning signs. The clearest grounds for optimism come from our survey of city and county officials—the local authorities who control land use decisions and oversee a majority of transportation dollars. Despite the recessionb they have increased their climate- change–related activities and are adopting numerous land use strategies that can support the goals of SB 37f. Furthermoreb local officials tend to rate the policies and strategies they have already begun to implement as having strong potential to reduce VMTb despite various barriers to implementationb including public opposition to denser development. Another reason for optimism is the extent to which both regional transportation authorities and local gov- ernments recognize the importance of integrated strate- gies that combine land useb transitb and pricing policies. Regional authorities in the state’s major metropolitan areas are gaining support from local officials as they develop strategies to increase the use of toll lanesb focus more spending on transitb and move away from the typical model of suburban sprawl development. This pattern is evi- dent even in regions where many residents do not support the state’s climate policy goals. Recent trends in residential and employment growth present a mixed picture. On the one handb California’s residential density is higher than the national average and rising—a plus for integrated strategies that encour- age transit use. On the other handb the state’s employment density is lower than the national average—dramatically so in many metro areas—and falling. Low employment densities limit the potential for VMT reduction because employment density is even more strongly related to transit ridership than residential density. The failure of rail transit to realize its potential— despite receiving a large share of transportation invest- ments for several decades—is another warning sign. Rail ridership as a share of commutes has increased slightly in California—rising to 1.4 percent of all commutes in 2008 from 0.9 percent in 1990b before major investments in rail took place. But this growth is much slower than the pace of transit cost increases and service expansion. Howeverb voters and commuters think favorably of railb often supporting local sales tax increases to fund rail investmentsb and they tend to switch from bus to rail when rail becomes available. Our local government survey respondents were also more hopeful about the success of VMT-reduction policies—land use and pricing as well as transit—if their localities already had rail service in placeb suggesting that they perceive rail as an important platform for building an integrated strategy. One contributing factor in the limited success of rail investments is the failure of transit-oriented development to live up to its potential. Jobs near fixed-line transit sta- tions (including rail and bus rapid transit) are especially important for increasing transit ridershipb because once workers arrive at a stationb they do not have many options for commuting to more distant locations. Unfortunatelyb new transit stationsb on averageb have not been greeted by faster job growth in the surrounding areab even though local fiscal incentives and zoning have traditionally favored commercial development near transit stations. Paradoxi- callyb SB 37f could make employment growth around transit stations even more difficultb because the law explic- itly favors residential development in TODs: To receive the benefit of exemption from CEQA requirementsb develop- ment projects near transit stations (called Transit Priority Projects) must be at least f0 percent residentialb as mea- sured by building square footage. If California is to reap the benefits that greater employ- ment density around transit bringsb the state must consider encouraging commercial development over residential development near stations—the opposite of the cur- rent incentives in SB 37f. In additionb local and regional authorities could adopt numerous specific policies to encourage commercial development around transit sta- tionsb including relaxing minimum parking requirementsb providing development incentivesb and ensuring good 21 Driving Change www.ppic.org connectivity between the transit station and surround- ing areas through development of local bus feeder service and neighboring streets favorable to walking and biking. Failing to take advantage of rail through more intense land development around stations represents a significant missed opportunity to increase ridership and to make the most of costly transit investments. Pricing represents another area of missed opportu- nity. Although regional authorities in the major coastal metro areas are moving forward with toll roadsb few local authorities are raising the cost or limiting the availability of parking to encourage the use of alternatives to solo driv- ing. Indeedb nearly 90 percent of all localities still require that new commercial developments provide employee parking. But the greatest shortcoming lies in state and fed- eral policies: For nearly two decadesb both the federal and state governments have failed to raise charges for road use through a higher gas tax or new VMT-based fees. These price increases are urgently needed to bolster the transpor- tation finance systemb and they are the most effective way to send the signal to businesses and residents to change their transportation behaviors and location decisions. Such If California is to reap the fenefits that greater employment density around transit frings, the state must consider encouraging commercial development over residential development near stations. fees are not politically popularb but in this caseb responsible fiscal policy aligns with the efficient use of the transporta- tion network. To make the most of all of the available policies—land useb transportationb pricingb and their integration—a regional perspective is essentialb and a regional perspec- tive must acknowledge the diversity of localities without losing sight of their interconnectedness. SB 37f encourages coordinationb but it will be up to regional and local lead- ers to put the vision to workb recognizing local differences while overriding the temptation to yield to fragmented local interests. ● Driving Change 22 www.ppic.org www.ppic.org Notes 1 Washington state has adopted ambitious per capita VMT reduction targets as part of its climate change legislationb and several East Coast states have also adopted explicit VMT reduc- tion goals as part of their climate change policies. 2 Technicallyb SB 37f calls for a reduction in emissions from pas- senger vehicles beyond the reductions expected from improve- ments in vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of low-carbon fuelsb as required by other regulations (described below). In the “most ambitious scenarios” for meeting the regional 203f targets under SB 37fb transportation system improvements (which include measures to improve traffic flow as well as some demand man- agement measures we consider under “pricingb” such as carpool programs) are expected to achieve 8–17 percent of regional GHG emission reductions in the Bay Areab Southern Californiab and Sacramento regions. San Diego examined one scenario in which these measures could achieve over half of the total GHG emis- sions goal (Heminger et al. 2010). 3 The state’s Strategic Growth Councilb created in a companion bill to SB 37fb is funding planning grants for SB 37fb in recogni- tion of the potential benefit to public healthb conservationb and livability (Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team 2010). 4 This goal was established under Executive Order S-3-0fb signed in 200f. f Some have argued that greater reductions in VMT than those in CARB’s scoping plan are possible (Ewing and Nelson 2008; Winkelmanb Bishinsb and Kooshian 2010)b whereas others argue that VMT reductions constitute a costlyb inefficientb uncertain GHG emission reduction strategy (Mooreb Staleyb and Poole 2010). Boarnet (2010) provides a critical overview of this debate. 6 High-density housing units also use less water for landscap- ingb providing additional energy savings and helping California to cope with increasing water scarcity (Hanak and Davis 2006; Hanak et al. 2011). In additionb land use policies that encourage growth in mild climate areasb such as coastal Californiab could reduce emissions generated by heating and cooling (Kahn 2010; Glaeser and Kahn 2010). 7 In one extreme case—the vast region encompassing the Southern California Association of Governments (Imperialb Los Angelesb Orangeb Riversideb San Bernardinob and Ventura Counties)—the MPO is responsible only for planning; all invest- ments and maintenance are carried out by subregional and local authorities. 8 Counties have authority over land use in unincorporated areas. City and county government representatives also constitute the majority of MPO boards. 9 SB 37f offers three paths to ease requirements for environmental review of projects under CEQA: (1) programmatic streamlining for certain residential projects that are consistent with a region’s SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS)b (2) streamlining or exemption for transit priority projects that are consistent with a region’s SCS or APS and are at least f0 percent residential (as opposed to commercial)b and (3) adoption of a uniform set of traffic mitigation measures for higher-density residential develop - mentsb which exempts these projects from further traffic mitiga - tion requirements. 10 For information on the programb see http://calblueprint.dot .ca.gov/ 11 Although the analyses are at an earlier stageb efforts are also under way in the smaller regionsb including the San Joaquin Val- ley councils of governments (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2 011). 12 These local programs also include activities addressing many areas outside transportation and land useb including energy and water use efficiencyb green buildingsb renewable energyb and waste reduction (Hanak et al. 2008). 13 Changes in residential densities result from new construc- tion or redevelopment. Because housing has a long life and new developments are a small share of the housing stock in all but recently built citiesb even large increases in the density of new developments have only a modest effect on the overall average residential density of a city or metropolitan area. 14 See Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski (2011)b Appendix Table B.24(j). Out of nine barriersb public opposition to density ranked among the top three in every region but the San Joaquin Valley. But achieving higher commercial densities is often more politi- cally feasible than achieving higher residential densities (Barnes 20 0f). 1f Other smart-growth approaches available to local govern- ments include improving the interconnectivity of roads and other elements of street designb which influence the attractive- ness of driving versus alternative modes of travel (Ewing and Cervero 2010). 23 Driving Change www.ppic.org www.ppic.org 16 Another parking strategy is “unbundlingb” in which develop- ers sell the parking spaces separately from the residential or commercial units. This allows those who value parking most to buy it and facilitates providing less parking overall. 17 In localities without railb transit-oriented development tends to focus on higher-density and mixed use development along major bus corridors or on ensuring good bus connections for retail establishments. Several Central Valley cities also mentioned the possibility of capitalizing on high-speed rail as a focal point for TOD in the future. 18 As a recent exampleb over half of the $4.9 billion dollars com- mitted to projects designed to reduce congestion under the state’s Traffic Congestion and Relief Act of 2000 was allocated to rail and other transit (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2007). 19 In the most recent RTPs of the four largest MPOsb the pro- jected shares expenditures for transit over the next few decades range from 40 percent of the total in the San Diego region to 6f percent in the Bay Area (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2 011). 20 Residents were askedb “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 202f?” In 2004b the ranking was freeways and highways (32%)b light rail (31%)b public bus systems (13%)b local streets and roads (10%)b and carpool lanes (7%). In 2006b the ranking was light rail (36%)b freeways and highways (2f%)b public bus systems (14%)b local streets and roads (9%)b and carpool lanes (6%) (Baldassare 2004b 2006). 21 Survey respondents reported the availability of local bus service in all but the least populous jurisdictionsb and nearly half of all localities also have express bus services. Just over a quarter reported the availability of some forms of rail transitb and rail is planned in another 11 percent. Rail tends to be concentrated in more populous jurisdictions. 22 In a national studyb Baum-Snow and Kahn (200f) find that rail investments often fail to increase overall transit ridershipb because many new rail transit commuters are former bus com- mutersb not former drivers. 23 Data on VMT are from Federal Highway Administrationb Annual Higfway Statistics b Table VM-2. 24 In a 2001 national survey of travel behaviorb commutes accounted for 27 percent of VMTb though a much higher share of VMT at peak times and on the most congested routes. Transit was used for 3.7 percent of commute tripsb 1.1 percent of trips was for family or personal businessb and 1.0 percent of trips was for social or recreational purposes (Hu and Reuscher 2004b Tables 6 and 9). In Californiab 39 percent of trips originating from home are to work (California Department of Transporta- tion 2003). Transit investments may also fail to reduce VMT because the reduction in road congestion encourages additional driving—for exampleb trucks moving goods (Duranton and Turner 2009). 2f This finding is based on the authors’ calculations using data from the Census of Governmentsb 1992–2007. Recovery rates vary across systems. For instanceb at 64.f percentb the Bay Area’s BART system rate of operating cost recovery is far higher than the statewide average for transit in California. It is also one of the highest rates of recovery of any rail transit system in the country (O’Toole 2010). 26 For the seven largest transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Areab operating costs increased 83 percent between 1997 and 2008b whereas the consumer price index increased by 39 percent. Over this same periodb transit service (measured as hours in service) increased only 1f percent and ridership increased only 7 percent (Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit Sustainability Projectb 2010b available at www.mtc.ca.gov /planning/tsp/ABAG_Focus_presentation.pdf ). 27 See Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski (2011)b Appendix Table B.24(j). For the Bay Areab insufficient transit availability ranked highest among nine barriers; this constraint ranked second high - est (after public opposition to raising charges for driving) in the Southern California regionb and third (after public opposition to density and the jobs-housing balance) in the San Diego region. 28 See Kolko (2011). In Californiab fewer than 10 percent of people who live or work within a half mile of a transit station commute using rail transit; including bus ridersb transit share rises to only 20 percent. Farther than a half-mile from transit stationsb transit ridership drops off sharply. Here and elsewhere in the reportb “transit stations” refer to stops on fixed-line transit systems—primarily rail (commuter railb subwaysb light-railb and streetcars). We do not include stops along a regular bus route as “transit stations” becauseb unlike stations in fixed-line systemsb these stops do not require capital investment and tend not to be focal points for new residential or commercial development. 29 The Bay Area’s traffic and transit information portalb www.f11 .orgb lists 22 bus operators in the region as well as several rail and ferry operators. With the adoption of Resolution 3866 in early Driving Change 24 www.ppic.org 2010b MTC will consider an operator’s compliance with the region’s Transit Connectivity Plan when allocating funding. The Transit Connectivity Plan requirements include consistent signageb dissemination of real-time transit informationb provi- sion of information on schedules and connections from other transit agenciesb and guidelines for the use of a singleb cross- system fare payment card (www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/tcip /RES-3866_approved.pdf ). 30 To the extent that these strategies improve gas mileage— a benefit of reduced congestion—they can also reduce GHG emissions for a given level of VMT. 31 Numerous studies indicate a large and growing gap between revenues and funding needs (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 2009). 32 Americans’ sensitivity to gas prices also appears to have declined over the past several decades—a phenomenon analysts have attributed to the fact that more sprawling land use pat- terns have made people more reliant on cars (Hughesb Knittelb and Sperling 2008) and to a declining share of transportation in household budgets (Small and Van Dender 2007). 33 In early 2010b California’s gas tax was increasedb with a cor- responding decrease in the sales tax on gasoline. This revenue- neutral “fuel tax swap”—adopted to provide more budget flexibility—will be invalidated under Proposition 26 (described below) unless the legislature approves it again with a two-thirds majority by November 2011 (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2011). 34 Gas taxes within the European Union range from about $1.90/gallon in Bulgaria to $3.70/gallon in the Netherlands and are usually augmented by general value-added taxes. Japan’s gas tax is roughly $2.2f/gallon (October 2010 exchange rates). 3f Hanak and Rueben (2006) describe the early projects in South- ern California. 36 Conversion without expansion of lane capacity is likely to be more effective at reducing VMTb but it is also more politically difficultb particularly if it reduces open-access lanes. One chal- lenge with conversion of HOV to HOT lanes is the desirability of having more than one HOT laneb so that traffic can flow smoothly in the event of an accident. Since most HOV lanes are single lanesb this means either building an additional lane or converting an existing open-access lane to HOT status. In the Bay Areab planners are working to create single-lane HOT lanes from existing HOV lanes in ways that avoid these problems. The new HOT lane on I-680 has double lanes at entry and exit pointsb but a single lane elsewhere. 37 One study found that 77 percent of San Francisco Bay Area commuters provided with free parking drove aloneb compared to only 39 percent of those required to pay for parking. The cor- responding figures for how much these same people use transit were 4.8 percent and 42 percentb respectively (RIDES for Bay Area Commuters 2000). 38 California adopted a parking cash-out law in 1992 requiring that employers with more than f0 employees in areas out of attainment with any state air quality standardb and who offer employees subsidized parkingb give employees the option of “cashing out” that parking option. Employees can then use this money to pay for alternative means of commuting to workb such as transit or carpools. The federal tax code and the complexity of employer parking situations have made the program difficult to implementb though emission reduction benefits have been observed when it has been implemented. See www.arb.ca.gov /planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm. 39 San Francisco is conducting a pilot program that will vary on-street and garage parking rates to manage demand (http:// sfpark.org/). 40 This amendmentb passed by f3 percent of votersb raises the vote threshold for new state regulatory fees from one-half to two-thirds of each house of the legislatureb and it requires a two- thirds supermajority of the voting public to approve local regu- latory fees that formerly could be approved by a simple majority of governing boards. Although this change does not affect strict user fees—i.e.b charges that cover the costs of providing a service to the person being charged—it does affect fees that are used to benefit others. Litigation will likely be required to sort out the boundaries of the new rules. Thusb although parking feesb toll lane chargesb the gas taxb and VMT charges could easily be considered user fees (i.e.b used to help cover the cost of providing transportation services)b some may interpret the new rules as a restriction on the types of programs that the fees can fund. 41 In Bakersfieldb for exampleb efforts to limit parking availabil- ity met with resistance from retailers who felt that they needed additional parking to accommodate peak shopping days such as “Black Friday.” Residents in the cities of Los Angeles and Cypress objected to the spillover problems often experienced in mixed use areas. 42 The Transportation Research Board (2009) summarized the research literature with the conclusion that doubling residential density would be associated with a f–12 percent reduction in VMTb and possibly up to a 2f percent reduction with comple- mentary changes in transit availabilityb the jobs-housing bal- 25 Driving Change www.ppic.org anceb and other factors. Howeverb as mentioned aboveb doubling the density for even a large share of new housing would have only a modest effect on average residential density across a city or metropolitan area. 43 Notablyb none of the RTPs includes metrics of employment den - sityb though some discuss the concept of a jobs-housing balance. 44 Modeling scenarios done by SANDAGb which examined the potential gains from individual policy strategies relative to an integrated approachb highlight the benefits of combined strate- gies (Heminger et al. 2010). The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint (2009) also envisages an integrated approach. To some extentb planning for VMT reductions will be a learning-by-doing pro- cessb given the challenges of developing a comprehensive picture of how various policies might interact to affect driving behaviors in particular regions (Rose 2010). 4f We did not explicitly refer to SB 37fb so that we could avoid concerns that the responses might be used to gauge compli- ance with the law. Alsob the survey was completed before CARB released draft regional emission targets in June 2010b so respon- dents did not know the level of the regional targets. 46 Noteb moreoverb that our survey asked about gas pricesb not gas taxes. We chose this wording to avoid conflating concerns over the perceived political feasibility of raising the gas tax with the perceived effectiveness of a resulting rise in gas prices. 47 It is worth noting that the high marks for local bus service also conflict with the researchb which finds that the potential for traditional local bus service to reduce VMT is fairly low. It is possible that planners were thinking about enhanced service linesb although they generally ranked express bus service lower than local bus serviceb except in localities with rail accessb where express bus to rail service ranked highest among transit options. 48 Results reported here are from multiple regression analysesb which control for the effects of populationb household incomeb population growth rateb political party affiliation of votersb and other community characteristics. 49 On gas price sensitivityb see Hughesb Knittelb and Sperling (2008). On transit use and incomeb see Barbour (2006). f0 The jobs-housing ratio is calculated as the number of jobs rela - tive to the number of households within a jurisdiction in 2006. Interestinglyb a jobs-housing imbalance ranked as one of the top two perceived barriers to implementing policies to reduce driving in several regions: San Diegob the San Joaquin Valleyb the “Other MPO” group (including Central Coast counties and several northern Sacramento Valley counties)b and the “non-MPO” group (including rural counties not currently required to comply with SB 37f) (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011b Table B.24). f1 Statewide surveys find that Republican voters are less support- ive of AB 32 goals than are Democrats or independent votersb and this gap has widened since 2008 (Baldassare et al. 2008b 2010). f2 See Heminger et al. (2010). f3 This section summarizes the “Transit and Development in California” section of Kolko’s (2011) paperb “Making the Most of Tr a n sit .” f4 Bus rapid transit does not necessarily involve construction of a fixed or dedicated lane but typicallyb at a minimumb includes investments in advanced technologies and infrastructure that can speed the movement of buses and improve service. This larger investment makes it more of a “fixed” investment than typical bus service. ff These stations include extensions to BART in the San Fran- cisco Bay Areab the Sacramento light rail systemb the San Jose light rail systemb San Francisco MUNIb LA Metro Rail (includ- ing the LA Metro bus-rapid-transit Orange Line through the San Fernando Valley)b and new or mostly new systems such as the Altamont Commuter Expressb Coaster San Diegob Harbor Transitwayb and Metrolink Southern California. f6 Employment density is the most important factor. Residential density does not positively affect the location of new transit stations holding other factorsb including employment densityb constant. f7 In factb CARB recommends against development immediately adjacent to freeways for public health reasons (California Air Resources Board 200f). Stillb proximity to a freeway could boost ridership by facilitating park-and-ride use. f8 Data limitations restricted our analysis of residential growth to a shorter time period and different method. For employment growthb we have detailed data for all years from 1992 to 2006 from the National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) databaseb whereas for residential growthb we have detailed data for only 1990 and 2000 from the U.S. Census. f9 This result is somewhat surprisingb given that the new tran- sit stations were generally located in areas where employment growth was already faster than in comparison areas. One might therefore expect a boost in employment growth after the station Driving Change 26 www.ppic.org openedb if builders were to respond to the increased demand for land that typically occurs around new stations. 60 The residential density measure is for 1990b and the employ- ment density measure is for 1992. 61 Over half (f6%) of the communities with these projects reported that they were all or mostly residentialb versus only about a third (31%) evenly split between residential and com- mercial and 13 percent mostly commercial (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011). 62 Land surrounding transit stations in Southern California in the mid-1990s was much more likely to be zoned for commer- cial (including industrial) use than for residential useb relative to other portions of the cities containing those transit stations (Boarnet and Crane 2001). More recentlyb a 2007 review of San Francisco Bay Area TOD policies reports that development goals for TODs include minimum density requirements for residential development but not for employmentb in part because “cities already have considerable incentives to zone for nonresidential usesb such as sales tax revenue and reduced fiscal impacts” (NelsonNygaard 2007b pp. f–7). 63 Recent federal climate change legislative proposals contain provisions that would extend requirements nearly identical to SB 37f to all MPOs in the nation. 64 Recognizing this potentialb Bay Area leaders have called for a reassessment of the region’s growth barriers (King 2008). References Arringtonb G. B.b and Robert Cervero. 2008. “Effects of TOD on Housingb Parkingb and Travel.” bransit Cooperative Researcf Program Report 128. Washingtonb DC: Transportation Research Board. Baldassareb Mark. 2004. Special Survey on Californians and tfe Future . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. August. Available at www.ppic.org /content/pubs/sur vey/S _ 804MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Mark. 2006. Californians and tfe Future . PPIC State- wide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_806MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Markb Dean Bonnerb Jennifer Paluchb and Sonja Petek. 2008. Californians and tfe Environment . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_708MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Markb Dean Bonnerb Sonja Petekb and Nicole Will- coxon. 2010. Californians and tfe Environment . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_710MBS.pdf. Barbourb Elisa. 2006. “Time to Work: Commuting Times and Modes of Transportation for California Workers.” California Counts 7 (3). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Barnesb Gary. 200f. “The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share.” Journal of Public bransportation 8 (2). Baum-Snowb Nathanielb and Matthew Kahn. 200f. “Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Citiesb 1970–2000.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. Bedsworthb Louiseb Ellen Hanakb and Elizabeth Stryjewski. 2011. “Views from the Field: Linking Transportation and Land Use.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=946. Boarnetb Marlon G. 2010. “Planningb Climate Changeb and Transportation: Thoughts on Policy Analysis.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (8): f87–9f. Boarnetb Marlon G.b and Randall Crane. 2001. bravel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on bravel . New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. 27 Driving Change www.ppic.org California Air Resources Board. 200f. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Healtf Perspective . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Cfange Scoping Plan: A Framework for Cfange, Pursuant to AB 32 tfe California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenfouse Gas Emission Reduction bargets for Automobiles and Ligft brucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. California Department of Transportation. 2002. Statewide bransit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California . Final report. Available at www.dot.ca.gov/hq /MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/TOD-Study-Final-Rpt.pdf. California Department of Transportation. 2003. 2000–2001 California Statewide bravel Survey: Weekday bravel Report . Avail- able at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/documents/travelsurveys /Final2001_ StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt.pdf. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2008. “Transit + Employment: Increasing Transit’s Share of the Commute Trip.” Available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display _asset/employment202. Cerverob Robertb et al. 2004. “Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiencesb Challengesb Prospects.” br a n s i t Cooperative Researcf Program Report 102. Washingtonb DC: Transportation Research Board. Dahlgrenb Joy. 1998. “High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Not Always More Effective Than General Purpose Lanes.” br a n s p o r - tation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 36 (3): 239–ff. Dahlgrenb Joy. 2002. “High-Occupancy/Toll Lanes: Where Should They Be Implemented?” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 32 (2): 99–114. Deakinb Elizabethb Greig Harveyb Randall Pozdenab and Geof- frey Yarmena. 1996. bransportation Pricing Strategies for Califor- nia: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy, and Equity Impacts . Sacramento: California Air Resources Board. Doyleb Scottb Alexa Kelly-Schwartzb Marc Schlossbergb and Jean Stockard. 2006. “Active Community Environments and Health: The Relationship of Walkable and Safe Communities to Indi- vidual Health.” Journal of tfe American Planning Association 71 (1): 19–31. Durantonb Gillesb and Matthew Turner. 2009. “The Fundamen- tal Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities.” NBER Working Paper 1f376. Ewingb Reidb and Robert Cervero. 2001. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis.” bransportation Researcf Record 178 0. 87–114 . Ewingb Reidb and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment.” Journal of tfe American Planning Association 76 (3): 26f–94. Ewingb Reidb and Arthur C. Nelson. 2008. “CO2 Reductions Attributable to Smart Growth in California.” College Park: University of Maryland. Available at www.climateplanca.org /ewing_analysis.pdf. Ewingb Reidb Tom Schmidb Richard Killingsworthb Amy Zlotb and Stephen Raudenbush. 2003. “Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activityb Obesityb and Morbidity.” American Journal of Healtf Promotion 18 (1): 47–f7. Fieldingb Gordon J. 199f. “Transit in American Cities.” In The Geograpfy of Urban bransportation b ed. Susan Hanson (New York: Guilford Press). Giulianob Genevieveb and Ajay Agarwal. 2010. “Public Transit as a Metropolitan Growth and Development Strategy.” In Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects b vol. 3b ed. N. Pindusb H. Wialb and H. Wolman (Washingtonb DC: Brookings Institution). Glaeserb Edwardb and Matthew Kahn. 2010. “The Greenness of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development.” Journal of Urban Economics 67: 404–18. Hanakb Ellenb and Elisa Barbour. 200f. “Sizing Up the Chal- lenge: California’s Infrastructure Needs and Tradeoffs.” Occa- sional Paper. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hanakb Ellenb and Matthew Davis. 2006. “Lawns and Water Demand in California”. California Economic Policy 2 (2). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hanakb Ellenb and Kim Rueben. 2006. Funding Innovations for California Infrastructure: Promises and Pitfalls . USC Keston Institute for Infrastructure Research Paper Seriesb Paper 06-01. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Driving Change 28 www.ppic.org Hanakb Ellenb Louise Bedsworthb Joanna Malaczynskib and Sarah Swanbeck. 2008. “Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California’s Cities and Counties.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R _1108EHR.pdf. Hanakb Ellenb Jay Lundb Ariel Dinarb Brian Grayb Richard How- ittb Jeffrey Mountb Peter Moyleb and Barton “Buzz” Thompson. 2 011. Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconcilia- tion . San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hemingerb Steveb Hasan Ikhratab Gary Gallegosb and Mike McKeever. 2010. “Memorandum to Lynn Terryb Deputy Executive Officerb California Air Resources Boardb Re: Preliminary Report on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/Air Resources Board (ARB) Senate Bill 37f (SB 37f) Target Setting Analysis.” Available at w w w.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb37f/mpo/prelimreport.mtc .sacog.sandag.scag.pdf. Hub Patriciab and Timothy Reuscher. 2004. Summary of bravel brends: 2001 National Housefold bravel Survey . Washingtonb DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Available at http://nhts .ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. Hughesb Jonathan E.b Christopher R. Knittelb and Daniel E. Sper- ling. 2008. “Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand.” The Energy Journal 29 (1): 93–114. Kahnb Matthew. 2010. “Urban Policy Effects on Carbon Mitiga- tion.” NBER Working Paper 16131. Kingb John. 2008. “How Global Warming Challenges the Old Bay Area Assumptions.” San Francisco Cfronicle . July 1. Kolkob Jed. 2011. “Making the Most of Transit: Densityb Employ- ment Growthb and Ridership Around New Stations.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=947. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2002. “A Commuter’s Dilemma: Extra Cash or Free Parking?” Available at www.lao .ca.gov/2002/parking/031802_cash_or_parking.pdf. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2007. “California Travels: Financing Our Transportation.” Available at www.lao.ca.gov/2000/0f1100 _cal_travels/0f1100_cal_travels.pdf. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2011. “The 2011–12 Budget: Achieving General Fund Relief from Transportation Funds.” Available at http://lao.ca.gov/analysis/2011/transportation /tax_swap_012f11.pdf. Mooreb Adrian T.b Samuel R. Staleyb and Robert W. Poole Jr. 2010. “The Role of VMT Reduction in Meeting Climate Change Policy Goals.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Prac- tice 44 (8): f6f–74. Mosesb Sharonb Carol Lewisb and Krystal Lastrape. 2009. “Moving Toward Implementation: An Examination of the Organizational and Political Structures of Transit-Oriented Development.” Houstonb TX: Southwest Region University Transportation Center. National Complete Streets Coalition. 2010. “Complete Streets FAQ.” Available at www.completestreets.org/complete-streets -fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Com - mission. 2009. Paying Our Way: A New Framework for branspor - tation Finance . Washingtonb DC: U.S. Department of Transpor - tation. NelsonNygaard Consulting Associatesb Inc. 2007. “Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 3434: Transit-Oriented Development Policyb 2007 Evaluation.” O’Tooleb Randal. 2010. Defining Success: The Case Against Rail br a n s i t . Washingtonb DC: Cato Institute. Parryb Ian W. H. 2009. “Pricing Urban Congestion.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1: 461–84. Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team. 2010. “Sus- tainable Communities Planning Grants.” Report to the Strategic Growth Council. Available at www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/funding /2010FundingReport_November_23_2010.pdf. Pooleb Robert W.b Jr.b and Adrian Moore. 2010. Restoring brust in tfe Higfway brust Fund . Policy Study 386. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. 2000. Commute Profile 2000: A Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns . Oaklandb CA. Rodierb Caroline. 2009. “Review of the International Modeling Literature: Transitb Land Useb and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” bransportation Researcf Record 2132: 1–12. Roseb Eliot. 2010. Working Harder to Grow Smarter: Overcoming Barriers to Senate Bill 375 Implementation . Professional Reportb Department of City and Regional Planningb University of Cali- forniab Berkeley. 29 Driving Change www.ppic.org Rufolob A. M.b and T. J. Kimpel. 2009. “Transit’s Effect on Mile- age Responses to Oregon’s Experiment in Road Pricing.” br a n s - portation Researcf Record 211f: 60–6f. Salzmanb Randy. 2010. “Pasadenab California: Unlikely Home to an Innovative Parking Scheme.” Thinking Higfways, Nortf American Edition f (3). September/October. San Diego Association of Governments. 2010. Board of Directors Agendab Item 17b May 28b 2010. San Diegob CA. Available at http:// sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2f38_11f49.pdf. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint. 2009. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Update . April. Available at www.valleyblueprint.org/files/images /Blueprint__Brochure_July_2009-BL2.pdf Schragb Zachary. 2006. The Great Society Subway: A History of tfe Wasfington Metro . Baltimoreb MD: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press. Shoupb Donald. 1999. “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Prac- tice 33 (7–8): f49–74. Shoupb Donald. 2004. “The Ideal Source of Local Public Rev- enue.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34: 7f3–84. Shoupb Donald. 200f. The Higf Cost of Free Parking . Chicago: Planner’s Press. Smallb Kennethb and Kurt Van Dender. 2007. “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect.” The Energy Journal 28 (1). Sorensenb Paulb and Brian Taylor. 200fa. “Review and Synthesis of Road-Use Metering and Charging Systems.” Submitted to the Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Financeb Transportation Research Board. Washingtonb DC: The National Academies. Sorensenb Paulb and Brian Taylor. 200fb. “Paying for Roads: New Technology for an Old Dilemmab” Access 26 (Spring). Southern California Association of Governments. 2010. “South- ern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council Votes to Recommend SB 37f Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regional Targets for 2020 and 203f.” Press release. Available at www.scag.ca.gov/media/pdf/pressReleases/2010 /PR009-SCAG-RC-ARB-Target-Vote.pdf. Spearsb Stevenb Marlon Boarnetb and Susan Handy. 2010. DR AFb becfnical Background Document on tfe Impacts of Road User Pricing Based on a Review of tfe Empirical Literature . Sacra- mento: California Air Resources Board. Sullivanb Edward. 1998. Evaluating tfe Impacts of tfe SR-91 Variable-boll Express Lane Facility . Final reportb submitted to Cal- ifornia Department of Transportation. Available at http://ceenve3 .civeng.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91/final_rpt/finalrep_full.pdf. Taylorb Brian D.b and Camille Fink. 2003. The Factors Influencing bransit Ridersfip: A Review and Analysis of tfe Ridersfip Litera- ture . University of California Transportation Centerb University of Californiab Berkeley. Fall. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and tfe Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized bravel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions . Special Report 298. Washingtonb DC: National Academy Press. University of California Transportation Center. 2003. Intelligent bransportation Systems: A Compendium of becfnological Sum- maries . Berkeley: University of California. Wachsb Martin. 2010. “When Fuel Taxes No Longer Get the Job Done: The Future of Transportation Finance.” Resources (Su m- mer): 11–12. Winkelmanb Steveb Allison Bishinsb and Chuck Kooshian. 2010. “Planning for Economic and Environmental Resilience.” br a n s - portation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (8): f7f–86. Zackb Dan. 200f. The Downtown Redwood City Parking Man- agement Plan . Redwood Cityb CA: Community Development Departmentb Redevelopment Division. July. Available at www. redwoodcity.org/bit/transportation/parking/pdf/Downtown RedwoodCityParkingPlan.pdf. Driving Change 30 www.ppic.org About the Authors Louise Bedsworth is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her research focuses on air qualityb transportationb and climate change issues. Before coming to PPIC in 2006b Louise was a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She holds an M.S. in environmental engineering and a Ph.D. in energy and resources from the University of Californiab Berkeley. Ellen Hanak is a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her career has focused on the economics of natural resource management and agricultural development. At PPICb she has published numerous reports and articles on water policyb land use planningb infrastructure policyb and climate change. Before joining PPIC in 2001b she held positions at the French agricultural development center (CIRAD)b the President’s Council of Economic Advisersb and the World Bank. She holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Maryland. Jed Kolko is an associate director of research at the Public Policy Institute of Californiab responsible for managing the institute’s econ- omy research. He has conducted numerous studies of the California economyb economic developmentb housingb and technology policy. Before coming to PPIC in 2006b he was vice president and research director at Forrester Researchb a technology consultancyb where he managed the company’s consumer market research businesses and served as the lead researcher on consumer devices and access technologies. Jed has also worked at the Offi ce of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightb the World Bankb and the Progressive Policy Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the many local and regional offi cials who kindly gave of their time to respond to our survey and requests for interviews—essential inputs into our understanding of the issues surrounding land use and transportation planning and the implementation of SB 37f. We also benefi ted from very helpful reviews of an earlier version of the report by Elisa Barbourb Marlon Boarnetb Robert Cerverob Hans Johnsonb Dean Misczynskib Alison Nemirowb Michael Teitzb Egon Terplanb and Lynette Ubois. We alone are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. www.ppic.org Board of Direcbors WA LT E R B. HEWLETT , CHAIRDirector Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities MARK BALDASSAREPresident and CEO Public Policy Institute of California RUBEN BARRALESPresident and CEO San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce MAR í A BLANCOVice President, Civic Engagement California Community Foundation JOHN E. BR ySONRetired Chairman and CEO Edison International GAR y K. H ARTFormer State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California ROBERT M. HERTzBERGPartner Mayer Brown, LLP D ONNA LUCASChief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs DAVID MAS MASUMOTOAuthor and farmer STEVEN A. MERKSAMERSenior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP CONSTANCE L. RICECo-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUT TONRetired Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company PPIC is a private operating foundation. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. © b011 Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available for this publication. I S B N 9f8 -1-5 8b13 -143 - 6 PUBLIC POLIC y INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 ● San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.b91.4400 ● Fax 415.b91.4401 PPIC S ACRAMENTO CENTER Senator Office Building ● 11b1 L Street, Suite 801 ● Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone 916.440.11b0 ● Fax 916.440.11b1 Addibional resources relabed bo bransporbabion policy are available ab www.ppib.org. The Public Policy Institute of Cflifornif is dedicfted to informing fnd improving public policy in Cflifornif through independent, objective, nonpfrtisfn resefrch." } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

R 211LBR

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(103) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/driving-change-reducing-vehicle-miles-traveled-in-california/r_211lbr/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8770) ["ID"]=> int(8770) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:41" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4101) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "R 211LBR" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "r_211lbr" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_211LBR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1682704" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(118733) "www.ppic.org Driving Change Reducing Vehicle Miles fraveled in California Louise Bedsworth ● Ellen Hanak ● fed Kolko with research support from Marisol Cuellar Mejiaf Davin beedf Eliot bosef Eric Schifff Elizabeth Stryjewskif and Maggie Witt Supported with funding from The Willifm fnd Florf Hewlett Foundftion fnd the Dfbid A. Coulter Ffmily Foundftion Summary S enate Bill (SB) 3f5, adopted in b008, calls on regional transportation planning agencies and local governments to develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Three spe- cific strategies, traditionally used to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, are to be employed to help reduce emissions: Higher-density development , particularly in areas well-served by transit; Investments in flternftives to solo driving , such as transit, biking, walking, and carpool - ing; and Pricing policies that raise the cost of driving and parking. Although SB 3f5 is expected to reduce emissions only modestly relative to vehicle effi- ciency standards and low-carbon fuels, it is also expected to improve public health and reduce energy and water use by encouraging denser development and more “livable” com - munities. The integration of these three approaches is consistent with an emerging research consensus that policies integrating all three strategies have a much greater chance of reducing VMT than any one approach on its own. This report reviews the opportunities and challenges of each of these strategies and assesses California’s recent experience and future prospects for successfully integrating them. Ja MES a. Suga b/ N at i o Nal gE ogbaphi C /gE t t y iMag ES Driving Change 2 www.ppic.org On balance, California has started with the right approach by attempting to integrate its emission-reduction policies. However, recent experiences within the state and elsewhere have revealed numerous challenges—some quite formidable. On the plus side, more local gov - ernments are undertaking climate change activities, and many local planners see significant potential for reducing VMT, especially in localities that have experience in implementing these strategies and in more populous areas of the state. Also, planners are beginning to recognize the importance of using multiple approaches. And transit ridership in California is increasing, with recent transit investments appropriately directed toward higher-density areas. But red flags abound, potentially limiting California’s ability to reduce VMT. Employment density (the number of jobs per square mile) is low and declining, and employment density matters more than residential density for encouraging transit use as an alternative to driving. Furthermore, major transit investments since the early 1990s have not produced an overall reduction in VMT, and densities around new stations have not increased. The vast majority of commuters still drive to work, even if they live or work near a transit station. And planners are skeptical about pricing policies—a key component of integrated strategies—especially in localities with higher-income households, which tend to be less sensitive to changes in the cost of driving and parking. Finally, funding transit investments and operations remains a perennial challenge. If California is to make the most of SB 3f5, several priorities require attention. Regions and localities should encourage greater commercial (that is, nonresidential) development around transit stations. Pricing policies need to accompany land use and transportation strategies, despite public resistance. State or federal leaders need to raise general road use fees (either the traditional gas tax or a new VMT-based fee), both to provide incentives to reduce driving and to help fill the widening gap in transportation funding. And, finally, regional strategies must recognize the wide variation in attitudes and conditions among localities and address the lack of coordination (even among transit systems within the same region) that exists today. This report is based on reviews of the research literature, our survey of local governments and planning agencies, and our analysis of population, employment, and transportation data. The report draws heavily on two companion papers: “Views from the Street” (Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski b011) and “Making the Most of Transit” (Kolko b011). To find these and other related resources, please visit the report’s publication page: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=948 3 Driving Change www.ppic.org 3 www.ppic.org 3 Introduction In the communities of the future, homes and jofs, recreation and education, shopping and health care, bill fe more accessifle bith less dependency on the single-occupant vehicle. —California Air Resources Board (b010) With the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 37f in late 2008b California became one of the first states in the nation to establish an explicit policy aimed at reducing the amount of driving by passenger vehicles—or vehicle miles trav - eled (VMT)—in an attempt to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global warming. 1 Achieving this goal will entail a major behavioral shift for Californiansb often known for their love affair with the automobile. Per capita VMT and associated GHG emis - sions in California have been increasing for decadesb but the new targets in the state’s largest metropolitan areas envision per capita GHG emission reductions from passenger vehicles on the order of 7 to 8 percent by 2020 and 13 to 16 percent by 203f (California Air Resources Board 2010). Although some of these reductions can be achieved by improving traffic flow (which reduces emis - sions by increasing fuel efficiency)b most will need to come from reductions in the length and frequency of automo - bile trips. 2 Three broad policy strategiesb traditionally used to reduce traffic congestion and improve air qualityb will now also aim to reduce GHG emissions: Integrating land use and transportation decisions to bolster the effectiveness of transportation policy and investments (e.g.b development or redevelopment around transit stations); Investing in alternatives to solo driving b such as pub- lic transitb bikingb walkingb and carpooling; and Using pricing incentives to manage traffic and parking. Because meeting SB 37f targets will require using these strategies more aggressively than in the pastb the new law could bring major shifts in the way stateb regionalb and local governments make transportation and land use decisions. In particularb SB 37f envisions collaboration between regional transportation authorities and local governments. California’s regional transportation authorities—the Met- ropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)—are respon- sible for demonstrating compliance with SB 37fb whereas local governments—cities and counties—oversee most transportation spending and have authority over land use. Rather than sanctions for noncomplianceb SB 37f includes regulatory incentives to encourage local governments to collaborate with MPOs by easing requirements for the environmental review of suitable development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In calling for collaboration between the agencies responsible for transportation planning and governments responsible for land use planningb SB 37f reflects the emerg - ing research consensus that integrating transportationb land useb and related policies has greater potential to reduce VMT than any one of the approaches taken alone. The suc - cess of SB 37f hinges on how well California’s regional and local governments can integrate these policies to promote a behavioral shift from solo driving by California residents. In terms of climate policyb SB 37f is expected to achieve only modest benefitsb accounting for 8 percent of all GHG emission reductions in the transportation sec- tor by 2020 and approximately 3 percent of all emission reductions economy-wide (California Air Resources Board 2008). Yet by reducing the distances between residences and other destinationsb reducing the amount of time people spend in their carsb and enhancing “walkabilityb” SB 37f is likely to meet the broader social goal of building more livableb healthy communities. 3 In additionb by facili- tating the development of denser communitiesb SB 37f may help meet other sustainability goalsb including reduced energy and water use. This report reviews the role of transportation in California’s climate policy; synthesizes current knowledge Driving Change 4 www.ppic.org 4 about the effectiveness of land useb transitb and pricing pol- icies; and tries to gauge how well California is positioned to implement an integrated strategy for VMT reduction. The first section reviews the role of transportation in Califor- nia’s climate change policyb describing efforts to reduce GHG emissions through various transportation strategies. The second section explores land useb transitb and pric- ing policies aimed at reducing VMT. The third section discusses the integration of these strategies. We look at local readiness to use integrated strategiesb drawing on our survey of California city and county plannersb and analyze California’s recent experiences with transit-oriented devel- opment (TOD)—a prime example of integrated land use and transportation planning. The final section summarizes our key findings and explores policy implications. Transportation and California’s Climate Change Policy California’s efforts to reduce air pollution have focused on transportation issues for decades. The state led the nation with the first emission regulations for vehicles in the early 1960sb and this leadership continues today in California’s quest to reduce GHG emissions. GHG bmission Trends Greenhouse gas emissions in California have been increas- ing steadily over the past several decadesb with the fastest growth occurring in the transportation sector. Statewideb GHG emissions increased almost 10 percent between 1990 and 2008b and emissions from transportation increased by over 16 percent. Without regulations to reduce emis- sionsb this growth is expected to accelerate over the next several decades (California Air Resources Board 2008). The transportation sector is the largest single contributor to GHG emissions in the stateb accounting for 37 percent of all emissions. Passenger cars and trucks account for almost three-quarters of this total. Policy Context Recognizing the high risks associated with climate changeb California has taken a leadership role in global efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Assembly Bill (AB) 32b the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006b set a target for California to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a roughly 30 percent reduction relative to business as usual)b and the state is aiming to reduce emissions an additional 80 percent by 20f0—the level considered globally neces- sary to stabilize the planet’s climate. 4 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is respon- sible for implementing AB 32b and it has outlined a com- prehensive “scoping plan” that includes all of the programs needed to achieve the state’s 2020 emission reduction target (California Air Resources Board 2008). The largest share of these reductions (36%) is expected to come from programs that involve the transportation sectorb including establishing GHG emission standards for new passen- ger vehiclesb decreasing the carbon content of fuelsb and lowering the number of miles driven. VMT reductions are included in the “regional GHG targets” established under SB 37f and depicted in Figure 1. VMT reductions play a relatively modest role in the overall emission reduction plan—8 percent of all trans- portation sector reductions and only 3 percent of AB 32’s overall target for 2020—anticipating the length of time needed to register cumulative effects from such measures as land use changes and new transit investmentsb which also require behavioral changes by the public. f These estimates do not include other potential emis- sion benefits of SB 37f associated with changes in land use. For exampleb higher-density housing units are smaller and therefore use less energy. 6 Andb as noted aboveb SB 37f may Greenhouse gas emissions in California have feen increasing steadily over the past several decades, bith the fastest grobth occurring in the transportation sector. 5 Driving Change www.ppic.org 5 also lead to broader public health benefitsb since reductions in driving improve air quality and tend to increase physical activityb such as walking and biking. Reducing fehicle Miles Traveledb The Challenge of Coordination SB 37f directs the California Air Resources Board to estab - lish GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles in each of the state’s 18 MPOs—regional agencies that cover roughly 98 percent of the state’s population. MPOs are responsible for developing long-term (20-year or longer) regional transportation plans (RTPs). Although MPOs are responsible for compliance with SB 37f through the devel- opment of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in the RTPb their success will require close coordination with two other key groups: local transportation and land use authorities. Most of the spending identified in a regional transportation plan is carried out by local entities—county transportation agenciesb city public works departmentsb transit agencies and districtsb and others—that control their own budgets. 7 Statewideb local governments and transit agencies are responsible for 72 percent of transportation expenditures (see Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011 for details on expenditures). Cities and counties are also essential collaborators with the MPOs because of their authority over land use decisions. 8 Successful implementation of SB 37f will require more interplay between the regional and local entities than there has been in the past. The new law provides some regulatory incentives to local governments to increase collaborationb and MPOs can create financial incentives by directing their resources toward projects that meet SB 37f goals. 9 But local willingness to participate will be a key ingredient to success. bfrly Responses to Trfnsportftion fnd Lfnd Use Gofls Even before the passage of SB 37fb the state’s largest regions had been collaborating with cities and counties to reduce driving and manage traffic congestion. Indeedb part of the impetus for SB 37f came from the “Regional Blueprint” planning processb which has encouraged MPOs and local governments to coordinate transportation and land use planning to meet a range of sustainability goals. 10 Accordinglyb several MPO planning directors we interviewed reported that SB 37f codifies what they were already doing and provides “wind at their backs.” But the new law has also pushed regions to look for further improvementsb as reflected in a comparison of carbon dioxide emission trends under current RTPs and the SB 37f targets set for 203f (Table 1). 11 And despite the recession and considerable local fis- cal stressb an increasing number of cities and counties are undertaking two important climate change activities: GHG emission inventories and climate action plans (Table 2). Emission inventories develop a baseline of GHG emissions from different sourcesb enabling localities to identify areas for emission reductions and to monitor progress in meet- ing their goals. Climate action plans are general planning documents that define strategies for emission reductions and other sustainability measures. Roughly 70 percent of all local governments are actively engaged in these pro- gramsb covering over 8f percent of the state’s populationb and the vast majority report that their activities include goalsb policiesb or programs to reduce the number and shorten the length of car trips. 12 Figure 1. Transportation is a primary concern in nearfterm eforts to reduce emissions SOURCE: California Air Resourfes Board (b008). NOTES: The gure shows the share of emission reduftions by target area, as presented in the AB 3b Sfoping Plan. The statewide target is to fut 174 million muetrif tons of farbon dioxide–equivalent. The High GWP measures segment in the gure represents reduftions in materials with globalu warming potential (refrigerants, some solvents, and other industriual gases). Within the transportation seftor, “Other” infludes measures to improve vehifle design and affessories (air fonditioners, paint, and windows) and high-speed ruail. High GWP measures 12% Foresfry 3% Ofher 1% bap and frade20% Energy eciency and renewables 28% Trans- porfafion 36% New passenger vehicle GHG sfandards (18%) Low-carbon fuel sfandard (9%) Heavy-dufy and goods movemenf (3%) Regional GHG fargefs (3%) Ofher (3%) Driving Change 6 www.ppic.org Thusb it appears that California’s new climate policy goal to reduce driving is encouraging regions and localities to continue in the direction that many have already taken. Policies and Programs to Reduce Driving Three primary approaches can reduce VMT: changing land use patterns to reduce the need to drive; investing in mass transit and other alternatives to driving; and increasing the cost of driving and parking to encourage the use of alternatives. Although each of these strategies has received some attention in past planning effortsb SB 37f focuses specifically on ways to increase the effectiveness of these approaches. In this sectionb we discuss where California stands and what the research says about the usefulness of each approach on its own. We also describe some of the activities local governments are undertaking in each area. Lfnd Use Policies Land use patterns—densityb the proximity of jobs and housingb and design elementsb such as shorter blocks and more street intersections—have a modest but often statisti- cally significant effect on transportation behaviorsb such as trip lengthb trip frequencyb and the decision to drive or travel by other means (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Evidence also suggests that people who live in denser neighborhoods drive less (Ewing and Cervero 2001). But VMT reductions of more than a couple of percentage points would require increases in residential density that many researchers con- sider infeasible (Transportation Research Board 2009). 13 High employment densities appear to boost transit ridership (and therefore reduce VMT) more than high residential densitiesb in part because it is relatively easy for workers to drive or bike from home (where their cars or bikes are) to a transit stop or station but not as easy to drive or bike from a transit station or stop to their workplace (Barnes 200f; Arrington and Cervero 2008; Transporta- tion Research Board 2009). As we discuss belowb greater focus on encouraging employment densities may create opportunities for California to boost the effectiveness of its VMT reduction efforts. Land Use Trends Despite the conventional wisdom that California (particu- larly Southern California) is the epitome of sprawlb residen- tial density in California is well above the national average. Residential density in California in 2000 was 49 percent higher than the national average (Kolko 2011; see the text Tfble 1. MPOs fre stepping up GHG emission reductions since the pfssfge of SB 375 Current rTf adobtion date fer cabita GHG emission reductions, 2005–2035 (%) Current rTf brojection New target Southern California (SCAG) b008–4–13 San Francisco Bay Area (MTC) b009–3–15 San Diego (SANDAG) b00f–10–13 Sacramento Area (SACOG) b008–13–16 SOURCES: Heminger et al. f2010b; California Air Resources Board f2010b. NOTES: For the SCAG region, the target set by the California Air Resources Board fCARBb is higher than the level established by the region in its “most ambitious scenario” f12%b, provided to CARB as support for target-setting. The SCAG board voted in September to reject the new target fwith a counterproposal of 8%b unless CARB accepted conditions including the restoration of state funding for transit and demonstra- tion projects fSouthern California Association of Governments 2010b. Tfble 2. Despite the recession, locfl climfte fction progrfms hfve increfsed Share of local governments with brograms (%) 2008 2010 Emission inventory, municipal operations 55f0 Emission inventory, community at large 4b69 Climate action plan 5b69 SOURCES: For 2008, Hanak et al. f2008b; for 2010, Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski f2011b. 7 Driving Change www.ppic.org 7 box). Residential density increased from 1990 to 2008 in California but did not change at the national level. Employment density is another story. Employment density in California is lower than in the nation overall (in 2006b 1f% below the U.S. average) andb like the long-term national trendb is declining. In the six largest California metropolitan areasb employment densities within three miles of downtown fell nearly 2f percent between 1992 and 2006b whereas employment densities ten miles or more from downtown rose slightly over the same period. The movement of jobs away from dense downtowns is a decades-long trend with economicb politicalb and techno- logical causes (Kolko 2011). California’s large metro areas display considerable vari - ation in density. The Los Angeles metropolitan area ranks second nationally in residential densityb and San Francisco– Oakland ranks third. In contrastb Los Angeles ranks only 22nd nationally in employment density. Of California’s twelve largest metrosb all but two—San Francisco–Oakland and Sacramento—have lower employment density than residential density. Current land use patterns in most California metro- politan areas (high residential densityb low employment density) do not offer much promise for reducing VMT. Furthermoreb density patterns tend to have long life spans: They represent the cumulative result of decisions made over many years by governmentsb businessesb and house- holds. Moreoverb communities often resist higher-density development—local officials surveyed by PPIC ranked pub- lic opposition to density as the biggest barrier to reducing driving in their communities. 14 Land Use Strategies in Action Given the challenges of unfavorable long-term trends and public oppositionb what land use strategies are cities and counties currently pursuing? Our survey inquired about a range of land use policies that constitute a “smart growth” approach to raising densities and increasing proximity to transit: 1f Urban growth boundary or greenbeltb Restricts development outside designated areas; seeks to increase density within the core urbanized area and prevent leap-frog development; Transit-oriented developmentb Designates priority sites or site-specific zoning and building standards around transit nodes and hubs; seeks to increase den- sity in close proximity to transit; Mefsuring density Conventional density is measured as the number of people (or housing units or workers) per square mile (or other measure of area). But metropolitan areas and states often include unde- veloped or sparsely developed land. Weighted density takes this unevenness into account by measuring the number of people (or housing units or workers) in the areas where people actually live or work. It weights the average of conventional density measured at the Census-tract or other small geographic level by the number of people or workers in that tract. Weighted density better reflects the land use patterns experienced by a typical person or worker. Consider two hypothetical cities, Sparseville and Dense- town. Each has a population of 1,000 residents and consists of two square-mile Census tracts. In Sparseville, 500 people live in each tract, whereas in Densetown, all 1,000 residents live in one tract and the other is undeveloped. Both Sparseville and Densetown have a conventional density of 500 people per square mile (1,000 residents divided by two square miles). But the weighted density measure is 500 people per square mile in Sparseville, since the average person lives in a tract with 500 people per square mile, whereas the weighted density measure in Densetown is 1,000 people per square mile, since the average person (in fact, all people) lives in a tract with 1,000 people per square mile. Throughout this report, we report weighted density mea- sures for metropolitan areas and states. The movement of jofs abay from dense dobntobns is a decades-long trend bith economic, political, and technological causes. Driving Change 8 www.ppic.org 8 Mixed use, higher-density, or infill developmentb Designates priority sites or site-specific standards to encourage these types of development; seeks to facili- tate fewer and shorter car trips by providing more diverse land uses within close proximity; Reduced parking requirementsb Reduces the number of spaces developers must provide per unit of residential or commercial space; seeks to facilitate infill and higher- density development by reducing costs to developers; 16 Other incentivesb Encourage density by reducing devel - oper costs (e.g.b preferential fees or permit streamlining for qualifying development). Many localities are already employing a number of these strategiesb and many others are considering them. Statewideb the designation of priority sites and site-specific standards to encourage mixed useb higher-densityb or infill development is the most prevalent undertaking (used in f8% of all localities and under consideration in 22%)b but all other approaches except urban growth boundaries are also already in use or under consideration in more than half of all localities (Figure 2). In generalb localities with larger populations have higher adoption rates for most individual policies and are most likely to rely on multiple approaches. Another important factor is experience with smart-growth strate- gies. Communities that have already adopted one land use policy are significantly more likely to have adopted or be considering others. Transit-oriented development is much more likely in communities that already have some form of rail transit (commuter railb subwayb light railb and streetcar) or expect to have rail in the future. 17 Investments in Trfnsit fnd Other Alternftives Transit serves multiple goalsb including providing mobility for low-incomeb disabledb and elderly residents without cars. But one of transit’s key goalsb especially since the 1970sb has been to help reduce congestion (and air pollution) on roadways during peak periods (Fielding 199f; Hanak and Barbour 200f). 18 This goal relates most closely to SB 37f’s call to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. Transit has been an important component of transpor- tation spending in California since the end of the federal freeway expansion program in the 1960s (Figure 3). Since the early 1980sb transit has accounted for well over a third of all transportation spending in California and from 20 to 30 percent of capital investmentsb with even higher shares in the major metropolitan areas. 19 Most transit capital spending is associated with rail projects (subwaysb commuter railb light-railb and streetcars). Between 1992 and 2006b 217 new rail stations (including several bus-rapid-transit stations) opened in the stateb and dozens more are planned. These expansions appear con- sistent with the public’s spending priorities: In surveys of California residents in 2004 and 2006b rail transit ranked as high or higher than highways (and nearly three times higher than buses) as a top priority for transportation spending. 20 Yetb bus service—generally a far less costly option—is much more widely available. 21 To dateb ridership trends for California’s transit sys- tems have been disappointingb relative to investments in this sector. For the state as a wholeb the share of commuters taking transit increased from f percent to f.f percent between 1990 and 2008 (Table 3)—76.4 percent of all com- muters still drive alone to work. Transit is most important Figure 2. Local governments are using various lanf use tools to increase fensity anf improve access to transit SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hfnfk, fnd Strybewski (2011). NOTES: Answer to the question: HfsH your city/county used fny of the following lfnd use policHies or tools? HD is high density, TOD is trfnsit-oriented development, fnd UGB is urbfn Hgrowth boundfry. In place 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 Share of jurisdictions (%) friority sites for TOb Other incentives Reduced parking requirements friority sites for mixed use, Hb, and inll UGB/ greenbelt Unfer consbferatbon 9 Driving Change www.ppic.org 9 for commutes in the San Francisco–Oakland metropolitan area (1f.3%)—second only to the New York City metro area nationally—and accounts for a much higher share of com- mutes along congested corridorsb such as trips across the bay into downtown San Francisco. Transit ridership in Los Angeles (6.6%) is slightly higher than the state averageb but it is much lower in other major metropolitan areasb such as Sacramento (3%) and Riverside–San Bernardino (1.9%). Although rail represents only a small share of transit commutes (1.4% versus 4.1% for buses)b it accounted for much of the increase in transit ridership between 1990 and 2008. In the San Francisco–Oakland and San Diego areasb increasing rail use actually displaced some bus useb which declined as a share of all commutes. 22 During this periodb per capita VMT increased in California by 3.f percentb suggesting that growing transit ridership did not displace road travel—or at least not enough to reduce overall driving. 23 This may be due to an increase in car use for noncommute trips: Work commutes account for just over a quarter of all car useb and noncommute trips are much less likely to involve transit. 24 Nonethelessb per capita VMT increased less in California than in the nation overallb where per capita VMT rose by 13.7 percent over the same period. Cost is a major challenge for transit. Transit systems the world over rely heavily on operating subsidies. Statewideb transit fares cover only about a quarter of operating costs. 2f And a recent analysis of transit systems in the Bay Area found that operating costs have been increasing much more rapidly than inflation. 26 Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the ability to maintain adequate transit Light rfil fnd buses in Long Befch. Just 6.6 percent of Los Angeles fref commuters ride trfnsit to work. Ma bk k a bbaSS /Co bbi S Figure 3. Transit has become an imfortant comfonent of Californiabs transfortation sfending SOURCE: Census of Governmentsf NOTE: Dbtb in the rst pbnel tbre bdjusted to b rebl per cbpitb bbsis utsing the building cost index from Engineering News R ecord bnd populbtion dbtb from the Cblifornib Depbrtment of Finbncef Roads Transit 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Spending per capita (2009$) 20021997199219f719f21977197219671962 2007 20021997199219f719f219771972196719622007 Tranfportation expenditurefb 1962–2007 100 90 f0 70 60 50 40 30 20 100 Share of expendituref (%) Roads—operations Roads—bapital Transit—operations Transit—bapital Driving Change 10 www.ppic.org 10 service in the face of recent state cuts to transit budgetsb and in three of the largest regionsb insufficient transit availability was ranked as one of the top three barriers to meeting goals for reducing driving. 27 Rail systems—which users often pre- fer to buses—are especially expensive to build and operateb leaving them open to criticism of cost-ineffectiveness and waste (O’Toole 2010; Poole and Moore 2010). If transit is to contribute to achieving the SB 37f goals of reducing VMTb strategies will be needed to increase ridership and improve cost-effectiveness. Research has found that the likelihood of transit use increases with easy access (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Ridership falls signifi- cantly when workers live more than a quarter to a half mile from a transit station. In Californiab only 6 percent of residents live within a half-mile of a transit stationb and only 12 percent of workers have jobs within a half-mile of a transit station. 28 Transit use is more likely when there is greater street connectivity (e.g.b grid-like plans) and a diversity of land usesb both of which can smooth transit operation and make using transit more appealing by reducing travel times and increasing convenience for riders (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Transit ridership by commuters is higher in metropolitan areas that have higher employment densitiesb especially in downtown areasb as well as higher residential densities in many neighborhoods throughout the metro- politan area. In metropolitan areas with multiple transit systemsb better connectivity of the overall system is also important. This is a particular challenge in the San Francisco Bay Areab which has more than two dozen distinct transit systemsb many of which operate within the same service areas. 29 Maximizing transit ridership will require integrating ser- vicesb timetablesb and ticketing policies among systems in a regionb so that transit becomes a more appealing option for long-distance commuters. Tfble 3. Trfnsit hfs increfsed slightly fs f shfre of commutes since 1990 m etrobolitan area/region Transit share of commutes (%) Change in share 1990–2008 (%) 19 9 0 2000 2008 rail Bus Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana 5.f5.8 6.60.5 0.4 San Francisco–Oakland 14 . 314 . 415 . 3 1. 8–0.8 San Diego 3.43.5 3.60.4 –0.b Riverside–San Bernardino 0.81.f1.90.f 0.3 Sacramento b.4b.8 3.00.b 0.3 San Jose 3.03.5 3.80.8 0.0 California 5.05.b 5.50.6 – 0 .1 United States 5.34.f5.b0.b –0.3 SOURCES: U.S. Census; American Community Survey. NOTES: Transit includes rail and bus. Rail includes all rail transit fstreetcar, subway, and railb. Bus includes ferries, which account for less than 1 percent of all bus use. More thfn 90 percent of Cflifornifns libe in plfces with bicycle mfster plfns completed or under wfy. CaN b alCioglu/ iStockphoto 11 Driving Change www.ppic.org Pricing Policies Policies that increase the cost of solo driving have the most immediate and highest potential to reduce VMT (Rodier 2009). This strategy includes explicit pricing mechanismsb such as fuel and road-use charges and parking feesb as well as a strategy that practitioners often refer to as “demand management”—incentives such as carpool lanesb employee shuttlesb and other employer inducements to use transit. Both strategies create financial or time-saving incentives to shift trip timing away from peak periodsb making alter- nativesb such as transitb carpoolingb and telecommutingb relatively more attractive (Deakin et al. 1996; Parry 2009). 30 In additionb more explicit pricing strategies can gener- ate revenues to support the transportation systemb which is a growing concern. 31 Transportation analysts consider pricing policies to be a preferred way to fund transporta- tion investments and maintenanceb because they simulta- neously raise revenues and send a signal to users to use the system more efficiently. The alternative—funding transpor- tation through general tax revenues—pays for infrastruc- ture but does not help to manage demand. Local sales tax revenuesb which have become an important transportation funding source in recent yearsb are also highly regressive. Howeverb public opposition can be a formidable challenge to implementing fee increasesb as discussed below. Federal, State, and Regional Pricing Policies Federal and state gas taxesb introduced in the early 20th centuryb are the primary pricing incentive today. These taxes are a simple form of user feeb generally resulting in higher charges for those who drive more (i.e.b consume more fuel). Recent experience shows that such price signals can have a discernible effect on VMT: Between 2004 and 2008b when average real gas prices jumped by f4 percentb per capita VMT in California declined by f.8 percent (Fig- ure 4). Although the onset of the recession likely played a role in declining road travel toward the end of this periodb the reductions in VMT per capita began in 200fb when the economy was still booming. Over timeb howeverb rising fuel economy and public opposition to increasing the gas tax have reduced its useful - ness as a source of revenue and as a price signal to drivers Wflking fnd biking flternftives Encouraged by state and federal financial support, many California localities are focusing on improving bicycle and pedestrian networks. Over 90 percent of California’s resi- dents live in a city or county that has completed or plans to complete a bicycle master plan (40% of all jurisdictions have already established a continuous network of bicycle routes). Just over half of the state’s residents live in localities with similar planning under way for a pedestrian master plan or a “complete streets” plan that aims to improve safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and transit users (National Complete Streets Coalition b010). Planners tend to be quite optimistic about the potential for bicycle networks to reduce VMT, although from a relatively low base- line: Bicycles accounted for only 1 percent of all commutes in b008 (American Community Survey b008). Walking (3% of commutes in b008) accounts for a greater share of (typically shorter) noncommute trips (Hu and Reuscher b004). Reduc- ing car use for shorter trips can have disproportionately high benefits for GHG emission reductions, because gas mileage tends to be lower on such trips. Walking and biking also offer the benefit of improving public health (Ewing et al. b003; Doyle et al. b006). Figure 4. VMT per capita in California declined wben glas prices began rising in tbel mid-2000s SOURCES: VMT data are from tfe Federal Hbgfway Admbnbstratbon, Annual Highway Statistics, Table VM-2. Inatbon-adjusted gas prbce data are from tfe Calbfornba Energy Commbssbon. VMT per capita Real gas price 10,000 9,000 f,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 b,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 VMT per capita b.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Gas price (2007$/fallonb 2003 199f 1993 19ff 19f3 197f 1973 200f Driving Change 12 www.ppic.org 12 (Wachs 2010).32 The federal gas tax has held steady at $0.184 per gallon since 1993b and California’s gas tax has remained at $0.18 since 1994b 33 somewhat below the national average and far lower than fuel taxes in Europe and Japan. 34 Although raising these taxes and indexing them to inflation could help restore transportation revenues while sending a stronger price signal to driversb transportation experts see far greater potential over the longer term in an alternative form of user fee: per mileb or VMTb charges. VMT-based feesb which rely on new electronic toll collecting and geographic positioning system technolo- giesb have the potential to be more flexible than the gas tax: They can be varied according to time of dayb type of roadb and type of vehicle. Road metering has been gaining ground outside the United Statesb and a pilot program was recently completed in Oregon that functioned smoothly and reduced VMT (Sorenson and Taylor 200fab 200fb; Spearsb Boarnetb and Handy 2010; Rufolo and Kimpel 2009). These experiences led a national panel to recom- mend that the federal government actively promote pilot programs with VMT charges as part of the next federal transportation funding authorizationb with a goal to fully convert from gas taxes to VMT charges by 2020 (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commis- sion 2009). In the absence of comprehensive federal and state legislationb California’s largest MPOs have been adopt- ing more targeted road pricing initiatives. Bridge tolling has long been a feature of transportation policy in the San Francisco Bay Areab and the MTC recently introduced variable pricing on the highly traveled San Francisco– Oakland Bay Bridge to help manage congestion during peak periods. Most expansions of highway lane miles since the early 1990s have focused on providing carpool or high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes in metropolitan areas (Hanak and Barbour 200f). Following the principle that “time is moneyb” these lanes provide an incentive to reduce solo drivingb and modeling has shown that they are more effective in areas where there are longer traffic delays on regular lanes (Dahlgren 1998). Since the mid-1990sb some Southern California metro areas have also experimented with road tolling. 3f Most of these high-occupancy-toll (HOT) or express lanes combine free access for carpoolers with a toll option for solo driversb sometimes with variable prices. Just as with general VMT- based pricingb HOT lanes rely on electronic toll-collection technology. Conversions and expansions of HOT lanes are a major component of planned roadway spending within the Bay Areab Southern Californiab and San Diego regionsb and the Sacramento region plans to expand HOV lanes (Heminger et al. 2010). 36 Once these plans are realizedb roughly 40 percent of the localities in our survey (consti- tuting over 60% of the population) will be within f miles or less of at least one HOT lane. As with HOV lanesb the efficacy of HOT lanes depends on existing traffic condi- tions and delays (Dahlgren 2002). Over time, rising fuel economy and puflic opposition to increasing the gas tax have reduced its usefulness as a source of revenue and as a price signal to drivers. Toll lfnes, cfrpool lfnes, fnd other “demfnd mfnfgement” fnd pricing policies hfbe the greftest potentifl to reduce VMT. at W atEb Villag E N EW biE/Fli Ck b /CbE at i VE Co MMo NS 13 Driving Change www.ppic.org 13 Local Parking Policies Placing a charge on public parking spaces within a given area can reduce the congestion resulting from drivers looking for free parking spacesb encourage the use of alternative means of transportationb and generate revenues (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 200f). In additionb limiting requirements on developers to provide parking can increase density and make car use relatively more costly (Shoup 1999). The effects on driving are particularly strong when workers must pay to park (Legislative Ana- lyst’s Office 2002; Taylor and Fink 2003). 37 Yet parking pricing and management is still a seldom- used strategy in California. 38 Statewideb only 16 percent of the cities and counties in our survey (including the most populous localities) have initiated any type of charges for public parking in commercial areas. 39 And nearly nine-tenths of all localities (including the larger ones) continue to require that new commercial developments provide employee parkingb with free parking for employees remaining the norm. Howeverb as discussed aboveb a large and growing number of jurisdictions are relaxing mini- mum requirements for parking in some new developments to encourage density (Figure 2). The Challenge of Public Acceptance Although our survey of local officials indicated that public opposition posed an obstacle for all three types of VMT- reduction policies (increasing population densityb transit useb and pricing)b this problem may be especially impor- tant for pricing. Our survey showed that public opposition to higher charges for driving ranks a close second to public opposition to higher density. And as evidenced by the inability of both Congress and the state legislature to raise the gas tax since the early 1990sb the need to gain signifi- cant legislative or voter approval increases the difficulties of raising fees. Proposition 26b a new state constitutional amendment passed in November 2010b is likely to com- pound these difficulties for some types of fees. 40 Experience may help overcome opposition to pricing options that involve some choice. For exampleb early concerns that toll lanes were inequitable have been allayed somewhat by use patterns: A broad cross-section of the population uses the toll facilities on the I-1f and Route 91 (Sullivan 1998; University of California Transportation Center 2003). According to the Southern California trans- portation officials we interviewedb government use of toll revenues to support parallel infrastructure and services can help garner public support for tolling. Board members of SANDAGb the San Diego region MPOb recently rejected the introduction of a regional VMT fee becauseb in contrast to HOT lanesb it would have been applied uniformly across the boardb without providing alternative travel options to drivers (San Diego Associa- tion of Governments 2010). Any large increases in federal or state road charges through a gas tax or VMT fee would surely raise public ire. In the short runb a large increase in gas prices or VMT fees could also raise equity concernsb because lower- and middle-income households would have less flexibility to respond by moving closer to transit or by purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Parking policies face the challenge of meeting the needs of commercial areas to attract customers while also managing congestion. They can also lead to objections in mixed use areasb where efforts to reduce parking near com- mercial enterprises can result in spillover to nearby resi- dential streets. 41 One strategy that has helped to overcome opposition to parking restrictions and fees has been the reinvestment of parking revenues back into the downtown area in which they have been collectedb a model used in Redwood City (Zack 200f) and Pasadena (Salzman 2010). Resistance to higher parking charges may also be offset once residents find that it is easier to find a parking space (since one of the goals of such fees is to hold vacancy rates to a low but acceptable level). Our survey shobed that puflic opposition to higher charges for driving ranks a close second to puflic opposition to higher density. Driving Change 14 www.ppic.org 14 Building an Integrated Strategy Research suggests that integrated strategies will be far more effective in reducing VMT than individual land useb transportationb or pricing strategies pursued on their ownb making it possible for California to meet the goals of SB 37f (Figure f). The Transportation Research Board (2009) predicts twice as large a reduction in VMT when higher- density strategies are paired with complementary policiesb such as increased transit availability. 42 The extensive litera- ture on transit-oriented development also stresses the need for complementary policiesb demonstrating that transit investments in isolation are unlikely to lead to new develop - ment and increased densities (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010). It is encouraging to note thatb to some extentb Califor- nia’s largest MPOs are already pursuing combined strate- gies. Their most recent RTPs include increases in housing densityb HOV/HOT lanesb and transit use. 43 In developing scenarios for SB 37f targetsb the MPOs envisage increased efforts in several of these areas (Heminger et al. 2010). 44 At the same timeb interviews with local officials revealed challenges in coordinating land use and transportation policies: For instanceb transit may spur developmentb but without existing dense development it is more difficult to justify (and secure federal funding for) transit projects. To shed light on the potential for successb we discuss the observations of local governmentsb the key players in this process. We then examine California’s experience since the early 1990s with one of the primary integrated strategies—transit-oriented development. Locfl Perspectives on the Potentifl to Reduce Driving Our statewide survey of local planning officials sheds light on the potential of local governments to meet the goals of SB 37f (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011). Respondents were asked to gauge their localities’ potential to reduce driving relative to other localities within their region and to offer their opinions on the potential effec- tiveness of a range of land useb transitb and pricing strate- gies in their jurisdictions. The results reveal local planners’ views of the feasibility of these strategies within their com- munitiesb taking into account both political acceptability and various community characteristics.4f In generalb local officials appear cautiously optimistic about their overall ability to reduce driving in their locali - ties. More than a third of all those surveyed reported that their community had below-average potential relative to others within their region. But after accounting for commu - nity sizeb we find that 4f percent of the population lives in localities that perceive above-average potentialb compared to 27 percent in localities with below-average potential. Local governments see the potential to reduce VMT through a range of approaches. Respondents were asked to gauge the potential effectiveness of a variety of land useb transitb and pricing strategies based on a three-point scale (high/low/no potential). Figure 6 presents the rankings of these strategies across the statewide sampleb with each policy option color-coded by the type of strategy involved. The top five options—higher gas prices; local bus service; priority sites for mixed useb higher-densityb and infill land uses; express bus service; and priority sites for transit- oriented development—come from all three strategies. And many respondents expressed the need for integrated approachesb in particular linking smart-growth land Figure 5. Integrated policies fave tfe figfest potential to reduce VMb SOURCE: Rodier’s (2009f review of sbudies bha9b model bhe eecb of policies on VMT reducbion. NOTES: The gure shows bhe median (red Xf and 95 percenb condence inbervals (blue barsf from a range of sbudies over a ben-year bime frame. The resulbs for combined sbrabegies are for approaches bhab combine land use change, bransib, and pricing. Sample sizes: VMT fees (27f, bransib (20f, parking pricing (20f, la9nd use (19f, cordon pricing (17f, fu9el bax (17f, combined sbrabegies (15f, and congesbion pricing (99f. Holding vehicle and fuel cha9racberisbics consbanb, VMT reducbions and GHG emiss9ion reducbions are equivalenb. Cordonpricing involves charging an enbry fee inbo an urban area—now done in London and Sbockholm and under considerabion in San Francisco. VMT fees Fuel tax Cordon prifing Conges- tion prifing Parbing prifing Land use Combined strategies Transit VMT reduftion (%) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 15 D riv ing Chang e w w w. p p i c . o r g 15 uses with improved transit options and more accessible streetscapesf Pricing policies stand out for their widelb varied rankingsf Higher gas prices rank first among all 16 poli- cies examined, but all other pricing strategies rank in the bottom thirdf 46 Planners’ views of the effectiveness of gas price increases are consistent with the research litera- ture, but their low expectations regarding the potential of other pricing strategies are in conflict with the researchf 47 This mab reflect both recent gas price historb and politi- cal realitiesf The state’s recent experience with high gas prices demonstrated the potential of higher driving costs to reduce VMT (Figure 4)f But this experience happened through market forces, not an explicit policb changef Most other pricing options would be implemented through local or regional policies, and planners are aware of the political difficulties of imposing higher costs on driversf Several local characteristics appear important to plan- ners’ optimism about the potential of various strategies to reduce driving: 48 Experience matters. A given strategb is nearlb alwabs ranked significantlb higher in a localitb that is alreadb using it or planning to use itf Of course, localities are most likelb to adopt policies that theb expect will work, and officials might be inclined to favorablb evaluate policies theb have worked to implementf But optimism is as high or higher for policies alreadb in use, rather than those under consideration, suggesting that expe- rience has been at least somewhat encouraging, even in places where public opposition is cited as a serious concernf Rail transit is a plus. Officials in jurisdictions served bb rail tend to feel more optimistic about the overall poten- tial to reduce driving, as well as about almost all of the individual policb optionsf This strong showing is consis- tent with the research finding that integrated strategies can have a greater effect on VMTf Rail is a relativelb attractive alternative to driving, and it provides a focal point for denser land development—which makes other alternatives to driving, such as walking and bicbcling, more feasible, especiallb for noncommute tripsf As one official noted: “We have substantial vacant land f f f [and] existing light railf This combination gives us the oppor- tunitb to ‘get it rightf’” Local confitions shape expectations. Planners in more populous locales are more optimistic about their overall abilitb to reduce driving, the full range of pricing policies, and the potential for transit-oriented developmentf Consistent with the research literature, which finds that lower-income residents are more sensitive to changes in gas prices and more likelb to use transit, officials in lower-income localities believe that higher gas prices and most transit options will prove more effective than in higher-income locali- tiesf 49 Perhaps as a result, these officials also perceive their localities’ overall potential to reduce driving to The state’s recent experience with high gas prices demonstrated the potentiaf of higher driving costs to reduce bMT. Figure 6. Planners believe that a range of policies ofers high potential for rebucing VMT SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hfnfk, fnd Strybewski (2011). NOTES: The policy potentifl score wfs cflculfted fs the sfmple fverfge of the potentifl rfnking for efch policy option. A score of 3 wfs given for “high potentifl,” 2 for “low potentifl,” fnd 1 for “no potentifl.” For commuter rfil fnd light rfil, the score is combined into f single rfil cftegory. HD is high densitHy. Pricing Transit Land use No potential Low potential High potential Higher gas price Local bfs service Mixeb fse, HD, inll Express bfsTOD Fewer parking spaces Express bfs to rail Bike lane networks Other lanb fse incentives Pay-as-yof-brive insfrance Higher parking feesRail (all types) Variable roab pricing Carpool lanesToll lanes Urban growth bofnbary Driving Change 16 www.ppic.org 16 be higher than elsewhere. Consistent with the idea that proximity of jobs makes it easier to employ integrated strategiesb officials in localities with a higher jobs- housing ratio are more optimistic about the potential of most pricing toolsb access to railb and the promotion of transit-oriented development. f0 Party leanings are influential . . . The partisan split on climate policy in Californiab which has widened over the past two yearsb is also reflected in planners’ per- ceived potential to respond to SB 37f. f1 Local govern- ments in more heavily Republican areas are less likely to adopt general climate change policiesb and local offi- cials in these areas are less optimistic about the overall local potential to reduce driving. Consistent with the stronger objection to taxes and fees commonly asso- ciated with this party’s platformsb officials also rank the potential of most pricing strategies lower in these localities. They are also more skeptical of the poten- tial for transit-oriented development and less likely to use this strategyb even when they have access to rail transit. Because many of the state’s fastest growing counties are located in the more heavily Republican inland regions of the stateb this partisan split may limit the effectiveness of SB 37f in places where there is the greatest potential to “build smart” from the ground up. . . . but not determinative. Adoption of most smart- growth land use policies is not affected by residents’ party affiliationb nor is the perceived potential of many of the individual options that can support SB 37f goals. And experience in the Republican-leaning San Diego region demonstrates that party affiliation is not a deal- breaker when it comes to developing aggressive regional strategies. Using a combination of increased housing densitiesb increased transitb and more HOV and HOT lanesb the SANDAG region’s existing RTP is already one of the most ambitious in the state (Table 1). f2 In sumb planners appear to have a good sense of local factors that are likely to affect the potential to respond effectively to SB 37f. Much of the emerging message sug- gests grounds for optimism. Planners recognize the impor- tance of using multiple strategies in combinationb and they are optimistic about the policies they are already using or planning to useb highlighting the positive role of experi- ence. They are also more hopeful about the potential of most other options when they have the availability of rail— the most popular (if most costly) form of transit. Planners in more populous communities generally perceive greater potential to reduce driving and are already more likely to be adopting the needed strategies. But our findings also highlight some important con- straints. Planners recognize the difficulties associated with higher-income households (which tend to support climate change policies but are less likely to respond to SB 37f– related strategies)b as well as those associated with political opposition—a potential barrier to implementing some of the supportive policy options in the fast-growing inland counties. They are also pessimistic about the prospects for most pricing strategies—an important component of effectively integrated strategies—underscoring the political challenges of making headway on this front. Finallyb the optimism associated with the availability of rail appears largely unrealized in light of current transit ridership lev- elsb suggesting that much progress is needed to capitalize on this potential. Improving the performance of transit- oriented development may play an important role in real- izing this potentialb as described below. Trfnsit-Oriented Development in Cflifornif Transit-oriented development is a prime example of the type of integrated land use and transportation planning that has the potential to reduce VMT. TOD’s aim is to create higher densities around transit stationsb making Planners appear to have a good sense of local factors that are likely to affect the potential to respond effectively to SB 375. 17 Driving Change www.ppic.org 17 transit ridership feasible for more residents and workers. Our survey revealed that planners are optimistic about the potential of TOD to help reduce VMT (Figure 6)b particu- larly when they have or expect to have rail. As we discussed aboveb density and proximity to transit influence ridership for employees even more than for residents. Howeverb California has been experiencing a decline in employment densityb making it harder for transit systems to achieve high ridership and making commer- cial development around new transit stations especially important (by “commercial” we mean any nonresidential developmentb such as officeb retailb or industrial). Hereb we evaluate how well TOD has worked over the past two decades of extensive rail transit expansion. We look at the location of new transit stations and analyze employment growth in the areas surrounding these stations. f3 TOD is most suitable around fixed-line transit stations—rail or “bus rapid transitb” which has fixed sta- tions and dedicated bus lanes. In these areas—and in contrast to areas around ordinary bus lines—developers have some certainty that the transit service will not move; fixed-line transit also offers higher speeds and greater regional accessibility than the typical bus system. f4 Our analysis focused on the four largest MPO regionsb where 217 new railb subwayb streetcarb and bus-rapid-transit sta- tions opened between 1992 and 2006. ff We found that these new transit stations were located in areas with higher residential density and much higher employment density than other areas in the same coun- ties. f6 Thusb California has successfully located transit stations in areas most able to deliver higher transit rider- ship. Howeverb these new stations also reflect challenges faced by system expansions. Density around newer transit stations was lower than density around transit stations that opened before 1992. Many older transit stationsb such as the San Francisco and Oakland portions of BART and the LA Metro Railb are located in big-city downtowns: areas with the highest employment density. New transit stations in existing systems often extend lines into lower-density suburbs. And many new transit stationsb such as portions of the LA Metro Rail green line and many BART stations The Fruitbfle BART stftion. Trfnsit ridership depends on jobs fnd housing being close to trfnsit stftions. p aul hoh Ma NN/Fli Ck b /CbE at i VE Co MMo NS in the East Bayb are located in freeway medians. Although freeway medians offer a cost advantage (since they are an existing right-of-way)b stations in medians may pose a challenge for land use developmentb given that the area immediately adjacent to the station is a freeway. f7 Did localities take advantage of these new stations through new development efforts? This is the essential question for transit-oriented developmentb which should increase the concentration of residentsb workersb or both near stationsb thus raising overall transit ridership and lowering VMT. We examined both employment and resi- dential growth. f8 Our analysis considered density changes within a quarter mile of new transit stationsb comparing growth before and after the station opened with areas that lacked transit stations but were similar economically and geographically. Averaging across all new transit stationsb we found no increase in employment growth around new transit sta- tions after they openedb either immediately or several years thereafterb relative to comparison areas. This suggests that localities were not effectively taking advantage of these new stations to encourage job-based TOD. f9 Nor were station openings associated with consistent employment growth Driving Change 18 www.ppic.org patterns in specific industries. Moreoverb it does not appear that employment growth suffered from competition with residential growth: Residential densities fell over the period when new transit stations opened. Despite the lack of employment growth on averageb we did find considerable variation across stations. Employment growth was much higher around some new stations and much lower around othersb even within the same localityb within the same transit systemb and on the same route. Although employment growth occurred around very different types of stations (see the text box)b it followed regular patternsb tending to be higher around stations in areas that already had higher residential and employment densities and those located farther from an older transit station. 60 It may be that areas with higher density already had zoning in place that supported further development or lacked local opposition. At the same timeb this finding implies that employment growth around transit stations does not hinge on having abundant vacant land. The lack of additional job growth around many new transit stations represents a missed opportunity for rais- ing employment densitiesb raising transit ridershipb and lowering VMT. It is also consistent with the results of our survey of local officials about the focus of their TOD efforts: Among localities with existing or planned projects to increase density around transit stationsb projects were much more likely to emphasize residential than commer- cial uses. 61 Regional transportation agencies appear to have been assuming that localities need more encouragement to build housing in the right places. In contrastb jobs—in the words of one transportation planner we interviewed— “take care of themselves.” These assumptions have probably taken root because land use policies in California have traditionally favored commercial over residential developmentb both because these uses generate more local sales tax revenues and because it is generally believed that businesses require less expensive local public services than residents (Boarnet and Crane 2001). Zoning practices reflect these assumptions. 62 Howeverb our evidence shows that employment growth around transit stations does not take care of itselfb even if zoning around transit stations favors nonresidential uses. Different pfths to employment growth: Hollywood/Highlfnd fnd Sylmfr/Sfn Fernfndo Stations associated with large, statistically significant increases in employment growth include the Hollywood/ Highland and Hollywood/Vine stations on the LA Metro Rail Red Line in Hollywood and the Sylmar/San Fernando station on the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line in Los Angeles County’s northern San Fernando Valley. These stations are located in very different neighborhoods with very different TOD strategies. The Hollywood/Highland underground subway sta- tion opened in b000 and was a high-profile transit-oriented development project focused on retail and entertainment along Hollywood Boulevard. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency was integral in assembling land for development, negotiating financing with the city, and secur- ing approvals for the $600 million project that resulted in the Hollywood & Highland Retail Center, the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, and the Kodak Theater (Cervero et al. b004; California Department of Transportation b00b). Both the Hollywood/Highland and the neighboring Hollywood/Vine stations were dense, developed, mixed use areas even before their station openings. The Sylmar Metrolink station in Santa Clarita opened in 1994. The nearby “Montage at Village Green” housing devel- opment opened in b000. Whereas most TODs focusing on housing are “mixed use developments” incorporating some commercial space, the Montage was exclusively a housing development (Moses, Lewis, and Lastrape b009). Kolko (b011) finds that employment growth that accompanied the station development included small businesses across numerous industries, including grocery wholesaling, light manufactur- ing, construction, and real estate brokerage. Many of these businesses were located between the station and the housing development. The Sylmar example shows that employment can grow around new stations even when the station TOD strategy emphasizes residential development. Employment grobth around transit stations does not take care of itself. 19 Driving Change www.ppic.org Existing zoning that allows retailb officeb or industrial devel - opment may not be sufficient to spur employment growth. A set of case studies of San Diego stations concluded that TODs were most successful when they coincided with local authorities’ development plans for the area (Boarnet and Crane 2001). A study of the Washington DC Metro rail system found that dense development around new suburban stations hinged on the “determination and foresight” of local officials (Schrag 2006). The major Hollywood/Highland TOD (see the text box) illustrates the importance of regional transportation and local development authorities working togetherb well beyond a favorable zoning plan. Numerous specific policies could encourage develop - ment around transit stations. Parking policies are one strat - egy: To encourage denser residential developmentb relax requirements that mandate the minimum number of park - ing spaces a developer must provide in residential TODs (Arrington and Cervero 2008); and to encourage transit ridershipb restrict the availability or raise the cost of park - ing (Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 2004). In additionb building a mix of TOD businessesb including retail and per - sonal services that employees use during the dayb encour - ages transit use by making it easier to run errands near the workplace (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2008). And bolstering connectivity—including local bus feeder service to transit stations and surrounding streets that are friendly to walking and biking—helps increase transit ridership around TODs andb in making the location more accessibleb is likely to raise demand for the location (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2008). A Hollywood & Highland Retail Center is not—and should not be—the model for employment growth at all transit stations. Appropriate levels of growth and indus- tries differ across transit stationsb depending on existing land usesb densitiesb and location in the transit network. Yet it is surprising thatb on averageb employment growth around new transit stations was no faster than in compari- son areas. A shift in focus toward more job-based TOD may be in order for future development efforts around existing and planned transit stations. Expanding job growth around the increasing number of stations located The success of SB 375 bill depend on hob bell all levels of government integrate land use planning, transit investments, and pricing policies and make them attractive to California’s residents. outside downtown areas would improve employment exchanges with the broader metro area job market and increase the two-way use of costly rail systems. Employ- ment growth near stationsb even in residential areasb should be encouraged to exceed employment growth in similar nearby neighborhoods lacking transit access. Policy Recommendations With the adoption of SB 37fb the state is once again taking a leadership role in national environmental policy. 63 The success of SB 37f will depend on how well all levels of gov- ernmentb working togetherb integrate land use planningb transit investmentsb and pricing policies and make them attractive to California’s residents. For residentsb the law implies a major behavioral shiftb reversing a decades-long trend in which per capita VMT has been rising. The anticipated emission benefits of SB 37f are rela- tively modest—rather than a silver bulletb the new policy is one of many discrete actions that make up Califor- nia’s overall strategy for addressing climate change. But the same policies that can contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions from driving can generate other benefits. Higher-density development—essential for a viable transit system—consumes less energy and water per resident or workerb providing additional environmental and economic benefits. By making housing more affordable in milder coastal areasb policies encouraging higher density could also shift population and economic activity to places with Driving Change 20 www.ppic.org lower energy requirements and overall emissionsb reducing statewide or national emissions per capita. 64 Reducing the need to drive and providing “walkable” streets would also provide public health benefits to California’s residents. Our analysis offers hopeb as well as warning signs. The clearest grounds for optimism come from our survey of city and county officials—the local authorities who control land use decisions and oversee a majority of transportation dollars. Despite the recessionb they have increased their climate- change–related activities and are adopting numerous land use strategies that can support the goals of SB 37f. Furthermoreb local officials tend to rate the policies and strategies they have already begun to implement as having strong potential to reduce VMTb despite various barriers to implementationb including public opposition to denser development. Another reason for optimism is the extent to which both regional transportation authorities and local gov- ernments recognize the importance of integrated strate- gies that combine land useb transitb and pricing policies. Regional authorities in the state’s major metropolitan areas are gaining support from local officials as they develop strategies to increase the use of toll lanesb focus more spending on transitb and move away from the typical model of suburban sprawl development. This pattern is evi- dent even in regions where many residents do not support the state’s climate policy goals. Recent trends in residential and employment growth present a mixed picture. On the one handb California’s residential density is higher than the national average and rising—a plus for integrated strategies that encour- age transit use. On the other handb the state’s employment density is lower than the national average—dramatically so in many metro areas—and falling. Low employment densities limit the potential for VMT reduction because employment density is even more strongly related to transit ridership than residential density. The failure of rail transit to realize its potential— despite receiving a large share of transportation invest- ments for several decades—is another warning sign. Rail ridership as a share of commutes has increased slightly in California—rising to 1.4 percent of all commutes in 2008 from 0.9 percent in 1990b before major investments in rail took place. But this growth is much slower than the pace of transit cost increases and service expansion. Howeverb voters and commuters think favorably of railb often supporting local sales tax increases to fund rail investmentsb and they tend to switch from bus to rail when rail becomes available. Our local government survey respondents were also more hopeful about the success of VMT-reduction policies—land use and pricing as well as transit—if their localities already had rail service in placeb suggesting that they perceive rail as an important platform for building an integrated strategy. One contributing factor in the limited success of rail investments is the failure of transit-oriented development to live up to its potential. Jobs near fixed-line transit sta- tions (including rail and bus rapid transit) are especially important for increasing transit ridershipb because once workers arrive at a stationb they do not have many options for commuting to more distant locations. Unfortunatelyb new transit stationsb on averageb have not been greeted by faster job growth in the surrounding areab even though local fiscal incentives and zoning have traditionally favored commercial development near transit stations. Paradoxi- callyb SB 37f could make employment growth around transit stations even more difficultb because the law explic- itly favors residential development in TODs: To receive the benefit of exemption from CEQA requirementsb develop- ment projects near transit stations (called Transit Priority Projects) must be at least f0 percent residentialb as mea- sured by building square footage. If California is to reap the benefits that greater employ- ment density around transit bringsb the state must consider encouraging commercial development over residential development near stations—the opposite of the cur- rent incentives in SB 37f. In additionb local and regional authorities could adopt numerous specific policies to encourage commercial development around transit sta- tionsb including relaxing minimum parking requirementsb providing development incentivesb and ensuring good 21 Driving Change www.ppic.org connectivity between the transit station and surround- ing areas through development of local bus feeder service and neighboring streets favorable to walking and biking. Failing to take advantage of rail through more intense land development around stations represents a significant missed opportunity to increase ridership and to make the most of costly transit investments. Pricing represents another area of missed opportu- nity. Although regional authorities in the major coastal metro areas are moving forward with toll roadsb few local authorities are raising the cost or limiting the availability of parking to encourage the use of alternatives to solo driv- ing. Indeedb nearly 90 percent of all localities still require that new commercial developments provide employee parking. But the greatest shortcoming lies in state and fed- eral policies: For nearly two decadesb both the federal and state governments have failed to raise charges for road use through a higher gas tax or new VMT-based fees. These price increases are urgently needed to bolster the transpor- tation finance systemb and they are the most effective way to send the signal to businesses and residents to change their transportation behaviors and location decisions. Such If California is to reap the fenefits that greater employment density around transit frings, the state must consider encouraging commercial development over residential development near stations. fees are not politically popularb but in this caseb responsible fiscal policy aligns with the efficient use of the transporta- tion network. To make the most of all of the available policies—land useb transportationb pricingb and their integration—a regional perspective is essentialb and a regional perspec- tive must acknowledge the diversity of localities without losing sight of their interconnectedness. SB 37f encourages coordinationb but it will be up to regional and local lead- ers to put the vision to workb recognizing local differences while overriding the temptation to yield to fragmented local interests. ● Driving Change 22 www.ppic.org www.ppic.org Notes 1 Washington state has adopted ambitious per capita VMT reduction targets as part of its climate change legislationb and several East Coast states have also adopted explicit VMT reduc- tion goals as part of their climate change policies. 2 Technicallyb SB 37f calls for a reduction in emissions from pas- senger vehicles beyond the reductions expected from improve- ments in vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of low-carbon fuelsb as required by other regulations (described below). In the “most ambitious scenarios” for meeting the regional 203f targets under SB 37fb transportation system improvements (which include measures to improve traffic flow as well as some demand man- agement measures we consider under “pricingb” such as carpool programs) are expected to achieve 8–17 percent of regional GHG emission reductions in the Bay Areab Southern Californiab and Sacramento regions. San Diego examined one scenario in which these measures could achieve over half of the total GHG emis- sions goal (Heminger et al. 2010). 3 The state’s Strategic Growth Councilb created in a companion bill to SB 37fb is funding planning grants for SB 37fb in recogni- tion of the potential benefit to public healthb conservationb and livability (Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team 2010). 4 This goal was established under Executive Order S-3-0fb signed in 200f. f Some have argued that greater reductions in VMT than those in CARB’s scoping plan are possible (Ewing and Nelson 2008; Winkelmanb Bishinsb and Kooshian 2010)b whereas others argue that VMT reductions constitute a costlyb inefficientb uncertain GHG emission reduction strategy (Mooreb Staleyb and Poole 2010). Boarnet (2010) provides a critical overview of this debate. 6 High-density housing units also use less water for landscap- ingb providing additional energy savings and helping California to cope with increasing water scarcity (Hanak and Davis 2006; Hanak et al. 2011). In additionb land use policies that encourage growth in mild climate areasb such as coastal Californiab could reduce emissions generated by heating and cooling (Kahn 2010; Glaeser and Kahn 2010). 7 In one extreme case—the vast region encompassing the Southern California Association of Governments (Imperialb Los Angelesb Orangeb Riversideb San Bernardinob and Ventura Counties)—the MPO is responsible only for planning; all invest- ments and maintenance are carried out by subregional and local authorities. 8 Counties have authority over land use in unincorporated areas. City and county government representatives also constitute the majority of MPO boards. 9 SB 37f offers three paths to ease requirements for environmental review of projects under CEQA: (1) programmatic streamlining for certain residential projects that are consistent with a region’s SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS)b (2) streamlining or exemption for transit priority projects that are consistent with a region’s SCS or APS and are at least f0 percent residential (as opposed to commercial)b and (3) adoption of a uniform set of traffic mitigation measures for higher-density residential develop - mentsb which exempts these projects from further traffic mitiga - tion requirements. 10 For information on the programb see http://calblueprint.dot .ca.gov/ 11 Although the analyses are at an earlier stageb efforts are also under way in the smaller regionsb including the San Joaquin Val- ley councils of governments (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2 011). 12 These local programs also include activities addressing many areas outside transportation and land useb including energy and water use efficiencyb green buildingsb renewable energyb and waste reduction (Hanak et al. 2008). 13 Changes in residential densities result from new construc- tion or redevelopment. Because housing has a long life and new developments are a small share of the housing stock in all but recently built citiesb even large increases in the density of new developments have only a modest effect on the overall average residential density of a city or metropolitan area. 14 See Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski (2011)b Appendix Table B.24(j). Out of nine barriersb public opposition to density ranked among the top three in every region but the San Joaquin Valley. But achieving higher commercial densities is often more politi- cally feasible than achieving higher residential densities (Barnes 20 0f). 1f Other smart-growth approaches available to local govern- ments include improving the interconnectivity of roads and other elements of street designb which influence the attractive- ness of driving versus alternative modes of travel (Ewing and Cervero 2010). 23 Driving Change www.ppic.org www.ppic.org 16 Another parking strategy is “unbundlingb” in which develop- ers sell the parking spaces separately from the residential or commercial units. This allows those who value parking most to buy it and facilitates providing less parking overall. 17 In localities without railb transit-oriented development tends to focus on higher-density and mixed use development along major bus corridors or on ensuring good bus connections for retail establishments. Several Central Valley cities also mentioned the possibility of capitalizing on high-speed rail as a focal point for TOD in the future. 18 As a recent exampleb over half of the $4.9 billion dollars com- mitted to projects designed to reduce congestion under the state’s Traffic Congestion and Relief Act of 2000 was allocated to rail and other transit (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2007). 19 In the most recent RTPs of the four largest MPOsb the pro- jected shares expenditures for transit over the next few decades range from 40 percent of the total in the San Diego region to 6f percent in the Bay Area (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2 011). 20 Residents were askedb “What type of surface transportation project do you think should have the top priority for public funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected by 202f?” In 2004b the ranking was freeways and highways (32%)b light rail (31%)b public bus systems (13%)b local streets and roads (10%)b and carpool lanes (7%). In 2006b the ranking was light rail (36%)b freeways and highways (2f%)b public bus systems (14%)b local streets and roads (9%)b and carpool lanes (6%) (Baldassare 2004b 2006). 21 Survey respondents reported the availability of local bus service in all but the least populous jurisdictionsb and nearly half of all localities also have express bus services. Just over a quarter reported the availability of some forms of rail transitb and rail is planned in another 11 percent. Rail tends to be concentrated in more populous jurisdictions. 22 In a national studyb Baum-Snow and Kahn (200f) find that rail investments often fail to increase overall transit ridershipb because many new rail transit commuters are former bus com- mutersb not former drivers. 23 Data on VMT are from Federal Highway Administrationb Annual Higfway Statistics b Table VM-2. 24 In a 2001 national survey of travel behaviorb commutes accounted for 27 percent of VMTb though a much higher share of VMT at peak times and on the most congested routes. Transit was used for 3.7 percent of commute tripsb 1.1 percent of trips was for family or personal businessb and 1.0 percent of trips was for social or recreational purposes (Hu and Reuscher 2004b Tables 6 and 9). In Californiab 39 percent of trips originating from home are to work (California Department of Transporta- tion 2003). Transit investments may also fail to reduce VMT because the reduction in road congestion encourages additional driving—for exampleb trucks moving goods (Duranton and Turner 2009). 2f This finding is based on the authors’ calculations using data from the Census of Governmentsb 1992–2007. Recovery rates vary across systems. For instanceb at 64.f percentb the Bay Area’s BART system rate of operating cost recovery is far higher than the statewide average for transit in California. It is also one of the highest rates of recovery of any rail transit system in the country (O’Toole 2010). 26 For the seven largest transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Areab operating costs increased 83 percent between 1997 and 2008b whereas the consumer price index increased by 39 percent. Over this same periodb transit service (measured as hours in service) increased only 1f percent and ridership increased only 7 percent (Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit Sustainability Projectb 2010b available at www.mtc.ca.gov /planning/tsp/ABAG_Focus_presentation.pdf ). 27 See Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski (2011)b Appendix Table B.24(j). For the Bay Areab insufficient transit availability ranked highest among nine barriers; this constraint ranked second high - est (after public opposition to raising charges for driving) in the Southern California regionb and third (after public opposition to density and the jobs-housing balance) in the San Diego region. 28 See Kolko (2011). In Californiab fewer than 10 percent of people who live or work within a half mile of a transit station commute using rail transit; including bus ridersb transit share rises to only 20 percent. Farther than a half-mile from transit stationsb transit ridership drops off sharply. Here and elsewhere in the reportb “transit stations” refer to stops on fixed-line transit systems—primarily rail (commuter railb subwaysb light-railb and streetcars). We do not include stops along a regular bus route as “transit stations” becauseb unlike stations in fixed-line systemsb these stops do not require capital investment and tend not to be focal points for new residential or commercial development. 29 The Bay Area’s traffic and transit information portalb www.f11 .orgb lists 22 bus operators in the region as well as several rail and ferry operators. With the adoption of Resolution 3866 in early Driving Change 24 www.ppic.org 2010b MTC will consider an operator’s compliance with the region’s Transit Connectivity Plan when allocating funding. The Transit Connectivity Plan requirements include consistent signageb dissemination of real-time transit informationb provi- sion of information on schedules and connections from other transit agenciesb and guidelines for the use of a singleb cross- system fare payment card (www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/tcip /RES-3866_approved.pdf ). 30 To the extent that these strategies improve gas mileage— a benefit of reduced congestion—they can also reduce GHG emissions for a given level of VMT. 31 Numerous studies indicate a large and growing gap between revenues and funding needs (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 2009). 32 Americans’ sensitivity to gas prices also appears to have declined over the past several decades—a phenomenon analysts have attributed to the fact that more sprawling land use pat- terns have made people more reliant on cars (Hughesb Knittelb and Sperling 2008) and to a declining share of transportation in household budgets (Small and Van Dender 2007). 33 In early 2010b California’s gas tax was increasedb with a cor- responding decrease in the sales tax on gasoline. This revenue- neutral “fuel tax swap”—adopted to provide more budget flexibility—will be invalidated under Proposition 26 (described below) unless the legislature approves it again with a two-thirds majority by November 2011 (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2011). 34 Gas taxes within the European Union range from about $1.90/gallon in Bulgaria to $3.70/gallon in the Netherlands and are usually augmented by general value-added taxes. Japan’s gas tax is roughly $2.2f/gallon (October 2010 exchange rates). 3f Hanak and Rueben (2006) describe the early projects in South- ern California. 36 Conversion without expansion of lane capacity is likely to be more effective at reducing VMTb but it is also more politically difficultb particularly if it reduces open-access lanes. One chal- lenge with conversion of HOV to HOT lanes is the desirability of having more than one HOT laneb so that traffic can flow smoothly in the event of an accident. Since most HOV lanes are single lanesb this means either building an additional lane or converting an existing open-access lane to HOT status. In the Bay Areab planners are working to create single-lane HOT lanes from existing HOV lanes in ways that avoid these problems. The new HOT lane on I-680 has double lanes at entry and exit pointsb but a single lane elsewhere. 37 One study found that 77 percent of San Francisco Bay Area commuters provided with free parking drove aloneb compared to only 39 percent of those required to pay for parking. The cor- responding figures for how much these same people use transit were 4.8 percent and 42 percentb respectively (RIDES for Bay Area Commuters 2000). 38 California adopted a parking cash-out law in 1992 requiring that employers with more than f0 employees in areas out of attainment with any state air quality standardb and who offer employees subsidized parkingb give employees the option of “cashing out” that parking option. Employees can then use this money to pay for alternative means of commuting to workb such as transit or carpools. The federal tax code and the complexity of employer parking situations have made the program difficult to implementb though emission reduction benefits have been observed when it has been implemented. See www.arb.ca.gov /planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm. 39 San Francisco is conducting a pilot program that will vary on-street and garage parking rates to manage demand (http:// sfpark.org/). 40 This amendmentb passed by f3 percent of votersb raises the vote threshold for new state regulatory fees from one-half to two-thirds of each house of the legislatureb and it requires a two- thirds supermajority of the voting public to approve local regu- latory fees that formerly could be approved by a simple majority of governing boards. Although this change does not affect strict user fees—i.e.b charges that cover the costs of providing a service to the person being charged—it does affect fees that are used to benefit others. Litigation will likely be required to sort out the boundaries of the new rules. Thusb although parking feesb toll lane chargesb the gas taxb and VMT charges could easily be considered user fees (i.e.b used to help cover the cost of providing transportation services)b some may interpret the new rules as a restriction on the types of programs that the fees can fund. 41 In Bakersfieldb for exampleb efforts to limit parking availabil- ity met with resistance from retailers who felt that they needed additional parking to accommodate peak shopping days such as “Black Friday.” Residents in the cities of Los Angeles and Cypress objected to the spillover problems often experienced in mixed use areas. 42 The Transportation Research Board (2009) summarized the research literature with the conclusion that doubling residential density would be associated with a f–12 percent reduction in VMTb and possibly up to a 2f percent reduction with comple- mentary changes in transit availabilityb the jobs-housing bal- 25 Driving Change www.ppic.org anceb and other factors. Howeverb as mentioned aboveb doubling the density for even a large share of new housing would have only a modest effect on average residential density across a city or metropolitan area. 43 Notablyb none of the RTPs includes metrics of employment den - sityb though some discuss the concept of a jobs-housing balance. 44 Modeling scenarios done by SANDAGb which examined the potential gains from individual policy strategies relative to an integrated approachb highlight the benefits of combined strate- gies (Heminger et al. 2010). The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint (2009) also envisages an integrated approach. To some extentb planning for VMT reductions will be a learning-by-doing pro- cessb given the challenges of developing a comprehensive picture of how various policies might interact to affect driving behaviors in particular regions (Rose 2010). 4f We did not explicitly refer to SB 37fb so that we could avoid concerns that the responses might be used to gauge compli- ance with the law. Alsob the survey was completed before CARB released draft regional emission targets in June 2010b so respon- dents did not know the level of the regional targets. 46 Noteb moreoverb that our survey asked about gas pricesb not gas taxes. We chose this wording to avoid conflating concerns over the perceived political feasibility of raising the gas tax with the perceived effectiveness of a resulting rise in gas prices. 47 It is worth noting that the high marks for local bus service also conflict with the researchb which finds that the potential for traditional local bus service to reduce VMT is fairly low. It is possible that planners were thinking about enhanced service linesb although they generally ranked express bus service lower than local bus serviceb except in localities with rail accessb where express bus to rail service ranked highest among transit options. 48 Results reported here are from multiple regression analysesb which control for the effects of populationb household incomeb population growth rateb political party affiliation of votersb and other community characteristics. 49 On gas price sensitivityb see Hughesb Knittelb and Sperling (2008). On transit use and incomeb see Barbour (2006). f0 The jobs-housing ratio is calculated as the number of jobs rela - tive to the number of households within a jurisdiction in 2006. Interestinglyb a jobs-housing imbalance ranked as one of the top two perceived barriers to implementing policies to reduce driving in several regions: San Diegob the San Joaquin Valleyb the “Other MPO” group (including Central Coast counties and several northern Sacramento Valley counties)b and the “non-MPO” group (including rural counties not currently required to comply with SB 37f) (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011b Table B.24). f1 Statewide surveys find that Republican voters are less support- ive of AB 32 goals than are Democrats or independent votersb and this gap has widened since 2008 (Baldassare et al. 2008b 2010). f2 See Heminger et al. (2010). f3 This section summarizes the “Transit and Development in California” section of Kolko’s (2011) paperb “Making the Most of Tr a n sit .” f4 Bus rapid transit does not necessarily involve construction of a fixed or dedicated lane but typicallyb at a minimumb includes investments in advanced technologies and infrastructure that can speed the movement of buses and improve service. This larger investment makes it more of a “fixed” investment than typical bus service. ff These stations include extensions to BART in the San Fran- cisco Bay Areab the Sacramento light rail systemb the San Jose light rail systemb San Francisco MUNIb LA Metro Rail (includ- ing the LA Metro bus-rapid-transit Orange Line through the San Fernando Valley)b and new or mostly new systems such as the Altamont Commuter Expressb Coaster San Diegob Harbor Transitwayb and Metrolink Southern California. f6 Employment density is the most important factor. Residential density does not positively affect the location of new transit stations holding other factorsb including employment densityb constant. f7 In factb CARB recommends against development immediately adjacent to freeways for public health reasons (California Air Resources Board 200f). Stillb proximity to a freeway could boost ridership by facilitating park-and-ride use. f8 Data limitations restricted our analysis of residential growth to a shorter time period and different method. For employment growthb we have detailed data for all years from 1992 to 2006 from the National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) databaseb whereas for residential growthb we have detailed data for only 1990 and 2000 from the U.S. Census. f9 This result is somewhat surprisingb given that the new tran- sit stations were generally located in areas where employment growth was already faster than in comparison areas. One might therefore expect a boost in employment growth after the station Driving Change 26 www.ppic.org openedb if builders were to respond to the increased demand for land that typically occurs around new stations. 60 The residential density measure is for 1990b and the employ- ment density measure is for 1992. 61 Over half (f6%) of the communities with these projects reported that they were all or mostly residentialb versus only about a third (31%) evenly split between residential and com- mercial and 13 percent mostly commercial (Bedsworthb Hanakb and Stryjewski 2011). 62 Land surrounding transit stations in Southern California in the mid-1990s was much more likely to be zoned for commer- cial (including industrial) use than for residential useb relative to other portions of the cities containing those transit stations (Boarnet and Crane 2001). More recentlyb a 2007 review of San Francisco Bay Area TOD policies reports that development goals for TODs include minimum density requirements for residential development but not for employmentb in part because “cities already have considerable incentives to zone for nonresidential usesb such as sales tax revenue and reduced fiscal impacts” (NelsonNygaard 2007b pp. f–7). 63 Recent federal climate change legislative proposals contain provisions that would extend requirements nearly identical to SB 37f to all MPOs in the nation. 64 Recognizing this potentialb Bay Area leaders have called for a reassessment of the region’s growth barriers (King 2008). References Arringtonb G. B.b and Robert Cervero. 2008. “Effects of TOD on Housingb Parkingb and Travel.” bransit Cooperative Researcf Program Report 128. Washingtonb DC: Transportation Research Board. Baldassareb Mark. 2004. Special Survey on Californians and tfe Future . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. August. Available at www.ppic.org /content/pubs/sur vey/S _ 804MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Mark. 2006. Californians and tfe Future . PPIC State- wide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_806MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Markb Dean Bonnerb Jennifer Paluchb and Sonja Petek. 2008. Californians and tfe Environment . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_708MBS.pdf. Baldassareb Markb Dean Bonnerb Sonja Petekb and Nicole Will- coxon. 2010. Californians and tfe Environment . PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_710MBS.pdf. Barbourb Elisa. 2006. “Time to Work: Commuting Times and Modes of Transportation for California Workers.” California Counts 7 (3). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Barnesb Gary. 200f. “The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share.” Journal of Public bransportation 8 (2). Baum-Snowb Nathanielb and Matthew Kahn. 200f. “Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Citiesb 1970–2000.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. Bedsworthb Louiseb Ellen Hanakb and Elizabeth Stryjewski. 2011. “Views from the Field: Linking Transportation and Land Use.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=946. Boarnetb Marlon G. 2010. “Planningb Climate Changeb and Transportation: Thoughts on Policy Analysis.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (8): f87–9f. Boarnetb Marlon G.b and Randall Crane. 2001. bravel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on bravel . New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. 27 Driving Change www.ppic.org California Air Resources Board. 200f. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Healtf Perspective . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Cfange Scoping Plan: A Framework for Cfange, Pursuant to AB 32 tfe California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenfouse Gas Emission Reduction bargets for Automobiles and Ligft brucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 . Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency. California Department of Transportation. 2002. Statewide bransit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California . Final report. Available at www.dot.ca.gov/hq /MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/TOD-Study-Final-Rpt.pdf. California Department of Transportation. 2003. 2000–2001 California Statewide bravel Survey: Weekday bravel Report . Avail- able at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/documents/travelsurveys /Final2001_ StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt.pdf. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2008. “Transit + Employment: Increasing Transit’s Share of the Commute Trip.” Available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display _asset/employment202. Cerverob Robertb et al. 2004. “Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiencesb Challengesb Prospects.” br a n s i t Cooperative Researcf Program Report 102. Washingtonb DC: Transportation Research Board. Dahlgrenb Joy. 1998. “High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Not Always More Effective Than General Purpose Lanes.” br a n s p o r - tation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 36 (3): 239–ff. Dahlgrenb Joy. 2002. “High-Occupancy/Toll Lanes: Where Should They Be Implemented?” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 32 (2): 99–114. Deakinb Elizabethb Greig Harveyb Randall Pozdenab and Geof- frey Yarmena. 1996. bransportation Pricing Strategies for Califor- nia: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy, and Equity Impacts . Sacramento: California Air Resources Board. Doyleb Scottb Alexa Kelly-Schwartzb Marc Schlossbergb and Jean Stockard. 2006. “Active Community Environments and Health: The Relationship of Walkable and Safe Communities to Indi- vidual Health.” Journal of tfe American Planning Association 71 (1): 19–31. Durantonb Gillesb and Matthew Turner. 2009. “The Fundamen- tal Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities.” NBER Working Paper 1f376. Ewingb Reidb and Robert Cervero. 2001. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis.” bransportation Researcf Record 178 0. 87–114 . Ewingb Reidb and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment.” Journal of tfe American Planning Association 76 (3): 26f–94. Ewingb Reidb and Arthur C. Nelson. 2008. “CO2 Reductions Attributable to Smart Growth in California.” College Park: University of Maryland. Available at www.climateplanca.org /ewing_analysis.pdf. Ewingb Reidb Tom Schmidb Richard Killingsworthb Amy Zlotb and Stephen Raudenbush. 2003. “Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activityb Obesityb and Morbidity.” American Journal of Healtf Promotion 18 (1): 47–f7. Fieldingb Gordon J. 199f. “Transit in American Cities.” In The Geograpfy of Urban bransportation b ed. Susan Hanson (New York: Guilford Press). Giulianob Genevieveb and Ajay Agarwal. 2010. “Public Transit as a Metropolitan Growth and Development Strategy.” In Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects b vol. 3b ed. N. Pindusb H. Wialb and H. Wolman (Washingtonb DC: Brookings Institution). Glaeserb Edwardb and Matthew Kahn. 2010. “The Greenness of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development.” Journal of Urban Economics 67: 404–18. Hanakb Ellenb and Elisa Barbour. 200f. “Sizing Up the Chal- lenge: California’s Infrastructure Needs and Tradeoffs.” Occa- sional Paper. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hanakb Ellenb and Matthew Davis. 2006. “Lawns and Water Demand in California”. California Economic Policy 2 (2). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hanakb Ellenb and Kim Rueben. 2006. Funding Innovations for California Infrastructure: Promises and Pitfalls . USC Keston Institute for Infrastructure Research Paper Seriesb Paper 06-01. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Driving Change 28 www.ppic.org Hanakb Ellenb Louise Bedsworthb Joanna Malaczynskib and Sarah Swanbeck. 2008. “Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California’s Cities and Counties.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R _1108EHR.pdf. Hanakb Ellenb Jay Lundb Ariel Dinarb Brian Grayb Richard How- ittb Jeffrey Mountb Peter Moyleb and Barton “Buzz” Thompson. 2 011. Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconcilia- tion . San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Hemingerb Steveb Hasan Ikhratab Gary Gallegosb and Mike McKeever. 2010. “Memorandum to Lynn Terryb Deputy Executive Officerb California Air Resources Boardb Re: Preliminary Report on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/Air Resources Board (ARB) Senate Bill 37f (SB 37f) Target Setting Analysis.” Available at w w w.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb37f/mpo/prelimreport.mtc .sacog.sandag.scag.pdf. Hub Patriciab and Timothy Reuscher. 2004. Summary of bravel brends: 2001 National Housefold bravel Survey . Washingtonb DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Available at http://nhts .ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf. Hughesb Jonathan E.b Christopher R. Knittelb and Daniel E. Sper- ling. 2008. “Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Price Elasticity of Gasoline Demand.” The Energy Journal 29 (1): 93–114. Kahnb Matthew. 2010. “Urban Policy Effects on Carbon Mitiga- tion.” NBER Working Paper 16131. Kingb John. 2008. “How Global Warming Challenges the Old Bay Area Assumptions.” San Francisco Cfronicle . July 1. Kolkob Jed. 2011. “Making the Most of Transit: Densityb Employ- ment Growthb and Ridership Around New Stations.” Available at w w w.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=947. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2002. “A Commuter’s Dilemma: Extra Cash or Free Parking?” Available at www.lao .ca.gov/2002/parking/031802_cash_or_parking.pdf. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2007. “California Travels: Financing Our Transportation.” Available at www.lao.ca.gov/2000/0f1100 _cal_travels/0f1100_cal_travels.pdf. Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2011. “The 2011–12 Budget: Achieving General Fund Relief from Transportation Funds.” Available at http://lao.ca.gov/analysis/2011/transportation /tax_swap_012f11.pdf. Mooreb Adrian T.b Samuel R. Staleyb and Robert W. Poole Jr. 2010. “The Role of VMT Reduction in Meeting Climate Change Policy Goals.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Prac- tice 44 (8): f6f–74. Mosesb Sharonb Carol Lewisb and Krystal Lastrape. 2009. “Moving Toward Implementation: An Examination of the Organizational and Political Structures of Transit-Oriented Development.” Houstonb TX: Southwest Region University Transportation Center. National Complete Streets Coalition. 2010. “Complete Streets FAQ.” Available at www.completestreets.org/complete-streets -fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Com - mission. 2009. Paying Our Way: A New Framework for branspor - tation Finance . Washingtonb DC: U.S. Department of Transpor - tation. NelsonNygaard Consulting Associatesb Inc. 2007. “Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 3434: Transit-Oriented Development Policyb 2007 Evaluation.” O’Tooleb Randal. 2010. Defining Success: The Case Against Rail br a n s i t . Washingtonb DC: Cato Institute. Parryb Ian W. H. 2009. “Pricing Urban Congestion.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1: 461–84. Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team. 2010. “Sus- tainable Communities Planning Grants.” Report to the Strategic Growth Council. Available at www.sgc.ca.gov/docs/funding /2010FundingReport_November_23_2010.pdf. Pooleb Robert W.b Jr.b and Adrian Moore. 2010. Restoring brust in tfe Higfway brust Fund . Policy Study 386. Los Angeles: Reason Foundation. RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. 2000. Commute Profile 2000: A Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns . Oaklandb CA. Rodierb Caroline. 2009. “Review of the International Modeling Literature: Transitb Land Useb and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” bransportation Researcf Record 2132: 1–12. Roseb Eliot. 2010. Working Harder to Grow Smarter: Overcoming Barriers to Senate Bill 375 Implementation . Professional Reportb Department of City and Regional Planningb University of Cali- forniab Berkeley. 29 Driving Change www.ppic.org Rufolob A. M.b and T. J. Kimpel. 2009. “Transit’s Effect on Mile- age Responses to Oregon’s Experiment in Road Pricing.” br a n s - portation Researcf Record 211f: 60–6f. Salzmanb Randy. 2010. “Pasadenab California: Unlikely Home to an Innovative Parking Scheme.” Thinking Higfways, Nortf American Edition f (3). September/October. San Diego Association of Governments. 2010. Board of Directors Agendab Item 17b May 28b 2010. San Diegob CA. Available at http:// sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2f38_11f49.pdf. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint. 2009. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Update . April. Available at www.valleyblueprint.org/files/images /Blueprint__Brochure_July_2009-BL2.pdf Schragb Zachary. 2006. The Great Society Subway: A History of tfe Wasfington Metro . Baltimoreb MD: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press. Shoupb Donald. 1999. “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements.” bransportation Researcf Part A: Policy and Prac- tice 33 (7–8): f49–74. Shoupb Donald. 2004. “The Ideal Source of Local Public Rev- enue.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34: 7f3–84. Shoupb Donald. 200f. The Higf Cost of Free Parking . Chicago: Planner’s Press. Smallb Kennethb and Kurt Van Dender. 2007. “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect.” The Energy Journal 28 (1). Sorensenb Paulb and Brian Taylor. 200fa. “Review and Synthesis of Road-Use Metering and Charging Systems.” Submitted to the Committee for the Study of the Long-Term Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Financeb Transportation Research Board. Washingtonb DC: The National Academies. Sorensenb Paulb and Brian Taylor. 200fb. “Paying for Roads: New Technology for an Old Dilemmab” Access 26 (Spring). Southern California Association of Governments. 2010. “South- ern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council Votes to Recommend SB 37f Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regional Targets for 2020 and 203f.” Press release. Available at www.scag.ca.gov/media/pdf/pressReleases/2010 /PR009-SCAG-RC-ARB-Target-Vote.pdf. Spearsb Stevenb Marlon Boarnetb and Susan Handy. 2010. DR AFb becfnical Background Document on tfe Impacts of Road User Pricing Based on a Review of tfe Empirical Literature . Sacra- mento: California Air Resources Board. Sullivanb Edward. 1998. Evaluating tfe Impacts of tfe SR-91 Variable-boll Express Lane Facility . Final reportb submitted to Cal- ifornia Department of Transportation. Available at http://ceenve3 .civeng.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91/final_rpt/finalrep_full.pdf. Taylorb Brian D.b and Camille Fink. 2003. The Factors Influencing bransit Ridersfip: A Review and Analysis of tfe Ridersfip Litera- ture . University of California Transportation Centerb University of Californiab Berkeley. Fall. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and tfe Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized bravel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions . Special Report 298. Washingtonb DC: National Academy Press. University of California Transportation Center. 2003. Intelligent bransportation Systems: A Compendium of becfnological Sum- maries . Berkeley: University of California. Wachsb Martin. 2010. “When Fuel Taxes No Longer Get the Job Done: The Future of Transportation Finance.” Resources (Su m- mer): 11–12. Winkelmanb Steveb Allison Bishinsb and Chuck Kooshian. 2010. “Planning for Economic and Environmental Resilience.” br a n s - portation Researcf Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (8): f7f–86. Zackb Dan. 200f. The Downtown Redwood City Parking Man- agement Plan . Redwood Cityb CA: Community Development Departmentb Redevelopment Division. July. Available at www. redwoodcity.org/bit/transportation/parking/pdf/Downtown RedwoodCityParkingPlan.pdf. Driving Change 30 www.ppic.org About the Authors Louise Bedsworth is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her research focuses on air qualityb transportationb and climate change issues. Before coming to PPIC in 2006b Louise was a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. She holds an M.S. in environmental engineering and a Ph.D. in energy and resources from the University of Californiab Berkeley. Ellen Hanak is a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her career has focused on the economics of natural resource management and agricultural development. At PPICb she has published numerous reports and articles on water policyb land use planningb infrastructure policyb and climate change. Before joining PPIC in 2001b she held positions at the French agricultural development center (CIRAD)b the President’s Council of Economic Advisersb and the World Bank. She holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Maryland. Jed Kolko is an associate director of research at the Public Policy Institute of Californiab responsible for managing the institute’s econ- omy research. He has conducted numerous studies of the California economyb economic developmentb housingb and technology policy. Before coming to PPIC in 2006b he was vice president and research director at Forrester Researchb a technology consultancyb where he managed the company’s consumer market research businesses and served as the lead researcher on consumer devices and access technologies. Jed has also worked at the Offi ce of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversightb the World Bankb and the Progressive Policy Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the many local and regional offi cials who kindly gave of their time to respond to our survey and requests for interviews—essential inputs into our understanding of the issues surrounding land use and transportation planning and the implementation of SB 37f. We also benefi ted from very helpful reviews of an earlier version of the report by Elisa Barbourb Marlon Boarnetb Robert Cerverob Hans Johnsonb Dean Misczynskib Alison Nemirowb Michael Teitzb Egon Terplanb and Lynette Ubois. We alone are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. www.ppic.org Board of Direcbors WA LT E R B. HEWLETT , CHAIRDirector Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities MARK BALDASSAREPresident and CEO Public Policy Institute of California RUBEN BARRALESPresident and CEO San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce MAR í A BLANCOVice President, Civic Engagement California Community Foundation JOHN E. BR ySONRetired Chairman and CEO Edison International GAR y K. H ARTFormer State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California ROBERT M. HERTzBERGPartner Mayer Brown, LLP D ONNA LUCASChief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs DAVID MAS MASUMOTOAuthor and farmer STEVEN A. MERKSAMERSenior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP CONSTANCE L. RICECo-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUT TONRetired Chairman and CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company PPIC is a private operating foundation. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. © b011 Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available for this publication. I S B N 9f8 -1-5 8b13 -143 - 6 PUBLIC POLIC y INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 ● San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.b91.4400 ● Fax 415.b91.4401 PPIC S ACRAMENTO CENTER Senator Office Building ● 11b1 L Street, Suite 801 ● Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone 916.440.11b0 ● Fax 916.440.11b1 Addibional resources relabed bo bransporbabion policy are available ab www.ppib.org. The Public Policy Institute of Cflifornif is dedicfted to informing fnd improving public policy in Cflifornif through independent, objective, nonpfrtisfn resefrch." ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:41" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "r_211lbr" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:41" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:41" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/R_211LBR.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }