|
|
|
|
|
 |
.gif)
By Robert Puentes
Fellow, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program
One of the most positive trends in recent months is the new found acceptance of the connection between climate change, transportation and economic health and competitiveness. No longer understood as separate issues, reducing vehicle emissions is not only a way to save the planet, but also has an economic payoff. European policy makers talk about this every day and the issue has finally been mainstreamed on this side of the Atlantic.
However, there is something missing from the discussion here in the U.S. Our discourse has focused mainly on two elements: improving technology and seeking out other sources of fuel. Certainly by making vehicles more fuel efficient they consume less gas, pollute less and create far less damage than just a decade or two before. At the same time, cleaner fuels like ethanol are gaining momentum as a mainstream solution global warming – not to mention reductions in oil imports. While these discussions are valuable and productive, they ignore the real culprit– America’s insatiable demand for oil fed by our collective and utter dependence on cars.
But contrary to conventional wisdom, that dependence is not just the result of consumer preference or an irrational addiction to the automobile. Rather it is the product of public policies – many on the local level - that create sprawling metropolitan areas and communities where all uses (residential, retail, office) are kept separate and distinct and the demand for oil is inevitable and hardwired. Driving may not be the best option in many places, but it is often the only option.
The end result is that the average working family is constantly faced with a complicated set of decisions to reconcile their household spending. Do they accept downtown jobs and spend more money on housing to live where densities are higher and driving everywhere is avoidable? Or do they spend more money on transportation in order to purchase a cheaper, larger home far out on the suburban fringe?
In years past, many households probably only lightly considered the impact of transportation costs on household budgets and frequently chose the latter option. But in places like San Francisco – where both gas and home prices are the highest in the nation, transportation and housing costs together are forcing much more attention to these important trade-offs.
So in addition to technological remedies to reducing emissions, American cities and suburbs must focus on a systemic three pronged approach to metropolitan growth in order to mitigate the dependence on cars, curb the growth in driving and – in doing so – strengthen our communities while easing the burden on working families:
First, new development should be focused in existing places that sorely need it rather than spreading it out over large lots on the suburban fringe. Single use zoning that separates uses and forces residents into their cars for routine tasks should be the exception – not the rule.
Second, all types of housing should be accommodated closer to urban job hubs so average families are not banished to the suburban fringe where they have to “drive to qualify” for a home they can afford.
And third, infrastructure dollars should be spent in ways that offers choices for how households travel. Data shows that when quality options are offered, travelers will take advantage of them.
The city and county of San Francisco has already made great advances in addressing these challenges. The city’s affordable housing ordinance is a good way to incorporate moderately priced dwelling units into market rate developments. At the same time, San Francisco is very dense by U.S. standards and has done a good job focusing development around transit stations.
But there is much more to do.
For example, San Francisco should allow accessory dwelling units such as those that exist in other cities in the Pacific Northwest to encourage the construction of new units while heeding market realities. San Francisco also should take a hard look at how it accommodates parking in the city. While dense, the car culture is still promoted by providing acres of parking lots at odds with its transit-oriented approach. Increasing the charges for street parking would go a long way to promoting – and paying for – better alternatives.
Certainly change will not happen overnight, but change on the local level is essential and is the only way to find workable solutions to addressing the climate change crisis.
- - - - -
Robert Puentes is a fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. His expertise is in transportation, urban planning, growth management, suburban issues and housing.
Note: Articles are posted for the purpose of generating ideas and honest debate on how San Francisco can live up to its full promise and potential. Posting of an article does not imply an endorsement by the author of Gavin Newsom for Mayor, nor an endorsement by Gavin Newsom for Mayor of the positions set forth in the article.
- : 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
From Another Perspective Blog:
…America is the only country in the world where a family with a moderate income is forced to budget for not only a house but a car as well. The situation is so extreme that it has been proven that one of the surest ways out of poverty for a family is to own a decent vehicle. That one needs a car to get from your home to anywhere else is an accepted fact of life by most people living outside of large cities, and by many people within them. A fact that few Americans realize, however, is how much money we spend on transportation. For a person driving fifteen miles each day to work, a reasonable car would cost them somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 dollars a year. (The calculation is: a decent used car costs around $10,000 dollars, and assume the family keeps that car for five years, the car itself costs $2000 a year. Add gas, insurance and maintenance to easily reach $5000). But, the average family needs more than one car. So, an American family with two cars which are used daily can easily rack up $10,000 a year on transportation alone. (This is actually on the low end of the scale, assuming the family buys used cars, does not routinely have to pay for parking, and commutes a moderate distance. With a longer commute, or daily parking fees included, a two-car family could easily break $15,00 or even $20,000 a year… almost the national median income). Take away that need for a car and that family has $10,000 a year or more to spend on other needs, such as, perhaps, choosing to buy a house or condo in the city rather than move to the suburbs. This trade-off is the norm in many countries and could easily be here too with the proper investment in clean, reliable public transportation. The more people who use public transportation, the more economical it becomes, allowing a more heavily used system to be cheaper, nicer and more extensive.
In addition to the benefits of making a more equitable society and decreasing global warming, a transit oriented city forces people to walk more (a definite plus in a society facing an obesity epidemic) and fosters a feeling of community as actual neighborhoods of people who know each other emerge rather than little islands of people who never have any reason to interact with their neighbors. A transit-oriented culture is also far friendlier to those who cannot drive – young teenagers, the elderly and the disabled. A friend of mine has epilepsy and was until very recently, unable to get a drivers license due to her condition. Because of this, she spent nearly a year out of work because it was virtually impossible for her, someone who had graduated cum laude from the University of California, to get a job that did not involve driving…
March 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Let’s close Market Street to car traffic (public transportation, pedestrians, and bikes only).
Let’s also make downtown a toll zone, like London.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I second Nathan Frankel’s comment.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:25 am
My partner and I could not live here without a car.
Public transportation is so bad and crowded that we 80 year-olds couldn’t possibly shop or go anywhere without driving.
Another thing: if bicycle owners paid their fair share of the cost of the streets, as do the car drivers, the city might be able to repair the sad state of the infrastructure in SF.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Bill,
First, bicycle owners do pay their fair share. They own homes, and many own cars (and pay associated fees), and they all pay taxes as much as any one else does. I’m not sure how you figure we don’t pay our fair share.
You are vastly overstating the number of bike riders who are not paying their fair share. Besides which a 2 ton car does a lot more damage to the street than a 80lb bike. So you might say, someone who bicycles a lot probably pays MORE than their fair share.
Many streets have been improved because BICYCLISTs complain about them.
Secondly, saying public transportation is bad is hardly a solution. That can be fixed.
Thirdly, no one is saying we should get rid of all cars. Clearly people are going to have a need for a personal motorized transportation devices.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
YES finally people are talking about reducing our dependence on cars. I think we should make many streets car-free and charge higher premiums for parking. We could also offer positive incentives for taking public transport or using a bicycle. These could be financed by the higher parking premiums or other “pollution” charges on cars.