WINDFALL FOR ALL Report Highlights

Transcription

1 WINDFALL FOR ALL How Conneted, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protet Our Climate and Safeguard California s Eonomy Report Highlights Formerly TALC, the Transportation and Land Use Coalition

2 Contents SB 375 Can Make California More Affordable Transportation Is Enormously Expensive Effiient Neighborhoods Save Families Billions Effiient Neighborhoods Are Also Low-Emission What Is Effiient Growth? Effiient Growth Requires Integrated Planning SB 375 Sets the Stage for Effiieny and Savings Effiient Growth Works: Case Studies Effiient Cities Attrat Workers and Revenues Effiient Neighborhoods Can Be Vibrant and Affordable When Workers Can Afford Nearby Housing, Everyone Wins Cost Savings Can Shift Behavior The Time to At Is Now Additional ase studies and details are available in the full report at TransFormCA.org. About the data in this report: A growing body of researh examines the full eonomi impat of transportation poliies. Our report pulls from many soures, but espeially from the Housing + Transportation Affordability Index dataset produed by the Center for Neighborhood Tehnology (CNT). Aknowledgements: Stuart Cohen, TransForm s Exeutive Diretor, was the report s projet manager and wrote various setions. Stuart was appointed by the California Air Resoures Board to the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC). Additional redit for authorship goes to several talented individuals: Elisa Barbour for developing the methodology to analyze CNT data by neighborhood type and for data analysis in several ase studies; Robert Hikey for researhing, synthesizing data and preparing the report; Morgan Kanninen for alulating projetions, writing the North setion, editing, and managing prodution; and Chris Wells for working hard and reatively in layout design. TransForm gratefully aknowledges the foundations that have made our transportation work, and this report, possible: William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Franiso Foundation, Rihard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, Ford Foundation, Firedoll Foundation, Wallae Global Fund, Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, and Kaiser Permanente, Northern California Community Benefit Programs. Photos: Pages 6, 7 and 11, Steven Prie; Page 10, John Reed, ta Clara, and Jeff Hobson. 1 Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

3 SB 375 Can Make California More Affordable As global warming beomes the defining issue of our time, California is taking a leadership role. This is more than symboli: California is the 15th largest produer of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the world. Of those emissions, transportation omprises the largest and fastest-growing soure. In 2008, California passed a groundbreaking law, SB 375, whih will make it easier for residents to drive less by reating more onvenient and effiient ommunities with shorter ommutes and more transportation hoies. Combined with already-approved approahes to leaner fuels and effiient vehiles, SB 375 is pivotal for keeping the state on trak to meet limate goals. But in the month the bill was signed, the eonomi bubble burst, hurtling the ountry into the Great Reession. Some have said that it will ost too muh now to provide more publi transportation and hange the way we grow. In truth, it is our urrent pattern of growth fields of trat homes onneted by billion-dollar highways to distant orporate parks and strip malls that is ineffiient and unaffordable. Suh growth requires taxpayers to spend too muh on infrastruture, developers to spend too muh on parking, and, worst of all, households to spend an exorbitant amount of their inome to get from plae A to plae B. The report finds that the 20 perent of residents in the four largest regions Southern California, Franiso Bay Area, Diego and Saramento that have very good aess to publi transportation spend signifiantly less on transportation eah year. If the other 80% of residents were able to spend the same on transportation, they would be spending $31 billion less per year. That would save the average household $3,850 eah year. Creating more walkable, onvenient neighborhoods linked by effetive publi transportation will also fill a growing onsumer raving for more housing hoies. Windfall for All details the tremendous personal ost of driving, and the potential savings of effiient ommunities. It also highlights what regions, ities, and developers aross California have been doing to redue osts, attrat jobs, and revitalize ommunities, and how these same strategies will redue greenhouse gas emissions. SB 375 was passed to help the state meet GHG redution goals. But as this report shows, it may also be part of the eonomi salvation that California residents, businesses, and governments so desperately need. Our eonomy an no longer afford the high publi and private osts of ineffiient development. istokphoto.om Windfall For All 2

4 Transportation Is Enormously Expensive Most transportation osts are out-ofpoket A tremendous amount of money is spent by publi agenies to build and operate our roads and publi transportation systems. But as an be seen in Figure 1, this pales in omparison to the enormous amount spent by residents. Private transportation spending mostly on owning and operating ars dwarfs publi osts by more than 7 to 1. Figure 1: In a single year, the amount spent on transportation by individuals in the Bay Area is 7.4 times more than is spent by all publi agenies in the region. Individuals $34 Billion Publi Agenies (roads & transit) $4.6 Billion Calulated from ABAG 2009 and CNT No Matter the Fuel, Driving Will Always be Expensive Aording to AAA (2009), 71 perent of annual vehile osts are for ownership, suh as insurane, registration, and finaning. Maintenane adds another 10 perent. Only about 19 perent of the money alloated for ars is spent on fuel. There is, appropriately, tremendous exitement about the oming generation of leaner eletri and hybrid vehiles. These will help keep our transportation emissions from growing too quikly. However as long as families require two or three of these leaner vehiles, transportation will remain a tremendous ost burden. Lower-inome families are hit hardest The high ost of driving is plaing a partiular burden on lower-inome families who are already bending under the weight of housing osts. Having to drive greatly redues the ability of these families to invest in eduation, home equity, health insurane, and other expenses let alone save for the future. Figure 2: Cost of Driving Over One Year MAINTENANCE $800 Soure: AAA % 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 31% $20k-$30k $1,514 10% 23% $30k-$50k FUEL 19% 17% $50k-$75k OWNERSHIP COSTS 71% 13% $75k-$100k 8% $100k and up $5,783 Figure 3: Transportation spending as a perentage of household inome, by inome braket. Soure: CNT 2009 & Virginia Teh Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

5 Effiient Neighborhoods Save Families Billions To examine the savings being harnessed by families living in more effiient neighborhoods, TransForm analyzed spending in four major regions of California where data was available Southern California, Franiso Bay Area, Diego and Saramento. As is evident on the map of the Bay Area (Map A) provided as an example transportation expenses tend to be highest in areas without transit. In ontrast, many of the Bay Area s most onvenient neighborhoods are the urban and suburban areas designed more than 75 years ago, whih: put housing, jobs and servies loser together; provide more ompat and walkable areas than newer subdivisions; support more publi transportation servie beause of the first two fators. As indiated by the lighter olors, neighborhoods that have very good aess to publi transportation spend signifiantly less on transportation eah year. The one-out-of-five Bay Area households that have the best publi transportation aess have annual transportation osts that are 39 perent lower than other households, on average. If the other ommunities had the same level of spending, ombined, their residents would save a total of $10.7 billion on transportation eah year. That would give the average household $5,450 more to spend on eduation, health are, et. Map A: Household Transportation Costs by Census Blok Average Annual Transportation Costs by Census blok group Less than $7,460 $7,460 to $12,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $14,900 to $17,400 $17,400 and greater * quoted in year-2009 numbers Altamont Commuter Rail BART MUNI SMART Line Franiso Mateo The CNT dataset is based on the 2000 ensus; quoted in 2009 dollars. Contra Costa ta Clara Savings for California households if neighborhoods in eah region math the 20% that have the best publi transportation. Region Total Annual Cost Savings (billions) Cost Savings per household SF Bay Area $10.7 $5,450 Los Angeles Region $15.4 $3,600 Diego $2.8 $3,515 Saramento $2.2 $2,825 Total $31.2 $3,847 The ost analysis is based on Census blok groups broken into quintiles based on publi transportation aess measured by CNT s Transit Connetivity Index. Windfall For All 4

6 Effiient Neighborhoods Are Also Low-Emission Providing strong publi transportation options and developing in plaes and ways that are more effiient will not just help our wallets, but will also help our efforts to ombat global warming. Map B: Transportation-Related CO2 Emissions per Household Map B shows how households in areas with fewer transportation hoies and longer driving distanes emit many more transportation-related GHGs per household in a year. In California s four largest regions, the differenes in emissions are huge. Compared to the 20 perent of households with the best publi transportation aess, all other households emit more CO2 from driving by an average of 42 perent in the Bay Area 38 perent in the Los Angeles region 30 perent in Diego County, and 27 perent in the Saramento area Why the Savings? Effiient growth patterns redue osts and emissions by reduing the number of ars eah household needs, and by reduing the distanes they drive in those ars. Bay Area Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Transportation Metri Tons per Household Less than 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to and greater Altamont Commuter Rail BART MUNI SMART Line Franiso Mateo Contra Costa ta Clara households in plaes with many jobs and high levels of publi transit servie an own one less ar (from 2.1 to 0.9 on average) and drive 11,000 fewer miles eah year than households in low-density residential areas with few jobs and little aess to publi transportation. Figure 4: Publi Transportation Lowers Costs for Households and Redues Emissions The figure at right graphs the orrelation between transportation hoies and CO2 emissions. Households that have high aess to publi transportation save money and redue CO2 emissions. A household s aess to publi transportation is measured with the Transit Connetivity Index (TCI), whih was developed by CNT based on the number of publi transportation lines that are within walking distane of the household. Tramsportation Costs per year per household $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $15,500 $14,400 $13,300 $11,900 CO Low Low - Med. CO CO CO Med. Med.- High $8,300 CO High CO2 Emissions metri tons per year per household Publi Transportation Aess measured by the Transit Connetivity Index Authors alulations using CNT data. VMT and auto ownership are modeled for the median Bay Area household as indiated by inome, size, and number of workers. 5 Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

7 What Is Effiient Growth? Unlike the ookie-utter approah to building big box stores, offie parks, and subdivisions, there is no single formula for reating great, effiient neighborhoods. Still, two ritial priniples should always guide planning efforts. First, meaningful ommunity involvement from the very beginning is ruial. It should identify what the ommunity most wants to preserve, as well as new amenities that would benefit the neighborhood, whether they be more parks, safer streets, a branh library or affordable homes. Seond, poliies should be put in plae so that existing residents and businesses are not pushed out as an area beomes more attrative. Growing Effiiently Means: Effiient Use of Land Fill in existing setions of ommunities before spreading out; Build in more ompat ways; Zone for less parking where transportation hoies exist. Mix and Balane of Uses Loate housing lose to jobs, shops, shools, publi transportation, and parks; Provide the variety and number of homes needed to meet family, workfore, and senior needs; Create vibrant town and neighborhood enters. Transportation and Pedestrian hoies Provide safe, onvenient, and attrative routes for pedestrians and biylists; Provide aessible and affordable publi transportation that serves major ativity enters; Create vibrant plazas and attrative streets, not just thoroughfares. The City of Oakland is doing a ommunity visioning proess for International Boulevard (pitured at right and below). Preserving affordable homes and loal businesses will be a key fous. Windfall For All 6

8 Effiient Growth Requires Integrated Planning Growing more effiiently will not just save households money, but will also redue the osts of transportation infrastruture, generate ity revenues, and possibly even redue the ost of new homes. But, as with all things that sound too good to be true, there s a ath: If we want to reap the full benefits, we must hange how we plan at five essential levels. 1 2 On the regional level, we need to stop subsidizing ineffiient, auto-oriented growth that leads to higher ongoing household osts. Instead, we need to fix our rumbling infrastruture and invest in a balaned transportation system. At the ity level, we need to determine where to grow by identifying transit orridors and town enters that have apaity for more housing and jobs. This protets open spaes and ensures that more future residents live and work in low-ost areas. The maps on this page show great variations in affordability, even within just one ity (in this ase, ). Contra Contra Costa Costa Average Annual Transportation Average Annual Transportation Costs Costs by Census blok group Franiso Franiso Average Annual Transportation Costs by Census blok group Less than $7,460 $7,460 to $12,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $14,900 to $17,400 $17,400 and greater * quoted in year-2009 numbers $17,400 greater * quotedand in year-2009 numbers * quoted in year-2009 numbers Altamont Commuter Rail Contra Contra Costa Costa Mateo Mateo Commuter Rail Altamont Stations Franiso Franiso Altamont Commuter Rail BART MUNI Smart Line by Census blok group Less than $7,460 Less than $7,460 $7,460 to $12,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $7,460 to $12,400 $14,900 to $17,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $17,400 and greater $14,900 to $17,400 Stations ta Clara Clara ta Average Annual Transportation Costs by Census blok group Less than $7,460 $7,460 to $12,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $14,900 to $17,400 $17,400 and greater Mateo Mateo * quoted in year-2009 numbers Altamont Commuter Rail BART MUNI Smart Line ta Clara Clara ta 4 In neighborhoods, we need to engage existing residents in planning their ommon future. It is at this level that the right mix of homes, within walking distane of jobs, parks, shools, and loal groeries, an reate inviting, vibrant plaes. 142 Average Annual Transportation Costs Average Transportation by Census blokannual group Costs Less than $7,500 by Census group $7,500 blok to $12,500 $12,500 to $15,000 Less than $7,460 $15,000 to $17,500 $17,500 and greater $7,460 to $12,400 Contra Contra Costa Costa $12,400 to $14,900 $14,900 to $17,400 Altamont Commuter Rail $17,400 and greater Insuffiient Data * quoted in year-2009 numbers Contra Contra Costa Costa Franiso Franiso Franiso Franiso * quoted in year-2009 numbers Stations Franiso Franiso Average Annual Transportation Costs by Census blok group Average Annual Transportation Costs Less than $7,460 by Census blok group $7,460 to $12,400 Less $7,460 $12,400 tothan $14,900 to $12,400 $14,900$7,460 to $17,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $17,400 and greater $14,900 to $17,400 Insuffiient Data greater * quoted in$17,400 year-2009and numbers Altamont Commuter Rail Stations Mateo Mateo Mateo Mateo * quoted in year-2009 numbers Altamont Commuter Rail BART Altamont Commuter Rail MUNI BART Smart Line MUNI ta Clara Clara ta STANLEY KAPLAN EDUCATIONAL CENTER ta Clara Clara ta 800 Smart Line 5,272 ( 3 Along publi transportation lines, we need to ensure a good omplement of land uses by linking or ombining residential areas with major employment, eduation, and retail enters. Contra Contra Costa Costa 5 At the building and street level, we need to design developments that prioritize pedestrians over parking. Franiso Franiso Average Annual Transportation Costs by Census blok group Less than $7,460 $7,460 to $12,400 $12,400 to $14,900 $14,900 to $17,400 $17,400 and greater Mateo Mateo * quoted in year-2009 numbers 7 Altamont Commuter Rail BART MUNI Smart Line from the iteration: ehhh Windfall For All ta Clara Clara ta )

9 SB 375 Sets the Stage for Effiieny and Savings SB 375 is the most ambitious attempt by any state in the ountry to forge a loser link between transportation investments and land-use deisions. SB 375 aims to integrate planning through seven key steps: 1. Creating greenhouse gas emissions redution targets from ars and light truks for 2020 and 2035 in California s 18 largest regions. 2. Requiring eah regional ageny to reate an integrated transportation and land use plan to meet the targets, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This strategy will be reated every four or five years as part of the existing Regional Transportation Plan. The transportation investments must be fisally onstrained and land uses must reflet realisti assumptions. The investments in the Regional Transportation Plan must be onsistent with the SCS. 3. Requiring eah regional ageny to also prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) if the SCS does not meet the targets. This APS would show what investments, poliies or hanges in land use would be needed to meet the targets Both the SCS and APS must be approved by the California Air Resoures Board. 4. Distributing the antiipated amount of housing needed to math future job growth to ities, aording to the land-use plan in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. 5. Requiring ities to hange the Housing Elements in their general plan to show how they will meet their housing alloation for different inome levels. 6. Exempting developments onsistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy or an Alternative Planning Strategy from ertain forms of environmental review. Mitigating Wasteful Growth Experiene shows that when links in planning break down, osts an be high. For instane, the Bay Area spent $1.5 billion for a BART extension to the Franiso Airport, whih opened in But this regional investment was not initially mathed by ompat housing or offie spae that would support the transit servie. South Franiso, for example, allowed a Costo and its parking lot (pitured) to be built near their new station. If medium-density housing had been built on that lot, the residents would have generated $27 million more in fare revenue for BART over the expeted life of the Costo (details in the WindFall for All full report). Instead, low BART ridership has resulted in servie uts and fare hikes both on BART and on the ounty s bus system. Families and other households lost out on the hane to live in an area with low transportation osts, while more ommuters were fored to pak the roads. These expenses ould have been minimized if loal land use deisions and regional transportation planning had been integrated. Windfall For All 8

10 Effiient Growth Works: Case Studies The smarter planning framework of SB 375 will help fous future growth on low-emission, low-transportation-ost areas. As shown in the following six ase studies, suh planning also an have environmental and finanial benefits at the regional, ity, and neighborhood levels. (More ase studies an be found in the full report, at TransFormCA.org.) Effiient Regions Protet Land and Save Money Sine the early 2000s, regions aross California have been envisioning more effiient ways to grow. These blueprint planning exerises have illustrated the potential to save open spae and farmland, redue traffi ongestion, and improve air quality. Saramento is one region whose blueprint has also shown that growing more effiiently an save billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastruture and on individual transportation spending. Spearheaded by the Saramento Area Counil of Governments (SACOG), the visioning proess engaged thousands of planners, eleted offiials, ivi leaders, and itizens from the six-ounty region. The blueprint produed inspiring results (Figure 5). Its objetives are inreasingly being inorporated into loal government land-use plans and guiding longrange regional transportation investments. Saramento s blueprint is an important model for how to implement SB 375. It demonstrates why the law suessfully united fisal onservatives, environmentalists, ity and ounty leaders, and publi health offiials. Outreah materials for the Saramento Regional Blueprint proess showed the sprawl that the region was faing under development-as-usual. Figure 5: Saramento is expeted to save big by implementing the smart growth blueprint: $9.4 billion less for publi infrastruture osts (e.g. transportation, water supply, utilities); 14% fewer arbon dioxide emissions; $655 million less for residents annual fuel osts; $8.4 billion less for land purhases to mitigate the environmental harm of development; 300% inrease in publi transit use; 6% to 13% growth in number of residents who walk or bike. Soure: SACOG Preferred Blueprint Alternative Speial Report Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

11 Effiient Cities Attrat Workers and Revenues : Building for the Future The City of is faing major population growth. It antiipates 400,000 new residents over the next 25 years, with a big inrease in the proportion of young adults and seniors. To meet this need, ity leaders are developing plans to build on under-used land along transit orridors and reate vibrant, mixed-use environments where there are urrently parking lots and strip malls. This planning approah is a four-way finanial win for the ity: it reates room for additional jobs and therefore a larger tax base; it attrats reative, skilled workers who do not want long ommutes; it supports underused publi transportation lines with more riders and fares; and it redues the ost of infrastruture. On top of that, it lowers osts for residents. households living in loations with the most aess to publi transportation spend $13,000 less per year on transportation than the most auto-oriented parts of the ity a greater differential than in any other ity in the Bay Area. ta Clara County s transportation ageny,, is also developing ways to extend the reah of fast, effiient publi transportation as their budget tightens. is planning more than 30 miles of Bus Rapid Transit servie that will emulate the best features of rail station areas with prepaid boarding, fewer stops, and dediated lanes in some areas but at a muh lower prie. Sprawling offie parks in North have huge redevelopment potential. ta Clara County is designing a flexible, effiient Bus Rapid Transit system that will be 10% the ost of lightrail. Windsor, California: A Transit- Oriented Small Town Suess The small town of Windsor in County is already benefitting from preparing to be a walkable publi transportation enter, even though SMART trains won t arrive until The downtown s sales tax revenue inreased tenfold over an eight-year period after the ity reated an aessible ore of ivi servies, greenspae, and ompat housing options for all inomes. Vaany rates remain low in the downtown, despite the national eonomi downturn. Windsor s Town Green is well-used. The new buildings enhane the town s harm, and reate an all-day lientele for the loal shops. Windfall For All 10

12 Effiient Neighborhoods Can Be Vibrant and Affordable If done right, planning for great walkable plaes will not just derease osts for infrastruture and generate revenue, but will make these plaes more affordable for new homes and businesses. Meaningful, ongoing partiipation of loal residents is ruial to this type of planning. When the City of Leandro developed a Downtown Plan, they learned that the ommunity wanted safer streets, affordable plaes for families to live, a vibrant downtown, and a hildare enter near their BART station. These amenities would not have been possible if zoning odes in Leandro ontinued to require more than two parking spaes for eah new home. By utting that requirement in half and allowing slightly taller buildings in this transit-oriented area, the ity was able to bring forward a plan that generated tremendous ommunity support. The plan makes room for more than 3,400 new homes, about seven times what the old zoning would have allowed. The first development approved under the new plan, alled The, inludes 100 units of affordable housing and spae for the hildare enter. This photo-illustration shows how Leandro s 2008 Downtown Transit- Oriented Development Strategy will make street life more lively, safe and attrative. Lower parking requirements pay huge dividends for downtown revitalization By reduing the parking requirement to one instead of two spaes per unit, the first development in the Leandro downtown plan: Saved $3.9 million by eliminating a floor of parking and an elevator; Produed 30 more affordable units; Provided a pedestrian-friendly groundfloor with walk-up units and a hildare enter, instead of a garage. Soures: Interviews with City of Leandro and BRIDGE Housing. 11 Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

13 When Workers Can Afford Nearby Housing, Everyone Wins Convenient, walkable neighborhoods an ut transportation osts and long-distane ommuting, but only if people an afford to live near their work. The impat of a jobs-housing mismath an be seen in County, the most expensive housing market in the Bay Area. Although ounty poliies promote environmental stewardship, onstraints on development, ombined with ommunity opposition, have prevented the development of enough affordable homes. From 1990 to 2000, housing pries in County jumped so high that very few people with low and moderate inomes teahers, retail workers, and others ould afford to buy or rent in the ounty they serve (see Figure 6). Over that period, the number of workers ommuting into from and Contra Costa ounties skyroketed by more than 100 perent. (see Figure 8). A reent study indiates that the limited number of dediated affordable homes is already helping: these residents spend less on transportation, own fewer vehiles, and have shorter ommutes than most ounty residents (see Figure 7). Reognizing this trend, County and the Community Foundation are now prioritizing development of more diverse housing options. Mathing housing with jobs will be a ritial way to meet SB 375 targets and redue transportation expenses. Figure 6: Many workers an t afford rent in County. Avg 2 BR 2 Bath Rent for Elem. Shool Teaher Law Clerk Dental Assistant Nursing Aid Retail Sales Food Prep Worker $601 $740 $1,052 $963 $1,307 $1,539 $0 $400 $800 $1,200 $1,600 $2,000 Soures: CA Employment Development Department June 2009 and RealFats 1Q, County Inventory Analysis, via EAH Housing. Figure 7: Residents of County s Affordable Homes Soure: County Community Development Ageny Figure 8: Commutes into County are growing Cost of a 2 BR Rental $1,874 Have shorter ommutes. Fully 91% stay in County for work, vs. 62% ounty-wide. Save big on transportation. Only 7% own more than one ar, vs. 60% ounty-wide. # of in-ommuters 20,000 16,000 12,000 8,000 4, % Franiso and % hange 38% 107% Contra Costa 131% Number of In-Commuters to County, by County of Residene 19% Soure: Metropolitan Transportation Commission via the County Community Development Ageny Windfall For All 12

14 Cost Savings Can Shift Behavior Various interests have expressed onern that poliies to meet emission targets in SB 375 will ost a lot of money and pose huge eonomi risks to our eonomy (Los Angeles County Eonomi Development Corporation, 2009). But when even a limited analysis is onduted not inluding broader health, environmental and other benefits effiient growth and transportation alternatives are often muh less expensive. The University of California at Diego provides an exellent example. UCSD Saves Millions with Alternatives Antiipating tremendous growth at its La Jolla ampus, UCSD planned for 13 new parking failities. Between 2001 and 2007 they built the first three garages. At the same time, parking fees paid for more shuttles and expanded routes, free and disount fares on publi transportation, three ourtesy rides home per year for non-driving ommuters, and inentives for yling and walking. They also provided inentives and mathmaking systems for arpoolers, and plaed ar-sharing pods on ampus with free promotional memberships, inluding a limited number of free uses per year. Parking use remained flat even as the ampus population surged, beause students and staff shifted to these more attrative alternatives (Figure 9). Figure 9: Commuter behavior shifting at UCSD 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % 2000 Soure: UCSD (Sam Corbett) Bus Solo Driver Carpool Shuttle % In 2007, UCSD did a business ase analysis that identified the true osts of new parking failities inluding permitting, seurity, repaving, et. and ompared it to the ost of transportaiton alternatives. Beause the alternatives were heaper than $30+ million garages, the shool put all future garages on hold. Based on UCSD s suess, the University of California now requires a business ase analysis before allowing any ampus to build a parking garage. As shown in Figure 11, a more expansive analysis ould aount for even greater savings. Figure 10: UCSD Costs per ommuter by mode Medial Center Parking Vanpool Train Hopkins Parking Shuttle Bus Cyling Carpool Car Sharing $632 $385 $277 $159 $134 $1,000 $0 Soure: UCSD (Sam Corbett) and Sundstrom $1,667 $1,645 $1,434 $2,000 $2,598 Figure 11: On top of reduing UCSD s osts by millions per year, promoting alternative transportation over building more garages reated a asade of benefits. UCSD ommuters saved money. This was ited as the primary fator for using alternatives, with many students hoosing not to own a vehile at all. Loal publi transportation benefitted from higher ridership and more fare-box revenue. Loal residents, pedestrians and biyle ommuters benefited from less traffi ongestion with no inrease in vehile use as ampus population surged. Loal governments benefitted from the need for fewer expensive road-widenings near ampus. The ampus limate ation goal to have just 38 perent of ommuters driving solo is now within reah. $3, Windfall For All from the iteration: ehhh

15 The Time to At Is Now Aross California we are starting to see a shift in how transportation and growth issues are approahed. Cities, developers, and private institutions are experimenting, innovating, and hanging the way planning has worked for the past 50 years. But we all reognize that growing more effiiently in just a few neighborhoods is not enough to onfront our most pressing issues, suh as global warming, traffi ongestion, high personal transportation osts and disappearing farmland. These onerns are what inspired regional blueprints and the passage of Senate Bill 375. SB 375 is a great start in aligning loal and regional planning. But to fully realize the environmental and eonomi benefits of SB 375 identified in Windfall for All, we need to shift poliies and investments to support this new planning paradigm. Critial reommendations inlude: Integrate full eonomi analysis into planning. The huge dividends from effiient land use beome evident one personal osts, not just publi budgets, are onsidered. Without suh analysis, we will ontinue to promote plans and poliies that ost too muh for families, businesses, and loal governments. Provide ities and ounties with an infusion of funds to engage the ommunity in planning. The state should make funds available for updating zoning odes and parking poliies to make more effiient use of land and resoures. Identifying strategies to maintain and expand the number of affordable homes is also ritial. Fund ost-effetive publi transportation. The state needs to provide leadership and restore funds for publi transit, as well as make it easier for regions to raise new revenues with limate-impat fees. Eonomi analysis ould determine whether suh fees spent in ways that promote more effiient ommunities an redue our overall osts. Innovate, evaluate and repliate. There are dozens of innovative strategies whether an individual program suh as ar-sharing, or a omprehensive rewards approah suh as UC Diego s. MTC, the Bay Area s transportation ageny, will soon launh the first Transportation Climate Ation Program. This program will seed, evaluate and repliate innovative programs. Other regions should follow suit. New development should minimize pollution from new residents or pay to mitigate it. The Joaquin Valley now enourages development projets to be effiient from the start. Sine 2005, all projets that do not reate walkable ommunities with onvenient transportation hoies must pay for mitigation of the air pollution that will be generated by the future residents. The state and other regional air distrits should enourage this same system for overing the osts of exessive greenhouse gases. Other states and federal agenies are losely wathing SB 375 implementation. Together we an reate a paradigm shift toward more effiient ommunities that meet environmental, soial and eonomi goals, while reating a model for other states to follow. Windfall For All 14

16 TransForm works to reate world-lass publi transportation and walkable ommunities in the Bay Area and beyond. We build diverse oalitions, influene poliy, and develop innovative programs to improve the lives of all people and protet the environment. For the full report, please visit our website at TransFormCA.org TransForm s Offies Oakland th Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA ext South 7th Street, Suite #102, CA Saramento 717 K Street, Suite 330 Saramento, CA