New Transit Solutions? Or More of the Same?

The toughest nut to crack in reducing GHG emissions in Sonoma County and elsewhere, is getting people out of their cars. In Sonoma County, the GHG emissions in the transportation sector grew by 43% between 1990 and 2000 due to the increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Studies have shown that the increase in VMT is due to land use leading to sprawl, and cheap gasoline. People are using their cars more frequently, for shorter trips. How can this trend be reversed?

There are several different approaches to a solution. My approach is to divide the problem in to two basic parts: dealing with growth in emissions due to new development (increasing population), dealing with emissions due to existing transportation choices (increasing dependence on personal automobile).

The development of a usable mass transit system is one key to dealing with emissions from existing transportation choices. In order to compete with the personal automobile, a new system must be cheaper (per mile) and as convenient. In transportation world, it appears that there are two approaches to competing with the personal automobile for short range transportation. The first would be to develop existing systems further. At the excellent site for the Sonoma County Land Use and Transportation Coalition there is a focus on improving the bus system and providing a light rail system. (This does not do the site justice, as there is a comprehensive discussion of how all the non-automobile modes could be improved in Sonoma County.) The second approach is to provide a different technological option. These range from a futuristic "pie-in-the-sky" approach: SkyTran or Ultra to a "dial-a-ride" type system: ADART

There are also solutions that involve car sharing. Approaches such as these could be combined with pre-tax transportation funds set up by employers to reduce the employee commute. This option combined with a vanpool could vastly reduce commuter traffic.

Comments

[Ernie Rogers]

You said,

"People are using their cars more frequently, for shorter trips. How can this trend be reversed?"

I think your premise is flawed-- I suppose you have evidence that people are making shorter trips?

My cousin lives in Healdsburg. His modest house is valued above $1 million. He says that people that work in San Francisco are building homes far north of him, and that a housing boom is developing in Lake County. (See recent story in SF Chronicle.) The trip to Lake County, a real KILLER, is not exactly short. People are building there because it's the only place they can afford to live.

The solution doesn't lie in the transportation system. Somebody needs to get serious and have a plan for putting the housing closer to the jobs.

Ernie Rogers

[Dave at CPC]

Here is a good source of basic data for trends in automobile use in the Bay Area.
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/survey/index.htm
The two statistics you want to look at are a)the trend in number of person trips and 2)the trend in average travel distance. This report states that the total number of person trips was up 23% between 1990 and 2000. That is for the entire Bay Area. However, the distribution of trip duration is slightly skewed upward toward longer duration trips from 1990 to 2000. This longer average duration could be due to more congestion or longer trip distance, but it is hard to say from the statistics. The other trend is that the number of cars per capita has increased. So the data says a)more trips per person;b)more cars per person;c)generally longer trip durations. Putting housing closer to jobs is one part of the solution. However, economics, i.e., affordable housing, drive people to live farther from where they work. You have to go with the trend, i.e., you can't force people to live somewhere. However, you can make development contingent upon making transportation available that makes the car less important.

[Zeno Swijtink]

According to a transportation survey conducted by the North Bay Council nine of 10 employees of North Bay companies drives alone to work.

http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051114/BUSINESSJOURNAL/51111012/1219

"Of the individuals who travel to work five days a week, 92 percent do so in a car with a single occupant. Only 3 percent take the bus every day, while 2 percent carpool, 2 percent bike and 1 percent walk. "

"Although 92 percent drive to work, only 50 percent prefer that method. A quarter of the respondents said they would like to take a train, while the remainder was split roughly between carpooling, taking the bus, walking and riding a bike. (...) 23 percent of respondents cited lack of transportation alternatives as the most significant challenge to getting to work.

As housing costs in the area escalate, workers are increasingly being pushed to the outer edges of the North Bay and beyond. Almost 5 percent of survey participants commuted from the East Bay while 7 percent traveled from San Francisco."

I think it will take a serious jolt, such as gas at $5/gallon to have people act on these sentiments.

A collapse of Greenland's glaciers would make much of this discussion moot since many of the places to commute too would not exist anymore. Their complete disappearance would raise the levels of the world's seas by 20 feet, flooding 101 and much of the industrial area along it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article328217.ece

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L22502, doi:10.1029/2005GL024737, 2005
Rapid retreat and acceleration of Helheim Glacier, east Greenland

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL024737.shtml