Reversing a century of autopian planning

Santa Cruz County is making fitful progress on reversing its version of our nation’s blind embrace of automobile dependency. The Campaign for Sustainable Transportation recognizes that one bad land use decision, such as locating Kaiser offices and 730 space parking structure a mile from the nearest bus stop, can reverse years of community effort to reduce auto trips. It chains Kaiser employees to the expense of operating their cars.

We have a Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan to channel development along transit corridors. But new development continues to seek lower cost land in transit deserts and elected officials continue to approve exceptions to the Plan.

Eliminating antiquated local requirements to spend scarce resources on parking is the most under-rated strategy to reduce vehicle trips and improve affordability in market-rate housing.

From streetcar villages to sprawl

In the early 20th century, most trips were walking trips. Streetcars carried walkers to the beach as well as villages of Seabright and Capitola. Today’s wide streets on Woodrow, Morrissey, and Cayuga remain as the legacy of former streetcar routes. New development concentrated within walkable distance from streetcar lines.

The automobile brought about amazing freedom of mobility. But there were serious costs early on, as streets that were once safe for strolling now brought injury and death to pedestrians. As new development sprawled beyond urban boundaries, a new poverty of mobility was born.  Where once rich and poor alike relied on walking, now vehicle ownership became increasingly necessary to access destinations that used to be reachable on foot and streetcar. Streetcars lines were torn out. Those who didn’t own vehicles made do riding the bus.

Transportation and Land Use Justice

People seeking less expensive housing take on longer commutes. But sometimes the additional transportation expense outweighs the savings in housing.  In Riverside, Ca. the average household spends 36% of income on housing and a whopping 33% on transportation. In San Francisco, the average household spends 33% of income on housing and 21% on transportation. The difference is that San Franciscans can access their destinations without car ownership.

To increase housing-&-transportation affordability in Santa Cruz we need to build more housing near jobs, schools, recreation and amenities. That means channeling growth to transit corridors. This growth needs to take place without the displacement of low-income households that has been documented in places with new transit-oriented development.

Getting the housing we need is a 30 year project. In the meantime, we need to support households to reduce car ownership by investing in transit and safe streets for bicycling and walking. With the political will, that could be a short-term project.