As the number of people living and working in the Bay Area increases, so too does the number of cars on the road and the distance those cars travel. Rising congestion levels affect most Bay Area residents on a daily basis and are undoubtedly the reason that respondents to a Bay Area Council Poll identified transportation as their top concern (BAC 2000). Currently, drivers in the Bay Area spend a total of 110,000 hours each day in congested traffic. This congestion is estimated to cost some $3.5 billion in lost time and productivity each year. Although this figure may be translated into an annual per driver cost of $1000, the effects of congestion on many commuters' quality of life is, arguably, immeasurable. Additionally, cars traveling in congested conditions generate 250% more pollutants than cars traveling in free-flowing conditions. While current levels of congestion are appropriately seen as nearing an intolerable level, projections for 2020 forecast an even grimmer traffic situation.
Taking all of the above factors into consideration, it is clear that policymakers in the Bay Area must consider bold and innovative measures to address the region's congestion problem. Although new transit and road capacity might produce results if sufficiently funded, such funding is limited. Thus, drivers, transit advocates, and planners alike must disabuse themselves of the notion that the region may simply build itself out of its congestion problem. Rather, policies that will alter travel behavior and encourage the most efficient use of transportation resources must be implemented in conjunction with new capital investments. Among alternatives available are providing incentives to increase bicycle use, creating employer-sponsored measures, changing land use practices to smart growth development, and implementing congestion pricing. In the following essay, we will take a closer look at each policy.
ENCOURAGE BICYCLING
For commuters trying to get to work, the bicycle is a great way to travel. The majority of Bay Area commuters travel under 20 miles, with over one-fourth of commuters traveling less than six miles (RIDES 2000). This gives those who travel short distances an opportunity to make a change of modes. On average, one percent of commuters in the United States take to the road on bicycles. The Bay Area has a better average, with bicyclists accounting for 1.7% of all commute trips. This number pales in comparison to the commute patterns of many Asian and European countries, where bicycling is a much more common means of making the daily commute.
A number of benefits come from riding bikes. The first is convenience. Since bikes can be locked to nearly any pole, bike parking often brings commuters closer to their final destination than parking in parking lots. The flexibility some office managers offer to bicyclists may even allow bicyclists to park inside their cubicles.
Second, riding a bike is much cheaper than owning a private automobile. Each year, a driver can spend in upwards of $10,000 just for the privilege of being able to drive to work. An article just published in the Denver Post shows that the average commuter in the ten largest metropolitan areas of the United States spends up to 17% of his/her household budget on transportation costs. Reducing these costs by bicycling would be a boon to many families' financial situations.
In addition to financial benefits, a greater proportion of trips made by bicycle would provide health benefits as well. Having one less car on the road means a little less pollution for everyone to breathe. "Cars emit more than 50% of ozone-forming compounds and over 70% of the carbon monoxide in the Bay Area" (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2000). The Caldecott Tunnel, which connects eastern Contra Costa County with the East Bay, has developed a heavy layer of soot from all the autos that travel through it. All this pollution affects everyone who breathes it. Those who sit in rush hour each day breathe in more dirty air than those who travel when there is less congestion. Shifting drivers from cars onto bicycles will reduce the amount of pollution in the Bay Area.
In order for commuters to even think about taking a bike to work, they must be offered incentives that make it convenient enough for them to do so. When bicyclists in San Francisco got together for their monthly Critical Mass, they brought downtown rush hour to a halt, showing that they have political clout to get things done. The bicyclists demanded more and safer routes through the city and access across the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The attention they drew caught the eyes of politicians who helped them get a bike lane for the bridge as well as new bike lanes across the city.
Planners must change the layout of city streets and promote easier access through walkways or paths that cut across huge developments and keep bicyclists out of dangerous roadways. Planners and civic leaders need to look at changing the way developments are zoned and promote more densely-packed housing as well as mixed developments and in-fill of core commercial areas. Officials of Davis, California, which has a large student population, enacted policies that promote dense housing and limit the amount of retail growth outside downtown. They promote alternative transportation through bike lanes and free bus passes, and provide plenty of bicycle parking throughout the campus. Such improvements have found much popularity among those living there.
Encouraging cities and businesses to look into ways to get more people to lessen their dependence on autos, and get them onto bicycles through these incentives and changes in policy can make a small contribution to reducing the growing congestion problem in the Bay Area.
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED
MEASURES
Another approach to reducing traffic congestion and auto reliance is through employer-sponsored initiatives. These measures could address the ways in which parking conditions influence a workers decision to drive.
Providing parking is an expensive venture. Taking into account the amount of land needed, the cost for construction and maintenance of the spot, and the loss of land available for more productive use, parking spots are estimated to cost between $4,000 and $18,000 (Colby 1997). In addition, free parking is a disincentive to using other modes of transport, from public transit to riding a bike or walking. As was found in an EPA study, "free parking" is, on the average, worth the same as commute gasoline and that its elimination would reduce commute car traffic by 20%" (Bullock 2000). In other words, the amount that one could spend on parking may be as much or more than the amount spent on gasoline used for the trip. Therefore, having free parking greatly reduces the price of commuting, acting as incentive to drive rather than use other methods of transportation.
A recent survey done by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters shows that over two-thirds, or two million, daily commuters head off to work alone in their cars. This has had a profound impact on Bay Area commute patterns. It is well known that the Bay Bridge, which is the most heavily used bridge in the Bay Area, is congested before 5am and stays that way until 10am, way past what is common for rush hour. An incentive to dissuade people from driving to work alone (especially if they have other alternatives) can take the form of a parking cash-out. Parking cash-out is an element of California law that allows employees of firms of 50 or more people to get cash for their parking spots. The parking cash-out option is given to an employee who chooses to use another mode of transport, whether transit carpooling or biking, instead of driving to work alone. Currently, this law only applies to areas that don't meet clean air standards and is only available to those who rent parking from a third party. A study of this program has shown it to reduce the number of solo drivers. Of all the solo drivers who chose this option, the rate of those who drove alone dropped 13 percent with an equally positive outcome for other forms of transportation. Even in cities with very little access to public transit, the studies have shown a decrease in demand for parking.
The option of offering a cash-out option in lieu of subsidized parking is difficult because of current tax laws. The codes allow free parking to be tax exempt, but once the employee opts for the cash-out option, they are subject to taxes. The Internal Revenue Code has to change to either tax parking subsides, which are tax-exempt or make the cash-out option non-taxable.
Businesses also subsidize parking with validations; these validations could be extended to include incentives for transit or bike riders. In Seattle, businesses offer transit riders a discount at their establishments if they show a pass or transfer. Businesses see parking validation and/or free parking as a way to attract customers. Transit validations or valet-bike parking should be seen in a similar light.
Raising the costs of commuting can only work if there are alternatives to lure people out of their cars. In order get the most cooperation from all sides, one must look at how best to come up with alternatives suitable to meet the needs of the commuter. In areas that have a good transit system and huge disincentives to solo driving, there is a program that offers people rides home in cases of emergency. The transit rider calls a dispatcher who notifies a driver (district employee or contractor) that they will need to be picked up and driven to their destination. This program has shown much success in getting people who were previously afraid of being left stranded at their work and has enticed people to ride transit, leaving their cars at home.
