Increasing the use of these alternative forms of transportation can help to lessen the dependency on the automobile and help to alleviate traffic congestion. In order for the use of these systems to rise, their convenience and practicality have to increase. One such way to do this is by changing current land use practices that are common in the Bay Area, especially in its suburbs.

Alternative forms of development to sprawl include infill, mixed-use, and transit oriented developments. All of these options are often referred to as smart growth, and have the common result of integrating land uses and serving alternative forms of transit efficiently. Infill development is the "building homes, businesses, and public facilities on unused and underutilized lands within existing urban areas" (Greenbelt Alliance 2000). Mixed-use development is when both residential and commercial uses are built on the same site, providing walking convenience. Transit oriented development encompasses mixed-use and infill development around centers of transit. Building housing near transit and existing services, as well as on underutilized land, offers an alternative to those who have had to look toward the Bay Area's periphery for available and affordable housing. Additionally, studies have shown that neighborhoods that are twice as dense as the average neighborhood have driving rates that are nearly a third lower than less dense neighborhoods. Explanations for this phenomenon include the presence of more efficient transit, more local shops, and more human-scale streets and buildings in many dense communities (Holtzclaw 1994). Given the many benefits, these three types of developments can help to alleviate the Bay Area's congestion problem, bringing people closer to mass transit and their desired destinations (ABAG 1998).

Infill development helps to lessen traffic congestion by decreasing the need for trips and making alternative forms of transportation more convenient. For example, many infill projects are also mixed-use, locating residents close to places of business where they can work, shop, or get other services. Because a variety of places are in close proximity to one another, people are given the option to travel by means other than the automobile such as by walking and bicycling. When businesses and services are located farther from places of residence and with larger distances between one another, people are discouraged from using alternative forms of transportation due to the inconvenience of longer travel time. Additionally, research has shown that transport such as light rail cannot be supported without high density housing.

Mixed-use development has also been proven to reduce the number of trips made, as well as shorten those that are made. It has been noted that this type of development is most effective when located near centers of activity and transit stations. A study put out by John Holtzclaw showed that automobile spending and ownership increase in areas that are less dense and have a separation between uses (Holtzclaw 1994). Additionally, he found a correlation between the number of miles traveled by automobile and mixed-use development. As closeness of alternative modes of transit, business, and services increased near residences, the number of miles driven went down.

Because proximity to transit can play a key role in the reduction of automobile use and dependency, transit-oriented development is an option of first choice in the Bay Area. A study on differences in travel patterns between transit-oriented neighborhoods and ones that cater to the automobile was conducted on the East Coast in the early nineties. The findings pointed to increased rates of up to forty-five percent in transit use occurring in the transit-oriented neighborhoods than the other neighborhoods which were more car reliant (Cervero and Gorham 1995). In a local study of BART ridership, researchers found a third of the residents living near stations took BART to work, as opposed to 5 percent of those living in unserved areas (Zykofsky 1998). High transit ridership has been achieved through the practice of incorporating what have been identified as the three-Ds: density, diversity, and design, into this type of development. The density element covers the requirement of having residents and workers located within walking distance of stations. Diversity refers to the variety in land uses, types of housing, and modes of travel that a transit-oriented development incorporates. The last feature, design, addresses the site layout and features, which should be to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders (Bernick and Cervero 1996).

In order for a land use policy based on smart growth to be implemented, changes would have to be made in other government policies. Included in these would be zoning revisions pertaining to the segregation of housing, offices, and shops, and to the requirement of wide streets and deep property setbacks (Hortaman 2000). These zoning practices prevent the development of higher density projects that serve a greater variety of needs. If zoning ordinances were relaxed in the region, smart growth would spread more easily, possibly reducing traffic congestion and automobile reliance. Offering incentives such as tax breaks to developers who build infill, mixed use or transit oriented developments would further encourage smart growth. The funding for these tax breaks can come from the increased tax revenues that local governments will receive from the rise in land values and the increase in business sales that result from such development.

The smart growth policy's effectiveness at reducing traffic congestion would be significant. While growth does increase traffic, this compact development would reduce and shorten trips, and encourage alternative transportation. Because residents would be located closer to businesses and transit hubs, using alternative means of transport would be more convenient. This equates to less dependency on automobiles. Additionally, shortened trips make the options of walking and bicycling more appealing.

Region wide-adaptability of the smart growth policy would overall be plausible. In combination or alone, infill, mixed use, and transit-oriented developments can be effective in urban centers, existing suburbs, and growing regions. Only the rural parts of the Bay Area may find difficulty incorporating such policies since higher density is not applicable for agricultural lands. However, this policy could be quite effective at reducing automobile use and dependency in the Bay Area since it promotes development that caters to the pedestrian and public transit.

CONGESTION PRICING

One last policy to consider is congestion pricing. Although such a system of variable fees may seem unusual to many Americans, who are used to driving on freeways or on toll roads with unvarying rates, the concept is one with which they are quite familiar: airlines, telephone companies, power companies, long-distance freight carriers, and hoteliers all charge higher prices during periods of peak demand. There are three main types of congestion pricing that are currently being used worldwide: cordon pricing, route pricing, and lane-pricing (Federal Highway Administration 2000).

The first type of congestion pricing to be implemented was cordon pricing. In 1975, Singapore established a restricted zone in its central business district. Inside the restricted zone, only cars displaying an expensive, special license are allowed to operate during peak-traffic hours. As the technology became available, Singapore has moved to an electronic road pricing (ERP) system employing the components mentioned above. Tolls, varied according to the level of congestion present on the roadway, are collected at various points of entry to priced zones (Cervero 1998).

Route pricing is probably the most familiar to most drivers in the Bay Area; it refers to tolls collected from all users of a highway, bridge, or tunnel. Under this system the entire roadway is subject to tolls, although carpools or mass transit vehicles may be exempted (Federal Highway Administration 2000).

The most recent application of congestion pricing has been lane-pricing. With lane-pricing, a portion of a highway is free for all users, while a central lane or lanes require a toll for entry. Again mass transit vehicles and carpools may be exempted from tolls (Federal Highway Administration 2000). In many cases, access to central lanes may be more restricted than access to the highway itself, that is, not all entrances to the highway will have corresponding entrances to the central toll lanes. This feature allows for smoother, safer traffic flow on both portions of the road and reduces capital and operating costs by limiting the number of ETC devices needed to monitor traffic (CalPoly 1997).

State Route 91 (SR 91) is a freeway that connects housing-rich areas of Riverside County to employment centers in Northern Orange County. In partnership with the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), CalTrans devised an ambitious $134 million plan to construct a ten mile, four-lane expressway in the central meridian of the existing freeway. In addition to reducing congestion, the project has improved road safety and reduced accidents. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report indicates that the SR 91 project has produced small reductions in emissions. These benefits are the product of improved traffic flow and an increase in ridesharing (Environmental Protection Agency 1997). The private financing and maintenance of the project also generates important public benefits. The state was spared the expense of constructing the $134 million dollar project and paying interest on bonds that would undoubtedly have been used to finance it. Even more importantly, roadway users will be forced to bear all the costs of emergency services and maintenance of the roadway for the duration of the CPTC's 35-year operating agreement. With annual costs estimated at $6.5 million in 1997, this frees roughly $227.5 million for other transportation projects over the next 35 years (CalPoly 1997).

Although congestion pricing would never completely eliminate traffic congestion, this policy will incrementally improve traffic flows and move the Bay Area towards a more acceptable level of traffic congestion. Ultimately, the region will need to deal holistically with its congestion problem since congestion pricing is just a step in this direction.

The San Francisco General Plan states that "a certain level of traffic congestion [is] inevitable;" it is an "indication that a community has such strong attractions that people are drawn to it" in spite of the inconvenience congestion causes (SF General Plan). While this may be true, we believe that policies such as the ones outlined above could provide long-term benefits for all Bay Area residents and should be incorporated into regional and local plans. Though some may be easier than others to implement, all should be considered by policy makers. If used in combination, these four policies can have an even greater impact on the congestion and auto reliance problem in the region.

References

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). (1998). Facing the future of the San Francisco Bay Area: examining the implications of growth: ABAG General Assembly/ULI District Council Meeting / co-sponsored by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco District Council of the Urban Land Institute. Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area Governments.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. "Spare the Air: Here's How You Can Stop Air Pollution" Brochure.

BAC Website (November 2000), www.bayareacouncil.org.

Bullock, Mike. (November 2000) "How to Equalize the Parking Subsidy." Modern Transit Society http://www.trainweb.com./mts/fmt/fmt15.html.

Cervero, Robert and Gorham, Roger. (1995) "Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods." APA Journal 61(2): 210-225.

———. Transit Metropolis. (1998) Island Press.

Colby, Rush. (1997) "Bicycles as Transportation Policy."

Environmental Protection Agency. (September 1997) Opportunities to Improve Air Quality through Transportation Pricing Programs.

Federal Highway Administration. (2000) Report on the Value Pricing Pilot Program. U.S Department of Transportation.

Greenbelt Alliance handout on Infill Development. (2000)

Holtzclaw, John. (1994) Using residential patterns and transit to decrease auto dependence and costs. San Francisco: Natural Resources Defense Council.

RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. (August, 2000) "Commute Profile 2000: A Survey of Bay Area Commuter Patterns."

San Francisco General Plan.

Zykofsky, Paul. (Dec 1998/Jan 1999) "The economic and social benefits of transit oriented development." Transit California, no. 12, pp. 6-10.