www. ppic. org
Driving Change
Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
in California
Louise Bedsworth ● Ellen Hanak ● Jed Kolko
with research support from Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Davin Reed,
Eliot Rose, Eric Schiff, Elizabeth Stryjewski, and Maggie Witt
Supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
and the David A. Coulter Family Foundation
S umma r y
S enate Bill ( SB) 375, adopted in 2008, calls on regional transportation planning agencies
and local governments to develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from passenger vehicles by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled ( VMT). Three spe-cific
strategies, traditionally used to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, are to
be employed to help reduce emissions:
Higher- density development, particularly in areas well- served by transit;
Investments in alternatives to solo driving, such as transit, biking, walking, and carpool-ing;
and
Pricing policies that raise the cost of driving and parking.
Although SB 375 is expected to reduce emissions only modestly relative to vehicle effi-ciency
standards and low- carbon fuels, it is also expected to improve public health and
reduce energy and water use by encouraging denser development and more “ livable” com-munities.
The integration of these three approaches is consistent with an emerging research
consensus that policies integrating all three strategies have a much greater chance of reducing
VMT than any one approach on its own. This report reviews the opportunities and challenges
of each of these strategies and assesses California’s recent experience and future prospects for
successfully integrating them.
JaMES a. SugaR/ NatioNal gEogRaphiC/ gEtty iMagES
2 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
On balance, California has started with the right approach by attempting to integrate its
emission- reduction policies. However, recent experiences within the state and elsewhere have
revealed numerous challenges— some quite formidable. On the plus side, more local gov-ernments
are undertaking climate change activities, and many local planners see significant
potential for reducing VMT, especially in localities that have experience in implementing these
strategies and in more populous areas of the state. Also, planners are beginning to recognize
the importance of using multiple approaches. And transit ridership in California is increasing,
with recent transit investments appropriately directed toward higher- density areas.
But red flags abound, potentially limiting California’s ability to reduce VMT. Employment
density ( the number of jobs per square mile) is low and declining, and employment density
matters more than residential density for encouraging transit use as an alternative to driving.
Furthermore, major transit investments since the early 1990s have not produced an overall
reduction in VMT, and densities around new stations have not increased. The vast majority
of commuters still drive to work, even if they live or work near a transit station. And planners
are skeptical about pricing policies— a key component of integrated strategies— especially
in localities with higher- income households, which tend to be less sensitive to changes in
the cost of driving and parking. Finally, funding transit investments and operations remains
a perennial challenge.
If California is to make the most of SB 375, several priorities require attention. Regions and
localities should encourage greater commercial ( that is, nonresidential) development around
transit stations. Pricing policies need to accompany land use and transportation strategies,
despite public resistance. State or federal leaders need to raise general road use fees ( either
the traditional gas tax or a new VMT- based fee), both to provide incentives to reduce driving
and to help fill the widening gap in transportation funding. And, finally, regional strategies
must recognize the wide variation in attitudes and conditions among localities and address
the lack of coordination ( even among transit systems within the same region) that exists today.
This report is based on reviews of the research literature, our survey of local governments and planning
agencies, and our analysis of population, employment, and transportation data. The report draws heavily on
two companion papers: “ Views from the Street” ( Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski 2011) and “ Making the Most
of Transit” ( Kolko 2011). To find these and other related resources, please visit the report’s publication page:
http:// www. ppic. org/ main/ publication. asp? i= 948
Driving Change 3
www. ppic. org
Introduction
In the communities of the future, homes and
jobs, recreation and education, shopping and
health care, will be more accessible with less
dependency on the single- occupant vehicle.
— California Air Resources Board ( 2010)
With the adoption of Senate Bill ( SB) 375 in late 2008,
California became one of the first states in the nation to
establish an explicit policy aimed at reducing the amount
of driving by passenger vehicles— or vehicle miles trav-eled
( VMT)— in an attempt to reduce the greenhouse
gas ( GHG) emissions that contribute to global warming. 1
Achieving this goal will entail a major behavioral shift for
Californians, often known for their love affair with the
automobile. Per capita VMT and associated GHG emis-sions
in California have been increasing for decades, but
the new targets in the state’s largest metropolitan areas
envision per capita GHG emission reductions from
passenger vehicles on the order of 7 to 8 percent by 2020
and 13 to 16 percent by 2035 ( California Air Resources
Board 2010). Although some of these reductions can be
achieved by improving traffic flow ( which reduces emis-sions
by increasing fuel efficiency), most will need to come
from reductions in the length and frequency of automo-bile
trips. 2
Three broad policy strategies, traditionally used to
reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, will now
also aim to reduce GHG emissions:
Integrating land use and transportation decisions
to bolster the effectiveness of transportation policy
and investments ( e. g., development or redevelopment
around transit stations);
Investing in alternatives to solo driving, such as pub-lic
transit, biking, walking, and carpooling; and
Using pricing incentives to manage traffic and parking.
Because meeting SB 375 targets will require using these
strategies more aggressively than in the past, the new law
could bring major shifts in the way state, regional, and local
governments make transportation and land use decisions.
In particular, SB 375 envisions collaboration between
regional transportation authorities and local governments.
California’s regional transportation authorities— the Met-ropolitan
Planning Organizations ( MPOs)— are respon-sible
for demonstrating compliance with SB 375, whereas
local governments— cities and counties— oversee most
transportation spending and have authority over land use.
Rather than sanctions for noncompliance, SB 375 includes
regulatory incentives to encourage local governments to
collaborate with MPOs by easing requirements for the
environmental review of suitable development projects
under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).
In calling for collaboration between the agencies
responsible for transportation planning and governments
responsible for land use planning, SB 375 reflects the emerg-ing
research consensus that integrating transportation,
land use, and related policies has greater potential to reduce
VMT than any one of the approaches taken alone. The suc-cess
of SB 375 hinges on how well California’s regional and
local governments can integrate these policies to promote a
behavioral shift from solo driving by California residents.
In terms of climate policy, SB 375 is expected to
achieve only modest benefits, accounting for 8 percent of
all GHG emission reductions in the transportation sec-tor
by 2020 and approximately 3 percent of all emission
reductions economy- wide ( California Air Resources Board
2008). Yet by reducing the distances between residences
and other destinations, reducing the amount of time
people spend in their cars, and enhancing “ walkability,”
SB 375 is likely to meet the broader social goal of building
more livable, healthy communities. 3 In addition, by facili-tating
the development of denser communities, SB 375 may
help meet other sustainability goals, including reduced
energy and water use.
This report reviews the role of transportation in
California’s climate policy; synthesizes current knowledge
4
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
about the effectiveness of land use, transit, and pricing pol-icies;
and tries to gauge how well California is positioned to
implement an integrated strategy for VMT reduction. The
first section reviews the role of transportation in Califor-nia’s
climate change policy, describing efforts to reduce
GHG emissions through various transportation strategies.
The second section explores land use, transit, and pric-ing
policies aimed at reducing VMT. The third section
discusses the integration of these strategies. We look at
local readiness to use integrated strategies, drawing on our
survey of California city and county planners, and analyze
California’s recent experiences with transit- oriented devel-opment
( TOD)— a prime example of integrated land use
and transportation planning. The final section summarizes
our key findings and explores policy implications.
Transportation and California’s
Climate Change Policy
California’s efforts to reduce air pollution have focused on
transportation issues for decades. The state led the nation
with the first emission regulations for vehicles in the early
1960s, and this leadership continues today in California’s
quest to reduce GHG emissions.
GHG Emission Trends
Greenhouse gas emissions in California have been increas-ing
steadily over the past several decades, with the fastest
growth occurring in the transportation sector. Statewide,
GHG emissions increased almost 10 percent between 1990
and 2008, and emissions from transportation increased
by over 16 percent. Without regulations to reduce emis-sions,
this growth is expected to accelerate over the next
several decades ( California Air Resources Board 2008). The
transportation sector is the largest single contributor to
GHG emissions in the state, accounting for 37 percent of
all emissions. Passenger cars and trucks account for almost
three- quarters of this total.
Policy Context
Recognizing the high risks associated with climate change,
California has taken a leadership role in global efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. Assembly Bill ( AB) 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, set a target for California
to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 ( a
roughly 30 percent reduction relative to business as usual),
and the state is aiming to reduce emissions an additional
80 percent by 2050— the level considered globally neces-sary
to stabilize the planet’s climate. 4
The California Air Resources Board ( CARB) is respon-sible
for implementing AB 32, and it has outlined a com-prehensive
“ scoping plan” that includes all of the programs
needed to achieve the state’s 2020 emission reduction
target ( California Air Resources Board 2008). The largest
share of these reductions ( 36%) is expected to come from
programs that involve the transportation sector, including
establishing GHG emission standards for new passen-ger
vehicles, decreasing the carbon content of fuels, and
lowering the number of miles driven. VMT reductions are
included in the “ regional GHG targets” established under
SB 375 and depicted in Figure 1.
VMT reductions play a relatively modest role in the
overall emission reduction plan— 8 percent of all trans-portation
sector reductions and only 3 percent of AB 32’ s
overall target for 2020— anticipating the length of time
needed to register cumulative effects from such measures
as land use changes and new transit investments, which
also require behavioral changes by the public. 5
These estimates do not include other potential emis-sion
benefits of SB 375 associated with changes in land use.
For example, higher- density housing units are smaller and
therefore use less energy. 6 And, as noted above, SB 375 may
Greenhouse gas emissions in California
have been increasing steadily over the
past several decades, with the fastest growth
occurring in the transportation sector.
Driving Change 5
www. ppic. org
also lead to broader public health benefits, since reductions
in driving improve air quality and tend to increase physical
activity, such as walking and biking.
Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled: The Challenge of
Coordination
SB 375 directs the California Air Resources Board to estab-lish
GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles
in each of the state’s 18 MPOs— regional agencies that cover
roughly 98 percent of the state’s population. MPOs are
responsible for developing long- term ( 20- year or longer)
regional transportation plans ( RTPs). Although MPOs are
responsible for compliance with SB 375 through the devel-opment
of a Sustainable Communities Strategy ( SCS) in
the RTP, their success will require close coordination with
two other key groups: local transportation and land use
authorities. Most of the spending identified in a regional
transportation plan is carried out by local entities— county
transportation agencies, city public works departments,
transit agencies and districts, and others— that control their
own budgets. 7 Statewide, local governments and transit
agencies are responsible for 72 percent of transportation
expenditures ( see Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski 2011
for details on expenditures). Cities and counties are also
essential collaborators with the MPOs because of their
authority over land use decisions. 8
Successful implementation of SB 375 will require more
interplay between the regional and local entities than there
has been in the past. The new law provides some regulatory
incentives to local governments to increase collaboration,
and MPOs can create financial incentives by directing
their resources toward projects that meet SB 375 goals. 9 But
local willingness to participate will be a key ingredient to
success.
Early Responses to Transportation and Land Use Goals
Even before the passage of SB 375, the state’s largest regions
had been collaborating with cities and counties to reduce
driving and manage traffic congestion. Indeed, part of the
impetus for SB 375 came from the “ Regional Blueprint”
planning process, which has encouraged MPOs and local
governments to coordinate transportation and land use
planning to meet a range of sustainability goals. 10
Accordingly, several MPO planning directors we
interviewed reported that SB 375 codifies what they were
already doing and provides “ wind at their backs.” But
the new law has also pushed regions to look for further
improvements, as reflected in a comparison of carbon
dioxide emission trends under current RTPs and the
SB 375 targets set for 2035 ( Table 1). 11
And despite the recession and considerable local fis-cal
stress, an increasing number of cities and counties are
undertaking two important climate change activities: GHG
emission inventories and climate action plans ( Table 2).
Emission inventories develop a baseline of GHG emissions
from different sources, enabling localities to identify areas
for emission reductions and to monitor progress in meet-ing
their goals. Climate action plans are general planning
documents that define strategies for emission reductions
and other sustainability measures. Roughly 70 percent of
all local governments are actively engaged in these pro-grams,
covering over 85 percent of the state’s population,
and the vast majority report that their activities include
goals, policies, or programs to reduce the number and
shorten the length of car trips. 12
Figure 1. Transportation is a primary concern in near- term e  orts
to reduce emissions
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board ( 2008).
NOTES: The figure shows the share of emission reductions by target area, as presented in the AB 32
Scoping Plan. The statewide target is to cut 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide– equivalent. The
High GWP measures segment in the figure represents reductions in materials with global warming
potential ( refrigerants, some solvents, and other industrial gases). Within the transportation sector,
“ Other” includes measures to improve vehicle design and accessories ( air conditioners, paint, and
windows) and high- speed rail.
High GWP measures
12%
Forestry
3%
Other
1%
Cap and
trade
20%
Energy
efficiency and
renewables
28%
Trans-portation
36%
New passenger vehicle
GHG standards ( 18%)
Low- carbon fuel
standard ( 9%)
Heavy- duty and goods
movement ( 3%)
Regional GHG targets
( 3%)
Other ( 3%)
6 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
Thus, it appears that California’s new climate policy
goal to reduce driving is encouraging regions and localities
to continue in the direction that many have already taken.
Policies and P rograms to
Reduce D riving
Three primary approaches can reduce VMT: changing land
use patterns to reduce the need to drive; investing in mass
transit and other alternatives to driving; and increasing
the cost of driving and parking to encourage the use of
alternatives. Although each of these strategies has received
some attention in past planning efforts, SB 375 focuses
specifically on ways to increase the effectiveness of these
approaches. In this section, we discuss where California
stands and what the research says about the usefulness of
each approach on its own. We also describe some of the
activities local governments are undertaking in each area.
Land Use Policies
Land use patterns— density, the proximity of jobs and
housing, and design elements, such as shorter blocks and
more street intersections— have a modest but often statisti-cally
significant effect on transportation behaviors, such
as trip length, trip frequency, and the decision to drive or
travel by other means ( Ewing and Cervero 2010). Evidence
also suggests that people who live in denser neighborhoods
drive less ( Ewing and Cervero 2001). But VMT reductions
of more than a couple of percentage points would require
increases in residential density that many researchers con-sider
infeasible ( Transportation Research Board 2009). 13
High employment densities appear to boost transit
ridership ( and therefore reduce VMT) more than high
residential densities, in part because it is relatively easy for
workers to drive or bike from home ( where their cars or
bikes are) to a transit stop or station but not as easy to drive
or bike from a transit station or stop to their workplace
( Barnes 2005; Arrington and Cervero 2008; Transporta-tion
Research Board 2009). As we discuss below, greater
focus on encouraging employment densities may create
opportunities for California to boost the effectiveness of its
VMT reduction efforts.
Land Use Trends
Despite the conventional wisdom that California ( particu-larly
Southern California) is the epitome of sprawl, residen-tial
density in California is well above the national average.
Residential density in California in 2000 was 49 percent
higher than the national average ( Kolko 2011; see the text
Table 1. MPOs are stepping up GHG emission reductions since the passage of SB 375
Current rTP adoption date
Per capita GHG emission reductions, 2005– 2035 (%)
Current rTP projection New target
Southern California ( SCAG) 2008 – 4 – 13
San Francisco Bay Area ( MTC) 2009 – 3 – 15
San Diego ( SANDAG) 2007 – 10 – 13
Sacramento Area ( SACOG) 2008 – 13 – 16
SOURCES: Heminger et al. ( 2010); California Air Resources Board ( 2010).
NOTES: For the SCAG region, the target set by the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) is higher than the level established by the region in its “ most ambitious scenario” ( 12%), provided to CARB as support for
target- setting. The SCAG board voted in September to reject the new target ( with a counterproposal of 8%) unless CARB accepted conditions including the restoration of state funding for transit and demonstra-tion
projects ( Southern California Association of Governments 2010).
Table 2. Despite the recession, local climate action programs
have increased
Share of local
governments with
programs (%)
2008 2010
Emission inventory, municipal operations 55 70
Emission inventory, community at large 42 69
Climate action plan 52 69
SOURCES: For 2008, Hanak et al. ( 2008); for 2010, Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski ( 2011).
Driving Change 7
www. ppic. org
box). Residential density increased from 1990 to 2008 in
California but did not change at the national level.
Employment density is another story. Employment
density in California is lower than in the nation overall ( in
2006, 15% below the U. S. average) and, like the long- term
national trend, is declining. In the six largest California
metropolitan areas, employment densities within three
miles of downtown fell nearly 25 percent between 1992
and 2006, whereas employment densities ten miles or
more from downtown rose slightly over the same period.
The movement of jobs away from dense downtowns is a
decades- long trend with economic, political, and techno-logical
causes ( Kolko 2011).
California’s large metro areas display considerable vari-ation
in density. The Los Angeles metropolitan area ranks
second nationally in residential density, and San Francisco–
Oakland ranks third. In contrast, Los Angeles ranks only
22nd nationally in employment density. Of California’s
twelve largest metros, all but two— San Francisco– Oakland
and Sacramento— have lower employment density than
residential density.
Current land use patterns in most California metro-politan
areas ( high residential density, low employment
density) do not offer much promise for reducing VMT.
Furthermore, density patterns tend to have long life spans:
They represent the cumulative result of decisions made
over many years by governments, businesses, and house-holds.
Moreover, communities often resist higher- density
development— local officials surveyed by PPIC ranked pub-lic
opposition to density as the biggest barrier to reducing
driving in their communities. 14
Land Use Strategies in Action
Given the challenges of unfavorable long- term trends and
public opposition, what land use strategies are cities and
counties currently pursuing? Our survey inquired about a
range of land use policies that constitute a “ smart growth”
approach to raising densities and increasing proximity to
transit: 15
Urban growth boundary or greenbelt: Restricts
development outside designated areas; seeks to
increase density within the core urbanized area and
prevent leap- frog development;
Transit- oriented development: Designates priority
sites or site- specific zoning and building standards
around transit nodes and hubs; seeks to increase den-sity
in close proximity to transit;
Measuring density
Conventional density is measured as the number of people ( or
housing units or workers) per square mile ( or other measure
of area). But metropolitan areas and states often include unde-veloped
or sparsely developed land.
Weighted density takes this unevenness into account by
measuring the number of people ( or housing units or workers)
in the areas where people actually live or work. It weights the
average of conventional density measured at the Census- tract
or other small geographic level by the number of people or
workers in that tract. Weighted density better reflects the land
use patterns experienced by a typical person or worker.
Consider two hypothetical cities, Sparseville and Dense-town.
Each has a population of 1,000 residents and consists of
two square- mile Census tracts. In Sparseville, 500 people live
in each tract, whereas in Densetown, all 1,000 residents live in
one tract and the other is undeveloped. Both Sparseville and
Densetown have a conventional density of 500 people per
square mile ( 1,000 residents divided by two square miles). But
the weighted density measure is 500 people per square mile
in Sparseville, since the average person lives in a tract with
500 people per square mile, whereas the weighted density
measure in Densetown is 1,000 people per square mile, since
the average person ( in fact, all people) lives in a tract with
1,000 people per square mile.
Throughout this report, we report weighted density mea-sures
for metropolitan areas and states.
The movement of jobs away from
dense downtowns is a decades- long trend with
economic, political, and technological causes.
8
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
Mixed use, higher- density, or infill development:
Designates priority sites or site- specific standards to
encourage these types of development; seeks to facili-tate
fewer and shorter car trips by providing more
diverse land uses within close proximity;
Reduced parking requirements: Reduces the number
of spaces developers must provide per unit of residential
or commercial space; seeks to facilitate infill and higher-density
development by reducing costs to developers; 16
Other incentives: Encourage density by reducing devel-oper
costs ( e. g., preferential fees or permit streamlining
for qualifying development).
Many localities are already employing a number of
these strategies, and many others are considering them.
Statewide, the designation of priority sites and site- specific
standards to encourage mixed use, higher- density, or infill
development is the most prevalent undertaking ( used in
58% of all localities and under consideration in 22%), but
all other approaches except urban growth boundaries are
also already in use or under consideration in more than
half of all localities ( Figure 2).
In general, localities with larger populations have
higher adoption rates for most individual policies and
are most likely to rely on multiple approaches. Another
important factor is experience with smart- growth strate-gies.
Communities that have already adopted one land use
policy are significantly more likely to have adopted or be
considering others. Transit- oriented development is much
more likely in communities that already have some form of
rail transit ( commuter rail, subway, light rail, and streetcar)
or expect to have rail in the future. 17
Investments in Transit and Other Alternatives
Transit serves multiple goals, including providing mobility
for low- income, disabled, and elderly residents without cars.
But one of transit’s key goals, especially since the 1970s,
has been to help reduce congestion ( and air pollution) on
roadways during peak periods ( Fielding 1995; Hanak and
Barbour 2005). 18 This goal relates most closely to SB 375’ s
call to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles.
Transit has been an important component of transpor-tation
spending in California since the end of the federal
freeway expansion program in the 1960s ( Figure 3). Since
the early 1980s, transit has accounted for well over a third
of all transportation spending in California and from 20 to
30 percent of capital investments, with even higher shares
in the major metropolitan areas. 19
Most transit capital spending is associated with rail
projects ( subways, commuter rail, light- rail, and streetcars).
Between 1992 and 2006, 217 new rail stations ( including
several bus- rapid- transit stations) opened in the state, and
dozens more are planned. These expansions appear con-sistent
with the public’s spending priorities: In surveys of
California residents in 2004 and 2006, rail transit ranked
as high or higher than highways ( and nearly three times
higher than buses) as a top priority for transportation
spending. 20 Yet, bus service— generally a far less costly
option— is much more widely available. 21
To date, ridership trends for California’s transit sys-tems
have been disappointing, relative to investments in
this sector. For the state as a whole, the share of commuters
taking transit increased from 5 percent to 5.5 percent
between 1990 and 2008 ( Table 3)— 76.4 percent of all com-muters
still drive alone to work. Transit is most important
Figure 2. Local governments are using various land use tools to
increase density and improve access to transit
SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski ( 2011).
NOTES: Answer to the question: Has your city/ county used any of the following land use policies or tools?
HD is high density, TOD is transit- oriented development, and UGB is urban growth boundary.
In place
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Share of jurisdictions (%)
Priority
sites for
TOD
Other
incentives
Reduced
parking
requirements
Priority sites
for mixed use,
HD, and infill
UGB/
greenbelt
Under consideration
Driving Change 9
www. ppic. org
for commutes in the San Francisco– Oakland metropolitan
area ( 15.3%)— second only to the New York City metro area
nationally— and accounts for a much higher share of com-mutes
along congested corridors, such as trips across the
bay into downtown San Francisco. Transit ridership in Los
Angeles ( 6.6%) is slightly higher than the state average, but
it is much lower in other major metropolitan areas, such as
Sacramento ( 3%) and Riverside– San Bernardino ( 1.9%).
Although rail represents only a small share of transit
commutes ( 1.4% versus 4.1% for buses), it accounted for
much of the increase in transit ridership between 1990
and 2008. In the San Francisco– Oakland and San Diego
areas, increasing rail use actually displaced some bus
use, which declined as a share of all commutes. 22 During
this period, per capita VMT increased in California by
3.5 percent, suggesting that growing transit ridership did
not displace road travel— or at least not enough to reduce
overall driving. 23 This may be due to an increase in car
use for noncommute trips: Work commutes account for
just over a quarter of all car use, and noncommute trips
are much less likely to involve transit. 24 Nonetheless, per
capita VMT increased less in California than in the nation
overall, where per capita VMT rose by 13.7 percent over
the same period.
Cost is a major challenge for transit. Transit systems the
world over rely heavily on operating subsidies. Statewide,
transit fares cover only about a quarter of operating costs. 25
And a recent analysis of transit systems in the Bay Area
found that operating costs have been increasing much more
rapidly than inflation. 26 Many survey respondents expressed
concerns about the ability to maintain adequate transit
Light rail and buses in Long Beach. Just 6.6 percent of Los Angeles area
commuters ride transit to work.
MaRk kaRRaSS/ CoRbiS
Figure 3. Transit has become an important component of California’s transportation spending
SOURCE: Census of Governments.
NOTE: Data in the first panel are adjusted to a real per capita basis using the building cost index from Engineering News Record and population data from the California Department of Finance.
Roads
Transit
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Spending per capita ( 2009$)
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
Transportation expenditures, 1962– 2007
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Share of expenditures (%)
Roads— operations
Roads— capital
Transit— operations
Transit— capital
10
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
service in the face of recent state cuts to transit budgets, and
in three of the largest regions, insufficient transit availability
was ranked as one of the top three barriers to meeting goals
for reducing driving. 27 Rail systems— which users often pre-fer
to buses— are especially expensive to build and operate,
leaving them open to criticism of cost- ineffectiveness and
waste ( O’Toole 2010; Poole and Moore 2010).
If transit is to contribute to achieving the SB 375 goals
of reducing VMT, strategies will be needed to increase
ridership and improve cost- effectiveness. Research has
found that the likelihood of transit use increases with easy
access ( Ewing and Cervero 2010). Ridership falls signifi-cantly
when workers live more than a quarter to a half
mile from a transit station. In California, only 6 percent of
residents live within a half- mile of a transit station, and
only 12 percent of workers have jobs within a half- mile of
a transit station. 28
Transit use is more likely when there is greater street
connectivity ( e. g., grid- like plans) and a diversity of land
uses, both of which can smooth transit operation and
make using transit more appealing by reducing travel
times and increasing convenience for riders ( Ewing and
Cervero 2010). Transit ridership by commuters is higher in
metropolitan areas that have higher employment densities,
especially in downtown areas, as well as higher residential
densities in many neighborhoods throughout the metro-politan
area.
In metropolitan areas with multiple transit systems,
better connectivity of the overall system is also important.
This is a particular challenge in the San Francisco Bay Area,
which has more than two dozen distinct transit systems,
many of which operate within the same service areas. 29
Maximizing transit ridership will require integrating ser-vices,
timetables, and ticketing policies among systems in a
region, so that transit becomes a more appealing option for
long- distance commuters.
Table 3. Transit has increased slightly as a share of commutes since 1990
metropolitan area/ region
Transit share of commutes (%) Change in share 1990– 2008 (%)
1990 2000 2008 rail Bus
Los Angeles– Long Beach– Santa Ana 5.7 5.8 6.6 0.5 0.4
San Francisco– Oakland 14.3 14.4 15.3 1.8 – 0.8
San Diego 3.4 3.5 3.6 0.4 – 0.2
Riverside– San Bernardino 0.8 1.7 1.9 0.7 0.3
Sacramento 2.4 2.8 3.0 0.2 0.3
San Jose 3.0 3.5 3.8 0.8 0.0
California 5.0 5.2 5.5 0.6 – 0.1
United States 5.3 4.7 5.2 0.2 – 0.3
SOURCES: U. S. Census; American Community Survey.
NOTES: Transit includes rail and bus. Rail includes all rail transit ( streetcar, subway, and rail). Bus includes ferries, which account for less than 1 percent of all bus use.
More than 90 percent of Californians live in places with bicycle master
plans completed or under way.
CaN balCioglu/ iStockphoto
Driving Change 11
www. ppic. org
Pricing Policies
Policies that increase the cost of solo driving have the most
immediate and highest potential to reduce VMT ( Rodier
2009). This strategy includes explicit pricing mechanisms,
such as fuel and road- use charges and parking fees, as well
as a strategy that practitioners often refer to as “ demand
management”— incentives such as carpool lanes, employee
shuttles, and other employer inducements to use transit.
Both strategies create financial or time- saving incentives to
shift trip timing away from peak periods, making alter-natives,
such as transit, carpooling, and telecommuting,
relatively more attractive ( Deakin et al. 1996; Parry 2009). 30
In addition, more explicit pricing strategies can gener-ate
revenues to support the transportation system, which
is a growing concern. 31 Transportation analysts consider
pricing policies to be a preferred way to fund transporta-tion
investments and maintenance, because they simulta-neously
raise revenues and send a signal to users to use the
system more efficiently. The alternative— funding transpor-tation
through general tax revenues— pays for infrastruc-ture
but does not help to manage demand. Local sales tax
revenues, which have become an important transportation
funding source in recent years, are also highly regressive.
However, public opposition can be a formidable challenge
to implementing fee increases, as discussed below.
Federal, State, and Regional Pricing Policies
Federal and state gas taxes, introduced in the early 20th
century, are the primary pricing incentive today. These
taxes are a simple form of user fee, generally resulting in
higher charges for those who drive more ( i. e., consume
more fuel). Recent experience shows that such price signals
can have a discernible effect on VMT: Between 2004 and
2008, when average real gas prices jumped by 54 percent,
per capita VMT in California declined by 5.8 percent ( Fig-ure
4). Although the onset of the recession likely played a
role in declining road travel toward the end of this period,
the reductions in VMT per capita began in 2005, when the
economy was still booming.
Over time, however, rising fuel economy and public
opposition to increasing the gas tax have reduced its useful-ness
as a source of revenue and as a price signal to drivers
Walking and biking alternatives
Encouraged by state and federal financial support, many
California localities are focusing on improving bicycle and
pedestrian networks. Over 90 percent of California’s resi-dents
live in a city or county that has completed or plans to
complete a bicycle master plan ( 40% of all jurisdictions have
already established a continuous network of bicycle routes).
Just over half of the state’s residents live in localities with
similar planning under way for a pedestrian master plan or a
“ complete streets” plan that aims to improve safe access for
all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and transit
users ( National Complete Streets Coalition 2010). Planners
tend to be quite optimistic about the potential for bicycle
networks to reduce VMT, although from a relatively low base-line:
Bicycles accounted for only 1 percent of all commutes
in 2008 ( American Community Survey 2008). Walking ( 3% of
commutes in 2008) accounts for a greater share of ( typically
shorter) noncommute trips ( Hu and Reuscher 2004). Reduc-ing
car use for shorter trips can have disproportionately high
benefits for GHG emission reductions, because gas mileage
tends to be lower on such trips. Walking and biking also offer
the benefit of improving public health ( Ewing et al. 2003;
Doyle et al. 2006).
Figure 4. VMT per capita in California declined when gas prices
began rising in the mid- 2000s
SOURCES: VMT data are from the Federal Highway Administration, Annual Highway Statistics, Table VM- 2.
Inflation- adjusted gas price data are from the California Energy Commission.
VMT per capita
Real gas price
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
VMT per capita
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Gas price ( 2007$/ gallon)
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
12
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
( Wachs 2010). 32 The federal gas tax has held steady at $ 0.184
per gallon since 1993, and California’s gas tax has remained
at $ 0.18 since 1994,33 somewhat below the national average
and far lower than fuel taxes in Europe and Japan. 34 Although
raising these taxes and indexing them to inflation could help
restore transportation revenues while sending a stronger
price signal to drivers, transportation experts see far greater
potential over the longer term in an alternative form of user
fee: per mile, or VMT, charges.
VMT- based fees, which rely on new electronic toll
collecting and geographic positioning system technolo-gies,
have the potential to be more flexible than the gas
tax: They can be varied according to time of day, type of
road, and type of vehicle. Road metering has been gaining
ground outside the United States, and a pilot program was
recently completed in Oregon that functioned smoothly
and reduced VMT ( Sorenson and Taylor 2005a, 2005b;
Spears, Boarnet, and Handy 2010; Rufolo and Kimpel
2009). These experiences led a national panel to recom-mend
that the federal government actively promote pilot
programs with VMT charges as part of the next federal
transportation funding authorization, with a goal to fully
convert from gas taxes to VMT charges by 2020 ( National
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commis-sion
2009).
In the absence of comprehensive federal and state
legislation, California’s largest MPOs have been adopt-ing
more targeted road pricing initiatives. Bridge tolling
has long been a feature of transportation policy in the San
Francisco Bay Area, and the MTC recently introduced
variable pricing on the highly traveled San Francisco–
Oakland Bay Bridge to help manage congestion during
peak periods. Most expansions of highway lane miles
since the early 1990s have focused on providing carpool or
high- occupancy- vehicle ( HOV) lanes in metropolitan areas
( Hanak and Barbour 2005). Following the principle that
“ time is money,” these lanes provide an incentive to reduce
solo driving, and modeling has shown that they are more
effective in areas where there are longer traffic delays on
regular lanes ( Dahlgren 1998).
Since the mid- 1990s, some Southern California metro
areas have also experimented with road tolling. 35 Most of
these high- occupancy- toll ( HOT) or express lanes combine
free access for carpoolers with a toll option for solo drivers,
sometimes with variable prices. Just as with general VMT-based
pricing, HOT lanes rely on electronic toll- collection
technology. Conversions and expansions of HOT lanes are
a major component of planned roadway spending within
the Bay Area, Southern California, and San Diego regions,
and the Sacramento region plans to expand HOV lanes
( Heminger et al. 2010). 36 Once these plans are realized,
roughly 40 percent of the localities in our survey ( consti-tuting
over 60% of the population) will be within 5 miles
or less of at least one HOT lane. As with HOV lanes, the
efficacy of HOT lanes depends on existing traffic condi-tions
and delays ( Dahlgren 2002).
Over time, rising fuel economy and
public opposition to increasing the gas tax
have reduced its usefulness as a source
of revenue and as a price signal to drivers.
Toll lanes, carpool lanes, and other “ demand management” and pricing
policies have the greatest potential to reduce VMT.
atWatER VillagE NEWbiE/ FliCkR/ CREatiVE CoMMoNS
Driving Change 13
www. ppic. org
Local Parking Policies
Placing a charge on public parking spaces within a given
area can reduce the congestion resulting from drivers
looking for free parking spaces, encourage the use of
alternative means of transportation, and generate revenues
( Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 2005). In addition,
limiting requirements on developers to provide parking
can increase density and make car use relatively more
costly ( Shoup 1999). The effects on driving are particularly
strong when workers must pay to park ( Legislative Ana-lyst’s
Office 2002; Taylor and Fink 2003). 37
Yet parking pricing and management is still a seldom-used
strategy in California. 38 Statewide, only 16 percent of
the cities and counties in our survey ( including the most
populous localities) have initiated any type of charges
for public parking in commercial areas. 39 And nearly
nine- tenths of all localities ( including the larger ones)
continue to require that new commercial developments
provide employee parking, with free parking for employees
remaining the norm. However, as discussed above, a large
and growing number of jurisdictions are relaxing mini-mum
requirements for parking in some new developments
to encourage density ( Figure 2).
The Challenge of Public Acceptance
Although our survey of local officials indicated that public
opposition posed an obstacle for all three types of VMT-reduction
policies ( increasing population density, transit
use, and pricing), this problem may be especially impor-tant
for pricing. Our survey showed that public opposition
to higher charges for driving ranks a close second to public
opposition to higher density. And as evidenced by the
inability of both Congress and the state legislature to raise
the gas tax since the early 1990s, the need to gain signifi-cant
legislative or voter approval increases the difficulties
of raising fees. Proposition 26, a new state constitutional
amendment passed in November 2010, is likely to com-pound
these difficulties for some types of fees. 40
Experience may help overcome opposition to pricing
options that involve some choice. For example, early
concerns that toll lanes were inequitable have been allayed
somewhat by use patterns: A broad cross- section of the
population uses the toll facilities on the I- 15 and Route 91
( Sullivan 1998; University of California Transportation
Center 2003). According to the Southern California trans-portation
officials we interviewed, government use of toll
revenues to support parallel infrastructure and services
can help garner public support for tolling.
Board members of SANDAG, the San Diego region
MPO, recently rejected the introduction of a regional VMT
fee because, in contrast to HOT lanes, it would have been
applied uniformly across the board, without providing
alternative travel options to drivers ( San Diego Associa-tion
of Governments 2010). Any large increases in federal
or state road charges through a gas tax or VMT fee would
surely raise public ire. In the short run, a large increase in
gas prices or VMT fees could also raise equity concerns,
because lower- and middle- income households would have
less flexibility to respond by moving closer to transit or by
purchasing more fuel- efficient vehicles.
Parking policies face the challenge of meeting the
needs of commercial areas to attract customers while also
managing congestion. They can also lead to objections in
mixed use areas, where efforts to reduce parking near com-mercial
enterprises can result in spillover to nearby resi-dential
streets. 41 One strategy that has helped to overcome
opposition to parking restrictions and fees has been the
reinvestment of parking revenues back into the downtown
area in which they have been collected, a model used in
Redwood City ( Zack 2005) and Pasadena ( Salzman 2010).
Resistance to higher parking charges may also be offset
once residents find that it is easier to find a parking space
( since one of the goals of such fees is to hold vacancy rates
to a low but acceptable level).
Our survey showed that public opposition to
higher charges for driving ranks a close second
to public opposition to higher density.
14
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
Building a n Integrated Strategy
Research suggests that integrated strategies will be far
more effective in reducing VMT than individual land use,
transportation, or pricing strategies pursued on their own,
making it possible for California to meet the goals of SB 375
( Figure 5). The Transportation Research Board ( 2009)
predicts twice as large a reduction in VMT when higher-density
strategies are paired with complementary policies,
such as increased transit availability. 42 The extensive litera-ture
on transit- oriented development also stresses the need
for complementary policies, demonstrating that transit
investments in isolation are unlikely to lead to new develop-ment
and increased densities ( Giuliano and Agarwal 2010).
It is encouraging to note that, to some extent, Califor-nia’s
largest MPOs are already pursuing combined strate-gies.
Their most recent RTPs include increases in housing
density, HOV/ HOT lanes, and transit use. 43 In developing
scenarios for SB 375 targets, the MPOs envisage increased
efforts in several of these areas ( Heminger et al. 2010). 44
At the same time, interviews with local officials revealed
challenges in coordinating land use and transportation
policies: For instance, transit may spur development, but
without existing dense development it is more difficult to
justify ( and secure federal funding for) transit projects.
To shed light on the potential for success, we discuss
the observations of local governments, the key players in
this process. We then examine California’s experience
since the early 1990s with one of the primary integrated
strategies— transit- oriented development.
Local Perspectives on the Potential to Reduce Driving
Our statewide survey of local planning officials sheds
light on the potential of local governments to meet the
goals of SB 375 ( Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski 2011).
Respondents were asked to gauge their localities’ potential
to reduce driving relative to other localities within their
region and to offer their opinions on the potential effec-tiveness
of a range of land use, transit, and pricing strate-gies
in their jurisdictions. The results reveal local planners’
views of the feasibility of these strategies within their com-munities,
taking into account both political acceptability
and various community characteristics. 45
In general, local officials appear cautiously optimistic
about their overall ability to reduce driving in their locali-ties.
More than a third of all those surveyed reported that
their community had below- average potential relative to
others within their region. But after accounting for commu-nity
size, we find that 45 percent of the population lives in
localities that perceive above- average potential, compared
to 27 percent in localities with below- average potential.
Local governments see the potential to reduce VMT
through a range of approaches. Respondents were asked to
gauge the potential effectiveness of a variety of land use,
transit, and pricing strategies based on a three- point scale
( high/ low/ no potential). Figure 6 presents the rankings
of these strategies across the statewide sample, with each
policy option color- coded by the type of strategy involved.
The top five options— higher gas prices; local bus service;
priority sites for mixed use, higher- density, and infill land
uses; express bus service; and priority sites for transit-oriented
development— come from all three strategies.
And many respondents expressed the need for integrated
approaches, in particular linking smart- growth land
Figure 5. Integrated policies have the highest potential to
reduce VMT
SOURCE: Rodier’s ( 2009) review of studies that model the effect of policies on VMT reduction.
NOTES: The figure shows the median ( red X) and 95 percent confidence intervals ( blue bars) from a range
of studies over a ten- year time frame. The results for combined strategies are for approaches that combine
land use change, transit, and pricing. Sample sizes: VMT fees ( 27), transit ( 20), parking pricing ( 20), land
use ( 19), cordon pricing ( 17), fuel tax ( 17), combined strategies ( 15), and congestion pricing ( 9). Holding
vehicle and fuel characteristics constant, VMT reductions and GHG emission reductions are equivalent.
Cordonpricing involves charging an entry fee into an urban area— now done in London and Stockholm
and under consideration in San Francisco.
VMT
fees
Fuel
tax
Cordon
pricing
Conges-tion
pricing
Parking
pricing
Land
use
Combined
strategies
Transit
VMT reduction (%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Driving Change 15
www. ppic. org
uses with improved transit options and more accessible
streetscapes.
Pricing policies stand out for their widely varied
rankings. Higher gas prices rank first among all 16 poli-cies
examined, but all other pricing strategies rank in the
bottom third. 46 Planners’ views of the effectiveness of gas
price increases are consistent with the research litera-ture,
but their low expectations regarding the potential of
other pricing strategies are in conflict with the research. 47
This may reflect both recent gas price history and politi-cal
realities. The state’s recent experience with high gas
prices demonstrated the potential of higher driving costs
to reduce VMT ( Figure 4). But this experience happened
through market forces, not an explicit policy change. Most
other pricing options would be implemented through local
or regional policies, and planners are aware of the political
difficulties of imposing higher costs on drivers.
Several local characteristics appear important to plan-ners’
optimism about the potential of various strategies to
reduce driving: 48
Experience matters. A given strategy is nearly always
ranked significantly higher in a locality that is already
using it or planning to use it. Of course, localities are
most likely to adopt policies that they expect will work,
and officials might be inclined to favorably evaluate
policies they have worked to implement. But optimism
is as high or higher for policies already in use, rather
than those under consideration, suggesting that expe-rience
has been at least somewhat encouraging, even
in places where public opposition is cited as a serious
concern.
Rail transit is a plus. Officials in jurisdictions served by
rail tend to feel more optimistic about the overall poten-tial
to reduce driving, as well as about almost all of the
individual policy options. This strong showing is consis-tent
with the research finding that integrated strategies
can have a greater effect on VMT. Rail is a relatively
attractive alternative to driving, and it provides a focal
point for denser land development— which makes other
alternatives to driving, such as walking and bicycling,
more feasible, especially for noncommute trips. As one
official noted: “ We have substantial vacant land . . . [ and]
existing light rail. This combination gives us the oppor-tunity
to ‘ get it right.’”
Local conditions shape expectations. Planners in
more populous locales are more optimistic about
their overall ability to reduce driving, the full range of
pricing policies, and the potential for transit- oriented
development. Consistent with the research literature,
which finds that lower- income residents are more
sensitive to changes in gas prices and more likely to
use transit, officials in lower- income localities believe
that higher gas prices and most transit options will
prove more effective than in higher- income locali-ties.
49 Perhaps as a result, these officials also perceive
their localities’ overall potential to reduce driving to
The state’s recent experience with
high gas prices demonstrated the potential
of higher driving costs to reduce VMT.
Figure 6. Planners believe that a range of policies o 	 ers high
potential for reducing VMT
SOURCE: Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski ( 2011).
NOTES: The policy potential score was calculated as the sample average of the potential ranking for each
policy option. A score of 3 was given for “ high potential,” 2 for “ low potential,” and 1 for “ no potential.” For
commuter rail and light rail, the score is combined into a single rail category. HD is high density.
Pricing
Transit
Land use
No
potential
Low
potential
High
potential
Higher gas price
Local bus service
Mixed use, HD, infill
Express bus
TOD
Fewer parking spaces
Express bus to rail
Bike lane networks
Other land use incentives
Pay- as- you- drive insurance
Higher parking fees
Rail ( all types)
Variable road pricing
Carpool lanes
Toll lanes
Urban growth boundary
16
Driving Change
www. ppic. org
be higher than elsewhere. Consistent with the idea that
proximity of jobs makes it easier to employ integrated
strategies, officials in localities with a higher jobs-housing
ratio are more optimistic about the potential
of most pricing tools, access to rail, and the promotion
of transit- oriented development. 50
Party leanings are influential . . . The partisan split on
climate policy in California, which has widened over
the past two years, is also reflected in planners’ per-ceived
potential to respond to SB 375.51 Local govern-ments
in more heavily Republican areas are less likely
to adopt general climate change policies, and local offi-cials
in these areas are less optimistic about the overall
local potential to reduce driving. Consistent with the
stronger objection to taxes and fees commonly asso-ciated
with this party’s platforms, officials also rank
the potential of most pricing strategies lower in these
localities. They are also more skeptical of the poten-tial
for transit- oriented development and less likely to
use this strategy, even when they have access to rail
transit. Because many of the state’s fastest growing
counties are located in the more heavily Republican
inland regions of the state, this partisan split may limit
the effectiveness of SB 375 in places where there is the
greatest potential to “ build smart” from the ground up.
. . . but not determinative. Adoption of most smart-growth
land use policies is not affected by residents’
party affiliation, nor is the perceived potential of many
of the individual options that can support SB 375 goals.
And experience in the Republican- leaning San Diego
region demonstrates that party affiliation is not a deal-breaker
when it comes to developing aggressive regional
strategies. Using a combination of increased housing
densities, increased transit, and more HOV and HOT
lanes, the SANDAG region’s existing RTP is already one
of the most ambitious in the state ( Table 1). 52
In sum, planners appear to have a good sense of local
factors that are likely to affect the potential to respond
effectively to SB 375. Much of the emerging message sug-gests
grounds for optimism. Planners recognize the impor-tance
of using multiple strategies in combination, and they
are optimistic about the policies they are already using or
planning to use, highlighting the positive role of experi-ence.
They are also more hopeful about the potential of
most other options when they have the availability of rail—
the most popular ( if most costly) form of transit. Planners
in more populous communities generally perceive greater
potential to reduce driving and are already more likely to
be adopting the needed strategies.
But our findings also highlight some important con-straints.
Planners recognize the difficulties associated with
higher- income households ( which tend to support climate
change policies but are less likely to respond to SB 375–
related strategies), as well as those associated with political
opposition— a potential barrier to implementing some of
the supportive policy options in the fast- growing inland
counties. They are also pessimistic about the prospects
for most pricing strategies— an important component of
effectively integrated strategies— underscoring the political
challenges of making headway on this front. Finally, the
optimism associated with the availability of rail appears
largely unrealized in light of current transit ridership lev-els,
suggesting that much progress is needed to capitalize
on this potential. Improving the performance of transit-oriented
development may play an important role in real-izing
this potential, as described below.
Transit- Oriented Development in California
Transit- oriented development is a prime example of the
type of integrated land use and transportation planning
that has the potential to reduce VMT. TOD’s aim is to
create higher densities around transit stations, making
Planners appear to have a good sense of
local factors that are likely to affect
the potential to respond effectively to SB 375.
Driving Change 17
www. ppic. org
transit ridership feasible for more residents and workers.
Our survey revealed that planners are optimistic about the
potential of TOD to help reduce VMT ( Figure 6), particu-larly
when they have or expect to have rail.
As we discussed above, density and proximity to
transit influence ridership for employees even more than
for residents. However, California has been experiencing a
decline in employment density, making it harder for transit
systems to achieve high ridership and making commer-cial
development around new transit stations especially
important ( by “ commercial” we mean any nonresidential
development, such as office, retail, or industrial). Here,
we evaluate how well TOD has worked over the past two
decades of extensive rail transit expansion. We look at the
location of new transit stations and analyze employment
growth in the areas surrounding these stations. 53
TOD is most suitable around fixed- line transit
stations— rail or “ bus rapid transit,” which has fixed sta-tions
and dedicated bus lanes. In these areas— and in
contrast to areas around ordinary bus lines— developers
have some certainty that the transit service will not move;
fixed- line transit also offers higher speeds and greater
regional accessibility than the typical bus system. 54 Our
analysis focused on the four largest MPO regions, where
217 new rail, subway, streetcar, and bus- rapid- transit sta-tions
opened between 1992 and 2006.55
We found that these new transit stations were located
in areas with higher residential density and much higher
employment density than other areas in the same coun-ties.
56 Thus, California has successfully located transit
stations in areas most able to deliver higher transit rider-ship.
However, these new stations also reflect challenges
faced by system expansions. Density around newer transit
stations was lower than density around transit stations that
opened before 1992. Many older transit stations, such as
the San Francisco and Oakland portions of BART and the
LA Metro Rail, are located in big- city downtowns: areas
with the highest employment density. New transit stations
in existing systems often extend lines into lower- density
suburbs. And many new transit stations, such as portions
of the LA Metro Rail green line and many BART stations
The Fruitvale BART station. Transit ridership depends on jobs and housing
being close to transit stations.
paul hohMaNN/ FliCkR/ CREatiVE CoMMoNS
in the East Bay, are located in freeway medians. Although
freeway medians offer a cost advantage ( since they are
an existing right- of- way), stations in medians may pose
a challenge for land use development, given that the area
immediately adjacent to the station is a freeway. 57
Did localities take advantage of these new stations
through new development efforts? This is the essential
question for transit- oriented development, which should
increase the concentration of residents, workers, or both
near stations, thus raising overall transit ridership and
lowering VMT. We examined both employment and resi-dential
growth. 58 Our analysis considered density changes
within a quarter mile of new transit stations, comparing
growth before and after the station opened with areas that
lacked transit stations but were similar economically and
geographically.
Averaging across all new transit stations, we found no
increase in employment growth around new transit sta-tions
after they opened, either immediately or several years
thereafter, relative to comparison areas. This suggests that
localities were not effectively taking advantage of these new
stations to encourage job- based TOD. 59 Nor were station
openings associated with consistent employment growth
18 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
patterns in specific industries. Moreover, it does not appear
that employment growth suffered from competition with
residential growth: Residential densities fell over the period
when new transit stations opened.
Despite the lack of employment growth on average, we
did find considerable variation across stations. Employment
growth was much higher around some new stations and
much lower around others, even within the same locality,
within the same transit system, and on the same route.
Although employment growth occurred around very
different types of stations ( see the text box), it followed
regular patterns, tending to be higher around stations in
areas that already had higher residential and employment
densities and those located farther from an older transit
station. 60 It may be that areas with higher density already
had zoning in place that supported further development
or lacked local opposition. At the same time, this finding
implies that employment growth around transit stations
does not hinge on having abundant vacant land.
The lack of additional job growth around many new
transit stations represents a missed opportunity for rais-ing
employment densities, raising transit ridership, and
lowering VMT. It is also consistent with the results of
our survey of local officials about the focus of their TOD
efforts: Among localities with existing or planned projects
to increase density around transit stations, projects were
much more likely to emphasize residential than commer-cial
uses. 61 Regional transportation agencies appear to have
been assuming that localities need more encouragement
to build housing in the right places. In contrast, jobs— in
the words of one transportation planner we interviewed—
“ take care of themselves.”
These assumptions have probably taken root because
land use policies in California have traditionally favored
commercial over residential development, both because these uses generate more local sales tax revenues and
because it is generally believed that businesses require less
expensive local public services than residents ( Boarnet and
Crane 2001). Zoning practices reflect these assumptions. 62
However, our evidence shows that employment growth
around transit stations does not take care of itself, even if
zoning around transit stations favors nonresidential uses.
Different paths to employment growth:
Hollywood/ Highland and Sylmar/ San Fernando
Stations associated with large, statistically significant
increases in employment growth include the Hollywood/
Highland and Hollywood/ Vine stations on the LA Metro
Rail Red Line in Hollywood and the Sylmar/ San Fernando
station on the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line in Los Angeles
County’s northern San Fernando Valley. These stations are
located in very different neighborhoods with very different
TOD strategies.
The Hollywood/ Highland underground subway sta-tion
opened in 2000 and was a high- profile transit- oriented
development project focused on retail and entertainment
along Hollywood Boulevard. The Los Angeles Community
Redevelopment Agency was integral in assembling land for
development, negotiating financing with the city, and secur-ing
approvals for the $ 600 million project that resulted in
the Hollywood & Highland Retail Center, the Renaissance
Hollywood Hotel, and the Kodak Theater ( Cervero et al. 2004;
California Department of Transportation 2002). Both the
Hollywood/ Highland and the neighboring Hollywood/ Vine
stations were dense, developed, mixed use areas even before
their station openings.
The Sylmar Metrolink station in Santa Clarita opened in
1994. The nearby “ Montage at Village Green” housing devel-opment
opened in 2000. Whereas most TODs focusing on
housing are “ mixed use developments” incorporating some
commercial space, the Montage was exclusively a housing
development ( Moses, Lewis, and Lastrape 2009). Kolko ( 2011)
finds that employment growth that accompanied the station
development included small businesses across numerous
industries, including grocery wholesaling, light manufactur-ing,
construction, and real estate brokerage. Many of these
businesses were located between the station and the housing
development. The Sylmar example shows that employment
can grow around new stations even when the station TOD
strategy emphasizes residential development.
Employment growth around transit stations
does not take care of itself.
Driving Change 19
www. ppic. org
Existing zoning that allows retail, office, or industrial devel-opment
may not be sufficient to spur employment growth.
A set of case studies of San Diego stations concluded that
TODs were most successful when they coincided with local
authorities’ development plans for the area ( Boarnet and
Crane 2001). A study of the Washington DC Metro rail
system found that dense development around new suburban
stations hinged on the “ determination and foresight” of local
officials ( Schrag 2006). The major Hollywood/ Highland
TOD ( see the text box) illustrates the importance of regional
transportation and local development authorities working
together, well beyond a favorable zoning plan.
Numerous specific policies could encourage develop-ment
around transit stations. Parking policies are one strat-egy:
To encourage denser residential development, relax
requirements that mandate the minimum number of park-ing
spaces a developer must provide in residential TODs
( Arrington and Cervero 2008); and to encourage transit
ridership, restrict the availability or raise the cost of park-ing
( Giuliano and Agarwal 2010; Shoup 2004). In addition,
building a mix of TOD businesses, including retail and per-sonal
services that employees use during the day, encour-ages
transit use by making it easier to run errands near the
workplace ( Center for Transit- Oriented Development 2008).
And bolstering connectivity— including local bus feeder
service to transit stations and surrounding streets that
are friendly to walking and biking— helps increase transit
ridership around TODs and, in making the location more
accessible, is likely to raise demand for the location ( Center
for Transit- Oriented Development 2008).
A Hollywood & Highland Retail Center is not— and
should not be— the model for employment growth at all
transit stations. Appropriate levels of growth and indus-tries
differ across transit stations, depending on existing
land uses, densities, and location in the transit network.
Yet it is surprising that, on average, employment growth
around new transit stations was no faster than in compari-son
areas. A shift in focus toward more job- based TOD
may be in order for future development efforts around
existing and planned transit stations. Expanding job
growth around the increasing number of stations located
The success of SB 375 will depend on
how well all levels of government integrate
land use planning, transit investments,
and pricing policies and make them attractive
to California’s residents.
outside downtown areas would improve employment
exchanges with the broader metro area job market and
increase the two- way use of costly rail systems. Employ-ment
growth near stations, even in residential areas,
should be encouraged to exceed employment growth in
similar nearby neighborhoods lacking transit access.
Policy Recommendations
With the adoption of SB 375, the state is once again taking
a leadership role in national environmental policy. 63 The
success of SB 375 will depend on how well all levels of gov-ernment,
working together, integrate land use planning,
transit investments, and pricing policies and make them
attractive to California’s residents. For residents, the law
implies a major behavioral shift, reversing a decades- long
trend in which per capita VMT has been rising.
The anticipated emission benefits of SB 375 are rela-tively
modest— rather than a silver bullet, the new policy
is one of many discrete actions that make up Califor-nia’s
overall strategy for addressing climate change. But
the same policies that can contribute to a reduction in
GHG emissions from driving can generate other benefits.
Higher- density development— essential for a viable transit
system— consumes less energy and water per resident or
worker, providing additional environmental and economic
benefits. By making housing more affordable in milder
coastal areas, policies encouraging higher density could
also shift population and economic activity to places with
20 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
lower energy requirements and overall emissions, reducing
statewide or national emissions per capita. 64 Reducing the
need to drive and providing “ walkable” streets would also
provide public health benefits to California’s residents.
Our analysis offers hope, as well as warning signs. The
clearest grounds for optimism come from our survey of city
and county officials— the local authorities who control land
use decisions and oversee a majority of transportation dollars.
Despite the recession, they have increased their climate-change–
related activities and are adopting numerous land use
strategies that can support the goals of SB 375. Furthermore,
local officials tend to rate the policies and strategies they
have already begun to implement as having strong potential
to reduce VMT, despite various barriers to implementation,
including public opposition to denser development.
Another reason for optimism is the extent to which
both regional transportation authorities and local gov-ernments
recognize the importance of integrated strate-gies
that combine land use, transit, and pricing policies.
Regional authorities in the state’s major metropolitan
areas are gaining support from local officials as they
develop strategies to increase the use of toll lanes, focus
more spending on transit, and move away from the typical
model of suburban sprawl development. This pattern is evi-dent
even in regions where many residents do not support
the state’s climate policy goals.
Recent trends in residential and employment growth
present a mixed picture. On the one hand, California’s
residential density is higher than the national average
and rising— a plus for integrated strategies that encour-age
transit use. On the other hand, the state’s employment
density is lower than the national average— dramatically
so in many metro areas— and falling. Low employment
densities limit the potential for VMT reduction because
employment density is even more strongly related to transit
ridership than residential density.
The failure of rail transit to realize its potential—
despite receiving a large share of transportation invest-ments
for several decades— is another warning sign. Rail
ridership as a share of commutes has increased slightly in
California— rising to 1.4 percent of all commutes in 2008
from 0.9 percent in 1990, before major investments in rail
took place. But this growth is much slower than the pace of
transit cost increases and service expansion.
However, voters and commuters think favorably of
rail, often supporting local sales tax increases to fund
rail investments, and they tend to switch from bus to rail
when rail becomes available. Our local government survey
respondents were also more hopeful about the success of
VMT- reduction policies— land use and pricing as well as
transit— if their localities already had rail service in place,
suggesting that they perceive rail as an important platform
for building an integrated strategy.
One contributing factor in the limited success of rail
investments is the failure of transit- oriented development
to live up to its potential. Jobs near fixed- line transit sta-tions
( including rail and bus rapid transit) are especially
important for increasing transit ridership, because once
workers arrive at a station, they do not have many options
for commuting to more distant locations. Unfortunately,
new transit stations, on average, have not been greeted by
faster job growth in the surrounding area, even though
local fiscal incentives and zoning have traditionally favored
commercial development near transit stations. Paradoxi-cally,
SB 375 could make employment growth around
transit stations even more difficult, because the law explic-itly
favors residential development in TODs: To receive the
benefit of exemption from CEQA requirements, develop-ment
projects near transit stations ( called Transit Priority
Projects) must be at least 50 percent residential, as mea-sured
by building square footage.
If California is to reap the benefits that greater employ-ment
density around transit brings, the state must consider
encouraging commercial development over residential
development near stations— the opposite of the cur-rent
incentives in SB 375. In addition, local and regional
authorities could adopt numerous specific policies to
encourage commercial development around transit sta-tions,
including relaxing minimum parking requirements,
providing development incentives, and ensuring good
Driving Change 21
www. ppic. org
connectivity between the transit station and surround-ing
areas through development of local bus feeder service
and neighboring streets favorable to walking and biking.
Failing to take advantage of rail through more intense
land development around stations represents a significant
missed opportunity to increase ridership and to make the
most of costly transit investments.
Pricing represents another area of missed opportu-nity.
Although regional authorities in the major coastal
metro areas are moving forward with toll roads, few local
authorities are raising the cost or limiting the availability
of parking to encourage the use of alternatives to solo driv-ing.
Indeed, nearly 90 percent of all localities still require
that new commercial developments provide employee
parking. But the greatest shortcoming lies in state and fed-eral
policies: For nearly two decades, both the federal and
state governments have failed to raise charges for road use
through a higher gas tax or new VMT- based fees. These
price increases are urgently needed to bolster the transpor-tation
finance system, and they are the most effective way
to send the signal to businesses and residents to change
their transportation behaviors and location decisions. Such
If California is to reap the benefits
that greater employment density around
transit brings, the state must consider
encouraging commercial development over
residential development near stations.
fees are not politically popular, but in this case, responsible
fiscal policy aligns with the efficient use of the transporta-tion
network.
To make the most of all of the available policies— land
use, transportation, pricing, and their integration— a
regional perspective is essential, and a regional perspec-tive
must acknowledge the diversity of localities without
losing sight of their interconnectedness. SB 375 encourages
coordination, but it will be up to regional and local lead-ers
to put the vision to work, recognizing local differences
while overriding the temptation to yield to fragmented
local interests. ●
22 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
Notes
1 Washington state has adopted ambitious per capita VMT
reduction targets as part of its climate change legislation, and
several East Coast states have also adopted explicit VMT reduc-tion
goals as part of their climate change policies.
2 Technically, SB 375 calls for a reduction in emissions from pas-senger
vehicles beyond the reductions expected from improve-ments
in vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of low- carbon fuels,
as required by other regulations ( described below). In the “ most
ambitious scenarios” for meeting the regional 2035 targets under
SB 375, transportation system improvements ( which include
measures to improve traffic flow as well as some demand man-agement
measures we consider under “ pricing,” such as carpool
programs) are expected to achieve 8– 17 percent of regional GHG
emission reductions in the Bay Area, Southern California, and
Sacramento regions. San Diego examined one scenario in which
these measures could achieve over half of the total GHG emis-sions
goal ( Heminger et al. 2010).
3 The state’s Strategic Growth Council, created in a companion
bill to SB 375, is funding planning grants for SB 375, in recogni-tion
of the potential benefit to public health, conservation, and
livability ( Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team
2010).
4 This goal was established under Executive Order S- 3- 05, signed
in 2005.
5 Some have argued that greater reductions in VMT than those
in CARB’s scoping plan are possible ( Ewing and Nelson 2008;
Winkelman, Bishins, and Kooshian 2010), whereas others argue
that VMT reductions constitute a costly, inefficient, uncertain
GHG emission reduction strategy ( Moore, Staley, and Poole
2010). Boarnet ( 2010) provides a critical overview of this debate.
6 High- density housing units also use less water for landscap-ing,
providing additional energy savings and helping California
to cope with increasing water scarcity ( Hanak and Davis 2006;
Hanak et al. 2011). In addition, land use policies that encourage
growth in mild climate areas, such as coastal California, could
reduce emissions generated by heating and cooling ( Kahn 2010;
Glaeser and Kahn 2010).
7 In one extreme case— the vast region encompassing the
Southern California Association of Governments ( Imperial,
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura
Counties)— the MPO is responsible only for planning; all invest-ments
and maintenance are carried out by subregional and local
authorities.
8 Counties have authority over land use in unincorporated areas.
City and county government representatives also constitute the
majority of MPO boards.
9 SB 375 offers three paths to ease requirements for environmental
review of projects under CEQA: ( 1) programmatic streamlining
for certain residential projects that are consistent with a region’s
SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy ( APS), ( 2) streamlining or
exemption for transit priority projects that are consistent with
a region’s SCS or APS and are at least 50 percent residential ( as
opposed to commercial), and ( 3) adoption of a uniform set of
traffic mitigation measures for higher- density residential develop-ments,
which exempts these projects from further traffic mitiga-tion
requirements.
10 For information on the program, see http:// calblueprint. dot
. ca. gov/
11 Although the analyses are at an earlier stage, efforts are also
under way in the smaller regions, including the San Joaquin Val-ley
councils of governments ( Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski
2011).
12 These local programs also include activities addressing many
areas outside transportation and land use, including energy
and water use efficiency, green buildings, renewable energy, and
waste reduction ( Hanak et al. 2008).
13 Changes in residential densities result from new construc-tion
or redevelopment. Because housing has a long life and new
developments are a small share of the housing stock in all but
recently built cities, even large increases in the density of new
developments have only a modest effect on the overall average
residential density of a city or metropolitan area.
14 See Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski ( 2011), Appendix Table
B. 24( j). Out of nine barriers, public opposition to density ranked
among the top three in every region but the San Joaquin Valley.
But achieving higher commercial densities is often more politi-cally
feasible than achieving higher residential densities ( Barnes
2005).
15 Other smart- growth approaches available to local govern-ments
include improving the interconnectivity of roads and
other elements of street design, which influence the attractive-ness
of driving versus alternative modes of travel ( Ewing and
Cervero 2010).
Driving Change 23
www. ppic. org
16 Another parking strategy is “ unbundling,” in which develop-ers
sell the parking spaces separately from the residential or
commercial units. This allows those who value parking most to
buy it and facilitates providing less parking overall.
17 In localities without rail, transit- oriented development tends to
focus on higher- density and mixed use development along major
bus corridors or on ensuring good bus connections for retail
establishments. Several Central Valley cities also mentioned the
possibility of capitalizing on high- speed rail as a focal point for
TOD in the future.
18 As a recent example, over half of the $ 4.9 billion dollars com-mitted
to projects designed to reduce congestion under the
state’s Traffic Congestion and Relief Act of 2000 was allocated to
rail and other transit ( Legislative Analyst’s Office 2007).
19 In the most recent RTPs of the four largest MPOs, the pro-jected
shares expenditures for transit over the next few decades
range from 40 percent of the total in the San Diego region to
65 percent in the Bay Area ( Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski
2011).
20 Residents were asked, “ What type of surface transportation
project do you think should have the top priority for public
funding as California gets ready for the growth that is expected
by 2025?” In 2004, the ranking was freeways and highways
( 32%), light rail ( 31%), public bus systems ( 13%), local streets
and roads ( 10%), and carpool lanes ( 7%). In 2006, the ranking
was light rail ( 36%), freeways and highways ( 25%), public bus
systems ( 14%), local streets and roads ( 9%), and carpool lanes
( 6%) ( Baldassare 2004, 2006).
21 Survey respondents reported the availability of local bus
service in all but the least populous jurisdictions, and nearly half
of all localities also have express bus services. Just over a quarter
reported the availability of some forms of rail transit, and rail is
planned in another 11 percent. Rail tends to be concentrated in
more populous jurisdictions.
22 In a national study, Baum- Snow and Kahn ( 2005) find that
rail investments often fail to increase overall transit ridership,
because many new rail transit commuters are former bus com-muters,
not former drivers.
23 Data on VMT are from Federal Highway Administration,
Annual Highway Statistics, Table VM- 2.
24 In a 2001 national survey of travel behavior, commutes
accounted for 27 percent of VMT, though a much higher share
of VMT at peak times and on the most congested routes. Transit
was used for 3.7 percent of commute trips, 1.1 percent of trips
was for family or personal business, and 1.0 percent of trips
was for social or recreational purposes ( Hu and Reuscher 2004,
Tables 6 and 9). In California, 39 percent of trips originating
from home are to work ( California Department of Transporta-tion
2003). Transit investments may also fail to reduce VMT
because the reduction in road congestion encourages additional
driving— for example, trucks moving goods ( Duranton and
Turner 2009).
25 This finding is based on the authors’ calculations using data
from the Census of Governments, 1992– 2007. Recovery rates
vary across systems. For instance, at 64.5 percent, the Bay Area’s
BART system rate of operating cost recovery is far higher than
the statewide average for transit in California. It is also one of
the highest rates of recovery of any rail transit system in the
country ( O’Toole 2010).
26 For the seven largest transit systems in the San Francisco Bay
Area, operating costs increased 83 percent between 1997 and
2008, whereas the consumer price index increased by 39 percent.
Over this same period, transit service ( measured as hours in
service) increased only 15 percent and ridership increased only
7 percent ( Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit
Sustainability Project, 2010, available at www. mtc. ca. gov
/ planning/ tsp/ ABAG_ Focus_ presentation. pdf).
27 See Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski ( 2011), Appendix Table
B. 24( j). For the Bay Area, insufficient transit availability ranked
highest among nine barriers; this constraint ranked second high-est
( after public opposition to raising charges for driving) in the
Southern California region, and third ( after public opposition to
density and the jobs- housing balance) in the San Diego region.
28 See Kolko ( 2011). In California, fewer than 10 percent of
people who live or work within a half mile of a transit station
commute using rail transit; including bus riders, transit share
rises to only 20 percent. Farther than a half- mile from transit
stations, transit ridership drops off sharply. Here and elsewhere
in the report, “ transit stations” refer to stops on fixed- line transit
systems— primarily rail ( commuter rail, subways, light- rail, and
streetcars). We do not include stops along a regular bus route as
“ transit stations” because, unlike stations in fixed- line systems,
these stops do not require capital investment and tend not to be
focal points for new residential or commercial development.
29 The Bay Area’s traffic and transit information portal, www. 511
. org, lists 22 bus operators in the region as well as several rail and
ferry operators. With the adoption of Resolution 3866 in early
24 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
2010, MTC will consider an operator’s compliance with the
region’s Transit Connectivity Plan when allocating funding.
The Transit Connectivity Plan requirements include consistent
signage, dissemination of real- time transit information, provi-sion
of information on schedules and connections from other
transit agencies, and guidelines for the use of a single, cross-system
fare payment card ( www. mtc. ca. gov/ planning/ tcip
/ RES- 3866_ approved. pdf).
30 To the extent that these strategies improve gas mileage—
a benefit of reduced congestion— they can also reduce GHG
emissions for a given level of VMT.
31 Numerous studies indicate a large and growing gap between
revenues and funding needs ( National Surface Transportation
Infrastructure Financing Commission 2009).
32 Americans’ sensitivity to gas prices also appears to have
declined over the past several decades— a phenomenon analysts
have attributed to the fact that more sprawling land use pat-terns
have made people more reliant on cars ( Hughes, Knittel,
and Sperling 2008) and to a declining share of transportation in
household budgets ( Small and Van Dender 2007).
33 In early 2010, California’s gas tax was increased, with a cor-responding
decrease in the sales tax on gasoline. This revenue-neutral
“ fuel tax swap”— adopted to provide more budget
flexibility— will be invalidated under Proposition 26 ( described
below) unless the legislature approves it again with a two- thirds
majority by November 2011 ( Legislative Analyst’s Office 2011).
34 Gas taxes within the European Union range from about
$ 1.90/ gallon in Bulgaria to $ 3.70/ gallon in the Netherlands and
are usually augmented by general value- added taxes. Japan’s gas
tax is roughly $ 2.25/ gallon ( October 2010 exchange rates).
35 Hanak and Rueben ( 2006) describe the early projects in South-ern
California.
36 Conversion without expansion of lane capacity is likely to be
more effective at reducing VMT, but it is also more politically
difficult, particularly if it reduces open- access lanes. One chal-lenge
with conversion of HOV to HOT lanes is the desirability
of having more than one HOT lane, so that traffic can flow
smoothly in the event of an accident. Since most HOV lanes are
single lanes, this means either building an additional lane or
converting an existing open- access lane to HOT status. In the
Bay Area, planners are working to create single- lane HOT lanes
from existing HOV lanes in ways that avoid these problems.
The new HOT lane on I- 680 has double lanes at entry and exit
points, but a single lane elsewhere.
37 One study found that 77 percent of San Francisco Bay Area
commuters provided with free parking drove alone, compared
to only 39 percent of those required to pay for parking. The cor-responding
figures for how much these same people use transit
were 4.8 percent and 42 percent, respectively ( RIDES for Bay
Area Commuters 2000).
38 California adopted a parking cash- out law in 1992 requiring
that employers with more than 50 employees in areas out of
attainment with any state air quality standard, and who offer
employees subsidized parking, give employees the option of
“ cashing out” that parking option. Employees can then use this
money to pay for alternative means of commuting to work, such
as transit or carpools. The federal tax code and the complexity
of employer parking situations have made the program difficult
to implement, though emission reduction benefits have been
observed when it has been implemented. See www. arb. ca. gov
/ planning/ tsaq/ cashout/ cashout. htm.
39 San Francisco is conducting a pilot program that will vary
on- street and garage parking rates to manage demand ( http://
sfpark. org/).
40 This amendment, passed by 53 percent of voters, raises the
vote threshold for new state regulatory fees from one- half to
two- thirds of each house of the legislature, and it requires a two-thirds
supermajority of the voting public to approve local regu-latory
fees that formerly could be approved by a simple majority
of governing boards. Although this change does not affect strict
user fees— i. e., charges that cover the costs of providing a service
to the person being charged— it does affect fees that are used
to benefit others. Litigation will likely be required to sort out
the boundaries of the new rules. Thus, although parking fees,
toll lane charges, the gas tax, and VMT charges could easily be
considered user fees ( i. e., used to help cover the cost of providing
transportation services), some may interpret the new rules as a
restriction on the types of programs that the fees can fund.
41 In Bakersfield, for example, efforts to limit parking availabil-ity
met with resistance from retailers who felt that they needed
additional parking to accommodate peak shopping days such
as “ Black Friday.” Residents in the cities of Los Angeles and
Cypress objected to the spillover problems often experienced in
mixed use areas.
42 The Transportation Research Board ( 2009) summarized the
research literature with the conclusion that doubling residential
density would be associated with a 5– 12 percent reduction in
VMT, and possibly up to a 25 percent reduction with comple-mentary
changes in transit availability, the jobs- housing bal-
Driving Change 25
www. ppic. org
ance, and other factors. However, as mentioned above, doubling
the density for even a large share of new housing would have
only a modest effect on average residential density across a city
or metropolitan area.
43 Notably, none of the RTPs includes metrics of employment den-sity,
though some discuss the concept of a jobs- housing balance.
44 Modeling scenarios done by SANDAG, which examined the
potential gains from individual policy strategies relative to an
integrated approach, highlight the benefits of combined strate-gies
( Heminger et al. 2010). The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint
( 2009) also envisages an integrated approach. To some extent,
planning for VMT reductions will be a learning- by- doing pro-cess,
given the challenges of developing a comprehensive picture
of how various policies might interact to affect driving behaviors
in particular regions ( Rose 2010).
45 We did not explicitly refer to SB 375, so that we could avoid
concerns that the responses might be used to gauge compli-ance
with the law. Also, the survey was completed before CARB
released draft regional emission targets in June 2010, so respon-dents
did not know the level of the regional targets.
46 Note, moreover, that our survey asked about gas prices, not gas
taxes. We chose this wording to avoid conflating concerns over
the perceived political feasibility of raising the gas tax with the
perceived effectiveness of a resulting rise in gas prices.
47 It is worth noting that the high marks for local bus service
also conflict with the research, which finds that the potential
for traditional local bus service to reduce VMT is fairly low. It
is possible that planners were thinking about enhanced service
lines, although they generally ranked express bus service lower
than local bus service, except in localities with rail access, where
express bus to rail service ranked highest among transit options.
48 Results reported here are from multiple regression analyses,
which control for the effects of population, household income,
population growth rate, political party affiliation of voters, and
other community characteristics.
49 On gas price sensitivity, see Hughes, Knittel, and Sperling
( 2008). On transit use and income, see Barbour ( 2006).
50 The jobs- housing ratio is calculated as the number of jobs rela-tive
to the number of households within a jurisdiction in 2006.
Interestingly, a jobs- housing imbalance ranked as one of the top
two perceived barriers to implementing policies to reduce driving
in several regions: San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, the “ Other
MPO” group ( including Central Coast counties and several
northern Sacramento Valley counties), and the “ non- MPO” group
( including rural counties not currently required to comply with
SB 375) ( Bedsworth, Hanak, and Stryjewski 2011, Table B. 24).
51 Statewide surveys find that Republican voters are less support-ive
of AB 32 goals than are Democrats or independent voters,
and this gap has widened since 2008 ( Baldassare et al. 2008, 2010).
52 See Heminger et al. ( 2010).
53 This section summarizes the “ Transit and Development in
California” section of Kolko’s ( 2011) paper, “ Making the Most of
Transit.”
54 Bus rapid transit does not necessarily involve construction of
a fixed or dedicated lane but typically, at a minimum, includes
investments in advanced technologies and infrastructure that
can speed the movement of buses and improve service. This
larger investment makes it more of a “ fixed” investment than
typical bus service.
55 These stations include extensions to BART in the San Fran-cisco
Bay Area, the Sacramento light rail system, the San Jose
light rail system, San Francisco MUNI, LA Metro Rail ( includ-ing
the LA Metro bus- rapid- transit Orange Line through the
San Fernando Valley), and new or mostly new systems such as
the Altamont Commuter Express, Coaster San Diego, Harbor
Transitway, and Metrolink Southern California.
56 Employment density is the most important factor. Residential
density does not positively affect the location of new transit stations
holding other factors, including employment density, constant.
57 In fact, CARB recommends against development immediately
adjacent to freeways for public health reasons ( California Air
Resources Board 2005). Still, proximity to a freeway could boost
ridership by facilitating park- and- ride use.
58 Data limitations restricted our analysis of residential growth
to a shorter time period and different method. For employment
growth, we have detailed data for all years from 1992 to 2006
from the National Establishment Time- Series ( NETS) database,
whereas for residential growth, we have detailed data for only
1990 and 2000 from the U. S. Census.
59 This result is somewhat surprising, given that the new tran-sit
stations were generally located in areas where employment
growth was already faster than in comparison areas. One might
therefore expect a boost in employment growth after the station
26 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
opened, if builders were to respond to the increased demand for
land that typically occurs around new stations.
60 The residential density measure is for 1990, and the employ-ment
density measure is for 1992.
61 Over half ( 56%) of the communities with these projects
reported that they were all or mostly residential, versus only
about a third ( 31%) evenly split between residential and com-mercial
and 13 percent mostly commercial ( Bedsworth, Hanak,
and Stryjewski 2011).
62 Land surrounding transit stations in Southern California in
the mid- 1990s was much more likely to be zoned for commer-cial
( including industrial) use than for residential use, relative
to other portions of the cities containing those transit stations
( Boarnet and Crane 2001). More recently, a 2007 review of San
Francisco Bay Area TOD policies reports that development goals
for TODs include minimum density requirements for residential
development but not for employment, in part because “ cities
already have considerable incentives to zone for nonresidential
uses, such as sales tax revenue and reduced fiscal impacts”
( Nelson\ Nygaard 2007, pp. 5– 7).
63 Recent federal climate change legislative proposals contain
provisions that would extend requirements nearly identical to
SB 375 to all MPOs in the nation.
64 Recognizing this potential, Bay Area leaders have called for a
reassessment of the region’s growth barriers ( King 2008).
References
Arrington, G. B., and Robert Cervero. 2008. “ Effects of TOD
on Housing, Parking, and Travel.” Transit Cooperative Research
Program Report 128. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Baldassare, Mark. 2004. Special Survey on Californians and the
Future. PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy
Institute of California. August. Available at www. ppic. org
/ content/ pubs/ survey/ S_ 804MBS. pdf.
Baldassare, Mark. 2006. Californians and the Future. PPIC State-wide
Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Available at www. ppic. org/ content/ pubs/ survey/ S_ 806MBS. pdf.
Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Jennifer Paluch, and Sonja
Petek. 2008. Californians and the Environment. PPIC Statewide
Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Available at www. ppic. org/ content/ pubs/ survey/ S_ 708MBS. pdf.
Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek, and Nicole Will-coxon.
2010. Californians and the Environment. PPIC Statewide
Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Available at www. ppic. org/ content/ pubs/ survey/ S_ 710MBS. pdf.
Barbour, Elisa. 2006. “ Time to Work: Commuting Times and
Modes of Transportation for California Workers.” California
Counts 7 ( 3). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Barnes, Gary. 2005. “ The Importance of Trip Destination in
Determining Transit Share.” Journal of Public Transportation 8 ( 2).
Baum- Snow, Nathaniel, and Matthew Kahn. 2005. “ Effects of
Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities,
1970– 2000.” Brookings- Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs.
Bedsworth, Louise, Ellen Hanak, and Elizabeth Stryjewski. 2011.
“ Views from the Field: Linking Transportation and Land Use.”
Available at www. ppic. org/ main/ publication. asp? i= 946.
Boarnet, Marlon G. 2010. “ Planning, Climate Change, and
Transportation: Thoughts on Policy Analysis.” Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 ( 8): 587– 95.
Boarnet, Marlon G., and Randall Crane. 2001. Travel by Design:
The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. New York: Oxford Uni-versity
Press.
Driving Change 27
www. ppic. org
California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento:
California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at
www. arb. ca. gov/ ch/ handbook. pdf.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping
Plan: A Framework for Change, Pursuant to AB 32 the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sacramento: California
Environmental Protection Agency.
California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed
Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.
Sacramento: California Environmental Protection Agency.
California Department of Transportation. 2002. Statewide
Transit- Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in
California. Final report. Available at www. dot. ca. gov/ hq
/ MassTrans/ Docs- Pdfs/ TOD- Study- Final- Rpt. pdf.
California Department of Transportation. 2003. 2000– 2001
California Statewide Travel Survey: Weekday Travel Report. Avail-able
at www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tsip/ tab/ documents/ travelsurveys
/ Final2001_ StwTravelSurveyWkdayRpt. pdf.
Center for Transit- Oriented Development. 2008. “ Transit +
Employment: Increasing Transit’s Share of the Commute Trip.”
Available at http:// reconnectingamerica. org/ public/ display
_ asset/ employment202.
Cervero, Robert, et al. 2004. “ Transit- Oriented Development in
the United States: Experiences, Challenges, Prospects.” Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 102. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
Dahlgren, Joy. 1998. “ High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Not
Always More Effective Than General Purpose Lanes.” Transpor-tation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 36 ( 3): 239– 55.
Dahlgren, Joy. 2002. “ High- Occupancy/ Toll Lanes: Where
Should They Be Implemented?” Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice 32 ( 2): 99– 114.
Deakin, Elizabeth, Greig Harvey, Randall Pozdena, and Geof-frey
Yarmena. 1996. Transportation Pricing Strategies for Califor-nia:
An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy, and Equity
Impacts. Sacramento: California Air Resources Board.
Doyle, Scott, Alexa Kelly- Schwartz, Marc Schlossberg, and Jean
Stockard. 2006. “ Active Community Environments and Health:
The Relationship of Walkable and Safe Communities to Indi-vidual
Health.” Journal of the American Planning Association
71 ( 1): 19– 31.
Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew Turner. 2009. “ The Fundamen-tal
Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U. S. Cities.” NBER
Working Paper 15376.
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero. 2001. “ Travel and the Built
Environment: A Synthesis.” Transportation Research Record
1780. 87– 114.
Ewing, Reid, and Robert Cervero. 2010. “ Travel and the Built
Environment.” Journal of the American Planning Association
76 ( 3): 265– 94.
Ewing, Reid, and Arthur C. Nelson. 2008. “ CO2 Reductions
Attributable to Smart Growth in California.” College Park:
University of Maryland. Available at www. climateplanca. org
/ ewing_ analysis. pdf.
Ewing, Reid, Tom Schmid, Richard Killingsworth, Amy Zlot,
and Stephen Raudenbush. 2003. “ Relationship Between Urban
Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity.” American
Journal of Health Promotion 18 ( 1): 47– 57.
Fielding, Gordon J. 1995. “ Transit in American Cities.” In The
Geography of Urban Transportation, ed. Susan Hanson ( New
York: Guilford Press).
Giuliano, Genevieve, and Ajay Agarwal. 2010. “ Public Transit
as a Metropolitan Growth and Development Strategy.” In Urban
and Regional Policy and Its Effects, vol. 3, ed. N. Pindus, H. Wial,
and H. Wolman ( Washington, DC: Brookings Institution).
Glaeser, Edward, and Matthew Kahn. 2010. “ The Greenness of
Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Urban Development.”
Journal of Urban Economics 67: 404– 18.
Hanak, Ellen, and Elisa Barbour. 2005. “ Sizing Up the Chal-lenge:
California’s Infrastructure Needs and Tradeoffs.” Occa-sional
Paper. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, Ellen, and Matthew Davis. 2006. “ Lawns and Water
Demand in California”. California Economic Policy 2 ( 2). San
Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, Ellen, and Kim Rueben. 2006. Funding Innovations for
California Infrastructure: Promises and Pitfalls. USC Keston
Institute for Infrastructure Research Paper Series, Paper 06- 01.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
28 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
Hanak, Ellen, Louise Bedsworth, Joanna Malaczynski, and
Sarah Swanbeck. 2008. “ Climate Policy at the Local Level:
A Survey of California’s Cities and Counties.” Available at
www. ppic. org/ content/ pubs/ report/ R_ 1108EHR. pdf.
Hanak, Ellen, Jay Lund, Ariel Dinar, Brian Gray, Richard How-itt,
Jeffrey Mount, Peter Moyle, and Barton “ Buzz” Thompson.
2011. Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconcilia-tion.
San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Heminger, Steve, Hasan Ikhrata, Gary Gallegos, and Mike
McKeever. 2010. “ Memorandum to Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, Re: Preliminary Report
on Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO)/ Air Resources
Board ( ARB) Senate Bill 375 ( SB 375) Target Setting Analysis.”
Available at www. arb. ca. gov/ cc/ sb375/ mpo/ prelimreport. mtc
. sacog. sandag. scag. pdf.
Hu, Patricia, and Timothy Reuscher. 2004. Summary of Travel
Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Washington,
DC: U. S. Department of Transportation. Available at http:// nhts
. ornl. gov/ 2001/ pub/ STT. pdf.
Hughes, Jonathan E., Christopher R. Knittel, and Daniel E. Sper-ling.
2008. “ Evidence of a Shift in the Short- Run Price Elasticity
of Gasoline Demand.” The Energy Journal 29 ( 1): 93– 114.
Kahn, Matthew. 2010. “ Urban Policy Effects on Carbon Mitiga-tion.”
NBER Working Paper 16131.
King, John. 2008. “ How Global Warming Challenges the Old
Bay Area Assumptions.” San Francisco Chronicle. July 1.
Kolko, Jed. 2011. “ Making the Most of Transit: Density, Employ-ment
Growth, and Ridership Around New Stations.” Available at
www. ppic. org/ main/ publication. asp? i= 947.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2002. “ A Commuter’s Dilemma:
Extra Cash or Free Parking?” Available at www. lao
. ca. gov/ 2002/ parking/ 031802_ cash_ or_ parking. pdf.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2007. “ California Travels: Financing
Our Transportation.” Available at www. lao. ca. gov/ 2000/ 051100
_ cal_ travels/ 051100_ cal_ travels. pdf.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. 2011. “ The 2011– 12 Budget:
Achieving General Fund Relief from Transportation Funds.”
Available at http:// lao. ca. gov/ analysis/ 2011/ transportation
/ tax_ swap_ 012511. pdf.
Moore, Adrian T., Samuel R. Staley, and Robert W. Poole Jr.
2010. “ The Role of VMT Reduction in Meeting Climate Change
Policy Goals.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-tice
44 ( 8): 565– 74.
Moses, Sharon, Carol Lewis, and Krystal Lastrape. 2009.
“ Moving Toward Implementation: An Examination of the
Organizational and Political Structures of Transit- Oriented
Development.” Houston, TX: Southwest Region University
Transportation Center.
National Complete Streets Coalition. 2010. “ Complete Streets
FAQ.” Available at www. completestreets. org/ complete- streets
- fundamentals/ complete- streets- faq/.
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Com-mission.
2009. Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transpor-tation
Finance. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Transpor-tation.
Nelson\ Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 2007. “ Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Resolution 3434: Transit- Oriented
Development Policy, 2007 Evaluation.”
O’Toole, Randal. 2010. Defining Success: The Case Against Rail
Transit. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Parry, Ian W. H. 2009. “ Pricing Urban Congestion.” Annual
Review of Resource Economics 1: 461– 84.
Planning Grants and Incentives Management Team. 2010. “ Sus-tainable
Communities Planning Grants.” Report to the Strategic
Growth Council. Available at www. sgc. ca. gov/ docs/ funding
/ 2010FundingReport_ November_ 23_ 2010. pdf.
Poole, Robert W., Jr., and Adrian Moore. 2010. Restoring Trust in
the Highway Trust Fund. Policy Study 386. Los Angeles: Reason
Foundation.
RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. 2000. Commute Profile 2000: A
Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns. Oakland, CA.
Rodier, Caroline. 2009. “ Review of the International Modeling
Literature: Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
Transportation Research Record 2132: 1– 12.
Rose, Eliot. 2010. Working Harder to Grow Smarter: Overcoming
Barriers to Senate Bill 375 Implementation. Professional Report,
Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Cali-fornia,
Berkeley.
Driving Change 29
www. ppic. org
Rufolo, A. M., and T. J. Kimpel. 2009. “ Transit’s Effect on Mile-age
Responses to Oregon’s Experiment in Road Pricing.” Trans-portation
Research Record 2115: 60– 65.
Salzman, Randy. 2010. “ Pasadena, California: Unlikely Home
to an Innovative Parking Scheme.” Thinking Highways, North
American Edition 5 ( 3). September/ October.
San Diego Association of Governments. 2010. Board of Directors
Agenda, Item 17, May 28, 2010. San Diego, CA. Available at http://
sandag. org/ uploads/ meetingid/ meetingid_ 2538_ 11549. pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Blueprint. 2009. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint
Update. April. Available at www. valleyblueprint. org/ files/ images
/ Blueprint__ Brochure_ July_ 2009- BL2. pdf
Schrag, Zachary. 2006. The Great Society Subway: A History of
the Washington Metro. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity
Press.
Shoup, Donald. 1999. “ The Trouble with Minimum Parking
Requirements.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Prac-tice
33 ( 7– 8): 549– 74.
Shoup, Donald. 2004. “ The Ideal Source of Local Public Rev-enue.”
Regional Science and Urban Economics 34: 753– 84.
Shoup, Donald. 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago:
Planner’s Press.
Small, Kenneth, and Kurt Van Dender. 2007. “ Fuel Efficiency
and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect.” The
Energy Journal 28 ( 1).
Sorensen, Paul, and Brian Taylor. 2005a. “ Review and Synthesis
of Road- Use Metering and Charging Systems.” Submitted to
the Committee for the Study of the Long- Term Viability of Fuel
Taxes for Transportation Finance, Transportation Research
Board. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
Sorensen, Paul, and Brian Taylor. 2005b. “ Paying for Roads: New
Technology for an Old Dilemma,” Access 26 ( Spring).
Southern California Association of Governments. 2010. “ South-ern
California Association of Governments ( SCAG) Regional
Council Votes to Recommend SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction Regional Targets for 2020 and 2035.” Press release.
Available at www. scag. ca. gov/ media/ pdf/ pressReleases/ 2010
/ PR009- SCAG- RC- ARB- Target- Vote. pdf.
Spears, Steven, Marlon Boarnet, and Susan Handy. 2010. DRAFT
Technical Background Document on the Impacts of Road User
Pricing Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. Sacra-mento:
California Air Resources Board.
Sullivan, Edward. 1998. Evaluating the Impacts of the SR- 91
Variable- Toll Express Lane Facility. Final report, submitted to Cal-ifornia
Department of Transportation. Available at http:// ceenve3
. civeng. calpoly. edu/ sullivan/ SR91/ final_ rpt/ finalrep_ full. pdf.
Taylor, Brian D., and Camille Fink. 2003. The Factors Influencing
Transit Ridership: A Review and Analysis of the Ridership Litera-ture.
University of California Transportation Center, University
of California, Berkeley. Fall.
Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built
Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized
Travel, Energy Use, and CO 2 Emissions. Special Report 298.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
University of California Transportation Center. 2003. Intelligent
Transportation Systems: A Compendium of Technological Sum-maries.
Berkeley: University of California.
Wachs, Martin. 2010. “ When Fuel Taxes No Longer Get the Job
Done: The Future of Transportation Finance.” Resources ( Sum-mer):
11– 12.
Winkelman, Steve, Allison Bishins, and Chuck Kooshian. 2010.
“ Planning for Economic and Environmental Resilience.” Trans-portation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 ( 8): 575– 86.
Zack, Dan. 2005. The Downtown Redwood City Parking Man-agement
Plan. Redwood City, CA: Community Development
Department, Redevelopment Division. July. Available at www.
redwoodcity. org/ bit/ transportation/ parking/ pdf/ Downtown
RedwoodCityParkingPlan. pdf.
30 Driving Change
www. ppic. org
About the Authors
Louise Bedsworth is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute
of California. Her research focuses on air quality, transportation,
and climate change issues. Before coming to PPIC in 2006, Louise
was a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
She holds an M. S. in environmental engineering and a Ph. D. in
energy and resources from the University of California, Berkeley.
Ellen Hanak is a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California. Her career has focused on the economics of natural
resource management and agricultural development. At PPIC,
she has published numerous reports and articles on water policy,
land use planning, infrastructure policy, and climate change.
Before joining PPIC in 2001, she held positions at the French
agricultural development center ( CIRAD), the President’s Council
of Economic Advisers, and the World Bank. She holds a Ph. D. in economics from the
University of Maryland.
Jed Kolko is an associate director of research at the Public Policy
Institute of California, responsible for managing the institute’s econ-omy
research. He has conducted numerous studies of the California
economy, economic development, housing, and technology policy.
Before coming to PPIC in 2006, he was vice president and research
director at Forrester Research, a technology consultancy, where he
managed the company’s consumer market research businesses and
served as the lead researcher on consumer devices and access technologies. Jed has also
worked at the Offi ce of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the World Bank, and the
Progressive Policy Institute. He holds a Ph. D. in economics from Harvard University.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the many local and regional offi cials who kindly gave of their
time to respond to our survey and requests for interviews— essential inputs into our
understanding of the issues surrounding land use and transportation planning and the
implementation of SB 375. We also benefi ted from very helpful reviews of an earlier
version of the report by Elisa Barbour, Marlon Boarnet, Robert Cervero, Hans Johnson,
Dean Misczynski, Alison Nemirow, Michael Teitz, Egon Terplan, and Lynette Ubois. We
alone are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions.
www. ppic. org
Board o f D irectors
WALTER B . H EWLET T, C HAIR
Director
Center for Computer Assisted Research
in the Humanities
MARK B ALDASSARE
President and CEO
Public Policy Institute of California
RUBEN B ARRALES
President and CEO
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
MARíA B LANCO
Vice President, Civic Engagement
California Community Foundation
JOHN E . B RySON
Retired Chairman and CEO
Edison International
GARy K . H ART
Former State Senator and
Secretary of Education
State of California
ROBERT M . H ERTzBERG
Partner
Mayer Brown, LLP
DONNA L UCAS
Chief Executive Officer
Lucas Public Affairs
DAVID M AS M ASUMOTO
Author and farmer
STEVEN A . M ERKSAMER
Senior Partner
Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello,
Gross & Leoni, LLP
CONSTANCE L . R ICE
Co- Director
The Advancement Project
THOMAS C . S UTTON
Retired Chairman and CEO
Pacific Life Insurance Company
PPIC is a private operating foundation. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any
local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for
public office. PPIC was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett.
© 2011 Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA
Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that
full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included.
Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff,
officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.
Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data are available for this publication.
ISBN 978- 1- 58213- 143- 6
PUBLIC P OLICy I NSTITUTE OF C ALIFORNIA
500 Washington Street, Suite 600 ● San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone 415.291.4400 ● Fax 415.291.4401
PPIC S ACRAMENTO C ENTER
Senator Office Building ● 1121 L Street, Suite 801 ● Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone 916.440.1120 ● Fax 916.440.1121
Additional resources related to transportation policy are
available at www. ppic. org.
The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to
informing and improving public policy in California through
independent, objective, nonpartisan research.