Anyone who’s visited the gas station recently knows that it’s getting more and more expensive to drive. With fuel prices close to $5 per gallon, people are feeling the pain. Over the past month, this author has had an average of 1.5 conversations per day with friends about personal strategies for coping with rising transportation costs. From downsizing to a smaller truck to buying a motorcycle to simply riding a bicycle more, it’s clear that our automobile-dependent transportation system is starting to be a real pain in the pocketbook.

It seems the biggest reason most people still drive at all is because they have to. How else can one commute from Cutten to Humboldt State University? From McKinleyville to Myrtletown? Homeowners in particular are rooted in their houses, and as the cost of living becomes more and more linked to the distance between home, work, and play, the definition of “affordable housing” might require review to incorporate transportation expenses.

The Affordable Housing Crisis

Like many communities across the state, Humboldt County faces great challenges in meeting its housing needs over the coming decades. With a median household income of just over $40,000, Humboldt’s affordability index is just 16% - meaning that 84% of Humboldt residents can’t afford to purchase a home at current market prices. According to the 2000 Census, 36% of owner-occupied households spend at least 25% of their income on housing costs, which exceeds the generally-recognized limit on the proportion of monthly income that households should reasonably pay for housing (Source: Technical Background Study, Humboldt County 2003 Housing Element). In the case of renters, 59% spend this much – and given the increase in housing prices over the past eight years, the current figure is likely to be higher.

As of 2006, just half of the County’s estimated needs for “low income” and “very low income” housing have been met, while we are exceeding the need for “moderate income” and “above moderate income” housing (Source: Humboldt County Community Development Services 2006 Annual Report). Enter the General Plan Update: the blueprint for land use policy for the next 20 years. The General Plan Update, or GPU, defines where new development is allowed to occur and where it is discouraged. The Housing Element specifically deals with – you guessed it – housing needs, and through this document the County planning department will lay out their plan to address the shortfall in affordable housing.

Some are calling for the County to use the GPU to open the floodgates to developers, leaving no parcel unbuilt. “Building more houses will increase supply and bring the price down,” goes this argument. Therefore, location isn’t important – only quantity – and currently undeveloped resource lands should not be restricted from subdivision and development. Unfortunately, there are two giant holes in this argument. First, not all houses are the same. If we build a lot of big, suburban houses – the most likely result of opening up resource lands – those houses will still be priced high. A rural ranchette on a 5-acre lot will not meet “very low income” standards no matter how many of them are built.

The second flaw in this argument is the cost of transportation.

Transportation – The Hidden Cost

The cost of housing itself isn’t the only item in a working family’s budget. Transportation is a significant expense, and the location of new homes may very well become a defining factor in real affordability once all the pennies are counted. According to “The True Cost of Driving Online Calculator” (www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm), a person who lives 5 miles from work and drives only an additional 5 miles per day spends approximately $4,469.25 annually on transportation. This figure doesn’t include the societal and environmental costs of driving, which raise the figure to $6,354.30 annually per vehicle.

For “low income” households, that’s a minimum of 13.9% of household income for one vehicle. The figure rises to 22.2% for “very low income” households.

Of course, not everyone drives. The Humboldt County Transportation-Disadvantaged Report, published in 2006, notes that about 30% of community members do not drive. Without access to a car, transportation expenses shape-shift into other costs:

• Lack of access to key destinations such as health care centers, employment sites, and workforce development centers
• Lack of access to convenient transit – that is, the transit that exists doesn’t run frequently enough or reach enough locations to serve community needs
• Low pedestrian and bicycle safety, which is generally poor in Humboldt County compared to other rural counties
• Specific tribal transportation challenges, which range from economic hardship to geographical isolation on remote reservations

While the direct cost of owning a car is higher than not, the indirect costs of living without a car in Humboldt County are high. For individuals who must care for children or other family members, who are disabled, or who live in an “automobile dependent” area, the degree of disadvantage may severely impact their ability to hold a job or fulfill other responsibilities.

Increasing Transportation Choices, Increasing Density

Increasing access to non-automobile transportation will make existing houses more affordable as gas prices continue to rise. Furthermore, focusing new homes in urban areas will help us meet our affordable housing needs. Non-automobile transportation depends upon a critical concentration of people who all want to get between the same “here” and “there,” whether by bus, walking, or biking. Small, modestly-priced homes that allow residents to safely and reliably walk, bike, or bus to key destinations will give us more bang for our residential buck – but implementation is a chicken-and-egg dilemma that may not resolve itself until gas gets to $10 per gallon.

If we are truly to address our affordable housing crisis, we must make wise decisions in the General Plan Update that guide development where we want it to go. The reality is that the “build everywhere” model undermines affordability by allowing developers to make the decisions about what our housing needs are. Instead, we should use responsible planning to prioritize affordable, transit-friendly housing that enhances our communities and cuts costs all around, with policies like:

• Working with the cities to locate mixed-use and affordable developments in areas with existing services
• Including scalable densities to allow for additional growth as needed within existing service areas
• Using inclusionary zoning to encourage mixed-income development that provides housing, shopping, and employment opportunities in close proximity to one another
• Keeping inclusionary zoning effective by not allowing “in-lieu” fees or making sure they are prohibitively high, so they do not undermine mixed-income developments and result in segregated housing
• Promoting housing densities that allow for functional and reliable and more cost-effective public transit options
• Working with the cities to increase their share of new housing, especially “low income” and “very low income” housing

You can help promote affordable housing and balanced transportation in the GPU by writing to your County Supervisor, speaking at an upcoming Planning Commission hearing, or getting involved with Green Wheels and the Healthy Humboldt Coalition. Find out more at www.green-wheels.org/generalplan or www.healthyhumboldt.org.

Shannon Tracey is a car-free resident of Arcata and believes that our community can create sustainable and successful land use choices to meet our needs for affordable housing, a thriving economy, and a healthy environment.  She is a member of Green Wheels and on staff for Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County.