Chris Rall

1190 Villa Way

Arcata, CA 95521

cjr16@humboldt.edu

(707) 826-9175

11 May 2007

Planning Commission

Community Development Department

3015 H Street

Eureka, CA 95503

Dear Planning Commission and Staff,

As the representative of an organization that advocates for sustainable transportation, I would like to provide comments on the Economic Development Element of the Humboldt County General Plan Update.

First, I want to make it clear that proponents of sustainable transportation also support robust economic development. Since our comments would likely be categorized as relevant to Alternative A, I think provisions of Alternative A should represent this world view. We do support “enhancement” of economy (in addition to maintaining it). We support clear, unambiguous environmental regulations which we believe can streamline permitting through their clarity, and we support internet redundancy and access. These principles are reflected in suggested changes at the end of this letter.

Second, I would like to lay out the argument for strengthening our economy through emphasis on sustainable transportation. Much of this argument is based on research conducted by Todd Littman of the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute in papers called “Automobile Dependency and Economic Development” and “Win-Win Transportation Solutions: Cooperation for Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits.” available at vtpi.org. I provide a synopsis of the VTPI studies with some facts and figures more directly relevant to Humboldt County. I believe this research illuminates the importance of adopting Land Use and Circulation Elements that foster sustainable transportation in order to strengthen our economy.

Figure 1 Use of commute modes by type in Humboldt County, based on 2000 U.S. Census data.¹

Automobile Dependency is defined as high levels of per capita automobile travel,

automobile-oriented land use patterns and reduced transport alternatives. Humboldt County currently fits this description. About 85% of Humboldt County workers commute by private car and only 1% ride public transit (Figure 1). This transportation system provides convenience and mobility for motorists, but not for the 1/3 of the population that is too young or old to drive, and not those who cannot afford a car.

Cost to Car Owners

A big cost of automobile dependency is increased vehicle and fuel expenditures. Estimates of the cost of car ownership vary from $3943 to $7830 per year.² If we take the conservative cost estimate for the average 2 cars owned per household, and factor in 2.4 people per average household we find that Humboldt County spends $423,435,305,³ owning and operating automobiles. This does not include the substantial external automotive costs such as enforcement costs, subsidized parking, road building and repair, loss of farm and forest lands, reduced diminished air quality, impaired health and increased asthma associated with automobile dependency. On average, a household is spending 17% of its income on cars.

Cost to the Economy

Because the many of the goods and services related to car ownership and operation are imported into our region (the cars themselves, fuel and insurance), 70% of that almost half a billion dollars leaves the county without being re-circulated.⁴ That means that solely due to automotive expenses, 13% of the vitality of our economy is immediately drained straight out without re-circulating.⁵

Besides direct costs for car ownership and operation, there are many general costs of automobile dependency, such as time wasted in traffic congestion, crash damages and environmental impacts. The per-mile costs for these along with road and parking construction costs increase as per capita auto use increases. The higher the per capita car use, the more deaths and the more transportation expenditures per passenger mile. As automobile dependent regions grow congested, virtually all travel time savings are eventually devoted to increased travel. Mobility is high, but access is low. Accompanying sprawling land use reduces the amount of land available for other productive uses and increases the costs of providing utilities, public services and stormwater management. As an area grows more automobile dependent, all these costs hinder economic development.

Table 1 Economic Data on Global Cities, 1990⁶

When one compares regions with different levels of automobile dependency, a pattern begins to emerge. Many countries experience their greatest economic growth when per capita automobile use is relatively low, and economic growth rates decline as households become wealthy enough to afford more consumer goods such as private cars. In wealthy Asian Cities, where automobile travel is deemphasized, transportation costs to the economy are less than half what they are in automobile dependent cities (Table 1).

Free Market Means Freedom of Choice

The reduced choices of travel mode available to the consumer in an automobile dependent region are part of systemic market distortions. Once a region becomes automobile dependent, there are few viable alternatives to owning and driving an automobile and little competition or incentive for innovation. Automobile use is under-priced because most costs are either fixed or external. Lower-density, automobile-dependent land use patterns are also under-priced because many public policies favor automobile use, including dedicated road funding, road designs that favor motor vehicle traffic over other road uses, and zoning laws that require builders to provide generous free parking.

Consumers can’t choose independence from cars because the choice is not offered. Builders tend to build sprawl because it is what they are used to doing, whether this is the kind of housing that is in demand or not. If home buyers and renters are not offered less car-dependent options, they will not be able to buy them. Furthermore, if most of the built landscape is inaccessible without a car, property buyers must incur the fixed costs of an automobile if they want access to those areas, even if they don’t need one for most of their activities.

Because the U.S. has few regions with low automobile dependence, many mistakenly assume that this land use and transportation pattern is inevitable, and the only way to provide adequate mobility to drive economic activity. There is evidence to refute this assumption. In recent years some cities, particularly those in Northern Europe, have make concerted efforts to reduce automobile dependency by increasing transport choices and reducing automobile subsidies such as free parking. The initial evidence is that these efforts can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits. There is no evidence that such policies are economically harmful.⁷

Evidence closer to home indicates that money spent on transit generates more regional income and regional jobs than automobile expenditures, or even non-automotive consumer expenditures (Table 2). Transit is good for the economy.

Table 2 Regional Economic Impacts of $1 Million Expenditure⁸

Humboldt County does have a choice. We can choose to move towards a balanced land use and transportation system that provides efficient access between housing, jobs, goods and services. If we choose to continue to sprawl, we will watch our economy dragged down by automotive expenditures and our local governments saddled by heavy road and infrastructure expenses.

Suggestions for changes in wording for the Economic Development Element follow. I hope this correspondence will encourage you to strongly emphasize sustainable, balanced transportation in the land use and circulation elements as well.

Sincerely,

Chris Rall

Green Wheels

C.C. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors

¹ Arcata Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan. 2004. http://www.arcatacityhall.org/pedestrian_bike_plan/ped_bike_plan_cover.html

² American Automobile Association. Your Driving Costs 2007. Estimates $7830 per year. http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/20073261133460.YourDrivingCosts2007.pdf

Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, estimates $7887 per year spent on the average two vehicles owned per household from

http://www.bls.gov/ro7/cexwest.htm

³ $3943 per car-year * 2 cars per household (see above) * 128,330 people / 2.39 people per household (BLS 2006 estimate for Humboldt County) = $423,435,305

⁴ Jon Miller, Henry Robison & Michael Lahr, Estimating Important Transportation-Related Regional Economic Relationships in Bexar County, Texas, VIA Transit (San Antonio; www.viainfo.net), 1999.

⁵ $423,435,305 * 0.693 (Percentage leaving economy from Miller et al.) / ( $17,203 per capita money income * 128,330 people (BLS 2006 estimates for Humboldt County) = 13.3%

⁶ Jeff Kenworthy, Felix Laube, Peter Newman and Paul Barter, Indicators of Transport Efficiency in 37 Global Cities, Sustainable Transport Research Group, Murdoch University (Perth; http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au), for the World Bank (Washington DC), February 1997; Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities; Overcoming Automobile Dependency, Island Press (Covelo; www.islandpress.org), 1999.

⁷ Leo Lemmers, “How Amsterdam Plans to Reduce Car Traffic,” World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995, pp. 25-28; John Pucher and Christian Lefevre. The Urban Transport Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan (London), 1997; Special Issue on Transportation Demand Management, IATSS Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1998.

⁸ Jon Miller, Henry Robison & Michael Lahr (see above)