Think for a second about everything for which you depend on transportation. In a poorly planned transportation landscape, people without access to a car lack access to their communities and all their parts — education, socialization, employment, and basic services like health care.

Lack of mobility creates many access challenges for many people in Humboldt County. Take a third-generation car-less resident of Eureka, who says “There are many places in the County that tourists go to and enjoy, but because no transit went near them and they are way too far to bike or walk, I could not get there easily” (Page 12, “Humboldt County Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations Report,” www.nrsrcaa.org/path). Or, a Southern Humboldt senior: “I lost much of my independence when I could no longer drive due to poor eyesight. It’s very important to me to stay living in my home” (16 “Transportation-Disadvantaged”) A workforce investment board member says “Many entry level jobs are during nights and weekends when there is little or no transit. It makes it very difficult for youth, low-income residents or anyone without access to a vehicle to hold a job” (30 “Transportation-Disadvantaged”).

What these above-mentioned issues share in common is they concern transportation equity (or inequity). A fair, equitable community and its transportation landscape ensures everyone access to their needs — including the income disadvantaged and to disabled residents, or people who are too young or old to drive.

Transportation costs place a heavy burden on low-income households. In 2005, the lowest income quintile in the United States, households earning less than $9,676/year, spent 28% of their income on transportation, while the highest income quintile spent only 11% of their income on transportation (see graph).

Here in Humboldt County, many people who can’t drive, who don’t own cars, or can’t afford our rising gas prices walk, bike, bus, or use dial-a-ride and other services. Many others need access to better transit or better infrastructure for biking and walking, but it isn’t available.

People displaced by rising property values end up living outside of community centers with educational and work opportunities, and essential services. It’s not only a problem in highly income-segregated places like the Bay Area, but something we face locally. “Living in sub-standard housing far from town — the only places in reach of their budgets — is the only way some people can afford to live,” says a representative from the Willow Creek Family Resource Center. “Those who think they choose this situation, and that people should just move to town, do not understand the complexity of the situation” (21 “Transportation-Disadvantaged”).

The just alternative is to inequitable car-centric sprawl is development that emphasizes accessibility, offering residents access to goods and services with shorter non-motorized trips. Communities designed for access should be walkable, bikeable, and include efficient high-quality public transportation options.

Here in Humboldt County we can take advantage of some excellent equity research and recommendations produced by Redwood Community Action Agency in Eureka as part of the PATH Planning for Active Transportation and Health (PATH) project. PATH documents, available online at www.nrsrcaa.org/path, “establish a …strategy for incorporating health, economic and land use factors into transportation planning efforts as a means to …address transportation equity.” With maps, charts, grids, referenced documents, and hundreds of pages, PATH documents provide recommendations for governments, planners and citizens on how to create equitable transportation. Below, I've included just one of the many research products of the PATH project on the next page, “Locations of Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions and Low-Income Households in Eureka, CA (1999 - June 2004).”

Another dimension of equity

There’s another dimension to transportation equity: Do consumers get what they pay for and pay for what they get from fees and taxes? Is there a fair distribution of costs and impacts between individuals and groups equal in ability and need? Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute writes: “Considering just roadway costs… automobile travel is subsidized about 1¢ per mile, but much greater subsidies are found if traffic services, parking subsidies, accident externalities and environmental impacts are also considered.” This means people who drive more receive greater subsidies. “Since driving tends to increase with income, this is both horizontally and vertically inequitable.” (Page 20 from “Evaluating Transportation Equity,” www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf)

Many people assume that pedestrians and cyclists pay less than their fair share of roadway costs, but they overlook that local roads pedestrians and cyclists use most are funded primarily by local general taxes, that walking and cycling impose smaller costs per mile of travel, and that people who rely on non-motorized travel tend to travel fewer miles per year. Litman writes that when these factors are considered, “per-capita transportation funding often turns out to be lower for zero-vehicle households than for automobile-owning households. People who rely primarily on non-motorized transportation tend to subsidize the local road and parking facility costs of motorists” (28).

Creating equity: access for all

One of the best ways for citizens to make the next step towards creating an equitable transportation landscape is to get involved in planning processes. Right now, the Humboldt County General Plan update is underway (see Chris Rall's article "Twenty more years of sprawl?" on the General Plan Update). The Humboldt County Planning Commission is holding public hearings on the plan to collect comments which should inform them how to plan the future built environment of Humboldt County. Another key planning document to pay attention to is the Humboldt County Regional Transportation Plan which is refreshed every two years and will be updated in 2008.

Equity impact should be an important consideration for new development — are residences clustered with essential services and stores, or will their isolation require most people to drive for work, play, healthcare, groceries, and other services and products? Does the placement and scale of new stores and commercial properties create a centralized car-centric landscape, or are they clustered with neighborhoods?

Perhaps one of the best ways to create transportation equity is to practice behaviors that fit into an equitable landscape. Each time you walk or bike, you demonstrate these modes are growing in popularity and need to be supported by quality infrastructure. By supporting a nearby grocery store, you are helping to make clustered development economically sensible. And by riding the bus, you support an essential transportation service for those who cannot drive or choose not to.