|
Overview On an average weekday morning, Bay Area commuters traversing the region’s most congested highways cumulatively lose more than 16,000 hours sitting in traffic. Based on forecasts in this study and projections prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, it is clear that Bay Area commuters will face still longer delays in the decades to come. There are several reasons why the Bay Area has congealed in traffic. Two reasons will receive particular attention here because they are intimately tied to land use. First, commuters are traveling longer distances between home and work as new jobs and housing—particularly affordable housing—are becoming concentrated in far corners of the region. Second, new residential developments are being constructed far from the region’s mass transit lines. As a result, the very qualities that prompted many Bay Area residents and employers to settle here—the region’s natural beauty and economic vitality—are threatened. Today, nearly 30 percent of Bay Area commuters drive to jobs outside their county. In 1960, it was less than 20 percent. |
 |
Some counties tend to export more of their workers than others. For example, 40% of Contra Costa County residents work in one of the other eight Bay Area counties or outside the region. On the other side of the equation, job-abundant counties tend to import significant numbers of workers. For example, in 1990, 46% of San Francisco workers lived outside that county. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Recent development activity and long-range forcasts suggest that this job/housing imbalance is likely to worsen in the future. For example, recent trends shown in the table on the previous page indicate that between 1995 and 1997, the number of jobs in Santa Clara County increased 15.2% while the number of housing units increased by only 1.3%. The county’s current housing shortage is likely to become more acute in the next two decades. By 2020, Santa Clara County is projected to gain 50% more jobs but only 20% more housing units. Housing and Jobs One explanation for the Bay Area’s wearingly long commutes is the distance between residential and commercial/industrial areas. Historically, cities tended to segregate housing and commercial developments within their community to different parts of town. Today, that differentiation is occurring between localities. Even if every community in the region were able to achieve numerical balance—the ideal ratio of jobs to housing—the region’s commute headaches wouldn’t be solved. A major stumbling block is that fact that many Bay Area residents can’t afford to live in the communities in which they work. High housing prices in the job centers have driven low- and moderate-income workers to the outer suburbs in search of affordable housing. In fact, increasing numbers of people are stretching beyond the region’s borders—to Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and San Benito counties—in search of a better deal. The table that follows lists the percent of income required for a two-wage earner family to purchase a median priced home in a given city. It assumes that both residents work in that community and earn the average wage for that city. In nearly 70% of the Bay Area’s cities, residents would need to spend more than the normally suggested 30% of their income on housing. An excerpt of the chart shows the range of income percentages required around the region. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
The geographic distribution of affordable housing is having a centrifuge effect on the region, pressing low- and moderate-income workers to its far reaches and beyond. This scatter pattern has a number of consequences. To the extent that housing prices segregate Bay Area residents along income lines, it can deepen social divisions and economic inequities. Given that communities need a mixture of skills, this widening gap could undermine the economic viability of the region. Plus, mounting numbers of long distance commuters will increase traffic congestion, pollution, accident-related deaths and disabilities, auto and health insurance, highway repairs, and the consumption of natural resources for highway expansion and construction. In fact, these problems are already being manifested on the region’s highways. Freeway Congestion The major areas of traffic congestion are a familiar litany to Bay Area commuters, recited daily on the morning and evening traffic reports. The three worst stretches of roadway–shown on page 7–are I-80 between the Bay Bridge and Richmond; I-680 between the Santa Clara County border and the Sunol pass; and I-880 between Mowry Avenue in Fremont and Dixon Landing Road in Milpitas. These traffic hot spots are likely to worsen in the coming years, given the pressures previously noted. New housing units in the Tri-Valley area, in cities such as Brentwood and Antioch in eastern Contra Costa County, and across the border in San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties will release more commuters into the traffic stream headed toward the San Francisco Bay Bridge and Santa Clara County. A surge of residential development in Gilroy and Morgan Hill, along with commuters headed north from Hollister in San Benito County, will also intensify congestion on segments of Highway 101. The Role of Fixed Transit Given these traffic conditions, fixed transit assumes even greater importance. Many people who live or work near rail stations are likely to use mass transit. According to a 1994 study on transit-focused developments in the Bay Area, residents who lived within three-quarters of a mile of a rail station were approximately five times as likely to commute by mass transit than the average person living elsewhere in the city. Residents whose jobs were near a rail station were, on average, 2.7 times more likely to commute by rail than the average worker. And, contrary to common perceptions, research has shown that multi-family housing built near transit lines can command a premium price. A 1996 study of transit-based housing in the Bay Area found that multi-family housing constructed near BART commanded higher rents—typically 10 to 15% higher—in two out of three sub-markets studied. Yet as shown in the table below, ABAG anticipates that a smaller percentage of the region’s jobs and households will be sited near transit lines in the year 2020. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
This reflects the fact that the vast majority of the region’s new housing is being planned for areas far from fixed transit stations. However, the number of jobs and households near transit could be boosted through incentives. Local policies already allow for additional development near transit lines over what is forecast, and local governments could hike those numbers even higher by allowing residential development or mixed residential and employment useson sites currently zoned exclusively for commercial/industrial use. Conclusion As grim as the Bay Area’s traffic forecast appears, it is not inevitable. The situation could spur public and private leaders to work together to develop creative land use strategies to ameliorate the problem. Already there is evidence of such progressive alliances taking shape in Silicon Valley and in other parts of the region, where business, government, and certain environmental leaders are working togehter. The very scope of the challenges confronting the Bay Area could create the conditions in which imaginative and far-reaching solutions might be realized. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
Copyright © ABAG 1995-1998 All rights reserved. (510) 464-7900 jmc 09/09/98 |
||