Sacramento's
compact development, infill," and similar land-
An Attachment to Failure
use policies--some of which would be subsi-
plan to spend
dized with transportation funds--designed to
$3 billion on
"reduce the number and length of auto trips."5
Sacramento, California's, 2006 Metropoli-
transit capital
tan Transportation Plan admitted that trans-
Yet the planners' own analyses projected
portation plans written for the region "during
that the new plan would work no better than
improvements
the past 25 years have not worked out."
the previous ones. The huge investments in
was projected
transit were expected to expand transit's share
ˇ Despite building light rail and making
of total travel from 0.9 percent in 2005 to just
to increase
1.1 percent in 2027. Transit's share of rush-
other efforts aimed at "luring drivers
transit's share of
hour commuting would increase from 2.6 per-
out of their autos," the share of transit
rush-hour
cent to a mere 3.0 percent.6 Despite spending
riders who "have access to an automo-
bile [and] can otherwise choose to drive"
nearly $300 million on bicycle and pedestrian
commuting from
was decreasing.
improvements, walking and cycling's share of
2.6 percent to a
ˇ
travel and commuting were projected to
Despite efforts to promote alternatives
mere 3.0 percent.
decline. Even though "congestion will contin-
to driving by discouraging sprawl and
ue to worsen inside the urban area," planners
promoting high-density infill, sprawl
predicted that per capita driving would con-
"continues to out-pace infill . . . and
tinue to grow.7
businesses increasingly prefer suburban
locations."
Since 1962, Congress has required all met-
ˇ
ropolitan areas--regions of more than 50,000
"Even though gasoline prices are at an
people--to write long-range metropolitan
all-time high, the total amount of driving
transportation plans and to update those
has more than doubled since 1980."
ˇ
plans at least every four to five years.8 Sacra-
Revealingly, the report added, "lack of
road building and the resulting conges-
mento is one of a growing number of regions
tion have not encouraged many people
whose transportation plans focus on using
to take transit instead of driving."1
behavioral tools to address congestion, toxic pol-
lution, greenhouse gases, and other problems
created by the automobile. These tools, which
Planners did have one piece of good news:
together are sometimes called smart growth,
"Total smog emissions from motor vehicles
include the following:
are now half what they were in 1980."
However, that was not due to anything the
ˇ Making urban areas more compact (i.e.,
planners had done, but because "technology
has reduced auto emissions by 98 percent
increasing population densities) by
from 1980 models."2
downzoning lands on the urban fringe
and increasing the zoning densities of
Sacramento planners remained undaunted
lands in developed areas, in the hope
by those results. Their new long-range trans-
that people won't travel as far on typical
portation plan "continues the direction of " pre-
trips.
vious plans. The new plan would use "trans-
ˇ
portation funds for community design, to
Promoting developments that mix resi-
encourage people to walk, bicycle, or ride tran-
dential with retail and commercial uses
sit" and give "first priority to expanding the
so more people will be able to walk to
transit system."3 In particular, planners pro-
shops and services instead of drive.
ˇ
posed to spend nearly $3 billion on transit capi-
Encouraging more pedestrian-friendly
ta improvements, but only $2 billion on
design, such as retail shops that front
improvements to state highways.4 The Sacra-
on sidewalks instead of parking lots.
ˇ
mento Area Council of Governments, which
Investing heavily in transit, especially
wrote the plan, also agreed to use "`smart
rail transit, as well as bicycle and pedes-
growth' strategies" such as "mixed use and
trian facilities.
2