Click here to see “New Stuff” messages.
About our change of name:
On February 17, fourteen of us met to discuss a proposed change of our name, substituting the word “Sustainable” for the word “Sensible”. (We have called ourselves “The Campaign for Sensible Transportation” since 2001, when the organization was formed.) The vote to approve the change was unanimous. We are still known, for short, as “CFST”. We'll keep working on the site. Many header photos have the old caption, and several links are not working yet. If you have comments, send us a note by clickinghere.
Transportation Justice Conference
Saturday, March 17, at Cabrillo College
Starting at 9:15 am, ending at 4:00 pm.
Free admission. For details, click
What is “Transportation Justice”? Here are examples of workshop topics:
- Public Transit for All.
- Advocating for Safe Bicycling and Walking.
- Social Equity with Autonomous Vehicles.
- Affordable Housing and Transportation.
Proposal for a huge new garage
For critiques by business owners,
The City of Santa Cruz is proposing to build a new five-level parking garage above a new relocated city library on the parking lot bordered by Lincoln, Cedar and Cathcart Streets, where the Farmer's Market currently meets. We strongly believe that the City should implement a Commuter Benefits Program first, before it considers the construction of a much more costly garage.
Click right here to sign our new petition!
The Campaign for Sensible Transportation is urging the City to follow the recommendations of its parking consultants: Offer incentives to people who work downtown to get to work on bus, carpool, bicycle and walking.
This is a less costly and more environmentally sound way to increase customer parking than building another garage. Commuter Benefits Programs have demonstrated remarkable success in several Bay Area communities, and are easily implemented.
These Commuter Benefits could include bus passes, credit at bike stores, discounted parking for carpools, and cash rewards for people who work downtown and choose not to park downtown.
Click here for a detailed analysis of why we should not build another garage, including excellent references on what a Downtown Commuter Benefits program might mean. (This analysis was updated on March 6, 2017.)
No Parking Here
Mother Jones, in the January/February issue of 2016, published an excellent piece by Clive Thompson under the above headline. (The third of the images in the header above is from this article.) Thompson notes this:
If you totaled up all the area devoted to parking, it'd be roughly 6,500 square miles, bigger than Connecticut.
For the full article, click here.
Forget about building downtown parking lots: You won't need them
Earlier this year the SF Chronicle published an opinion piece by Edward Church under the above headline. At the start, he writes:
Leaders in several cities across the nation … are rethinking the future of parking downtown. They're saying, “Don't build parking lots, don't build garages, you aren't going to need them.”
At the conclusion, he offers this advice:
Don't build them, because they won't be needed. And adopt local regulations that require justifying new parking, especially in cities served by transit. Otherwise, we all will be stuck with the bill.
For the full article by Church, click on this link.
Here's another piece, from Christopher Pollon, writing from Canada. It's headlined:
Imagining City Life After the Car
Our love affair with the private vehicle is waning. Does it still deserve a third of our urban living space?
The current trend of young urbanites shunning the private automobile is widely expected to grow in the decades to come.
Much of the land historically consumed by cars and parking can be greened, to create the kinds of urban spaces people want to frequent. In this three-dimensional North American urban core of the future, the car is not only inconvenient, it's irrelevant.
As for the family car, in the city of the future, who'll need it?
For the full article by Pollon, click on this link.
Listen to Susan Handy
Professor Susan Handy, the Director of the Sustainable Transportation Center at UC Davis, explains, in an interview recorded on January 29, 2016, why widening a highway not only will fail to relieve traffic congestion but also will increase vehicle miles traveled, and will be environmentally damaging.
Click on the audio strip below to listen to this 20-minute interview. She summarizes her recent study done for the Air Resources Board. If you want to read a transcript of the interview, it is here.
A brief summary of Susan Handy's talk
On May 14, in our own Louden Nelson Center, Susan Handy treated us to a fine presentation. Here are a few of her main points:
For decades, our road engineers have used
“Level Of Service” (LOS) as a
criterion to characterize traffic flow on our
roads. Level “A” is freely flowing
traffic, and level “F” is a
traffic jam—when the demand is greater
than the capacity. The idea has been to raise
the LOS by adding capacity, i.e.,
lanes to the road. Susan showed us this photo
of the “Katy Freeway” in Houston.
At 23 lanes, it's the widest freeway in the
world, and it's still at level
“F”. Click on the image to
enlarge it. See this link for more
Recently the trend has been to replace LOS with “Vehicle Miles Traveled” (VMT) when evaluating the environmental impact of a road widening project. Now the idea is to reduce the VMT. An increase in VMT always implies an increase in Greenhouse Gas emissions.
- Whenever a road is widened, there is the probability that more cars will eventually be induced to travel on the road, as is described in Linda Booth Sweeney's video below. This is called “Induced Travel”, a phenomenon that has been dismissed by Caltrans, but is gradually now becoming accepted by them.
- Any increase in the capacity of a road—even auxiliary lanes—always leads to an increase in VMT, and hence to an increase in Greenhouse Gas emissions.
- To reduce the demand for automobile travel, one may either (a) make driving less attractive, or (b) make alternatives more attractive. Which would you prefer?
Watch this good video
For a good companion to Susan Handy's presentation, watch this excellent video by systems educator Linda Booth Sweeney. In two and a half minutes she provides a clear explanation for why widening a highway does not relieve traffic congestion. ◀
Watch three Calthorpe videos
Renowned planner and architect Peter Calthorpe describes strategies that have resulted in livable and safe communities. His primary example is Portland, Oregon. The three videos are short, and relevant for our times and our community.
Click on this link to read about them and watch them.
New definitions are needed
It has long been the case that the phrase “alternative transportation” has meant walking, or riding a bicycle, or using the bus or other modes of public transportation. The implication is that the primary mode is driving a car. However, everyone walks. Unless you are disabled, you cannot get through the day without walking.
Furthermore, in our planning for the construction of transportation-related projects, short shrift is frequently given to pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks and crosswalks. Bicycle amenities, such as bike lanes or bike paths, are often only added as an afterthought.
Therefore: It's time to re-define what we mean by “alternative”:
Alternative Transportation Mode: Driving in a car, especially as a single occupant.
Primary Transportation Modes: Walking, and bicycling or using public transportation.
If you're driving a car and there are pedestrians around, speed matters a lot. Data for this graph come from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Traffic jams. Lots of cars. Parking problems. Air pollution, neighborhood degradation, global warming.
Nearly 90% of the cars on our streets and roads have only a single occupant.
In California, roughly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation (50% in the Bay Area), mostly from private cars.
What shall we do?
Please tell your Facebook friends you like our new website:
Lots of New Stuff
March 14, 2018: President Trump's proposed budget would cut funding for Amtrak in half. Please clickhereto Save Amtrak.
March 3, 2018: Our “Transportation Justice Conference” will be held at Cabrillo College on March 17, 2018, starting at 9:15 am, and lasting until 4:00 pm. For details, click on this link.
March 3, 2018: Please sign our new petition, urging our Santa Cruz City Council to accept the plan developed by METRO staff to offer free bus passes to all workers in Downtown Santa Cruz. A link to this new petition is here.
March 3, 2018: Please read what Santa Cruz downtown business owners have to say about the plan to build a new five-level garage (with a new library on the ground floor). The link to this new page is here.
March 3, 2018: We have upgraded our presentation of videos by the renowned planner and architect Peter Calthorpe. Calthorpe describes key decisions that have resulted in livable and safe communities, and in reduced vehicle miles traveled per household. His primary example is Portland, Oregon. The three videos are short, and relevant for our times and our community. Have a look at them. They are excellent. Just click on this link.
December 16, 2017: Don't tear up the tracks: We have posted two opinion pieces—one by Paul Schoellhamer that appeared in the Sentinel, and the other by George Dondero that appeared in the Aptos Times, the Scotts Valley Times and the Capitola Times—explaining why tearing up the tracks is a bad idea. To read them, click here.
December 16, 2017: We have also posted a new video, entitled “Top 10 Reasons to Build the Rail Trail” Created by Friends of the Rail & Trail and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County and sponsored by seven other Santa Cruz County organizations, it's a good one, and at only a minute and 19 seconds, easy to view. Click here to watch it.
July 11, 2017: We have updated our rail section, and now have a new detailed map of the population density along our rail line. We have also posted Bruce Sawhill's new slideshow, with his expert vision about how viable public transportation in our rail corridor might succeed. Please check it out. It's right here. This is our response to those who keep saying we should throw away millions of dollars and remove the tracks.
January 4, 2017: Please consider making a donation to help us pay for our website charges, which are very reasonable. Just click here, or on the green donate button above to learn how to do it.
September 26, 2016: We've posted Lewis Mumford's relevant essay, entitled “The Highway and the City”. To find out more, click here. Please read it!!!!!
May 14, 2016: Susan Handy came to Santa Cruz, and gave us a good presentation at our Louden Nelson Center. Her talk, entitled “Stuck in Traffic: Will More Lanes Help?”, was followed by many good questions from her large audience. It was well-received. We have now posted a short summary of her remarks. You may also listen to a recent interview of her by Charles Marohn of Strong Towns, and watch a short informative two-and-a-half minute video by Linda Booth Sweeney. Click on this link to learn more.
March 23, 2016: We have a page of Stories by Bus Riders! Put together by Dana Bagshaw, it is right here. These are folks who enjoy using the bus to get around, and on this page, they tell you why.
October 27, 2015: Please see our Rail Line Info page, with lots of facts and figures about the RTC's Passenger Rail Feasibility Study. There are also a couple of informative videos. Click here to read it.
July 3, 2015: A summary of a transportation survey of County voters, done in early May, 2015, is now available here. Please read it and let us know what you think.
Anytime: Be sure to write to us (click here) if you have any comments or suggestions or if something about this website does not work for you.