Most people of my generation grew up with carpools. Carpools were a normal part of our daily lives. We shared rides to school, practice, the library (yes, we used to actually go to the library), and friends’ houses. Not only did this practice make sense for our parents, we usually enjoyed being in the company of our friends. This practice continued after we got our own cars. One of the great pleasures of getting your license and access to a car was to drive your friends around. You could quickly climb the social ladder in high school if you had wheels.

Some time in the intervening years, the carpool fell out of favor. By the time I became a parent, carpooling wasn’t a common practice anymore, and we grew accustomed to driving our kids everywhere. Seeing a carpool now is like catching a glimpse of an endangered species. At our neighborhood school, kids are, almost without exception, dropped off and picked by their parents. The mass convergence twice a day creates some logistical problems for a school built in 1921 for a population that walked to school. Even a slight increase in carpooling would ease the congestion. This same dynamic seems to have occurred with regard to our work commutes. The last time I encountered a regular carpool that involved a coworker of mine was 16 years ago.

The demise of the carpool could easily be chalked up to increasing selfishness and fraying relationships with neighbors. I will get to those issues below, but I do think there are practical reasons why this occurred. First, the lives of parents have become more complicated with the increase in dual income families. This change, coupled with the explosion in activities, reduces the likelihood that kids from multiple families are going to the same place at the same time. In fact, because many of our relationships now stretch across neighborhood lines, most carpools don’t even make logistical sense.

The other contributing factor is the introduction of car seats and the heightened concern about safety in general. Prior to car seats, almost any car could hold five or six kids. Now, most cars are limited to three backseat passengers and often the front passenger seat is empty. The concern for safety has also narrowed the circle of trusted drivers. We won’t trust our kids with just anyone (in any old car). And we no longer trust our teenage drivers. In most states, teenagers are not allowed to drive other teenagers without an adult in the car.

Unfortunately, those practical obstacles are mostly our own creation. Of course our busy lives, with daily schedules that must be adhered to with precision, stand in the way of not just carpools, but the relationships that are necessary to foster such cooperative acts. No bother - our ever more luxurious cars embolden us to embrace a go-it-alone approach. With minivans, we have the means to incorporate safety and preserve the carpooling spirit, but we insist on purchasing SUVs that have less interior room than a sedan. The paradox of the decline in carpooling is that our parents, whose uncomplicated lives seem almost quaint from our harried vantage point, actually had little impetus to carpool. They had plenty of time to drive us everywhere, yet they carpooled because it made perfect sense.

I have tried to reacquaint myself with carpooling, with mixed results. Seeking out a carpool is a very human act. It requires you to ask for a favor of a friend or neighbor, which most of us don’t like to do anymore. You run the risk of imposing on someone who doesn’t really want to cart you or your kid around. Alan Durning of the Sightline Institute writes about this dynamic eloquently in his Year of Living Car-Lessly column. His task is especially challenging given that he doesn’t have the ability to reciprocate in-kind. Alan discovers, just as our parents understood quite well, that friends and neighbors want to help out. What’s missing is that no one thinks to ask anymore. Fortunately, we have a collection of friends who, mainly for child care reasons, share drop off and pick up duties, as well as rides to common activities. So at least I know when I do ask, I won’t get strange looks.

Figuring the proper match and logistics for a carpool in our complicated, modern world can be difficult. This seems like a perfect role for the internet, and, in Oregon, we have such a service. CarPoolMatchNW is an online resource to help organize carpools and other ridesharing arrangements for work and other regular commutes. You can inquire about a carpool and interview potential car mates anonymously before deciding to join. Using this service may not feel like the good ol' days, but maybe you'll make some friends along the way.

Posted at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For many years, Portland has been viewed as the model American city with regard to regional planning and sprawl control. This reputation is due to many factors, including an overachieving public transit agency and visionary political leaders. However, the single most cited reason for Portland’s status is the creation of a regional planning body, Metro, in 1977. While the organization has inherited other functions over the years, Metro’s primary role is to oversee land use planning for the three county Portland metropolitan area. Metro’s most powerful legal tool is its management of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the metro area. The UGB separates urban from rural land and forces development to occur inside the boundary. While the UGB has expanded over the years, it has been successful in preventing the unmitigated sprawl that afflicts most other urban areas. In fact, the metro areas seeking a regional solution to managing growth typically point to Metro as the standard.

Most outwardly successful solutions are too good to be true, and that is the case with Metro as well. Metro has few powers beyond its management of the UGB, and so it serves as a planning and advisory body for the other critical issues, like transportation, that impact our quality of life. This article provides a snapshot of the unmanageable position Metro faces in trying to influence the transportation priorities of the region. Not only are the priorities too numerous for the available dollars, but there are different priorities within each of the three counties served by Metro. Because the two suburban counties are concerned about attracting residents and business activity, alleviating congestion through more road construction is at the top of the agenda. The third county is more mature and urban, and, being somewhat insulated from the traffic chaos in the suburbs, favors less emphasis on cars and more public transit solutions. We all have opinions about how to spend the money, but the unenviable job of sorting through these disparate views falls to Metro, which is governed by a board of elected officials.

Metro has also been under attack in recent years by property rights advocates and construction and real estate groups. To this crowd, Metro stands in the way of thousands of new houses being built on half acre lots. Preventing this exact scenario is, of course, Metro’s raison d’etre and why voters approved the agency’s creation in the first place. But ballot initiatives and candidate platforms have a way of turning this mission on its head and portraying Metro as the enemy of individual rights and the free market. Metro has fended off most threats to its charter, but the statewide passage of Measure 37 two years ago will force Metro to free up some land outside the UGB for development.

Maybe Metro should recommend some form of road pricing to tackle suburban congestion. Tolls and other forms of road pricing are an increasingly accepted form of reducing congestion. Tolls have two primary benefits: 1) the money collected can be used to pay for the construction of the roads, and 2) variable pricing schemes can impact the behavior of drivers and reduce congestion at peak hours. The Seattle area just concluded a road pricing experiment with 275 drivers. The study gave each participant a pot of money to be “spent” on driving and tracked motorists’ driving for eight months using GPS technology. The pricing scheme gave drivers an incentive to drive less and at non-peak hours. Drivers could keep any money left in the account at the end of the study. Not surprisingly, 80 percent of the participants changed their driving behavior and the average payout was $700. The Harvard economist Greg Mankiw mentioned this study on his website on Friday and generated a lively yet oddly abstract conversation. The conversation is amusing because, apparently, there are still seemingly intelligent people out there who neither understand the harmful side effects of traffic nor believe that driving a car is a heavily subsidized activity.

The problems faced by Seattle and Portland pale in comparison to the congestion in Southern California. Orange County already has a 51 mile network of toll roads and is planning to add another. The battle described in this article is a classic debate over the merits of new highway construction. Since highway construction never results in any long term reduction in congestion, the toll road advocates are hard to take seriously. Lost in the debate is the idea that some form of road pricing might work on I-5. Since the stated goal of the toll road is to alleviate congestion on one of Southern California’s most important arteries, why not address the problem directly. I realize that tolls would mock the road’s iconic stature as a “freeway,” but I can’t imagine a better place to put to bed the notion that driving should be free.

Posted at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Widespread changes in behavior occur over long periods of time. We typically assume that our individual actions don’t make a difference, but real change only happens when a critical mass of individuals changes its beliefs and actions. I believe that process is happening with respect to global warming. While our carbon production may not be declining as fast as some of us would like, the awareness of the problem and the potential action steps for individuals is growing at an exponential rate. I found one example here in Portland – the lead story on the front page of Sunday’s Oregonian was a guide to reducing carbon emissions in our daily lives. The article details the carbon output of most household appliances and devices. The biggest culprits are our cars, of course. Airplane travel is another huge contribution to carbon emissions. As I have opined previously on this site, our excessive use of our cars contributes to the degradation of the environment in other ways, including the continued destruction of open lands to feed continuous sprawl and the resulting increase in pollutants in the ground and water. Any concerned family, using this guide, could easily map out a plan for eliminating a desired percentage of carbon outputs from their home.

I may be naïve, but I do believe this increasing awareness about our own contributions to climate change will produce widespread collective action. The overwhelming facts about the declining health of our planet will eventually cause even the most recalcitrant to change their ways. This collective change in individual behavior will have all sorts of positive ramifications impacting what we buy, where we live and how we get around. Most large companies talk about what they are doing to protect the environment, yet, for most, this concern has little to do with their core business. When the tide of public sentiment shifts to a call for action, the underlying strategies for most businesses will change, and they will incorporate a respect for the planet as an integral part of their operating plans. This scenario is also the best hope for lessening our dependence on cars. Most people may not appreciate the dehumanizing aspect of our car use. But when enough people fully comprehend the impact of the 10,000 pounds of CO2 emissions their car use produces annually, they might begin to view their relationship with the car differently.

Our transition to a less carbon producing society would be aided by a range of green taxes designed to penalize carbon outputs and reward more sustainable activities. Although Americans already begrudgingly accept the rationale for one form of green tax – the gas tax, the introduction of a broad range of carbon taxes would only be possible through the substitution of the more consumption-based green taxes for some existing taxes. I have been particularly intrigued by the green tax proposals offered by the Sightline Institute in its book, Tax Shift. What is most intriguing about these proposals is the possibility of swapping out currently inefficient forms of taxation, like payroll and real estate taxes, for consumption taxes that reward sustainable behavior and innovation. The idea is being championed by Al Gore, and would get even more of a push if someone like presidential hopeful Barack Obama adopts it for his campaign platform. I could just as easily imagine a forward-thinking Republican adopting the ideas under the banner of less taxation and a more market-oriented solution to helping the environment.

Wouldn’t that be a nice change – politicians on both sides battling for the honor of the most innovative position on carbon taxes?

Posted at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The day after Thanksgiving is, of course, the busiest shopping day of the year. As you might imagine, I am not fond of a day that involves needless driving and mindless consumption. Despite the sacrifices of our founders for the right to pursue sacred beliefs and principles, our country has gravitated toward national rituals which are profane and overly commercial. I can’t help but wonder how the customs of this long holiday weekend would have evolved in a less car dependent society. For today is not about being out and about in our local communities, running into neighbors and appreciating a well-deserved day off. No, today is a contest where the outcome is measured by the amount purchased and the total distance covered. The national retailers feed this frenzy with massive sales and marathon hours. Most people don’t stop to realize that this strategy is not about providing convenience to the shopper but about maximizing the store’s throughput of customers.

At the center of this national shopping holiday is Wal-Mart. Millions of shoppers will flock to Wal-Mart this weekend in search of the latest bargains and to get a jump on the coolest toys and gadgets. Yet the holiday season compels me to be charitable, for Wal-Mart is like the prodigal son who shows a glimmer of promise just when you think all is lost. A few weeks ago, Wal-Mart began using its massive buying power to initiate sales of generic drugs for $4. Target has now matched that price as well. Wal-Mart has also begun experimenting with various “green” strategies to reduce its resource consumption. Given its size, Wal-Mart’s actions have a noticeable impact on our society. Many have looked to the federal and state governments to provide an alternative to paying retail prices for drugs, yet Wal-Mart’s pricing leverage is greater than most states. Wal-Mart’s impact on resource consumption could be equally profound, not just as one of the largest consumers of resources in the country, but in shaping the awareness and buying habits of millions of consumers.

While I strongly oppose the location and design of most Wal-Marts, I’m encouraged by the news that Wal-Mart’s website is the seventh most active shopping site on the internet. The site is so popular that online shoppers crashed the site this morning. Officials at Wal-Mart were apparently surprised by the number of visitors to their website. Maybe people are finally getting tired of sitting in traffic and hiking across vast parking lots to do their shopping.

Obviously, saving the planet is not Wal-Mart’s first priority. The company is always trying to increase profits and bolster its image, which has taken a few hits recently. But Wal-Mart doesn’t need to behave charitably, just responsibly. As Wal-Mart demonstrates, the market can be effective in improving fortunes for all. What is required is that the key players in the market – company management and consumers – not use their respective powers to abuse the system or take advantage of those with less leverage. When prices or wages seem too low, it means that some cost is not being absorbed by the market. Given the success of higher priced fair trade and organic goods, retailers do pay attention when consumers show a preference for goods produced in a market dynamic that accounts for all costs.

The holiday season is also the time of year when we pack on the pounds. According to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the design of our communities doesn’t help. Our communities are laid out to encourage rather than discourage car use. The study suggests more sidewalks, bike lanes and parks would help fight obesity. A little less holiday shopping might help as well.

Posted at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

My kids are out of school this week and are experiencing my car-free lifestyle in earnest. When you are by yourself, changing regular habits is straight forward. When you have kids who must join you on every outing, the dynamic is a little different. I’ve noticed some grumbling and found the curious piece of propaganda in the picture near my computer this morning. Despite their youth, my kids do have a sense of humor. Thankfully this is not a democracy, because I would surely lose any vote to decide our mode of transport. At the end of the day today, my son did confront me, in his best eight-year old way, to inquire whether we would ever be able to use the car. So I laid out the arguments I have articulated on this site, and focused on the impact of emissions on our climate, because I knew he could relate to that issue best. His response was not dissimilar to that of an average adult. He wondered how our actions could make any difference by themselves. Oh, how I wished we had discussed this topic in front of the Robert F. Kennedy gravesite a few weekends back, when I could have explained how RFK believed the tiny ripple of hope represented by one person’s actions can turn into a mighty current. I did my best to convey this sense of empowerment, but I have to admit I ask the same question sometimes myself.

For someone who is new to all this, like I am, it helps to be able to read the work of others who both care about these issues and live the life. One site I read regularly is Portland Transport, which is the creation of Chris Smith, a Portland-based transportation advocate and community activist. Smith has established a reputation in Portland as a credible outsider and attracts a range of expert contributors and readers to his site. His site has become the place in Portland to debate transportation issues.

My sister in Seattle turned me on to another inspiring blog that addresses the car-free life. Carla Saulter writes the Bus Chick, Transit Authority blog for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Bus Chick’s blog chronicles her daily adventures and advice as a devoted bus rider, and, along the way, she tackles the larger issues that are central to fostering a less car-centric life. Both Portland Transport and Bus Chick are included on the Links page of this site.

One more update to the website to note – I’ve added a permanent link to my personal car use statistics at the top of the page. I’ve long wanted a prominent place for this information so that readers can track our progress, of lack thereof, in reducing our car dependence. Now there really is no place to hide.

Posted at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You have to admire the audacity of the automakers. They keep rolling out commercials that test the limits of absurdity. All fall, Chevrolet has been running a series of ads set to the John Mellencamp song, “This is Our Country.” The flagship ad is a series of images of the seminal figures and moments in the recent history of this country, including Rosa Parks, Vietnam, Martin Luther King, the Walk on the Moon, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. The message is if you love your country, you should buy a gas guzzling Chevy Silverado. Because those great sacrifices were made so that all of us could engage in daily acts of extreme selfishness. The connection between the heroic moments of our past and Chevy’s monster truck is so laughable that this commercial has been ridiculed by various columnists and parodied on YouTube.

The latest ad to get to get my attention comes, of course, from Hummer. In the ad, an astronomer discovers that an asteroid is heading to Earth, and he has only 77 hours to save himself. Naturally, his plan is to buy a Hummer. At the end of the ad, he drives away from the observatory in a tiny electric car, presumably on his way to swap that piece of crap for a life-saving Hummer. Boy, what a moron this guy has been, driving around in that silly electric car all these years. The Hummer folks have never relied on rational arguments to justify buying one of these behemoths (because there are none), and instead show fantasies like the Hummer converting into a submarine, or the Hummer as the offspring of Godzilla and a robot. This latest ad has a nasty, fatalistic, almost Freudian edge to it: we’re all going to die anyway, so screw saving the planet and look out for yourself.

The auto industry has been throwing around the safety argument for years to get people to buy overbuilt, impractical SUVs that cost a fortune to operate. Because few people actually go off-road or haul stuff, the marketing of these vehicles must appeal to some other real or perceived need. Safety becomes the perfect angle, because what self-respecting person isn’t concerned about the safety of his or her loved ones on our increasingly dangerous roads. What the automakers hide is the fact that SUVs are the reason our roads are more dangerous. This study by Michelle White of UCSD is particularly damning. White’s analysis indicates that the substitution of SUVs and other light trucks for cars that has occurred over the past two decades has actually increased traffic fatalities, especially when pedestrian, bicycle and motorcycle fatalities are included. Her research also indicates that, while SUVs may protect their drivers better than cars in certain crashes, SUVs cause over four additional fatalities for every life they save. We all recognize the benefits of seat belts, yet White concludes that reversing the proliferation of SUVs would have an equal benefit in road safety.

White and others have also observed that the protective bubble provided by SUVs changes the behavior of their drivers. This increase in aggressive driving may even offset the positive impact of additional safety features in cars, like airbags and anti-lock brakes. It turns out that our high-minded concern for safety has simply filled our roads with frustrated drivers with little concern for the harm they are causing others and every excuse to express their rage at having to share the road. We all know the appeal of SUVs was never really about safety anyway. It’s about ego, vanity and our primordial urge to retreat from an imperfect world. The concept of car safety has become one of those convenient code words, like the ones used by Realtors in the 1960s and 1970s, to encourage white flight from the cities. These words imply our most base desires yet require no further explanation.

Road rage is a unique manifestation of the American car culture. The anger from the dehumanizing nature of our car dependent world has so few outlets that people snap in a way unimaginable elsewhere in their lives. This dynamic is exacerbated by the distorted self-confidence people derive from their oversized vehicles. Thankfully, another outlet for this type of behavior may be on the way. A man in the Washington, D.C. area has started a website to allow people to post their complaints about other drivers. While the authorities do not support any activity which causes people to lose their passive, lemming-like nature, I think this site makes sense. Having the opportunity to express your frustrations in writing in a creative and colorful way can only help to release the steam that builds up from the daily indignities of driving. Who knows – maybe this site will produce scrutiny of our macho driving menaces on par with America’s Most Wanted’s treatment of our worst criminal fugitives. You can drive, but you can not hide!

Posted at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My wife and I visited Las Vegas this weekend for a brief family reunion. This quick jaunt was the counterbalance to last weekend’s inspiring, car-free trip to Washington, D.C. We didn’t have time to visit the Vegas suburbs, like Henderson, which are the epicenter of American sprawl. The Vegas that we did see is surprisingly car unfriendly. In fact, the built environment of the Strip is hostile to all mobility. Getting anywhere on the Strip involves unlimited tolerance of inefficiency. As a result, in the city long associated with decline of American culture, the Strip is packed with walkers.

The popularity of walking in Vegas provides a lesson in the power of incentives. Anyone can be motivated to walk if the hassles of driving are sufficiently severe. People who rarely walk in their daily lives can be seen in Vegas overcoming all sorts of obstacles to walk from one casino to the next. Because the Strip is, in theory, designed for cars, crossing the street is impossible other than on an occasional pedestrian bridge. But simply getting to the bridges is a challenge. Plus, the sheer size of each casino complex is daunting. So why do so many people walk? Because every other option is equaling time consuming and more expensive. On a busy night, the wait for a taxi to take you a half mile down the Strip can be 30 minutes. The cab line at the airport is even longer, but walking the two miles to the Strip is a risky endeavor due to the lack of sidewalks on roads leaving the airport. As for driving your own car, the logistics and cost make this prohibitive for most visitors.

Anyone who has visited Las Vegas recently knows there is now another option: the monorail. The monorail, which reopened a few years back to much fanfare, runs behind the casinos on the east side of the Strip. While a monorail has the potential to revolutionize the experience for visitors, the Las Vegas monorail’s poor design makes it practically irrelevant. The flaws are many and suggest that the monorail was the brainchild of people who have never actually used public transit on a regular basis. First, because the stations are located behind the casinos, potential riders must trek absurd distances, through crowded casinos, just to get to the train. As you are dodging roulette wheels and slot machines on your way to the station, you realize that the monorail, like everything else in Vegas, is just another excuse to visit the casino.

The second major flaw is the price. A single, one way ride costs $5, and an all day pass costs $15. So after a 30 minute walk to the station, you are rewarded with the most expensive subway ticket in the country. I can’t figure out the business model for this train, because the monorail can’t attract many riders with this fare. The only rationale for this fare is that the city views the monorail as a tourist attraction by itself. Yet, given the rickety ride and the lack of any quality views of the Strip, there isn’t much for a tourist to see here. The monorail also has a head-scratching closing time of 2 am. So if you want to use the monorail in the town that has mastered the art of turning day into night and night into day, you better wrap up early.

The sad irony is that Las Vegas could benefit tremendously from a well-designed monorail. Every casino on the Strip, as well as those downtown, benefits from improving the circulation of tourists. This confluence of interests should allow for a heavily subsidized, if not free, monorail. The casinos already profit from a range of loss leaders, like free drinks and rooms. Why not eliminate distance as a deterrent to gambling? The monorail would be full throughout the day, creating the perfect captive audience for the heavy advertising you see everywhere else in the city. Lastly, the substantial investment in the current location precludes moving the monorail, but the designers should have had the forethought to run the monorail down the middle of the Strip. Riding a monorail down the middle of Las Vegas Blvd. would be a tourist’s dream. Every casino would be showcased in the most flattering way, and tourists would be able move with ease in and out of each casino.

I’m probably naïve about all of this. Given the Machiavellian behavior of the casinos, it’s possible all these design attributes were considered, and the casinos, seeking to trap gamblers for as long as possible, conspired to keep the monorail the curious sideshow that it is. If you go to Vegas, though, show your support for the monorail by staying and playing in the hotels along the route. The Flamingo, MGM Grand, and Bally’s are probably the best bets for a car and taxi free stay.

Posted at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I saw a screening on Wednesday night of the movie Fast Food Nation. The movie, which was directed by Richard Linklater ("Slacker" and “Dazed and Confused”) is a dramatization of the book by Eric Schlosser. The fictional story is simply a means by which Linklater can lay out the damning facts detailed by Schlosser in the book. If there is a fault in the movie, it’s that the characters, whom are portrayed by a star-studded cast that includes Greg Kinnear, Bruce Willis, Ethan Hawke, Kris Kristofferson, Avril Lavigne and Patricia Arquette, have a series of philosophical and ethical conversations that would never occur in real life (particularly among a bunch of hourly wage workers). I’m guessing that Linklater isn’t too concerned with this flaw. His purpose is to get the message from the book across in an easily digestible format, and he succeeds in that mission. You walk out of the theater slapped in the face with the harsh reality that the fast food industry and its supporting infrastructure are polluting not just our bodies but our souls. You also realize that it will be a long time before you step foot into a McDonald’s or Burger King again.

I may have an obsession with cars, but I don’t think it is much of a stretch to chalk up our fast food nation as one of the greatest “achievements” of our car dependent culture. In one sense, you could argue that the fast food industry doesn’t even exist without the mass proliferation of cars that occurred after World War II. The presence of the car alone, however, doesn’t explain the rise of an entire industry devoted to feeding us crap. The relationship between fast food and our car culture runs deeper than simply a means to get us to the drive-thru window. Our addiction to our cars is the enabler for two of our greatest vices: conspicuous consumption and xenophobia. The car is the means by which we satisfy our need buy whatever we want whenever we want, regardless of distance and size. We demand the staples of our diet any time of day, and we want it cheap. The fast food industry and the deplorable cattle farms depicted in the movie are not blameless, but they have delivered to the American consumer exactly what we want. We may all be appalled by to find out that there is shit in our meat, but we’re more likely to be appalled to pay $6 to get a “clean” burger.

Our national xenophobia is even more troubling. Although we crave the freedom and mobility fostered by the car, we still want our experiences to be familiar and comforting. Thus we demand the same uniformity regardless of where we go. Fast food is just one example of our eternal quest for homogeneity in our lives. We buy cookie cutter houses in segregated communities. We work in the same glass office buildings amidst rows of monotonous cubicles. Regardless of where we live, our houses are furnished by Pottery Barn and remodeled with the help of Home Depot. It’s no wonder we want our burgers and fries to taste the same regardless of where we eat. All of this sameness is made possible by our friend, the car. The car takes us away from the diversity and uniqueness that makes us anxious.

If you are troubled by what you see in Fast Food Nation, and vow to take action, let me plant this seed. Fast food is not so fast and convenient if you’re not driving a car. Without the car, fast food quickly becomes an anachronism in your life. So now you have another reason to leave the car at home.

Posted at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I wasn’t planning on writing today but a news item from Seattle changed my mind. Pedestrians were hit by cars in three separate incidents in Seattle yesterday, killing one man. Last month, I wrote about the alarming increase in the pedestrian fatality rate in cities across the country. Reading about three incidents in one day drove the point home for me. The hectic pace of our lives, combined with the insulating effect of repeated car usage, has made us not just oblivious to pedestrians, but dismissive of their presence. Sure pedestrians may be around, but this is a road, and roads belong to cars. I admit to being guilty of this thinking when I’m behind the wheel of my car. But I’ve also become far more sensitive to the plight of pedestrians and cyclists since cutting back on my driving. Because I make a habit of trying to study and predict car behavior when I walk or bike, I find myself thinking more about pedestrians and cyclists when I drive.

Some people may think the legal issues in cases where pedestrians are hit in crosswalks are murky. They are actually quite clear. Pedestrians in crosswalks marked with a standard crosswalk sign have the right of way. Period. Unless you are caught in the annual sting conducted by most cities to cite people who don’t stop for pedestrians in marked crosswalks, you probably think the opposite. We cannot imagine that a pedestrian would have rights over a car on a road, of all places. I cross a busy street at least three times a week using a marked crosswalk, and my unscientific research suggests that fewer than 1 in 10 know the law. I wait patiently and give big waves to the cars that eventually stop. It’s a sad statement when I have to give effusive praise to car drivers for adhering to the law.

The crosswalk laws exist because drivers refuse to acknowledge pedestrians anymore. The typical driver thinks “Whatever reason this pedestrian has for crossing the road cannot be as important as where I’m going in my car.” Wouldn’t it be great if cars had flashing neon signs that told you where the person was going? “Late for work.” “Forgot the milk.” “Returning a movie.” I’m guessing not many would contain urgent missions, like “My wife’s in labor.” Odds are most pedestrians aren’t hit by cars on urgent missions.

Pedestrians aren’t going away. My hope is that we’ll have many more in the coming years. The dangerous intersections are going away either. Unlike cars, however, pedestrians are acutely aware of the presence of cars as they enter a crosswalk on a busy road. I only wish drivers would return the favor.

Posted at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I’ve received many curious reactions from friends and family to our new lifestyle, and had many interesting conversations about what it means to use your car responsibly. One common approach to reducing car use is to make each car trip more productive. “Trip chaining” is the term for combining multiple errands into one car trip. By being thoughtful and strategic about our car trips, we can reduce our overall car use. Not surprisingly, UPS drivers are the experts on trip chaining, and the above website summarizes their keys to efficient car trips (e.g., make only right turns). Advocates of a less car dependent lifestyle include this strategy because they assume that most people won't leave their cars at home. The thinking is that more efficient trips are at least a step in the right direction.

If you have no intention of “stepping out of the box,” as I like to say, then, by all means, become a master of the art of trip chaining. However, if you are serious about addressing your car addiction, then you need to see this strategy for what it is: a huge loophole. For people who get the shakes at the sight of a bus or a bike helmet, this approach is music to their ears. You get to drive your car and save the world. You can’t ask for more than that. In fact, this approach feeds right into one of our country’s strengths: running errands. Most Americans already spend every Saturday and Sunday laying out the battle plan for taking the kids to their games and parties and hitting all the stores. Just squeeze in a few more errands or jam a few more kids into the carpool, and you’ve become an environmentalist.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to discourage even the smallest attempts to lessen our car use. In a previous post, I may have given the impression that I don’t support the work of environmentalists who still drive cars. Nothing could be further from the truth. My point is that if we are going to change our relationship with the car, we need to resist the usual excuses to use the car. Trip chaining only serves to ensconce the car further into our lives because it eliminates any opportunity to use alternatives for our car trips. You may be inclined to walk to the grocery store, but if you devise a master car trip to cover everything from the hairdresser to the hardware store, the trip to the grocery store gets thrown in as well. We need to learn through baby steps to wean ourselves from the car, and each car-less trip we take is a step in the right direction. Plus, trip-chaining only reinforces the notion that our daily productivity is gauged by a checklist of pick-ups and drop-offs. Maybe a successful day should measured by how few trips we make.

Based on my experience, there are two categories of trips that typically push even the most well-intentioned back into trip chaining. They are:

Logistically challenging trips – Anyone can walk to the corner store or ride a bike to the ice cream shop on a summer night. The car really owns you on the ten mile round trip to the doctor’s office or the trip to the hardware store to buy a rake. Without the car, you have to look at bus routes and wonder if you can take a rake on the bus. Or you wonder if the doctor will mind if you are a bit sweaty after a five mile bike ride.

Trips in poor conditions – You’re all into that bike until the first drop of rain, and then it’s back inside the close confines of the car. Even if you are up for the ride in the rain, the risk of showing up for work or to a party wet or wrinkled is too much to take. When did our desire to avoid getting wet or cold become a phobia?

These are the situations we need to conquer to stop rationalizing our car use. The first time without a car may not be perfect. You will probably realize that you needed to dress differently or take a less trafficked route or carry a larger bag. Those kinks are easily worked out on successive trips. The first trip, however, is the breakthrough moment. Not only can you start to imagine a life without a car, but that long trip chain begins to lose all of its links.

Posted at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

My sons and I returned from Washington, D.C. last night after a jam-packed weekend visit. This visit was especially meaningful for us since my oldest son is at an age where he is finally learning about U.S. history and the symbols of our country. A visit to the capital is a perfect way to make these lessons real. I have lived in D.C. on two occasions, so I knew the city would be an ideal place to visit without making use of a car. The city’s alternative transportation didn’t disappoint. The centerpiece is the city’s subway, Metro, on which a tourist can travel anywhere of interest, with the exception of Georgetown. We focused most of our sightseeing in and around the Mall, which is accessible by a number of Metro stops. Even with Metro’s extensive coverage of the city, you still do a lot of walking (not a bad outcome), and the Mall alone can be challenging for kids. In recognition of these fatigue-inducing distances, especially in August, the city has added the DC Circulator to fill in the gaps. The Circulator, which uses modern buses with large windows, has three loops, including one around the mall and another that stretches west to Georgetown. These loops help tourists tackle the most well-traveled routes that are either off Metro’s map or too short for a subway trip.

Washington is a great place to visit on a regular basis to refill your internal stores of patriotism and idealism. You can’t help but imagine a future of promise when looking across the long reflecting pool to the Lincoln Memorial. A walk along the wall of the Vietnam Memorial or through Arlington National Cemetery engenders gratitude for the heroes that shaped the destiny of this country. The memorials and monuments in Washington that pull on our heartstrings are classic examples of the public spaces described in James Howard Kunstler’s seminal work on the rise of suburbia and the car culture, "Geography of Nowhere." In his book, Kunstler repeatedly emphasizes the importance of public spaces in the life of a community. These spaces serve as gathering places for citizens as well as expressions of community ideals. In contrast to developed city blocks which encourage either constant movement or shopping, open spaces force us to stop and reflect on our surroundings.

According to Kunstler, American planning, driven largely by economics, has historically undervalued public spaces. This myopic view has only been strengthened by the march of developers away from our downtowns. The irony is that the European cities that Americans flock to visit, derive their unique character from an abundance of these open spaces. Like the great cities of Europe, Washington has these public spaces in spades. The city has added even more such open spaces in recent years, including two plazas on Pennsylvania Avenue, a World War II Memorial that sits between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, and even Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. This stretch of road between NW 15th and 17th was closed over 10 years ago after the Oklahoma City bombing and now serves as a magnet for tourists and residents alike. Tourists have long congregated on the sidewalk in front of the White House, and this uniquely American piazza allows for more leisurely, thoughtful visits to another of our sacred places. Although Lafayette Square sits on the other side of the street, Pennsylvania Avenue is the main draw, especially at night, when the park seems less hospitable and the well-lighted road especially alluring. The road is not just for public viewing and protests; I witnessed a roller hockey game during our visit.

A few other observations about Washington from our visit:

• Homeland Security is doing its best to turn our most sacred spaces private. The grounds around the Capitol Building are nearly impenetrable to mere mortals. I understand that tradeoffs are necessary to provide security in the face of potential terrorist threats, but buildings like the Capitol and Supreme Court are not simply meeting spaces for legislators and justices. These buildings are the symbols of the institutions of our democracy, and as such, the public must be able to interact with them. What message do we send to our kids when the physical symbols of freedom and independence that they learn about in school are actually off-limits to them in real life?

• The Verizon Center (formerly MCI Center) is a fantastic contribution to the vitality of downtown D.C. The home of the NBA’s Wizards, WNBA’s Mystics and NHL’s Capitals, is quite simply the least intrusive large sports venue I’ve ever seen. The Verizon Center is surrounded on all sides by other commercial buildings, and because of its scale, fits snugly into an existing downtown commercial district. I’m sure parking garages are hidden somewhere nearby, but there no parking lots to be seen. As with other downtown arenas, the Verizon Center has been the impetus for a transformation of the surrounding area, adding restaurants, shops and other amenities, including the very cool International Spy Museum, to a formerly forgotten area of downtown. Plus, the arena sits on top of the Gallery Place – Chinatown Metro stop, so subway riders don’t even need to step outside to enter the arena. Everything about this arena screams “please do not drive your car here!”

Even four days was not enough time to see all the sights. We missed most of the museums and would have loved to secure tickets for a Capitol tour. All the more reason for a return trip in a few years.

Posted at 8:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spend a few days in Washington, and you can’t help but think about politics. Especially after a tumultuous election like the one we experienced this week. In a previous post, I touched on the lack of attention paid to alternative transportation issues in both national and state politics. I also discussed the dysfunctional process for funding alternative transportation projects by carving out small amounts from large appropriations for highway construction and other road projects. The other reality for advocates of alternative transportation is the ritual of public transit systems demonstrating abject poverty before new funds are appropriated. The ritual usually includes a “burning of the furniture” by transit systems to display a commitment to self-sufficiency, before convincing legislatures to send more money their way.

This process is occurring in the Chicago area, where the three major transit agencies have released a study of the projected shortfall in funding for the region's entire transportation network over the next 30 years. I’m all for accountability by public agencies, as well as attempts to determine the sustainable market price for public transit. But the notion that public transit can be self-sustaining is a charade. No other country in the world shares this unattainable standard. In the same way that drivers don’t pay for roads, traffic signals and other public improvements designed to make driving safe and efficient, subway, bus and train riders can not be expected to cover all the costs of providing those services. Attempts to do so only undermine the mission of public transportation by creating the classic downward spiral of increasing fares, reduced ridership, and service cuts.

How come drivers never have to go to Congress and state legislatures with hats in hand? I realize the political constituency for driving resides in places like Michigan and Texas, so the process by which funds are allocated is less conspicuous than public transit funding. But as I posted previously, where is the cost-benefit analysis for new road construction? No one ever asks if road are making money. Aside from toll roads, the notion that roads should make money or be self-sustaining is never part of the debate. Yet public transportation systems are required to go through this dance every funding cycle, a process which, I suspect, partly serves to provide fodder for public transit foes to reduce or delay funding.

Tired of the humiliation of the above ritual, Seattle residents stepped up on Tuesday to address their own transportation needs, approving a property tax levy targeted exclusively to transportation improvements. Also approved by voters was an increase in the county sales tax to increase bus service throughout King County. Although much of the funding is devoted to road construction and improvements, this victory suggests that voters in certain areas of the country view all forms of transportation as public goods.

Finally, no good trip to Washington would be complete without a story about greed and corruption. This story, of course, involves the oil industry and the soul selling activities that companies engage in to gain access to scarce oil supplies. Much of our attention regarding oil supplies is focused on the Middle East, with an occasional distraction from Venezuela. Other countries sit on precious oil reserves, and this stroke of good fortune usually means someone in power is getting rich. In this case, the country is Kazakhstan and the person getting rich is its President, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. This article is another damning piece of evidence that our desperate need to feed the car culture impairs our pursuit of sound foreign policy.

Posted at 8:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday, my sons and I traveled to Washington, D.C. for a visit to our nation’s capital over the long Veteran’s Day Weekend. Since I am the leader of this expedition, we are traveling without the services of a car. There will be much to report at the end of this trip regarding Washington’s accessibility on foot and subway (and bike, if we had them with us). Yesterday’s journey, however, got me thinking about the increasing availability of mass transit to our airports.

Portland, of course, has light rail to the airport. The dilemma for us is that we live a short drive to airport. So short, in fact, that no highways are needed to get there. The resulting time difference, door to door, between driving and public transit is roughly 30 minutes. The car-less trip, which involves taking a bus to the closest train stop, and then a light rail trip which is nowhere close to being the shortest distance between two points, took a respectable 50 minutes yesterday. The benefits, though, are enticing. First, the round trip fare for the three of us is six dollars, a dramatic savings over the $40 parking tab. Second, the train delivers you right to the terminal. The alternative, as with most airports, is long term parking, which is in a remote location and requires waiting for a shuttle bus. Some exposure to elements is typically involved as well. Lastly, you get the psychic benefits so well documented on this site.

The case for public transit is even more open and shut at our destination. Washington has an extensive subway system that arrives at the airport. Plus, for a four day vacation, you face the prospect of renting a car, where the cost and hassle factor in a big city with parking issues, can add up. Short of recruiting a friend to drive you to and from the airport, which would be an imposition on already generous guests, the D.C. Metro is the smart choice.

I have traveled a fair amount, for both business and pleasure, and have used public transportation to access airports in nearly every major U.S. city. In addition to Portland and Washington, below are some of my favorite airport transit systems:

Chicago – Chicago extended the L to O’Hare in the 1980s and to Midway a decade later, demonstrating an unrivaled commitment to airport transit in the U.S. Chicago’s notorious expressway traffic makes predicting travel times between the airports and downtown nearly impossible. The Blue Line to O’Hare and the Orange Line to Midway both offer reliable airport trips in under an hour.

San Francisco – The massive renovation of SFO a few years back extended BART to the airport. The combination of BART and CalTrain commuter trains makes SFO one of the most accessible large airports in the country.

Boston – Logan Airport has been served reliably by the T for a long time. The only drawback is the shuttle bus ride to the terminals, which is actually shorter than it seems.

Los Angeles – Most travelers are surprised to learn that LAX is served by the subway. A ten minute shuttle to the subway stop is involved, but the remainder of the trip downtown is via rail. Total trip takes over an hour, but the cost and unpredictability of driving make this an underrated alternative. The other benefit is that you get to ride through neighborhoods most freeway drivers never see.

New York Kennedy – Another rapidly evolving airport due to the rise of JetBlue, Kennedy recently completed an airport tram connection to the subway. Total time to Manhattan is a little over an hour, but once again the cost and hassle free trip make this arguably the most accessible airport in the New York area.

Atlanta – Atlanta’s commitment to rapid transit in the 1980s is paying dividends with an established network that helps ease growing congestion in the city. Despite its distance from downtown, Atlanta Hartsfield is comfortably served by MARTA, a rail system with similarities to San Fran’s BART and D.C.’s Metro.

Unfortunately, some airports still have some work left to be done. Below is my current hall of shame:

Denver – Denver International Airport is the most pro-sprawl U.S. public works project of the past ten years. Instead of offering a creative solution to fight sprawl, the city basically conceded the battle and outraced developers to the hinterland. As with the new Northwest terminal at Detroit’s Wayne County Airport, Denver focused more on internal transit than on providing alternatives to the 30 mile drive to the airport from downtown.

Dallas – Fort Worth – DFW is another inconveniently located airport on the edge of the suburbs without sufficient public transit options. The Dallas – Fort Worth metro area is a classic car culture metropolis that is nearly impossible to link via rail. The only rail option is this single line service, which doesn't even run on Sundays and requires a ride on a shuttle bus via the remote parking lots. Even if the commitment existed to build additional light rail, the geographic scale of the area would prevent any light rail connections to the airport from achieving a critical mass of riders.

Seattle – Tacoma – Poor Seattle. Seattleites desperately want alternative transit options but the region rarely gets it right. Because of its location and lack of public transit, Sea-Tac generates significant extra car traffic. Light rail tracks are being laid as we speak, so the airport will lose its shameful status shortly. As with all Seattle transit efforts, the solution is not ideal. Work on the airport station has not begun yet, and the airport will rely on a station in nearby Tukwila until the airport station is constructed.

New York LaGuardia – This airport desperately needs a dedicated transit stop at the terminal. New Yorkers have made an art out of getting from Manhattan to LaGuardia in rush hour. Why make it so difficult? Let’s throw some science at the problem with an extension to the airport from one of the various subway lines that run through Queens.

Each visit to one of the great cities of this country should be a unique experience. If you immediately head to the rental car lot and speed away on the highway, every city feels the same. Was it Dallas or Denver? Houston or Detroit? Using public transit helps you connect with the places you visit. When you return home, you will actually be able to remember not only where you were but what you saw.

Posted at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As a person of faith, I am heartened to read about the increasing involvement by religious congregations in environmental causes and even alternative transportation issues. Religious organizations have historically focused on more traditional social justice causes, like poverty, hunger and homelessness. But the urgency of the debate over global warming has forced congregations of all faiths to decide whether responsibility to the environment is a cause that should share the limelight with helping the needy. Many religious organizations are answering in the affirmative and jumping into the global warming debate.

This article highlights the quickening progression of religious groups to the environmental movement over the past year. Within the past month, Christian congregations across the country, including my own, hosted screenings of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. At my church, this event was sponsored by our Peace and Justice Committee, a group which, in the past, has primarily addressed topics of economic and racial injustice. Bill Moyers recently examined the awakening of the evangelical Christian movement to environmental issues in a PBS special, “Is God Green?” Evangelicals have even coined the phrase “Creation Care” to connote the responsibility to be stewards of a planet which, according to their faith, was created by God. The term Creation Care also conveniently allows the mostly conservative evangelical community to get involved without appearing to jump over to the left side of the political spectrum.

Transportation issues are only a small part of the discussion about the environment and global warming. Yet one Christian group has targeted transportation as part of its environmental activism. What Would Jesus Drive? is a campaign led by the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), an association of various religious organizations trying to promote the Creation Care agenda. Like this website, EEN’s WWJDrive initiative promotes responsible car use, including switching to hybrid or low emission vehicles, and advocates that people of faith reconsider the questions of where to live, shop and work to lessen our impact on the environment. While I might shorten the question to “Would Jesus Drive?”, I can’t quibble with the message. One of the strengths of faith communities is their ability to quickly spread a message and produce action. My guess is that we are witnessing the beginning of widespread involvement by religious groups in the environmental and alternative transportation movements.

Most policy debates hinge on cost – benefit analysis, economic incentives and political constituencies. Religious organizations, however, are not shy about adding a moral dimension to the discussion. EEN has taken the position that transportation is a moral issue. I certainly agree with this assertion. Yet, you don’t need to be religious to approach this debate from moral or ethical grounds. We can all trot out the statistics about the impact of the car on our society, but an appeal to the moral compass that we all share is equally powerful. Secular and religious communities alike rally to condemn behavior that is destructive to any aspect of our society. Our national car dependence should be subject to the same collective moral outrage.

Posted at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The car has long been an icon of American culture. Our national love affair with the car is built on images of the open road, the freedom to discover uncharted territory, and an escape from our mundane lives. This mythical status makes sense for a country defined by mobility. Like the steam engine, railroad, telegraph, and now airplane, the car reduced the seemingly insurmountable vastness of the country into manageable chunks. But unlike those other inventions, the car allowed individuals to control their own travels, map their own routes and set their own schedules. In a country fascinated by the solitary exploits of explorers, cowboys and mavericks, the car was granted a place of honor.

Unfortunately, the myth of the car has always been just that: a myth. The average American is more likely to see a total eclipse than drive the open road. Despite Madison Avenue’s best efforts to sell the romantic notion of taking the road less traveled, the car’s dominant presence is due primarily to its prowess in tackling our most repetitive tasks. We may dream of driving a car that portrays us as stronger or cooler or more adventurous than we really are, but, during our waking hours, we actually prefer the workhouse that eliminates the labor from our daily lives.

Remember when…

The car holds tremendous allure, despite the emptiness of the myth. The pervasiveness of this illusion can be found in our art, music and literature. Bruce Springsteen, one of my favorite musicians, has made a career out of writing about the magical transformative power of the car. In Bruce’s world, there are barefoot girls sitting on the hoods of Dodges and the skeleton frames of burned out Chevrolets. Redemption is offered beneath dirty hoods, and the afterlife should be spent in a Cadillac. How does Bruce feel about alternative transportation? Well, if your girlfriend’s mother doesn’t stop yapping, “she can take a subway, back to the ghetto at night.” Movies and television shows only reinforce this notion of the car.

The myth of the car is also perpetuated by the incessant advertising by automakers. Watch sports on any Saturday or Sunday (as I often do), and you will witness a litany of car fantasies: trucks being struck by meteors, leather-clad women on motorcycles pulling over a luxury SUV full of men, high-speed rides on endlessly turning empty roads, SUVs summiting snow-covered mountains. An outsider viewing these commercials might conclude that the purpose was to mock car owners. “You’ll never experience any of these moments, but please buy our turbo four-wheel drive car to sit in traffic everyday.” The problem is that Americans aren’t offended by these images. We all want a car that can go from 0 to 60 mph in six seconds despite the reality that we spend most car trips inching along in traffic.

My own childhood is partly defined by the cars we drove. My father was a Ford man, and so we endured a procession of lemons pushed on us by a local dealer armed with financing to fit any need. We also dabbled in foreign cars with an Opel and Datsun station wagen gracing our driveway at different times. Despite their inconsistent performance, these cars made vacations possible for us. Our vacations were usually some form of week long trip east to visit relatives, with three days spent with relatives and four days spent driving.

Once I was old enough to drive, I forged my own car memories. In high school, my brothers and I shared a well-used 1973 Pontiac Catalina. With its powerful V-8 engine, we had the fastest car at a stoplight, and if you found the right dip in the road, you could easily get airborne. The biggest selling point of the “Cat,” as it was lovingly called, was its bench seat in the front, which, it goes without saying, was quite useful on a Friday night. In college, I was one of the rare students with a car, a 1978 Chevy Vega that burned through a quart of oil every 200 miles. Still, the car was quite useful for satisfying the late night munchies and the occasional road trip.

The greatest irony in my relationship with cars is that the first car I purchased on my own was instrumental in the courtship of my wife. The car, a 1988 Mitsubishi Montero, established me, at least in my wife’s eyes, as an outdoorsy adventure-seeker, a man not bounded by the confines of civilization. She would ultimately discover that, while the car was prepared to test its mettle in the rugged outdoors, I was quite content to sit inside on weekends and watch college football. But the car did its job by getting me in the door.

Indeed, the car has become a powerful reminder of our successes in life. Each milestone is celebrated with a new car conquest. “When I get my first job, I’m going to buy my own car.” “I can’t wait for my promotion so I can buy that Lexus.” “Once the baby is born, we need to get a minivan.” “Screw it, I’m fifty and I’m buying a sports car.” The car culture is so pervasive that I fear we lack alternative symbols to satisfy our human need to signal to others our life’s achievements.

Don’t you leave my heart in misery

While an irrational attachment to a myth can be harmless and even quaint, our view of the car is anything but benign. The most troubling trend in our relationship with the car is the anti-social machismo fostered by our obsession with SUVs. As the latest object of our affection, the SUV has replaced the human-scaled hot rod and sports car and, instead of promoting the impromptu social gatherings of our parent’s generation, serves as the means by which frustrated Americans fulfill their desire to retreat from society and vent their anger with the other dehumanizing elements of our car-dominated existence. Behind the imposing façade of an SUV, mild mannered suburbanites suddenly exhibit the selfish impatience of sociopaths. If you don’t believe that people have an irrational view of their SUVs, pay attention to how many times your friends and neighbors refer to their SUV as a truck. Despite the continued transformation of these cars into uptight luxury vehicles that never leave a paved surface, SUVs still offer their entirely domesticated owners the illusion of being everyday laborers doing an honest day’s work.

Like a drug dealer trailing an addict, U.S. automakers have adroitly tapped into the inchoate need for the protection supposedly offered by the SUV by designing larger, more elaborate vehicles. Once we see that the SUV we bought two years ago is threatened by a younger, more muscle-bound sibling, we, of course, need to trade up to feel safe. We pursue this never ending quest for more safety despite the growing evidence that this arms race, which is stuffing our roads with oversized vehicles that barely fit in lanes and roads designed for more modest vehicles, is actually undermining the safety of our roads.

Ultimately, it is the car’s unique power to bring out our most selfish instincts that is the danger of this love affair. Most Americans are well aware of the destructive impact of the car on society, and yet we continue to our overuse our cars and defend our behavior as an extension of our individual rights. This glorified appliance has somehow become the avatar of the treasured American values of personal freedom and independence. As in the movies, the messy details about our corresponding responsibilities to not just ourselves but to society get edited out. We Americans love to recite our real and imagined basic rights, yet any discussion of the limitations on those rights taxes our brains. As the perfect enabler of such convenient thinking, the car has become a reliable refuge from a world in which we are increasingly being asked to take responsibility for the footprint we leave on the planet.

Come on, baby, let’s start anew

The sad consequence of our abusive relationship with the car is the closing window of opportunity to explore what remains of the open road. There is much to see outside our cities and the car is still the most practical way to get there. Only the car can bring us in touch with the remote corners of our country, and allow us to witness the majesty of natural wonders like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite or Crater Lake. Yet the car-fueled expansion of metropolitan areas is chewing up our open spaces. Our gargantuan, fuel inefficient vehicles jack the cost up of driving long distances, and create a barrier between us and nature when we finally arrive. In short, the excitement of hopping in the car to experience something new will soon cease to exist.

We need to start over by ending our superficial attachment to the car portrayed in movies and on television, and reacquaint ourselves with the car that sits in our driveway: a simple metal box with the power to take us places that our feet and legs can’t. Magic and romance are aplenty as you gaze out over the Black Hills of South Dakota or stare up at the towering redwoods of Northern California. As with any chauffeur, the car offers nothing to this intimate encounter, and should assume its rightful place in the background, awaiting its next adventure.

Posted at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On Tuesday, voters across the country will go to polls to cast their ballots. While alternative transportation issues do not get much play at election time, there are a handful of ways in which your vote matters for the issues discussed on this site. I will not weigh in on individual candidates since few politicians anywhere in the U.S. pay much attention to the impact of cars on our lives. I will, however, offer my opinion on the ballot initiatives that have the potential to strengthen our dependence on the car.

The most significant ballot initiatives are the so-called property rights initiatives, which are on the ballot in Washington, California, Idaho and Arizona. If I had it my way, I would add a subtitle to these initiatives: the pro-sprawl measure. The premise of these initiatives is that the government should either compensate property owners for changes in land use regulations that diminish the value of the owners’ property, or waive the restrictions entirely. The best example of this scenario is a farm that has been owned for generations by a single family. At some point during the life of the farm, the local government decides to pass restrictions on potential uses of that land, including the building of personal residences. Such regulations eliminate the possibility that the farmer can cash in and sell the property to a developer with plans to build a subdivision. From the farmer’s perspective, the government has just taken money from his or her pocket, and compensation is required. As always, the issue is not so simple.

Such a measure passed in Oregon, of all places, in 2004, and has the potential to gut decades of work by local governments to stem the unmitigated growth of suburbs. This recent report by Sightline Institute highlights the pitfalls of such an approach to adjudicating disputes between landowners and local governments. The first conclusion of this report is that it’s not clear who deserves to be compensated and for what amount. Property rights advocates conveniently ignore the untidy reality that one person’s actions affect many others. So when Farmer Joe sells his land to a developer, who compensates his neighbors for the impact of new houses on their businesses? Who compensates the broader community for increases in congestion and pollution? Local government can certainly abuse the powers to regulate land use, but most entities use these powers to foster more manageable growth and maintain the quality of life for all residents. This role is messy and imperfect, but a laissez faire approach that allows the market to resolve these competing claims does not sufficiently protect the common good.

The second conclusion drawn from the Oregon experience is that not many people realized what they were voting for. People who voted for the measure seem surprised by how Measure 37 is playing out in reality. The danger of seemingly innocuous ballot measures is that they hide the true impact on a state. “Shouldn’t property owners be compensated for changes in regulations which diminish the value of their properties?” When you state it that way, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” Anything else would be anti-American. The reality is that if you care about the quality of life in your communities and want to curb the sprawl which has destroyed precious open lands, a “no” vote sounds the most patriotic to me.

The sub-plot to this and other ballot initiatives is that most of the anti-government ballot initiatives across the country have been funded by a few wealthy individuals. Howard Rich, the de facto head and sugar daddy of the libertarian movement, has funded not only the property rights initiatives but state spending cap and term limit initiatives across the country. After losing the term limit fight at the Federal level ten years ago, Rich turned his attention to state elections, and has found that his money goes a lot further in influencing election outcomes. People like Rich and the professional initiative writers like Tim Eyman in Washington and in Bill Sizemore in Oregon have given the initiative process a bad name. The voters of Colorado passed one of Rich’s state spending cap initiatives and then voted to suspend it after witnessing the draconian impact of the restrictions on the state’s budget. As The Economist pointed out a few years back, in states like California, real policy change has primarily occurred in recent years through initiatives. The legislature has basically ceded its responsibility for sweeping policy changes to the people. When initiatives are conceived in a thoughtful manner and arise from concern from local citizens, they can reflect the true desires of the electorate and be a force for positive change. Rich and others, however, have bastardized one of few remaining vehicles for true democracy in this country. Until proven otherwise, I suggest a vote against any initiative funded by outsiders and professional initiative writers.

As I discussed in a previous post, the voters of Seattle will be considering an unprecedented property tax levy to pay for a range of transportation projects. This Seattle P-I article provides an excellent summary of the measure. Most of the funds will be spent on road improvements, with a fraction devoted to bike paths and lanes. I have mixed feelings about this initiative because it continues the massive subsidies to car drivers. The dysfunctional character of transportation funding in this country requires that alternative transportation advocates support large scale road improvements projects in order to get the scraps dedicated to public transit and biking. In the public consciousness, transportation policy means making life easier for car drivers. Any money allocated to other forms of transportation is usually carved out of the largesse devoted to cars through the tireless work of committed advocates for alternative transportation. In this context, I’m not sure that bikers and walkers have any choice but to vote for this levy. I’m sure the City of Seattle is counting on votes from alternative transportation folks to pass this measure. I just wish the price for buying this support was higher.

One of the pleasures of living in Oregon is that we get to vote by mail. So not only can we vote in the comfort of our homes without the pressure of long lines behind us, but nobody has to drive a car to vote. That's an election day outcome to please everyone.

Posted at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After three months of trying to wean ourselves from using the car, I have learned a few lessons regarding the challenges of living a mostly car-free life. Any trip that involves just me is fairly simple to substitute a bike or walking for the car. I’m able to bike most distances comfortably and, given my commitment to this initiative, have a greater willingness to endure nasty weather than the rest of my family. Short trips, especially in nice weather, are always warmly received by the rest of my family. Trips without time constraints also generate less resistance than when we’re in a rush. Thankfully, the frequent presence of at least one of these conditions has allowed us to eliminate nearly all of our short car trips.

Nearly all is not nearly enough for me. Seeking to maximize our Car Avoidance Ratio (CAR), I analyze every potential trip to figure out how to avoid using the car. To my family’s great annoyance, I usually come up with some plan for almost every trip, and if I throw in a stop for food or a treat, I can usually sway most fencesitters. There is, however, a list of trips that prove beyond my powers of planning and persuasion. These nettlesome trips include:

Shopping excursions over 10 miles round trip – My strategy here has been to argue vociferously that these purchases are entirely unnecessary and that whatever we need can be purchased online or locally.

Date nights – A bike ride with your wife on a beautiful summer evening certainly adds a little spark to an evening out. Riding in the rain on a cold fall evening could suck the romance out of a newlywed couple on their honeymoon. And the bus can be a moment killer as well. The carless date night, however, does allow for more pinots, pints or pear martinis, whatever your tastes may be.

Dinner parties – I seem to recall pizza delivery guys on bikes with a basket that could carry pizzas and other entrees right side up. I need to get one of these baskets. Otherwise, trying to carry a warm casserole under your arm while biking to a dinner party is a recipe for disaster. I also need to invent a way to prevent helmet head – my wife’s not too fond of showing up a party with ridges in her hair.

Out of town guests – This category causes me the most heartburn because even our no-brainer walking trips are abandoned because our guests aren’t able to walk to our neighborhood haunts and haven’t ridden a bike in years. Having a few inexpensive adult bikes and helmets around for guests might help eliminate at least one excuse for driving. Or maybe we should only associate with people like these recent guests.

Suburban soccer games – Despite its status as a working class sport throughout the world, Americans seem to believe that soccer can only be played on pristine suburban fields. Like some sort of brainwashing ritual, city kids are forced to have their minds dulled as they whiz past strip malls on their way to games. Since my son’s games are past the reach of bikes and public transportation, I’ve resorted to carpools to ease my conscience.

Any thoughts on how to tackle these challenging trips would be much appreciated.

Although I’ve stopped reporting on our weekly mileage, I would still like, in the interest of full disclosure, to make it available online. My quick solution is this Google documents link. To access the document, you are required to have a Google account, which for some is the equivalent of stepping over to the dark side. I will try to have a more agnostic link in the near future. Keep in mind as you review the mileage that I am taking a long term approach to convincing my wife to give up her new car commute. Just yesterday, the kids and I took our light rail to meet her at her office and she was pleasantly surprised at how quick our trip was. So we’re making progress.

Lastly, some topics have no apparent connection to our dependence on cars until you look more closely. Daylight Savings Time (DST), which ended on Sunday, is one of those topics. For most of us, DST is an accepted part of our lives and even an anticipated signal of the changing of the seasons. In reality, the notion of changing our clocks is fraught with controversy, especially in light of recent legislative action to extend DST by almost a month. One of the primary arguments in favor of DST is that extending daylight hours in the evening saves electricity use. Michael Downing, however, argues in his book, Spring Forward, that any savings in electricity use is offset by, surprise, surprise, additional petroleum use. What else would a nation of car addicts do with more daylight? Go driving, of course. I really haven’t been too concerned about DST in the past, but if it will get people out of their cars, I’m all for its repeal. Sign me up for the march on Washington.

Posted at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The concept of negative externalities is central to the discussion of cars and their impact on our world. Economists have long debated the proper way to treat such externalities, but one group of like-minded thinkers has weighed in and even coined their own name: the Pigou Club. The name refers to the group’s support for Pigovian taxes, which are taxes designed to correct the negative side effects of a particular activity. While some may argue that car drivers absorb their fair share of the costs of operating a car, refuting the existence of negative externalities from driving cars, the costs of which are currently borne by society as a whole, is foolish.

The members of the Pigou Club advocate a fairly straight forward approach to recouping those costs: a tax on gas that gradually increases over time until it reaches some approximation of the cost of side effects of driving. Gregory Mankiw, the Harvard economist, states what he calls the club’s manifesto in Friday’s Wall Street Journal (here is a free version of the column). He lays out a concise case for an increase in the fuel tax, and even throws in some interesting twists on the standard pro-gas tax position, such as the tax’s ameliorating effect on the U.S. budget and the pro-growth impact on the economy of a large scale consumption tax.

I fully support an increase in the gas tax, and believe it is a critical piece to any campaign to reduce driving in this country. U.S. policy with respect to gasoline has long distorted our perception of the cost of driving. Judging by the reactions to gas prices pushing past $3 per gallon, most Americans seem to believe that cheap gasoline is an inalienable right granted by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. Our European neighbors have long understood the true cost of driving, and this enlightenment is due in large part to the healthy gas tax imposed by European countries.

A punitive gas tax alone, however, is not enough to produce real change. The gas tax doesn’t even properly align the financial incentives for drivers in this country. In addition to the concepts covered by Mankiw, basic economics teaches us that price sensitivity varies among consumers, and that lower income families will be far more sensitive to changes in the cost of basic commodities, such as gas, than affluent families. In fact, the incentives are almost perverse: the more successful a gas tax is, the more incentive rich drivers have to use their cars. Congestion free highways for only $1 more per gallon? Where do I sign up? So not only will the affluent be able to retreat to their gated communities, but they will have their own riff-raff free highways to get there.

Even if we make adjustments for price sensitivity, policies based purely on financial incentives still fall short. Cigarette taxes, which are the most well-known sin tax, work well on the margins, with casual smokers and people with less disposable income choosing to forgo smoking due to the pain to their wallets. I believe that the real change in smoking came as a result of massive cultural change brought about by a barrage of health warnings, public policy changes and real-life horror stories. The change in our view of smoking is a classic tipping point phenomenon. Once enough elements of society turned against smoking, the cool factor associated with smoking disappeared and everyone rushed to the healthy side of the room. People who smoke are now treated as pariahs, huddled together on sidewalks like refugees from mainstream society.

The day when car abusers are viewed with disdain by the public will come only after a full assault on not just the economics of driving a car, but on the public perceptions of car driving. Public service messages and surgeon general warnings about the contributions of the car to declining health and degradation of the environment would be a nice start. But we also need to cure our schizophrenic transportation policies. A heavy gas tax combined with continued investments in new roads and loopholes in fuel efficiency requirements for SUVs is just the type of dysfunctional policy that causes people to shrug their shoulders and turn the ignition key. The gas tax combined with a serious investment in alternative transportation and an unwillingness to add all those extra lanes on the highway, however, makes the message crystal clear. Once the alternatives to driving are attractive enough to cause people to question their driving habits, the extra $1 per gallon advocated by the Pigou Club will be the appropriate nail in the coffin of our national car obsession.

Posted at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)