The five myths about suburbia and our car-loving culture
By Ted Balaker and Sam Staley
From the Fresno Bee which is a pretty good paper despite all the jokes.
http://www.fresnobee.com/286/story/29260.html
1 Americans are addicted to driving.
Actually, Americans aren't addicted to their cars any more than office workers are addicted to their computers....driving habits isn't population density, public transit availability, gasoline taxes or even different attitudes. It's wealth. Europe and the United States are relatively wealthy, but American incomes are 15% to 40% higher than those in Western Europe. As nations such as China and India become wealthier, the portion of their populations that drive cars will grow.
2 Public transit can reduce traffic congestion.
Transit has been on the slide for well more than half a century.
Even though spending on public transportation has ballooned to more than seven times its 1960s levels, the percentage of people who use it to get to work fell 63% from 1960 to 2000 and now stands at just under 5% nationwide. Transit is also decreasing in Europe, down to 16% in 2000....
3 We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving.
...Since 1970, driving — total vehicle miles traveled — has increased 155%, and yet the EPA reports a dramatic decrease in every major pollutant it measures. Although driving is increasing by 1% to 3% each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10% annually. ...
4 We're paving over America.
How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4%? ....
5 We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving.
...even if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050.
...
Ted Balaker and Sam Staley are coauthors of "The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It" (Rowman & Littlefield). This commentary was written for the Washington Post.
Excerpted above, an excellent read. Staley is a good scientist even if we have our occasional disagreements.
26 comments:
So, if public transportation doesn't relieve traffic congestion, what do we do in areas where geography doesn't allow enough roads to carry all the traffic?
I'm not addicted to driving. I'm addicting to living far from the city. For many reasons.
Excellent question. I'm going to answer briefly but it will sound officious, it isn't.
The ways to relieve congestion in built-out areas which are also usually geographically constrained are to:
-time shift employment schedules
-land use covenants that include traffic impacts
-acceptance that cities need to change
-technology
-reallocation of transportation funds
-minor adjustements to use fees/taxes
-annointing me emperor
-CEQA laws with teeth
-mandate regional cooperation
-separation by transport type
-uniform parking policies for public spaces
-municipal education, planner re-education
-public education
We like to see our $ well spent on propaganda.
A $10 discount on a hybrid is not a "check."
And the "Reason" Foundation?
i live on the westside in l.a. and although i doubt i'd ever give up my car, if i felt like i had decent public transportation options i might use them.
i would love to see them complete the "subway to the sea" and/or the expo line to santa monica, although i have no idea whether it would be cost-effective (i imagine you'll tell me they aren't). but i would love to have the option. in fact, i would probably try to buy a home near one of the stations if i knew it was going to be built.
the traffic from the westside to downtown is so awful in the afternoons that i think that we could see good ridership levels on such a system. buses won't work because they get stuck in the same traffic as all of the cars.
And the "Reason" Foundation?
They aren't perfect. They completely miss the free parking issue for one but they try.
i would love to see them complete the "subway to the sea" and/or the expo line to santa monica, although i have no idea whether it would be cost-effective (i imagine you'll tell me they aren't). but i would love to have the option. in fact, i would probably try to buy a home near one of the stations if i knew it was going to be built.
We would ALL like to have the option. The problem is there just plain old isn't enough money and the result is MORE congestion as a consequence. Got it? Your getting the free drug not only addicts you when you "use" but makes your life worse when you abstain. Sane societies make this kind of drug pedaling illegal.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63
first, i have a question someone could maybe answer...to what is the increased cost of transit projects attributed? is it an increase when adjusted for inflation and looked at on a per capita basis?
also in regards to the idea of stopping driving in order to slow global warming, driving isn't the key factor, it's the fuels used. in order to truly put a dent in co2 emissions (working under the assumption that they are the major contributor to global warming, and the elevated levels of co2 are due to the burning of fossil fuels) we would need to develop alternative fuels not just for driving (although that would be a good start), but for the production of all kinds of energy. what good are hybrids if they still run on gasoline, and use up a lot more resources (ie energy, likely not produced from co2 neutral sources) to manufacture than conventional cars? what good is ethanol if it's made from corn grown w/ petroleum based fertilizers, harvested w/ diesel equipment, and distilled in plants powered by coal-powered power plants?
if we really wanted to drastically lower emissions we'd have to look at the whole energy cycle, and at least in the near term look at nuclear to shoulder a huge load of our energy production. ethanol, methanol, bio-diesel, etc., could be part of the solution too, but not w/ the manufacturing processes, raw materials, and energy inputs that they currently use. and without some kind of carbon tax i don't think any of it would happen anytime soon.
to what is the increased cost of transit projects attributed?
Gold plating, ADA, inflation, inefficiency, diminishing returns.
is it an increase when adjusted for inflation and looked at on a per capita basis?
Transit operating costs have been increasing at a rate 3-4 times CPI for more than a decade. That's just the operating costs which should have gone way down relative to inflation.
driving habits [...] It's wealth.
Yes, I agree that driving is related to wealth. However, that does not make it any less of an addiction. I fail to see the argument that it is not an addiction. Wealth or not, imagine tomorrow we'll run out of oil -- you'de see immediately how much of an addiction driving is in this country.
the percentage of people who use it to get to work fell 63% [...]
Any way you look at it, anywhere you go in this world: name a metropolitan area with an efficient public transportation system, and I guarantee you its capacity is almost maxed out. People DO use public transportation. We can always pull out statistics to prove otherwise. Statistics don't tell the story. Assume for a moment you statistic about only 4.9% of all people nationwide using public transportation. If the efficient infrastructure of public transportation reaches only 5% of the population then a whopping 98% of all people who are able to use transit are actually using it. How about that for a statistic?
BTW: By efficient I mean quick, no waiting, convenient, etc., NOT profitable.
We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving.
Most people (and experts, for that matter) do not make the statement the way it is written here. First, we can cut pollution not ONLY by not drinving. And second, we don't have to STOP driving to cut pollution. The statement is a little overdone.
Although driving is increasing by 1% to 3% each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10% annually. ...
Even if they WERE dropping 10% annually, that's just another statistic that says nothing. To give you an extreme example, if we were emitting 100 times what we should be emitting, we could reduce our emissions by 10% annually each year, and it would still take us 44 years to get to "normal levels". I am just saying that an annual 10% reduction might sound like much, but it's all relative and just a statistic that does not tell you anything about the scope of the problem.
BTW: I don't believe that overall vehicle emissions are dropping by 10% annually. Maybe if you don't count carbon dioxide. Many statistics don't include that because some lobbyists consider this a "clean" gas. While it might not be a pollutant like uslfur dioxide, it still poses a significant problem which an astonishing number of people tend to deny of its existence.
How about 5.4%?
Again, I fail to see the point. Is 5.4% not enough? Granted, it's much less than Europe, for example, but do you really think that developing 25% of America (or, say, the rain forest in South America) would be a percentage that the world could actually bear without the ecosystem collapsing?
The problem is there just plain old isn't enough money
Public transportation should not always be about whether it can be sustainable as a profitable private business. Something that's never included in the profitability/welfare equation is the fact that public transportation has huge positive externalities. That's why public transportation is mostly public in the first place. You would never get positive NPV out of a park or memorial. Why do we spend money on it anyway? Because it's not always profitability that matters. And, counting the much less emissions, congestion, time savings, stress savings (work longer/better!), the public welfare is significantly higher than can ever be stated in numbers.
I apologize for all the typos.
Excellent points anonymous.
I thought I’d summarize some key points in the fact sheet referenced above http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63 that might make one question these guys:
The Reason Foundation, made up by the Reason Public Policy Institute and Reason Magazine, describes itself as "a leading voice for individual liberty, economic freedom, and dynamic market-based public policies." Reason Foundation's mission "upholds the classical liberal approach to seeking truth via rational discourse, free inquiry, and the scientific method. We support the rule of law, private property, and limited government. We promote voluntarism and individual responsibility in social and economic interactions, relying on choice and competition to achieve the best outcomes."
Reason has an associated environment website (www.newenvironmentalism.org) which promotes conservative environmental policies. The page links to articles on websites for organizations such as CEI, the Heartland Institute and Tech Central Station. It also has a section praising the environmental stewardship of corporations such as ExxonMobil. Reason's Magazine also badmouths the environmental movement and promotes the interests of Reason's corporate contributers. Several authors of Reason's "Roadmap to Reform" were appointed by CA Gov. Schwarzenegger to his budget working group and transition team. Reason's second President, Lynn Scarlett, is now Assistant Secretary for Policy and Management at the US Department of the Interior under Secretary Gale Norton. Reason Foundation is also a member of the State Policy Network. According to the 1999 Reason Foundation Annual Report, top funders include: C. Boyden Gray and David Koch (each individually contributed $25,000 or more in 1999), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the JM Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Lilly Endowmet, Scaife Family Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Sunmark Foundation. Corporate Donors in 1999 included: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, ARCO Foundation, BP Amoco, CA Building Industry Association, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron Corporation, Chlorine Chemistry Council, Clorox, Coca-Cola, American and Continental Airlines, Daimler Chrysler Corp, Dow Chemical, Eastman Chemical, Edison Electric Institute, ENRON, Exxon Mobil, FMC Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kimberly-Clark, Koch Industries, Koch Materials, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, National Air Transportation Association, National Beer Wholesalers, National Soft Drink Association, Pfizer, Inc, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble, Shell Oil, Sun America, Union Carbide Corporation, United Airlines, Western States Petroleum, Watson Land Company, Whole Foods Market, Winston and Strawn.
KEY QUOTES
24 February, 2004
"What we can say is that climate change has been a natural phenomena throughout the course of time. What impact do man's activities have on the Earth's natural climate cycles? That is still open to debate. Some would say none at all while others will say that it is dramatic."
Source: Reason website 4/04
KEY DEEDS
7 June, 2002
Chief Scientist and Environmental Program Director Kenneth Green signed a letter to President Bush, asking him to withdraw the "Climate Action Report 2002" and demand that it be rewritten based on "sound science." The letter also recommends that Bush "dismiss or re-assign all administration employees who are not pursuing your agenda, just as you have done in several similar instances."
Source: Joint Letter To President Bush On The EPA's Climate Action Report 6/7/02
FUNDING
Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$72,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$204,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
60K general support, 25K project support, 29K for Air Quality in Texas
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report
2002
$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report
2003
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2005
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
…
An average temperature drop of 0.7 degrees Centigrade would be exactly what the Earth needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
As usual the short sightedness of humanity overwhelms me.
Presenting statistics out of context in this case is completely misleading and a common tactic of someone who knows they are wrong or are very stupid.
Exxonhater,
We can click thank you. $36billion profit and twenty grand is a what? Attempt to preserve those profits?
Anon 5:22,
That's zero point ZERO seven degrees. Didn't you know that presenting statistics out of context in this case is completely misleading and a common tactic of someone who knows they are wrong or are very stupid.
I'd like to know the source of funding for these groups promoting public transportation. Betcha if you dug around you'd run across evil corporatey corporations that like to build things and make money.
For example, in Texas right now we're seeing millions of dollars worth of ads telling us the coal-fired power plants are bad for the environment. What the ads don't tell you is the source of funding is a handful of natural gas companies.
I will bet that a large portion of the funding for the "driving to work is a dangerous addiction and I want to use the government to force you out of your car" spin is funded by companies like Bombardier. "Grass roots" my ass. These "institutes" that people like ExxonHater shills for get serious cash.
Rob Dawg,
I included the text for Google search purposes. We seem to agree on many issues, but obviously not transportation. It is one thing to drive from point A to point B to get to work or groceries or something, but wasteful driving to shop, do yoga, buy Jamba juice (a la my boomer mother) should make one feel as ashamed as Casey. Why drive there when you can do it at home and don’t need another outfit? Why drive anywhere except to support extraordinarily overpaid big oil CEO’s and the downfall of western civilization?
K, I need to stop commenting further on this issue or I’ll do a Tim ;)
Akubi
BTW, Rob Dawg. It seems you’re also a bit of a sci-fi fan. I always wanted to be beamed up like the non-driving guy in Repo Man.
BTW, Rob Dawg. It seems you’re also a bit of a sci-fi fan. I always wanted to be beamed up like the non-driving guy in Repo Man.
Lou Minatti, Illuminati, what have you.
Serious cash my ass. I have a rather non-challenging job so as to focus on the more important things I believe in.
P.S. Something doesn't seem to be working properly with the posting mechanism.
i have a coaster scooter, a motor scooter, a bicycle, and a car. i drive the car once a week or so. i think that i live a sensible lifestyle, and that many car drivers do not. the longer i'm away from petrol-propulsion, the more bizarre it comes to seem. i think our mastry of science and harnessing of combustion is a remarkable achievement that we need to sensibly apply to our lifestyles.
Itz good, reels f-ing good…What would dis country be without these brilliant corporations fuckin us up d ass all da time…?
I’s prefers buying crack on mys own and not via dis f-ed up cast of corporations:
Corporate Donors in 1999 included: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, ARCO Foundation, BP Amoco, CA Building Industry Association, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron Corporation, Chlorine Chemistry Council, Clorox, Coca-Cola, American and Continental Airlines, Daimler Chrysler Corp, Dow Chemical, Eastman Chemical, Edison Electric Institute, ENRON, Exxon Mobil, FMC Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Kimberly-Clark, Koch Industries, Koch Materials, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, National Air Transportation Association, National Beer Wholesalers, National Soft Drink Association, Pfizer, Inc, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble, Shell Oil, Sun America, Union Carbide Corporation, United Airlines, Western States Petroleum, Watson Land Company, Whole Foods Market, Winston and Strawn.
John,
Although I find Stephanie and her jeep and boots are really hot, I go both ways and your concern about combustion really turns me on...and I'm wondering if you are who I think you are.
Love,
Entropia
I never understood all the warm fuzziness over public transportation. The thing that Urbanists always fail to mention is that public transportation is above all else a huge pain in the ass. There's always the creepy looking guy who won't shut up, the fat woman whose ass oozes onto your seat, and the ever so helpful and cheery staff that can never count change.
What commute would you rather do?
(1) 45 minutes in your comfortable car on the highway by yourself
(2) spend 5+ minutes getting to the commuter rail station, wait 10 minutes for the train, sit for 25 minutes on the rail while packed like a sardine, and walk 5+ minutes to work
I'll take my "congested" highway, thank you. (Why is it bad for a highway to be congested with cars but it's good for a rail car of people to be congested?)
Post a Comment