THE VINE NOVEMBER 23, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In January 1973, William Ruckelhaus, the administrator of the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency, traveled to Los Angeles to break the bad news to residents: They were going to have to drive less. Automobile smog was choking the city, in stark violation of the Clean Air Act, and the EPA had hatched a plan to clear the air, by promoting mass transit, parking fees, high-occupancy lanes, and gasoline rationing. The reaction from car-loving Californians was a combination of shock and outright rage. "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard," fumed one resident. "Wouldn't it be cheaper," one reporter asked Ruckelhaus at his Biltmore Hotel press conference, "to take the people that have asthma and send them to Arizona?"
The backlash against the transportation plan was the first time that ordinary citizens, rather than big polluters, were attacking the EPA. ("The most searing experience I lived through," one agency staffer later called it.) And in the ensuing years, indignant Angelenos opposed nearly every attempt by local officials to tamp down on driving, from transit to land-use controls. True, the city's air did get cleaned, but only because of the invention of catalytic converters that filtered tailpipe emissions—vehicle miles traveled, meanwhile, continued to soar. And the episode offered a warning to anyone trying to promote walkable urbanism or get people to drive less. Americans adore their cars and clogged freeways, and only a fool would try to change that. (As Josh Patashnik reported for TNR, Arnold Schwarzenegger's brand of climate activism has explicitly avoided trying to persuade Californians to alter their motor habits.)
But is that still true today? Are Americans as car crazy as they were in the '70s? There's growing evidence that young people, for one, are less enamored of driving than their parents were. In 1976, three-quarters of all 17-year-olds had drivers' licenses. By 2008, that was down to 49 percent. And, in a recent survey by Zipcar, the car-sharing company, a full 67 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds said they would prefer to drive less, especially if alternatives were available (Zipcar's not a disinterested party here, but other surveys have yielded similar results). The shift in mood partly reflects worries about the environment and the price of gas. But there also seems to be a technological aspect, too. Once upon a time, newly licensed teens would pile all their friends into their new used car and drive around aimlessly. Nowadays, teens can socialize via Facebook or texting instead—in the Zipcar survey, over half of all young adults said they'd rather chat online than drive to meet their friends.
Now, a lot of these car-free teens will eventually become auto-dependent. After all, it's hard to raise a family in walkable urban areas—housing prices are high, the schools aren't always great, and it's hard to carry groceries for three kids on the bus. But many of these young people might prefer to stay carless. Chris Leinberger of the Brookings Institute has estimated that about 88 percent of household growth through 2040 will be composed of singles or childless couples—and many of those people would be perfectly happy living in urban centers, riding subways. But, he notes, there will only be enough walkable neighborhoods to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of this demand—which is why rents in transit-accessible areas are so exorbitant.
The natural policy solution would be to focus more on promoting denser neighborhoods—places where people don't even need cars. Yes, that would involve spending public money on things like transit (or, say, tinkering with zoning rules like D.C.'s building-height limit to increase the supply of affordable housing in urban centers). Though, as Matt Yglesias loves pointing out, America's current car-dependent set-up also depended heavily on government subsidies and regulations—everything from trillions of dollars in highway spending to mortgage-interest deductions and zoning rules that promote bigger houses. There's no free market here.
Trouble is, the people who currently benefit from these low-density subsidies like them—a lot. That's why you see Tea Partiers denouncing smart-growth projects as sinister plots to force everyone into "hobbit homes." (Or politicians warning that new bike lanes are a precursor to a UN takeover of America.) These protests, while nutty, are direct descendents of the LA car revolts in the 1970s. And yet, polls like the one above seem to suggest that a newer generation is a lot more willing to embrace alternatives to car-centric suburban living. It's just that young people who theoretically wouldn't mind going car-free are a lot less vocal than suburban dwellers opposed to denser neighborhoods. So it's not yet clear whether this big attitudinal shift will lead to major policy changes.
(Flickr photo credit: mushwu)
18 comments
This is an area where stimulus monies could have been directed, but where the boat has long since sailed. Instead of trying to develop the bullet trains, which are being shot down seemingly everywhere, they should have directed more monies to developing or supporting already existing intra-city transit structures. That would have fed the taste for mass transit a little more, and perhaps could have been a springboard for bullet trains in the future. At least population and demographic trends will keep up pressure to have more mass transit options. So it will be here eventually. It would be amazing, but perhaps too ideal, to have mass transit be more privately funded. But I guess that appetite simply isn't there. That would be an incredible investment opportunity, however.
- RedState
November 23, 2010 at 9:36pm
An anecdote. Last night I watched Three Days of the Condor, a Robert Redford movie made in 1975 (I signed up with NetFlix's new streaming only service for $7.99 per month and highly recommend it). It's been over 30 years since I last saw the movie, and two things impressed me. One, Faye Dunnaway, was she a beautiful woman. Two, I remembered that the plot had something to do with CIA intrigue, but I had forgotten that the intrigue centered on oil, specifically CIA efforts (mostly illegal and immoral) to insure a steady flow of oil to the US to guraranty the American way of life. The lecture given by Cliff Robertson (the CIA operative) to Redford (Condor) at the end about how Americans expect their government (CIA included) to take whatever actions, which in the movie centered on the murder of seven Americans at the behest of a shadow CIA, are necessary to keep the oil flowing sounded like a Dick Cheney lecture from a couple of years ago. I suppose not much has changed in the 35 years since the making of the movie, including Americans' consumption of huge volumes of oil.
- rayward
November 24, 2010 at 8:47am
The article seems to be unbalanced. Tens of thousands of young people and adults are going forward to the bicycle as a means of urban transportation. NYC has installed over 250 miles of new bike lanes, throughout the five boroughs. Washington D.C., with NYC soon to follow, has instituted a bike rental program. New technology is slowly become available for electric cars; electric bikes and such. There is huge enthusiasm for the Vespa motorscooter in many urban neighborhoods. Walkability has become a hot urban planning topic at conferences. There are counterbalancing tendancies at work. It is easy to become spoiled in New York City. Mass transit is everywhere. Owning a car in the City subjects you to $125+ parking tickets; alternate-side-of- the-street parking regulations; high cost of maintenance and repairs, insurance redlining, and the abusive cost of gas and oil. Why suffer owning a car? The deficiency of mass transit alternatives in small and large cities "out West" is shocking.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 24, 2010 at 9:38am
Amazing abuse of statistics here. Plumer takes one survey that says fewer 17-year-olds have driver's licenses and one survey (taken by a company that promotes car sharing) that finds 18-to-34 year olds would like to drive less, adds in his own assumptions that social networking replaces socialization and that socialization is why people drive cars and ends up with the conclusion that people would like to live without cars. This such nonsense that I wonder why he even bothered with any numbers. What it suggest to me is that parents delay licensing kids because of insurance costs and that gas, parking, insurance and purchase prices are painful to young people. No evidence that Americans don't like cars. I invite Plumer to come to Indianapolis, where people drive dangerous rattletraps to avoid getting on a bus. Very few people outside of subwayland would prefer to live without a car. I like mass transit but for the sale of the readers, let's stay rational here.
- emccded
November 24, 2010 at 11:24am
emccded: The statistics of Indianapoliis are disconcerting: Commuting in Indianapolis Total number of workers 385,208 Didn't commute by car or at all 29,559 Commuted by car 355,649 Lone driver 87% Carpooled, 2 people 11% Carpooled, 3 people 2% Carpooled, 4 people 1% There is no evidence that Indianapolis drivers know how to get closer to their fellow commuters: 87% lone drivers. No HOV lanes, yet? Talk about individualism. There is plenty of evidence that many Americans are open to alternatives to the "lone driver." Perhaps they drive "rattletraps"in Indianapolis because they fear getting too close to their fellow citizens? What is happening in Indinapolis is unsustainable for the rest of urban America.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 24, 2010 at 11:42am
I think maybe there's another angle here. Cars (and driving) just aren't as exciting, interesting, or as fun as they used to be. Yes, the article alludes to this with the comments about socializing via Facebook being viewed more favorably than driving. But part of the reason for this, I assert, is because cars are so homegeneous and utilitarian today, with stytling that could be charitably described as pedestrian, as opposed to the go-go days of the 60's. Cars are indeed much better appliances, more eco friendly, and much safer than they were back in the heyday of America's love affair with the automobile, and that is certainly a good thing. But in terms of love affairs, does being a better appliance, more eco-friendly, and safer strike anyone as romantic?
- southbend
November 24, 2010 at 12:18pm
Well - people may not be madly in love with cars but we gotta have 'em unfortunately. Look. Back in the good old days we could buy a road locomotive with fins and a zip code for a few hundred bucks. Now a mediocre car that doesn't even get good mileage costs what a house used to cost. WE NEED BETTER MASS TRANSIT. I don't think bullet trains - intercity trains - are a bad idea but more important - intra city transit really is awful in a lot of major towns. Try living in Denver without a car. And on the note of living expenses - housing costs, the cost of energy similarly used to be cheap so nobody is happy about anything anymore let alone cars.
- Sophia
November 24, 2010 at 6:12pm
Bradford writes: "America's current car-dependent set-up also depended heavily on government subsidies and regulations" And where do these subsidies come from Bradford? Taxes perhaps? Is it really a subsidy if 85% of the population uses the service? I mean, isn't that the purpose of the government? Collect taxes and build something used by the masses for the common good? When the government takes money and spends it on something only a few % want or need, it's a better use of government? Sophia writes: " the cost of energy similarly used to be cheap so nobody is happy about anything anymore let alone cars." Sophia, do you just rattle off stuff that sounds good to you and then type it? The inflation adjusted price of gas today is among the lowest it has ever been. Currently we're enjoying about the same price paid in the late 40s. In 1999, it WAS the lowest price we in America ever paid for gas. Ever. Period. Electricity prices are almost half (again, inflation adjusted) what they were 50 years ago. Today is the age of cheap energy. Let the good times roll http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/realprices/real_prices.xls Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link.
- seattleeng
November 25, 2010 at 3:38am
seattleeng: You have just lost it, Seattleboy.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 25, 2010 at 5:02am
LawrenceGulotta writes: " You have just lost it, Seattleboy." And yet you can't elaborate on why I've lost it? Didn't think so.
- seattleeng
November 25, 2010 at 12:21pm
seattle: it is indeed possible to be so far gone, so beyond any contact with truth or accuracy or indeed even a smidgen of communication with either, that there is no answer to be given; the sane human simply throws up hands and turns elsewhere in search of honest communication. That is where you are. It is impossible to have a sane discussion with you. If you are trying to be so crazy and completely cut off from reality that you are unanswerable, then congratulations, you win.
- cspencef
November 25, 2010 at 5:59pm
cspencef, when arguing in the abstract certainly there can a ton of room for debate. But we aren't there on these two issues. I simply took issue with Plummer calling our car industry "subsidized". Plummer's sloppiness here was applying the label subsidized to something he doesn't like to try and make it seem like without government help it'd just wither and die. Hardly. And refuting Sophia's point is really a matter of fact. Either you cite supporting evidence or you don't. The government data clearly refutes her point. Not sure how either of these are off the deep end. But then maybe I'm so far off the deep end and I just dont' know it. Of course, throwing up your arms and calling the other guy crazy is also a convenient way to ignore the debate altogether.
- seattleeng
November 26, 2010 at 11:35am
"Seattleeng" smugly cites today's low energy prices. They are, of course, subsidized by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other far-flung global operations of our armed forces. We must spend $300 billion a year on energy imports. Our tribute to the oil kingdoms subsidizes terrorism, which costs us another few $ billion a year. If we have so much energy at home, at what environmental price are we willing to dig up and drill North America to maintain this addiction? The days of the suburban mass motoring society are over.
- amidut
November 27, 2010 at 5:21pm
seattleeng: Tell us what this is about: Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link. Don't eat the link.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 29, 2010 at 2:42pm
seattleeng wrote: "Is it really a subsidy if 85% of the population uses the service?" Answer: Yes. Definition of subsidy: "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest." You may not like the negative connotations of the word 'subsidy', but it is used properly here.
- Fishpeddler
December 1, 2010 at 1:55pm
Your comments leave one important part of the problem of giving up cars in Southern California. The car companies bought up the Red car lines then dismantled them. Today in Southern California not driving a car is near impossible.
- Poupic
December 1, 2010 at 2:30pm
Lawrence, "don't eat the link" is needed because if you put a link too close to where the web page tries to enter it's own link there's a bug that causes your link to obscure the rest of the comment.. Fishpeddler, then everything from the government is a subsidy. Right? Wrong. You got a low-rent definition. Try Wiki. Generically, a subsidy encourages behavior that otherwise wouldn't happen on its own. If the government completely pulled out of the auto industry, gas, roadbuilding, etc, there would be a private companies there to step in and build the roads (for a fee), pump the gas, etc. Amidut, We have plenty of petroleum (and nuclear) in north america to meet our demands. If tomorrow we switched to all alt energy, in a decade the size of the military would be relatively unchanged from where it is today.
- seattleeng
December 3, 2010 at 11:44pm
seattleeng: "Is it really a subsidy if 85% of the population uses the service?" Yes, it still is. But to address the point you're trying to make, the service isn't subsidized because 85% of the population uses it; rather, 85% of the population uses it because it's subsidized. Government subsidies are the reason why we had such a huge growth in suburban sprawl following World War II. This helped distort the market and kill off urban and intercity rail systems, which at the time were almost all privately owned and operated, while the interstate highways were created and owned by the government. That, combined with clever advertising campaigns, helped create the "American love affair with the automobile" and manufacture Americans' need for oversized houses. Today, think tanks and charlatan anti-transit "researchers" like Randall O'Toole and Wendell Cox -- all receiving significant funding from the oil, auto and road-building industries -- tirelessly agitate against urban rail and intercity rail, while their sympathizers in government (mostly Republicans) try to kill every rail project they can. You might recall that before WWII, America had the best public transportation in the world. People got around via interurban streetcars, intracity trolleys and intercity trains. We also developed the precursors to high-speed rail with the streamliners of the 1930s. Today, the only two remaining interurbans are the South Shore Line between South Bend, IN and Chicago and the Norristown High-Speed Line in the Philadelphia area, while Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and San Francisco are the only major cities that have left their streetcar systems intact. Imagine if the ratio of subsidies we give to highways relative to intercity rail was reversed. We'd probably get around more like New Yorkers, Europeans, Japanese and Chinese do. And something tells me we wouldn't be any more bothered by it than people in those countries are.
- ajd_nyc
December 6, 2010 at 2:38pm