Fuels and schools

During his State of the Union speech, President Bush and I both got a bit lost in the details of his domestic policy initiatives. Fortunately, WhiteHouse.gov offers a handy summary in language so simple that even a president can understand. So let's look at that "Twenty in Ten" energy proposal.

The purported goal is to reduce America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. That sounds ambitious until you realize that Blade Runner is set in 2019, which is only 12 years from now, and hybrid SUVs don't sound quite as impressive when compared with replicants and flying billboards advertising the off-world colonies.

Bush's primary proposal for accomplishing this reduction in gasoline consumption is to substitute the consumption of ethanol and other next-generation biofuels. This, he says, will account for a 15-percent reduction in gasoline use. Add to that another 5-percent reduction due to changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and, voila, 20 in 10.

The bit about CAFE standards was one of the parts in the speech that startled me. Was this failed Texas wildcatter really suggesting a raise in fuel economy standards? Bush had spent his first six years in office fighting against such a raise, had he changed his mind?

Well, no. Here's what that White House fact sheet says:

Reforming And Modernizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards For Cars And Extending The Current Light Truck Rule.

"Reforming and modernizing" standards is not the same thing as "raising" them. It's hard to know exactly what "reforming and modernizing" means -- which is why they chose such language. It's probably a strong hint, though, that this was the same language Bush used about his attempt to abolish Social Security. I suppose you could say that Bush is also "reforming and modernizing" Iraq.

The "light truck rule" referred to there mandates a fleetwide average of 24 mpg by the year 2011, which would be almost as fuel efficient as Henry Ford's fleetwide average of 25 mpg back in 1908. If that's the rate of technological progress we're shooting for, we probably won't see those off-world colonies any time soon. (The Japanese automakers are way ahead of Detroit, but still, Honda's replicant doesn't yet look anything like Sean Young.)

Bush's Gore-ish enthusiasm for biofuels seems more promising, although again it's difficult to see what's "ambitious" about what is essentially a methadone clinic for gasoline addicts:

Increasing The Supply Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels By Setting A Mandatory Fuels Standard To Require 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use.

The only way that Bush can imagine reducing gasoline consumption is by massively increasing our consumption of something else. America currently produces just over 5 billion gallons of ethanol. Bush's goal is for America to consume seven times that amount 10 years from now. So hey, Road trip!

Despite his stated goal -- consuming less gasoline -- the president can't seem to imagine the more obvious, more direct approach to this goal, i.e. driving less. Which makes this whole proposal sound like one of those weight-loss pill ads that promises results without diet or exercise.

If Bush really wanted to achieve a "20 in 10" reduction in gasoline consumption, he should recommit to fixing our urban schools. The dismal reality of these schools -- and the even more dismal perception of them -- is one of the biggest obstacles to reducing America's massive gasoline consumption habit.

Let me step back and explain. To reduce consumption, we need to reduce the demand for consumption. That means changing the conditions that contribute to that demand. That means things like:

• investing in rail transport

• investing in mass transit

• restraining suburban sprawl

• promoting walkable communities.

Only one of these is mentioned even in passing in the president's proposal -- a $175 million demonstration project on "curbing [traffic] congestion." Noting that "In 2003, drivers in America's 85 most congested urban areas experienced 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel," the demonstration project calls for "innovative ideas":

These ideas include congestion pricing, commuter transit services, commitments from employers to expand work schedule flexibility, and faster deployment of real-time traffic information.

Good ideas, but on a dismissively inadequate scale. If we really want to reduce gasoline consumption -- not just the 2.3 billion gallons wasted during travel delays, but the billions more consumed during even our rare delay-free commutes -- then we need to eliminate those commutes, not just streamline them. (Adding lanes to our main traffic arteries is not the most promising way to reduce gasoline consumption over 10 years.)

That means living closer to where we work. For that to happen, we need to address the things that prevent many families from choosing to live closer to where the jobs are, the things that are causing both families and employers to relocate further out in automobile-shaped, unwalkable exurbia. One of the primary causes of this is the dismal perception of our urban schools. And the best way to change that perception is to change the reality -- to make those schools attractive to families.

Comments

[R. Mildred]

To be fair, the off world colonies and replicants from bladerunner were surface features resulting from the smallish nuclear war that occurred prior to the events in do androids dream of electric sheep?, and had killed off most fo the earth's animal life prior to slowly poisoning the earth bound human populace.

Basically, when the world starts to die as a result of all of the corporatists' faffing with fuel emissions, then we'll get off-world colonies and replicants.

So we'll have something to look forward to, that and hot fiery death.

[The Occasionally Brilliant Duane]

Republicans will never stand for living that close to poor black folks. Next idea please.

[Emily H.]

Preach it!

I so miss living somewhere where I could walk places. I eked out an existence for a year dodging cars on the highway to get to the laundromat, waiting half an hour for the buses (and staying at home Sundays), taking four hours out of my day to see a movie--and I give up. To live where I live you need a car. But I wish I didn't, because I'm not a very good driver.

[Amanda]

I lived in Orange County for a year, attending school. My university ID card earned me free transit on OCTA's bus system.

You can bet I took advantage of that for as long as I could. Unfortunately, the combination of 1-being an art student (3x3' drawing boards, toolboxes full of paint etc. to transport with me) and 2-having fibromyalgia made that an unworkable solution long term. Grocery shopping was a hellish experience for me, mostly due to #2.

What bothered me was the perception of my peers that the bus system was only for those poor mezzkins. My roommate's car was in for repairs one day and she had to take the bus. For one day. Probably about 20 minutes total spent on board. She complained with a wrinkled nose about it when she got home. Now, OCTA's bus system is very clean, on-time, generally well-run. She was just above public transport -- she made this explicit; it wasn't just an undercurrent to the conversation.

Granted, that was whitebread Orange County. But it was disheartening.

[Alexis]

One of the other main things that makes it hard to locate in the walkable areas is

1) In many cities built later, like most of those out west, there's hardly any walkable area at all to locate in.

2) In many of the cities that are walkable, the price of real estate is exorbitant. I would adore for my company to move somewhere more walkable (where it is isn't awful, but it's not ideal) but being a small company, we simply can't afford to move anywhere more walkable!

This is in the Bay Area, which isn't typical, but it's an example of the obstacles that exist besides schools.

[CaptainBooshi]

Actually, it has been proven that, until you reach the saturation point, more lanes and more roads actually makes congestion worse, opposite of what you would expect. Adding lanes will do worse than nothing, so I definitely agree.

I remember that when I spent a semester abroad in Australia a few years ago, there was never a bus station (or a CityCat, which was a boat acting as a bus) more than ten minutes away, and everyone used them. Not to mention that practically the whole city was walkable. Maybe that's one of the reasons that I saw so few obese people over there.

[Lurker]

I spent three months as a researcher in Riverside, CA, one of the most polluted places in California (due to the fact that westerly winds pull all LA pollution up there). I did not buy a car for such a short visit, using bike instead. It was not a most pleasant experience. The community was quite unwalkable, although there WERE sidewalks and even some bike lanes. However, the distances were so large that biking around really took guts. In addition, I can well remember the looks I got from the policemen when biking, especially when entering a fast-food restaurant with a bike helmet. I seemed to be quite a suspicious person. Fortunately I am white, anglosaxon-looking guy with a reasonably nice accent. I don't like to think how I would have fared, were I a black person or an arab.

[Jesurgislac]

Many, many cities in the US are built on the understanding that (a) 'everybody' has a car; (b) gas is so cheap that the price of driving everywhere is negligible once you have a car.

Every time I visit the US I'm struck by how new practically everything is. I don't mean just the side-effects of a country where European-style buildings only started to get built 400 or so years ago and evidence of cultures with older buildings was in general systematically got rid of, except in very out-of-the-way locales: I mean that there are streets and streets all built in the past ten or twenty years, where houses were before that were got rid of and the developers just started all over again. With that kind of flexible attitude to cities and towns, why not just rebuild all over again and this time on the presumption that people want to live near where they work?

The main problem with planned towns is that planners seldom work in all the things people really need (tiny independent bookshops, junk shops, funky independent cafes and bars, places for friends to meet and talk) and seldom think in terms of whole age-ranges and income-ranges, from a teenager who's just left home and needs a room in a shared house to an elderly retired person who can't manage stairs any more and wants to live with a bathroom handy and somewhere she can have her cat. But there's no reason this can't change.

[Zzyzx]

I actually live in Seattle proper. There's not that much that I could walk to right here, but there's some stuff and downtown is a 20 minute bus ride and a cool area is about 2 miles away.

However, due to land prices, my work is in a suburb 20 miles away.

I tried, but it's not always that easy.

[litlnemo]

Heh, I was reading that last post and then saw the name and realized that it is someone I know. :) Hi, ZZ! Where you live is technically within Seattle but it's basically a suburb -- and was officially, until the late 1950s. It's got suburb density, still. Of course, to get a house or condo in a more urban and dense area of Seattle has become freakishly expensive. And once you do, you can't guarantee your employer won't pull up stakes and move across the lake. We've been very lucky that Jason's employer has remained downtown. Our neighborhood is walkable; it's one of the old neighborhood centers on a former streetcar line, so it has a nice little business district. The problem is, it doesn't have the services we need or want anymore. It used to have a movie theater, a pharmacy, a hardware store... now those are things we are expected to drive to. Instead of a neighborhood drugstore (which was here until 1995 or 6, right before we moved in), we are supposed to go to a "super" store, a Rite-Aid or a Walgreens. Instead of a hardware store, we have to go to the big boxes, Lowe's and Home Depot. (And don't get me started on what Lowe's did to Eagle Hardware when they bought it out, which was a box, but it was a Northwest box with great service, not the steaming crap pile that is Lowe's.) Until the Columbia City cinema opened, there were no movie theaters in all of South Seattle for many years. We could also use a bookstore/newsstand, some more restaurants, a pub with food, etc. But hey, if you want a haircut, we have more hair salons than any neighborhood needs. (What is up with that, anyway?)

The problem is that even in the city, neighborhoods designed to be walkable often no longer have the things people want to walk to. (And we are luckier than some.) The constant absorption of small businesses by giant ones might be good for some stockholders' pocketbooks, but it has, in many ways, made our daily lives worse. (Forgive me, though, I do love big box bookstores... I can't help it, there are just so damned many BOOKS there... but if we could have some wonderful small local new or used bookstores on our main drag up here on Beacon Hill, I would give up the box bookstores in a second.)

Driving through older Seattle you can see small business district after district. Tons of them. These were neighborhood shopping areas designed in the days when even if a family had a car, it was only one car, so at least some of the family members relied on walking and public transport. So businesses had to be accessible by walking. (In the 1920s, there were *6* groceries, small ones, of course, just within a few blocks of our house. I guess no one wanted to walk very far. But they also all delivered groceries right to your door! Tell me again why life is better now when I have to go get my groceries myself?) ;) Some of them, like the junction on North Beacon Hill, are still basically business districts, though they have been crippled by the removal of traditional neighborhood businesses. But others are mostly ghosts. The storefronts are sometimes lived in as houses, and they have been rezoned as residential so they cannot be converted back to shops. (If they stay shops, they are grandfathered in, but once they stop, they lose the business zoning allowance.) Many others are being used as churches or day care centers. There is an intersection a ways east of us that has a couple of these formerly retail buildings. Once those were shops for those folks, who lived far enough down the hill from us that getting to a main shopping district was a serious hike either way up hill to Beacon or down to Rainier. Now those small shops are gone, and the people living there are probably going to drive to buy their groceries, because the walk, while doable, is far from convenient. The city should consider rezoning all of these old shopping areas back to retail, though admittedly it is a tough sell to get businesses back into them.

The schools are a big issue. Most of the parents I know who have any sort of money at all won't send their kids to Seattle Public Schools. And I don't blame them, having graduated from those schools myself. The schools need to improve but it's going to be a tough sell, because I think we've lost the sense of civic responsibility that made us, as a society, believe that public schools are worth paying for. (Hell, I think most people don't want to pay for a lot of the civic infrastructure any more, if it's going to be used by poor people/black people/brown people/ugly people/"anyone who's not ME". The fiasco that is any attempt to build rapid transit or fix broken-down roads in the Seattle area (monorail, viaduct, etc.) is evidence of that. People complain "why should I pay for a monorail that is running on the other side of town?")

Wow, this turned into a rant. Sorry. This is sort of one of my hot spots, I guess. It breaks my heart what has been done to the old neighborhoods in my city, which once had a flourishing streetcar system and many thriving small neighborhood shopping districts. (Mostly before my time, but at 41, I'm old enough to remember when we had small drugstores and hardware stores in every neighborhood, and a lot more neighborhood movie theatres and bookstores as well.)

[the opoponax]

"In many cities built later, like most of those out west, there's hardly any walkable area at all to locate in."

granted i've not lived on the west coast, but for a lot of the country that i have lived in and traveled though, i'm just not sure this is true. my own hometown has a lovely downtown area, circa 1920, probably about a square mile of pretty and extremely walkable territory. it's a freakin' ghost town, even as the city booms in the wake of Katrina (we got lots of suburban evacuees who ultimately decided to stay as we're only 20 minutes extra commute). all the development is occuring further out on the fringes of town, and all of it is occurring in a completely sprawl-inducing car-essential way. as an entire downtown area sits empty. and i've seen many a town developing this way in my travels throughout the south and midwest. so while it might be true in certain areas, i don't think it has anything to do with why America continues to develop sprawl as a rule. not to mention that there's no law of urban design that says that all new development has to be sprawl development -- communities that lack walkable areas should add them.

I now happen to have the privelege of living in a walkable community connected by public transport to work, entertainment, shopping, etc. not to mention that a lot of that (except perhaps for the work part, unless i happened to work in Downtown Brooklyn, which i don't) can be accomplished easier within walking distance. there are two good public schools in the neighborhood, as well as at least one parochial school and several daycare centers and preschools. there's a huge fabulous park that has a greenmarket on weekends. there are a few main thoroughfares with everything from supermarkets to cafes to wine shops and children's clothing boutiques. lots of good restaurants and bars, at a variety of price points and levels of gentrification. it's rare that i travel further than i can walk during the weekend. and i don't know that i'd do it any other way. in fact, i don't know how anyone who lives in sprawl can bear it -- my only assumption is that they haven't had the experience of living in a thriving walkable community.

[Jesurgislac]

There is the added factor that the fitter you are, the further you'll see "walkable distance". I live 20 minutes or so walk from work - and it's a lovely walk. (I can do it in 10, if I walk very very fast, but why would I want to?) I live a mile from a main street with almost all the shops I could ever want. (Not enough bookshops, though. *sigh*) I live two and a half miles from the city centre - I can walk that far, and do, sometimes, if I'm in no rush and it's not raining. I walk a lot: a mile to the shops and back again, through nice streets, is a pleasure.

But I know people who'd take the bus rather than walk it, and think my 20 minutes to work is a considerable awful distance: they'd drive. (So would I, if I had a car, days when it's pouring with rain. But I don't.) But, more and more, I walk places. I like it, and I live in a city where I can walk where I want to go, almost anywhere I regularly need or want to go.

[the opoponax]

i have the same problem a lot when family from out of town come to visit. half a mile for me is nothing, that's just basic everyday inescapable walking. a mile or two is completely doable if it's a nice day out and i have time. but anything more than about 3 blocks is like, "OMG when are we gonna get there?" and "can't we just take a taxi?" for all but the fittest of my family members. they especially can't deal with all the stairs that come along with subways, old buildings, etc.

the weird thing is that even some of my most intrepid stair-mastering and exerbiking gym member loved ones will STILL complain about walking what amounts to a quarter of a mile. if you can run 3 miles on a treadmill while watching CNN and listening to your iPod at the same time, you can walk 5 blocks, godammit!

[Zzyzx]

"Where you live is technically within Seattle but it's basically a suburb -- and was officially, until the late 1950s. "

No it wasn't. I have that 1922 map of Seattle on my wall and while my apartment on Sand Point Way was outside of city limits by then, my current house was well within the city. Having said that, I want to double check now when I get home, but I believe the line where I am was 105th or 125th, which would make me fine.

As for walking, once you climb the big hill that is between us and the main part of Wedgwood (it turns out that we live where Maple Leaf, Wedgwood, and Ravenna all kind of merge together, but we're in Wedgwood, NOT Maple Leaf despite what the sign on our road might say. Damn neighborhood expansionists...), there are two grocery stores and a drug store all within a 5-10 minute walk. There's also a good bar about 15 minutes away.

Going south, it's probably about 15 minutes to the heart of Ravenna which would give us Third Place Books and some more places to eat. Also, Lake City Way being so near gives us a 7-11 a few blocks away.

We might not have anything right on top of us, but we do have plenty of things that are sane distances away, if it weren't for the whole hill factor.

[Grav_]

I live in Montpelier VT, a lovely, very walkable community. We have loads of people who walk every day. When I worked at one of the two local groceries, it was the second most profitable in the Northeast region, even though it was very small, simply because of the sheer number of walkers that we got in addition to the people who stopped by on the tail of their commute home.
I've lived in the town since I was 5, and at the age of 33 I finally had to break down and get a car - and a license - because my company moved further away, up a mile-long very steep hill. I could certainly walk to and from work... but I don't think that it would be appropriate to arrive sweaty and disheveled.
The local bus can be diverted up there, but it's actually cheaper to drive myself.
The car is a godsend on mornings like today (-5 f with a windchill of -24) and I really do like not having to bundle up with sports gear just so I can breathe - and then my glasses frost up and I can't see.
Having a car has changed the way that I live for the better, definately, but for me it's mainly in how much I can carry. I can do laundry in one trip, and grocery shopping once every two weeks.

[Zzyzx]

Now I'd definitely have to look this up, because according to wikipedia, the city line used to be 85th near where I live which would make my house about 15 feet from the city line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_City,_Seattle,_Washington

[Edward Liu]

One of my relatives was visiting some European city (perhaps Amsterdam) and noted that the city had purchased a massive number of cheap, sturdy bikes which were all over the place. When people needed to get anywhere, they would walk to the nearest bike stand, take a bike, ride to where they were going, and then leave the bike there. Nobody "owned" the things and everybody shared, to the benefit of all.

Such a thing would never happen here, of course, because the first instinct of many Americans would be, "Hey, free bike!" which they'd steal and either sell on eBay or leave in the garage as they drove everywhere. Or am I being too cynical about the state of the populace today?

I wrote off listening to the President about 3 or 4 years ago. Other than tax cuts, he has acted positively on NOTHING that he has promised, and I have better uses for my time. Plus, listening to him talk has always been like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Luckily, "The Unit" was a scheduled repeat, or else I'd be mad at him for pre-empting one of the four shows I watch on a regular basis.

[grenadine]

The captain beat me to the point that building more roads does not actually decrease congestion. and the opoponax also preempted my observation that non-walkers (i.e. most americans) positively freak out at the idea of walking more than four blocks. unless a mall is somehow involved... can someone please commission a study to find out why people will walk five miles within a mall, but faint at the suggestion that they walk to the mall building from the furthest corner of the parking lot?

as one of the great uncarred, i bus to work in the morning and walk home at night (about three miles from downtown to my 'hood), and i haven't died yet. do i sometimes wish i had access to a car for longer trips? sure. but i also wish i had a pony. and if wishes were horses, we'd all ride to town...

[grenadine]

i think Madison, WI had a free "borrow a bike" program for a while, but i don't know what happened to it. i assume the bikes were slowly appropriated by people, despite the fact that they were all rather old and painted a garish red color.

[the opoponax]

@ grav: i definitely hear you that a car can really come in handy in inclement weather. we're also having a -5 windchill today, and i have to say my half-mile walk to the subway was not fun. after getting off the subway and realizing that there'd be no bus to take me the remaining 10 blocks, i splurged on a cab the rest of the way, something i've never done before. usually if there's no bus right outside the station, i just walk. i still find the occasional cab splurge a much more economical and sustainable option than owning my own vehicle, though.

that said, i have no problem grocery shopping and doing laundry carless.

i have a smallish laundry bag that holds exactly two loads. i find hauling that bag (which weighs about 10 lbs) the block or so to my wash n fold and back really not such a big deal. of course if the nearest laundromat was a bus-ride away, now that would be a real drag. but if you can't haul 10 lbs less than 100 yards from home on a weekly basis, you should probably seek medical attention (or a gym membership).

the same is true for groceries, though to be honest i usually end up hauling them further. my ideal strategy is to use the 10 items or less lane less as a quick exit and more as a limit on what i can carry home comfortably. which means i pop in for a few things (carefully considering bulk and weight) a few times a week, rather than doing one huge shopping trip. the fact that there are two reasonably well-stocked groceries within 5 blocks of home is what makes this sane. though sometimes i go further afield, especially to the Trader Joe's and Whole Foods conveniently located near a major subway hub in Manhattan. the trick to grocery shopping without a car is that you have to be incredibly mindful of what you buy. which i think is a good thing.

it's also worth noting that both groceries in my neighborhood deliver, and if you live in manhattan Whole Foods and Trader Joe's (as well as other gourmet options) have even more convenient delivery setups. the NYC metro area also has a company called FreshDirect which is an online grocery store. i kind of hate them, but i can see how it's a godsend for big families who can't get buy on that "stop and pick up a few things" strategy.

i think this is what we mean by "viable walking community". it's not enough to tell people to get rid of their cars and take the bus more. you also have to support human-scaled landscapes wherein people can obtain needed goods and services without depending on a car. everything i need is within 5 blocks of home, and for emergencies (a la running out of toilet paper last night at 10:30 when it was 15 degrees out), there's a 24 hour bodega on the corner with the essentials.

[A. Kennedy]

Please understand what I'm about to ask is born of ignorance, not snark...

Do most Americans not have washers and dryers in their own homes / apartments? Frankly, I've never known anyone in my hometown who did not have a washer / dryer in their own home / condo (if they own one) or have a washer / dryer centre somewhere in their building. Yet everyone's talking about taking their laundry out on this thread. It's baffling. Maybe, am I just to thoroughly upper-middle class, and am missing out on the great laundryless mass of humanity? Even homeless shelters have washers and dryers up here, though...

[Zzyzx]

Homes yes, apartments not so often. I've lived in 3 apartments and none of them had laundry machines.

[the opoponax]

i find that about half of all new york city apartment buildings have laundry facilities in the building, though it's generally unheard of here to have them in individual units. older and smaller buildings are more likely to lack them (probably because the plumbing isn't up to it, or because there isn't room). even in buildings that have laundry facilities, they generally are hideously inadequate, like two of each for a building of a few hundred people, and constantly malfunctioning.

in my own case, my building has a laundry room in the basement with a decent number of machines that do work more often than not. but for some retarded reason the co-op board decided that it should only be open from 9 to 5. which means the only time i can do laundry is weekends. and hell if i'm going to give up a whole weekend afternoon once a week doing laundry. considering that i'd spend $5-6 on average per week doing laundry myself in the coin-ops, doubling that for someone to do it for me is a bargain. i'm happy to pay $6 a week to have a few extra hours of free time. they even fold it for you!

[myriad]

actually, there are a fair number of community bike programs in the US, according to http://www.sopobikes.org/community/

also, I agree that it's not necessarily a given to find laundry services in apartment buildings, particularly older buildings. unfortunately, it's the older buildings that often have more reasonable rents. newer buildings may have hookups in the units, and we were very happy to find a building that had laundry rooms on the premises, but I personally found that the few that actually had washers and dryers in the units were too expensive. besides, when I was living in an apartment, I just assumed that we would move every few years, and everything we bought we would have to lift and haul. I didn't really want to lift and haul a washer or dryer, and we couldn't really afford it. now that we have purchased a house, we did buy a washer and dryer, but I know homeowners who don't. some people prefer to go to the laundromat and get all their laundry done in a few hours by doing multiple loads all at once, rather than spending all afternoon.

I think planning for commuter friendly communities is a great idea. I also think commuter programs are fantastic, but sometimes people need a little push to be willing to give up some independence. currently I ride a van the 30 miles to my job, with 13 other people. the van is supplied and maintained by our employer, and all riders pay a monthly fee that is automatically withdrawn from our paychecks. how easy is that?

[LL]

I live in the Dallas area. There are places where people walk for recreation/exercise, but few people that I'm aware of walk to work. Things are just too damn far away to make that viable. There is a DART system, but it doesn't go everywhere. Mostly it's useful to people who live north of Dallas who would otherwise drive in, but for me (living in a burb west of Dallas), it is useless. We have buses, and I have no problem riding a bus, but I already have a car to get to work, so why would I take a bus to go anywhere else? A car is more convenient. I think this "selfishness" is mitigated by the fact that I drive an Echo, which gets quite good mileage.

Which brings me to my main point, that I think a better, more doable (as in doable without investing tons of money in mass trans that few people want to use, would take decades to implement, etc.) solution would be for people to drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. I don't know about anywhere else, but the SUV still rules the road here. It is no longer a novelty to see a Hummer, and many, many people drive other gigantic SUVs (Escalades, etc.). Despite what people say, nobody NEEDS these vehicles, they get crappy mileage and they must cost a fortune to insure and repair. I'm not suggesting a law or a punitive tax, I guess it's going to take a permanent doubling of gas prices for all of us for SUV owners to conclude that driving something like an Escalade just isn't worth it. Obviously, if people want to spend the money, they can, but giant vehicles seem to me to be one of the dumber investments out there.

[the opoponax]

that sounds really cool, myriad. especially considering that it doesn't presuppose completely reversing current development trends or reconceptualizing entire cities.

i don't really see how it would cause people to sacrifice their independence, though? i mean, commuting to work is pretty uneventful. most people take the same route every day, leave at the same time, and schedule their morning routine around the commute. one of my favorite things about my commute (ok, one of the only things i actually like about commuting) is that i don't have to drive or deal with traffic, parking, etc. i just get on the train and someone else does it all for me. which gives me time to nap, read, knit, veg out, whatever. which would be gained with a van picking you up in the morning.

though i can see how annoying it would be if you didn't get along with the coworkers who happened to be assigned to your van route.

[Jeff]

Alexela: I haven't had to navigate around Berkley, Oakland, or southern SF (Millbrae, Burlingame, etc) for a while, but The City itself has one of the best, if not the best mass-transit systems in the US (being confined to a small area has a LOT to do with that). The hills can be a drag, but between BART, streetcars and busses, it's easy to get around. I always advise people who are going to SF to park somewhere and take mass-transit to get around.

NYC, DC, Chicago and Atlanta have good systems. When I lived in Atlanta, I would use the train to get downtown or to the airport. It was clean, fast and got me right where I was going.

On the other hand, I lived car-less in San Diego for quite some time, and that was a BIG pain. Shlepping groceries by bus was NOT fun. And a 45-minute commute meant 1.5 hours doing something fun (although I did get a lot of reading done).

=================================================

Note that in addressing the CAFE standards, SUVs and heavy trucks (Tundras, F150s, et al) are still excluded. Why? If SUVs are meant to be used as "Sports" vehicles, or trucks are meant to be used for hauling, put a governor in them that keeps them from exceeding 55 miles per hour. Consumers will have a choice: A work/play vehicle that's not meant for commuting, or a commuting vehicle that's not meant for work/play.

Getting the huge & heavy vehicles either efficient or off our roads would probably go a long way toward the "20 in 10", and it's doable today. Of course, it requires that dirty word: "regulation" (I can hear Scott cringe from here!).

[Jeff]

I ride a van the 30 miles to my job, with 13 other people. the van is supplied and maintained by our employer, and all riders pay a monthly fee that is automatically withdrawn from our paychecks. how easy is that?

I live in south LA (near Anaheim) and work in northern LA (near Pasadena). One other person lives sorta near me, but we tend not work the same hours. A goodly number of the folks in the office do van pool (they're all friends and tend to live near each other), but they're wayyyyy far away from me. I could take the train, but it (or the bus) would take forever. (LA's system used to be called RTD -- Rapid Transit District -- but they had to change it because of accusations of fraud .)

I drive a Hybrid (the other one!) which not only gets me 40+ mpg, but means that (for now) I can drive in the car-pool lane by myself.

[hapax]

With the caveat that I would dearly love to live in a more walkable community, and not a day goes by that I don't curse my community's complete lack of mass transit, I think there is a big problem that many of you walkers/bikers/bus riders aren't thinking about: children.

Honestly, I don't know how they do it in all those European towns, where everyone takes the bus to work, then walks to the local shops to pick up the food for the evening's meal. Does everybody have grandparents in the house available to watch the kids? Do all the childcare centers offer pick up and delivery service? Is babysitting free?

I certainly wouldn't want to slog even half a mile carrying a baby, a toddler, their assorted paraphenalia, and my briefcase, all in a business suit. You can't take an infant seat on a bus or a bike. How do you carry both the groceries and your child? And anyone who has had the delightful experience of shopping or doing laundry with small children isn't going to want to do this every day, even if they could, and you can't fit a week's worth of food or clothes in the backseat of a little car along with the children.

There a lots of reasons that the suburban car-driven lifestyle became popular for families; one of them is because it is, in fact, practical.

[hapax]

Another problem with walking and car/van pooling is that people get sick in the middle of the day. Not every day, but they don't usually schedule it in advance, either. So when I get a call in the middle of the day that my kid is throwing up (or I start throwing up myself), how do I get home?

opoponax, yeah I realized later I hadn't addressed that part of my statement. personally, the little push I got to give up the independence is from the same place it often comes: economics. it only costs me $52 a month to ride the van, whereas gas alone for the commute if I drove my car every day would be at least twice that. then one has to factor in maintenance on the car, PLUS our employer does not offer free parking.

I work for a large university with an employee base in excess of 16K, so there's no way enough parking could be had for every employee. before we moved 30 miles away from my employer [for my husband's job; luckily we live only a mile away from his workplace so he can easily walk, bike, or bus], I still took the bus to work instead of driving because my employer subsidizes bus passes, too. the university's main concern is to ease the strain of supplying and maintaining parking for all the employees, PLUS all the visitors. so they are willing to meet us halfway.

so when looking at the economics, and the alternatives, one makes the choice. sure, using the vanpool isn't as convenient as getting myself to work every day. but being on a tight budget [and who isn't?] helped make the choice PLUS there were viable alternatives, which is another important component.

[myriad]

[whoops, that was me in the previous post] also, yes I have heard stories about some of the people in the van, and other van "drama" between riders. apparently I got lucky enough to get onto a low drama van. it's amazing how complicated people like to make their own and other people's lives. but we're all adults, I think [I hope?], so one would think those problems could be solved.

also, going back and reading some of the other posts, I agree that having kids can really complicate life. I don't necessarily advocate everyone should definitely be car free, but at the same time once a person gets used to the convenience of just hopping in the car for every little thing, one can often [not always] cease looking for other options. [I assure you, I include myself in this.]

still, there is an entire population of people in the world who do get by without owning a car, by taking buses and taxis everywhere. I was living in the lower-income area of town for two years and taking the bus to work every day, and it was a very common occurrence to have a mother with three children and a load of grocery bags get on the bus by the grocery store. I also often saw people with bags of groceries and 12-packs of pop ride the bus home from the store. would their lives be easier with a car, and would they prefer to have one? I suspect the answer is likely yes. but there comes a point where one simply can't do a thing, such as own and maintain a house, or own and maintain a vehicle. so when do we as a general nation decide we can no longer do a thing, such as support our commuting practices with "foreign oil?" I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, just pointing out that the principle applies both on a small and a large scale, and some moderation from both the supplier and consumer ends can help all around.

in answer to how one gets home if one gets sick and has car or vanpooled, bus, taxi, or friends sometimes. not always. I suspect having friends or family nearby to help with the kids helps. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution for everyone.

[the opoponax]

@hapax -- that's what taxis are for. also efficient public transit systems, if you're not too, too sick (dunno if i'd subject myself to public trans with a bad case of the flu).

[the opoponax]

@ hapax again:

as for children.

firstly, a great many people in NYC manage to raise children in the city without owning a vehicle. again, this is largely because the surrounding community supports that. more things are in walking distance, especially kid necessities like parks, childcare, schools, and afterschool lessons type stuff. many family oriented businesses offer home delivery. also, people here tend to have fewer children spaced futher apart, which makes a lot of things easier. much easier to get a six year old and an infant onto a bus than an infant and a two year old or a 2 year old and a 4 year old. people also raise their kids a little differently here. on the one hand, it's not uncommon to see a 4 or 5 year old in a stroller. on the other hand, it's also not rare to see a pair of ten or twelve year olds doing the morning commute or afternoon trip to karate on public transit with no parental supervision.

the fact that people in car-prohibitive cities manage to reproduce without starving or dying of fatigue or stress indicates to me that it can't be nearly as hellish as you insist.

also, those of us who are championing more walkable cities, public transit, etc. aren't arguing that all cars should be banned. obvs people who have need of cars should be able to drive them -- including the few people out there who need SUV's, when appropriate. on the other hand, though, if our cities were structured so that EVERYONE didn't need a car all the time, those of us who don't need them wouldn't be forced to have them. thus freeing up roads for those who do.

[Jesurgislac]

hapax: Honestly, I don't know how they do it in all those European towns, where everyone takes the bus to work, then walks to the local shops to pick up the food for the evening's meal.

Baby buggies. Don't they have them in the US? Aka pushchairs. There's a pic here. Baby buggies can be folded up so you can take them on the bus (though the newer buses have space for at least one unfolded, which doubles as a wheelchair space). Baby buggies always have space for shopping bags. Also, I get the impression from a lot of recent kerfuffle on livejournal, that Europeans are a lot more positive about women breastfeeding in public, and breastfeeding cuts down enormously on the paraphernalia a parent has to carry. Also, of course, in all European countries women get paid and unpaid maternity leave, and other maternity benefits, which Americans don't, so my guess is more American parents are much busier trying to cope with small babies and working full time than most European parents are.

[the opoponax]

yes, yes, and yes to what jesu said.

also, here in the states they're called strollers.

many NYC parents have these cool new models in which the seat bit comes off like a baby seat/car seat type thing for taxi and bus rides and the base folds up that much more compactly. also, subway cars are big enough that most parents don't have to fold strollers to ride. though you do see a lot of parents struggling to get some of the more mammoth strollers down the stairs with baby in tow.

[hapax]

I didn't mean to suggest in any way that I thought that it wasn't POSSIBLE to live a car-free life with children -- I was pointing out that it is DIFFICULT. I can certainly see how more generous parental benefits make it easier. This was *cough* *cough* quite a few years back when I was trying to manage a job and two small children in a large city with no car-- which WAS New York City, in a sense -- I lived on Long Island right outside of Queens.

Where I live now -- no mass transit, barely any taxi service, nothing but big box shopping -- it would be impossible. I'm not sure we could get people to give up their SUVs, either -- almost everybody hunts, fishes, farms, etc., and not many would or could afford to maintain separate vehicles for "commuting" and "recreation." I'm not all that thrilled about this, and would love to see a greater commitment to "walkability", but I think it takes a certain critical density of population to make it practical.

[Rob]

Has anybody else looked into a connection between public schools and car use? With kids out of the house, as well as living in a major city with a great transportation system, my parents still drive their cars all the time. Also, my mom works fifty miles away from my Dad, so living in a spot where they could both walk to work would be impossible.

Anyway, it seems that all any of have is anecdotal evidence, and, although Fred certainly seems like an intelligent fellow, he can't possibly be the only person who's ever thought of this.

Can anybody link to a decent study that's established rising car use with moving to a district with better schools?

[ako]

the same is true for groceries, though to be honest i usually end up hauling them further. my ideal strategy is to use the 10 items or less lane less as a quick exit and more as a limit on what i can carry home comfortably. which means i pop in for a few things (carefully considering bulk and weight) a few times a week, rather than doing one huge shopping trip.

One thing that makes a huge difference for me is the weather. A mile's walk is delightful on a bright, breezy day. It's not exactly thrilling during a serious downpour. And during a serious snowstorm it can be downright nasty. I don't have a car, so for me it's buses or nothing. Luckily there's a cheap mini-bus that runs through the neighborhood. It only goes to the local sprawl development, though, not the neighborhood with organic groceries and an indie movie theater.

One thing that worked well in the Philippines was bicycle cabs. They were bikes with sidecards, where anyone could climb in, pay a minimal fare, and get a ride to anywhere within a reasonable distance. They were handy for people with small children or multiple bags, and sufficiently ubiquitous that someone who'd tried walking the whole way and wound up with too many bags or tired kids could arrange a ride. I used them a lot if I'd gone to the town market without a backpack and wound up buying more than I expected. They were also great when my crutches broke and I was awaiting replacement, because instead of having a painful six-block walk (only painful without the crutches) I could go an easy half a block and wait for one to come by. It would be tricky to translate the idea to America (finding bikers, setting fares, working out the rules of the road) but if someone could figure it out, there might be some potential.

[the opoponax]

@ Rob:

reading the wikipedia entry for Suburb would probably be a start, as would reading almost any urban planning/design text from the last 20-30 years, or even any social history of the US or the history of any major American metropolis in the 20th century. the idea that middle class whites fled the urban landscape in favor of suburbia in order to "find better public school districts" (i.e. less integrated public school districts) is almost axiomatic at this point. and of course the only thing that makes such a lifestyle possible is cars. which means that it's pretty well understood that if you can make middle class people believe that their children can get a good education in urban public schools, you have a chance of getting them to move to urban areas which are often less car-centric. this, again, is virtually axiomatic in urban design circles.

of course nobody is saying that all people who don't have school age children will stop driving, or choose to live in places where they don't have to drive. also, nobody is saying that everyone who has available public transit will choose that over driving, or that everyone will structure their lives so that everyone in the household can walk everywhere all the time. it's a lot more complex than any of that.

also, yes, those of us who live in walking communities will agree with you that walking around in inclement weather is often no fun. but honestly, it's not the worst thing in the world and can be downright uneventful with the proper gear, approach, and/or attitude. i wear rubber wellies in rain and snow, make sure to always bundle up well in the cold, and have a good rain coat and umbrella as well as hat and gloves. this really cuts down on the hellishness of walking around outside on a cold or wet day. i also take into account that sometimes it's going to be so awful out that i'm going to need to splurge on a cab ride. i also try to stay positive about it -- soon i'll be warm and cozy inside. not to mention that before cars were invented, what, do you think everybody just died of exposure all the time? if my great grandmother could work her okra farm down south day in day out in 90 degree heat and rainstorms, i survive 5 blocks with umbrella and wellies.

not to mention that i've needed to walk around in blizzard conditions maybe three times in my 6 years in new york. and most of those were of the "run down to the bodega" variety. new york tends to close down in snowstorms, mostly because it's impossible to get around here during one. i'll take more snow days and less tire chains anytime, thanks.

@ hapax:

if i'm correct in assuming where you were living, no, Nassau county, even western Nassau, isn't considered NYC proper (only the actual 5 boroughs are). also, certain parts of NYC which were developed later are a tad more car-centric than others. eastern Queens being a prime example of that. those communities were not planned with walking and public transit in mind, or at least not for middle class people (who are often the only people who count in they eyes of some urban planners -- poor people can just walk a mile in the snow and change buses 3 times to get to work, for all many planners care). again, if i'm assuming correctly where you lived, your experiences were not representative of what it's like to live in a viable walking-scale community AT ALL. life without a car becomes easier the closer one gets to manhattan, and easiest at all in manhattan itself (where Whole Foods will deliver your groceries and work is often a walk or 5-minute bus ride away).

[the opoponax]

whoops, i conflated part of ako's comment with rob's. sorry, rob, you probably didn't care that much how i get around in the rain.

@ ako: they're trying to implement the bike cab thing here in NYC, actually. so far it hasn't caught on much because they're mostly limited to the touristy areas. which means that the locals who see them associate them with silly tourist stuff and aren't interested in how useful the idea might be. whereas the tourists don't really have anywhere to go too far off the beaten track (they mostly make a circuit from Rockefeller Center to Times Square and back) and are all psyched to ride in the famous new york cabs or have a subway adventure when they are going further afield. i also have a feeling they're not priced competitively with taxis, which hold more people and are heated/air conditioned.

[ako]

i wear rubber wellies in rain and snow, make sure to always bundle up well in the cold, and have a good rain coat and umbrella as well as hat and gloves. this really cuts down on the hellishness of walking around outside on a cold or wet day

I think it's much easier to manage in a walkable community with nasty weather than one which isn't walkable, especially since suburban-sprawl mammoth parking lots seem to be the worst place to walk through in almost any weather (heat-reflecting, ice accumulating, full of puddles, having to dodge cars). I also think that it's a great thing that they have the cheap, pleasant, and frequent mini-buses because everyone has their limits of how much icy sidewalks they're willing to put up with, and public transportation that goes where you want allows carless folk like me to go about our business.

Personally, my pet peeve isn't the exposure, it's the slickness. I use crutches, and that's a bit rough when the sidewalk ices over (I just moved to the midwest a few months ago), so it's either run all my errands extremely slowly or take the bus. Which means that if I'm trying to get somewhere that doesn't have a direct bus, I get to spend a nice long stretch waiting for a transfer and learning the true meaning of lake-effect snow. And I've been informed that snow days here only happen when it's tall enough to block the doorway. I also can't hold an umbrella and walk at the same time, but that can be dealt like with a good raincoat and not freaking out if I get damp.

I'm with you on the benefits walkability, I'm just trying to work out the particulars so as many people as possible can join in. Plus I'm annoyed at icy sidewalks, and felt like whining a bit. ;)

[ako]

i also have a feeling they're not priced competitively with taxis, which hold more people and are heated/air conditioned.

That can be a problem. They have to be noticeably cheaper to be worth the money, but they also need to earn enough so the person peddling can make a decent living. It might be tricky hitting the right balance.

[Alexis]

the opoponax:
probably about a square mile of pretty and extremely walkable territory

This isn't very much! Especially compared to the size of the city. If I'm guessing right, you're talking about Houston? Yeah, little pockets of walkability in an OCEAN of suburbia. And most of the pockets don't have everything you need -- I couldn't walk to a grocery store from where I lived in West U (in 2002). "You've gotta drive," so why not live in the suburbs? (This seems to be a common attitude that people take. The majority of people I know in the Bay Area, instead of even thinking about how to not drive, just complain that they have to and so they do.)

Jeff:
I haven't had to navigate around Berkley, Oakland, or southern SF (Millbrae, Burlingame, etc) for a while, but The City itself has one of the best, if not the best mass-transit systems in the US (being confined to a small area has a LOT to do with that).

SF is indeed wonderful, but, as I pointed out, that's expensive! My company couldn't even contemplate being located there. The Peninsula and South Bay, and southern East Bay (south of Oakland and even more so south of Fremont) have pretty awful public transit considering the population density. Transit doesn't reach the critical "every 20 minutes" level that allows people to not worry about exactly when they show up at a station/stop, and it doesn't go most places except large workplaces, shopping centers, and town centers. Transiting anywhere requires a ton of planning. So people drive. Except crazy car-free people like me.

[the opoponax]

"If I'm guessing right, you're talking about Houston?"

no, i'm talking about a small town south of New Orleans called Houma, LA. which, while the whole town could no longer fit inside the limits of that downtown area, the fact that it stands there empty while developers continue to build sprawl, rather than, say downtown real estate being at a premium and developers building sprawl in order to accomodate more people, indicates to me that the problem is NOT that people can't afford to relocate to our ghost of a downtown. and this is something i've seen across the south and midwest -- beautiful downtown areas where every window has a "for sale" sign, and yet all the life of the city is happening over on the huge multi-laned thoroughfare where Walmart and Best Buy and Old Navy and Borders are.

not to mention that, again, there is no law that says all new development must be sprawl. or that you can't put necessities in the non-sprawl areas that already exist. i agree that this is one major problem with downtown revitalization plans in a lot of places -- they put in bars, restaurants, theatres, and boutiques, rather than groceries, laundries, drug and hardware stores, etc. not that there's anything wrong with bars and restaurants, but the revitalization is still based around the idea that people will drive into this downtown area for entertainment and then drive back home to the suburbs at the end of the night. which does nothing to solve the problem of cars.

[Zzyzx]

In case anyone cares, littlenemo was right. As of 1950, my land was indeed outside of Seattle city limits. I just counted and it would have taken 37 steps to reach the city line from the edge of my property, so I wasn't MUCH outside of city limits, but I was.

[litlnemo]

"i think this is what we mean by 'viable walking community'. it's not enough to tell people to get rid of their cars and take the bus more. you also have to support human-scaled landscapes wherein people can obtain needed goods and services without depending on a car. everything i need is within 5 blocks of home, and for emergencies (a la running out of toilet paper last night at 10:30 when it was 15 degrees out), there's a 24 hour bodega on the corner with the essentials."

Yes, that's exactly it, and it's what I meant when I said our little walkable community in Seattle had lost its pharmacy, hardware store, etc. We do at least have a doctor and a couple of dentists, multiple grocery stores (some serving different ethnic groups), and a few other services like accounting, salons, gas stations (with mini marts, which are ugly but at least available for late night emergencies) etc. And a bakery. So it's not hopeless. (Amusingly, we might be the only neighborhood in Seattle without Starbucks or any chain fast food.)

Zzyzx, I was thinking of the 85th street city limit. Perhaps I am off about the date, but I don't think so -- my junior high school on NE 110th was in the Shoreline district when it was built in 1949, then became part of Seattle Schools when the city limit moved from 85th to 145th. Where you live is just off the old highway to Bothell (when I was a kid it was still Bothell Way in that section) and it was developed fully later, when the car-based suburb was already becoming the norm. That's why you're sort of in a no-man's land there, where it's a bit of a hike to any of the business districts such as Wedgwood. In the older neighborhoods they were closer together. I grew up on 110th toward Sandpoint Way and it was the same thing. House after house, with a school thrown in here and there, but it was at least a mile or more in any direction to a shopping area -- with hills in the way. This is not an impossible walk but for people with cars available it tends to become a drive rather than a walk, especially with bad weather, kids, or physical disabilities involved.

[Zzyzx]

Yes, the 85th Street limit is what I was talking about. 37 steps between 85th Street and my house. In 1922, for that matter, it was 65th Street.

[neotoma]

I live outside of Washington DC. The city itself is quite walkable -- though some parts I wouldn't walk through even during daylight -- and is quite well supplied with Metro stations. But it's outrageously expensive, with condos starting at a half million dollars, and going from there.

I was very fortunate to find an apartment with two groceries, a public library, a movie theater, and a performing arts center within a mile. That's ridiculously rare, and the location is so good that my rent is likely to go up steeply the next time my lease is up. I don't walk as much as I should in winter, because even a half mile in the weather is miserable.

Also, my commute to work takes an hour to go 12 miles, even though the local bus system is extensive and set up for commuter usage. The Metro system is talking about raising the fares; it's getting to the point where many people are finding riding the trains is less easy than driving their cars.

We need a radical rethink about how we live, because even in 'good' places the system is under way too much stress.

[SV]

I can't really add too much to what's been already said, except this comment: I recently moved into Chicago proper after living in the Western burbs for three years. (Downers Grove, for anyone familiar with the area.) For three years, to get ANYWHERE I had to drive.

When I decided to move back into the city, I worried about how much parking would cost, and friends told me that many people just give up their cars. I really resisted it - I couldn't imagine not having a car. I thought it would be so limiting, that I'd be stuck in one tiny area, dependent on other people. I compromised, and got a spot in a (relatively) inexpensive parking lot three El stops away.

I shouldn't have bothered, because I find that I prefer to get around the city without it. In the first month, I think I used it once. After three months, maybe four times. Since then - nada.

My car doesn't represent freedom anymore. It represents parking lot fees, finding a parking space, paying parking tickets, paying insurance costs, worrying about registration paperwork, worrying about maintenance, worrying about car locks...

Environmental benefits aside, living without a car is incredibly freeing, taking a huge burden off of the Things You Have To Constantly Worry About. I can't wait to get rid of mine. And to those who say I can only afford to say that because I live in a city that has rational public transit - yeah, that's the point.