It Boggles the Mind: Why is CEI Against Transportation Choice?
September 22, 2009 51 Comments
This Competitive Enterprise Institute post on World Carfree Day and the effort to encourage a less car-centric society has to be willfully stupid. That’s the only way to explain the conclusions they draw. Fortunately, Andrew Leonard at Salon.com has already offered a rebuttal of their claims (though it should be noted that the rebuttal is leveled against an email alert by CEI, the text of which is similar to, but not a direct quote from, the post linked to above). Leonard’s conclusion nails it:
CEI complains that World Car-Free Day is “anti-prosperity.” If their idea of prosperity is living in the suburbs where you have to drive miles to get to the nearest McDonald’s, I guess they are right. But World Car-Free Day really is “pro-good life.” A life in which we use our bodies instead of burning fossil fuels, reside in livable neighborhoods instead of sterile deserts of tract housing, and enjoy the wind on our face instead of the hum of the air conditioner.
What boggles my mind about complaints like those of CEI is that is misses the point on two very broad levels: First, they argue that automobiles provide mobility and that people would be “isolated” without them. Well, yes, but in many cases only because our development patterns have assumed the use of an automobile as a primary means of transport, resulting in sprawl. It’s a bit disingenuous to complain that grandma couldn’t get to the doctor without a car, when there’s a pretty good chance grandma can’t drive at all. Since there’s probably no doctor near where she lives and no to little investment in public transportation, she’s been left completely stranded even if she owned a car. CEI limits their definition of mobility to driving an automobile, forgetting that investments in transit, rail, safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and even high-speed data infrastructure to encourage telecommuting also equal mobility. The policies they argue would “make owning one’s own car more difficult and expensive” aren’t necessarily there to penalize car owners, but to encourage development patterns and fund transportation networks that are equitable to all users – including the elderly, handicapped, rural residents, and other audiences they identify for whom driving a car doesn’t necessarily make sense, either.
Second: Besides their narrow-minded approach to mobility, the big point CEI misses is that of energy. Automobile-centric mobility arguments and automobile-centric development patterns only make sense in a world of cheap energy with few external impacts of its use, a world we clearly don’t live in anymore. Ask anyone who was driving back and forth between Roanoke and Blacksburg in 2008 if $4/gallon gas contributed to their prosperity. It’s not just the energy involved in moving the automobile back and forth I’m talking about, though; there’s energy involved in building and maintaining the roads upon which the vehicles drive, in supporting the infrastructure that connects commuters’ homes and destinations (power/sewer/etc. – miles of water line to connect a neighborhood to a mall is much more energy intensive than a few blocks to integrate a neighborhood village center). There’s the energy involved in mitigating externalities – pollution, smog, traffic control, emergency services, and so forth. And, finally, there’s the human energy expended in stress and time dealing with long commutes, road rage, sedentary lifestyles that see us sitting down, unmoving, even when we’re traveling at 55 miles an hour. In a world of limitless, clean, free energy, CEI’s perspective might have some value, but unfortunately for them such a world doesn’t, and probably will never, exist.
World Carfree Day, Clean Commute Day, Ciclovia, Bike to Work Day – all these events are efforts to get people past thinking that there is only one way to get from A to B, that only one kind of vehicle makes sense. Sure, in many cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong with driving a car, and the automobile’s ability to get people over long distances quickly has done much for connecting far-flung communities and moving goods around in a way that has increased everybody’s quality of life. But for individual transportation choices on a trip-by-trip basis, sometimes it simply doesn’t make any sense to get in your car.
Even if you aren’t carfree today, at least take a moment to think about a trip that could be taken carfree. Think about how your day might be different if you took the bus on Fridays instead of driving and could read a book or just relax knowing you were significantly safer than if driving in your car. Think about how your family life might be different if you lived close enough to walk your kid to school in the morning. Think about picking up your groceries in a trailer on your bicycle and what that weekly ride might do for your health. Maybe none of these options are realistic for you, and that’s fine. But if you imagined just one of these possibilities and thought, “Yeah, that would be nice,” you’ll know why we work so hard to promote alternatives, and you’ll have proved CEI dead wrong.
Pingback: World Carfree Day 2009 | Virginia Bicycling Federation
There’s no questioning the prosperity that the automobile has brought us. But now we’re so dependent on it that we’re blowing our prosperity out our tailpipes! Unfortunately, many Americans don’t know anything else. Let’s give something else a try, preferably a clean, healthy and fun alternative like biking!
I didn’t see anyone on a bicycle all day today. Everyone at my workplace drove as usual. So much for the so-called “World Carfree Day.” Strictly for the birds.
That may be the case, Don (though I’m sure there was particiapation in the event outside of your purview). I’d be interested to hear, though, what you think about the actual content of the post – is CEI wrong in limiting their idea of mobility to just driving an automobile? Is transportation choice a good thing and something that should be encouraged?
Sniping can be fun, sure, but the blog is intended as a place to have a discussion on the topics we bring up, and I’d appreciate your opinion.
I agree with CEI. The so-called bicycle culture is anti-prosperity, although perhaps unknowingly so. It seems that this group of ‘environmentalists’ would gladly trade their quality of life for a lower standard of living, all in the name of environmental responsibility.
The fact of the matter is – little can be done to reverse decades of development patterns now. Americans by and large are not going to give up the automobile. The solution lies not in riding bikes around like peasants. The solution will come by way of new technologies. Sure, we need to consume less oil. That does not mean we should all live in cubicles downtown, riding bikes around like peasants in the developing world.
The alternative transportation crowd has had their head in the clouds for too long. Who are you kidding? Whatever minuscule impact is made by folks like the Carless Brit and others who adopt alternative transportation locally and even nationally is a drop in the bucket.
You people cannot be serious!
Of course we’re serious, Don!
Two things I would challenge you with: I don’t think the bicycle culture is anti-prosperity and demonstrably so: the Pacific Northwest as a region and many individual cities have strong bicycle cultures that contribute to their prosperity, in part by removing cars from the road to improve traffic, improving air quality, and contributing to a healthy citizenry. Portland is well known for its bike culture, and one could hardly describe the city as anything less that prosperous. Other cities like Austin, Boston, NYC, are also prosperous cities with strong and growing bike cultures. Bicycling (whether for transportation or recreation) is also highly associated with rising creative class workers, who are highly sought after.
Second, I would also point out that you’re thinking too narrowly. Nothing in my response to CEI mentioned bike culture as the only answer. My response dealt with providing and promoting alternatives. Right now, our transportation infrastructure is dedicated to a single mode. It would be hard to describe that choice as a good investment – the Highway Trust Fund is broke, localities and states barely have the money to maintain existing roadways much less improve them, and drivers are at the mercy of the vagaries of the oil market, which, with one spike, can be the difference between a family having enough money to eat or not, as we saw last summer. There are also overlaps with the healthcare situation: creating a transportation infrastructure that only considers the automobile and ending investment in safe bicycle and pedestrian accommodations (many localities in our region don’t even have sidewalks!) can only have contributed to the obesity epidemic and related healthcare problems in the U.S.
I don’t think the alternative transportation crowd is anti-car (in the sense of wanting to ban them completely from the road, at least), and we’re certainly not anti-prosperity. Personally, I don’t find prosperity in paying money into a vehicle that will only depreciate in value, waiting in traffic or being stressed by bad drivers on the road, paying taxes for air quality or environmental mitigation efforts, etc. I’d rather my community invest in providing options so that those who want to drive can do so safely, but those who would rather do something else with their time and money – read, go on a vacation, take the family out to eat at a local restaurant, and so forth – have that option as well.
Don, methinks you’re a little too defensive. Perhaps you secretly feel bad for your dependence on your own automobile? Personally, I don’t see why cyclists should offend you so — as long as they remain in their proper lanes, don’t impede traffic, and signal and communicate to you in an appropriate fashion.
Also, I love how you placed the word Environmentalist in scornful little quotes. Silly little us to care about the planet and the rest of the creatures ON it, when we should be empathetic towards oil executives and the car-driving peons who obstinately depend on and use up their product! God, I’d LOVE to hear your thoughts on health care. Okay, no. I wouldn’t.
As for that peasant comment? My bike is gorgeous. It’s a stunning machine, and I plan on taking good care of it so that it lasts a hell of a lot longer than the average car. It’s about a billion times more attractive than my piece-of-doody Ford that I despise navigating down these crappy, crowded highways. And taking the bus gives me time to lean back and read a book for a little while, which is a luxury. You might define luxury as something with automatic windows and a sunroof, but I’ve never, ever felt impoverished in any way on my bike, or on a train or bus.
Seriously, dude, what’s your major malfunction? Why are you even interested in commenting on this topic?
Neither of you addressed the notion of mine that alternative transportation is a mere drop in the bucket. You are doing nothing to save the planet. I do not believe Americans will take to alternative transportation methods in any numbers.
EAP – Jeremy implored me to comment further. What is your malfunction? Are you a wannabe drill instructor? Do you worship R. Lee Ermy? Major malfunction sounds like something oft repeated on Parris Island.
I personally believe the alternative transportation culture to be that of anti-prosperity. You need not look very far on this blog to see criticism of ‘McMansions’, suburban living, etc. I’ll take my McMansion and leave the rest of you eating my crumbs. Your own self-assured sense of superiority over the elite of this society is interesting. And yet you speak of narrow-mindedness. Laughable!
Nevertheless, my main point: your efforts amount to little more than dust in the wind. I hope a strong wind comes and erases it all soon so I don’t have to see or hear about any more local environmental demonstrations, movements, etc. Here’s hoping that someone at the police department finally sees how dangerous Starbomb is and issues citations in bulk.
Oh and EAP – your notion that bicyclists follow the rules on the road is laughable. My point exactly. So few cyclists follow the rules on the road and yet expect to be treated just like any other vehicle. The majority break traffic laws on a regular basis.
Thanks for citing one of my all-time favorite soft-rock seventies tunes, Don! “Dust in the Wind” is a treasure.
“You are doing nothing to save the planet.” Really? Because unless s/he leaves a steady stream of toxic waste in his/her wake, a cyclist sure isn’t hurting the environment, and neither is a pedestrian. That argument is so played out, it’s not even worth considering. Ultimately, you sound like a lazy pessimist. I’m sure you’re a riotous guest at dinner parties!
Also, I’ll hear your views about how cyclists are dangerous navigators once the majority of drivers in this town actually begin to use their turn signals, and come to a complete halt at four-way intersections with stop signs.
You’d PREFER to live in a McMansion? You’d prefer a shoddily-crafted, absurdly large, utterly impractical, socially isolated home made from non-sustainable materials that emanate toxic fumes, and will have no resell value whatsoever once you decide to put it on the market again because it’s totally identical to 345435 other McMansions that are also for sale? Okay. That’s your choice.
Frankly, you don’t sound educated enough to be prosperous, but maybe you’re a just an overgrown Trust Fund Kid out there in Ashley Plantation with nothing to do. Who knows?
Speaking of which — I have some errands to run — on my bike! It’s a gorgeous day, Don. It’s a true shame you’re unlikely to really enjoy it.
Oh, and Don, YOU didn’t answer MY query: why do you even GIVE a crap? Did someone on a bike abuse you when you were a kid or something? What’s with the deep-seated resentment towards people who use alternative transportation?
EAP – you are an idiot.
Okay, Don.
Drop in the bucket! Unless people flocked to alternative transportation in droves, little impact will be made. The impact made by a one person riding their bike or walking to work is quickly erased by someone else’s midnight trip to Taco Bell for a snack. Your sacrifice is quickly undone by the excessive driving behavior of everyone else driving their cars.
Your efforts are fruitless. No amount of social marketing is going to change these behaviors in large enough of a scale to be effective. Only the market has the power to significantly alter driving behavior. What you are doing is completely fruitless and unnecessary.
EAP – I don’t answer your questions because you are clearly a fool. Why do I care? Well, why do you care to answer my posts? Here is hoping you can muster the mental power to breathe for the next couple of minutes or long enough to intelligently respond to the point above, which is the same point I have made for the last couple of posts.
Don, I think you are setting our sights too high! Again, there was nothing in this post that addressed “saving the world.” Certainly, I think using sustainable transportation modes are healthier than the alternatives, but when it gets down to it we are promoting transportation choice and the idea that different modes may be appropriate for different trips. For example, when I promote riding the bus, the story I often use is that in a couple of months of bus riding I had the chance to read four novels. Nothing to do with saving the world, but an illustration that I got to do something more enjoyable on my commute home than simply sitting in my car. For some people, that could be appealing. I ride a bike and take the bus as my second vehicle because I’d rather spend my money on something other than another car payment. Is that “fruitless and unnecessary”? I hardly think so!
Maybe riding a bike to the store or carpooling to work a couple of days a week won’t save the world. Almost certainly it won’t. But it could make the folks who do it a little less stressed, put a little more money in their pocket, help them get in better shape, or reduce traffic congestion and accident rates for everyone else who chooses to drive everywhere. I don’t see anything fruitless in that.
I’m not precisely sure why advocating for transportation options bothers you so much; you are certainly welcome to get around however you please!
So, the thrust of ‘World Carless Day’ is not environmental in nature? If your personal preference is to ride the bus, ride a bike, etc, then please do so and be happy doing it. However, one should not be deluded into thinking that promotion of alternative transportation furthers in any significant way environmental improvement/protection for the reasons that I state – significant numbers of people are never going to adopt alternative transportation practices.
You cannot claim to be an environmental steward on one hand and then claim that the whole movement is about personal transportation choice etc on the other. The choices are available. Use them if you like or don’t.
My point is simple.
Your efforts are fruitless and unnecessary because you’re not achieving any different results. I could have taken the bus or jumped on my bike to work in 2001 just as easily as I can do so today.
This relates to World Carless Day for the reason that I believe large numbers of people will never adapt alternative transportation practices into their own lives. World Carless Day was misguided effort to begin with and as with all alternative transportation promotion no significant result is achieved.
Well, I’d say that saving 20-30 bucks a week on gas and not sitting in traffic is SOME sort of tangible result. It might not change your world, or even the world at large, but I’m pretty stoked about it. Why would you PAY for a car, if you don’t have to do so?
Don, I’m just gonna venture out on a REALLY big limb and assume that you never attended law school. At the very least, you definitely don’t understand a thesis-driven argument. Do you HAVE an argument? Because you’re just informing people who ride bikes that they’re ~wrong~ about something, but you never really articulate what that malevolent *thing* is. The only ideas you’ve successfully communicated in this thread are your own personal ecologically-pessimistic views. Why in the world WOULD anyone listen to you?! Why should we toss our bikes aside and hop in our vehicles and pay for gas to transport us places if we have more pleasurable ways of getting from point A to point B?
Your “point” is not “simple.” It’s pointLESS.
Really, you’ve just presented yourself as a person with a gigantic problem with environmentalists, for whatever reason. It’s baffling that you read this blog; I would think that you’d have more ideal ways to spend your time. It’s obvious that you’re not willing to operate from a viewpoint that prizes sustainability, so I don’t really see why you’re interested in this topic at all, or why any of us should be interested in what you have to say.
I don’t eat meat, either, but I’m not delusional enough to think that every other person in this country is going to follow my lead. I’m also not going to forego a diet that I know is much better for the health of the planet just because some hopeless cynic thinks I’m not making a difference.
EAP – you insulting liberal psycho. I did not realize that I was expected to write my comments in the format of a thesis paper. What I have done is repeatedly state that these efforts to promote alternative transportation are useless and ineffective. Sure, there are some individuals such as yourself who have made change at the individual level and had wonderful results (budgetary, health-related, and otherwise) but my criticism is leveled at the organization and not its beneficiaries.
One of my points here is that this is in no way a solution to our environmental problems because people will probably never take to these ‘solutions’ in large enough numbers (and apparently both you and Jeremy agree because you have said that you are not out to change the world). Well, I guess we agree more than we disagree.
Scheduling, weather, lack of fitness level and a host of other factors prevent bicycling from becoming a reliable solution. Weather and scheduling of transit conspire against transit as a solution. Carpooling is not ‘carlessness.’
My original comment, which got me entrapped in a ultra-liberal snare, was to state my opinion that the bicycle culture is anti-prosperity. Whether you know it or not, you all are gladly trading down to a lower standard of living. Attack suburban living all you want, but the fact that houses are still built there is testament to the fact that those with money still by and large want that lifestyle. I haven’t seen the houses in Ashley Plantation razed yet because they can’t fetch a hefty price on the open market.
Who is it that doesn’t have a firm grip on reality here? I think it is RIDE Solutions and EAP.
EAP continues to be befuddled as to why I am interested in this program. Well, because I have a right to be interested. This is a public program. We all support it. I have every right to state my opinion. When demonstrations are staged on 581 during rush hour traffic, you tend to get people’s attention. Did you honestly expect everyone to agree with you? Please.
“While the one-day-a-year observance of the event may be harmless, policies that seek to restrict consumer choice are not. There are a host of activists and policymakers who would like to use taxes, fees, zoning restrictions and other regulations to make owning one’s own car more difficult and expensive. For that reason, supporters should have a clear vision of what their lives would be like without access to a car before endorsing the agenda behind events like Car-Free Day.” — CEI
Advocates of the RIDE Solutions and EAP flavor are truly one step away from limiting our choices and freedoms. They are representatives of a totalitarian point of view. The agenda of these groups involves making car-based transportation more expensive.
Don, you do have every right to comment and I appreciate your taking the time to share your opinion. Of course not everyone agrees with the mission of RIDE Solutions and other alternative transportation advocates. It is clear, though, that we are not going to change each others’ minds, so I’m not sure that further discussion on this topic is fruitful for anyone, particularly now that the name calling has gotten a little out of hand.
I always appreciate the opportunity to discuss and defend the RIDE Solutions program, and though I am not likely to have made inroads in your opinion it has provided me an opportunity to share that defense with others who may read the blog, which has been very valuable. RIDE Solutions advocates transportation choice and an infrastructure view that provides safe and equitable accommodations for all choices rather than a single-minded focus on one mode that is neither safe nor convenient for everyone, nor necessarily a wise public investment at all times. I hope if you continue to follow our activities this may become more clear.
I hope you will continue to read and comment as you feel moved to do so.
Deciding to bike instead of driving is not anti-prosperity – it’s simply a decision, like most, of where to spend money. Some people do decide to spend more money on petroleum. And yes, sometimes, there is little choice. But choosing to spend money somewhere else is not anti-prosperity. It’s called freedom.
And sure, why not try to spread it around? Why not have a car free day? A little taste of freedom and it’s only natural to want to spread it around.
Personally I do not equate prosperity (or liberty) with how much one spends on petroleum. And to be honest, I think that’s a silly measure. But I think the bigger question is how can one effectively communicate with someone who holds the views of the writer at CEI? The fact is, land development and transportation policies in this country are antagonistic towards anyone who wants to walk or cycle. For me, changing things is all about bringing balance to an unbalanced system. If Don wants to drive, I think that’s fine. But if I want to ride, then I do not think it should be dangerous or hazardous for me. I work, I pay taxes – if we buy cars twelve feet of asphalt, I don’t see why we can’t buy the cyclists a few more.
And that’s the problem – the CEI author seems to think that I want to dictate how they get around, and nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I enjoy the freedom I have and I hope they discover it, but the fact is all I want is the same opportunity on a bike that I have in a car. I want the freedom to decide how I get around. I’m still working on a way to talk to someone who thinks that my choice to ride a bike is part of an evil plot to take over the world when all I’m doing is getting some milk from the grocery store.
It would be too quick and easy to dismiss Don Williams, as it would be too quick and easy to commend Jeremy Holmes for presenting valid points on transportation and energy issues.
Because it’s late, and I have to be up uncharacteristically early, I am going to write this in two parts. I’ll get started tonight, and finish up tomorrow night. I will be sure to finish my entire writing before I respond to any other posts in this thread.
I think that no amount of persuasion, no matter how soundly based in critical thought, would change Williams mind regarding his lifestyle choices and world views. To that end, I’ll weigh in under the notion that continued dialogue might be helpful for others reading this thread as opposed to weighing in on this thread in the futile hopes of changing Williams mind. Having said that, I am still going to address Williams directly, but only by the Socratic method. I understand that there is an element of rudeness to this position, and I also understand that Holmes has taken a much more fair position. I lack the diplomacy and tack of Holmes, but still want to make my point. So, I am going to ask for Williams forgiveness in advance, although I know that rings somewhat hollow given the fact that I’ve assumed he’s a lost cause laying like roadkill on the black asphalt of our crumbling and expensive infrastructure. I know, I know: a metaphor is a three-legged dog, running. I get flowery sometimes; I can’t help it.
First, a review of Williams key points (as stated by him with no conclusions yet drawn by me):
1. he agrees with CEI
2. he believes that bicycle culture (undefined by him) is anti-prosperity
3. he believes that environmental responsibility leads to a lower standard of living
4. he believes that transportation patterns and types developed in the latter part of the 20th century are largely irreversible
5. he equates forms of transportation other than the auto to a lower social and economic standard
6. he views alternative transportation (undefined by him) as unrealistic
7. he believes that efforts of alternative transportation are futile and inconsequential in the over issue of transportation
8. he doesn’t believe that efforts on the part of alternative transportation advocates do anything to “save the planet”
9. he advocates suburban living in large homes (described by him as McMansions)
10. he believes that anyone participating in Starbomb is committing a crime and should be issued citations
11. he believes that significant numbers of people will never adopt alternative transportation (although there is an implied sentiment from Williams that market changes can alter consumer patterns, or in this case increases in the cost of auto based transportation could have an appreciable impact on consumers of transportation)
12. he believes that groups like Ride Solutions threaten to limit our transportation choices and freedoms, and that they represent a totalitarian point of view. Additionally, he believes that groups like Ride Solutions will increase the cost of car-based transportation
OK, I think that sums up Williams statements on this thread.
Before I sign off and go to sleep (I promised to finish up tomorrow), I will say that while EAP is sometimes funny, he’s not helping further the agenda of solving transportation problems so far in this thread. While I disagree with Williams, he has written clearly about his ideas and hasn’t provoked or personally attacked others engaged in this dialogue. There’s a fine line between a fun witty jab and an insult. Hey, I agree more with you than him, but you’re not helping here, and I think you’re missing the larger picture. I would request two things of EAP: (1) lighten up on the personal attacks of Williams, and (2) please tell us your full name so there is absolute transparency to our dialogue.
Thanks to all, and see you tomorrow. Tomorrow, I will respond to the 12 points above. James Glass
James:
1) I know. I get a little carried away when I feel others are attacking something that lacks a grey area, and it’s difficult for me to turn off the sarcasm. I’m all for protests and activism, but having issues with people who choose to avoid petroleum products whenever possible just seems insane to me. I don’t see the HARM in cycling/walking, and my frustration with DW is mainly due to the fact that I don’t ever really sense that he can articulate WHY he dislikes the concept of non-alternative transportation. I see that he was somewhat upset about Cyclovia, but MAN, that’s a heck of a grudge to hold for this long.
2) Calling someone an idiot is also a personal attack, I think, but it really just made me giggle.
3) Referring to DW’s closed mindset as “roadkill on the black asphalt of our crumbling and expensive infrastructure” is ALSO pretty harsh — but also witty and apt, I must say.
4) I’d be glad to shake your hand and give you my name in real life, but it’s ain’t happening on this thread. If it comes out, it comes out, though. I’m not that hellbent on anonymity. If I were, I wouldn’t have used my initials.
5) I’m a girl. A tomboyish one, but a female, nonetheless
I would like to add that I’d be glad to shake Don’s hand and exchange pleasantries with him in real life, too, and maybe we can all get this stuff figured out. Sometimes people are nicer to each other in real life than they are on the ‘net!
Ed: I meant to say DW was upset about Manif Spaciale; I perused some old blog posts out of curiousity.
By the way, I was the guy flying the Jolly Roger on his bike at Manif. What good is life without a pirate flag?
I would like to address the “Can a small number of people make a difference?” debate. On the subject of ground level Ozone (I am specifically speaking of ground level Ozone and not global climate change etc.) actions of a relatively small number of people can make a difference. During Ozone season (basically the summer) this area has an average concentration of 74 parts per billion (ppb). The current federal standards are at 75 parts per billion (ppb). If we exceed the federal standard for a three year average, this area will go into the traditional “Federal” non-attainment process. As you can imagine the traditional “Federal” non-attainment process can be heavy handed for citizens, businesses and even the local governments. That is why we are trying to address Ozone pollution largely through “voluntary” efforts. On the summer days when we are getting close to the standard, we send out an Air Quality Alert. On those days, a seemingly small additional number of people carpooling, biking to work, taking transit, refueling their cars after 5:00 pm, or a host of other easy to do actions can make the difference between 74 and 75 ppb. It is feasible that a collection of individual actions can account for 1 ppb on a given day.
Don, would you agree that voluntary efforts of bicyclists, carpoolers etc. that help us stay in compliance with federal Ozone standards are preferable to Federal Government intervention through the traditional “non-attainment” process? If so, there is value in having as many bicyclists, carpoolers and transit to work people as possible, because we are at the threshold of a Federal standard, that we are all better off staying in compliance.
For those out there who want to get Air Quality Alerts on days of high Ozone concentration, please go to this link: http://www.ridesolutions.org/airquality/aqad.shtml
Thank you, Mr. Glass, for being civil in your discussion. By the way, I referred to suburban living as McMansions only because I wished to speak in the terms of the everyday environmental/alternative transportation advocate. You’ll note that my first usage of the word was surrounded with quotations.
I look forward to your post addressing the twelve points you summarized earlier. You will not change my mind, and I will not change yours, but I value your discourse. So far you have presented yourself as a more reasonable individual. You seem much more reasonable than either RIDE Solutions or EAP. You’ll note that RIDE Solutions seemed to blame me for the name calling when EAP provoked me with abusive language.
To Mark’s point, frankly I do not believe your air quality alerts actually move the air quality needle significantly. It is impossible for you to say that the alerts have any impact whatsoever. I must say that I have never even heard of any of your alerts. I doubt most citizens of this region have ever taken note. As I mentioned above, one individual’s sacrifice on air quality alert day is quickly erased by someone else’s excessive behavior. And, since the summer is the season of higher ozone, there is a lot of potential for recreational driving etc that would quickly erase the sacrifices of a relatively few who follow air quality alerts.
No one blamed you for anything, Don. But you *did* jump right into this thread breathing fire and slamming fists, and you refuse to consider the views of anyone affliliated with Ride Solutions, so I’m honestly not sure what sort of discourse you really expected. I’m not usually antagonistic from the get-go, but DANG, you sure are angry at cyclists, and I’m just still baffled why. You’re defensive, and so am I. But I’m still not exactly sure what you’re defending.
“It is impossible for you to say that the alerts have any impact whatsoever. I must say that I have never even heard of any of your alerts. I doubt most citizens of this region have ever taken note.”
My question is this: why do you assume that hordes of local citizens share your views? You could be right (I hope not), but I think you’re remiss in assuming that you speak for the Roanoke Valley at large. Would it change your mind if you knew — with certainty — that you’re in the minority, and that most people ARE concerned about climate change and support alternative transportation as a way to stave off global warming? I’m only wondering because the crux of your argument seems to hinge on the actions (or inactions) of a majority.
Don,
The point is that you don’t need a “significant” movement of the needle when you are near a threshold, you just need 1 ppb. If we assume, as you do, that “someone else’s excessive behavior” will wipe everything away, then what will make that person (those people) any more excessive on an Air Quality Day than they are on any other day of their lives? Their excessive behavior is already part of their general pattern, and they would have no particular incentive to suddenly increase their excessive behavior, to a whole new level, on a particular day. On the other hand, the recipients of the Air Quality Alerts ( a self selected group numbering in the hundreds ) have already expressed interest in changing their habits on days when it is needed the most. In order to wash all of that out, a bunch of “excessive” people would have to spontaneously become more excessive than they normally are on that particular day.
As for my particular question to you: “Isn’t it better to address these issues now with volunteer actions instead of waiting for or inviting Federal Intervention and Federal Solutions?” I can’t assume to know your opinion on this issue, but your posts up to now would lead me to believe that you are likely no fan of “Federal Interventions.”
Once again, all of you reading this blog, please sign up for the alerts so you can be ready to help out next summer. http://www.ridesolutions.org/airquality/aqad.shtml Your individual effort can make a difference.
Mark -by significant, I meant at all or any noticeable amount. A select few hundred people who may or may not actually modify their habits on the requested day is most likely not going to make any difference. Sure, it is better to address these problems voluntarily than through federal intervention. I just don’t think your alerts are doing very much.
EAP – see, the alert list in the hundreds represents fewer than 1% of our area’s population. As one can plainly see by looking out their windows, the majority of us drive cars alone. Most of us eat meat and give the environment lip service and not much more. EAP, if you were to prove that a majority of this region’s citizens share your sentiments, then not only will I leave this blog but I will also move from this region! Your view is a minority point of view – there is little doubt.
OK, I am back to finish up, and I’m sorry it had to be a two parter. It does ruin the flow a bit.
To review, in part one of this post I culled a dozen points from Williams posts that I believe accurately reflected his views on this thread. While I paraphrased Williams statements for brevity, I think that they are sufficiently accurate and without prejudice. This bullet-list of his points is a big deal for me because I do have opposing views, so I need to make sure that I first accurately understand an opponent’s position from his or her perspective. It also gives Williams a chance to refute any of the above 12 statements I attributed to him so I can adjust if needed.
I also see there’s been more dialogue since I posted, so I will be sure to read that when I’m done posting. I am looking forward to it.
Note: some of Williams’ statements are similar enough in weight that I’ve grouped them, so while there are 12 statements above, there are not 12 correlating responses below.
So, here we are in the cut!
Statements No. 1,. 2, and 5: Williams agrees with CEI; Williams believes that bicycle culture is anti-prosperity
Before even directly responding to this, I have to point out the massive (read big-ass) amount of subjectivity in the definition of key terms in both the CEI statement and Williams agreement with CEI. To that end, I think the following things are NOT clearly defined because the respective perspectives of the folks in this dialogue have such opposing views and valves:
a. anti-prosperity (or more accurately, just the definition of prosperity)
b. mobility (as in autos provide mobility in an unparalleled positive way)
Because CEI and Williams see the people riding around on bikes and buses (or walking) as a lower social class, the values Williams expose take this out of the realm of just a transportation issue and layer it with the extra issue of a caste system. This is not only sad, but it really muddles things. To this issue Williams wrote, he didn’t want to be “riding bikes around like peasants in the developing world”. If Williams considers anyone riding around on a bike as a means of transportation for peasants, then the added element of class struggle (and implied values) means that it’s going to be hard as heck to offer a response. If a man thinks he’s lowering himself to perform a certain act, then it’s going to be hard for that man to perform that degrading act. It’s harder still for another person to convince the first man to perform the alleged degrading act. If Williams feels like a peasant when he rides a bike, I doubt very much I am going to get him to ride that bike to work with a smile by offering him only a witty argument and my natural charm.
The next complication in responding to CEI and Williams is the definition of prosperity. Again, just like the caste system implied by Williams, the implication here is that the definition of prosperity is the continuation of post World War 2 standards of American living. By that definition, I suppose that bikes could be viewed as anti-prosperity.
So, here I am, cream on my face and in mid-coitus (Quagmire on Family Guy) and I haven’t even begun my response to Statements 1 & 2 yet! In order to respond, I have to point out the unexamined (and unsustainable) values of CEI and Williams. It’s no wonder we can’t connect on this because our world view offers us each such different emotional responses to the same activity. I see people riding a bike and I think positive thoughts, while Williams see a peasant. I define prosperity as living in harmony with others on the one planet we have, while Williams sees prosperity as cheap energy and massive global inequity. The exact same “thing” brings about two totally different responses.
So, when I opened my post yesterday by writing that Williams and I will never agree, I based that statement on the realization that we see the world so very differently. We could each say to the other: “Don’t try to teach a pig to sing–it’s a waste of time and it only annoys the pig”. If he and I were alone in a room having this discussion, we’d be better off giving up on the discussion and watching TV. Although, we’d probably fight over what to watch. But, since we’re having this discussion in an open public forum, it’s valuable to respond to each other because other folks can read this and possibly weigh in on our disagreement. This gives us all a better chance to learn something or at least strengthen our own views. My response might be lost on Williams and his response might be lost on me, but a third party might just benefit from the exchange. It’s in this spirit that I respond to Williams.
OK, now I want to directly address this anti-prosperity nonsense.
Williams is wrong. I am fan of big sentences, and whenever I can get a colon or a dash or even a semi-colon in a sentence, I feel a little rush. It’ s probably the release of serotonin or dopamine or whatever my brain releases from seeing big beautiful Faulknerian sentences on a page. Some guys like big butts, and they cannot lie. I like small butts and big vivacious sentences. So, when I write a three word sentence, you know I mean serious business.
Williams is wrong. There isn’t even an adverb in there!
Here’s why Williams is wrong:
The definitions of prosperity and mobility as the modern Western world has come to understand it since oil first leaked out of a Pennsylvania mud field are completely unsustainable and absolutely inequitable. I don’t mean unsustainable or inequitable for the planet, I mean for humans. The planet will survive just fine. In order for the planet to survive, it might just kill us measly humans off in order to recover it’s sustainable and balanced cycle. The views of CEI and Williams are myopic and fail to account for how transportation (and related car based infrastructure) requires massive amounts of energy and our current forms of energy are killing us. We only have two sources of energy: the first is currently useless to us and it’s the inner molten core of the earth as a generator, the second is the sun, and all our useful energy comes from the sun. This includes oil and coal–it just happens to be 65 million year old stored solar energy with vasts amount of CO2 in it, but it’s still solar. Wind energy is also solar, so even if we harness the winds to turn turbines, we need the sun to kick start the process. And since plants are currently the only thing in our known universe than can harness solar energy by natural order through photosynthesis, we had better learn to appreciate where we stand in terms of the big picture of energy. (Note: I encourage everyone to check out emerging technologies on artificial photosynthesis and new generation PV cells including the successful wireless transmission of AC power. MIT is a great place to start when checking this out.)
The real, true cost of energy is hidden from CEI and Williams. I believe that Williams suffers from affluenza, or the virus of affluence, and because of his affliction he can’t see the world outside the scope of the last 50 years of Western civilization. I believe that Williams is not alone, and that as long as the true costs of energy are hidden or subsidized, that most folks just aren’t going to get it. We’re the lucky ones here in the USA on the top of the energy food chain, so it is harder for us to take a big picture view, but at the heart of this subject, at the core of these 12 statements from Williams, lies just one issue: energy and equity.
The matrix of issues that make up energy and equity is vast, but one key issue is peace. I know it’s hokey, but it’s true. I don’t have time to go into the dynamic interchange between energy, equity and peace right now, so I will keep this brief by saying I share similar enough views with the following people. If you read their views, then you effectively know me:
a. Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl
b. Energy and Equity, Ivan Illich
c. my good friend Jerzy Nowak also runs The Center for Peace Studies at VT, and he has a vast amount of resources on how energy and peace tie together.
As the modern Western world has come to define the terms of prosperity and mobility, it is has failed to take into account how energy and equity affect the human to planet equation on a global scale. Cheap energy and huge srides in technology have allowed us vast power over our environment, and because of this, many of us rose up on the backs of others. We didn’t do it exactly on purpose, but in order to keep the massive infrastructure needed to shuttle us privately around in 3500 pounds of steel, a tremendous amount of energy had to be used. Since this energy was not evenly or fairly distributed and since this energy also pollutes our home, we have to reexamine how we define prosperity and mobility.
This is the core of Williams’ view that only peasants ride around on bikes. This is the core of the issue of prosperity as defined by CEI and Wiliams. Williams is wrong because he can’t correlate how transportation, energy, and equity fit together on a global scale. His view is too narrowly defined to his life and his opinions stem from his position in relation to the immediate world around him This is a poor way to form an opinion because it doesn’t offer enough perspective to understand complex interactions and causality. A better way to form an opinion is to compare yourself to the universe instead of your neighborhood. You get a better idea of how much a spec of dust you are on a cosmic scale, and you’re less likely to be as arrogant.
From Williams’ narrow perspective, when you’ve made it, baby, you get to cruise under the intoxicating power or internal combustion and drive around the cyclists and buses. Note that by making his peasant statement that Williams indirectly acknowledges inequity in transportation (and in energy) and I believe this is why he sees giving up his automobile is a loss of power and freedom (see Wiliam’s statement no. 12).
I could write at length on this, but I have to leave it at this for now since I have another nine points to address, but remember this: I question the way Williams defines prosperity and mobility.
Also, I’ve drawn on the other parts of the 12 Williams’ statements in addressing these first three, so I can exercise some brevity in addressing the others. I’ve introduced the elements of energy and equity into the thread, and I won’t refer to them in such detail as they come up again.
Statement No. 3 and 8: Williams believes that environmental responsibility leads to a lower standard of living
The short response to this is: poppy cock!
The slightly longer response is, yes, in the short term, Williams could very well see a reduction in his standard of living due to the increased costs of taking care of the planet. We all might see this, and it’s just fine that we do. We haven’t done much housekeeping since we started burning coal and oil, or since we found modern life easier through chemicals, silicone, and large scale industry.
While we’ve made strides in limiting laissez faire doctrines that harm both people and the environment, but we still have a ways to go. The most blatant and obvious abuses were corrected in the earlier 20th century and to give us some credit, we didn’t fully understand sustainable living in a plain way until this generation. We never had to deal with environmental issues before because we never had the power to so alter the planet until now. We all know what Peter Parker’s uncle told him about power: “with great power comes great responsibility”.
So, I say that we (Williams included) should stop whining about losing a few bucks and we should clean up the place. It’s selfish of Williams to complain about his lowered standard of living while malaria runs rampant in South Africa, children are dying of AIDS, genocide is committed for profit, and China is dumping toxins in drywall and baby food.
Again, I challenge Williams to examine his life and ask, “how much do I need especially if others are suffering?” If his basic human needs are met and he lives in a free society without undue government restrictions on the pursuit of happiness and no government restrictions on free speech, what more does he need out of life? What more do any of us need than the ethical pursuit of our dreams?
In the long run, we will all prosper from good housekeeping.
Statements No. 4, 6, and 7: Williams believes that transportation patterns and types developed in the latter part of the 20th century are largely irreversible
Really? It might be hard to orchestrate a sea change in transportation since cheap energy has allowed us this behemoth of infrastructure and all the vehicles in it, but this behemoth is killing us. If our leg was irreversibly rotting from gangrene, I have no doubt it would hard to cut it off, but embrace that change we must because life is lost otherwise as the infection spreads.
Now, this isn’t the greatest analogy because we don’t actually have to lose anything to solve this problem; we just have to shift our perspective and adjust our ways of transporting ourselves. We come out of the change whole and I think the better for it. How to go about this change is beyond the scope of this thread, but folks like Jeremy Holmes have a fantastic start on solving the problem. The above analogy is to how hard making the change will be. I also realize when I write things like, “embrace the change we must”, I have started channeling my inner Yoda. Sorry.
Yes, it’s big, and yes we’re used to it, but it’s got to be fixed. Now is also a great time to address this since the infrastructure we built during the New Deal and after WW 2 (read Ike’s interstate system) is crumbling and collapsing around us. This is an ideal time to build an improved transportation system.
Some points to consider when re-developing the transportation system:
1. what is the best way to transport goods and services (people)
a. the best way is to not transport them at all–if you can get what you need done and stay put, you’ve just saved time and energy
b. the next best way is to transport goods and people virtually through e-mail, tele-commuting, Skype, etc. No vehicle need be built and energy costs of the internet as infrastructure is almost nothing when compared to current transportation methods like UPS, cars, flying, etc. I was pleased to see that the key note speaker at the Connect the Dots conference was not flown in from CO, but instead gave his address via Skype.
2. if you can’t stay put or transfer goods and people virtually, then what?
a. efficiently group goods and people together and move them as a whole just like our body functions on a cellular level
b. move people using sources of energy that aren’t harmful to us or are the least harmful to us. This means riding a bike burns calories and not fossil fuel and this is why I get happy when I see people riding bikes. It makes for a nice firm body too, and that’s all the better to boot. Or booty, or whatever.
3. there is nothing organic or sustainable in our current transportation system
Note: in terms of sustainable engineering and architecture for rebuilding our infrastructure, please see Sean McGuiness and VT. He’s actually more focused on sustainable building as it relates to the construction industry but his idea are applicable on the large scale of infrastructure as well.
Statement No. 9: Williams advocates and enjoys living in a larger suburban home (read McMansion)
Again, this is an issue that combines values, energy, true costs of energy, and all that stuff above.
From the bigger picture it’s a waste of resources to occupy unnecessary space especially since affluenza and class issues are attached as motivators for this behavior. (Please see the book Affluenza by Oliver James.)
From the smaller picture just limited to Williams, I have to ask: why is he paying so much money to drive back and forth to a huge house he has to heat and cool (not to mention buy and repair), when he could just live closer to his life’s work and have so much more money for the difference?
Statement No. 10: Williams believes that anyone participating in the Starbomb should be arrested and prosecuted.
Well, now, Mr. Grinch, I think your heart is two sizes to small. (Please read this as a friendly jab and not an insult).
There isn’t much to say about this since no one is actually breaking the law. Also, since Williams is tucked away at home in the suburbs with his car parked safely in his driveway when the Starbomb is happening I can’t imagine that there will be any cross contamination of lifestyles.
Statement No. 11: Williams believes that significant numbers of people will never adopt alternative transportation
First off, who’s says it’s alternative? The automobile eclipsed the bike because it was a) cooler, b) more powerful, and c) could take us greater distances in the same amount of time and d) came into being at the same time as mass production allowing for hugely reduced costs. This made sense at the time because all of human history and trade was based upon the transport of goods from distant mountains or rural locations to urban centers. (For reference please see The Urban World by J. John Palen). We no longer live, for the first time in recorded human history, under this model, so we need to develop a new system of transporting goods and people that fits this brave new world.
Second, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what ultimately costs more: the current system or a new system. Let’s hope we get the answer in our lifetime, and let’s hope the cost of finding the answer to our transportation issues can be met in a fair and equitable way for all of earth’s citizens.
Well, that’s it. I think I addressed all 12 points.
Good night, and good luck (I know it’s a bit too Edward E. Murrow for some, but it really does fit).
James Glass
jamesglass.org
James, thanks for that exhaustive reply. I’ll let it stand that I agree with your points with addressing each of them, since that would be fairly labor intensive. I do want to bring special notice to your statement, “[W]ho says it’s alternative?” The language we have used in this discussion may go a long way to explain why it has been so contentious. I want to get at this in it’s own blog post later, but in the short term I’ll say this: The TDM industry has struggled to describe what we’re do and what we’re advocating. “Alternative transportation” has been the phrase that’s stuck, but there are some problems with it.
First, it automatically cedes primacy to the automobile by describing everything else as an “alternative.” I don’t think that’s fair. Second, it sets up a binary relationship: You can either drive, or you can do any of these other things. That’s also not fair, since no one mode is necessarily appropriate for every trip. I think Mr. Williams may be upset in that advocating for “alternative transportation,” we’re advocating for a system in which the personal automobile doesn’t exist. That’s certainly not true, as I hope has been explained.
I’ll expand on this later but wanted to address it now while I had a moment.
Exactly. I don’t (and never have) seen this as an alternative transportation issue. It’s just a transportation issue, a subset of housing, a subset of the energy issue.
This is an energy issue and everything that cascades down from that is just how we do it. The nuts and bolts of it have a wide variety of choices, etc.
You’re right about the problems of labeling this topic the way it’s been labeled so far. It masks what’s really going on. One problem is getting this issue encapsulated in a sound bite that adequately describes it so that people will investigate deeper. We either need to better describe the issue on the table, raise the collective attention span of the average modern citizen, or do both of these in order to get the point across.
To Williams defense, I think he gets a bit hung up at the door on this very point regarding labeling. How do we get people inside (passed the doorway) so we can all critically examine the mess? It’s hard enough that some folks refuse to acknowledge the mess, but thankfully even the most anti-global warming folks are coming around to the problems of our energy by-products and how they affects us in both transportation and shelter.
James
EAP,
You’re probably right that not as much separates us as I’d like to think it does when comes to writing responses to Williams. I can spin the “friendly jab” angle, but it’s closer to the same thing as an insult. I am adjusting myself accordingly. I don’t mean my pants, I mean inside my skull.
I do like girls and all, and especially the tomboyish ones, so I reckon it’s just fine I only know your initials.
See you around town on a bike. We’ll have to stop, get off our bikes, and dig in the mud like the peasants in Monty Python’s The Search for the Holy Grail.
“How do you know he’s a king?”
“He hasn’t got shit all over him.”
James
Mark,
Good point on how one more drop in the bucket can cause it to tilt and overflow. I like it.
JG
AWESOME research and reply, James. I don’t know what Don will think, but I’m pretty impressed.
Hi EAP,
You make me blush with your nice compliments. But, there’s no research involved–my researched answer would sadly have been longer and also approached a Ted Kzynski style manifesto. I just sat down and wrote, but I have the advantage that this thread fits into my work, so this is on topic for me. Everything in this thread is stuff I talk about every day so it’s in easy recall on the hard-drive that is my brain.
It’s not like I can spew like this on a wide variety of topics. I just spew on a few. I like the way “spew” and “few” rhyme in that previous sentence. I am a man of simple pleasures.
So, my background covers both transportation, real estate, and construction although now it’s just real estate and constuction. It’s too complicated to get into here without also plugging my work, so I won’t do it. I don’t want Jeremy to think I’m contributing so I can troll the blogs for increased sales!
See you around,
James
James – I have not read your entire post yet due to its length but will when I get time. I got as far as your discussion of the unsustainability of oil. Please note that my initial argument/discussion stated that ‘alternative transportation’ especially of the biking variety will never be our society’s ultimate solution to our energy/environmental problems, because large enough numbers will never adapt those practices into their lives. Our development patterns (which are too long-standing to reverse quickly) dictate against it.
I believe the solution lies in technology. The automobile is a necessity in modern American life. I am not sure there is room enough in urban centers for our great country’s citizens all to live and if there were not everyone wants that lifestyle. There will always be a market for living in the suburbs, exurbs, and in the countryside for people of all ages. And as long as there is demand for this the market will respond with appropriate technologies to allow for this. Automakers are, as we speak, on the cusp of releasing even more efficient hybrid vehicles. Some have purely electric vehicles in the works. There are fuel cell prototypes.
Yes, there are significant hurdles that must be cleared logistically and technologically for these things to work, but I cannot imagine a large number of Americans abandoning the automobile in the next decade. And a decade is a lot time for these hurdles to be cleared and for these technologies to become more affordable.
Do you honestly think that everyone is going to move into the City less than a few miles from where they work? And if people start making those type of home buying decisions – very consciously trying to stay within a very, very short distance of where they work, what happens when they must change jobs and suddenly their job is across town. There are people that commute long distances on bike but even fewer are willing to do that.
Carlessness is impractical. Advocating for carlessness is not advocating for choice. It is advocating for one less mode. To assume that cars will always be fueled with fossil fuels is an incorrect assumption. I do not advocate for the consumption of oil long-term but for serious solutions to serious problems. I do not believe transit, bicycling, and walking are sufficient to meet our problems.
The problem with technology is that there is an expense in its deployment that not every citizen can bear. Hybrid-electric vehicles exist right now as a possible solution to oil consumption, but they can never be adopted in large quantities because most people simply cannot afford to buy a new car. Alternative transportation, concentrating on mode shift and thus behavior change, offers a strategy for dealing with the cost of commuting that can be adopted almost immediately by any driver. Even now, Don, there is a significant portion of the population that simply cannot afford to buy a car at current prices – I believe the number in Roanoke City is close to 10%. For them “alternative transportation” isn’t an alternative, it is their only mode. I’m not so sure that your “technology will solve the energy crisis” answer is any more realistic than thinking that it has solved our mobility problem.
As my post pointed out above, the oil/energy issue extends beyond moving the vehicle itself and into the whole network that supports it. Even if an individual vehicle were to be powered entirely by clean solar energy, there are huge externalities involved in creating and maintaining a transportation infrastructure geared towards moving a single person in a 3,500 lb shell.
It’s important to keep in mind that transportation demand management strategies and alternative transportation advocacy efforts predate the current issues of climate change and energy; they have traditionally been congestion mitigation efforts, recognizing that, energy consumption aside, society is not served by long, wasteful, unproductive commute times. Climate change and the energy crisis have only served to sharpen our focus.
You say that transit, etc., are not sufficient. Fine. But why can’t they be part of the solution? Why can’t those options be made readily available for those for whom they make sense? A certain percentage of the population will never be able to use alternative modes, perhaps a majority, but is that a reason to stop serving the rest of the population that would? The Commonwealth of Virginia’s budget for TDM programs like RIDE Solutions, statewide, is less that what it takes to build a quarter mile of road. Is that really too much of an investment to promote sustainable modes and assist those who would like to adopt them?
Most trips made in the U.S. are less than two miles – whether to work, shopping, visiting friends, etc. – under the existing development patterns. We don’t need to drastically shift/undo what has been done in terms of development patterns to find areas where an alternative mode can make sense.
Carlessness is impractical, yes, but RIDE Solutions has never advocated for a carless society. Of course, we do talk about carlessness as an idea, because sometimes you have to present people with a big idea to get them to think about what is possible. Again, every argument I have made in this post and others, every interview I have done for the media, every presentation I have given has advocated for making trips by alternative modes where it makes sense for the individual as way to save money and for environmental stewardship. Obviously, our carpool program could not exist in a carless society. Promoting transit would never work in city where there were no roads upon which to run the buses. Further, you’ll note the activities we promoted for World Carfree Day were the Car Less Challenge, which explicitly encouraged going carless for one day; the transit challenge, which explicitly encouraged exploring transit for a single trip; and the Meals without Wheels promotion, which encouraged folks to walk to lunch. That was it. We didn’t encourage people to abandon their cars altogether, but explore opportunities for taking carless trips.
Finally, you’ll note that a number of the area’s largest employers have partnered with RIDE Solutions to promote alternatives to their employees, including Carilion Clinic and Virginia Tech. Clearly, the employers are not seeking to stop their employees from driving altogether, but they must see a value in offering their employees choices. There is a market for our services. You’re not in that market, and that’s fine; nobody’s coming to your home with a RIDE Solutions badge to take your car keys away!
What is the median age of vehicles on the road. Isn’t it true that most of the fleet out there is replaced every ten years or so. Won’t there be used clean vehicles at some point down the line? It may be impractical to expect clean vehicles to be integrated wholesale within the next 5 years, but what about 10 years, 15 years? It’s not as long as it seems in the grand scheme of things.
I got a little carried away when I referred to RIDE Solutions as totalitarian. I think what you do is great and has a purpose. As you said, it is not a panacea.
The focus on carlessness, carfree stuff is what gets my goat. My real argument here is that CEI’s point of view does not boggle the mind. It is not stupid and those who believe that way do not necessarily drag their knuckles, as it seems you might suggest. In the grand scheme of things, there are advocates of alternative transportation, New Urbanism etc that do want to limit the use of automobiles through aggressive taxes and other policies. CEI wants you to think carefully about the implications of advocating for carlessness in any form.
CEI’s point of view is based on an ideology (just as some of your arguments are based on an ideology). We cannot very easily dismiss each other. I do not believe any ideology holds all the answers.
Don, I’m glad we’ve reached at least some point of agreement. From my perspective, technology is not a panacea either. It will take multiple strategies to address energy and mobility issues, in which both cleaner technology and behavior change have a role.
As far as the fleet turnover goes, you are right in that, eventually, inefficient vehicles will be switched out with more efficient models. My rebuttal is that someone attempting to combat a sudden spike in gas prices, a new job with a longer commute, or other day-to-day challenges may not have the luxury of investing in a new vehicle now or waiting until they can. One of the purposes of advocating for multiple safe modes of transportation is that commuters can quickly respond to changes in their lifestyle or work by adopting other modes. To some extent, it provides a free market solution to transportation by providing access to modes other than driving alone.
Finally, I do have to stand by my characterization of CEI’s statement. Look at the “obstacles” they suggested to going carfree – none of those were insurmountable by bike, certainly none of them were barriers to taking the bus, carpooling, etc., and, further, all of them are issues that folks who can’t afford a car have to go through right now. If, as CEI says, the automobile is directly associated with prosperity, they seem to have forgotten that, for many people, the expense of buying, maintaining, and powering a car has become a barrier to prosperity.
Perhaps was CEI meant is that the greater mobility provided by the personal motor vehicle has led to greater prosperity, a statement with which I would agree. The question then becomes, “Is the automobile always the best way to provide that mobility?” I think the answer is clearly no, as indicated by areas like D.C. and Atlanta whose economies are struggling with the impact of traffic congestion, air quality, lost productivity, infrastructure strain, and related issues.
If CEI really believes, as they claim to on their website, that “the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace,” I don’t see the problem they can possibly have with people choosing alternative modes, and groups advocating for the benefits of those modes.
Since when has national policy of any type hinged on global equity – you are truly in a dream world.
This issue here isn’t one of what has happened so far in human history, but what needs to happen if we’re to survive as a species.
National policy is comparatively useless to a global solution to the energy and equity problem.
Yes, I am dreaming–of a better tomorrow.
James
I would like to clarify the “hundreds” on the Air Quality Action Day list. Many on the list are “Human Resource Managers” or other workplace coordinators, who are tasked with forwarding the alerts to their entire organizations. The effective reach of the list may go into the thousands. I purposely didn’t claim this because we can’t verify every last person who forwards the alerts, and I wanted to be conservative with the numbers that I was claiming. In addition, local media outlets are on the list and they routinely spread the word during a news or weather report. Those of you reading this blog and engaging in this conversation please have the Human Resource Manager or equivalent at your workplace sign up with RIDE Solutions as a workplace coordinator so they can forward the alerts to the entire organization. Lets make sure we have thousands on the list so we can be “significant.”
It’s probably worth it to read the comments on the Salon.com rebuttal to the CEI piece, as they reinforce much of the discussion that’s been happening here:
http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/09/21/world_car_free_day/view/?show=all
The valid points raised by Jeremy and Mark on motivators for their behavior and work are only a tiny part of the whole picture. This is not to say that they don’t see the big picture; they are only offering specific isolated responses to CEI and Williams. I’ve had enough dialogue with Jeremy to know he see the whole picture, and I recently met Mark, and he seems like a smart fellow.
There’s been some discussion regarding motivation on the part of individuals when it comes to owning/using fewer cars (aka carelite) or owning no car (aka carless), and their responses have been on a point by point basis. This differs from my response, which is to take it to its most macro-perspective.
I argue that without considering the issues of energy and equity, then the full picture approach isn’t being utilized when making decisions regarding transportation behavior. The big picture here is transportation is a subset of shelter, and both are subsets of energy. So, to analyze transportation, you have to look at shelter and energy. Shelter is an issue because we only need to transport ourselves and goods between buildings (home, work, other), and energy is the over-riding issue because it takes energy to build and maintain the infrastructures of transportation and building. Cars, roads, home, bike, shingles, concrete, vinyl siding, windows, etc. etc. are also materials that are a subset of energy. So, this discussion really needs to begin with an examination of energy, and that can’t begin unless we examine equity. What does equity mean? In the simplest of terms, it means the ethical distribution of energy among human is the fairest possible way.
Then, once energy and equity are addressed, you have to come up with a approach to building and maintaining our transportation and shelter needs in a circular way as opposed to a linear way (the way our current manufacturing systems works). What this means is we need a closed loop system that starts with the acquisition of raw materials and folds back into that starting point with any disposal of spent materials. This organic approach is how our bodies work on a cellular level. The added bonus is when we die, we fertilize the next generation.
I argue that without this synchronicity we are unsustainable because we’ll eventually use up all the inputs (raw materials) and have only useless outputs (waste we can’t use). We are the only beings in the known universe that work in this crazy way and it’s only because we’ve figured out how to use coal and oil to wield massive unchecked power over our environment. We’ve arrogantly done this for more than the last 150 years, but only in the last 150 years have we had such global impact. England, for example, torched their forests in early pre-industrial times before coal was discovered, but the impact was insignificant on a global scale. It sucked for them, but not for the whole world. I believe we face a crisis of global proportions.
Williams original position and subsequent responses are too narrow and too black and white to take in the whole (very complicated) subject of how we transport ourselves and our goods. The above discussion on motivators is an example of this narrow approach:
1. it’s possible for an individual to have multiple reasons do accomplish a task, so you can have both sustainable and personal financial reasons to adjust transportation models
2. it’s possible for a group to have multiple (and sometime conflicting) reasons to accomplish the same objective
The second of the two can be harder to sort out, especially if sub groups have formed and have fractionalized on the way to achieving the same objective. This has already happen in little old Roanoke among cyclists, so we’re on our way to a very diverse (read complicated) situation. It’s like on Law and Order when both the ACLU and some conservative Christian group both lawyer up on behalf of the same defendant.
So, for me, this issue has to be taken to a global scale in order to see the full picture, and my response to CEI and Williams stems from this approach. We are a little over 100 years into a modern civilization that is based on oil and coal for our energy needs. Yes, France runs around 92% nuclear and Ireland still gets 13% of its energy from burning peet moss, but mostly we humans are powering our lives (our transportation) with oil and coal.
So, any transportation discussion has to be taken back to this big picture approach first. In most cases you can employ a flow chart of critical thought to analyze the situation you’re in. Typical steps include:
1. realizing there is a problem (if you’re drowning or on fire this is fairly simple, but on the issue of energy and equity and its sub-issues of transportation, industry, pollution, it is not as simple)
2. sizing up the problem and getting the the best view of the problem’s dimension. This isn’t just a 3D sizing up of the problem since some problems are so vast and complex they form a matrix, that is a multi-dimensional set of input and outputs. The current energy and equity problem we’re discussing in this thread is an example of this sort of complex problem
3. performing a needs assessment–is the problem worth fixing? what’s the cost of fixing the problem vs. living with it?
4. if the needs assessment says “fix the problem”, the a problem analysis has to occur. This size up what resources (people and technology) are available to fix the problem. Of course problems of the scope we’re addressing in this thread need a butt load of people and all the technology we can muster to solve.
5. developing a plan to fix the problem for the problem analysis
6. implementing the plan
Each of the above steps are hard to do in large groups because of diverging values, but sometimes the problems are great enough that people set aside their individual values for a common shared value. A one recent example of this is WW 2. Both the Allies, the Germans, and the Japanese had a collective (read Borgish) mindset in their respectively unified approach to battle. In other words, the problem was so immediate, the costs so massive, and the real threat so great that getting the vast unwashed masses to come together in a common cause to solve a problem was easier. Right now the energy problem (for those of us on the top of the energy food chain) is not immediate, not costly, and has no perceived threat. This doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist, it’s just occurring on a scale and over a time line that we’re unprepared to easily recognize. Noting in the history of human kind up to 1850 could have prepare us to know how to responsibly wield the power we’ve created for ourselves in the last 150 years. Science, and it’s bastard child technology, have changed what it means to be human. We’ve just have adapted our minds to the new world order.
Don’t get me wrong: I am not a Luddite. I value technology and have high hopes for utilizing it to get us out of the jam we’re in on this energy and equity issue. But, we can’t place blind faith in undiscovered and undeveloped technologies (as Williams indicated in his above posting) without also utilizing every existing technology and skill we currently have to solve the problem.
So, tying this back into motivation (without addressing the definition of what motivates humans), we have to ask, why would we me motivated to solve this energy problem? Would we even say there is an energy problem?
Sadly, I am running out of time to continue. I’m on the Smartway bus and I don’t even have time to proof read this before I upload it because my stop is coming up. But, my points of this posts are:
1. go big picture and see how energy affects shelter and mobility
2. identify key terms in a way that makes identifying and analyzing problems possible so that genuinely effect problem solving can occur
3. identifying and understanding individual and group motivators in identify and analyzing problems
4. note that in addition to the limited subject I just raised in taking a big picture view of this energy issue, I haven’t even address a host of other factors that complicate addressing the problem like: intelligence, communication ability, resource management, conflict resolution, etc.
The biggest take-a-way from this post is that this is an issue that is so large it exists in a matrix of multiple inputs and multiple outputs occurring at multiple times and it involves and entire eco-system we too arrogantly wield power over.
ps– I apologize for never proof reading. My last post and I am sure this one is full of typos. It doesn’t interrupt flow, but I ask you roll with me. In this case I have to get off the bus!
James Glass
jamesglass.org
I just got in my office and I really have some typos! More so than before. There are entire sentences with altered or unclear meaning due to typos of is vs. in or the wrong tense or the wrong contraction. I hope the spirit of the piece still comes thru.
One sentence is way off: “We’ve just have adapted our minds to the new world order.”
It should read, “We just need to adapt our minds to the new world order.”
This means we have to mature as a species to responsibly handle the power we’ve developed through technology.
James
Some one who read this (but isn’t apart of the thread on this blog) asked about the following statement of mine:
<<>>
The question was what do the tragedies and horrors of malaria, AIDS, genocide and illegal dumping have to do with the issue (e.g. transportation)?
The answer is our failure of resource management. I didn’t explain this in detail because I thought the implication of energy automatically implied the subset of managing the resource. This was to big a leap on my part, and I am often guilty of this. The cohesive connections for a sound argument are there, I just glossed over them because I live with them everyday.
These examples tie in because the cost of our current energy management system doesn’t allow us to correct woeful wrongs among our species. We have the extravagant real estate (Trump Tower), interstates, NASA, Kroger stores, fashion models, disposal coffee cups in abundance but not enough left over to feed dying children or make sure control exist to keep toxins from the supply chain.
Our priorities are out of whack if such great inequity exists in the world due to our inability to manage our collective resources. To correct the example I listed in the post takes energy, none of which we apparently have since affluence and war is more profitable. It’s a sad ass commentary on humanity. We can do better.
Check this video out: http://www.storyofstuff.com
JG
I think it is noble to live like a peasant and to fight for a cause even when the odds are against you. I love riding my bike. It makes me feel healthy and strong.
I don’t assume that I am more than an ornery peasant (a laborer), but I do recognize that I am privileged. As American’s we have been given great opportunities. Along with wealth and privilege comes great responsibility.
James,
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt in the holistic outlook contrasted with “partial” solutions thread. We generally emphasize the “partial” solutions in the “You eat an Elephant one bite at a time!” pragmatic spirit. For marketing, it is also easier to emphasize a simple “actionable” message to get someone started. Eventually the people who start small, or get started with simple things, will piece things together in a more holistic outlook.