YOU DRIVE ME CRAZY - TAKE 2

I suppose the risk of writing a blog is that someone might actually read it. In Tuesday's post, I took Frank Hotchkiss and Dale Francisco to task for their comments regarding transportation in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound. Since Dale Francisco took the time to compose a detailed and thoughtful rebuttal, I felt it only fair to repeat his letter in a separate post and then respond to the response ...

Average Man,

As you said, where to begin?

First, I agree with you that congestion pricing is one potential means of reducing traffic congestion. It makes sense to reward people for traveling in off-peak hours. But of course that's not an "alternative" form of transportation, it's simply making better use of the automobile and the road infrastructure.

It is one thing to point out that there are alternatives--cycling, walking, mass transit--to automobile travel. Who could disagree? It is quite another to show how a significant percentage of Santa Barbara's traffic in people, goods, and services is going to be shifted to those transportation modes.

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides. It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

When I told the reporter at the Sound that our local transportation planners were stuck in the 1970s, I spoke of a very specific example. Our planners are still focused on commuting trips, which were a majority of all automobile passenger miles back then. Now they constitute around 25% of all trips. What that means is that automobile ownership and usage have expanded to encompass trips to school, trips to music lessons, shopping trips, and endless other variations--a highly individualized web of trips ill suited to mass transit. Private transportation is deeply embedded in people's lives.

Those are the choices that people have made. If we're serious about reducing pollution, then the solution will likely come from cleaner technologies, not forced behavioral changes. In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

It's fine to set an example by renouncing the use of cars, and I have nothing but admiration for those who live their beliefs in that way. And I have nothing against alternative transportation. I originally came to Santa Barbara partly because this is one of the world's best places for biking and hiking, and because it has a walkable downtown. If I never had to drive a car, I'd be delighted. My own car typically spends days at a time parked at home.

I've spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about transportation planning. You may disagree with some of the conclusions I've reached, but I came to them in good faith, and like you I'm interested in the good of our community.

I'd be happy to talk over any of these issues with you in person, or by phone (I'm in the phone book).

Best regards,
Dale Francisco

Let me start off by saying that I do very much appreciate your comments, and your letter definitely leaves me with a different impression of Dale Francisco than I received from the Sound story. Having said that, however, I'm in this game to fight for a better country, and it seems to me that you didn't really address the spirit of my argument. I'd like to begin by looking at this quote:

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides.

It may not be defeatist to note the popularity of automobiles, but it is defeatist to say that nothing can or should be done about it. Your overall argument is that cars are here, they steer, so get used to it. To me, this is defeatist in the same way that some feel global warming is too big to address. Just because something is popular or convenient, doesn't mean it's good for the health and well being of the community. You continue:

It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

Why not do both? And what's the evidence that such measures don't work? I've been to Toronto, Paris, London, and Amsterdam in the course of the last few years, and public transportation is just awesome -- and highly utilized -- in those cities. Would you tell them it doesn't work? I might agree with you that a strategy to "get people out of their cars" would be a hard sell "today," but we're not talking about today; we're talking about the future. As someone who wants to be a leader in this community, I think it is your responsibility to look past the current state of affairs and help to guide us in the right direction. You go on to say:

In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

Exactly! But it's not going to happen on its own. Let's not call it punishment; let's call it incentives. You say that Mayor Bloomberg's plan is not an "alternative" form of transportation. I disagree. If you have to pay $8 to drive into the city, less people will do it. Granted, that's a stick. So, then you use carrots as well. Carpool lanes, for example, are a carrot. More buses with more routes is a carrot. Making it difficult to park is a stick. The point is that you use every tool at your disposal to move the city where it needs to go.

In summary, I admire your commitment to green energy, and I'm happy to see you embrace cleaner technologies. But that's only half the picture ... taking any discussion of getting people out of their cars off the table is not in our long term interests.

Now, let's talk about The Light Blue Line Project :)