Reducing How Much We Drive Should be a National Transportation Goal

[marmar]

via AlterNet's PEEK:



Reducing How Much We Drive Should be a National Transportation Goal

Posted by John Petro, Drum Major Institute at 10:00 AM on July 8, 2009.

Americans should be driving less -- fewer trips over shorter distances.




Last month, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill that would establish performance-based goals for our surface transportation system. The bill would, according to Senator Lautenberg, “establish a national policy that improves safety, reduces congestion, creates jobs, and protects our environment.”

Among these goals is to reduce the amount Americans drive, or more specifically, to “reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis.” Basically, Americans should be driving less—fewer trips over shorter distances. This has as much to do with the way we use our land as it does with transportation policy. Where we choose to live and work and get the groceries largely determines how much we drive. We are driving longer distances to work and to complete all the other little errands that populate our days.

However, Gabriel Roth argues in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that reducing the amount we drive should not be a policy goal of the federal government.

Reducing the total miles traveled—whether the length or number of trips—means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be “coerced,” in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends.

Roth’s claim of coercion is absurd. Americans have already chosen to drive less. VMT per person leveled off some time around 2001 and began dropping around 2005. At the same time, public transit ridership has increased dramatically as cities build or expand rail systems and build higher-density, mixed-use developments.

Other claims, such as the assertion that reducing VMT will drive down economic growth, are equally absurd. Just look at driving trends. The reduction in VMT per capita began when the country was experiencing quite rapid economic growth.

On the other hand, there are many good reasons why we should, as a nation, be driving fewer trips over shorter distances. The first, as stated by Senator Lautenberg, is safety. Improved automobile safety has led to a steady decline in the number of auto-related fatalities per 1000 VMT. However, because we continued to drive more, the total number of fatalities stayed stubbornly constant from 1992-2005. They began to drop in 2005 when we started driving less. Still, an estimated 37,000 people died in 2008 in traffic-related incidents. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141172/reducing_how_much_we_drive_should_be_a_national_transportation_goal/

[redqueen]

1. And how about going back from 65 to 55, too? (nt)

[TheMightyFavog]

5. And how about committing political suicide while we're at it?

55 is dead. Any attempts to bring it back will be about as popular as a group of Tea Baggers at an Anti-Flag concert.

[redqueen]

7. What's the reason?

How is it political suicide?

[Fumesucker]

9. Do you actually *drive* on limited access highways?

The average is probably above 70 right now, at least on the highways I drive on regularly. I took a three hundred plus mile trip on mostly interstates over the weekend, the people driving (I was just a passenger) averaged slightly over 70, I know this because there was a GPS in the car that had that function.

Reducing the speed limit to 55 won't slow people down very much but it will give the cops a lot more opportunities to write tickets and most people know that.

The double nickle was vastly unpopular in the past and will be vastly unpopular if it is brought back, the interstate highway system was designed for 70 mph in cars considerably inferior to most available today.

[redqueen]

10. Yep, all the time. 65 is the upper limit here.

Perhaps cutting it back down would make the roads safer, too.

[Fumesucker]

11. 65 is the limit here too..

Virtually no one drives the speed limit or under.

[Stuart G]

6. Perhaps 60...but enforced at 65...also make it national policy to

drive slower. Use less gas, etc.

[Rebubula]

8. NO

No freaking way....

[mkultra]

2. i like to think and drive so ill take a spin and consider it.

[DonCoquixote]

3. It's nice

to say we all need to drive less, however, unless you are willing and able to make public transport A) more available and B) more reliable, Roth's claim of coercion will be anything BUT absurd. That is not saying there is not a chance to make some serious headway, especially in the newer areas where they have not built the six lane highways, nor finished planning, but ti will take a commitment to making public transport work better, which is not something I see from many, Indeed, some people would say to Roth "damn right it would limit choices, and that is what we want!" There is a meme out there that looks forward to less choices as if it was the coming of some golden age, when truth to tell, it does not have to be that way.

[napi21]

4. Many people can't do that, or at least not enough to make an impact.

We're retired now and drive about 25 miles per week...MAYBE, but when I was working and lived in states with very limited pub transp, all I did was drive to & from work everyday. I passwed several shopping centers on the way home, so there was no additional miles for jaunts.