On
22 January 2007 Jim Bacon opened an important
avenue of inquiry with his post “The
Changing Relationship Between Worker and
Workplace” on the Bacon’s Rebellion Blog.
“Worker / Workplace Relationship” is another
way to phrase the problems generated by
“Living Here, Working There” which is the
root cause of “commuting.” The comments
following this posting raised a number of good
questions but provided few answers.
Commuting
and the widespread belief in the Private Vehicle
Mobility Myth are root causes of the Mobility
and Access Crisis in Virginia and in every New
Urban Region as well as in many of the larger
urban enclaves within Urban Support Regions
across the US of A. (See End
Note One.)
There
are two core reasons that there is no clear path
forward concerning the relationship between
worker and workplace or “commuting”:
We
addressed shared-vehicle aspects of this
quagmire in a column on the misuse of
“Commuter Rail” (See “The
Commuting Problem,” 17 January 2005, and End
Note Two.
It
turns out that “improving” the transport
system to “help commuters” is a counter-
productive strategy if the goal is to solve
the Mobility and Access Crisis on a Regional
or Subregional basis. A far better strategy
would be to evolve functional patterns and
densities of land use in Balanced Communities
that drastically cut the need or desire for
commuting.
We
start our examination of commuting by raising
two questions that are never asked because the
answer is assumed to be “yes” but it is not.
We then explore the issue of “commuting” in
the context of finding comprehensive solutions
to the Mobility and Access Crisis.
The
initial questions explore technology that is
assumed to improve the relationship between
worker and workplace and the conditions faced by
those who “Live Here, Work There,” in other
words, technology that will reduce the need to
commute.
Question
One
Does
enhanced communications technology open the
door to solving the Commuting Problem, thus
mitigating the Mobility and Mobility Crisis?
Let
us consider two widely touted new technology
tools – cell phones and satellite based
Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) in
Autonomobiles:
Based
on our observations to date, we believe that the
use of cell phones generates more vehicle
miles of travel than the use of cell phones
eliminate. (See End
Note Three.)
There
is no question that intelligent use of cell
phones has the potential to cut travel demand
by eliminating some commuting and other trips.
Before
we go any farther, let us make it clear that if
cell phone users understood the dynamics of
human settlement patterns and knew that use of
their devices was not a “solution” but that
cell phones could, if intelligently used, be a
tool to improve their quality of life, then cell
phones – and other technology – could
contribute to significantly reducing travel.
Even
hinting that any technology is a
“solution” for transport congestion
immediately makes the device part of the
problem. The illusion that a device is part of
a “solution” that is just around the
corner offsets the potential to reduce travel
demand.
This
reality is reinforced by the fact that cell
phones give those stuck in traffic something to
do to make life more enjoyable and in some cases
productive.
These
diversions remove pressure to do something
urgent and constructive about cutting back on
commuting and in other ways addressing the
Mobility and Access Crisis.
In
other words, a key factor in cell phones
increasing travel demand is that extensive
cell phone use removes a major incentive to
debunk the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth.
Extensive cell phone use syphons off support
for Fundamental Change and the evolution of
Balanced Communities. In a sense, cell phones
sugar coats the wasted time but in the long
run contribute to the problem growing worse
and worse.
There
is more: Using cell phones, especially while
stuck in traffic creates contacts, priorities
and actions that further the time crisis of the
“Running As Hard As They Can” sector of the
economic food chain.
There
is almost no limit to the new places one can
find out about – and generate an excuse to
drive to – while talking on a cell phone.
These places include places to rendezvous,
places to find bargains, places to seek
entertainment and sometimes places to seek or
accomplish work.
From a moral perspective these
places are often ones where one can do things
that drivers do not want to tell their mothers
about.
From
a consumption perspective, cell phone users can
find out about great bargains on goods and
services that the driver may or may not need.
One can find out what the Jones are getting and
buy some before the Jones even get their's home.
The
cell phone is a great facilitator of Mass Over
consumption and Mass Over
Consumption-generated travel demand.
Unlike
land-line phones, there is no cell phone
directory. Almost all the cell phone number
assistance utilities are 1) “reverse”
directories, 2) require a significant amount of
information before a search can be made, or 3)
are based on suspect data-gathering technology.
By
design there is no geographic orientation or
logic to cell phone numbers. Cell phones turn
out to be a great way to get a random
distribution of contacts. Because cell phone
subscribers have no idea of where the contacts
are, the phones have the effect of maximizing
travel in order to optimize economic and social
parameters while neglecting priorities based on
physical location. In other words they are
exponents of Geographic Illiteracy and Spacial
Ignorance.
Extensive
cell phone use demonstrates that there are more
and more things to do year after year but there
is no more time to do them. This new knowledge
forces choices, causes conflict and causes
stress, not just adventure and joy as the
advertising suggests.
Finally,
cell phone yackers can find out about and get to
diverse places but only if they do not get in an
accident first. (See End
Note Four.)
What
about Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS)?
Based
on evidence to date, putting GPS systems in
cars, like extensive use of cell phones,
reinforces Geographic Illiteracy and Spacial
Ignorance.
At
the most basic level, GPS systems help get the
unknowing (Geographically Illiterate) driver
where they need to go without giving them the
slightest idea of where they are or how they got
there.
Having
a “map in my head” is a vital tool for
understanding human settlement patterns and
the forces that create settlement pattern
dysfunction. (See End
Note Five.)
What
happens when you link cell phones with GPS
systems?
There
has been an expectation over the past decade
that when the cell phone–GPS linkage is
perfected, the use of cell phones along with a
GPS system will allow drivers to navigate around
congestion. In a closed system like roadways
this ability will ensure that all routes are
equally congested.
That
means the roadways needed by citizens to get to
the doctor and for delivering goods and services
for which use of a vehicle is necessary will be
congested with commuters trying to avoid other
congested routes. As we will point out below,
the goal should be to eliminate the need to
commute, not find a ways for commuters to
equally clog every roadway.
Further,
expensive technology and fee-for-service
subscriptions will provide those at the top of
the economic food chain with the ability to
navigate around congestion. It gives the
very well to do and those with advanced
technological skills a leg up on the general
population. This is another aspect of Sao
Paulo’s economically stratified mobility with
which we close “Regional
Rigor Mortis” (6 June 2005). It certainly
is not a sustainable mobility formula in a
democracy.
Smarter
car/GPS systems can provide valuable
information. For example, my system tells me
that in spite of the fact that I drive at (or
above) the speed limit whenever conditions
permit, the average speed I have driven since
acquiring a new vehicle in July 2006 is 22.3
MPH. We always attempt to drive on Interstates
and expressways either in HOV lanes or in off
peak times and directions. We try to avoid
congestion and take advantage of the great
capabilities of our new vehicle but still only
travel at 22.3 miles an hour.
On
the other hand, 22.3 MPH is just a little slower
than the average speed of platform-to-platform
travel on METRO which is derided by the
anti-shared-vehicle crowd for being “too
slow.” Of course, when we get near our
destination in one of our vehicles we must park it and
walk to the place we really want to be. The
onboard computers also calculate that we drive
our two vehicles a total of less than 350 miles
a month or about 2,200 miles a year per vehicle.
Question
Two
Does
new “energy efficient” Autonomobile
technology provide a path to solving the
Commuter Problem and thus mitigate the
Mobility and Access Crisis?
A
story on the front page of the Business Section
of the 23 January WaPo (“Getting
Hydrogen Cars To Live Up to Their Hype” by
Sholnn Freeman) should put the second question
to rest.
The
story notes that one of the Ford Edge prototype
vehicles costs $2 million to build. The
battery/hydrogen fuel-celled (HySeries) mini-SUV
is not about to roll off the assembly line at a
price that is competitive. This vehicle was
designed to meet two goals: 1.) Get favorable
(“Ford is trying to do the right thing”)
publicity and 2.) hook a big federal subsidy.
Read it and weep.
GM
decided recently that it could not make as much
money building a plug-in car as it could
building big trucks for lemmings to drive off a
cliff, it scrapped all the test models operating
in California.
The
HySeries Ford Edge story in WaPo never
addresses the question of the source or amount
of energy which is needed to produce the
electricity and hydrogen used to propel the
vehicle. As in the debate over ethanol
subsidies, the critical issue is total energy
consumption per passenger mile. The measure is
not energy per vehicle mile, especially if is a
single-occupant vehicle.
There
is more fantasy in the HySeries story than in
the TV ads for the conventionally powered Ford
Edge that rides on two wheels along building
ledges twenty stories in the air. It is pure
Myth – the Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth –
that private vehicles, regardless of the power
source, can solve the Mobility and Access
Crisis. (See End
Note Six.)
Shifting
to less polluting, but more expensive and more
totally consumptive, private vehicles is not an
answer to any known problem except to make it
appear that the Autonomobility Complex and
governance practitioners are “doing
something.” It should go without saying that
in a sane world:
are
just transparent ploys to make it seem like
something is being done.
As
if to demonstrate that all the energy
conservation hoopla is just for show, the
advertisements for the International Auto Show
just concluded at the Federal District’s
Convention Center features muscle and sex
machines including a 400 horsepower “hybrid”
sports car.
The
Answer
The
answer to both of the “new technology as a
solution to the Mobility and Access Crisis”
questions is clear. It is NO and NO.
Why
do we even need an answer to these questions?
Because, as noted above, as long as there are
possible “solutions” floating out in the
ether – the assumption that technology, or
anything else is an “answer” – then there
is an excuse to avoid considering real solutions
that require Fundamental Change.
It
does not matter if the “solution” is telework,
cell phones, GPS systems, traffic monitors,
red light cameras, mini chips, nano technology
or ginseng root. If it is touted as a
“solution,” even a partial solution, it
contributes to the Mobility and Access Crisis.
From
S/PI’s perspective, Balanced Communities in
sustainable New Urban Regions are the only way
to preserve a democracy with a market economy in
a world with finite resources. As noted in “The
Commuting Problem,” 17 January 2005. the
overarching goal is not to “help” commuters
but to help citizens become non-commuters.
The
percentage of commuters in any Community is a
measure of imbalance between jobs and housing. A
high rate of commuting (in for service jobs or
out for better paying jobs) is a sign that the
place is a Beta Community and not an Alpha
Community.
In any New Urban Region or Urban
Support Region there will be some
inter-community work travel. There may not be a
market for a full-time piano tuner or a gold
leaf artist in every community. But those
situations must be the exception, not the rule,
if there is to be a functional mobility and
access system Community-wide and Region-wide.
The
task ahead is not to find ways to make commuting
easier but to find ways to eliminate the need
for commuting. The market for the built
environment clearly shows that places where
commuting is not necessary in order for most
citizens to create a quality lifestyle have far
higher values to those who have the opportunity
to choose. A democracy with a market economy
should be about providing for choice and for
functional settlement patterns.
A
corollary of the Private Vehicle Mobility Myth
is:
There
is no way to create a private-vehicle
dominated transport system for large New Urban
Regions so that commuting by a large
percentage of the population is sustainable
over the long term. See End
Note Seven.
The
challenge is to inform citizens that commuting
is not an acceptable way to address the
relationship between worker and workplace or to
bridge the gap between were you work and where
you live.
Advice
from Agencies and the Media
And
what do we hear from agencies and the media that
citizens rely upon to overcome self-serving
advertising and to establish priorities for the
future?
Within
the context of the need to eliminate commuting
what are government agencies doing? Well
according to WaPo (“Travel Study Aims
to Dissect The Region: Commuters’ Habits To
Guide Planning” by Bill Turque in the Loudoun
Extra for 1 February) in National Capital
Subregion, the Transportation Planning Board
(the Subregion’s geographically challenged
Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO) is
doing a travel survey of 10,000 randomly
selected citizens to find out the patterns of
commuting. Need we say more?
In
the same edition of the same paper the new Dr.
Gridlock falls right in the tracks of the old Dr. Gridlock. In response to a question as to
why the National Capital Subregion has traffic
that is so much worse than the writer's former
home region in California, Dr. Gridlock
says:
“The
big reason for our traffic problems is the
region’s failure to judiciously improve the
road network.”
What
better statement of the Private-Vehicle Mobility
Myth can you imagine than that?
Nowhere
does any public agency or the media address the
fact that the problem is an imbalance between
the travel demand and the transport system
capacity and that the system capacity cannot be
expanded or improved to provide mobility and
access to dysfunctionally distributed origins
and destinations of travel.
Abe Lincoln said you
could not fool all the people all the time but
private enterprises, governance practitioners
and the media are batting almost 1000 so far.
This
intentional, and for some unintentional,
deception is rooted in fact that enterprises
make money from consumption – especially Mass
Over-Consumption – not from conservation. Only
a tiny percentage make a lot of money from
Autonomobility and the settlement pattern that
results from it but the spin suggests that
everyone wins – freedom of choice, sex appeal,
you name it.
Business
As Usual is panicked that any Fundamental Change
in the energy consumption of private vehicles
will have a disastrous economic impact. Given
the corner into which private enterprise and
governance practitioners have painted citizens
that is a given. However, the longer citizens
wait to force Fundamental Change, the louder the
crash will be.
If
citizens started to secure Fundamental Change in
settlement patterns today, most could keep their
Autonomobiles until they wear out and there
would be no need to end Autonomobility
completely until well into the 22nd Century. If
citizens do not start now, Autonomobility will
end with a bang and many lemmings will be
driving their vehicles over a cliff causing a
crash known as “The New Big Bang.”
The
question is, are citizens going to demand
intelligent Fundamental Change or just hope for
a miracle or that the crash will result in a
quick, painless end to civilization as they have
known it?
Where
Do We Go From Here?
First,
citizens of all nation-states must find a way to
stop the growth of the population in both New
Urban Regions and Urban Support Regions.
Here in
the US of A the most important immediate goal is
to fairly allocate the cost of location-variable
decisions so that we stop subsidizing
dysfunction.
We
are often asked: So what can we do first?
A
place to start is with the Henry George/Split
Rate Tax we have discussed in prior columns. (Use
the search function at www.baconsrebellion.com.)
The
most important immediate step is to fairly
allocate the cost of mobility which is a
favorite theme of Jim Bacon's, especially in the
context for the current legislative quagmire in
the General Assembly and in the Governors
Office.
Another
important step is the address the cost of all
energy. A carbon tax makes more and more sense
now that there is no creditable nation
state-funded scientific evidence that humans are
not exacerbating global climate change. We would
settle for a fair distribution of the cost per
kilowatt hour to every electrical service user.
These
measures will lead to the evolution of Balanced
Communities where the time, distance and stress
of Autonomobility is slashed by making the
elements of a quality life accessible with far
less vehicle travel, especially single-occupant
private vehicle travel.
Without
excess private vehicle travel there would be no
balance of payment problem in the US of A, no
foreign energy dependence, no reason to fight
wars in the Middle East and less potentially
climate changing emissions.
A
special thanks to those who submitted comments
on the draft of this column.
EMR
1.
For details on the Private Vehicle Mobility Myth
see “From
Myth to Law,” 29 November 2004 and “Regional
Rigor Mortis,” 6 June 2005. We will be
exploring these issues in future columns that
will be included in the BRIDGES volume of TRILO-G.
2.
A basic cause of confusion about
“commuting” is that few commentators think
comprehensively about human settlement patterns.
They also do not try to understand those who do.
Most who enter the fray act as if they believe:
“We live in human settlements and so we can
apply what has made us successful in selling
insurance, fulfilling government contract orders
and drug testing and thereby understand human
settlement pattern issues.” In other words,
“We live in human settlement patterns and so
we are experts on the topic.”
Few
understand the reality behind Balanced
Communities and The Clear Edge or explore the
ramifications of Comprehensive Conceptual
Frameworks or the need for a robust Vocabulary
with which to discuss human settlement pattern
parameters. At SYNERGY/Planning we are working
on TRILO-G to chart a path to understanding
these concepts and cure the pervasive Geographic
Illiteracy and Spacial Ignorance that drives
self-destructive location decisions and
cumulatively results in dysfunctional human
settlement patterns.
As
noted in the Backgrounder on this topic,
Geographic Illiteracy is rooted in the failure
to understand basic parameters of location
decisions. Otherwise intelligent citizens fail
to understand that A=PiR2 applies to the
regional distribution of human activity. (See
Backgrounder “Geographic
Illiteracy”.)
Geographic
Illiteracy allows Business As Usual advocates to
claim that Balanced Communities are: “high
density;” “just smart growth” rehashed;
another term for “new urbanism;” an excuse
for “big brother/Communist planning;” will
result in “a usurpation of property rights;”
or other red herring obfuscations.
Any
reader who has a doubt about the ability of the
land within a Clear Edge located at from R=20 to
R=30 around the Core of the National Capital
Subregion to commodiously accommodate all the
existing and proposed jobs, housing, services,
recreation and amenity (aka, “development”)
to 2025 in “green, leafy” Balanced
Communities needs to take remedial action
immediately. A good first step is to buy an ADC
“Washington DC 50 Mile Radius Wall Map” and
plot for themselves the data found in “Five
Critical Realities that Shape the Future,”
at www.baconsrebellion.com together with
whatever demographic and economic projections
they believe to be valid. An alternative is to
study the “Stark Contrast” graphic in the
PowerPoints included with "The Shape of the
Future" CD ROM available
at the same website.
3.
We base this observation in part of the
conclusion reached after years of research on
the impact of Telework (including telecommuting)
on total vehicle miles traveled. Telework
helps reduce work related travel and peak hour
travel but may increase the time and vehicles
available for non-work or other-work travel. A
comprehensive Telework program may be a big
benefit for some workers in some cases but it is
not a cure for traffic congestion. For the
majority of workers it is more effective to put
the jobs and the houses closer together than
find ways to work remotely.
4.
The danger of driving and yacking on a cell
phone is clear. This is not the place for a full
run down of the evidence. However, in a sublime
and serendipitous juxtaposition of stories in
the same 23 Jan 2007 Business section of WaPo
that the HySeries Ford is featured – the focus
of Question 2. – there is an informative
“The Regulators” column by Cindy Skrzycki
titled “Safety Group Wants Auto Makers to
Steer Clear of Hands-Free Devices.”
5.
The need for such a “map in the head” is
clearly demonstrated by the comments following
the post REBUILDING THE BIG BARN (19 January
2007) at www.baconsrebellion.blogspot.com and
every other posting that raises basic settlement
pattern issues.
6.
All the discussion on alternative fuels for
private vehicles obscures the fact that no
private vehicle system can provide Mobility and
Access to a large New Urban Region. See “The
Whale on the Beach,” 28 August 2006 and
“Regional
Rigor Mortis,” 6 June 2005 and the
material cited therein. These columns can
be accessed at www.baconsreblellion.com. Future
columns will address the intellectual and moral
bankruptcy of the current spate of energy
conservation and energy independence political
propaganda.
7.
It is now becoming clear that within the Clear
Edge around the Core of large New Urban Regions,
it is not just Balanced Communities that are
needed but Balanced Communities where most of
the Village Cores within most of those
Communities are served by a robust mix of
shared-vehicle systems.
While
the Autonomobility crowd that have spread the
Private Vehicle Mobility Myth tries to paint a
bleak picture of shared-vehicle systems, every
large New Urban Region – and most of the
midsized ones -- are developing them. It
may be too late and the systems may not yet
serve functional, balanced settlement patterns
in the station-areas but the evolution of
shared-vehicle systems is moving forward from
San Diego to Boston.
--
February 5, 2007
|