#21, August 18, 1999
A few weeks ago, following many years of deliberation, I
decided to oppose the Rainier interchange. I attribute my long ambivalence to
the pervasive misconceptions that have surrounded this project. In the next two
columns, I'll explain what led to my decision.
What finally convinced me was learning that Rainier was an
ephemeral traffic fix. According to the City's 1994 Environmental Impact
Report, we'd be back in the cross town bumper cars less than a decade after
we'd spent the 30-40-50 million bucks on Rainier. This is due to the additional
vehicle trips which would be generated by the flood plain development needed to
pay for a small fraction of the project.
But like some City Council members, my opposition runs
deeper. It's not, as some have claimed, an "anti-automobile bias."
I'm not anti-automobile anymore than I'm anti-television -- I own my share of
both cars and TVs. But with driving, like with television viewing, there can be
too much of a good thing. Consider these stats (see the Union of Concerned
Scientists website for more, at www.ucsusa.org/transportation/):
·
Driving is deadly: each year, motor vehicle accidents in the
US claim about 39,000 lives, and injure almost 5 million people, 300,000 of
them severely. The cost, including medical expenses, property damage, and lost
productivity: more than $350 billion, 8% of the GNP.
·
Driving is dirty: motor vehicles cause half of the U.S. air
pollution. Annually, this takes 64,000 people to an early grave, and causes
$2-3 billion in crop damage. UCS estimates worldwide global warming and
pollution costs at $50-230 billion/year.
·
Driving is taxing: Federal, state, and local auto subsidies
total at least $300 billion annually, averaging $1600 per vehicle. Driving and
non-driving taxpayers foot the bill, which would add about $3 per gallon if
paid at the pump.
·
Driving is a national security risk: In real dollars, the US
price of gasoline was 10 cents per gallon lower in 1998 than in 1970. During
that time frame, oil imports jumped from 28% to 48% of total oil consumption.
We paid $60 billion to protect our imported oil sources in the Gulf War.
·
Driving is an US problem: with 4.7% of the world's
population, we have 35% of the motor vehicles. Cars are used for 86% of all
trips in the US, compared to 45% in most Western European countries.
·
Driving is on the rise: Per capita vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) has increased from 3.9 miles per weekday in 1969 to 5.9 in 1990. Sonoma
County residents, in 1990, were driving 17 miles per weekday, roughly three
times the national average. And that rate is still climbing, jumping by seven
percent between 1990 and 1995.
.
I'd argue you don't need an anti-automobile bias, but
rather common sense, to conclude that we're driving ourselves to ruin. A lesson
we know well but rarely seem to heed is that new roads, combined with
artificially low gas prices, induce more driving, putting more cars into the
jam, more people in the hospital, and more toxics into our lungs.
Considering all this, shouldn't we steer clear of hugely
expensive projects that both depend on and encourage more driving? Even if we
discount the interests of the rest of the world and future generations, there's
high likelihood that ecological or political crises in our lifetime will boost
the price of gas by a dollar or two a gallon (comparable to the current price
in Europe.) Then, like the fabled grasshopper, we will wish we had taken the
ants' advice about how we should have spent our precious transportation
dollars.
I don't think the people of Petaluma are that short-sighted.
The Rainier plan
rejected by the City Council was a gas guzzler from the past. Now, with it off the road, the
Council can focus on a series of smaller, faster, and cheaper solutions. In my next column, I'll look at what we left
behind, and what good things lie ahead.