Freeze in the Dark

#5, January 15, 1999

“Freeze in the dark.” That was to be our fate, said the keepers of conventional wisdom in the mid-70s, if we stopped building nuclear power plants. Economic growth would require that unprecedented billions be devoted to electricity production capacity. California would eventually need a nuclear power plant every half-dozen miles along the coast. Any less, they said, would threaten our way of life.

When environmentalists suggested that the State could fuel its prosperity by eliminating waste, the experts ridiculed us. The showdown came over the 1976 Nuclear Safeguards Initiative. To help defeat Proposition 15, the Legislature passed a weaker measure, but it had the same effect -- to stop development of atomic power plants in California. Good thing, too, because we were right about the potential of conservation. Since it turned out to be far cheaper to free up megawatts for new uses by making existing uses more efficient, the demand for electricity flattened, and has stayed flat through decades of substantial economic growth. Without Prop 15, Californians might today be subsidizing the write-off of several additional billion dollars for unnecessary generation capacity (PG&E was planning two more units at Diablo Canyon.)

There are some interesting parallels between energy in the 1970’s and transportation today. Local voters just turned down a measure to fund nearly half a billion in road improvements. Perhaps there is a mysterious wisdom at work. Maybe we won’t need all that concrete and asphalt anymore than we needed all those nukes.

In the energy debate, followers of what was called the production-based “hard path” couldn’t comprehend how “soft path” conservation solutions -- rolls of insulation, a super-efficient motor-- could put a dent in the growth. In a sense, they were right. By itself, weatherizing a single home reduces the need for a power plant no more than a single vote elects a senator. But together, the actions of thousands of homeowners and businesspeople made a huge difference.

With the completion of new lanes and overpasses even further away, this is a good time to see how far we can go on the transportation “soft path”. Commenting on the demise of the sales tax measure, retired transportation planner Jack Balshaw wrote, “there are more ways to reduce congestion than just by widening the roadway.” He suggests several well-known steps, including ride-sharing, flexible work hours, creation of more local jobs, and telecommuting. Santa Rosa developer Alan Strachan and former county supervisor Ernie Carpenter are advocating a high tech carpool communications network that would let riders connect with drivers even for cross town shopping trips.

Like with energy, the success of soft path transportation depends less on big government programs than on the daily decisions of everyday people. For example, I ride my bike on Petaluma errands (the new City Bicycle Plan will be making it easier to find safe routes to popular destinations.) During daylight savings, I often ride my bike six miles to work, or at least downtown, where I catch a county bus for a ten-minute ride to the office (we could use more buses!) Last winter, I bought a bright yellow high-tech rainsuit, so I could pedal very comfortably to the bus stop in the rain. I do my fuel saving, congestion reduction, and aerobic exercise all at once.

During the years I commuted to San Francisco, I rode the bus, working on a laptop computer at least two hours a day (giving me two more hours for other activities). When I was job hunting last year, accessibility by public transit was an important criterion (all of my dozen target companies were within a ten-minute walk from a transit stop.) When I attend meetings or youth sports events, I offer to carpool with neighbors.

Actions like these don’t require anything special, though it helps to be mindful of the full cost of the hard path alternatives, including the ravages of oil wars and global warming. If everyone who believed that their vote makes a difference exercised their ability to support soft path transportation, it will work. It won’t cost half a billion dollars, and we won’t have to be “stuck in traffic” any more than we needed to freeze in the dark.