Land Use Planning is one of the most important factors in how car dependent a city (or nation) becomes. Sprawl ingrains car dependency; reactive transportation (vs proactive) is the next most serious mistake.

I agree Mannstein, our heavy dependence on vehicles in the United States was birthed from suburban sprawl, and the deterioration of public transit, not only in efficiency, but it was also degraded as a "poor" way to travel, independence and success comes with a spanking new car. I always wonder the next policies that will be made to rectify our car obsession, do you know of any eco concepts out there in terms of vehicles?

Hybrids allow people to drive a lot and feel better about it, for the environment, imported oil and their fuel costs. Out west in the U.S. everything is spread out, so you have to drive to get there. That is the way it is.

Debra:

There more than one solution to our obsession to drive very large noisy polluting vehicles 20,000+ miles/year.

One cannot take those big noisy toys away without creating a national uproar.

Our overly sprawled cities and communities, lack of efficient fast commuter e-trains and very cheap gas have created the need for 2+ personal oversized vehicles per family.

Redesigning our inner cities with more high-rise appartments and more high speed subways could reduce the need for driving personal vehicles (in the inner-cities).

Connecting every suburban small cities/towns to major cities subway stations with High Speed commuter e-trains could reduce car traffic between those entities. (The smooth riding Regional double-deck e-trains in and around Paris is a good example)

Building Very High Speed (TGV Style) e-trains networks to link all major and mid-size cities would also reduce highway and air traffic.

Of course, common sense size HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs could do a lot to reduce noise, liquid fuel consumption and associated GHG.

I think there is a certain civic and economic danger in trying to reduce car usage just on principle alone. In the long term, cars can be made emission-free, perfectly recyclable, and cheaper as technology becomes more streamlined. The car is the epitome of individual freedom, convenience, and flexibility. I have hard time believing that the act of driving a car takes away from other valuable modes of transport - buses perhaps, but the number of buses to car ratio is so small that it is irrelevant and buses are only used as infill in areas not effectively serviced by subways, high-volume transit, etc. I doubt that roads would ever be built just for the purpose of running buses or bicycles, though i have seen bus-only roadways - but it is the exception. People stuck in congestion accept that fact and try to be productive at that time. I doubt that congestion road rage individuals are not generally angry at other times anyway. Time in an overcrowded or noisy public transit vehicle is just dead time. Do you meet people? Do you enjoy waiting in snow, rain, and wind? Do you have the freedom to talk on your hands-free phone or play your own music or learn a new language or listen to an audiobook without overly noisy or disruptive conditions - without putting your headphone and ipod to full volume? I often think that the car debate is entirely class related. Many cannot afford a car or have made choices to live in an area where storage is impossible or simply have never owned a car and are unaware of the freedom -and- thus have a type of car-envy. I think it is time to accept cars as a primary form of travel that does not conflict with other modes of travel.

I also fail to see the hate for suburban sprawl: i find that suburbanites are happier, more fulfilled individuals with well-rounded children who have private space to play when parks cannot be suitably supervised constantly. There is effective barriers from your neighbor for sound and visual privacy. Plenty of space to entertain and store collectibles and be utterly away from all others - considered anti-social?- perhaps, but most city dwellers that i know are a lot less tolerant. What land is being lost - farmland? - who cares? There is no evidence that productivity is not increasing to fill the gap if needed. Wild forest? There are plenty of wild spaces for ecosystems to flourish and wildlife to function - just go a bit further out. How much nature is too much?

In addition, the car industry is a major employer, technology-facilitator, and source of government revenue. Ideally, transit would be developed and fast and widespread enough that people could have a choice a few times a week to relax on an alternative transport system with negligible commute time loss - very rarely the case. Very few people get up in the morning for work and say 'woohoo, i can't wait to experience transit!' - therefore keep all options open.

Also, evidence indicates that car owners and commuters are typically wealthier with a greater portion of property taxes and income taxes paid per capita. Car drivers are typically more productive and contribute to higher rates of consumption and fiscal activity. Though transit should be supported and improved to provide convenient and cost effective options, car use has more likely contributed to all the great things we see in society today. Think not of being anti-car but pro-option.

Scott I agree somewhat that there are benefits to driving vehicles, they are the epitome of wealth, freedom, and independence, but the problem lies in the fact that they are not the most efficient use of transport. The amount of time we waste in vehicles, in traffic gridlock, trying to find parking, traversing the vast amount of wasted space of the inefficient sprawl, is a ridiculous amount. I don't think that all cars should be banned, but I think there has to be a bigger push for a middle ground.

No one likes change, when the status quo suffices, but in the long run those things we consider to be nice conveniences that aren't hurting anyone, has to be changed. Yeah there are streamlined concepts out there, but they aren't being mass produced because it would shake the industry. People also are reluctant to change their behavior, because for most its just not a priority. I think that these ideals have to be shaped by the educational system, education is key to changing the passive, indifferent attitudes we all have towards changing our lifestyles.

Jer wrote;

I think there is a certain civic and economic danger in trying to reduce car usage just on principle alone.

There are many reasons to reduce car usage;

1. Peak Oil: Car usage will decline anyway once we pass the peak of global oil production. Not preparing ahead of time will result in severe economic consequences.

2. Climate change: Reducing car usage will reduce climate impacts from GHG emissions.

3. Terrorism: Many terrorists are funded by citizens from oil-rich middle eastern countries who give to 'charities'

Your "don't worry, be happy" admonishment is an exhortation to continue wasteful practices in order to achieve happiness via mass consumption. I'd have to say that your sense of happiness is a shallow and meaningless one.

If it were a freedom with no linkage, it would be a victimless crime. The linkage is that we all need and use fuel and there is only so much to go around at a given price. Ultimately there will be none to go around sooner or later at any price.

Andrey Levin is a slave of Texaco.