Perception is a funny thing.
In some cities, doing without a car and relying on public transit is no big deal. In others, the very idea is entirely alien, even if the option of public transit is presented as a viable, and logical, option.
I don’t want everyone to think that I am down on car ownership. I like cars! They’re convenient when visiting friends and family, or heading to public parks, or taking a cross-country trips to find yourself. They tend to be magnets for household detritus, turning them into giant, mobile closets a lot of the time. I can forgive that. But increasingly in urban and in many suburban contexts, what can be considered to be a convenience for an individual household can also become a detriment to the wider community and beyond.
In reading an article about the expansion of public transit rail lines in the State of Virginia, I was amused by the statement made by House transportation delegate, Joe May:
“Virginia doesn’t have the money and other resources to build more roads. The far greater solution is going to have to be rail and transit, and you might as well get used to it. (read the source article)”
The statement was made at subcommittee meeting attended by officials from the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. And it kind of sounds like a parent trying to get their kids to eat their vegetables.
Luckily, despite the hardships that seem to be implied in the statement, the state is vying for Federal stimulus funding to expand regional transit lines from Richmond into Washington, D.C. This is for the purposes that some of you may have guessed; reduction of energy consumption, and better air quality.
Developing adequate public transit to urban and suburban areas goes hand in hand with green building best practices. Improving quality of life by making our residences and places of employment better is an important mission. And in conjunction with that, finding new sources to bring water, heat, and light into those places is of equal value.
But seeing that The American Lung Association says 30,000 people died in 1998 as a result of car emissions, and that SUV’s release 28-gallons of carbon dioxide into the air for every gallon of gasoline that is used, it seems that less car usage is an imperative and not a option. Therefore, investment in public transit systems is certainly a sensible solution to meet that imperative .
Overt dependence on a means of transportation that has so many ill-effects historically seems to dictate that (once again) cultural values need to shift as technological solutions are put in place. Less residential car usage, development of clean energy technologies as they relate to transportation, development of more eco-friendly neighborhoods closer to necessities, and the expansion of public transit is the work that is cut out for our generation, it seems to me.

Perhaps the up-front cost is much like eating our vegetables, too. But when the air is cleaner, when the long-term costs of vehicle maintenance and energy bills are lower, and when we are able to see the benefits of green technologies and jobs they can potentially bring, we will no longer see less car use to be a hardship . It will be an element that fits in perfectly with how communities are planned, and the way homes, offices, shopping areas, and other community assets like extensive and accessible public transit are built.
Cheers,
Rob.
{ 0 comments }










But, as many of you can tell, I’ve been thinking a lot about
From this, I remain hopeful that doing without extra square footage, or without as many trips in the car, won’t be considered a loss as our century progresses. In reading a bit about 



The points made about green in the video, and also some of the numbers that comes out of utilizing the technology are truly impressive. But, in some ways it’s kind of intimidating too. How does the average person, for instance, trick out their own pads with all of this technology? It seems, in places, like kind of an expensive thing to do.



