However, there is something missing from the discussion here in the U.S.  Our discourse has focused mainly on two elements: improving technology and seeking out other sources of fuel.  Certainly by making vehicles more fuel efficient they consume less gas, pollute less and create far less damage than just a decade or two before.  At the same time, cleaner fuels like ethanol are gaining momentum as a mainstream solution global warming – not to mention reductions in oil imports.  While these discussions are valuable and productive, they ignore the real culprit– America’s insatiable demand for oil fed by our collective and utter dependence on cars.

But contrary to conventional wisdom, that dependence is not just the result of consumer preference or an irrational addiction to the automobile.  Rather it is the product of public policies – many on the local level - that create sprawling metropolitan areas and communities where all uses (residential, retail, office) are kept separate and distinct and the demand for oil is inevitable and hardwired.  Driving may not be the best option in many places, but it is often the only option. 

The end result is that the average working family is constantly faced with a complicated set of decisions to reconcile their household spending.  Do they accept downtown jobs and spend more money on housing to live where densities are higher and driving everywhere is avoidable?  Or do they spend more money on transportation in order to purchase a cheaper, larger home far out on the suburban fringe?  

In years past, many households probably only lightly considered the impact of transportation costs on household budgets and frequently chose the latter option.  But in places like San Francisco – where both gas and home prices are the highest in the nation, transportation and housing costs together are forcing much more attention to these important trade-offs.

So in addition to technological remedies to reducing emissions, American cities and suburbs must focus on a systemic three pronged approach to metropolitan growth in order to mitigate the dependence on cars, curb the growth in driving and – in doing so – strengthen our communities while easing the burden on working families:

First, new development should be focused in existing places that sorely need it rather than spreading it out over large lots on the suburban fringe.  Single use zoning that separates uses and forces residents into their cars for routine tasks should be the exception – not the rule.  

Second, all types of housing should be accommodated closer to urban job hubs so average families are not banished to the suburban fringe where they have to “drive to qualify” for a home they can afford.

And third, infrastructure dollars should be spent in ways that offers choices for how households travel.  Data shows that when quality options are offered, travelers will take advantage of them.

The city and county of San Francisco has already made great advances in addressing these challenges.  The city’s affordable housing ordinance is a good way to incorporate moderately priced dwelling units into market rate developments.  At the same time, San Francisco is very dense by U.S. standards and has done a good job focusing development around transit stations.

But there is much more to do.

For example, San Francisco should allow accessory dwelling units such as those that exist in other cities in the Pacific Northwest to encourage the construction of new units while heeding market realities.  San Francisco also should take a hard look at how it accommodates parking in the city.  While dense, the car culture is still promoted by providing acres of parking lots at odds with its transit-oriented approach.  Increasing the charges for street parking would go a long way to promoting – and paying for – better alternatives.  

Certainly change will not happen overnight, but change on the local level is essential and is the only way to find workable solutions to addressing the climate change crisis.
- - - - -
Robert Puentes is a fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. His expertise is in transportation, urban planning, growth management, suburban issues and housing.