June 2000

It is well-known that the cost of gasoline in Europe is relatively high, especially compared to the cost of gas in the U.S. Eventually, we in the U.S. will pay for this artificially low gas pricing in the long run because our cars and our land use patterns will be designed for low gas prices, which will mean the inevitable change toward higher prices will be that much more painful.

Newman & Kenworthy (Cities and Automobile Dependence, 1989) add this warning: "...if low gas prices in the past have contributed to very inefficient land use, then increases in fuel price may not in themselves lead to much saving if high car use is built-in to the structure of the city. People will just tend to put more of their income into fuel and less in other areas. The same process can occur with more fuel-efficient vehicles -- the extra fuel saved (and money in the pocket) could just be used to drive further. Thus little fuel is saved overall." (pg 71)

A higher price for gasoline does not significantly reduce travel by car in Europe, in part because the price does not vary based on how far a person drives, or when a person drives. It is important to recognize that despite the conventional wisdom, a high gas cost will not significantly reduce car travel, since, it is still rational to drive a car even when the price of gas is high. Traveling by car is promoted by the provision of free parking and gold-plated highways to drive on. It also gives a person time savings, comfort, convenience, large luggage and passenger capability, status, etc. These factors nearly always outweigh the higher financial cost to drive. You also have an enormous "sunk cost" due to your original car purchase price. It is not rational to let such a big, sunk cost sit in your driveway and depreciate.

Things that can significantly affect how far one drives include steep congestion fees (where you pay more if you drive on certain roads a certain number of times, or whether you drive during rush hour). Another effective (and equitable) tool is to restrict the supply of parking, or charge a steep fee for it (parking fees hit your pocketbook much more noticeably than even high gas costs, and is therefore much better able to reduce car trips -- especially relatively low-value trips like a trip to rent a video tape or buy milk).

So far, almost no community in the world uses congestion fees, even though it makes transportation extremely fair and helps a great deal to create sustainable travel patterns and livable communities. The problem is that we've spoiled motorists for so long that it is politically suicidal to use such a superb tool.

It is often said that there is "lots of traffic" in European cities and in places like Hong Kong. An interesting observation, given the fact that all the (credible) studies show that per capita driving is significantly lower in Europe and Asia than in the US. My guess is that what is being observed are cities that have not spent 50 years pouring trillions into making room for cars or otherwise doing everything possible to make cars happy. Outside the US, almost no one pours the national wealth into widening roads or building nice, shady places to wait for their master (asphalt parking w/ landscaping). So even though people drive much less, per capita, than in the US, it seems like there is a huge amount of car travel because outside the US, almost nothing is done for the car. A thousand people inside my house would seem more crowded than 80,000 people in a football stadium...

You also hear it said that "everywhere you go you find a line of traffic" in Europe. That is very good news for Europe. Congestion is very helpful, in a huge number of ways, for a city. It promotes more compact development, mixes uses, shortens travel distances, reduces air pollution and gas consumption, creates better transit service (and more transportation choice overall), improves conditions for street-fronting retail, and slows down speeding cars. "Free-flowing traffic", conversely, is the worst thing that a city could have, primarily because it disperses the city and encourages excessive driving. And those are the last things a city wants.

Furthermore, it is often said that "there is a great deal of public transit (buses, subway, etc.) in Europe, but (according to the locals) they are over crowded, dirty and unreliable. The transit does not seem to be having much affect on the amount of traffic." Again, it is a matter of perception. The transit in Europe takes an enormous number of car trips off their roads. And an important thing to notice is that the amount of transit use in Europe is much higher than in the US, despite European transit that is "dirty, overcrowded, and unreliable."

In other words, clean, uncrowded and reliable service would probably be helpful for transit in Europe, but even if the transit is clean, comfortable, and reliable, no one will use it unless there are proper signals: congestion, lack of free and abundant parking, mixed use, higher residential density, congestion fees, expensive gas, and streets that are not widened with lots of travel lanes.

Conversely, even "dirty, crowded, unreliable" buses in Europe are heavily used because the signals are proper. It is rational to use transit in Europe, in other words.

Getting the signals (the environmental conditions) right is much more important than quality transit service if your objective is high transit ridership.

Back to the Walkable Streets home page.