Congressional candidate Colleen Callahan is proposing a cut in the gas tax to be replaced with heavier taxes on oil companies. The oil companies will pass those increased costs onto consumers, resulting in little to no net difference in the price at the pump.
The solution is not cutting gas taxes or taxing oil companies more — the solution is to reduce demand. One way is to come up with alternative fuel sources. But there’s another, more basic problem, and Callahan inadvertently expressed it when she said:
“In central Illinois, we need our cars and trucks to get to our jobs, take our children to school or our families to the doctor. The automobile is not a luxury for us, it’s a necessity.”
This is sadly the case. Because of the way the city has sprawled and the lack of accommodation for other forms of transportation (pedestrian, bicyclist, public transit), traveling by car is indeed a necessity in Peoria. If you want to save gas money by walking or biking to work, or taking the bus, it’s largely impractical if not impossible, especially the further north you go. In many places, it’s downright dangerous.
Until we do something about that, all the token gas-tax reduction and oil company tax threats in the world aren’t going to improve our situation.
If you actually figure your savings this plan is ridiculous. I have a 20+ gallon tank on an SUV, and I would only save about $2. For someone who really needs the break this would hardly make a difference.
Also, her criticism of the strategic oil reserve shows how clueless she was in forming this whole plan to begin with. Taking oil away from that depository, which is for national defense and national disasters, when we are engaged in a military conflict in the middle of most of the OPEC countries is insane.
The increased tax on big oil, to compensate for the tax “relief”, would just be passed on to the end consumer anyway as CJ mentioned. But, with her proposal we actually get a tax increase because while she proposes a $12.5 billion cut in the gas tax, the total increase propsed to big oil is $15 billion. So those companies would be passing along a $2.5 billion tax increase to us.
I had actually considered voting for her up until now… oh well.
As for the back-door advertisement for new urbanism at the end of CJ’s argument, I think most people (although they may wine about gas prices) prefer to own their own vehicle and would not give up that luxury even if they lived in a neighborhood that was navigable on foot or public trans. Although I am only speaking for myself and we ignore the fact that I live outside fo the city, I know I would not give up the luxury of owning and driving my own vehicle to work even if dependable public transportaion were available.
Maybe thats just me…
11Bravo — Just for clarification, I’m not saying people should give up their vehicles. I’m saying we shouldn’t have to be dependent on them to get around the city. Having a more compact city with mixed use zoning and shared use corridors would have the added benefit of a person who chooses to drive not having to drive as far, which would also help lower demand.
“The automobile is not a luxury for us, it’s a necessity.”
Something that can be corrected through better urban planning.
“prefer to own their own vehicle and would not give up that luxury even if they lived in a neighborhood that was navigable on foot or public trans.”
This is very true in Europe. If people can and are able to drive someplace, they do. But that makes for bad public policy, and everyone there knows it. What has emerged are a variety of disincentives to drive and incentives to take public transit. It is a careful balancing act. Europeans like their cars just as much as American’s. Driving to wherever is very liberating. But that has to be curbed to some degree.
I understand the argument for curbing our use of fossil fuels and there are some occasions where I wish I could just hop on a train, like when I goto ISU for night classes, and relax or work on something else during the ride. But, I think the culture in Europe with regards to collectivism, individuality, and personal choice (or in this case disincentivising a particular choice) is much different than the United States.
As much as this image is a product of decades of US auto manufacturer marketing, I think the vision of cruising down a country highway with the top down on a sunny weekend afternoon just enjoying driving for drivings sake is ingrained in a great number of Americans. I don’t think that a lot of people do that, but I think its a vision that enough people hold on to to make it culturally significant.
We have local dirt tracks, speedways, and drag strips dotted all across the U.S. in much greater number than a lot of other countries. We like to burn gasoline…
(On an unrealted side note, I am totally psyched about the possibility of buying a brand new 2010 Camaro when they release the new body style next year, that is a car with which I could drive down the road with the top down on a sunny afternoon… And I was also completely pissed when they advertised, but failed to bring, the car to the Peoria Auto Show. It was the only reason I went.)
You are correct Bravo, that the automobile culture is deeply ingrained into our culture and out economy. The transition is going to be painful. The question really is how painful does it really need to be and can there be things done now, to minimize the impact. Who is going to be in the better position to capitalize on it? Will Peoria be the best positioned?
Two cars in a suburban house, in a suburban sprawling city, using the energy levels that a typical American uses today, by 4-5 BILLION people is unsustainable. That ideal will be as much an anachronism as the British Colonial of the Victorian Age. As Americans we need to be leading toward a new order of urban planning or face the prospect of being led, facing irrelevance. The British failed to change with the changing times and lost their empire for it.
CJ,
What a great discussion you have started. As you say demand is the larger issue here.
I would rather learn that the candidates understand how we evolved to this point in the first place and how the economic principles of supply and demand come into play.
Candidates must be able to formulate public policy not just for today but for years to come. Sprawl needs to become a federal issue because it impacts healthcare, energy, transportation, agriculture, and foreign policy. I would also argue sprawl is at the root of many more social issues as well. I recently read people on average are spending 17% of their after tax income on transportation related expenses. No wonder people are mad…or “bitter” as Obama would say.
Many states and cities have done a good job of addressing sprawl-but it has always remained the jurisdiction of local officials. If everyone would just stop and ask themselves: Why is it a necessity to own a vehicle in Peoria Illinois? It is not a necessity in Chicago, Seattle, Toronto, New York City, and many smaller cities and towns throughout the world. In those places it is a choice not a necessity. I think it is a good sign that Colleen sees the necessity part- now we need to do a better job of explaining why sprawl is such a problem.
I sometimes read a blog called Joe Urban http://joe-urban.com/ He just wrote the following: “…We must communicate our mission better – get our messaging right and make connections to people’s values.”
CJ does a good job of this and we all can do more.
When you consider the number of people and corporations who have hopped on the “green” bandwagon or have participated in the fossil fuel debate I think it is only a matter of time (and possibly $10.00/per gallon gasoline) for us to see most everyone will be in favor of traditional town planning.
Good job bringing this forward
Beth Akeson
Air, water and food are necessities
Social interaction is a necessity
Hope for the future is a necessity
A motorcycle, car or truck is NOT a necessity
“This is sadly the case. Because of the way the city has sprawled and the lack of accommodation for other forms of transportation (pedestrian, bicyclist, public transit), traveling by car is indeed a necessity in Peoria. If you want to save gas money by walking or biking to work, or taking the bus, it’s largely impractical if not impossible, especially the further north you go. In many places, it’s downright dangerous.
Until we do something about that, all the token gas-tax reduction and oil company tax threats in the world aren’t going to improve our situation.”<<<<<<
Utterly ridiculous assessment/observation/opinion/whatever, Mr.Chronicle. You assume that there are practical numbers of people who will “bike” to work, “take the bus”, etc., if the infrastructure is more friendly. How do you know? Many drivers don’t take mass transit for the simple reason that it may take them 30 to 90 minutes by bus to get to their destination rather than the 10 minutes driving their SUV. Many wouldn’t take their bike to work because after peddling for 10 to 30 minutes they’ve become sweaty, wet and stinky. People are not going to give up their cars to get where ever they want to no matter what. You could have a straight unobstructed bike path from any point in the city to any other point in the city and still no one would give up their cars to use the path to get to work. People are too lazy to give up their cars everyone knows it.
I don’t believe that we are too lazy, but the configuration of our lifestyle here in Peoria doesn’t accommodate walking and riding bikes to work and other places. Anything downtown is just that down – town. If you ride a bike to work at the end of a long day you have to ride uphill to get home. Try stopping at the grocery store that is not on the way home but out in some strip mall and getting groceries and carrying them home on a bicycle. There are some hardy souls out there that do that, but for the majority of us we are not capable of this. Some of us have a hard time walking to the bus stop and getting up the steps into a bus without carrying groceries or other purchases. Take the five months of bad weather waiting out in the cold for a bus where there is no shelter. Or cars splashing dirty rain water on your as you walk or bike along the city streets. Its not their fault, its just the way it is. Cars are a luxury and a necessity in some areas. The idea right now is to conserve. Don’t go to the store two or three times a week. Make all your errands in one day and plan them out so you use the least gas getting to and from somewhere. Watch the gas prices and even if you are 3/4 full fill it up if it goes down a few cents. Eventually you will have a cheap tank of gas. People can change a lot by simply watching what they do and calculating how they get there and back.
Parsy: You’re not looking at the big picture. Right now, the city is laid out in such a way that driving a car is practically a necessity. Subdivisions are separated from retail which is separated from office parks, and to connect all these disparate pieces of civic living are roads, many of which are only suitable for automobiles, not other forms of transportation. The result is a city that is inefficient. If the city were planned in such a way as to have mixed uses, through streets, and more compact design, even if everyone still continued to drive, we wouldn’t have to drive as far to work or shop. Some people may choose to drive farther, but they wouldn’t have to, like they do now.
Also, consider that the population is not merely made up of able-bodied working people who wear suits to the office from 9-5 each day like Ward Cleaver. There are lots of children, senior citizens, and disabled who live and work around here. Many of them can’t drive or would prefer not to drive for various reasons. What are their options? For the most part, the answer is to have someone else drive them where they want to go.
If a kid wants to ride his bike to the store to buy whatever it is kids buy these days, in many neighborhoods he can’t do it because crossing the arterial roadway, trying to find adequate sidewalks, and riding through large surface lots is obviously unsafe. So that’s another car trip that would be unnecessary if the city were better planned.
If an older person wants to ride the bus to a show at the Civic Center, they have to find the nearest bus stop which more likely than not has no shelter, bench, or even sidewalk much of the time, and the buses only come once an hour. Of course, they get to ride for free now, thanks to Gov. Blagojevich, so that’s something. But seriously, have you seen some of the bus stops? I’ve mentioned this in another post, but if you’re at the Social Security office on Pioneer Parkway and you want to take the bus south, you have to hike over a berm and through a parking lot to a bus stop that is nothing more than a patch of grass by a light pole next to Route 40. If you’re in any way disabled, forget about it. In fact, forget about getting around Peoria at all without a car. You’ve got to get someone to drive you. Many unnecessary car trips.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. No one is suggesting that better infrastructure is going to make everyone abandon their vehicles and walk/bike everywhere all of a sudden. But what better infrastructure does is allow people choices — and there are a lot more opportunities than you think to not use a car if Peoria citizens only had the option.
Parsy,
It’s hard to know from your comments whether you are for or against providing a better mass transit experience and other transportation options in Peoria. I can tell you think some Peorians are lazy, but do you really believe everyone owns a car or can afford to own a car?
I grew up outside of Detroit and rarely rode a city bus until I moved to Seattle in 1976. Once I moved to Seattle I relied on mass transit to get to work, to go shopping or visit friends and family. Was it always the fastest or the most private; not really, but it beat walking in the rain. Fortunately for me, I lived in a city that made it possible for me to do all I wanted to do – even though I did not own a car. I was working, going to the University, and living far away from my family. For me, at that time in my life, owning a car was a luxury I could not afford. Eventually my husband and I did buy a car – but just one. That meant one of us would need to rely on mass transit.
This morning I participated in the walking audit sponsored by The Champaign for a Walkable West Bluff. Our group spoke to a woman walking on Main Street. We asked her where she lived and she said she lived close to Woodruff High School. We asked her how long she had been walking and she said one hour. Our group had been on Main Street for two hours and we did not remember seeing a city bus- I suppose we could have missed it.
To bring this closer to home I would encourage you to read the history of Champaign/Urbana’s Mass Transit District on the Wikipedia website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champaign-Urbana_Mass_Transit_District
You will read Champaign/Urbana’s system was nearly dead in 1970 and by 1984 they were chosen as the 7th best mass transit district in the nation. Today, they are officially ranked by the American Public Transportation System in the top 100 mass transit agencies in the country. The only other Illinois City listed is Chicago. Apparently, Champaign/Urbana evolved because the community took an interest in making mass transit a success.
Peoria needs to evolve too because Mass Transit benefits everyone- even people with cars.
Beth,
If it were really the “Champaign walkable East Bluff” you could drive up those participant numbers…
While I don’t want to sound like a downer, I would be hesitant in comparing Champaign-Urbana mass transit to a system that might exist in Peoria because of the makeup of their population.
Their 30,000 student population likely plays a large role in their ridership much like it does over in Bloomington-Normal.
I know that CJ has the best intentions with the talk of planning subdivisions with retail and commercial in close proximity so that we can live, work, and shop all in the same neighborhood. But I’ll be honest I will never want to live a couple blocks from where I work. I like that seperation and I don’t want to walk to the store and run into everyone I just saw at work every day of the week…
Who is going to drop the bomb that makes it necessary to redesign the city from scratch?
It would be much easier and practical to wean ourselves off of oil and into alternate forms of vehicle propulsion to serve the present patterns of development (along with incremental infrastructure/development changes) than to somehow wave a magic wand that reconfigures everything built within the last 100 years into a magic compact mixed-use urban design. Look at the teardown wars in the older neighborhoods around Chicago and the north/west burbs to see how difficult this will be on the scale necessary to effect real change.
11Bravo,
You point out a typo thank you. – I meant to type Campaign for a Walkable West Bluff http://www.walkablewestbluff.org not Champaign.
In response to your comments about using Champaign as an example:
I referenced Champaign to show how their bus service has evolved. In a city where one would expect bus ridership to have always been high and service great, it hasn’t. Possibly Peoria could learn something from Champaign.
In Peoria we have some people who use the bus, but perhaps there would be more demand if the service was more frequent and the experience improved. Eventually, if gas prices continue to climb, we will find more people will need an alternative to driving their cars. Wouldn’t it be better if it was an all around good experience? Did you know there currently is no Sunday bus service? That would imply there aren’t enough people who need or want bus service on Sundays. Do you believe that is the case?
In response to your comment about where you want to live:
If you want to live far from work and shopping that is your choice. But, for those people who would like to live closer to work or shopping- how many choices do they have? Do you realize we have few complete neighborhoods remaining in Peoria? Are you aware that conventional zoning laws and the ordinances that govern street design prevent complete neighborhoods from being built?
Our current development patterns are not sustainable and we are missing opportunities to create great places. I don’t want to live near a coffee shop, dry cleaner, or grocery store they way they are currently being built in Peoria. That is because most, if not all, new commercial construction in Peoria (and the surrounding area for that matter) is designed and planned for access by auto only. If you want to walk it’s usually unsafe, inefficient, and not very pleasant. Colleen Callahan is correct when she says having an auto in central Illinois is a necessity- it shouldn’t be, but for most of us that is true.
I know there are plenty of cities where I would welcome living close to coffee shops, dry cleaners, restaurants and grocery stores, bus stops, schools, businesses, book stores etc. These cities make it not only possible, but appealing to live without owning a car. It all depends on how much priority a city places on planning and design.
The group who sponsored the walking audit organized themselves to help advance the principles of new urbanism in their neighborhood. I applaud them and I think your suggestion for a Campaign for a Walkable East Bluff is a good idea too!