Carbon Trace

Transportation planner Jarrett Walker says this post by Michael Druker is the most important you will read this year. It’s about the fundamental attribution error in transportation choice. This error:

…refers to the tendency for people to over-attribute the behavior of others to personality or disposition and to neglect substantial contributions of environmental or situational factors….  People are generally more aware of the situational influence on their own behavior.

In other words:

You choose driving over transit because transit serves your needs poorly, but Joe Straphanger takes transit because he’s the kind of person who takes transit. This is the sort of trap we find ourselves in when considering how to fund transportation, be it transit, cycling, walking, or driving.

This error calls into question cultural reasons for choices. Do Europeans walk, ride bicycles, and take mass transit more than Americans because it is part of their culture — who they are –  or because the infrastructure exists to make those choices possible and attractive?

Druker acknowledges that culture does play a role in the kind of infrastructure that we build. So a car culture does exist because of the kind of cities and suburbs we built in the U.S. It can also be seen in the kinds of cultures that built the Trabant versus the Shelby Mustang. But it may be an error to assume that the choice to drive a car is because we have a car culture or that suburbanites are the kinds of people who drive cars rather than walk or ride mass transit. The fact is that driving is more convenient in many circumstances because we have created an environment — a situation — that privileges cars.

I’m wondering, however, about my experiences riding around Springfield. I find it remarkably easy to do. The flat terrain, grid road system, the bicycle route system, the abundant parking, and the slow residential and collector street speed limits make the urban core of Springfield a good situation for choosing a bicycle. (At least for someone like me. Am I the kind of person who rides a bicycle? I chose to do so for environmental, health and well-being reasons. I stuck with it because it was — situation-wise — easy. Hmmmm…

So why don’t more people do it? I have to believe that our car culture is playing a role here but not necessarily in the sense the fundamental attribution error challenges. The choice to drive is entirely rational. I think the choice to ride a bicycle is, too. So I’m thinking one reason for the difference must be individual perception of the quality of various travel choices.

Here’s my take on it: Advocating for bicycle/pedestrian and public transportation issues meets a very particular type of resistance (among many). If people are making rational choices to drive cars based on the situation (the infrastructure and land-use patterns of car-centric cities and suburbs), then it will be difficult to encourage them to use alternative transportation until credible, multi-modal systems exist. And these systems won’t exist — or will be difficult to create (i.e. fund) — as long as driving a car is the rational choice (i.e cost-effective).

That leaves us with the need for crisis in order the break that cycle, e.g. very expensive gas. Or, that leaves us with the need for leadership to avert crisis by creating credible alternative situations. Or something else?

Now here’s where I think the 1-mile Soultion comes in. Yes, it addresses the challenge of transit situation in terms of culture. But its greatest strength is how rational it is (i.e. cost effective): For many people there will be at least one destination within a mile of home to which they can ride a bicycle or walk. The situation remains the same, but we change the way they think about it. From there it might be easier to talk about funding to change more situations for what I hope are very rational reasons.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle culture, car culture, cycling, transportation, Transportation Planning