Carbon Trace

From David Roberts at Grist (extra links added to quote):

On one side, you have people like Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Geoff Anderson of Smart Growth America, or Tom Murphy of the Urban Land Institute, who are focused on using land and urban assets more effectively, which means increasing density and walkability, which means driving less, which means fewer cars. That, in their mind, is what “sustainable transportation” means — it means more people walking or biking or taking public transit more often, and reducing the number and prevalence of personal vehicles.

On the other side you have people — many but not all of whom work at car companies — whose focus is on reducing the ecological impact of individual cars. Lots of these folks, as the conference made extremely clear, are smart as a whip and genuinely dedicated to the goal of sustainability. But the (often unspoken) assumption behind their work is that the car itself is the basic problem unit. People are going to keep driving like they do now; how can we make their cars cleaner?

I’m pretty solidly on the the “fewer” side here, although I see nothing wrong with making cars better. I think such places that encourage people to walk and ride bicycles make people “better,” or at least give them the opportunity to make quality choices.

It’s difficult to make any choices in a transportation system that, for far too many Americans, leaves you with just one choice.

Technorati Tags: cycling, sustainability, Transportation Planning, Urban and Regional Planning, urban design, Urban Planning, walking