A typical pit stop on the Westside

Don’t get me wrong.

I love Bike to Work Day. I had a blast yesterday trying to hit as many Westside pit stops as I could before making my way back to my home office to get down to work.

Which isn’t exactly the point, I know.

The idea is to encourage people who would otherwise drive to their places of employment to try bicycling by providing incentives and information, in the hope that once they try it, they’ll like it. And hopefully, keep doing it.

I get that.

And I enjoyed the opportunity to partake in a free rolling breakfast and gather up mini-Clif Bars and other assorted bike swag, while talking with other riders I might not otherwise meet on the roadway. As well as offering my insights to anyone looking for a little advice on bike commuting while, sadly, finding no takers.

Everyone I met seemed to know as much about the subject as I do.

Which is part of the problem.

As with many bike advocacy efforts, we too often find ourselves preaching to the choir; rewarding those who already ride rather than getting more people to leave their cars behind, if only for one day.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Bicycling, and bicyclists, should be celebrated.

Whether or not some impatient drivers, or even the wider community at large chooses to acknowledge it at times — particularly when it involves removing a traffic lane in order to carve out a little space for those of us on two wheels.

The Santa Monica college pit stop sets up after a gun scare on campus

Every person who takes to a bike, rather than a motor vehicle, on the way to work or to run an errand removes another car from the traffic grid, reducing congestion for those who don’t. And at the same time, helps improve air quality, public health and quality of life for the surrounding community.

Not to mention countless other ancillary benefits, from supporting local merchants to staving off global warming, albeit to an infinitesimal degree.

All of which is reason for celebration and encouragement.

On the other hand, as I observed my fellow riders, I was struck by how similar they were to me. Mostly white, mostly male, apparently middle class.

In other words, people who appeared to have the luxury of choosing to ride a bike.

Missing entirely from any pit stop I visited was anyone who appeared to ride because it was their only personal transportation option. Those who ride to work on a daily basis because, for whatever reason, they can’t afford a car or can’t get a license.

The often immigrant, usually low income riders you see everywhere, but seldom notice.

Maybe it was a function of where I was, riding in a more affluent section of the city at a more traditional commuting hour. Maybe more effort had been made to reach out to Los Invisibles in other parts of town.

But here on the Westside, it felt like a lost opportunity to reach out to a community too often ignored in our attempts to promote bicycling and improve safety for all riders.

I know that’s not the point of Bike to Work Day.

But maybe it should be part of it.

Isaiah (center) speaks with Malcolm Carson (L), Tafarai Bayne (R) and Andres Ramirez (far right) at a bike-to-work-day pit stop sponsored by Community Health Councils and TRUST South L.A. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

Stop any cyclist in South L.A. and ask them their thoughts on bike-to-work day and I can almost guarantee you’ll get a snort, a dismissive hand wave, and an, “Aw, man, I do this every day!”

It certainly describes the reaction I got from most people I spoke with who were riding in the area yesterday. And, it describes a lot of the reactions we got while handing out snacks, maps, and patch kits to commuters heading home on their bikes last night at the corner of Vermont Ave. and Martin Luther King Blvd. in South L.A.

So used to their daily ride were the commuters, in fact, Andres Ramirez and Malcolm Carson of Community Health Councils (CHC) — sponsors of the bike-to-work-day pit stop along with TRUST South L.A. — often found themselves chasing after cyclists and trying to convince them to stop, sometimes without luck.

Andres Ramirez (CHC) points to where new lanes will be along MLK Blvd. to a flower vendor on a bike. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

“It’s FREE!” usually did the trick.

Once they managed to get them to stop, it was the cyclists’ turn to be curious about what we were doing there.

“So, bike-to-work-day is…um…it’s a thing?” a puzzled Isaiah asked, pulling out his calendar.

He regularly rides his bike or the bus between his home in Hyde Park and the south edge of downtown, where he works.

We tried explaining it was a once-a-year thing to encourage people to try cycling.

“Oh,” he said, putting his calendar back in his backpack.

He was suddenly more interested in the “Every Lane is a Bike Lane” bumper sticker.

Malcolm Carson (CHC) speaks with a woman taking her son out to run some errands at a Bike-to-Work-Day pit stop. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

“Can I put this on my bag?” he asked excitedly.

He was tired of people harassing him as he rode along MLK Blvd, he said. Especially because there wasn’t really anywhere else he could ride — he’d recently been cited for riding on the sidewalk near Crenshaw.

“I’ve seen these big billboards saying I can use the lane,” he said, “but people still honk at me to get out of the road.”

He was glad to hear that bike lanes were going in along MLK. Maybe he’d finally be able to ride in peace.

Yes, cars don’t respect cyclists at all, agreed a bicycle flower vendor (above). More lanes were definitely needed in the area.

Even with lanes, one woman (left) with her adorable son in tow wasn’t sure she’d feel safe enough to get in the road.

“My husband rides on the road,” she said. “But I stay on the sidewalks. It’s much safer that way.”

* * * * * *

"This is my car!" Moammar said, patting the handlebars of his bike. We caught him on his way home to Culver City after apartment hunting south of USC. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

We did meet a few people who were cycling by choice.

“I’m going home and then going to work out,” a very fit Moammar (above) told me. He was headed back to Culver City after meeting with a landlord about a new apartment.

Another poised young man who rides with Major Motion was doing an 82-mile loop. He had been training with the group for about 9 months — even racing occasionally — despite being only 16 years old. Time trials were his favorite, he said.

“82 miles…” Tafarai Bayne repeated as we watched the young man clip back in to his pedals and head down Vermont.

At rush hour on Vermont, no less, I thought.

Damn.

Malcolm and Andres speak with a young cyclist. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

While those choosing cycling by choice — especially the young fixie riders — are growing in numbers, they still represent a minority in lower-income areas of color like South L.A.

Thus, the kinds of factors the League of American Bicyclists lists as being behind people’s reluctance to take up cycling don’t always apply, namely: “It’s too far,” “It takes too long,” “No showers,” “No bike parking,” “I have to dress up,” or “It’s raining.”

The concerns of his bike commuting customers (or commuters choosing between transit and cycling) are much more basic, says Stalin Medina of the Watts Cyclery.

Number one is the cost of maintenance.

A list of Bike Commuting Concerns to be Overcome from the League of American Bicyclists. Click image to see photo on their FB page.

“Six dollars is a lot for some people,” he said referring to the cost of changing a flat tire out. Especially because many of his customers are laborers who ride along corridors like Alameda, which tend to be in terrible shape and are often littered with industrial debris.

A few flat tires a month could really set back people who are living hand-to-mouth.

Moreover, it usually isn’t just the tire that is the problem, Medina says. Often, their rims are damaged from riding along bad roads. And, many have cheap second-, third- or fourth-hand department store bikes which are of such poor quality that the upkeep is more than the bike cost them in the first place.

“We really need co-ops in the area,” he concluded.

I had hoped to help him open one last fall. It would have been the first in South L.A. But, just as we began making plans for that, Medina, an Army reservist, got word that he would be sent to Afghanistan to bring the troops and equipment home. So, the co-op plans got put on hold.

Others in the area — the East Side Riders, Los Ryderz, and members of the Black Kids on Bikes — have all talked about launching co-ops, as well, because they recognize the great need in the area. But, as anyone that helps out at or visits other co-ops around L.A. is aware, they require a lot of know-how and resources just to get them off the ground. Keeping them going requires a lot more.

So, maybe if Metro and the city (and the League of American Bicyclists) are serious about promoting biking to work as a viable option, then facilitating the development of co-ops in lower-income areas might be far more productive than offering cyclists tips for how to keep a change of clothes at the office or Clif Bars and Fruit Snacks (although these were yummy and appreciated!).

Biking to work should be one of those things that simplifies your life, not complicates it. The easier, safer, and more cost-effective we can make it for people who would benefit most from having cycling as an option, the more sustainable a form of transit it will be.

Real Ryda G-Man rolling up on his low rider. Sahra Sulaiman/LA Streetsblog

Walk Score's heat map Bike Score of Santa Monica gives an 83/100

Santa Monica was just awarded a bump in it’s Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) classification by the League of American Bicycling, from bronze to silver. Coinciding with that news the walkability web application Walk Score released a new round of Bike Score rankings which now includes Santa Monica, which received an average score of 82.5 (rounded up to 83), high enough to come 5th in analyzed cities. Now there are probably few people more excited than myself about the real progress being made toward normalizing bicycling in Santa Monica, but I feel compelled to maintain some skepticism toward popular systems of classification for bicycle friendliness.

Relative to other cities ranked in the LAB system, the sliver may be an appropriate and deserved award, but about that bike score putting us in the same league as the platinum awarded cities of Davis,CA and Boulder, CO, I think it’s a little early to pop the champagne bottles just yet. Some e-mail blasts, Facebook shares, and a locals news post have already circulating touting Santa Monica ranking #5 on Bike Score, so I think it’s worth putting this in some needed context.

The first and most obvious issue here is cities are not all alike, and trying to compare them as such often ends up as in exercise in trying to put square blocks in round holes. Santa Monica has a higher score overall than Portland, OR, but Santa Monica is a small city boxed in by the city of Los Angeles in the patchwork of municipalities that form L.A. county. Our score covers a smaller foot print without any isolated sprawl or hilly regions. So while the core of Portland actually scores higher, the number that spits out for each city includes in some cases very disparate areas like steep hillside homes that are tanked with topography penalties in the Bike Score methodology. Even among cities more approximate to each other, comparing averages will always leave out important details.

What is bicycle friendly or bikability, is inherently subjective, and can mean very different things for different people. What’s bikable enough for me is not good enough for many others. We should be asking bikeability for whom? Are we making it accessible for all who wish to, or just certain groups. Do parents feel comfortable allowing their kids to bike to school? At what age? Are facilities only accessible to certain neighborhoods and not other? Are political, social, racial, gender or economic inequities or other differences apparent in where a city makes investment in improving bicycling conditions or who feels they can ride? These questions and many others are critically important, but nuanced and defy simplistic efforts to rank a city as a whole or comparing one city to another.

The League of American Bicycling awards are arrived at with applications judged by a panel that consults with local reviewers for a sense of the on the ground reality of a place. I still recall feeling the bronze designation in 2009 was not deserved at the time, with years of little meaningful progress just prior, and on the heels of the crack downs by the SMPD against the Santa Monica critical mass that burned a lot of people in the local cycling community and the volunteers of Bikerowave, then located in Santa Monica. The acknowledgement this time around at least feels like it accompanies some real positive momentum.

Observing theses Bicycle Friendly Community designations a little more in my time as an advocate, in some ways they seem really to be a carrot approach to entice cities into deserving their status and reaching further. Now this sort of political nudging through awards is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when it really works. However when the bar is rather low as it is the U.S., those sitting at the top also run out of a next level to reach, and I’ve occasionally heard bike advocates in Portland lamenting a sense of complacency that comes with sitting at the top. The league is seeking to address this latter concern with a new diamond ranking that would be more competitive with top bicycling cities in the world, with requirements that would be be contextual and challenging to an individual city seeking the award. How that will really play out remains to be seen.

Now Bike Score is entering the picture with a formulaic data crunching approaching to ranking the bikability or bicycle friendliness of cities and their neighborhoods. The seeming appearance of impartiality and scientific methodology , that spitting out a number derived from other numbers can have, has a certain seductiveness to it. The quest to rank everything and put a definitive number on it is not inherently problematic, and lies at the core of so much of our scientific understanding. However it often leads urbanist commentaries of all kinds, not just bicycling, into unwarranted cheerleading or jeering territory, when we do not critically analyze what sort of data is going in and how it is going out and toward what aims.

There are purposeful or inadvertent intents and biases that underline how data is processed by software into a result, and just because something is data driven, doesn’t make it right, and what “right” is, is not a fixed target. Measuring bikability or bike friendliness isn’t like measuring the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere or the polarity of our planet, it’s a bit more like measuring that famous question of what is pornography, and you know it when you see it (but someone else might see it a little differently). That Bike Score spits out a result that places Santa Monica so much higher than it sits within the LAB system, clearly highlights that the same place can be interpreted in very different ways with different assumptions made.

Walk Score is a company with investors, it is not an organization simply promoting walkablity and bikeability for the sake of doing so. They are selling a product, and their product is providing scores that have become very popular in real estate promotion as the fall out of the sprawl driven housing bust coincided with increasing demand for multi-modal places. This is not a judgement on whether this is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing  (though there are critics like Walk Farce), but there are differing motivations between a membership advocacy organization like the LAB, and a company like Walk Score.

The Bike Score is derived from layering bike facility maps, Census survey data of bike commuters (which is a very simplistic measure), topography, and the proximity to services that is at the core of Walk Scores. I do appreciate that individual heat maps of each attribute can be displayed individually, helping explain what underlines it, but how each is weighted relative to the others and why for the final score is presently rather opaque. How those factors are weighted, and which factors are missing, matter a great deal for people with different outlooks on what bike friendly means for their own willingness or enjoyment to ride.

My skepticism toward all of this doesn’t mean I don’t think there shouldn’t be tools like Bike Score, or that we shouldn’t use them at all, but what concerns me is when such tools and their results are promoted out of context, or their capabilities overstated and hyped. Bike Score at this time is a crude instrument built on inadequate data.  Results, especially those that compare very different cities with different contexts, should be taken with a grain of salt. Too often the urge is to celebrate any exceedingly positive result, no matter how weak the foundation, and I would like to see bike advocacy dialogue elevate with it’s growing presence to a more critical and discerning view of where we are at, and where we aim to go.

Santa Monica is making progress, and stands out particularly within the region. On that much I think there would be little debate and the city and the advocates working to foster those changes deserve credit and acknowledgment. I just urge taking a cautious approach before getting too far ahead of ourselves with buying into city rankings that aren’t fully baked yet. Really the whole project of trying to number cities into neatly sequential order is rarely a helpful enterprise on complex or subjective subjects, and I wish we get away from that mentality all together.

A 2011 study by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety comparing cities with red light cameras to those without them found that in the 14 largest U.S. cities, the cameras reduced fatal red-light-running collisions by 24 percent. Click to enlarge. Image: IIHS

Gawker dished out some richly-deserved ridicule to Tennessee State Senator Jon Lundberg yesterday, following reports that he is co-sponsoring legislation to outlaw the specific speeding camera that nabbed him doing 60 in a 45 zone last October. Lundberg denied that the incident had any impact on his decision to sponsor in the legislation, and contested the violation to boot.

But the case is a telling one. State governments around the country have demonstrated hostility to automated enforcement programs. Twelve states specifically forbid the use of speed enforcement cameras, except in very limited circumstances, according to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association. Nine states prohibit red light cameras. Others, like New York, have yet to enact legislation that would enable cities to use these traffic enforcement tools.

A proposed ban in Iowa failed narrowly in the Senate last year and one is currently under consideration in Ohio.

The Ohio legislation, framed as a defense of due process and privacy, has received mostly favorable coverage in the press and has enjoyed the support of groups like the Ohio ACLU and Ohio PIRG. One Ohio PIRG official characterized speed cameras as “cash cows designed to rip off drivers.” Ohio Lawmaker Ron Hood went so far as to assert that red light cameras are themselves a safety hazard.

Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute on Highway Safety, told the Washington Post last year that these kind of debates tend to get distorted: “Somehow, the people who get tickets because they have broken the law have been cast as the victims.”

Lost in these debates is the fact that automated enforcement saves lives. A 2011 study by IIHS comparing cities with red light cameras to those without them found that in the 14 largest U.S. cities, the cameras reduced fatal red-light-running collisions by 24 percent. Even more impressive, they seemed to promote safe driver behavior more generally. The researchers found that cities with red light cameras saw 17 percent fewer fatal crashes at signalized intersections, per capita, than cities without cameras.

Between 2004 and 2008, that added up to 159 lives saved in those 14 cities alone. If automated enforcement had been installed in all 99 of the U.S. cities with populations over 200,000, some 815 lives would have been saved over those four years, the report found.

More than a dozen states have outlawed using cameras to enforce speed limits or red lights. The red and green areas of the map show where camera enforcement is in effect. Image: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Russ Rader, vice president for communications for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, calls the backlash “a lot of hot air from a vocal minority.” According to Rader, the debate about whether traffic cameras improve safety is settled.

“Study after study demonstrates that automated traffic enforcement works to make streets safer,” he said.

As for the claim that speed cameras are unsafe, Rader says that’s simply “not true.”

“That’s not supported by any of the research that has been done by traffic safety experts, the federal government, and universities,” he said.

A few studies have found that red light cameras do increase rear end collisions, but the data is not consistent. In addition, these types of collisions tend to be minor fender-benders, which pose far smaller risks than the type of high-speed, side-impact collisions that the cameras prevent, says Kara Macek, a spokeswoman with the Governor’s Highway Safety Association.

“I know it’s a contentious issue,” she said. “But typically the arguments against it — ‘It’s a revenue generator,’ ‘It’s a privacy concern’ — are outweighed by the safety benefits.”

Macek’s organization recommends some precautions that can help communities avoid controversies like the one in Ohio. Macek says cameras should only be installed in problem areas, like dangerous intersections, and only after a public information campaign. The GHSA also recommends that all revenues from the ticketing be returned to programs that improve street safety.

Macek added that the cameras are an important tool for communities, especially as resources for law enforcement become more strained.

In Ohio, irate drivers have tended to drown out messages like that. But local governments, law enforcement agencies, and victims’ advocates have testified that an outright ban on automated traffic enforcement would be a major setback.

Officials from the Toledo Police Department reported a noticeable decrease in traffic collisions after the cameras were installed. The city of Akron, which instituted the program after a 10-year-old boy was killed, uses the cameras only in school zones. All of the half million dollars generated was used to support child safety programs in that city, officials say.

Meanwhile, at a recent hearing in Columbus, Sue Oberhauser, co-chair of a national group that advocates for traffic safety, spoke for victims who can’t testify — including her daughter, who was killed by a reckless driver.

“If our daughter Sarah could be here today, she would ask each of you, ‘What about my right to live my life and raise my children?’” Oberhauser said, according to a report in the Plain Dealer. “She cannot be here today because she was killed by a man running a light at 55 miles per hour.”

• Did NFSR Make Their Case Against Expo EIR? One Legal Blogger Thinks So (Thomas Law)
• Op/Ed: Expo Brings New Opportunities to South L.A. (Wave)
• L.A.: The Worst City in U.S. for Dog Attacks on Letter Carriers (NBC4)
• Is it time to panic yet? The 405 will be closed overnight on Friday and Saturday (Metro)
• Movement underway to lower BAC limit for drunk driving to .05 (LA Weekly)
• Why is isn’t California more bike friendly? Calbike points a finger at the Governor (Examiner)
• USC students map the money in Tuesday’s mayoral election (LA Curbed)
• Angry motorists plan protest over San Pedro road diet (Daily Breeze)
• Meanwhile, cyclists plan a peaceful counter protest (BikinginLA)
• It ain’t in the budget, but Bunker Hill Metro Station could get pedestrian walkway (The Source)
• Interactive map shows which L.A. neighborhoods bike to work (LA Curbed)
• $25k reward offered in violent attack on Metro bus driver earlier this month (KTLA)
• Daily carnage: Carson driver killed in fiery crash (Daily Breeze)
• Daily carnage 2: Fleeing motorists arrested after crashing into gas pump (Daily Breeze)
• If you think Toronto’s anti-bike mayor must be on crack, you may be right (Toronto Star)

Eric Garcetti at the Empowerment Congress Forum on January 19

Earlier this morning, the Crenshaw Subway Coalition, the umbrella organization for South L.A. groups fighting for grade separated light rail from 48th to 59th Streets for the future Crenshaw Line, released grades for both leading candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles. Both candidates scored an “A-” for their support for adding a Leimert Park Station, but Wendy Greuel scored a “B+” for her support for grade separating the entire line while Eric Garcetti scored only a “C.”

Damien Goodmon, the executive director for the Crenshaw Subway Coalition, explains why the grades on the tunnel are more important than the grades for the station.

“…the MTA board is currently scheduled to decide the fate of the Leimert Park station at theirJune 27 meeting, which is before the next Mayor takes office, so their positions on the station may be moot. The more revealing question regarding the candidate’s willingness to put their political capital on the line for the Crenshaw community is where do they stand on the 11-block Crenshaw tunnel,” said Goodmon. . “Both appear committed to making the Leimert Park station happen if it doesn’t in June, but there are key differences in Greuel and Garcetti’s written positions on the Crenshaw Blvd tunnel.”

In May of 2011, the Metro Board of Directors voted to approve the environmental documents for the Crenshaw Line which included grade separated light rail except for the 11 blocks between 48th and 59th. The Board also watered down an amendment authored by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents the Crenshaw community, that would have required a station to be built at Leimert Park. The approved motion cleared the station environmentally, but didn’t require the construction to be part of the bids from companies.

In other words, if a contractor could build the station inside a budget designed not to build the station, it could be built. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared a victory. Journalists (myself included) were confused because a written copy of the amendment wasn’t available. The nearly 600 Crenshaw residents were not. They booed.

Wendy Greuel two days earlier.

Currently, the Metro Board is scheduled to approve a construction contract at their June 27 meeting, but has not released the details of said contract to the public. With the Mayor’s race decided next week, and the new term of office beginning July 1, the timing of the release and meeting just happen to relieve pressure on the candidates to make a decision.

Isn’t it funny how things work out that way?

As for the report card, the Coalition’s leaders felt that what Councilman Garcetti says in public and what he’s willing to commit to in writing are too different things.

Garcetti has said in multiple community forums that he “supports undergrounding the line,” but when the Coalition requested he put his verbal statements in writing the candidate added several conditions that he did not include in his previous statements at forums. You can read the letters from both candidates Garcetti and Greuel at this link, but here are the most relevant paragraphs. Note that both letters are signed by the candidates.

Garcetti:

I have always supported under-grounding the line from 48th Street to 59th Street, and  just as I have regarding the Leimert Park station, I have advocated for this throughout  my campaign and as a longtime policy priority of my Council office. Under-grounding,  however, is unfortunately not part of the current EIR. I will continue to advocate for  under-grounding the line, and if elected will immediately confer with Supervisor Mark  Ridley-Thomas and carefully assess new options to see how we can achieve this goal  without delaying Line construction or impacting the completion of the Leimert Park  station.

Greuel made a list of what she would do to support the Coalition:

1. Make the revitalization of Crenshaw a top priority of my administration by  dedicating the financial and human resources critical to long term planning  and community economic development to the corridor;

2. Champion the effort to ensure that the Crenshaw LAX Line project includes a  station at Leimert Park Village and an underground tunnel along Crenshaw  Boulevard from 48th Street to 59th Street;3. As soon as possible upon taking office as Mayor, direct staff to review the  design options in the EIR/S as well as funding opportunities for  undergrounding portions of the Crenshaw/LAX line, including the section of  Crenshaw Blvd between 48th and 59th streets;

4. Work in consultation with the Crenshaw Subway Coalition and other stakeholders to ensure that South Los Angeles’ voices are represented on the  Metro Board;

5. Demand that construction of the rail line minimize inconveniences to existing  businesses and residents;

6. Include complete street elements in the implementation of the rail line in the  community for a holistic approach to revitalization, including pedestrian and  bicycle enhancements and streetscaping; and

7. Maintain an open dialogue and meet regularly with the Crenshaw Subway  Coalition.

“As we clearly articulated, this is solely an issue of political will – nothing else,” said Goodmon.

Transit's mode share in the DC region grew 30 percent between 2000 and 2011, with growth in every jurisdiction. Image: National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

We’ve been writing a lot this week about the national shift away from car travel and toward transit, biking, and walking. Yesterday, Washington area officials released new data that indicates the DC region is at the forefront of that trend.

The region added half a million new workers between 2000 and 2011, according to a report by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board [PDF]. During that period, transit was the fastest-growing mode of travel for commuters, soaring from an 11.8 percent mode share to 15.4 percent, nearly a one-third increase. That’s an additional 162,000 regular transit commuters across the greater DC area.

More than half of that increase has occurred since 2007, probably spurred in part by the recession, though undoubtedly helped along by many other factors.

Puzzlingly, the major exception to that rule was among federal government workers: All of their increased transit ridership happened between 2000 and 2007, when mode share jumped from 19 percent to 28 percent, where it remained in 2011. That means transit ridership among federal employees wasn’t affected by the transition from a Republican to a Democratic administration or by the recession.

Region-wide, 65.8 percent of commuters drive alone, a slight drop from 67.2 percent in 2000. Driving alone decreased or stayed the same in every jurisdiction but Prince William County, where admittedly unreliable data shows it rose from 74 percent to 77 percent.

The changes in the region are happening even more intensely in the city of Washington alone. In DC, 40.2 percent of workers commute via transit, compared to 32.3 percent in 2000. Meanwhile, the share of DC workers driving alone shrank from 39 percent to 33.6 percent.

The hunger for bicycling grew from 0.3 percent across the region in 2000 to 0.7 percent in 2011, with far higher numbers in the urban core. Image: National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

And the city’s investments in bike infrastructure seem to be paying off. In DC, cyclists now make up 3.5 percent of commuters, a big jump since the 1.2 percent mode share of 2000. The next-highest bike mode share is in Arlington, with 1.2 percent, frozen since 2007. Across the region, biking has a 0.7 percent mode share — an increase from 0.3 percent in 2000, but with such a low percentage, it’s hard to read much into the numbers.

Walking to work hasn’t grown the way biking has, but it enjoys a relatively stable 3.2 percent mode share regionally, with 11.5 percent within the city limits. Again, Arlington is the closest runner-up with 5.5 percent mode share.

Carpooling in the region continued its decades-long slump, declining precipitously from 13 percent in 2000 to just 9.7 percent in 2011. The report author confirmed that slugging in the HOV lanes does count as carpooling, making that decline even more shocking.

And then, there’s that wonderful commuting option: not commuting. The work-from-home crowd has grown from 3.7 percent to 4.7 percent of all workers, with growth in every jurisdiction. In some areas, however, there was a steep rise between 2000 and 2007 and then a decline between 2007 and 2011, suggesting that working from home may have become less prevalent during the recession.

All of these statistics suffer from the problematic phrasing of the Census and American Community Survey questionnaires, which ask how the person “usually” got to work the week before. If more than one mode of transportation was used, the person is directed to only report the one used for the greatest distance. Biking to transit, for example, only counts as transit in most cases. The same principle applies if someone bikes two out of five days per week.

The report also examined residential and commuting patterns. About 90 percent of the workers added to the District’s labor force between 2000 and 2011 both lived and worked in DC, the report states. That’s a major change from the suburb-happy past and a huge vindication of the city’s revitalization and livability efforts.

Last week, Streetsblog NYC’s Brad Aaron reported on an advertisement in Metro Newpaper by Subaru calling transit riders “stinking low lifes.” The irony of course is that Metro is given out for free in many transit stations across North America.

Via Copenhagenize, comes a television commercial from Portugal that’s also  something of an insult. In the commercial for Mercedes Smart Cars, we see a lot of the tropes that the car industry is desperately trying to sell to people who don’t want to chain themselves to the costs of owning a car. There’s a woman pressed up against a Red Line door as she just missed her connection. There’s a mariachi band desperately trying to entertain a woman who wants to be left alone. There’s a hipster gazing longingly out the window of his bus at a Smart Car while a suited man is loudly eating a hamburger next to him.

Wait a second, did I say “Red Line door?” I did. The makers of this commercial clearly decided to Go Metro! to make their transit hating screed. Reader Erik Griswold, who tipped Streetsblog to the video, fumed rhetorically, “Who approved this self-loathing (manure?)”

But don’t worry Angelenos, we don’t have to bear the burden of having our beloved Metro system to attack the people who use it. That bus in the second half of the advertisement is from North San Diego County’s NCTD.

(Want to celebrate Bike Week but can’t make an event? You can help out Bikeside with their L.A. Bike Survey, helping Bike Nation with their Long Beach kiosk locations, sending us your bike week media or go multi-modal and help L.A. Walks Kickstart their newest campaign . – DN)

It’s not considered a good fundraising strategy to announce other organization’s campaigns while in the middle of one yourself (see that ad at the top of the screen?), but there’s several reasons the current KickStarter campaign by L.A. Walks is more interesting than most.

Having sharpened their ask by applying for one of the 10 L.A. 2050 grants earlier this year, L.A. Walks is building off that unsuccessful effort by building a campaign around the 2050 application. If they reach their $10,000 goal, the funds will go into creating a true, city-wide campaign for a more walkable Los Angeles through the Hey I’m Walking Here Campaign.

So what does $10,000 buy you?

Wrong-way cycling isn't the way to assert cyclists' rightful place on the streets. Photo: Big Shot Bikes

Sarah wrote that cycling is no longer a mode for daredevils and mavericks weaving through traffic. Some cities now have street infrastructure that accommodates cyclists and guards their safety. Bicycling is increasingly incorporated into the transportation system in these cities, and as such, cyclists need to follow the rules.

Few people would contest the idea that for the transportation system to function well and safely, drivers need to abide by the rules of the road. It’s obvious that when drivers break the rules, the consequences are dire, since they’re operating a heavy vehicle capable of high speeds.

But safety isn’t the only issue. The orderly functioning of our streets is also a priority of planners, and should be a priority for all of us. When the signal says walk, we ought to know that we can walk without being hit by a motorist — or a cyclist — who’s decided that the rules don’t apply to him.

“I am truly sick, at this late date, of people wanting to have it both ways: calling for protected bike lanes and a bike-share system, demanding that cops step up enforcement when it comes to cars, and then blithely salmoning up a major thoroughfare and expecting everyone look the other way,” Sarah writes. “It makes all of us look terrible and it’s a real hazard.”

She also claims that cyclists aren’t special and don’t deserve their own rules. I part ways with her there. Riding a bike doesn’t make you special because it’s badass or good for the environment. It’s special because roads designed exclusively for automobiles don’t work well for cycling. And we should advocate for rules and infrastructure that safely accommodate sustainable and efficient modes of transportation at least as much as destructive and polluting ones.

Just as cities increasingly have infrastructure tailored to bicycling, we also need rules that make more sense for the way people ride bikes, rather than just applying all automotive rules to bicycles. The Idaho stop, allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, is a good example of a way that road rules can safely be tailored for cyclists.

But when people complain about “scofflaw” cyclists, a lot of the time they aren’t referring to people who approach stop signs slowly and defer to others who have the right of way. They’re referring to people who blow through intersections without yielding. That’s not an Idaho Stop. That’s recklessness.

If we want the transportation system to respect us when we’re biking, we have to respect the system. On the road, the system is enforced with tickets. I agree with Sarah that it’s fair for cyclists to be subject to that enforcement.

I disagree with her when she says, “Is it fair if bikers get tickets when motorists don’t? Nope. You know what else isn’t fair? Everything. Deal with it.” The entire point here is that we’re striving to build a system that is fair, and above all, safe. Enforcing cyclist behavior more than motorist behavior is ludicrous. I don’t think people should “deal with it” when reckless drivers get off scott-free. I think they should clamor for justice when people put others at risk and turn our transportation system into a danger zone.

But neither can cyclists claim to be completely outside the reach of enforcement.

In his piece on WashCycle (which also appeared on Greater Greater Washington), David C writes that cyclists need to ride safely and courteously “whether or not cycling is mainstream.” But he also says the “great cycling cities in Europe” don’t have ticketing blitzes to enforce good behavior. And he makes the somewhat convoluted argument that “increased enforcement is [not] needed to keep growth going.”

Well, that’s true. No one’s saying that biking tickets will spur more growth in bicycling rates. But as more people bike, cycling has a greater impact on everyone else on the road, and we need that impact to be perceived in a positive way. Higher rates of bicycling can reduce congestion and pollution, lower health care costs for everybody, encourage human interaction, benefit local businesses, and free up public space for better uses than car storage. But if people associate cycling with wrong-way riding and blowing through reds, they won’t perceive the positives.

It’s not about holding cyclists to a higher “squeaky-clean” standard of behavior than everyone else, as David C alleges. It’s simply about acknowledging that we’ve fought for our seat at the table, and now that we’re there, we have to stop throwing food.

Milwaukee is a city that lost 0.4 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010. Over that time, the larger five-county region it anchors grew 3.5 percent, or at about a third the rate of the national average.

Wisconsin's proposal for a double-decker freeway. Image: Milwaukee Rising

And yet, bizarrely enough, WisDOT wants to stack highways on top of highways, reports Gretchen Schuldt of Milwaukee Rising:

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is expected to pursue an I-94 east-west freeway expansion project that would cost up to $1.2 billion and include six additional lanes of concrete in many places; double-decking through west side cemeteries; additional elevated, overlapping lanes east and west of the double-decked section; and absolutely no transit.

The double-deck proposal will raise freeway lanes 40 to 45 feet in the air through cemeteries just west of Miller Park. Estimated project costs are $950 million to $1.2 billion, the elected officials said; proposals for less expensive projects that would replace the freeway in its current configuration or include spot improvements are not favored by WisDOT.

All this is taking place, keep in mind, as WisDOT faces a civil rights lawsuit stemming from claims that the agency is starving all other modes of transportation to pursue outlandishly expensive highway projects, Schuldt reports:

WisDOT’s expansion options will come on the heels of a federal judge’s ruling that the Zoo Interchange reconstruction plans probably discriminates against minorities because they do not include transit improvements. Ald. Robert Bauman said WisDOT should immediately suspend the I-94 environmental review process and cancel next week’s public meetings so that the impact of Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision can be fully assessed.

Gov. Scott Walker is seeking delays in some of the Zoo Interchange work because of a lack of available funding.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Green Lane Project explains the importance of Walk Score’s city and neighborhood bikeability rankings. I Bike TO shares a new study that finds helmet laws can actually reduce public safety. And the Metropolitan Planning Council gives an overview of DC’s performance parking policies on its Connector blog.

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Click on the image to see where there are Bike to Work stations near you.

If you’re reading this, it’s probably already Bike to Work Day. Feel free to leave thoughts, media, experiences (especially ironic ones) and anything else Bike to Work related in the comments section.

Happy Bike to Work Day!

I have to admit, I’m feeling left out.

Everywhere I went today, people were talking about “710 Day.” It was all over my Inbox. My wife brought it up at lunch. The regular news reports on KFI devoted regular coverage to it throughout the day.

For those of you that missed the news, Alhambra declared July 10 to be “710 Day.” The city is planning to celebrate all of the progress being made to one day  connect the I-10 and I-210 freeways and doom the entire region to an even more rapid increase in truck traffic.

I’m not jealous because they have a truly awful project to celebrate. After all, I live on the Westside. If I were Payton Manning I could hit the Sepuveda Pass Improvement Project with a strong throw from my house if the 405 were wearing a Patriots jersey. No, I’m jealous because I want a road project for which to advocate. It looks like so much fun.

So, I reached out to the Streetsblog L.A. Editorial Board for some help, and got some great ideas. Leave your own ideas for truly, amazingly awful freeway projects we can advocate for. We’ll vote next week on election day for the best bad project idea and on July 10 we’ll have our own celebration. If you need a cheat sheet, click here.

Some of our ideas can be found after the jump.

“A 170 extension from Cahuenga Pass to Baldwin Hills.”

“i want the Reseda Freeway through the Santa Monica Mountains and the Beverly Hills freeway.” “The 170 and the 101 W do not connect to each other because it was assumed they would be constructed when the 170 turned into the Laurel Canyon/Beverly Hills freeway. The construction of the 170 certainly expedited its “desirability” as a commuter suburb into downtown LA. I would also make the case it accelerated its shift into an inner-ring suburb and all of its accompanying problems revolving around environmental justice and social equity.”

If you have a better bad idea, let us know, below.

That is part of it. But the full picture is far more nuanced.

The internet, and the ability to carry it wherever you go, has changed society in so many profound ways it’s no surprise that transportation is among them. A new study by U.S. PIRG and the Frontier Group, “A New Direction,” illustrates the myriad ways mobile technology has transformed young people’s relationship with transportation.

Yesterday, we covered the report’s critique of government travel forecasting and its analysis of why young people’s driving rates will probably remain lower than those of previous generations. Technology is one of the biggest reasons. Here’s why:

Go ahead, check your stocks online – but not if you’re behind the wheel, please. Photo: PC Mag

Constant connectivity. As you’ve undoubtedly noticed at the dinner table or on city sidewalks, people have trouble putting down their phones. It’s not just compulsive Facebook status checking that keeps people glued to their devices. People perform an increasingly broad assortment of tasks on phones: make travel reservations, go through work email, catch up on the news, diagnose children’s ailments — the list is nearly infinite. While car companies are trying heartily to incorporate digital connectivity and social media into their cars, they still need to battle the fact that such technology is dangerously distracting for drivers. Given the option, many young people would rather take transit, where they can use their phones harmlessly, making far better use of their commuting time.

Alternative social spaces. Older adults may think it’s weird when teens would rather text each other than see each other, but hey, the world is a weird place. “A survey by computer networking equipment maker Cisco in 2012 found that two-thirds of college students and young professionals spend at least as much time with friends online as they do in person,” write report authors Phineas Baxandall and Tony Dutzik.

Online shopping. More and more people are making purchases online rather than in stores. Young people are leading the way on that, too. And it can be greener than going to the store yourself.

Real-time vehicle tracking makes the transit experience more seamless. Photo: iTunes

More consumer-friendly transit. Beyond the social sphere, technology is side-lining car travel by making other modes more attractive. Young people are less inclined to view transit as dirty and smelly and only for poor people, partly because the experience of riding transit is improving. Real-time tracking information, delivered instantly via cell phone, erases the need to wait outside in the elements for a delayed bus. Trip planner apps help riders figure out the best route without having to memorize maps and schedules. Modern transit fare cards make the boarding process quicker and easier, and can be replenished online.

Bike-share. The widespread use of smartphones has enabled whole new transportation options. Imagine a bike-share system that didn’t include real-time digital maps telling you where to find available bikes or docks. Or, peeling away another layer of technology, imagine one that didn’t have GPS locator capability or electronic payment and security systems. It would be like the free yellow bikes that were sprinkled around the Twin Cities in the mid-90s, then fizzled out a few years later as the bikes were lost to theft or vandalism.

Sharing of all kinds. Car-sharing services like Zipcar could not have thrived with 20th century technology. Every step of the way – from finding an available car online to opening the doors with your magnetic key-card – depends on modern tech. Peer-to-peer car-sharing can use lower-tech cars but still relies on the internet to connect drivers with car-owners. Internet connectivity also enables passengers to match up with drivers offering a ride-share. Plus, countless apps will help you hail a cab or even a limo from the comfort of your barstool.

Working from home means cutting your commute time to zero. Photo: Nature

Telework. Telework saves employers money on office space, and it saves employees valuable commute time. The added flexibility of telework can be especially important to people with families and other responsibilities. It also frees people to live wherever they want – a friend of mine moved to Denver because she loves the mountains but kept her DC policy-wonk job. Teleconferencing makes it possible for people to scatter around the globe and still have face-to-face meetings when they need to. Online education similarly gives students alternatives to traveling to campus.

In all of these ways, recent technological advances have made it easier and more desirable for people to cut down on driving. They’re not reducing their mileage out of a sense of civic duty or environmental commitment; they’re driving less because there are simply better ways to do the things they want and need to do. And, as Baxandall and Dutzik write, it’s the young people – the millennial generation – that has most readily embraced all the ways technology can save them time and money. According to a recent Zipcar survey they cite, “25 percent of those aged 18 to 34 reported that mobile transportation apps (such as taxi apps, real-time transit information and car sharing) had reduced their driving frequency, compared with only 9 percent of those 55 years of age and older.”

It can be tempting to look at these new technologies as the realm of the young, but those young people will continue to demand more and more sophisticated technological solutions as they get older.

Photo:Sacramento Bee

That promise is turning out to be a lot of hot air.

Yesterday, Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his budget for the 2013-2014 fiscal year that includes the first round of funds collected under the cap and trade system. In the budget, Brown “loans” the half billion in funds collected to the general fund to be paid back at some point in the unspecified future.

“We disagree with the Governor’s proposal to transfer the $500 million in cap-and-trade auction revenues to the general fund and postpone needed investments in projects and programs that could achieve greenhouse gas reductions this year,” writes Stuart Cohen, the executive director of TransForm CA.

“While we appreciate the Governor’s interest in taking a prudent approach to ensure that the cap-and-trade revenues are spent in ways that best meet the program’s goals of maximizing greenhouse gas reductions there are existing and proposed transportation projects and programs that these revenues could be invested in to meet these goals and reap significant economic and public health benefits for all Californians, especially disadvantaged communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. “

Brown’s budget announcement comes on the heels of reports that carbon concentrations have crossed the 400 parts per million threshold widely recognized as a dangerous level that could drastically worsen human-caused climate change. In recent months, environmental and transportation advocacy groups were arguing over how the cap and trade funds could be spent. Debates over questions on whether highway repair should be considered a project that reduces greenhouse gas emissions seem quaint when the state refuses to actually use the funds on climate change projects.

The 2013-2014 budget includes only the first phase of the cap and trade program. As it grows it will create billions of dollars in fees. Some of those fees will go to utility companies to offset rate hikes, but most will go into projects designed to reduce carbon emissions with the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Knowing the state’s history of raiding funds dedicated towards transit and other green projects to fill budget holes, Brown signed himself signed legislation in 2012 that was designed to stop yesterday’s budget trickery from happening.

“A decision delayed is an opportunity lost. We’re disappointed because we think that there was a real opportunity to put together an investment program that would have mattered,” said Denny Zane of Move LA,

The move was not shocking by any means.

Cheery graphics and videos have done little to quell Long Beach's strong opposition to the SCIG Railyard as presented. Click on the image to go to the "SCIG Overview" YouTube video.

The city had already previously filed an unanimous appeal (with Councilmember Suja Lowenthal absent) in accord with major community groups back in March against the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners following their unanimous approval of the project. Citing an alarming amount of evidence that the FEIR was ultimately fabricated on many grounds, the city felt obligated to attack BNSF’s stance that the rail yard project ultimately benefits West Long Beach residents.

Mayor Bob Foster has been vitriolic in his outspokenness against the project, with one of his quotes–”It is very hard for me intellectually to accept that you value the life of a kid on this side of the city border more than you do a kid in my city”–finding itself  on every major newspaper in the country, even on the pages of the New York Times.

7th District Councilmember James Johnson  led the Long Beach charge against the project–he held his own public meeting after the Port of L.A. decided to not hold one in West Long Beach, the neighborhood which is vastly affected by the project. He was also the sole councilmember to speak during the Los Angeles City Council meeting when the project was formally up for final vote.

“Los Angeles has taken the wrong approach,” Johnson said when speaking with Streetsblog. “Long Beach has shown time and time again that green growth can bring jobs to our region while improving, not degrading, our neighborhoods.  I thank Mayor Foster for his leadership and my Council colleagues for standing with me to protect Long Beach families, including nearby veterans, students and children.”

The lawsuit is likely to be filed on behalf of the community groups who have also been outspokenly against the project, including the East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, Legal Aid Foundation of L.A., Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma, Natural Resources Defense Council, Long Beach Community Action Partnership, Coalition for Clean Air, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

BNSF representative Lena Kent was succinct in her response via email, which was what she told all other press verbatim: “We are disappointed by the City’s decision to litigate.  However, BNSF remains committed to working with Long Beach to create jobs, reduce traffic on the local highway and improve the environment for its residents. “

Los Angeles City Council members as well as the City Attorney of Long Beach have not responded yet for comment.

Photo from Long Beach Bike Fest via the Long Beach Post.

(Want to celebrate Bike Week but can’t make an event? You can help out Bikeside with their L.A. Bike Survey or Bike Nation Long Beach right from your desk. – DN)

Last week, Streetsblog asked you to send us your Bike to School Day media for a short video we’re working on celebrating Bike Week in Los Angeles County. While we didn’t get enough pictures and video to finish the project, it did occur to us that there are a lot of fun bike events scheduled for this week as well, and with your help we can still complete this project.

While we’ve gathered fun images from Bike to School Day, the Dodgertown Bike Ride, and Long Beach BikeFest, we know there’s a lot more than that going on (for example: Blessing of the Bikes, Bike Week Pasadena, Bike to Work Day). Send your images and video from other Bike Week events (official or not) to damien@streetsblog.org.

We’ll make sure to include them and credit you for your donation.

Many young people still opt for urban living in walkable, compact neighborhoods -- even once they have kids. Photo: Let's Save Michigan

Why did they do this? They’re entering peak driving age, which is historically between 35 and 54. They have more money than they did in their early 20s. But mostly, they had kids. Of all my friends, I now have exactly one that is still proudly car-free with kids.

In light of the new U.S. PIRG and Frontier Group report on changing driving habits, led by young people, we have to ask: Won’t those young people also drive more as they get older?

Reports of diminished interest in driving focus on two groups: baby boomers, the generation that came of age with the automobile and settled in car-dependent suburbs, who are now retiring and driving less; and millennials, the oldest of whom are 30 now and the youngest of whom aren’t even old enough to drive.

Millennials’ shift away from automobile travel is well documented, especially in last year’s report, “Transportation and the New Generation,” by U.S. PIRG and the Frontier Group. That report found that between 2001 and 2009, annual driving by the 16-to-34 age cohort decreased 23 percent, from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita. That age group also took 24 percent more trips by bike and 40 percent more trips by public transit over those eight years.

With more and more people starting families later in life, the vast majority of millennials haven’t had babies yet. They also haven’t hit their prime earning years, which tend to be prime driving years.

That’s right, said Phineas Baxandall of U.S. PIRG, co-author of the transformative new report, “A New Direction,” which outlines three possible scenarios for driving trends in the coming years, all of which would mean far less driving than government models predict.

“Our scenarios all assume that millenials will drive more when they get older,” Baxandall told Streetsblog. “The real question isn’t, ‘Will millennials drive more as they get older?’ It’s, ‘Will they drive more than their parents as they get older?’”

There are persuasive reasons to think they won’t.

Americans drive no more total miles now than in 2004, and no more per capita than in 1996. Image: A New Direction

First, what were the factors that led to what U.S. PIRG and Frontier Group call “the Driving Boom”? Massive highway expansion, bankrolled by a fat Highway Trust Fund. Suburban sprawl. The rise of the working woman. A 1950s car culture of cruising down the main drag, having burgers and milk-shakes in your car, even watching movies from your car.

Let’s start with car culture. Young people now say that losing their computer or their cell phone would be a far greater loss than losing their car, if they even have one. Baby boomers still say losing their car would be the most disastrous. And millennials just haven’t inherited that excitement over cars or the desire to spend their time tending to them. They don’t see cars as a hobby, just a way to get around — and an increasingly inconvenient one. According to the report, “less than 15 percent of millennials describe themselves as ‘car enthusiasts’ as opposed to 30 percent of baby boomers.”

Meanwhile, we just can’t sprawl much more. We’re running out of room to build new highways, and we’re running out of money faster. The Highway Trust Fund, as we’ve endlessly reported, is in serious crisis, expected to go bankrupt in 2015. And household economics prevent another major rush to buy cars: U.S. households had 1.24 vehicles per driver in 2006, a number which has dropped only slightly and is unlikely to rise again.

Sprawl is stalling for a variety of reasons, one of which is that people simply can’t tolerate much longer driving distances. Studies have shown that most people aren’t willing to spend more than 1.1 to 1.3 hours per day traveling, or roughly a half-hour commute each way to work. (There are exceptions to this general rule.)

The half-hour limit on commute times probably has some give. It stands to reason that a longer commute spent multi-tasking, as is possible on transit, would be more tolerable to many people. Biking and walking commutes can help people save time by skipping the gym. But it’s hard to see people suddenly happy to spend more time stuck in traffic.

And as Baxandall and co-author Tony Dutzik say in the report, driving speeds have probably peaked. “Barring major technological advances,” they write, “there are few prospects for a repeat of the quantum leap in travel speeds that occurred during the Driving Boom.”

Driverless vehicles are supposed to be the next “major technological advance,” which would ostensibly allow for less congestion, increased safety, and higher speeds. But while driverless cars have already been tested, the full communications network that could really change the way the transportation system functions is a long way off. “We’re far enough off from those systems being viable that I think it shouldn’t be affecting our decisions about transportation investment right now,” Baxandall said.

Meanwhile, despite new forms of gasoline coming on the market, prices aren’t expected to drop. High gas prices have already changed the way people travel, encouraging people to choose transit over driving in record numbers. Those changes are likely to harden into long-term trends if gas prices stay high, causing people to “reorient their lives to avoid the expense of fuel,” the report says. One main way to avoid paying for gas is to avoid driving. That’s helped jump-start the return to the cities.

But it’s not just that young people are sick of traffic jams. They like cities. They like the vibrant sidewalk culture of a walkable town, the accessibility of a variety of amenities, and the short travel times – by a variety of modes – that are possible in the city. The growing preference for urban living is well documented, and the outer suburbs are losing popularity.

But the biggest change might be technology. We’ll explore all the ways that technology is changing travel habits in our next post.

Many young people still opt for urban living in walkable, compact neighborhoods -- even once they have kids. Photo: Let's Save Michigan

Why did they do this? They’re entering peak driving age, which is historically between 35 and 54. They have more money than they did in their early 20s. But mostly, they had kids. Of all my friends, I now have exactly one that is still proudly car-free with kids.

In light of the new U.S. PIRG and Frontier Group report on changing driving habits, led by young people, we have to ask: Won’t those young people also drive more as they get older?

Reports of diminished interest in driving focus on two groups: baby boomers, the generation that came of age with the automobile and settled in car-dependent suburbs, who are now retiring and driving less; and millennials, the oldest of whom are 30 now and the youngest of whom aren’t even old enough to drive.

Millennials’ shift away from automobile travel is well documented, especially in last year’s report, “Transportation and the New Generation,” by U.S. PIRG and the Frontier Group. That report found that between 2001 and 2009, annual driving by the 16-to-34 age cohort decreased 23 percent, from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita. That age group also took 24 percent more trips by bike and 40 percent more trips by public transit over those eight years.

With more and more people starting families later in life, the vast majority of millennials haven’t had babies yet. They also haven’t hit their prime earning years, which tend to be prime driving years.

That’s right, said Phineas Baxandall of U.S. PIRG, co-author of the transformative new report, “A New Direction,” which outlines three possible scenarios for driving trends in the coming years, all of which would mean far less driving than government models predict.

“Our scenarios all assume that millenials will drive more when they get older,” Baxandall told Streetsblog. “The real question isn’t, ‘Will millennials drive more as they get older?’ It’s, ‘Will they drive more than their parents as they get older?’”

There are persuasive reasons to think they won’t.

Americans drive no more total miles now than in 2004, and no more per capita than in 1996. Image: A New Direction

First, what were the factors that led to what U.S. PIRG and Frontier Group call “the Driving Boom”? Massive highway expansion, bankrolled by a fat Highway Trust Fund. Suburban sprawl. The rise of the working woman. A 1950s car culture of cruising down the main drag, having burgers and milk-shakes in your car, even watching movies from your car.

Let’s start with car culture. Young people now say that losing their computer or their cell phone would be a far greater loss than losing their car, if they even have one. Baby boomers still say losing their car would be the most disastrous. And millennials just haven’t inherited that excitement over cars or the desire to spend their time tending to them. They don’t see cars as a hobby, just a way to get around — and an increasingly inconvenient one. According to the report, “less than 15 percent of millennials describe themselves as ‘car enthusiasts’ as opposed to 30 percent of baby boomers.”

Meanwhile, we just can’t sprawl much more. We’re running out of room to build new highways, and we’re running out of money faster. The Highway Trust Fund, as we’ve endlessly reported, is in serious crisis, expected to go bankrupt in 2015. And household economics prevent another major rush to buy cars: U.S. households had 1.24 vehicles per driver in 2006, a number which has dropped only slightly and is unlikely to rise again.

Sprawl is stalling for a variety of reasons, one of which is that people simply can’t tolerate much longer driving distances. Studies have shown that most people aren’t willing to spend more than 1.1 to 1.3 hours per day traveling, or roughly a half-hour commute each way to work. (There are exceptions to this general rule.)

The half-hour limit on commute times probably has some give. It stands to reason that a longer commute spent multi-tasking, as is possible on transit, would be more tolerable to many people. Biking and walking commutes can help people save time by skipping the gym. But it’s hard to see people suddenly happy to spend more time stuck in traffic.

And as Baxandall and co-author Tony Dutzik say in the report, driving speeds have probably peaked. “Barring major technological advances,” they write, “there are few prospects for a repeat of the quantum leap in travel speeds that occurred during the Driving Boom.”

Driverless vehicles are supposed to be the next “major technological advance,” which would ostensibly allow for less congestion, increased safety, and higher speeds. But while driverless cars have already been tested, the full communications network that could really change the way the transportation system functions is a long way off. “We’re far enough off from those systems being viable that I think it shouldn’t be affecting our decisions about transportation investment right now,” Baxandall said.

Meanwhile, despite new forms of gasoline coming on the market, prices aren’t expected to drop. High gas prices have already changed the way people travel, encouraging people to choose transit over driving in record numbers. Those changes are likely to harden into long-term trends if gas prices stay high, causing people to “reorient their lives to avoid the expense of fuel,” the report says. One main way to avoid paying for gas is to avoid driving. That’s helped jump-start the return to the cities.

But it’s not just that young people are sick of traffic jams. They like cities. They like the vibrant sidewalk culture of a walkable town, the accessibility of a variety of amenities, and the short travel times – by a variety of modes – that are possible in the city. The growing preference for urban living is well documented, and the outer suburbs are losing popularity.

But the biggest change might be technology. We’ll explore all the ways that technology is changing travel habits in our next post.