Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and the Long-Term Impact of the ...mobilitylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mr-Toads-Wild-Ride... · Rick Smyre, President, Center for Communities of the

The Mobility Collaborative

White Paper #1

Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and the

Long-Term Impact of the

Rising Price of Gas

David Berdish, Manager of Social

Sustainability, Ford Motor Company

Lori Diggins, Principal and Owner of

LDA Consulting

Dr. Norman W. Garrick, Associate

Professor and Founding Director of

University of Connecticut Center for

Transportation and Urban Planning

Bern Grush, Bern Grush Associates

Chris Hamilton, Bureau Chief,

Arlington County Department of

Environmental Services

Transportation Division

Claude Lewenz, Author and Director

of The Village Forum

Dr. Timothy J. Lomax, Research

Engineer, Texas A&M University

John W. Martin, President & CEO,

Southeastern Institute of Research

and the Boomer Project

Rick Smyre, President, Center for

Communities of the Future

William Vincent, Executive Director,

Breakthrough Technologies Institute

Chuck Wilsker, President & CEO, The

Telework Coalition

Philip L. Winters, TDM Program

Director, Center for Urban

Transportation Research, University

of South Florida

The Mobility Collaborative–White Paper #1

2

White Paper #1

Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and the

Rising Price of Gas

In Disney’s adaptation of Kenneth Grahame’s children’s classic “The Wind in the Willows,” Mr.

Toad’s obsession for motor cars wreaks havoc upon society until his fear and loathing comes to an

abrupt end, crashing head-on with an oncoming train. Is this America’s destiny? America has a love

affair with and a dependence on cars. Will we one day simply wake up and make a profound and

abrupt shift to a transportation system with more alternatives, and where a car-free or car-light

lifestyle is supported by abundant transit options including rail, bus and ridesharing coupled with

bike and pedestrian friendly streetscapes?

In his book, Malcolm Gladwell defines a tipping point as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold,

the boiling point.1” This is the point where something that was previously a rare phenomenon or

behavior becomes much more common. Many still believe that $4 per gallon gas is a tipping point

for single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel—the point in time when large numbers of people will shift

from SOV travel to other transportation options. Yet, this day has arrived on two separate

occasions—during the summers of 2008 and 2011—with little impact. Once again we are on our

way to, or in some places have already reached, this price point without a large-scale shift away

from SOV travel.

1 Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), 12.

The Mobility Collaborative is a newly established think tank comprised of recognized national and

international thought-leaders who offer informed perspectives on some of the major forces shaping

21st century urban communities—cityscape designs, psychology of the masses, hyper connectivity,

mobile media, entertainment, governance and shared public resources, such as a transportation system

and community brand. In particular, the Mobility Collaborative is focused on the role and impact of

personal empowerment, mobility and access. Through the alchemy of interdisciplinary sharing and

debate, the intention of the Mobility Collaborative is to contribute to the ongoing conversation on

ways to maintain residents’ mobility and access in what are increasingly populated 21st century urban

environments. The Mobility Collaborative has been graciously hosted by Arlington County Commuter

Services through their Mobility Lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Grahame


3

Although many in the transit and transportation demand management (TDM) industry realize that

transportation decisions are complex and the existence of a single price point where people

dramatically change their behavior is unlikely, they still support the concept that increasing fuel

prices will drive demand for alternatives to SOV travel. Additionally, the tipping point belief is held

by a large number of those in the media and others who influence the public conversation. The

problem is that, while conceptually attractive, the $4 per gallon gas price tipping point is overly

simplistic and focuses time and resources on the wrong problems. Individual drivers have their

own tipping points based on time, money, the availability and attractiveness of alternatives, as well

as other personal factors. Assuming there is a universal tipping point where large numbers of

people will suddenly change their behavior is a risky strategy for those working to change SOV

travel behaviors.

Understanding the nuances of this tipping point theorem and presenting an alternative perspective

is the topic of the Mobility Collaborative’s first collaboration. This white paper outlines what we

discovered and offers our take on the long-term role of gas prices in changing transportation

behavior. We also discuss what must happen in order for a significant and lasting shift to a

transportation system with more travel options to occur.

What We Learned From the Past:

To address these issues, our Collaborative reviewed numerous studies and reports related to gas

prices, consumer interest in ridesharing modes and use of transportation alternatives. A series of

thought-provoking discussions were

held via international conference

calls.

A historical look at retail gas prices

over the last five years shows two

separate occasions where weekly U.S.

regular retail gasoline prices topped

the $4 per gallon mark. Additionally,

gas prices in parts of Europe are over

double, and in some places close to

triple, those in the U.S., but they see

similar mode share in many places.

People seem to hold on to SOV travel,

with little thought to the cost.

These findings suggest that the idea

that the $4 per gallon price point

represents some sort of psychological threshold is suspect. As we reach this price, a small portion of

the population makes changes, but there is not the large shift that would be expected if this theory

were an accurate predictor of behavior. Data from the Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey

(CIA Survey) conducted by Prosper Business Development (BIGinsight.com), refutes the

assumption that demand for alternatives to SOV travel increases dramatically as soon as gas prices

Figure 1: Weekly U.S. Gas Prices – July 2007 to March 2012

Source: Energy Information Association (www.eia.gov)


4

reach the $4 mark. This is an ongoing national tracking study based on approximately 8,000

monthly consumer interviews. Small changes in travel behavior were seen during the summers of

2008 and 2011, but respondents quickly reverted back to their previous SOV travel habits when

prices fell.

Figure 2 depicts the relationship between gas prices and taking public transportation or reducing

driving. For the most part, demand for public transportation options remained flat, even during the

$4 gas pricing spikes. Reported demand for transit and carpooling increased a modest 6% and 7%,

respectively (+/- 1%), but this demand fell off once prices settled down. Additionally, other

research suggests travel behaviors are elastic and that people will make temporary changes as

prices increase, but they revert to their old behaviors when prices go back down2.

Figure 2: Behavior Changes Because of Gas Price Fluctuation

It is common practice for transit and TDM agency operators to ramp up their marketing efforts

based on the theory of the $4 tipping point. Based on our data, marketing efforts timed to coincide

with the next $4 breach will likely be ineffective. For most people, an increase in the cost of fuel to

$4 per gallon does not tip the SOV value equation in favor of ridesharing. The perceived value of

driving alone—maximum personal mobility and access—remains greater than the new perceived

total cost of the SOV option.

Figure 3: SOV Travel Value Equation

Personal Value Realized Perceived Cost to Drive Alone

Freedom to go & come at will > Car, maintenance, + Gas price increase

Maximum mobility & access insurance, gas, tolls, etc.

2 Eric Jaffe, “How Americans Really React to High Gas Prices,” The Atlantic Cities, 01 Dec. 2011,

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/how-americans-really-react-to-high-gas-prices/616/01.

Source: CIA Survey (2008 to 2012)

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Q12008

Q22008

Q32008

Q42008

Q12009

Q22009

Q32009

Q42009

Q12010

Q22010

Q32010

Q42010

Q12011

Q22011

Q32011

Q42011

Q12012

As a result of fluctuating gas prices, are you doing any of the following?

% Taking public transportation more % I will be driving less % Increased carpooling Gas Price


5

As figure 3 shows, when deciding to a take trip using a SOV, consumers look at the cost of operating

their vehicle and weigh that against the value they associate with the trip. When gas prices increase,

people make this equation work on a personal level by adjusting their total demand for SOV travel

and, thereby, lowering the amount they spend. For example, according to the CIA Survey, as gas

prices increased, over 50% reported they drove less overall (how much less was not reported) and

30% said they reduced vacation travel.

The equation takes into account the salient factors that influence travel decisions on an individual

level, but it neglects other costs of SOV travel. There are many social costs of driving alone that are

not included in the equation. These include items such as health impacts from vehicle emissions or

traffic accidents, the overall stress of congestion and the cost of wear and tear on infrastructure. An

individual will often ignore or be less aware of these less obvious costs when evaluating his or her

travel options.

As figure 4 shows, the people who appeared to be most affected by the $4 price level were those in

the lower income segment of the population. For this segment of the population, these increasing

transportation costs are colliding head on with the increasing costs of health, housing and basic

living necessities. The result is a reduction in driving coupled with a shift to alternatives to SOV

travel. This suggests that these individuals are likely driving the majority of the modest increase in

use of transit and carpooling that is seen as prices increase.

Figure 4: Behavior Change by Income Level as a Response to Fluctuating Gas Prices

Taking Public Transportation More Driving Less

Source: BIGresearch® (March 2012)

5.3%

4.6%

3.6%

4.5%

5.4%

5.5%

11.2%

14.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%

$150,000 or more

$100,000 to $149,999

$75,000 to $99,999

$50,000 to $74,999

$35,000 to $49,999

$25,000 to $34,999

$15,000 to 24,999

Less than $15,000

35.8%

41.4%

46.6%

52.8%

54.7%

57.4%

58.1%

50.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%


6

Our interpretation of this data leads us to three inter-related conclusions about the $4 per gallon

tipping point:

1. The idea of a specific price as a tipping point is a myth: The $4 tipping point theory, while

conceptually simple, doesn’t stand up to real world experience. Research suggests that as

gas prices increase, there is a shift to other transit modes such as busses or trains, but the

shift is often small and the relationship is elastic. People shift when prices are high but often

revert to their old behavior once gas prices go back down3. At $4, or likely any other specific

price point, there is not a sustained, en mass, shift away from SOV travel to other travel

options. This appears to be an urban myth that is doing a disservice to the industry, similar

to the “rural myth” or the “weekend myth,” where actual behavior does not match

predictions. (In all U.S. regions, overall traffic in rural areas and traffic in urban areas on

weekends has either declined or grown much more slowly than projected.)4

2. Little is known about the influence of increasing gas prices on transportation mode choice

among higher income segments—those with more resources and flexibility: As gas prices rise

to $5 to $6 to $8, more and more people will be affected. Additionally, increasing gas prices

push the prices of food and other necessities higher, quickly eating into disposable income.

The data in figure 4 shows us that lower income households feel the pain of higher gas

prices the soonest. While the data suggests that higher income households make some

changes, the long-term impact of high gas prices on these households is still unanswered.

Previous patterns suggest that over time people adjust their behavior so travel

expenditures make up between 8% and 10% of their household budget, but there is little

information on the short-term impact of price increases or what happens as gas prices

reach levels much higher than previously seen5. Understanding how households with more

disposable income will react to increasing gas prices is critical. Will they change their

thinking about transportation as a whole or will they be able to offset price increases with

more efficient vehicle options? If efficiency gains do not counterbalance prices increases,

then either transportation costs would become a greater portion of household budgets or

households would have to make changes to their travel behavior. History suggests the latter

outcome will dominate.

3. Large-scale societal flight to travel options other than SOV travel will be checked by consumer

adaptation—managing change: Consumers value their personal access and mobility. As

changes in gas prices have come in gradual waves, it has afforded them time to adjust. This

is coupled with the fact that in many places the alternatives to SOV travel are limited has

forced people to find ways to make up the cost increases through lowering demand for SOV

3 Eric Jaffe, “How Americans Really React to High Gas Prices,” The Atlantic Cities, 01 Dec. 2011, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/how-americans-really-react-to-high-gas-prices/616/01. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, “Travel Monitoring,” Travel Volume Trends, 2012, Office of Highway Policy Information, 16 Feb. 2012, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm. 5 Randal O’Toole, The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2007), 232.


7

travel by reducing/combining trips, funding the increases through changes to other

activities and purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers have put little pressure on

their employers for travel or work options, so even employers who could adopt compressed

work weeks and telework options have been slow to implement these programs as

alternatives to traditional work weeks that reduce travel demand. Large-scale behavior

change will not be possible until consumer perceptions can be shifted in favor of alternative

travel modes and the travel modes are available for use.

Our Collaborative’s discussion around these three conclusions led us to one overarching question—

are we asking the right question? Are slow or even dramatic gas price increases (to $4, $5, $6 or

even higher) the Holy Grail to a profound and lasting shift to alternatives to SOV travel? Probably

not! There are reasons why focusing on the price of gas may not be the answer for changing travel

behaviors.

First, gas prices are volatile and price changes are driven by a variety of exigent factors. There is

only a small portion of the price of gas that is controlled by the government or other social actors.

Most of these factors are internationally driven such as the complex primordial soup of Middle East

politics, speculation in oil markets or the rise of

“automobility6” in nations like China or India (and the

environmental, infrastructural, cultural and political

implications thereof). All of these factors are beyond our

control. Just as gas prices can spike up, they can roll

back. Thus, dependence on the pricing of gas as the

major driver of a permanent societal shift is

questionable. Additionally, consumers often react to

changes in gas price by finding short-term solutions

until prices and/or incomes adjust.

Second, the hyper-attention our society places on U.S.

gas price increases crossing the $4 mark may be

focusing everyone (transit operators, TDM agencies, media, etc.), including our Collaborative, on the

wrong issue. We are so busy reporting on and planning for rising gas prices that we may be

neglecting more important, longer-term issues, such as demographic shifts and limited space for

roads and other infrastructure. For example, rising gas prices could just shift us to different energy

sources (natural gas and electric power) for our vehicles but do little to reduce our dependency on

SOV travel. This helps individual budgets, but it does little to address the larger societal issues

associated with SOV travel, including congestion, safety, and limited road and natural resources.

Charles Hummel, in his famous essay “Tyranny of the Urgent,” best summarized this misplaced

attention in his statement, “the urgent often gets in the way of the important.”

The most important question is not if or when rising gas prices will impact the demand for

alternatives to SOV. The question is—what, if anything, will change consumer behavior, especially

in increasingly populated urban settings? It is estimated that by 2050, 80% of the world’s

6 Bern Gush, “The US $10 Gallon,” Traffic Technology International, April/May 2011.

“Toad talked big about all he was

going to do in the days to come,

while stars grew fuller and larger

all around them, and a yellow moon,

appearing suddenly and silently

from nowhere in particular, came to

keep them company and listen to

their talk.”

Kenneth Grahame


8

population will be living in cities, and these locations, under the current land use paradigms, are not

equipped or able to handle a SOV transportation model. People are consumers of transportation

options, and behavior change is unlikely without a product that is more attractive than SOV travel.

Providing transportation options that are viewed as reliable, safe and affordable is the first step in

getting people out of their cars. These options have to be more appealing to consumers than SOV

travel options.

Two Possible Future Scenarios:

While there are many items beyond the cost of fuel that impact an individual’s transportation

decisions, one thing is clear—we need to make a change. Both the transportation choices people

make must change and the way that our cities are shaped and developed must change. Our current

mix of land use, vehicle and transportation options may not be able to sustain an increasing

population. The environmental impacts of energy production, fuel consumption, vehicle

manufacturing and vehicle use are likely to have a continuing and negative effect on our world.

Through research and discussion, we have analyzed two competing scenarios for the future. One is

an efficiency shift where technology is used to make many aspects of transportation more efficient

but does little to change the transportation choices people make. The second option is a paradigm

shift, which comprises a significant change in how people think about transportation, development

and mobility. Currently, changes in the transportation marketplace are dominated by the efficiency

shift. We use the term “dominate” intentionally, as it infers that the efficiency shift scenario is

directing the majority of the current changes taking place, but there is still room for the paradigm

shift scenario to have some influence.

The Efficiency Shift

This is the direction that the U.S. is currently moving and the direction Europe has been moving for

many years. Currently, people in the U.S. are downsizing to more fuel-efficient or alternative fuel

vehicles. In January 2012, the average fuel economy for new cars sold in the U.S. was the highest it

has ever been7. While reliance on SOV mobility remains entrenched, we would use technology to

offset the impact of increasing fuel costs. This means the vehicle population does not shrink, but

fleet efficiency continues to improve.

Moving forward along efficiency lines, the only major accompanying changes in travel would be the

increasing levels of congestion as America’s urban population continues to grow. Eventually

governments will have to develop a new way to fund maintenance and improvements to

transportation infrastructure, as fuel efficiencies will erode the revenues raised by the traditional

gas tax. This funding model could be a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax, additional tolls or some

other means of raising the funds needed to repair and expand roads and bridges. Currently, there

are many areas where new toll roads, or increases in the cost of existing tolls, are the norm.

7 TrueCar.com, “Average Fuel Economy for New Cars Sold in January Rises to Highest Ever According to TrueCar.com's

TrueMPG,” PRNewswire, 20 Feb. 2012, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/average-fuel-economy-for-new-cars-sold-in-january-rises-to-highest-ever-according-to-truecarcoms-truempg-139289678.html.


9

We see seven forces at work that could work together to continue movement in the direction of an

efficiency shift. Since we have already begun to move down this path, some of these changes are

already taking place, while others are predictions regarding what will happen in the future:

1) Governments: The official U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard

actually rises to 61 miles per gallon by 2025 as current policy dictates8. The increase in

fuel efficiency lessens the economic impact of rising gas prices. The government

continues to offer both tax and other incentives for early adopters—those who purchase

hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles and those who install the charging stations required

for the successful mainstreaming of alternative fuel vehicles. In some areas, hybrid and

electric vehicles with a single driver are allowed in HOV lanes. These incentives

promote the purchase of more efficient vehicles but do little to change travel behavior.

Governments continue their current land use paradigm and continue to separate the

shops, schools, places of worship and other places needed to accomplish the activities of

daily life. This increases an individual’s home range—the distance one needs to travel to

fulfill the tasks of life. Additionally, they do little to create walkable neighborhoods or

entice people to move to those that currently exist. Little is done to enhance the quality

of neighborhood schools, create community centers and develop affordable housing.

Parents are forced to choose between good schools but a longer commute in the

suburbs, and/or living in the city and paying for private schools.

2) Car Manufacturers: Manufacturers continue romancing drivers with the automobile as

an extension of an individual’s personality. Due to both consumer demand and

government regulation, they increase the number of fuel efficient and alternative fuel

options in the marketplace. They continue to increase the comfort, connectivity and

safety of vehicles, making them an attractive option for consumers.

3) Third-party Players: America’s energy companies and utilities capitalize on the

tremendous opportunity electric vehicles (EVs) offer in terms of a new market for

energy consumption and a free overnight energy storage system comprised of millions

of EV batteries connected to the energy grid each night while America sleeps. U.S.

employers continue to offer free parking and hold employees more accountable to

outputs (the amount of time expended) than to outcomes (the product of work).

Adoption of a compressed work week and telecommute options continues to be slow.

4) The Transportation Infrastructure: The infrastructure required to support and advance

a car-oriented society continues to receive the lion-share of investment. Government

grants are awarded to projects that focus on quick, short-term job growth by fixing

deteriorating roads and bridges. Conversely, projects that focus on long-term,

8 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “2017-2025

Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards: Supplemental,” 29 July 2011, 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600 and 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533.


10

infrastructure, developmental initiatives and programs to support a car-free lifestyle

(more walkable communities, trains, buses, HOV facilities, etc.) receive lower levels of

funding. New developments have plentiful and inexpensive parking, making taking a car

easy and convenient.

5) Technological Gains: The rapid advance of technology continues to increase efficiency

and productivity. In the auto industry, efficiency gains from technology are no longer

wasted on creating larger vehicles but used to reduce vehicle operating costs. In

addition, artificial intelligence built into cars and smart roads makes auto travel safer

and even less stressful during long and congested commutes. Self-driving cars such as

those currently being tested by Google in Nevada allow drivers to focus on other tasks

while not giving up the refuge of their vehicles9.

6) Personal Needs: A private car helps people to balance their need for connection with

their need for privacy. The escalation of 24/7 hyper-connectivity via ubiquitous

smartphones (50% of all cell phones will be smartphones by 2014), coupled with

information overload, drives the need for personal privacy and finding ways to manage

or even avoid overstimulation. SOV travel—the solitude of a car—is valued as a

personal escape mechanism. At the same time, auto manufacturers continue to integrate

connectivity options and other technological gadgets into vehicles, so people can

connect when they want and tune out when they do not.

Families continue to balance distance from work and travel behaviors with living in a

neighborhood they feel is safe and a school district that provides a good education.

People face difficult choices when choosing both work and home locations, because few

locations offer what they need at an affordable price.

7) Cultural Positioning of Automobiles with Independence, Self-Autonomy and Discovery:

Our cultural wiring through sports and entertainment heroes, movies and newsmakers

continues to maintain and reinforce the link between automobiles and individual

capacity for discovery, independence and self-autonomy.

The Paradigm Shift

Thomas Kuhn (1962) coined the now ubiquitous term “paradigm shift.” He wrote, "Successive

transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of

mature science."10 Based on this definition, for a paradigm shift to occur there has to be a revolution

of sorts—a conflagration of events that come together creating a new way of functioning by either

necessity or desire. Paradigm shifts affecting society come in many forms. The Vietnam War was the

first televised war, and it colored the public perception of war (conceptual shift). Introduction of

inoculations to protect humans against disease changed medicine (practical shift). The common

9 Samantha Grossman, “Nevada First State to Approve Regulations for Self-Driving Cars,” Time Techland, 20 Feb. 2012,

http://techland.time.com/2012/02/20/nevada-becomes-first-state-to-approve-regulations-for-self-driving-cars/. 10 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 12.


11

denominator of societal paradigm shifts is that everyone feels the “pain” or “benefit” so we embrace

a new way of functioning. This easily describes the outcome of forces that could come together to

steer us toward independence from SOV travel via improvements in non-SOV modes creating a

paradigm shift.

This scenario describes what must occur to change travel behavior on a large scale. A paradigm

shift would mean that SOV travel is no longer the preferred mode choice for most people in non-

rural areas. In this scenario, alternatives to SOV (transit, teleworking or internet shopping, walking

and biking, etc.) and the supporting infrastructure are prioritized and grow in both preference and

demand. A paradigm shift would allow for the creation of a more heterogeneous transportation

system—one that provides people with a greater variety of options for all trips, both work and non-

work. This allows individuals to drive fewer miles without reducing their quality of life. This type of

system is one where congestion and pollution are less likely to increase as population increases.

Here community planning is based around the concept of a smaller “home range.” Planners realize

that by placing the things that people need to accomplish the mundane but necessary chores of

daily life, such as working, taking children to school, shopping, church, restaurants, etc., within

walking distance of home reduces the need for both SOV and transit travel. Changing zoning laws to

place homes and businesses within walkable or bikeable distances of one another allows people to

reduce their home range and need for motorized transportation. Shifting the focus of planning from

one that is based on automobile access to one that is based on walkable distances, increases access

to products and services for all members of society. People no longer think about transportation

costs based on miles per gallon but in vehicle miles traveled.

Changes in the same seven forces currently at work in the efficiency shift could make this scenario—

the paradigm shift—a reality:

1) Governments: As transportation funding changes, so does transportation spending.

Instead of using funds to simply maintain the current road and transit systems, a

greater portion of new tax-funded expenditures are directed into building and

supporting non-SOV infrastructure and options.

The U.S. and state governments also recognize the demographic reality of the doubling

of the senior population by 2030 reinforcing the idea that investment in non-SOV

options are also based on practical matters of an expanding older population. Providing

the older population with multiple transportation options that are as attractive as SOV

travel could increase safety and give those who are no longer able to drive more options

and independence.

Governments also focus on developing well-rounded high density neighborhoods.

Research suggests that densely populated areas with good transportation have a lower

per capita number of vehicle miles traveled11. These areas provide both good schools

and affordable housing. More and more people see these areas as good places to live,

11 Eric Jaffe, “Is Urbanism Slowing the Rise of Car Travel?” The Atlantic Cities, 1 March 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/03/urbanism-slowing-rise-car-travel/1372/.


12

work and raise children. The health and welfare benefits of living in a walkable area are

promoted. Research in areas around New York City found that living in a densely

populated, pedestrian friendly area was correlated with having a lower body mass index

(BMI)12. To be competitive, urban schools are provided with the tools and resources

they need to provide an education that is the same or better than what can be found in

nearby suburban areas.

2) Car Manufacturers: Auto manufacturers shift their marketing approaches from

romancing the car and individual freedom to romancing the personal power and

psychological benefits of making smart vehicle purchases and operator use decisions.

They realize that by integrating car share and other shared mobility options into their

product mix they are able to reach additional consumers and build brand loyalty among

those who do not currently own vehicles.

Forward thinking vehicle manufacturers understand that behavior shifts may be slow

and continue to increase the number of fuel efficient options they offer but are also

working to integrate their vehicles into car share and shuttle programs. They focus on

building additional revenue streams through offering additional options and providing

consumers with value.

3) Third-Party Players: U.S. employers actively provide alternatives to SOV travel and

reward the use of these programs. Free parking is slowly phased out and alternate

travel options are incentivized. A younger generation of managers continues to place a

larger value on the outcome of work over hours spent on site, thereby increasing the

use of telecommuting as a best practice where possible. Job activities are no longer tied

to specific locations, reducing the need for extreme commuting in order to live in a rural

area but still enjoy the wages and benefits of working for an urban-based corporation.

Auto insurance companies encourage smart travel decisions by offering pay-as-you-

drive insurance options that tie insurance costs directly to transportation decisions.

4) The Transportation Infrastructure: Agencies focus on the experience of public

transportation and create an environment that is more appealing than that offered by

SOV travel. The experience associated with using public transportation is less stressful

and more pleasant than using a SOV. At the same time, public parking is priced to

achieve 85% occupancy, and money raised from parking is reinvested in transportation

improvements.

A concerted effort is made to advance transit-oriented development modeled after

Arlington County, Virginia; New York, New York; Stockholm, Sweden; Paris, France;

Bremen Germany; Toronto, Canada; and Hong Kong, China, where urban villages are

12

Andrew Rundle, "Living Near Shops, Subways Connected to Lower BMI in New York City," American Journal of Health Promotion, March/April 2007: 4.


13

created within major metropolitan areas. These developments satisfy the housing,

educational and other needs of all demographic groups. The related infrastructure and

developments make a car-free lifestyle possible and desirable. It is easier and less

expensive to use something other than a car to get around.

5) Technological Gains: The rapid advance of technology, like GPS-enabled next bus

technology and instantaneous ride matching, makes ridesharing modes more

dependable, convenient and predictable. Smart phone applications are already changing

how those 18 to 24 think about transportation. Many of them would much rather live

without a car than without a smartphone13.

Advances in video conferencing and other communications tools make telecommuting

feasible for a greater number of people. Employees will be able to work on just about

anything at any time and from anywhere. More and more items and services are

ordered online and delivered to your door, meaning fewer trips.

6) Personal Needs: The rise of 24/7 hyper-connectivity afforded by ubiquitous wireless

connections and smartphone access to the web make ridesharing arrangements more

valuable, as travel provides time to connect. Bus and train operators recognize this

trend and offer state-of-the-art wireless services making their transportation option

even more attractive.

In addition, heightened awareness of our personal environmental “footprint” has

increased influence on our personal travel choices. Transportation choices are designed

and structured in a way so that the easiest choice for the individual is also the best for

society as a whole.

7) Cultural Positioning of Automobiles With Independence, Self-Autonomy and Discovery:

Viable cost-saving options to individual car ownership such as Zipcar (www.zipcar.com)

and Getaround (www.getaround.com), personal car rentals, make it easier to get around

without owning a car. Individual capacity for discovery, independence and self-

autonomy is preserved. Cars are no longer seen as a form of individual expression but

rather on the same level of other community-provided transportation options, such as a

subway system or bus. Car sharing gives an individual access to a car when that is the

most appropriate travel mode. The younger generations do not associate a Mustang or a

Porsche with status in the same way their Boomer parents did or the way that the Silent

Generation viewed the Edsel or Thunderbird. People are more conscious of their

decisions and the true costs, both individual and social, associated with SOV travel.

13 Greg Hascom, “High gas prices? Whatevs — my phone gets me where I want to go,” Grist.org, 1 March 2012, http://grist.org/article/high-gas-prices-whatevs-my-phone-gets-me-where-i-want-to-go/.

http://www.zipcar.com/

http://www.getaround.com/


14

Will Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride End?

Over the long-term, the price of gas will continue to rise. That much we all feel comfortable in

predicting. What we don’t feel comfortable in predicting is what, if anything, will shift the paradigm

away from SOV travel as the preferred mobility option.

The answer, we believe, lies in changing the conversations about and choice architecture

surrounding transportation options. This involves artfully weaving transportation discussions into

the overall list of public issues and working to shift user perceptions of the costs and benefits

associated with the SOV travel equation. Businesses and policy makers need to work together to

start building the critical mass needed for a paradigm shift to take place. Investment in the

technology and infrastructure is needed for an actual shift away from SOV travel to occur.

The current path we are on suggests that the combination of substantial increases in efficiency and

some paradigm shift will keep things from getting substantially worse as our affair with

“automobility” continues. Going down this path, there will be no disaster or silver bullet. Over the

next 30 years, vehicles will get relatively cleaner and roads will have congestion levels similar to

those seen today as more and more people move into cities. However, significant and ongoing

technological advances are needed for this to occur.

For the paradigm to shift there needs to be a comprehensive community transformation with

regard to how people move around. When addressing mobility issues, lessons can be learned from

the environmental movement. In their book “Break Through,” Nordhaus and Shellenberger discuss

how the environmental movement would be more effective if they worked with, instead of against,

the currents of social values14. They also point out that it is unlikely people will change their

thinking or behaviors if they feel their quality of life is threatened.

These same things need to be done to move people away from a SOV travel model. Showing users

that a transportation system that provides users with multiple desirable options will enhance, and

not detract from, their freedom or ability to get around is crucial. Current social values, such as a

focus on health, concern about global warming and other environmental issues, and fears about

quality of life should be leveraged and woven into the conversation. This is an opportunity to evolve

the built environment and the way people move around it to create a better quality of life.

Waiting for and putting hope in a large behavioral shift when gas reaches a certain price per gallon

is not the ticket. Instead of a single tipping point, it is more likely that there are as many tipping

points as there are drivers, since individuals work to manage their daily time, money and resource

budgets. Over the next ten years, prices will undoubtedly rise but probably at a slow pace with a

few larger transient jolts. If we continue down the path of efficiency, we can likely absorb increases

far past $4. However, this alone is insufficient to reduce the greater costs of a SOV travel model.

Shifting the mobility paradigm by separating it from “automobility” will create cities that provide

residents with more choices and a better quality of life.

14 Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shelenberger, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007).

Documents

Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and the Long-Term Impact of the ...mobilitylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Mr-Toads-Wild-Ride... · Rick Smyre, President, Center for Communities of the