The Culture of the Car: A Need-Love Relationship

The car holds an iconic place in American culture and is a pillar of the American dream, however, the policy decisions of past generations make us beholden to them
By Rory T. Thibault, Esq. (Guest Contributor)
May 28, 2012

Dodge Challenger - epic muscle

America’s love of cars runs as deep as the love of apple pie and cold beer.  From the Model T to the early 1970's, the glory days of the muscle car, each new model year featured increasingly larger vehicles with ever more powerful engines burning leaded gasoline.  The oil shock of 1973 and the high tide of the environmental movement in the early 1970’s (e.g. the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act) spurred the introduction of a generation of vehicles that focused upon reduced pollution and greater fuel economy.

Ford Mustang II - it was fuel efficient!

As muscle cars such as the Ford Mustang went through tortured changes (the Mustang II) or went extinct (the Dodge Challenger) cars like the Honda Civic, Volkswagen Rabbit, and Ford Pinto became ubiquitous at shopping malls and on the interstates.  Economics meant that smaller and more efficient, if less glorious, vehicles were here to stay.

Nearly 40 years removed from the oil shock, cars on the road today are safer, more efficient, and incorporate complex computer systems that IBM engineers could only have dreamed at the time.  Technology has heralded great improvements in efficiency – use of lighter materials, computer controlled engine management, 6, 7, and 8-speed transmissions, turbochargers, and hybrid systems have wrung more mileage from each gallon of gas.  Likewise, automakers have successfully (to comply with Government regulations) built vehicles that emit drastically less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.

As much as the past 40 years are an environmental “win,” the road ahead is filled with pot holes and may be leading to a dead end.  Car culture in the United States is and always has been more than glamor, style, and horsepower.  Having a car is part of the American dream; it enables a sense of and an actual manifestation of independence that is fundamentally American.  A car is the ticket anywhere, be it a cross-country road trip or a cross-town Walmart run at 3am – either available on a whim with no planning or forethought.

While the focus on making each individual vehicle more efficient has been successful and is laudable, efforts to reduce the total number of vehicle trips or miles travelled have largely been ineffective.  Mass transit options in the United States are deplorable when compared to other developed nations such as Japan and Germany.  Likewise, with the exception of the limited Northeast corridor service provided by Amtrak’s Acela Express, long-distance rail travel in the United States has been moribund for decades.

The lack of developed, interconnected, and intermodal mass transit options between cities of even the largest size and the post-WWII pattern of suburbanization in the form of ribbon-sprawl or development concurrent with major roadways has left Americans beholden to the car.  Even if the high-speed rail corridors proposed by President Obama are built, they are likely to have little discernible impact on vehicle miles traveled unless the localities connected invest and upgrade their local transportation networks.  High-speed rail, if implemented, will likely be more of a competitor to air travel than to road travel.  

Sidebar: Illustration of Richmond, Virginia v. Nürnberg, Germany
Richmond, Virginia is approximately 110 miles from Washington, DC. The immediate metropolitan area includes over 1.2 million residents.
Nürnberg, Germany is approximately 110 miles from Munich, Germany. The city proper includes over 500,000 residents, with approximately another 210,000 in the nearest major towns (Fürth and Erlangen).
Both are served by international airports, have multiple rail links in and out of the city, and have a bus system. Both are served by major interstates or autobahns (I-95/I-64 and A3/A6/A9, respectively). The similarities end there however, Nurnberg, unlike Richmond, has 6 streetcar lines, a 2 line subway system (U-Bahn), a 4 line commuter rail system (S-Bahn), is the terminus of several regional rail lines, and is served by a high speed rail line. The U-Bahn, S-Bahn, and bus lines are integrated into a regional network that covers cities and towns are far as 40 miles away, meaning a ticket bought on a bus in an outlying town can be used all of the way to and throughout the city itself.
In terms of longer distance travel, Munich can be reached in 1:07 on a high speed (ICE) train or 1:44 on a regional train – the cost varies but is generally less than $55 on a high speed train or $30 on a regional train. In contrast, the rail connection between Richmond and Washington, DC takes 2:15 on the shortest journey, and 2:46 on the longest – for a price that starts at $32. In comparison, driving between the city-centers of Nürnberg and Munich, even at autobahn speeds, takes approximately 1:30. The Richmond-DC trip from station to station takes 2:00 according to Google maps.

In contrast to the United States, in many areas of Germany (a developed nation that loves cars) it is practical, acceptable, and easy for a family of 4 to rely on one vehicle.  The mass transit solutions available obviate the need in many cases for 2 vehicles, or at least as many trips with the vehicles.  Of course, the other BIG factor is the cost of fuel in Germany.  After the imposition of a per-liter fuel surcharge and the 19% value added tax, gasoline is typically $8.50 or more per gallon.  Thus, there is a pronounced financial incentive to avoid unnecessary driving that is absent in the United States.  Although state taxes vary, the federal government taxes fuel at the rate of $0.184 per gallon.

The sidebar comparison of Richmond and Nurnberg is perhaps unfair or akin to comparing Virginia peanuts with Franconian plums.  However, it illustrates the glaring absence of comprehensive mass transit in our cities and communities.  Such is the legacy of 50 years of planning and development focused on Levittowns and not downtowns.  How we have built our communities and where we have invested our transportation funds has been premised upon the auto.  Only now are we facing the consequences of that legacy – congestion on roads that carry more cars than they were designed to handle, wear and tear on a vast infrastructure of 4-8 lane interstates and bridges dating to the Eisenhower administration.  Accordingly, we are vested in and dependent upon the automobile.  The funds and wherewithal to develop mass transit will be stunted as long as we are stuck devoting billions every year to maintaining the road network we have created.  As such, the search for efficiency, not less cars or less trips has been the focal point of investment and legislation.

Gas prices are a political football in the United States and whether justified or not the economic optimism or pessimism of the moment is often tied to how much it costs to fill up.  The “pain at the pumps” has been a boon to the marketing of fuel efficient cars, but the threshold still has not been crossed to make hybrids or electric vehicles economically viable to the mass market – some have also questioned the marginal increase in economy when factoring in the [ ] environmental cost of manufacturing the batteries required. A conventional Ford Focus that averages 40mpg on the highway makes the $10,000 costlier Toyota Prius a tougher sell.  The decision to switch to an electric or hybrid vehicle appears to be one premised more upon virtue than upon economics.  The limitations presented by the current crop of electric vehicles further exacerbate the resistance to adopt the technology – as Jeremy Clarkson and James May discovered on the British series Top Gear, there are big problems if you cannot find a place to plug in… for 12 hours or more.  Making matters worse the transition to an electric vehicle may be a zero sum game if the grid power used to fuel the vehicle is derived from coal.

So, the internal combustion engine is here to stay for a while.  While BMW, Ford, and Toyota engineers lead the way wringing whatever efficiency gains are still possible from the internal combustion engine, and Mercedes and Volkswagen try to sell America on turbo-diesel technology, we must recognize that this road will ultimately lead to a dead end, or a cul-de-sac.  The policy choices adopted more than a generation ago have left us with one hand tied behind our backs in terms of reducing carbon emissions due to driving.  Without a comprehensive plan to reduce the need to drive, efficiency gains or the adoption of alternative fuels are the only options available.

The sustainable development of communities has caught on, but until adopted universally we’re accomplishing little more than building islands of pedestrian or mass transit friendly areas.  As long as land use laws allow for sprawl and do not require consideration of transportation links other than the auto, our dependency on the auto (and oil) will continue.  Likewise, as long as gas prices remain a politically charged topic we’re unlikely to see adoption of additional surcharges to discourage driving or provide funds for the long term development of better transit solutions.

As an environmentally minded individual, I hope we see a revolutionary path forward that includes a comprehensive transportation, energy, and community development strategy focused upon efficiency and sustainability in more than just one dimension.  In the meantime, dreams of fleets of electric vehicles supplanting mass transit and bullet trains aside, the realistic goal of environmentalists must be to push incremental changes to the internal combustion engine until we hit the dead end of the what technology and physics will allow.  Until we reach that limit or the oil market turns for good and the amount we drive becomes economically impractical it is unlikely sweeping change looms.

2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302: 444 hp and 26 mpg in style…

However, as a lover of NASCAR and fast cars, it is perhaps it is victory enough that the Camaro and Challenger have returned, and the Mustang finally rediscovered itself, this time gloriously running on unleaded gasoline and getting fuel mileage on par with my granola Saab.  Of course, my analysis could be woefully flawed if the reincarnation of the Boss 302 doesn't hold up to the electric-techno-dreamworld BMW i8. As a final note, it's possible to preserve the iconic status of the car, while still embracing a cleaner tomorrow - a 26 mpg car is tolerable if you need to drive 50% less of the time, and even more so if its your 35 mpg commuter that is used half as much...

The Nuclear Series: Should the Compromise Be With Safety?

By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
May 18, 2012


As operationally safe as nuclear reactors might be (or as safe as nuclear regulators claim them to be), a looming opportunity exists for a catastrophic event to occur at a nuclear power plant. Not accounting for these unforeseen events can be dismal and dangerous. If the Fukushima disaster taught us anything, one take-away message should be that adequate public protections are not born from cozy relationships between regulators and the nuclear industry.

Our country responded to Three Mile Island seemingly recognizing the dangers related to not having a separate, and unbiased, regulatory overseer of nuclear power. The President divided the Atomic Energy Commission, then regulating safety as well as promoting nuclear power, into two agencies: Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Whether the NRC truly remains impartial is the looming question.

The Fukushima disaster further disrupted an already tumultuous relationship among the NRC commissioners. The NRC Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, responded to Fukushima by assigning a high-level task force to propose necessary upgrades to nuclear power facilities in the U.S. to make them more safe in the wake of Fukushima. After the task force presented its recommendations, Jaczko was met with much opposition from the four other commissioners when he moved to publicize and adopt the new safety measures. The NRC continues to drag its heals in strengthening the safety of nuclear power amidst lessons learned at Fukushima.

The Agency has faced much criticism over the years for its chumminess with the nuclear industry. Applications for new reactors were met with smiling faces and pictures were presented on the NRC's website with the NRC representatives graciously shaking the hands of the applicant as if it were a prize. When Jaczko became chairman three years ago, he was aware of this perception and he wanted it to change. Shouldn't we want it to change?

To the contrary, Jaczko's tenure with the NRC was frought with opposition, and allegations of abuse of his staff, badgering of the other commissioners, and unreasonable behavior. Things among the commissioners turned so ugly that each of the other four commissioners individually wrote letters to Congress requesting Jaczko's removal. It appears these commissioners have achieved their goal, as Chairman Jaczko announced his resignation yesterday.

We can only hope that the President replaces Jaczko with a Chairman that has similar goals for safety. The NRC commissioners have had a history of internal battles, that you could assume fell along party lines; this was rarely the case, however. Instead, the arguments appeared grounded in beliefs on how to address nuclear safety and the commissioners pro-nuclear attitudes swaying that view.

Believing that nuclear is generally safe is among common viewpoints with nuclear scientists and engineers. Quite frankly, nuclear is much safer now than it has ever been. It is not the science that is making nuclear unsafe. It is the nonchalance and general, and sometimes blinding, trust of the industry that can lead to dangerous consequences.

The recent shut down at San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in California provides a good example. Several years ago, when Edison decided to upgrade the tubing within the plant, the technical report and design specifications provided to the NRC made it appear routine and inconsequential. The questions were not asked and the hand was waived. When Edison had to shut the plant down in January of this year when a radiation leak was detected, it was discovered that the leak was due to design issues leading to excessive vibrations in the tubing. Instead of scrutinizing Edison's design effectively, the NRC bought off on Edison's approach that it "was no big deal."

This is, in fact, a very big deal, and it's one that we should be much more concerned about. What was thought to have initially been only one tube, is now 1,300 tubes, or 3% of the plant, that are damaged due to unexpected wear. The NRC has ordered the continued shut down of San Onofre until Edison has adopted a plan to fix the current problem. The proper request perhaps a little too late, NRC?

Whether or not the litany of allegations against Jaczko carry any truth, one thing has been made clear through the process that has resulted in his resignation: When one pushes back against the NRC's desire to be friend rather than regulator with the nuclear industry, the effort is met with strong opposition. Delays in approvals and mandatory upgrades can be costly, so it's understandable why the nuclear industry might not be happy with either. A happy industry might not always be a safe one. Is safety really worth the compromise?