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...