San Diego’s Transportation Crossroads: Can “Friction” Finally Break car Culture?
San Diego faces a critical juncture in its transportation future, grappling with aspiring sustainability goals and a deeply ingrained car culture. The region’s plan for a more enduring future – one with “mobility hubs” and express bus lanes – is bumping up against political realities and a public reluctance to embrace meaningful changes to daily life.
Even in one of San Diego’s most walkable neighborhoods, North Park, the experience of getting around as a cyclist – creates a daunting and sometimes hazardous environment. A near miss with a turning driver and unavoidable potholes on bike routes underscore the current limitations of alternatives to driving.
This struggle is at the heart of a larger conversation about the “Big Questions Facing San Diego in the Next 20 Years,” a reporting project examining the region’s future. The core issue is clear: San diego’s car-free transportation options are, at best, inadequate. It’s understandable why most residents continue to rely on personal vehicles, given the time commitment and inconvenience often associated with public transit. Rejecting car dependency feels “borderline masochistic” without significant investment and systemic change.
However, the environmental cost of this reliance is undeniable. Cars remain the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the urgency of addressing climate change demands a shift in behavior. San Diego has a plan, but its implementation is proving arduous, with a history of prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term sustainability.
The proposed solution increasingly centers around the concept of friction – policies designed to make driving less convenient and more expensive.Economic commentator Kyla Scanlon defines friction as “the effort required to move through systems.” In essence, increasing the cost of driving, through measures like higher parking fees, increased vehicle registration, and mileage-based taxes, could incentivize a shift towards more sustainable options and generate revenue for improved transit.
This approach, however, has already encountered fierce resistance. Hasan Ikrhata, former head of the regional transportation agency SANDAG, championed a road-usage fee – a tax based on miles driven – but faced intense backlash and ultimately departed his position in 2023. “God knows they crucified me in San Diego, but I tried,” Ikrhata stated, reflecting on the political challenges of implementing such a policy.
The failure of the road-usage fee, despite state mandates requiring a 19% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, underscores the deep-seated resistance to change. While some states are exploring similar models, San Diego’s experience demonstrates the political hurdles involved.Experts largely agree that a shift from gas taxes – which are becoming less reliable with the rise of electric vehicles – to mileage taxes is certain. According to Ikrhata,”All you have to do is start charging people the real cost of driving…then people would run and force politicians to put out other alternatives.”
Implementing a mileage tax isn’t without legitimate concerns. Safeguards to protect driver privacy are essential, and equity issues must be addressed. high gas and insurance costs already pose transportation barriers for low-income individuals,and a mileage tax could exacerbate these challenges. These concerns, though, should be the starting point for a constructive conversation, not a roadblock.
The current situation reflects a collective cognitive dissonance: Californians often identify as environmentalists while simultaneously perpetuating a car-dependent lifestyle. This is evident in the underfunding of public transit, the removal of bike lanes shortly after installation, and the prioritization of parking over much-needed housing near transit corridors.
The region seems to desire a painless transition, but that is unrealistic. Delaying necessary changes only makes them more difficult and costly in the long run. There is no avoiding the need for friction – and positive reinforcement – in this policy equation.
Ultimately, the goal isn’t to eliminate car ownership entirely, but to provide viable alternatives for those who would choose them. Improving the transportation system benefits everyone, even those who continue to drive, by reducing congestion and improving air quality. But achieving this requires a essential shift in mindset – a collective acceptance that California can build a better future, and a willingness to play a role in making it a reality. The next generation will be thankful that we did.
