Will the dramatic spike in gas prices substantially reduce our almost total dependency on the private auto? In Maine it is hard to say yes.

Low population densities, scattered residences and retail outlets, and a culture that treats the auto as a symbol of adulthood all suggest that the car is here to stay. Yet if the surge in gas prices may be regarded as a swift current disrupting world economies, this current is now encountering several other deep ripples. These may fashion mutually reinforcing changes in how and how far we travel, where we live, and how we spend our time. Public policy must play an important role in any constructive transformation, just as it helped establish the car culture.

The escalation of oil prices has occurred at a time when the auto already entailed increasing albeit seldom discussed disadvantages. As more of us drive from rural or suburban homes to business hubs, congestion takes a toll. U.S. census figures show that the average American now spends 100 hours a year in commuting time.

Just as commuting time is increasing, working hours have grown as well. Over the last two decades a family of two adults has seen its working time increase 500 hours. We work longer hours to buy our cars and to support families we have ever less time to see. As we spend more time in cars and workplaces, costly cell phones suddenly become a necessity, both to attend to business interests and to talk with our families.

Figures on commuting only understate the time burden of the auto. In addition to commutes, most families face comparable increases in time driving for shopping and other errands.

None of these trends is inevitable. Zoning regulations that encourage integration of homes, businesses, and retail shops can reduce commuting time as well as the necessity for lengthy errand forays. Land-use planning and zoning changes aimed at clustering developments can preserve the rural quality of life while still increasing population densities. These strategies both encourage and are abetted by expansion of public transit options. Maine’s “smart growth” movement has made progress is fostering these goals and the appropriate policy tools to advance them.

Nonetheless, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman points out, housing and community development patterns change only gradually. Nonetheless, one should not let the difficulty of achieving the best solution stand in the way of proximate alternatives. Rural communities can still make considerable gains.

Car pooling options can be fostered not merely by individual businesses and by chambers of commerce, but also by state and local governments. More car pooling not only saves money on gas but reduces congestion and saves time for everyone. In addition, even many rural communities can make more effective use of mass transit than currently. Krugman also points out that Canada, with population densities just as unfavorable as ours, still achieves about twice our per capita use of public transit.

Public transit faces two related chicken and egg problems. Livable communities and clustered housing become more appealing if transit is available. By the same token, however, it makes little sense to increase public transit stock absent adequate population densities. In addition, more frequent bus and van service encourages wider use, but until many are willing to use these services, there is little immediate economic incentive to improve them.

Governments can break these knots by moving simultaneously on sensible land-use regulations as well as transit subsidies for both operational and capital improvement purposes. Some Maine communities already have transit vehicles that are used at far less than capacity. Even slight improvements in frequency of service could increase ridership between small towns and commercial centers. Those who choke over “subsidy and regulation” should recognize that our suburban sprawl is enabled by the massive government capital infusions, land-use regulations and continuing subsidies.

Reversing these trends may also require more imagination from environmentalists. Better transit options can mean more time for recreation and family. These experiences in turn can intensify our desire to limit the auto’s hold on our lives. We can build a markedly better quality of life if we regard high gas prices as not merely a challenge but an opportunity.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers may reach him at jbuell@acadia.net.