Keep Driving!
One of the weirdest things about political punditry is that “the status quo should remain the same!” or “I’m taking the side of the powerful and wealthy interests who currently control American public policy!” can be packaged as bold and contrarian. Thus, Terry Box’s Washington Post column about how he likes to drive:
I know that my days as an unrepentant gearhead may be numbered. Sky-high gas prices, global warming, urban sprawl, maybe even the “oil war” in Iraq, are all being piled on cars. Yet despite the growing drumbeat against them, the allegations that they’re melting glaciers and maiming thousands, the claim that we’re choking on them, the fear that they’re our worst national addiction, I love them dearly.
They are my “carma.” And I refuse to go on the national guilt trip about them.
And, look, fine. If Terry Box wants to drive a gas-guzzling car, he should be free to do so. But what he shouldn’t be free to do is to expect large explicit and implicit subsidies. If we prices carbon emissions correctly, balanced funding between highways and transit, and regulated land use sensibly I bet people would drive a bunch less than they currently do. But I also bet people would still drive a lot. People drive much more on average in 2008 than they did in 1978, but it’s hardly as if the United States was a car-free zone thirty years ago. Nor should it become one! But while I’ve never actually heard anyone on the urbanist or green side of the debate argue that we should become a country without cars (as opposed to a country with somewhat fewer, somewhat more rarely used cars) I feel like every week I read a column about how Americans will never abandon their cars.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “Keep Driving!”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Welcome to your new gig. I’m a long-time reader. I’m glad to see that you’re going to continue to talk about transportation policy.
With regard to “how Americans will never abandon their cars,” a couple of points need to be made.
First, many Americans don’t have cars at the present because they can’t afford them. For example, approximately 25 percent of black households don’t own a car. Our transportation policy must address the mobility needs of these folks too — not just the middle class family in the ‘burbs with two cars in the garage.
Second, many who do own cars would drive them a lot less if they had alternative means of mobility. In too many places, we have created a transportation monoculture by spending billions on roads and next to nothing on public transportation. With $4/gallon gasoline, people are hungry for transportation alternatives to the car. It’s time for a dramatic shift in our transportation infrastructure investment priorities.
Finally, you say “I’ve never actually heard anyone on the urbanist or green side of the debate argue that we should become a country without cars.” Actually, the environmental community has been far too pro-car. They have focused their advocacy almost exclusively on improving fuel economy standards and cleaner fuels to encourage CLEANER driving. That’s certainly good, but they’ve done far too little to support LESS driving. There are few knowledgeable, influential voices in the environmental community advocating for increased federal investment in public transportation. I hope that’s beginning to change.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Hey! You went back to the map of DC just like back there whenever on which ever blog that was.
There’s been so many of them.Er, you’ve made lots of progress!But while I’ve never actually heard anyone on the urbanist or green side of the debate argue that we should become a country without cars (as opposed to a country with somewhat fewer, somewhat more rarely used cars) I feel like every week I read a column about how Americans will never abandon their cars.
But I have heard, over and over again, lots of vague motions in the direction of ‘cars are evil’ plus ‘we must sacrifice and suffer and achieve National Greatness by saving the planet from global warming’. The problem is, the problem isn’t cars, it’s internal combustion and gasoline; likewise, talking about saving the planet as though we were in some weird Puritan sect dedicated to suffering and self-flagellation is not a winning approach.
[I could concieve of a train system laid down along the lines of the interstate highway system, with rail cars able to move independently for short distances… and with an overall average speed of 90 miles an hour instead of 15-30 mph typical for CSX. This could farmers in an organic coop load their fresh eggs and live chickens into one of those rail cars in the evening and have that rail car reach NYC in time for early morning market the second day. Restaurants get their really good produce from all over the country and farmers all over the country can sell anywhere. And it uses way less energy (and gets there as fast or faster) than by plane or truck. In the end the system might wind using as much energy (but not gasoline) as the current transport net, but moves 5-10 times as much cargo. Lots of extra economic activity so more money. Moolah. Cash. Bucks.
But no one argues for trains (or anything else) as a way to make money, they argue it as way of tithing for our sins. That’s stupid. Whose going to buy that?]
Nice to have you back, Matthew!
max
[’No preview, eh?’]
August 10th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
OOO! Invisible comments!
max
[’I am noticing some kinks, yes.’]
August 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
And, look, fine. If Terry Box wants to drive a gas-guzzling car, he should be free to do so. But what he shouldn’t be free to do is to expect large explicit and implicit subsidies. If we prices carbon emissions correctly, balanced funding between highways and transit
Per passenger-mile government subsidies for transit are massively higher than for highways. Transit users should be paying a much higher share of the costs of providing the transit service they use than they do currently.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
There was an interview with James Hanson a week or two ago in which he stated that the highest priority in preventing global warming was to stop burning coal, which, if one includes the carbon from diesel fuel used to transport it by freight train to power plants accounts for 1/2 the carbon produced by the US every year. He considered this a higher priority then reduction of carbon from transportation related activities.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for pointing out how much of the subsidy for the road-motor system is spending out of the general budget in support of cars, including streets required to connect the residences, retail centers and employment centers to the highways, spending on services required by cars, mandates requiring private spending in support of cars, and the traditional external costs such as pollution and CO2 emissions.
And the point that the total amount of subsidy matters for capital-intensive parts of the system, since a larger total subsidy encouraging more use then ensures that the fixed costs of the system are spread across more users.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I KNOW A MAN
As I sd to my
friend, because I am
always talking,—John, I
sd, which was not his
name, the darkness sur-
rounds us, what
can we do against
it, or else, shall we &
why not, buy a goddamn big car,
drive, he sd, for
christ’s sake, look
out where yr going.
–Robert Creely
August 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
The thing is, I like cars too. Powerful, sporty ones. I’m also cognizant of the fact that owning one is incompatible with using it as a commuter car. Owning such a car is a luxury, to be used as a second car or just as a transportation supplement to commuting via public transport.
That, I think, is the difference between Terry Box and me: I live a lifestyle where my interest in cars in not going to be burdened by changing transportation priorities and rising gas price, whereas Terry’s lifestyle is getting severely cramped as energy and development priorities change.
That said, I suspect that Terry can afford to maintain his muscle cars. What he’s really complaining about is that he no longer receives the social admiration and validation of his lifestyle choices that he once did.
August 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Looks like mixner followed the trail of breadcrumbs….
It’s not whether Americans will continue to drive cars, it’s what kind of cars Americans will drive. How far, and where to, as well, but mostly the first, for a generation.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
matt,
nice new place you have here — I see you have brought both your concern with urban planning and your strongest critics with you. I don’t know if you are looking for opinions on the format of the blog, or if that is even up for discussion, but despite all the frustrating features of the atlantic site, one nice thing it did was that it included links to the previous and next stories at the top of the entry, which made it much easier to move from story to story w/o going continually through the front page. Just a suggestion — ignore it at your leisure…
now on topic: bikes rule! woohoo!
August 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Re Terry Box
The problem with Mr. Boxs’ position is that he has forgotten what the purpose of a personal transportation system like the automobile is. The fact is hat a personal car is good for only one thing, that is, for getting from point A to point B. It has no other value or purpose. Spending exorbitant sums of money to accomplish this purpose seems rather purposeless.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
OOO! Invisible comments!
Not a fan of the invisible comments, personally. WTF, Yglesias? Everywhere you go, something in your comment section is fucked up. It’s almost like you’re trying to shut us up…
August 10th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Thank you for pointing out how much of the subsidy for the road-motor system is spending out of the general budget in support of cars, …
I didn’t point that out. I pointed out that per passenger-mile government subsidies for transit are massively higher than for highways. Is there some part of this you don’t understand?
August 10th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
But while I’ve never actually heard anyone on the urbanist or green side of the debate argue that we should become a country without cars (as opposed to a country with somewhat fewer, somewhat more rarely used cars) I feel like every week I read a column about how Americans will never abandon their cars.
How many fewer is “somewhat” fewer? How much more rarely is “somewhat” more rarely? Give us a sense of how much of a reduction in cars and driving you seek. 1%? 10%? 50%?
If you’re hoping for a significant shift in market share of total trips or total passenger-miles of travel from cars to transit, then you’re living in a fantasy world. Transit is such a tiny component of our total transportation system that it could not possibly substitute for more than a small fraction of car travel even with a decades-long program of massive new investment in bus and rail services.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Well, that’s what we’re learning- we don’t need to slap a huge discriminatory tax on drivers (although the rightwing Mixner shills for will in fact do that given the chance)- what we need to do is cluster housing and businesses on transit and we’ll reduce our energy use, which is the most effective way to shrink our carbon footprint.
Newspapers won’t turn on a dime, though, and for over 50 years the big city dailies have gotten most of their revenue from ads for cars and suburban housing.
Anyway, you can already tell Americans don’t love their cars. For what they spend they could have great cars, but almost all of them go on a lot and let some salesman sell them a piece of sh*t. Nobody’s going to be lovingly restoring, 30 years from now, the cars you see on the road today.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Mixner, if you read Box’s column, you’d realize that many of your very arguments are the ones that basically put an end to Box’s lifestyle: he enjoys powerful, muscle cars. Precisely the sort that are going to disappear in your world of sprawling exurbs populated by people driving 20,000 mile/year commutes in their 150 mpg cars powered by our abundant human fart resources.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Tyro,
Er, I didn’t say anything about Box’s lifestyle or muscle cars. Do you have any response to what I actually wrote?
August 10th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Mixner, if your comment had nothing to do with the actual post and the Op-Ed that the post referenced, it’s likely that I’m unconcerned with anything you had to say.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“But while I’ve never actually heard anyone on the urbanist or green side of the debate argue that we should become a country without cars (as opposed to a country with somewhat fewer, somewhat more rarely used cars) I feel like every week I read a column about how Americans will never abandon their cars.”
Jum back 30 years, and swap in cigarettes for cars. The left was telling us back then that “no one” was advocating the elimination of smoking areas. Now LA wants to ban smoking outdoors.
What’s my point? My point is that if you give the left an inch, they take hundreds of miles. The left likes to claim to be the party of freedom, but - in fact - they want to regulate every single aspect of my life that doesn’t involve sex. And I fully expect the left to become puritanical there after they get done regulating food.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I’m unconcerned with anything you had to say.
Then I have no idea why you addressed me at all. I’m sure it won’t be the last time you respond to something I write with a complete nonsequitur, given how frequently you do that.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
My point is that if you give the left an inch, they take hundreds of miles.
Actually, here’s the thing: smoking, over time, became progressively less and less socially acceptable, and eventually it got pushed out to the margins. (When was the last time you left out an open pack of cigarettes in your living room for your houseguests?) Soon, public support builds for laws that, however silly we might think they are, are ones that are support by the public. It’s not “the left” doing these things, it’s the public supporting these laws.
Terry Box is upset precisely because of the cigarette example: he sees a world in which his preferred lifestyle is not one that other people admire or want. To which I say: tough luck, things change. No one’s taking away his car, but no one really wants his kind of cars, either.
If you want to smoke, smoke. People have the good sense not to write indignant columns about how everyone else doesn’t like or have an interest in smoking, and how they’re offended by this change in preferences. Terry Box didn’t have the good sense to refrain from writing a similarly odd article about his own car.
There are no inalienable rights to have your personal preferences admired, or even to have people not look down upon your personal preferences. It’s a free country, and Box is free to find a community of people who share his auto preferences, rather than expecting everyone to do so as a matter of course.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Marvelous. Top form.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
“If you want to smoke, smoke.”
Not outdoors in LA, apparently.
Mind you, I don’t smoke. Never have, don’t care to. Unlike the health police, I don’t care if other people want to light up.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:12 am
They call these “containers”. The short distance independent mobility is provided by technology called “trucks”.
This is also current technology … indeed, for typical US rights of way, the limitation in mixing freight at 110mph and passenger services at 110mph was at one time the need to slow the passenger trains down to go around the corner, but superfreighters and tilt trains mix comfortably on the same track.
However, with heavy subsidy for interstate motor-road and aviation freight infrastructure, and rail freight infrastructure operating on a You’re On Your Own basis, our current rail infrastructure is specialized to the low-speed, time-insensitive bulk commodities where rail was dominant even back in the age of ultra cheap oil. Now that we have entered the age of merely moderately cheap oil, it might take up to ten years to build out the core of a high quality, electrified rail grid.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Mind you, I don’t smoke. Never have, don’t care to. Unlike the health police, I don’t care if other people want to light up.
Yeah, believe me, James–not to rehash the steve duncan experience from earlier this year–but that sentiment crosses party lines. If you’re looking for people who actively care about protecting people’s rights to live their own lives as they see fit, you’ll find plenty of allies on the left.
Don’t conflate everything you dislike with the ideology of your opponents. (that goes for you too, lefties!)
August 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The idea that the left wants to take away personal liberties is bullshit. Smoking frequently gets trotted out as a strawman for this purpose. Secondhand smoke causes cancer. It is air pollution. It’s not a personal liberty. Your right to smoke ends where the air I breathe begins. You don’t have the right to give me cancer any more than you have the right to stab me with a knife.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You don’t have the right to give me cancer any more than you have the right to stab me with a knife.
Step to me while I’m smoking and get a chance to taste both.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
SLC writes: “The fact is hat a personal car is good for only one thing, that is, for getting from point A to point B. It has no other value or purpose.”
Um, no.
Next to a PC (or Mac) a car is perhaps the most versatile tool you can own.
Think about it for a second. The average price of a new car in the U.S. is about $28K. What does that get you?
If you need to wait for someone or make a private phone call, a car is a great place to do it. It’s quiet unless you want to play music. It’ll be nice and cool when it’s hot outside. Or, it’ll be warm and dry when rain, sleet, or even snow is falling outside your window. And, if it’s late at night in a not-so-nice part of town it will be well lit and - most important - locked (and in that situation you can even go someplace else too).
A car will take you back and forth to work but it will also take you across the country, let you pick up your kids from school, and let you take your Mom or Dad to the doctor.
A car can carry you, your baby, and your baby accoutrements from store to store when shopping or running errands.
And, on the coldest day of the year, when your baby turns blue at 2am, a car will take you both to the hospital. This actually happened to me as a kid.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not trying to dump on public transportation but there are some things that public transportation has a tough time doing so we’re always going to need cars. And also as Matt points out that doesn’t necessarily mean that cars will or even should dominate transportation in the future as they do in the present.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
MarcInSeattle,
But most of the things you mention are just variations on getting from Point A to Point B.
That said, obviously cars are indeed the best way to serve a lot of travel needs, and that isn’t going to change. But what is less obvious is that everyone needs to own a car, since variations on sharing cars (taxis, ambulances, traditional rental cars, high tech hourly car-sharing services like Zipcar, and so on) can serve a lot of car needs. And in fact a lot of households might be able to split the difference, owning fewer cars (e.g., one instead of two), and using a mix of their own car, public transit, and car-sharing for their transportation needs.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
DTM,
That said, obviously cars are indeed the best way to serve a lot of travel needs, and that isn’t going to change.
Not merely “a lot of travel needs,” but the vast majority of travel needs.
And in fact a lot of households might be able to split the difference, owning fewer cars (e.g., one instead of two), and using a mix of their own car, public transit, and car-sharing for their transportation needs.
“A lot” of households might “be able” to do that, but very few of them are likely to choose to do it, because it is so much more convenient for each adult in the household to have his own car. Or, least, for any household with more than one adult to have at least two cars.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Re James Robertson
Does Mr. Robertson have a link to his claim that Los Angeles proposes to ban smoking outside everywhere. It is my understanding that they propose to ban smoking in venues such as Dodger Stadium, the Hollywood Bowl, etc., not everywhere outside. Mr. Robertson, like most right wingers, seems to forget that his rights end where my nose begins.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
DTM writes: “And in fact a lot of households might be able to split the difference, owning fewer cars (e.g., one instead of two), and using a mix of their own car, public transit, and car-sharing for their transportation needs.”
Totally agree with you there.
DTM also writes: “But most of the things you mention are just variations on getting from Point A to Point B.”
Weeeelll, yes and no. = ),
To me at least, “point a to point b” doesn’t quite capture all the nuances that are there. For example, we could say that the PC let people read and edit documents or that the Gutenberg Press let people print books but their impact on the world has been so much more than that.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
In a sense, cars really are like cigarettes. I have asthma. I smoke handrolled cigarettes with good tobacco- no problem. I walk past a guy on the street smoking a crap ready-made cigarette and I start coughing and choking. Those things aren’t good for you.
People with real muscle cars or classic cars don’t drive them every day. Believe me, if you have 14 coats of hand-rubbed metal-flake paint job, or you’re driving a 1932 Packard, you don’t want to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi.
Some liberals do carry their feelings of natural goodness too far. It’s important to remember that if you’re a liberal. Mistakes were made. Prohibition was in part an effort to clean up municipal politics, but actually created mobs which outlived Prohibition by a good 40 years.
Make housing as affordable as car payments, on a functional transit line, and people will buy condos instead of cars. Visit Seattle- they already do, and the transit there is just barely functional.
The problem is not with any individual car- it is with the substitution of car ownership for a transit system to get to work or an emergency response system to get you to the hospital, or local parks you can walk to. For decades to come some people will own cars even if they can only buy enough gas to drive around the block once a year.
Most of us, however, will be vastly relieved when we don’t need to own a car.
(Cross-post to OrphanRoad.com)
August 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
MarcInSeattle, in the context of the original Op-Ed, the author’s problem is that he doesn’t realize that the reason people own cars is because they are a form of transportation that allows them to get to their place of work and add value for themselves by allowing them to fulfill transport-related tasks.
Dressing it up with the thrill of having a powerful engine with high operating costs is just the lament of a person who’s realizing that widespread interest in his hobby has passed in favor of more practical considerations and other popular interests.
There’s a reason that the Honda Accord is one of the best-selling cars in America: it gets you from point A to point B with a minimum of maintanence headaches and low fuel costs. The fact that the operating costs of transportation are becoming foremost in everyone’s mind is what SLC means when he says a car is a means of getting you from “point A to point B.” Once you lose sight of that fact, you’re going to cause yourself a world of economic hurt. Or end up disappointment that not everyone else shares your eccentric interest in impractical vehicles.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
MarcInSeattle,
I guess I would just note that doing things like allowing people to mass-produce written materials or electronically produce, store, and edit documents seem like really big deals to me, so I don’t really see a problem with describing the primary purpose of the printing press or personal computer in those terms respectively. Similarly, cars being able to efficiently serve many transportation needs seems like a really big deal to me, so I don’t view that as faint praise for cars.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Where is this magical smoke-free Los Angeles of which Mr. Robertson speaks? Because, you know, I live in Los Angeles, and I can’t say I’ve ever seen this smoke-free fairyland. But speaking of second-hand smoke, excuse me while I wave away the (cough cough) fumes from his burning straw man.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Penis Enlargement Pills, How to Suck Cock, Sex Secrets, Woman Masturbation, Penis Techniques, Sexual Performance, Sex Instructons & Positions. Visit: http://www.sinepenis.com