I've spent some time in the last couple of days reading online debates between two general groups of people: urban, lefty west- and east-coasters who commute mainly through walking, biking, or taking public transit, and suburban or rural folks from the rest of the country who drive cars. There are A LOT of things going on in these discussions that have less to do with transportation than with larger conceptions of how an individual should live and relate to society and what kind of country this should be. Here are the main arguments (with maybe a bit of editorializing from me):
Urban Ursula: I ride my bike to work every day and take public transit if the roads are icy. I don't need or want a car and I love it! I feel connected to the other people in my city, I save money, it's better for the environment, and I get exercise! Suburban America is filled with fat, lazy, indebted slobs who are too ignorant to see that their car-commuting lifestyle is destroying the environment, ruining their health, and filling the country with culture-less towns that have no sense of community.
Suburban Sam: I live 40 miles away from my job in the city, and the only way to get there is to drive. I like my car, even though it's expensive, and I even like my commute sometimes. I hate being in the city -- there are too many people (including lots of weirdos), I hate having to jump through hoops to get around without a vehicle, and it's too expensive to live there. And I know my car is bad for the environment (and international politics), but I'm just one person, and maybe they'll even come out with an electric or solar-powered car one of these days.
Now, these are online discussions, so there are a lot of wingnuts dominating the debates (particularly on the biking/public transit side). I actually had no idea the politics of this had become so contentious. It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to split the difference here:
As the Times article above alludes to, the US and the EU are really different -- shocking! -- and decentivizing vehicles makes a lot of sense there. They have more people in less space. The EU has a population density of 300 people per square mile, while US population density is just 87.4. Even though a lot of that low population density is accounted for by almostly-empty horror-movie states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana, the rest of the US is stil much less dense than Europe, even in major cities -- Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million/), for example, is less than two-thirds as dense as Madrid (3.2 million) and more than twice its size. That's not even getting into the sprawling suburbs outside of cities like Los Angeles. Everything is more spread out here.
You might say: "But that's the problem! The car idealists took over the country, and that's why we have all of these highways and suburbs now!" True. A lot of what are now highways could have been trains. But surely not all of it. And to quote a wise thinker close to me, that ship has sailed. We live in a big-ass country with low population density in comparison to Europe and much of Asia. And we have lots of cars and highways and towns and cities that have been built around those things.
Which is where we come to a fundamental question: Would this setup -- the United States we have -- be okay to the bike advocates IF cars became much more sustainable in the next 20 years? If car technology advanced to the extent that cars were not the environmental problem they are now? I don't know enough about this kind of technology to know how likely this scenario is, but what if? Because while the environmental impact of cars is easy for Urban Ursula to point out as the reason not to drive cars, I suspect the other reasons might be even more important to her.
Fundamentally, Urban Ursula enjoys urban living, enjoys that it feels diverse and gritty and sophisticated to live in the city around people who share her values, and enjoys living what she sees as an inherently more authentic and enlightened and interconnected lifestyle.
Similarly, Suburban Sam likes HIS life -- the feeling of being around people who share his (more traditional) values, who he believes aren't snobbish or entitled, who he believes are educated but also practical and grounded. He doesn't like feeling crowded or slowed down by the chaos around him. And he wants convenience and familiarly more than he wants an urban adventure.
Ideally, I don't think either person should have to change their fundamental character. And frankly, I think most people (meaning, people not on the Internet) really are willing to split the difference here. Some combination of improving vehicle fuel efficiecy and technology, reducing driving, increasing options for public transit, walking, and biking -- all of those things are good things to do. It doesn't just have to be one or two of them. But fundamentally, a lot of the discussion isn't about the costs and benefits of various transportation policy options, but about what people and cities and this country should be like. I don't think it'd be fair for either side to lose that debate.
Because the real enemies are the oil companies and CHINA!!!!!???!!!, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment