Americans: Don't Stop Me From Driving (Or Parking) My Car
Whether is a proposal for congestion pricing in 2007 or the advent of parking meters in the 1930s, Americans have a way of being hostile towards plans that interfere with their 'constitutional right' to free driving and parking.
"By now we're all familiar with the litany of complaints about [New York] City's new traffic control plan: It's an unfair and burdensome new tax; it's going to kill retail business and hurt the little guy; and most of all, it's just plain "un-American."
That, of course, is what critics are saying about congestion pricing in New York City in 2007.
It turns out that the critics said the exact same things about new-fangled contraptions called Park-o-Meters when they were introduced in urban centers in the early 1930s. (Notably, The Automobile Club of New York was a vocal critic in both eras, their message almost completely unchanged over 75 years)."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
1/3 Fewer Auto Deaths, Thanks to Rising Gas Prices - Jul 19, 2008
Bicycling in U.S. is Risky Business - Jun 15, 2008
Rural U.S. Hit Hardest By Gas Prices - Jun 11, 2008
Earth To Houston: Wake Up And Smell The Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Apr 29, 2008
The Coming Shift In Commuting Patterns? - Apr 20, 2008
Unclear on the concept
Look, I have no problem with loosening up ordinances to allow a greater variety of development types. That lets the market determine what gets built. Where I take issue, is when I see a dictatorial attitude taken towards the subject. As in, “We need to force people to make better choices.” “People must be forced out of their cars.” This country was based on the premise that people should have the maximum freedom to follow their own desires. It is not the job of a planner to “force” anyone to do anything, no matter how well intentioned. And to accuse someone of being selfish, simply because they don’t find your preferred living arrangement attractive, is a pathetic form of argument. I have two cars, a truck, an SUV, two dirt bikes, four dogs and a nine-year old. There’s not a loft in the country I would live in if you gave it to me. I have no use for self-anointed elitists criticizing my chosen lifestyle.
Finally, I find the argument that autos somehow get a “free” ride to be ridiculous. Try to keep in mind that government does not have any money of its’ own. All of it comes from us. So whatever is spent on maintenance, etc. is irrelevant. Whether it comes from fuel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. WE pay the freight. Period. This is not to mention that the vast majority of public transit systems use the exact same road network.
Lesson My Father Taught Me
When I was a very young child, I once said to my father: "It is a free country, so I can do whatever I want." He answered: "A free country means that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt other people."
I guess that parents in Boise don't teach their children this lesson. Instead, they teach their children to believe: No matter how many people I hurt, no matter how many people die because of global warming, I don't want "self-appointed elitists criticing my chosen lifestyle."
The buzz-word "lifestyle" doesn't make it right to deny your most basic moral responsibilities, such as the responsibility to leave a livable world to your children and grandchildren.
Who is the elitist? Am I an elitist because I don't own a car and bicycle as my main means of transportation? Or are you an elitist because you own two cars, a truck, an SUV, and two dirt bikes?
I think "elitist" is not a strong enough word to describe someone who is part of a tiny minority of the people in the world who use far, far more than their share of the world's energy.
Charles Siegel
Definitions
I think the definition of an "elitist" is someone who tells others how to live. "Look at me! I walk to work. You need to walk to work too." I don't insist others live as I do. I DO insist that they shut up about it.
As for my "share" of energy, this isn't a collective, much as that reality might grate on you. I pay for my "share," based on what it costs the oil company to get it, refine it and deliver it, the same as Algore or Laurie David et. al. pay for their private jets' fuel.
As for the "global warming" guilt-trip, save it. The planet will do whatever it does, as it has for four billion years. It has been much warmer AND colder than now, and these changes will continue, regardless of what we do or don't do. And there are hundreds of climate scientists that support that view.
Un-American
I don't insist others live as I do. I DO insist that they shut up about it.
You may have heard that the constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. It is Un-American to want to silence people who disagree with you.
An elitist is defined as someone who is part of a privileged elite and who wants to keep his privileges.
You don't pay your full share of the costs of energy you use - since you don't pay for the environmental costs that you impose on future generations. Of course, Al Gore and I don't pay the full cost either.
It is obviously convenient for you to deny the overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists that global warming is a serious threat, since denial lets you maintain your lifestyle.
Have you ever wondered what your grandchildren will think of you? Imagine that your opinions prevail and your grandchildren live in a world with more hurricanes, droughts, and floods, and with widespread famine in Africa and Asia. Then they look back at grandpa's posts on the internet saying he owns two cars an SUV and two dirt bikes, and he is not going to change his lifestyle. What will they think?
If it is elitist to tell you that sort of behavior is wrong, then every religious leader in history who told people to live decently was an elitist.
Charles Siegel
a charge for dumping?
If someone dumped garbage on your lawn, would you charge a fee? What is the fee for the carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere by the autosprawl system? And who will pay it?
I see what you mean...
Me , Me , Me , Me , Me. I'm empowered. I'm free. I'm not dependent on anyone else (not counting, of course, federal and state transportation agency planners, construction managers, and maintenance crews.)
All the pro-road posters that blog have all these great philosophical and statistical justifications for what comes to simply selfishness. "I'm okay so I don't think urban environments need a change." Congratulations, but the rest of us who study these things for a living think there may be a case of bad collective decision making going on here, so pardon us if we don't applaud your personal triumph.
That being said, if you do live out in a suburban area or a small city, well this article isn't really talking about you is it? It's talking about New York, and other big cities. So that brings up my other favorite pro-road contradiction. Paranoia. How does improving transit, and personal (not automobile) mobility in the dense urban environments harm you in your suburban enclave?
Oh, good idea!
Right! Let's take what is the most efficient and convenient mode of transportation there is, for the individual, and trash it. You may find it hard to believe, but I don't feel "trapped" in my car. I am empowered. I depend on no one to get me where I need or want to be.
Just for a change, I'd like to see a proposed solution to a problem, real or perceived, that doesn't push people further into government dependancy. We've seen how inept it is during an emergency (think New Orleans). Why would anyone want to be dependant on it for something as basic as transportation?
Get Rid Of Parking Meters
Yes, let's get rid of all parking meters, which just push people into greater government dependency. Then employees will take up all the curbside spaces in front of their stores, and there will be no spaces for shoppers.
It is particularly important to get rid of government dependency for "something as basic as transportation." Somehow, people lived without cars until a century ago. If you look at the history of the American cities, you will find that streetcar suburbs where people walked to shopping were more livable than auto-dependent suburbs where people drive to shopping. Nevertheless, the automobile is absolutely basic and no one can live without it.
Stop government dependency! I depend on no one to get where I am going (except on ExxonMobile, General Motors, Toyota, and a few more huge multi-national corportations that I am completely dependent on).
Charles Siegel
Crowd the Street or Use Alternatives: You Have a Choice
I don't know what the traffic is like in Boise, but drivers on crowded Manhattan streets are not demonstrating their self-empowerment; they're taking up space on the pavement. Each trip by every driver is another car length times two or three that can't be used by another driver. Pricing is meant to reduce demand for those extra car trips that could be performed in some other way, thereby removing those car lengths that don't need to be there.
Government dependency doesn't come into the picture here; trip-makers in that city have the most extensive transportation options in the United States: subway, commuter rail, buses, ferries, walking, biking, even driving in private automobiles (for a charge).
hostile?
The oil/auto/coal industry destroys public transit. Then they force autosprawl and auto dependence on us. Then "journalists" go out and "interview" the public and "discover" that they don't want [more] restrictions placed on them. And now that the generation of the 30's and 40's is dying off, no one even remembers streetcars and inter-urban electrified passenger rail. The babyboomers don't want to give up their cars or have restrictions on driving... duh! they are trapped helpless in an auto-dependent society. It is time for our planners to think outside the box and provide leadership for us autosprawl victims. Free public transit would be a good start.
http://www.freepublictransit.org
Thinking outside the box?
Free transit is hardly thinking outside the box. That idea looked into in the 60s (Free Transit by Kraft and Valette), and tested extensively in the UMTA Services and Methods Demonstration Programs in the 70s and 80s. Free transit means 20% to 50% less revenue for transit operators, depending on existing farebox recovery rates. Don't expect the government to make up for the shortfall. If there is more government subsidy money available, put it into expanded service, not reduced fares. And leave out the broad-brush condemnation of baby boomers. We're the ones who made the environment a mainstream issue.