[rpgr]

Dec 14, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban Issues Columnist

Whatever the appeal of the car may be, mobility has little to do with it.

The truth of this lies not just in the extreme congestion and epic commutes documented this week by Star correspondents, but as they also made clear, in our mind-boggling capacity to put up with it.

That's why efforts to control car use are doomed to failure as long as they're based on attempts to replace it with alternate forms of transportation, especially public transit.

Of course, subways, streetcars and buses are important, even crucial, but the majority choose not to use them despite the fact they're cheaper, more efficient and sustainable. The better way is, don't forget, the better way. The fact remains, however, that there's nothing rational about why people in the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, hop into their vehicles every morning and evening for the daily commute.

Rationality alone cannot explain why these commuters are prepared to spend hours and hours getting to and from work. Or why they tolerate the frustration, tedium and stress, not to mention risk.

Our love affair with the car – illusory and unrequited though it is – has more to do with individual desire for power, or at least an appearance of it.

Think of it, sitting in our own private mechanized chariot we are encased in 1,500 kilograms of steel and glass that comes and goes, stops and starts, at our command. This is heady stuff, irresistible to many, especially men, who view cars as a form of self-expression and ego enhancement.

The fact that everyone else is out on the road doing the same thing at the same time means reality and fantasy never quite mesh, but the allure of fantasy cannot be underestimated.

Beyond gridlock, there are issues of greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and safety, but again, such considerations pale beside an idea as exhilarating as the car.

That's why cities that have succeeded in prying people out of their automobiles are those that have resorted to tough measures.

London, Stockholm and Singapore introduced congestion fees that force drivers to pay large sums for the privilege of taking their cars downtown. Even then, the decline in traffic has been no more than 22 or 23 per cent. This isn't huge, but it's enough to take some pressure off commuters. And although locals hated the prospect at first, in time they learned to love the results.

In Denmark, by contrast, anyone buying a car pays a 180 per cent vehicle registration tax as well as a 25 per cent value-added tax. This explains why so many Danish car owners are middle-aged and older; the young are generally too poor to ride anything more than a bicycle.

But speaking of bikes, the Danes – as well as the Swedes and the Dutch – have built an elaborate infrastructure to accommodate the two-wheeler. Cyclists have their own lanes, parking spots, signals and, most impressive of all, drivers' respect.

And keep in mind that the price of gas throughout most of Europe is double what it is here. Little surprise then, that North America was long ago overtaken by Europe in its attempts to deal with vehicular dependence.

It doesn't help either that the Canadian psyche, like that of the U.S., harbours deep-seated anti-urban fears. The fact that 80 per cent of Canadians live in towns and cities has done little to change this 19th-century holdover.

The car has allowed us to act out this anti-urban bias by making sprawl possible. And the more we sprawl, the more we rely on cars.

Thus the vicious cycle of congestion gets played out daily on our highways.

It's obvious that we as a society need to change our myths let alone our values. That's unlikely to happen anytime soon, though we did pull it off with smoking.

What will be required is something even more punishing than gridlock, no matter how bad it grows.

The answer will include a program of road tolls, vehicular taxes, registration fees, parking restrictions and higher fuel prices.

These are not the sorts of measures that even the greenest Canadian political leaders have been willing to espouse so far. If anything, they prefer to act as societal enablers; we vote for them and in return they give us permission to carry on as usual.

At the same time, however, there has been a move to increase urban densities and limit sprawl.

Queen's Park has passed several pieces of legislation aimed at protecting the green belt around the GTA and designating growth centres. It remains largely unimplemented, but it marks the first time in decades that the province has re-entered the planning game.

Meanwhile, Toronto has embraced residential towers as never before and actually approved developments with fewer parking spots than legally required or none at all.

This means people can live and work with nothing more than public transit, a bicycle or their feet to get them from one place to another.

Hard to believe that, until recently, this would have been illegal. But times change, albeit more slowly than they must.

Even in Toronto, it's becoming painfully clear that either we kill the commute, or it will kill us.

The message I have entered is too short. Therefore please ignore this line.

 

[lawsond]

Our love affair with the car – illusory and unrequited though it is – has more to do with individual desire for power, or at least an appearance of it.

oh blah blah blah chris. stop with the pscho-babble. people drive because they can't STAND the transit. it's horrific. i bought a car (a golf...not so powerful) because i just couldn't take the crowding and third world conditions on the TTC.
it's also the only bit of peace and quiet people get in their day. people may not enjoy traffic. but many do enjoy the solitude. believe it or not. boomerang-ing from some annoying office job to an even more annoying home life.
me...i moved to port hope and take VIA now and life is sweet.
but i don't blame people who drive.

 

[azzo]

i just couldn't take the crowding and third world conditions on the TTC.

omg crowding? come on, give me a break, i would prefer the crowding of the ttc than the mta, have you been on the subway in ny during rush hour? its ridiculous, you have to wait for multiple trains to go by before you can get on. so before you blame it on crowding go to another city and realize its everywhere, deal with it, its apart of life in any big city.

 

[RedRocket191]

Don't joke about third world conditions unless you have ridden commuter trains in india.

 

[urbandreamer]

A Volkswagon GTi vs TTC? Please the four-wheeled Kraut-rocket wins hands down! If I ever get my license again, I'm going straight for a V12 Vantage! No more smelly TTC for me

 

[CDL.TO]

omg crowding? come on, give me a break, i would prefer the crowding of the ttc than the mta, have you been on the subway in ny during rush hour? its ridiculous, you have to wait for multiple trains to go by before you can get on. so before you blame it on crowding go to another city and realize its everywhere, deal with it, its apart of life in any big city.

So we're only allowed to call for improvements once we hit the worst in North America, right? There's nothing wrong with waiting 4 trains before getting on one at College as long as someone in New York has to wait 6 trains?

 

[azzo]

So we're only allowed to call for improvements once we hit the worst in North America, right? There's nothing wrong with waiting 4 trains before getting on one at College as long as someone in New York has to wait 6 trains?

no, but be grateful we have a system, and if you want improvement then do something about it, it such typical canadian whining- complain, but do nothing about it, and i can say that im canadian and ive lived there for most of my life, its somthing we need to get over before we can actually move forward.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Some people drive because they don't want to spend 3 hours a day standing on crowded TTC vehicles. There isn't always something that can be done about improving transit beyond writing letters that are summarily ignored or voting for a different party because they *might* maybe possibly perhaps "do something about it."

This is where the "well, you should move closer to your job" crowd chimes in...but have they checked out the cost of housing near a subway line lately? Yes? OK, now imagine what happens to those prices when over 1 million 905 households decide they'd like to ditch their cars and live there, too.

 

[junctionist]

Yes, this being an online forum responding to a newspaper article, our capabilities are limited to analysis, commentary and criticism. We're not a group of MPPs, that we can do something immediately. This doesn't mean that we should just forget about the problems of public transit and stop complaining. Our voices will not be heard completely and we won't get entirely what we want, because there are other parties with different interests to appease. We do what we can, which is to speak up and provide a strong and convincing argument.

Something that could go a long way is legislation that would require all new projects to be urban friendly, compact. That would be so radical, and would make it easy to deliver quality transit service at a reasonable price. It's fundamental. Without better urban planning, you can invest many billions of dollars in transit for only somewhat better results that'll convince less than half of current drivers to switch. Every new community has to be like this, not just 1 in 10.

We have to keep speaking and reaching more people, so that one day it can be demanded by a majority.

 

[RedRocket191]

Let me take a step back for a minute and say this:

While I don't agree that the conditions on the TTC are third world, if you feel like driving, then that's your prerogative. A good transit network should have choices. If you don't want to take a bus, that's fine, but we should offer that service in case your neighbours want to use it or you decide one day that transit is the better option for you.

Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan green paper # 6 is all about highways and roads. It will be released on January 20th and public comment will go online on February 3rd. If you want to advocate for highways, then feel free to have your voices heard.

In the interest of full disclosure, I support some highway extensions when they will take trucks off local roads. For example, the 427 should be extended to Rutherford road because Highway 50 is clogged with trucks running to and from the CP intermodal yard. That doesn't change my belief that transit is the better way for moving people and that land use and transit should go hand-in-hand.

 

[PukeGreen]

Hume is right this time. The fact is, driving in the GTA is bad, and it's only going to continue to get worse. So something needs to change. Yet, many people are steadfastly opposed to even discussing that change. Of course individuals have a right to get to work in the way that is most convenient, pleasant, and affordable for them. There's no point to blame any one person for taking a car when it makes more sense for them than transit, because it is our transportation infrastructure as a whole that has made it so.

The point is that mindsets need to change at a societal level so that transit can be made a true priority. Then, if it was properly funded, our transit system could become faster and more pleasant than driving. At that point, it would make more sense for more people to voluntarily switch modes of transit. Strong arming and insulting drivers will not get us there; fixing our broken and lame pubic transit infrastructure might.

Our governments have invested billions of dollars every year for nearly a century into building, maintaining, and expanding our road and highway systems. During this same time they have invested a pittance into public transit. Now, many people stand back and state that cars are obviously a better form of transport than public transit. Well... duh. Had our investments been reversed, however, the opposite would be true. But until there is true pressure on our governments from the general public, nothing will change. Today transit users are still viewed by many as poor losers who can't afford cars, and that demographic is not one that our politicians spend a lot of time worrying about pleasing.

To the "cars rule and transit sucks" people, I ask: what is your solution to our worsening gridlock problems? Where do you see us in 10, 20, or 30 years? How many hours a day would you sit in a traffic jam before you finally said "enough"? These are not insults, they're honest questions.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

But until there is true pressure on our governments from the general public, nothing will change. Today transit users are still viewed by many as poor losers who can't afford cars, and that demographic is not one that our politicians spend a lot of time worrying about pleasing.

Unfortunately, Puke, I think it's not even as simple as that. The car lobby remains one of the most powerful in our society. While its most obvious voices (eg. the CAA, oil companies, automakers, auto industry unions) are transparent enough to be somewhat discounted by rational individuals, there are many other powerful forces whose pro-car/anti-transit advocacy is more subversive, such as the railway companies who tell us that railway tracks shouldn't be used for passenger rail servicea and residential building trade associations who tell us that everyone wants to live on 1/2 acre suburban lots.

While not a "conspiracy" in the active, detailed sense, the confluence of these forces has been enough to perpetuate the highways-over-transit theme even as gridlock increases, the environment decays and the rose-coloured glasses of car lovers have become encrusted with sulphur dioxode particulate matter. Overwhelming public sentiment in favour of transit will not be sufficient to radically change public policy because the car lobby has dedicated personnel and money to fighting a battle that the rest of us can only fight on nights and weekends when we're not too exhausted.

Am I overly pessimistic? Time will tell. I will, of course, continue to seek change. Perhaps the imposition of congestion charges and widespread road tolls will catalyze public opinion and create a pro-transit feedback loop. But IMO it is more likely that more significant pro-transit policies will be met with even more significant anti-transit conspiring.

 

[yin_yang]

Unfortunately, Puke, I think it's not even as simple as that. The car lobby remains one of the most powerful in our society. While its most obvious voices (eg. the CAA, oil companies, automakers, auto industry unions) are transparent enough to be somewhat discounted by rational individuals, there are many other powerful forces whose pro-car/anti-transit advocacy is more subversive, such as the railway companies who tell us that railway tracks shouldn't be used for passenger rail servicea and residential building trade associations who tell us that everyone wants to live on 1/2 acre suburban lots.

While not a "conspiracy" in the active, detailed sense, the confluence of these forces has been enough to perpetuate the highways-over-transit theme even as gridlock increases, the environment decays and the rose-coloured glasses of car lovers have become encrusted with sulphur dioxode particulate matter. Overwhelming public sentiment in favour of transit will not be sufficient to radically change public policy because the car lobby has dedicated personnel and money to fighting a battle that the rest of us can only fight on nights and weekends when we're not too exhausted.

Am I overly pessimistic? Time will tell. I will, of course, continue to seek change. Perhaps the imposition of congestion charges and widespread road tolls will catalyze public opinion and create a pro-transit feedback loop. But IMO it is more likely that more significant pro-transit policies will be met with even more significant anti-transit conspiring.

what? i think everyone can make their own decisions, no? what you're theorizing is kind of ridiculous...I choose to live downtown and not drive for errands. Although PT is sometimes a bitch, I use it pretty often. Yep, sure there is a lobby, but there is no conspiracy where people are being forced to use cars.

 

[PukeGreen]

Unfortunately, Puke, I think it's not even as simple as that.

Whoa, I never said it would be simple. I believe the opposite, and I'm not by any means certain that we'll ever change unless there is something extremely unfortunate like an oil shortage or economic collapse that literally makes it impossible for most people to drive.

By changing of "mindset" I am referring to all those same things you mention: the fantasy of the automobile is the biggest one, and it's reinforced in hundreds of ways: the car as a symbol of freedom, as a symbol of adulthood, as a symbol of rebellion (complete with speeding drivers in car commercials with 3pt font disclaimers beneath them), as a symbol of wealth and status. And so on. The auto industry clearly reinforces this, but many people are more than happy to climb on that bandwagon themselves: heck, my two year old nephew has never been on a bus or subway but he owns and loves two dozen toy cars.

I wouldn't call the fetishization of cars a "conspiracy": it's just a bad habit our culture has fallen into, a mass delusion that causes rampant car use to seem like the norm, when in fact is is a radically recent development accessible to only a tiny fraction of the world's population. Humans have thrived without cars before, some are thriving without them today, and we can survive without them in the future.

It comes down to the choice of what's good for the individual versus what's good for society. The changes we need to make (from the top down, starting with the government and funding of transit) are all about trying to bring these two currently opposing interests in line. Until it is in the best interest of the individual to take transit, the car will always win. That's my argument on why we need to start first and foremost by fixing and improving transit. Only then we can move on to things such as discouraging driving with things like tolls, fees, taxes, and better zoning laws (though I say we start the last one immediately).

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Whoa, I never said it would be simple.

I agree with your post, but I never said that you said it would be "simple". I disagreed with your assertion that "until there is true pressure on our governments from the general public, nothing will change". I said that the power of the car lobby means that increased pressure from the general public will be insufficient.