Comments on: Why Won’t the Feds Encourage People to Go Car-Free?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:20:09 +0000

Very well posted. The answer is that bicycles and mass-transit are both political suicide (except in rare instances like New York City). Congressman Earl Blumenhauer attempted to get a federal tax break for bicycle commuters and was nearly laughed out of the room.
There are dozens of lobbying groups the largest of course being the oil industry which in addition to fighting legislation favoring public transit also pushed hard to confuse the climate change issue. With a former president and vice-president who were both receiving vast revenue from the oil industry, progress was impossible.
Now with the recession, people are looking for ways to save money, but unfortunately the infrastructure is already built, so there’s little capital for transit or traffic calming. The bicycle, however, can easy function on existing streets.

By: fpteditors

fpteditors — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:42:20 +0000

We try to list the auto-sprawl externalities here: AutoSprawl Externalities

By: da

da — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:35:39 +0000

How about a $4500 tax credit for people with no vehicle registrations.

By: Nathan H.

Nathan H. — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:42:15 +0000

“fantasy involving single cars ‘flying’ down roads ‘uncluttered’ with other cars, red lights, or pedestrians”

Snapshot from inside the fantasy factory: http://twitpic.com/4hbvf

By: Tim K

Tim K — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:25:34 +0000

Thanks for featuring my post.

I realize the answer to _why_ the feds don’t want get people out cars is both very easy and very complex. But I still had to ask.

It gets a bit tiresome when people fuss about how subsidized mass transit is, and then get all excited about this new “upgrade benefit.” I heard one person say something along the lines of “it levels the subsidy playing field.”

Uh, right… and who’s subsidizing the roads trashed by their Yukon, covering the cost of their on-street parking, AND paying the health and social costs of their destructive four-wheel lifestyle?

Oh, that’s right… it’s me. and you.

And I love the comment about the parking spot v.cubicle size. In Seattle we have on-street parking _everywhere_. As I cruise along just out of the door zone, I’m struck by how the drivers — either squeezing by me, or backed up behind — feel rage toward me, and not toward the huge cars always parked in non-metered spots to my right. “Free” parking drives me nuts. My office covers monthly parking, but I can’t even get HR to respond to my emails about the new bike commute benefit.

Anyway, thanks for sharing the message. Keep it up Streetsblog and Streetsblog readers!

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:07:12 +0000

Kind of surprising, given the effort the government puts into “suggesting” what to eat, what not to smoke, etc.

But I think Herbert Hoover articulated it the most accurately. We had the space, we had the wealth, we esp. after WWII we were the biggest superpower on earth (the USSR was always largely overestimated). We were hardly the only country to go car crazy–we just took it farther than any other because we could.

By: Riley

Riley — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:43:25 +0000

Why? Start with lobbying and public relations influence.

Per Advertising Age Magazine’s yearly review of ad expenditures, in 2006 the automobile industry spent US$19.8 billions on advertising; that went down to “only” US$18.5 billions in 2007. (2008 figures pending).

Now consider that virtually all of that advertising eschewed the realities of automobile ownership and operation in favor of a fantasy involving single cars “flying” down roads “uncluttered” with other cars, red lights, or pedestrians. In other words, those whose extensive research makes them most familiar with the issues — the automobile industry itself — has led them to conclude that the realities of automobile ownership and operation are, at best, unsaleable.

Stated another way, what might our world look like if the automobile industry and the public transit sector were compelled to switch advertising budgets for, say, five years?

Next, consider the lobbying influence of the automobile industry and its siblings, the road building lobby and the real estate lobby. Want jobs? Well, building cars, and roads, and single-family tract houses all promise jobs; especially after WWII, the longer-term social impacts of the automobile-centric way of life have been to abstract and distant to figure into any calculations.

For better or worse, cars and the way of life they mandate are big business; for better or worse, public transit and happy pedestrians are not.

Given that, how can anyone be surprised that the U.S. government isn’t encouraging people to sell their cars and get on the bus or start riding bicycles?

By: W. K. Lis

W. K. Lis — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:40:49 +0000

Have you noticed that a typical parking space is larger than a typical office cubicle? That leads to the question of who pays for the maintenance costs and property taxes on that parking space? Shouldn’t those costs be recovered? Should the “free” parking space at suburban office complexes be a taxable benefit, so that income taxes be recovered.

By: SUV 718

SUV 718 — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:22:42 +0000

“Why Won’t the Feds Encourage People to Go Car-Free?”

A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage
- Herbert Hoover

By: Deacon

Deacon — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:08:11 +0000

Sarah As I understand the program ‘cash for clunkers’ aims to stimulate vehicle sales in an industry that has fallen flat on its face because of the recession. In Germany this has been a great success. They are essentially trying to emulate those results. It should keep people employed other than if everything was just left to fizzle away. Its a here and now solution essentially, not the best, but one in the right direction. I can certainly see some people going to trade in their car and keep the cash to pay debts or just merely survive. The problem the government faces is a severe lack of public transport systems (bike lanes, bike paths, bus service, tram/street car etc.) that have been neglected for way too long because of backward thinking along with the stigma that has been created around those systems, cars are safer, kids will get abducted if they walk/bike/bus to school (they’ll also be less obese). The people need to see the light. The government can only push in a certain direction then they have to let the people have to take over and run with it. This a dual effort both us and them for once need to go in the same and right direction. I think were getting there… Hang in there its only gonna get better.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:04:38 +0000

It’s SO transparently part of the plan to save union jobs (i.e. Obama voters), that it’s ridiculous. (The other part is throwing billions of dollars directly at the car companies.) I don’t know who they think they’re fooling.

By: john

john — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:03:34 +0000

Too often elected leaders go after the “softer-sympathetic” supporters so that those who refuse to change are spared. In this case, government is rewarding the wrong group and yes it is unfair for those who have already changed are left out. Perhaps negative reinforcement (not just rewards) should be considered for those who don’t want to change voluntarily. It’s hard to believe that we’ve backed ourselves into this corner but auto-centrism is a difficult addiction to kick.