Good policy mislabeled as "War on Cars"

I suspect most readers have seen this already, but NPR had a story last week about how "an urban design philosophy that favors foot traffic" and tries "to reduce the number of cars on the road" is being called by some a War on Cars. 

The War on Cars is defined as policies that "spend more transportation dollars on transit; add streetcars, bus and bike lanes; raise parking rates; install "traffic calming" measures; and increase traffic enforcement with cameras." Chuck Thies thinks it's a war because it's a conflict over resources and territory 

"Transportation dollars are few and far between," he explains. "If you're a bicyclist, perhaps you want it for a bike lane or more bike racks. If you're a motorist, perhaps you want it for more highways or the roads to be improved."

The problem with this way of thinking is that it isn't cars vs. bikes or cars vs. transit. Investing in transit, biking and walking helps drivers. It frees up parking. It reduces congestion. It reduces gasoline use (which should keep prices lower). It helps keep pollution in check, and if LA is any indication, that prevents regulations on cars and drivers. It's not the zero-sum game that Thies makes it out to be. 

Lon Anderson at least calls it a war on drivers. But to him, enforcing the law is "war."

He says he sees it in the more than 1.6 million parking tickets issued annually in the city, not to mention increasing automated enforcement, red light cameras and speed cameras.

"Welcome to Washington, D.C. Please just open your wallets and be charitable. And if you don't, we'll still get you," he says in jest as he spots a speed camera behind a sign welcoming visitors to the nation's capital.

Anderson contends that these cameras are installed for reasons other than safety. He accuses the city government of balancing its budget "on the backs of motorists."

I don't particularly support using traffic enforcement to balance budgets, and I think the $125 fines are probably too much (it's also regressive), but it's not like you can't avoid paying the fines. Just slow down. There's nothing war-like about that. It's like calling the lottery a "War on dreamers."

So it's not a war in any sense. But if the sides are cars vs. people then, as a fan of the Terminator movies, I choose people. We do need to do less to accomodate cars and more to accomodate people, but if you see that as "war" you should probably talk to someone who's actually been to war.

The article has several references to DC, including the oft-ignored downtown bus-bike lanes

In Washington, D.C., where 9th Street NW meets I Street NW it's a one-way street with three lanes of traffic. The right lane is labeled with giant letters on the pavement: BUS ONLY. The bus lane is among changes in recent years in Washington and other places that are making room for other forms of transportation, not just cars. It's a source of tension with some drivers, especially cab drivers, who are often stuck in congested street lanes with empty bus lanes right alongside them.

Thies goes from falsely portraying it as a zero-sum game to setting up a straw man

Thies, a cyclist who for years didn't own a car, says critics need to face the reality: We can't get rid of cars. They're essential to the economy, he says.

"[Cars are] the predominant form of transportation in America. In fact, it's something that we can't live without," Thies says. "When you get a refrigerator delivered ... they don't bring it on a bicycle. ... They bring it in an automobile. It's easy to vilify the automobile, but it's not productive."

Well, he really showed that imaginary person who was saying we should ban cars.  Watch next week when Thies takes on people who think Stalin was a humanitarian. 

DC officials meanwhile, make no indications that they are going to try to make people live without cars.

Back in Washington, D.C., Harriet Tregoning, the director of the city's Office of Planning, says the nation's capital is shifting away from decades of car-focused transportation planning.

"We've begun more than a decade-long effort to rebalance our transportation system, in part because we just don't have the capacity in the city to accommodate everyone who wants to be here to work or to live if everyone was always in an automobile for every trip," Tregoning says.

According to Sam Zimbabwe, associate director for policy, planning and sustainability at the city's Department of Transportation, automated tickets are about safety. He says the city raised raising parking meter rates to encourage more turnover in street parking spaces.

Overall, city officials say, they're trying things out — experimenting, innovating. Washington's bus lanes are supposed to create space on the street to move lots of people. But they don't work perfectly, Zimbabwe says, and they may be removed. Bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue were restriped three times before the city settled on the current plan.

Those bike lanes, and an anticipated new streetcar line, give people more choices. And choices, Tregoning says, enhance the vitality of street life for city residents, not just suburban commuters. As for a war on cars, she says she knows of no such war.

"People are using these other transportation modes, and it's making it possible for restaurants and other businesses to open in all kinds of neighborhoods throughout the city," Tregoning says. While she loves cars and owns one herself, she adds, "It's also great to get out of them every once in a while."

It's difficult to measure whether commuters are actually getting out of their cars in the Washington region, one of the most congested areas in America. But Tregoning points out the city's population has grown by tens of thousands in the past several years. At the same time, there are 3,000 fewer registered vehicles, and the number of cyclists in the city is up. Capital Bikeshare, a bike rental program that began two years ago, just celebrated its 2 millionth ride.

Right now, the city estimates half of the trips made in the nation's capital are made without a car. The mayor's sustainability goal is for 75 percent of trips to be made without one by the year 2030.

And as for drivers as the victims in a war: 

"If you ride your bike around the city enough, you certainly feel like they're at war with you as opposed to you being at war with them," says Washington cyclist Martin Vieiro. And if there is a war, some people argue, cyclists and pedestrians are the ones who suffer casualties.

Comments

[Brendan]

Thiess's refrigerator came in a car? Mine came in a commercial delivery truck. I suspect there's a logical death blow somewhere in my snark, but the fugue is strong this morning.

Or a revealed bias? "My car can do everything. It takes me to work, it delivers appliances, it hauls 60 tons of quarried stone, it flies, it's my refuge from my screaming family." No it can't do everything. It's actually a cozy box of some utility that rolls where the ground has been paved smooth enough. Often times, it's not the right tool for the job.

[charlie]

Unfortunately this is a lot like gun control.

There are a lot of gun control advocates who really don't want gun control -- they want gun abolition.

Similarly, there are far too many cyclists who hate fat suburban drivers and want to outlaw them. Ms. Trengong is a good example.

City officials would love to live without cars. That way they can authorize 4-5 story wood frame buildings without garage parking.*

*Now that I'm back in the RE market, I realize how important bike parking is, and how many parking problems could be solved if we opened up the private garage market more.

[freewheel]

washcycle writes: "Investing in transit, biking and walking helps drivers."

Why don't "drivers' rights" advocates like Lon Anderson understand that? Doesn't he ever look at all the DC area traffic congestion and wish that more people had taken metro or biked to work?

[Greenbelt]

War on cars; War on Christmas; War on the Easter bunny; War on Wall Street bankers; yeah whatever. So many victims of persecution, it just makes you want to cry for the sadness of it all.

[GMB]

Charlie: I won't speak for the "far too many", but I'll speak for myself - an avid cyclist.

I don't hate suburban drivers. Honestly, I don't care much about them, except in how they effect me. They effect me in two ways: 1) I enjoy riding my bike. I do so while pregnant and with my toddler. I want to be extra-super-safe. I find that more frustrated cars = less safe(because they drive more aggressively). So I care that drivers (fat suburban or otherwise) obey the rules of the road, and are happy enough to be patient enough to obey the rules even when it delays them a minute or two.

2) I get lots of stuff delivered (yay internet, boo shopping) and I drive sometimes too. When the stuff I want is on the road, I want it to arrive quickly and safely. When I am on the road, I want to get where I'm going quickly and safely. Again, this means I would like other drivers to be safe. It also means that I would like generally fewer other drivers around, and I would like the drivers that are around to follow the law.

So my interests are aligned with drivers in the sense that fewer drivers per mile of road generally means that those that do drive get there faster. I strongly believe that the best way to achieve fewer drivers per mile of road is to encourage people to get around without a car when it makes sense (e.g. short errands and repetitive trips, like commutes).

[MM]

Yes, we want a war...destroy all the evil cars!! Just please don't touch the green Mazda3 on 11th SE. That car is "one of the good guys."

[CyclingFool]

From the Alexandria BPAC list:

"Around 7:45 a female cyclist was hit crossing the GW parkway just south of Memorial Bridge. She appeared to be in critical condition. This continues to be a dangerous crossing."

How many victims will it take before they do more than paint a couple rumble strips?

[SJE]

SJE: the war on drivers is a war on (1) illegal and dangerous behavior (speeding cameras only catch you if you are doing more than 10mph above the limit
(2) the most heavily subsidized forms of transportation, in a time of less money.

If you were on welfare and breaking the law, there wouldn't be much sympathy.

[charlie]

"I strongly believe that the best way to achieve fewer drivers per mile of road is to encourage people to get around without a car when it makes sense (e.g. short errands and repetitive trips, like commutes)."

There are two concepts there:

1. Short trips are better done by bike -- true in the city, not always possible elsewhere.

2. Congestion -- using your car at the same time as everyone else causes some issues.

In fact, if you ask car drivers, they usually (and correctly) feel that the majority of the road transporation dollars being spent are really about moving goods around, not moving people around.

There are times when moving people around means using your legs --or your bike. That's true in a few cities and urban places. But conversely, for 85% of Americans, a car is more efficient as a people mover.

The biggest problem we have in cities is mostly congestion, rather than the short trips (which are even more efficient on foot rather than bike).

[Kathy]

If you focus on non-car forms of transport, including walking in particular, you find that neighborhoods transform themselves to accomodate the needs of local residents. People will demand and patronize businesses most close to them. When I lived overseas, I did not drive or own a car for 3+ years and yet almost every service I required for daily life was a 10 minute walk away from home. There is no reason why we can't do the same in DC.

[Kathy]

P.S. Major deliveries, like refrigerators, beds, etc. were all delivered by vans. IKEA even had a fleet of vans outside their stores so people without cars could get their purchases home easily. In my case, I would take the tube to the store and a van home.

[oboe]

Unfortunately this is a lot like gun control.

Especially the agonizingly stupid, "If you don't let private cars dominate the urban streetscape, how will your produce and furniture be delivered?" trope.

If we don't let private citizens own thermonuclear weapons, how will we pose a deterrent to the Ruskies?

[oboe]

Unfortunately this is a lot like gun control.

There are a lot of gun control advocates who really don't want gun control -- they want gun abolition.

Similarly, there are far too many cyclists who hate fat suburban drivers and want to outlaw them. Ms. Trengong is a good example.

One other way this is like the gun control debate: there are adults on one side, and on the other, a bunch of overgrown children with a massive victim complex and exactly zero evidence for their claims that "[Obama|Tregoning] is going to take my toys away!!"

[oboe]

How many victims will it take before they do more than paint a couple rumble strips?

You're under the mistaken impression that they give a crap about non-auto injuries/deaths.

The only consideration is whether a lawsuit is possible. That's why you see those ridiculous signs on the Mt Vernon Trail near the airport that tell cyclists to dismount at the crosswalk.

They don't expect anyone to actually comply, but they want to shift ROW from the cyclist to the driver, and if someone is killed or injured, the first thing they'll ask is "Did they dismount?"

[T]

@Oboe, good point on MVT signage. I'm less worried there about the cars since I can see them coming than I am about the idiots making insane passes. Either way, NPS shows their true colors. The worst part of the MVT part is how often those cars must stop anyway before merging onto the GWP! A few of them get it and stop. Most don't.

[SJE]

On busy roads where I have ROW, I will dismount and push my bike out in front of me. It gives me time and space to move back, and ensures that a car that doesnt stop will hit the bike and get dinged.

[Richard Layman]

freewheel - in the UK, the director of the Institute for Advanced Motorists is very pro bicycle, for the kinds of reasons you recount.

http://www.iam.org.uk/cyclist

Kathy -- for years I have promoted urban retail delivery schemes, including even with the proposed entry of Walmart, but the city isn't very interested in pushing forward best practice in that regard. Walmart is testing delivery in San Jose, Home Depot does delivery in Manhattan.

Ikea Denmark will lend bicycles with trailers for people to take stuff home.

We just need some companies willing to pilot similar practices.

It's not part of the "Long Beach Bicycle Friendly Business District" protocol but should be.

[charlie]

@Oboe; How exactly are you going to sue the NPS for deficient road design?

[Will]

I like to think of bike/ped and car infrastructure in terms of marginal cost and marginal benefit. First, ask yourself the question, is there anywhere you can't reach by car? Since the only places not reachable by car are generally wilderness areas, we can infer that we've more or less maxed-out the accessibility for cars. Now, the second part of it is capacity, there are more places you can't easily get by car because too many other cars are going there and taking up all the space, it's not just urban places, but campgrounds, state parks (like my attempt at reaching Sandy Point on July 4th last year), etc. So the question is, would adding capacity allow more people to reach these places by car? Sometimes you can add more capacity, but at great cost, and often at the cost of destroying/diminishing the very thing that people want to go see, whether it's a park, walkable urban place, or quaint vacation town.

Now, go ask these same questions about bike/ped infrastructure. There are a lot of places that you can't reach by biking or walking, even more if you say "safely reach". So adding infrastructure provides a real connectivity benefit. Contrary to car infrastructure, you can potentially move a huge quantity of people with a 12 foot MUT, and if we can deliver more people to destinations this way, we get a lot of benefit at very little cost.

Further, since many places are already greatly diminished by the quantity of cars, when you substitute some of the visitors mode of travel from car to bike, you enhance those locations (best examples, parks, vacation towns, walkable urban places).

In short, a rational policymaker will take these facts into account, and realizing that much is to be gained from bike/ped infrastructure, while very little is to be gained, and much is to be lost from car infrastructure, they make decisions promoting bike/ped.

See, its all very rational.

[Michael H.]

The word "war" implies violence and use of force. Well, let's look at where the transportation deaths are coming from. As of 2009, almost 35,000 people were killed by cars in the U.S. That works out to about 94 people a day, every single day of the year.

If you just go by the death and injury statistics, you have to wonder who has declared war on whom?

P.S. No, I do not want to ban cars. I want the roads to be safer for ALL users, and I want people to have a choice in transportation options. Some people talk about freedom a lot, but somehow freedom of choice doesn't matter when it comes to transportation. People in some areas around the country are almost forced to drive everywhere, even for very short trips, because of the lack of bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Addressing that previous bias is not a "war on cars" or on car drivers.

[Michael H.]

And since all modes of transportation are heavily subsidized from general tax revenue funds, the skewed design and funding for automobile infrastructure in the past was not just the result of people preferring to drive everywhere for all trips, long or short.

[SJE]

Michael H: re subsidies. Yes, and realigning the subsidies is seen as a "war" because drivers assume that the level of subsidies is their right. Funny how the rest of the world manages to survive with gasoline at more than twice the price.

I recall when the Red Line was shut after the horrible accident a few years ago. The traffic from Silver Spring to downtown was terrible for weeks. Imagine if there was no Metro.