Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 21, 2009
Transportation You'll Have to Pry the Steering Wheel Out of George Will's Cold, Dead Hands
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM
George Will argues in his column that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's plan to make it easier for people to get around without cars is nuts, because everyone driving everywhere is the way God intended things to be:
LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a “transformational” administration: “I think we can change people’s behavior.” Government “promoted driving” by building the Interstate Highway System—”you talk about changing behavior.” He says, “People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work.” High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is “the wave of the future.” And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore. [...]Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program “promoted” driving? ...
As Matthew Yglesias notes\, "LaHood didn’t say that Americans didn’t drive before we built the interstate system. He said that building the interstate system promoted driving. I don’t see how you could possibly deny this. Had we spent less money on highway construction and more on mass transit or intercity rail, then there would be less driving." But conservatives like Will are only aware of the hand of government when it promotes changes they find abhorrent, like building bike lanes and high-speed rail. When it abets their own lifestyles—by spending billions on highways, subsidizing the auto industry, and promoting suburban sprawl—well, that's just the natural order of things.
He also raises a rousing defense of long commutes and suburban sprawl:
Today's far-seeing and fastidious government, not content with designing the cars Americans drive to their homes and the lightbulbs they use in their homes (do you know that, come 2014, the incandescent lightbulb will be illegal?), wants to say where their homes can be. And to think that Republican Ray LaHood, Secretary of Behavior Modification, is an enthusiast for this, well, cozy relationship between Washington and Peoria, and everywhere else, too.
Conservatives, of course, actually adore "behavior modification" and social engineering—as long as it benefits the powerful and harms the weak, including that silly "environment" liberals want so badly to protect. (Will, it should be noted, does not believe in climate change, which, elsewhere in his column, he calls "another excuse for disparaging America's 'automobile culture.'") Yes, incandescent bulbs may one day go the way of lead paint, child labor, and smoking on airplanes. Does Will consider those "behavior modifications" to be violations of his basic freedoms as well?
Finally, a side note. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, nearly nine in ten Americans still consider their cars "indispensable." That's the bad news. The good news? In spite of this, we're driving those cars less and less.
4
Well, I consider my car to be pretty indispensable in certain cases, but I almost never drive it.
If I didn't have a car, it would be very difficult, in some cases prohibitively difficult, to see a lot of my family, and some of my closest friends. But I don't drive to work, or to run errands or anything like that (typically, I drive once a week or less) For me, car ownership is just a consequence of having roots here in Washington. For a transplant like you, Erica, who has no friends/family/interests outside the urban core, eschewing car ownership makes perfect sense.
If I didn't have a car, it would be very difficult, in some cases prohibitively difficult, to see a lot of my family, and some of my closest friends. But I don't drive to work, or to run errands or anything like that (typically, I drive once a week or less) For me, car ownership is just a consequence of having roots here in Washington. For a transplant like you, Erica, who has no friends/family/interests outside the urban core, eschewing car ownership makes perfect sense.
5
If I saw George Will walking somewhere I would be tempted to run him over with my car. I think he would like that.
6
Well of course people consider their cars indispensible. Most Americans do not live by any form of reliable transportation that has the flexibility of a car.
Why do you whine about such an obvious phenomenon?
Is your water too wet too?
Why do you whine about such an obvious phenomenon?
Is your water too wet too?
7
I've come to the conclusion that anyone who uses terms like "social engineering" to dismiss particular government efforts is either an idiot or is taking everyone else for idiots. And boy, if I had a dollar for every time George Will or Joel Connelly used that phrase.*
Everything the government does is social engineering. Social Security is social engineering because we've decided that, if having destitute old people is part of the natural state of things, then we can do without that part of nature. The tax deduction on mortgage interest is social engineering (and I would say misguided social engineering) because it was put in place specifically to give an incentive for people to take on mortgages. And for chrissakes, if the interstate highway system wasn't one of the most massive experiments in social engineering in human history, then let's not call anything "social engineering."
* I just haven't mustered the will to read Will's latest screed for fear of getting even more upset than I am just reading ECB's post--even though I came across it on newsweek.com yesterday. So my bad if Will went a whole column without using his favorite nonsense phrase.
Everything the government does is social engineering. Social Security is social engineering because we've decided that, if having destitute old people is part of the natural state of things, then we can do without that part of nature. The tax deduction on mortgage interest is social engineering (and I would say misguided social engineering) because it was put in place specifically to give an incentive for people to take on mortgages. And for chrissakes, if the interstate highway system wasn't one of the most massive experiments in social engineering in human history, then let's not call anything "social engineering."
* I just haven't mustered the will to read Will's latest screed for fear of getting even more upset than I am just reading ECB's post--even though I came across it on newsweek.com yesterday. So my bad if Will went a whole column without using his favorite nonsense phrase.
8
It should be a slight indicator/wake up call of your disconnect from mainstream American population that you are startled to discover that at least 90% of your fellow citizens agree with Will about cars.
On a related note, giving up on even bothering to try to convince people that you have ideas for a better way and just hoping to force radical change on everyone only encourages a gigantic near-future backlash.
On a related note, giving up on even bothering to try to convince people that you have ideas for a better way and just hoping to force radical change on everyone only encourages a gigantic near-future backlash.
9
Here's what's so insidious about this ongoing charge of social engineering/behavior modification. There's this implication that it is somehow anti-democracy, un-American. But you know what, Barack Obama was out there for months on end campaigning for light rail and high-speed rail and pedestrian-friendly development. And what happened? Barack Obama got elected president.
When they voted for Barack Obama, the American people asked to have their behavior modified--or to have less destructive incentives be put in place for how our society functions. Well, we got what we democratically asked for, and now Obama and LaHood are (all too gingerly IMHO) implementing the will of the people.
When they voted for Barack Obama, the American people asked to have their behavior modified--or to have less destructive incentives be put in place for how our society functions. Well, we got what we democratically asked for, and now Obama and LaHood are (all too gingerly IMHO) implementing the will of the people.
10
Cars are by far the #1 cause of death for people under 45.
Shouldn't solving the leading killer of young people be the first priority for any government?
George Will and other pro-car extremists are anti-life and anti-choice when it comes to actual human beings.
Shouldn't solving the leading killer of young people be the first priority for any government?
George Will and other pro-car extremists are anti-life and anti-choice when it comes to actual human beings.
11
@6 FTW
ECB you really need to give it up. Your continuous attempts at bashing the automobile have long ago become dry and boring....
Moving on...
ECB you really need to give it up. Your continuous attempts at bashing the automobile have long ago become dry and boring....
Moving on...
12
Just Pointin' Out @8:
Well, that must explain John McCain's landslide victory in November. This Obama presidency thing must be happening in some alternate universe.
During the Pennsylvania primary, my mother attended an Obama rally in Reading, PA. Reading is not exactly the most progressive place in America. And yet, there Obama was talking about light rail and high-speed rail and density.
And it's not like this theme disappeared during the general election either, although I would be the first to say that Obama has not challenged the American people enough on issues like energy and transportation.
It should be a slight indicator/wake up call of your disconnect from mainstream American population that you are startled to discover that at least 90% of your fellow citizens agree with Will about cars.
Well, that must explain John McCain's landslide victory in November. This Obama presidency thing must be happening in some alternate universe.
During the Pennsylvania primary, my mother attended an Obama rally in Reading, PA. Reading is not exactly the most progressive place in America. And yet, there Obama was talking about light rail and high-speed rail and density.
And it's not like this theme disappeared during the general election either, although I would be the first to say that Obama has not challenged the American people enough on issues like energy and transportation.
13
Reality Check @11:
Reality Check, I realize this may be a little much for your black-and-white, binary brain to process. Who's bashing automobiles? What we pro-transit people are bashing is a built environment where we're completely dependent on our automobiles.
I'm one of those 90% of Americans who consider their automobile indispensable. I'd like to live in a place where my automobile is a little less indispensable. But even in an ideal situation where I take transit or walk 90% of the time, I'd still like to have a car for that other 10%.
Really, this distinction shouldn't be so hard to process.
ECB you really need to give it up. Your continuous attempts at bashing the automobile have long ago become dry and boring....
Reality Check, I realize this may be a little much for your black-and-white, binary brain to process. Who's bashing automobiles? What we pro-transit people are bashing is a built environment where we're completely dependent on our automobiles.
I'm one of those 90% of Americans who consider their automobile indispensable. I'd like to live in a place where my automobile is a little less indispensable. But even in an ideal situation where I take transit or walk 90% of the time, I'd still like to have a car for that other 10%.
Really, this distinction shouldn't be so hard to process.
14
Maryland has one of the worst public transportation systems. Life would be very difficult without a car. Like Hernandez, most of my family lives outside the city, and it would be nearly impossible to see them. Living there would be bad for me, as not only is there is no gay life, it would be down right dangerous for a gay man. We are talking about an area where the KKK feels free to stand on the street corners with big signs. I like the freedom that a car gives me. I can, at the spur of the moment, go to the beach, the mountains, and/or camping, etc. Plus, rehabbing my 19th century house requires me being able to transport building supplies as I need them.
15
Rob in Baltimore @14, so you're saying that the primary reason we should not invest in transit is that we have not invested in transit?
Also, let me get this straight, you actually think it's sane and normal to be living in a place where you're afraid to walk on the sidewalk? Do you like living in a place where you apparently feel a vehicle is a necessary appendage for human safety? And do you feel this is a model for the rest of America?
Also, let me get this straight, you actually think it's sane and normal to be living in a place where you're afraid to walk on the sidewalk? Do you like living in a place where you apparently feel a vehicle is a necessary appendage for human safety? And do you feel this is a model for the rest of America?
16
Cars are good and so is public transport.
Americans love freedom and choice! Cars are indispensable because of the significantly increased freedom for Americans. Cars allowed people the freedom to relocate, to work in a larger geographical area, to travel, to transport mass quantitities of goods, etc..).
Americans also love choices. Public transit is an additional option and thus more freedom! Luckily we can have the freedom of driving our car and the choice to use public transport!
Commuting to work is a good example. It is regular and routine, so public transport usually works great. But it doesn't work great for emergencies, non-routine trips, or trips of long distances. That's what the car is for. We can have our cake and eat it too! Isn't America beautiful!
Americans love freedom and choice! Cars are indispensable because of the significantly increased freedom for Americans. Cars allowed people the freedom to relocate, to work in a larger geographical area, to travel, to transport mass quantitities of goods, etc..).
Americans also love choices. Public transit is an additional option and thus more freedom! Luckily we can have the freedom of driving our car and the choice to use public transport!
Commuting to work is a good example. It is regular and routine, so public transport usually works great. But it doesn't work great for emergencies, non-routine trips, or trips of long distances. That's what the car is for. We can have our cake and eat it too! Isn't America beautiful!
18
This is a transformational Administration and time. We know it's long over due as a people. What disturbs me is an insipid undercurrent of resistance that will be pushed and funded covertly by big oil and it's co-conspirators. Remember how big Tabacco managed to buy a large bloc of government and undermine efforts, with propoganda and cash, to control the use of their product?
19
Cressona,
68% of Seattleites drive to work, and a similar number consider themselves to be good Democrats.
Just who is engaging in simplistic binary thinking here?
68% of Seattleites drive to work, and a similar number consider themselves to be good Democrats.
Just who is engaging in simplistic binary thinking here?
20
The site you link to, infrastructuralist.com, posits the bad weather in the PNW last December and the ongoing economic slump as the reasons for the drop in driving miles. I think that's a pretty good guess. In the Northeast, where the winter was unusually mild (unlike here), driving was up, not down.
Suggesting there is some sort of sea change of people's attitudes towards cars is not supported by anything. Globally, of course, driving cars is just beginning a growth spurt that will make the last 50 years in the US look pokey in comparison; more cars will be added to the roads in the next decade than in all the years that preceded it.
But Cressona is, as always, right: it's not a black-and-white world. It makes sense to invest in transit to improve our quality of life, regardless of what's happening in Tianjin or Hyderabad or Garza Garcia.
But don't fool yourself; transit alone will not reduce car usage. It might even increase it; for every person who gets off the road and onto a bus or train, there's two others waiting to take the spot; latent demand never goes away. The city with the best transit in the country by far, New York, is completely choked with cars. What transit gives you is options.
As for "walkable neighborhoods", that's a matter of having the stuff you want to go to being close to where you live. There's ZERO evidence that planners know how to do this, or even have the remotest clue what stuff people want for the most part. Generally speaking, it's not mom'n'pop shops and cute little street cafes; it's Wal-Mart and Target and Whole Foods and Starbucks and Olive Garden. How to put a Target within a five-minute walk of everybody in the country is a problem beyond human imagination.
Here's a conundrum for you, though: we could drive the exact same number of miles we do now, and go to all the same places we go to now, while completely eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, just by replacing every vehicle that currently gets less than 20 MPG with one that gets 25-30 MPG. Replace them with 50 MPG cars and the reduction would be incredible.
More...
Suggesting there is some sort of sea change of people's attitudes towards cars is not supported by anything. Globally, of course, driving cars is just beginning a growth spurt that will make the last 50 years in the US look pokey in comparison; more cars will be added to the roads in the next decade than in all the years that preceded it.
But Cressona is, as always, right: it's not a black-and-white world. It makes sense to invest in transit to improve our quality of life, regardless of what's happening in Tianjin or Hyderabad or Garza Garcia.
But don't fool yourself; transit alone will not reduce car usage. It might even increase it; for every person who gets off the road and onto a bus or train, there's two others waiting to take the spot; latent demand never goes away. The city with the best transit in the country by far, New York, is completely choked with cars. What transit gives you is options.
As for "walkable neighborhoods", that's a matter of having the stuff you want to go to being close to where you live. There's ZERO evidence that planners know how to do this, or even have the remotest clue what stuff people want for the most part. Generally speaking, it's not mom'n'pop shops and cute little street cafes; it's Wal-Mart and Target and Whole Foods and Starbucks and Olive Garden. How to put a Target within a five-minute walk of everybody in the country is a problem beyond human imagination.
Here's a conundrum for you, though: we could drive the exact same number of miles we do now, and go to all the same places we go to now, while completely eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, just by replacing every vehicle that currently gets less than 20 MPG with one that gets 25-30 MPG. Replace them with 50 MPG cars and the reduction would be incredible.
21
@5 for the win.
Vroom. Vroom.
Papa got a new tank of gas for the month and I'm hopin' George Will decides to get in my viewscreen.
Vroom. Vroom.
Papa got a new tank of gas for the month and I'm hopin' George Will decides to get in my viewscreen.
22
Mr. X @19:
Mr. X, I realize it's par for the course for you to have so little confidence in your own positions that you feel compelled to misrepresent the positions of folks like me. But what I don't quite understand, Mr. X, is why you would want to come to the defense of someone trying to turn this into an exercise in "automobiles are evil vs. transit is social engineering."
At various times in my time in Seattle, I've been one of those 68% of Seattleites who drove to work. The commutes were too hard by bus for the places where I worked. Believe it or not, at those periods I didn't consider myself evil incarnate. And during those periods, I was aspiring to have a work situation where I could be one of the other 32%.
And--to try again to bring this back to a question of degree--I'd be happy to see that 68% get down to 50% or even 40%. But Mr. X, please feel free to accuse me of desiring to get that down to 0%.
Cressona,
68% of Seattleites drive to work, and a similar number consider themselves to be good Democrats.
Just who is engaging in simplistic binary thinking here?
Mr. X, I realize it's par for the course for you to have so little confidence in your own positions that you feel compelled to misrepresent the positions of folks like me. But what I don't quite understand, Mr. X, is why you would want to come to the defense of someone trying to turn this into an exercise in "automobiles are evil vs. transit is social engineering."
At various times in my time in Seattle, I've been one of those 68% of Seattleites who drove to work. The commutes were too hard by bus for the places where I worked. Believe it or not, at those periods I didn't consider myself evil incarnate. And during those periods, I was aspiring to have a work situation where I could be one of the other 32%.
And--to try again to bring this back to a question of degree--I'd be happy to see that 68% get down to 50% or even 40%. But Mr. X, please feel free to accuse me of desiring to get that down to 0%.
23
i will be sad in 2014. incandescent light is beautiful, far more so than flourescent. stock up now.
http://www.bulbman.com/
http://www.bulbman.com/
26
@22,
I think encouraging mass transit is a fine thing - but when you start insulting people like the poster @13 who quite accurately pointed out that ECB bashes automobiles (and, to put a finer point on it, those of us who rely on them) for its own sake on a nearly daily basis, you might expect a little push back at your condescending tone.
Go back and re-read your own posts on this very thread, and then tell me with a straight face that you weren't implying (hell, out and out asserting) that anyone who acknowledges the reality and utility of auto use is some sort of closet Republican.
I think encouraging mass transit is a fine thing - but when you start insulting people like the poster @13 who quite accurately pointed out that ECB bashes automobiles (and, to put a finer point on it, those of us who rely on them) for its own sake on a nearly daily basis, you might expect a little push back at your condescending tone.
Go back and re-read your own posts on this very thread, and then tell me with a straight face that you weren't implying (hell, out and out asserting) that anyone who acknowledges the reality and utility of auto use is some sort of closet Republican.
27
@19 Mr.X - 68% of Seattleites do not drive to work. Bullshit. you are adding the SOV and carpool numbers from the 2000 census, but even that does not measure a secondary mode of transportation. Never mind that a fair amount has changed in the past 9 years!
28
Impact of 200,000 Seattle citizens driving 1-2 miles to work < Impact of 20,000 Suburban whiners driving 10-20 miles to work.
Why?
Because our homes are much more efficient than yours.
Why?
Because our homes are much more efficient than yours.
29
Mr. X @26:
Mr. X, one of the points I have been making throughout this thread is to acknowledge the utility of auto use--based on my own experience. Here's the post of mine you were apparently responding to:
Dude, quit piling up more misrepresentations to cover your previous misrepresentations. Also, quit trying to cast everything as Democrat vs. Republican. It's a bit of a non sequitur in this discussion. In fact, I'm starting to believe your misinterpretations are not even deliberately dishonest; they just come naturally.
Go back and re-read your own posts on this very thread, and then tell me with a straight face that you weren't implying (hell, out and out asserting) that anyone who acknowledges the reality and utility of auto use is some sort of closet Republican.
Mr. X, one of the points I have been making throughout this thread is to acknowledge the utility of auto use--based on my own experience. Here's the post of mine you were apparently responding to:
Who's bashing automobiles? What we pro-transit people are bashing is a built environment where we're completely dependent on our automobiles.
Dude, quit piling up more misrepresentations to cover your previous misrepresentations. Also, quit trying to cast everything as Democrat vs. Republican. It's a bit of a non sequitur in this discussion. In fact, I'm starting to believe your misinterpretations are not even deliberately dishonest; they just come naturally.
30
@27, you're right -- it's probably not 68%. It's probably higher. People tend to claim higher rates of virtuous behavior when polled. Someone who rode their bike to work once, or rode the bus a few times two years ago, puts himself down under the "nope, no car, not me" category when asked.
31
@29
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote
"Well, that must explain John McCain's landslide victory in November. This Obama presidency thing must be happening in some alternate universe." You are the one who initially tried to paint this as a partisan issue, so exactly how is my comment responding to that implication a non sequitur, again?
@27,
From the 5/14 Seattle Times
"But, even in a proudly green city like Seattle, only 2.3 percent of adult workers commute to work on a bicycle. Compare that with the 65 percent who still commuted by car, truck or van; and the 18 percent who used the bus in 2006 U.S. Census figures."
The 68% figure was based on the 2004 census but I did misremember it a bit - it was 67% in 2004 - so my bad.
That 67% included carpooling, but in case you didn't notice, the first word in carpool is in fact car (in 2004, 56% drove to work alone).
The decline in auto use between 1994 (when SOV's were at 59% of work trips) and 2004, by the way, came largely from people working at home. The percentage of those bicycling to work has remained essentially flat since the Seattle Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994, transit use rose from 17% in 1994 to 18% in 2004, and car/vanpooling actually fell from 12% in 1994 to 11% in 2004.
I was actually surprised to see that the mode split for transit remained flat between 2004 and 2006, but I imagine it did go up some when gas was at $4 a gallon.
I hate to break it to you, but not all that much has changed in 9 years.
So what exactly did you mean when you wrote
"Well, that must explain John McCain's landslide victory in November. This Obama presidency thing must be happening in some alternate universe." You are the one who initially tried to paint this as a partisan issue, so exactly how is my comment responding to that implication a non sequitur, again?
@27,
From the 5/14 Seattle Times
"But, even in a proudly green city like Seattle, only 2.3 percent of adult workers commute to work on a bicycle. Compare that with the 65 percent who still commuted by car, truck or van; and the 18 percent who used the bus in 2006 U.S. Census figures."
The 68% figure was based on the 2004 census but I did misremember it a bit - it was 67% in 2004 - so my bad.
That 67% included carpooling, but in case you didn't notice, the first word in carpool is in fact car (in 2004, 56% drove to work alone).
The decline in auto use between 1994 (when SOV's were at 59% of work trips) and 2004, by the way, came largely from people working at home. The percentage of those bicycling to work has remained essentially flat since the Seattle Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994, transit use rose from 17% in 1994 to 18% in 2004, and car/vanpooling actually fell from 12% in 1994 to 11% in 2004.
I was actually surprised to see that the mode split for transit remained flat between 2004 and 2006, but I imagine it did go up some when gas was at $4 a gallon.
I hate to break it to you, but not all that much has changed in 9 years.
32
...oh, and Cressona, I do give you props for fessing up to your own auto use - around these parts that's about the same as admitting you're a child molester.
33
...and as a lifelong Democrat, I too will use the phrase "social engineering" over and over as long as SDOT proposes ludicrous schemes to limit capacity on critical arterial streets such as NE 50th, Fauntleroy Way, and Nickerson St. in order to benefit the 2.5% of the population who ride bikes (in the hopes of bringing that up to perhaps 5% at best) while creating significant inconvenience and travel delays for the rest of us.
Wanna help everyone - including bikes? Repave some of our many cratered streets with the money being squandered on "road diets."
Wanna help everyone - including bikes? Repave some of our many cratered streets with the money being squandered on "road diets."
34
@31,
OK - another error on my part, the 2004 figures are from the 10-year update of the Seattle Comp Plan, and were based on the 2000 census. There's not much change between 2000 and 2006 census data, though (and since bicycling and transit remained constant, I'm guessing that the reduction from of SOV/HOV share from 67% to 65% probably was mostly due to increases in the number of people who worked at home).
OK - another error on my part, the 2004 figures are from the 10-year update of the Seattle Comp Plan, and were based on the 2000 census. There's not much change between 2000 and 2006 census data, though (and since bicycling and transit remained constant, I'm guessing that the reduction from of SOV/HOV share from 67% to 65% probably was mostly due to increases in the number of people who worked at home).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS