Reducing the Car

Reducing The Car…

Traffic congestion is a growing problem in more and more cities. Government spokespeople are starting to realise it’s a problem (finally) and are only just beginning to actually try and do something about it. Now, apart from the fact that any government with a bit of wisdom and foresight would never have let it become a problem in the first place, the ideas being proposed to try and alleviate the problem tend towards three methods.

1. Building more roads. This has been shown repeatedly to only exacerbate the problem. People who claim that this is only the case because not enough roads are being built are deluding themselves. There will never be enough roads to satisfy the insatiable desire to drive. More land taken up by roads means things have to be built bigger and further apart, requiring even more road space. Either that or the destruction of existing infrastructure, and the fragmentation of neighbourhoods.

2. Increase public transport spending. This on the surface seems like a good idea, but it ignores the underlying problem. It is at best a band-aid solution. The real problem is the amount of moving around people think they need to do. Public transport is merely another method of pandering to this desire.

3. Asking people politely to drive less – or ‘Public Awareness Campaigns’ as they are laughingly called. An ad-hoc method at best, and spitting into the wind at worst, especially considering the amount of money needed to mount any kind of TV campaign these days – which seems to be the only acceptable method of doing these things.

If anyone were really interested in reducing the amount of car use, they would target the problem directly by making car use less desirable. Realistically though, deliberate attempts to limit car use would not be much of a vote winner, so I guess we’ll see continued a continued unfettered increase in the number of cars, more roads, and increasingly useless cities.

However, if those responsible for such matters are really serious about reducing the number of cars, there are a few methods that will have most likely have a discernible effect. Some are old, some are new. Some are borrowed, some are… er… hopelessly idealistic?

First, let's consider a couple of ‘simple’ policy decisions that would have an immediate effect.

- Place a quota on the number of car registrations permitted each year within a given geographical area. The current road building schedule is vainly attempting to keep up with projected numbers of cars. These projected numbers are guesses at best, and regularly way underestimate the actual figures once the road is in use. With control over exactly how many cars are permitted, the pace of construction could be slowed down to something more affordable and sensible.

- To borrow from the logic of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws, increase the driving age to 25. It has been shown repeatedly that 18-25 year olds are the demographic group represented highest in the road fatality figures. It would be for their own safety.

Cities and large towns have the particular problem of the number of commuters driving between the suburbs and the city. Reducing commuting traffic would have a significant impact on car use.

- Remove all on street parking in the c.b.d. Treble the price of the remainder. Put the money into improving the streets for people, and reducing fares on public transport.

- Apply transit lane restrictions on a higher proportion of roads and lanes, restricting single occupant car’s access to the c.b.d. Penalise single occupant vehicles with doubled parking fees.

- Introduce parking permits, with qualification based on something more morally substantial than ‘ability to pay’.

- Encourage companies to open small offices in suburban centres with suitable tax incentives. Employees could be offered the opportunity to work a bit closer to, or even at home. This will decrease the reliance on the c.b.d. Modern communication technology has rendered corporeal presence virtually unnecessary in many professions anyway.

The government and other financial institutions have the opportunity to intercede directly.

- Cease providing tax breaks for the use of ‘company’ cars. With a clever accountant you can get a company car virtually for free (for ‘free’ read ‘at the taxpayers expense’) This is hardly discouraging their use.

- Introduce company rail/bus passes for those who have access to reasonable routes.

- Increase petrol taxes. This not only prices certain people out of the market, but raises revenue. Once car use reduces significantly, this revenue will decrease and hopefully vanish, but with the savings made from a healthier society that revenue will be unnecessary.

- Make banks accountable for the kinds of people they approve car loans to. The only criterion that is currently required is that ol’ ‘ability to repay’. Make a more stringent test to ascertain whether the applicant actually needs the car or whether they have access to reasonable alternatives. Increase the difficulty of getting a loan approved with every extra car per household.

- On a similar note, make financing for buying bicycles far more accessible. Good quality bikes can be as expensive as a second hand car, yet it hasn’t occurred to anyone to provide similar ease of financing to buy one. Few companies do it, but with those that do, the terms are far from reasonable. [aside – and bike salesmen could take a leaf or two out of car salesmen’s book. Who has ever bought a bike because a smoothly persuasive salesman sucked them in to it?]

- Give discounts on insurance for reducing car use. In fact some companies already do this. Eg. The car insurance on my car is cheaper because I don’t use it to drive to work. Increase the premium exponentially for additional cars per household. Provide decent insurance for bicycles.

- Make the cost of registering a car more accurately reflect the burden they place on society. You can be sure it would be significantly higher than it is now.

Using the car for daily chores is terribly wasteful, but with the way it is in most Australian cities, it is apparently necessary. This will require more effort and time to change, but it can be done.

- Compress the suburbs. Rezone areas to permit shops and other vendors of daily requirements within walking distance of every member of the population. Make them smaller. Stop building these massive malls, with the massive carparks alongside, and the massive roads to get to them.

- Real estate agents frequently use the term ‘close to shops and transport’ as a major selling point. If it’s so good to be ‘close to shops and transport’ why are there so few dwellings that actually are? And since these houses are so desirable and so rare, they tend to be expensive, meaning that those people that need to be close to transport and shops, ie. Those Without Car, can’t afford them.

- Build footpaths and pedestrian road crossings. This is especially a problem here in Brisbane. Even if you wanted to walk anywhere, or had anywhere to go that was within walking distance, the lack of footpaths on both sides of the street can be a significant disincentive, especially for those with prams or wheelchairs.

- Reduce speed limits to 30km/h in residential areas. Cycling will be a more reasonable choice if driving a car is intolerably slow. Slower cars are also safer cars, and not just safer for the occupants.

The physical nature of the car itself is a problem. Why does it have to be so damn big and powerful?

- Rethink our perception of what a car should be. Why is it that particular size and shape? Why can’t it be smaller and lighter, with a smaller, less powerful (and less polluting) engine?

- Significant numbers of cars have a single occupant most of the time. Manufacturers seem to be rather slow to catch on to what could be a fairly lucrative niche in the market. Where are the single seater cars?

- Any cyclist knows that you don’t have to spin your legs constantly to continue rolling. Why is it necessary for a car's engine to run even when it is unnecessary, not to mention when it is actually hindering the progress of the vehicle? Surely it’s not that difficult to design a car that only engages the engine when it is necessary, and coast, or even shuts down the engine for the rest of the time. Electric motors would be especially suited to this approach.

- Removing everything extraneous (including so-called safety devices such as airbags), and reducing the rest in size to the very minimum will actually make the roads safer. You’re more likely to survive a collision with a 200kg vehicle travelling at 30km/h than a 1 tonne vehicle travelling at 60. Not to mention the fact that drivers will inherently be more cautious in such a fragile vehicle.

Heavy vehicles are another demographic responsible for a high proportion of road deaths.

- First of all why does so much interstate transport of goods have to be done on the road? Surely the existing rail system can take a much higher capacity at much less cost, let alone an expanded one. Get the heavy goods away from the people, or someone’s going to get hurt. I’m not sure how trucks managed to become so prevalent, but considering the goals of the transport department (eg. the introduction of b-doubles to more and more roads) this is unlikely to change in the near future. Rail transport has to become a more regularly chosen option.

- Keep the confounded things away from regular traffic. Keep them well away from the CBD, and restricted to roads on which their presence is appropriate. There is a constant push to separate cars from bikes; is it so unreasonable to separate trucks?

Finally, there needs to be a whole paradigm shift. When cars started becoming more and more popular in the 50’s they were seen as an object of desire, the ultimate symbol of freedom ra ra ra. This attitude still lingers, even though there is more and more evidence that it is a sham. The car prevails on our consciousness from every direction, but every image is payed for by the motor industry - can it be trusted to portray the car realistically? Newspapers have whole sections devoted to them. TV shows are made that talk about nothing else. People will sit and watch races in their entirety between them that last for eight hours. To speak against the car is to speak blasphemy. But those who stand to personally gain from high reliance on cars have created this whole view to suit their own goals. We are suckers to believe them.

Cycle lobby groups are too ready to placate car user groups so as not to upset them. I’m not entirely sure why. It’s not like the car people should feel threatened considering how powerful they are compared to cycle groups. Besides, what exactly is so bad about being a car-hater? If more people were ashamed of driving a car, fewer people would do it.

I admit that I am a confirmed car-hater, at least in their current bloated form. I see no justification for their prevalence, nor am I persuaded by the advertising rhetoric. The way the transport autocracy says that they want to reduce car use and yet continue building roads that allow for increased use at a frantic pace, and otherwise renege on their own statements is abhorrent. The way suburbs are permitted to propagate in a form that requires car ownership is ridiculously shortsighted. The way cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention motorists, are slaughtered with relative impunity is a crime against humanity. They produce copious amount of stinking, poisonous gasses and take up far to much space. They are hideously expensive to buy, and even then are never fully paid for, and quickly lose their ‘value’. They emit noise at violent levels. They have created the need for the car park – the ugliest form of architecture known to Man, and you still can’t find a spot to park. When it comes to cars, what is there to like?

The above suggests a dramatic approach. Anyone that advocates such an approach would be demonstrating considerable political courage. In an age of government by opinion poll they are unlikely to be considered as a viable option. However, time is rapidly running out, if it hasn’t already, before irreparable damage is done. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The time for pandering to public wishes is gone. If ‘the public’ knew what was good for them McDonalds would have gone out of business years ago. If smoking can become socially unacceptable, which it is rapidly becoming, why can’t car use? Cars certainly cause far more social ills than cigarette smoke ever did, let’s get serious about limiting them; they’ve had it too damn good for too damn long

The irony is, I actually have a car at home, but at least I still ride my bike more than I drive. Which basically means that I am paying almost the same extraordinary amount as everyone for something that is of little use to me. Which could mean that it must be pretty car oriented around the parts where I live to the point where even I won’t chose to ride all the time. Which nevertheless means that I am still part of the problem that I am railing against. I know that I am a hypocrite every time I turn the key.

And yet I am subject to the culture, and the culture demands that I drive. Who am I to rail against a thing that I have little or no influence over? The current of convention carries me along no matter how hard I kick about. Maybe just riding is enough, but going with the flow, not kicking against it. Is it really important whether others choose to take it up or not? You can’t make anyone do anything they don’t want to do, right? Why try?

So I try to just ride. The traffic is there. So what? Sometimes it isn’t. The ride just happens, and then it stops. This is not a statement qualified by notions of good or bad. It cannot be made better or worse by mere events. It just is. And in that knowledge the ride is revealed in all its beauty. And in that knowledge the desire to change anything passes.