Magnets in Roadbeds; Not Rails in Roadbeds
Car Owners Aren't Sheep
- Pretty cool panel discussion held by Cato and taped by C-span today. Nice diversity of views over a book by Randal O’Toole called “Gridlock.” Haven’t read it yet, but looking forward to it, because it’s an important topic easily overlooked. We’re basically talking about the freedom to choose where you live and whether to drive vs. an urban-planning scheme wherein you are clustered together in high-density areas and forced to either walk, cycle or take public transport. Your choice, for now.
Americans in an assertive mood say “We’re a pack, not a herd.” A little crude, maybe, but it expresses the legitimate emotion that we are an independent people not given to being pushed around. Why then do lefties always seem to treat others as a herd (“masses” and “proles”). Though often talking human dignity and a deep concern for the disappearance of “community” (sound familiar?), they utterly disregard the innate dignity of personal choice in all of their social-engineering schemes.
They say people need what they vaguely term “livability,” with an emphasis on small living space (no land), walking and biking, and big “howdy’s!” to your passing neighbors from your cozy high-rise front porch (I know – they get their nineteenth century nostalgia a little confused with modern urban living conditions). All of this for your own good, of course.
Sounds like reasonable concerns…that most folks would reject anyway – simply because the car gives them choice and flexibility (freedom/liberty), and living away from the city gives them more land and a larger house for the money. How bad is that? Plenty, according to our would-be herders.
So, Comrade, if you can’t convince these people to give up their perfectly rational choices, maybe – just maybe – you can persuade the media and some legislators. That won’t work too well either (they own houses and cars, too), this attack on their fellow citizens’ ability to choose how to live, so some reason for urgency – some call to a higher good – needs to be created. What to do?
Sometimes, even the most devoted busybody nannystater has to stretch to come up with a plausible cover for an idealistic but unpalatable agenda. IOW, what can we tell the rubes? Oh…wait! How about scarcity. Yeah, that’s the ticket. If, let’s say, land is ‘scarce’ (we’ll call it “urban sprawl”) and its use causes pollution and alienation, don’t these people need saving?
We probably wouldn’t need this grand leftist rescue mission to save us from ourselves were it not for the doughy, conformist, middle-class burghers’ need for cars. Cars that are a nightmare on so many levels it should be no problem convincing the well-intended that there is a reasonable solution. Gather everyone in high-density communities where they can walk or bike-ride, interact in a personal way, and take public transport or car-sharing to anyplace outside the community. Buses, trains…even bullet trains! Problem solved. Who could resist?
Lefties of various stripes have had this dream for decades, but ‘progress’ has been slow, funding scarce, and resistance high. Now with the advent of the complete Democrat control of the U.S. government and – let’s not forget, leftist control of the party -it’s looking more possible to realize the dream. For everyone’s good. Of course.
O’Toole, God bless ‘em, disagrees. Our interstate (1956) highway system, whether intended or not, has superceded the passenger train system. Now, because technology has moved on, he says it is only a matter of political will to establish a 21st century transport system, instead of trying to perfect one invented in the 19th. He’s consulted with Detroit engineers and is convinced that strategic placement of magnets in the roadbeds will allow our already computerized cars to operate at 60mph without drivers.
The idea is to group cars closer together and increase road capacity 4x its present level. Using “Adaptive Cruise Control” (sees front and rear) and “Lane-Keep Assist,”(automates steering) cars could travel much closer together without additional risk. Both VW and GM think this is do-able and recent live (DARPA) tests with a limited number of cars have been successful. O’Toole also asserts that the congestion relief obtainable from this system would lower green-house gases by 30%.
First up at bat to respond on the Cato Institute panel was Michael Replogle of the Institute for Transport and Development Policy. His remarks reflected the leftist points mentioned above and a desire to defeat the “car and oil-dominated corporate agenda.” (WTF??) He wants the U.S. to emulate Singapore, Malaysia and (presumably) London, who each have mileage-based user and congestion charges to limit traffic, especially in the city centers.
Next up on the panel was Anthony Downes of the Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank. He mostly agreed with O’Toole, but said he would use his limited time to share his views on points of disagreement with both men.
His problem was the practicability of actually executing such a massive program, and the potential road hazards of driverless cars at high speed. He noted we had a total of 242 million cars on America’s roads in 2006, with an average fleet turnover of 18 years. How, he asked, do you make such a drastic change to that number of cars? Further, at the 2000 Census, only 4% of Americans used public transit, while 92% have access to an auto.
He seemed to think that congestion was off-point for the other panelists. He explained that congestion is a sign of success for the economy, a symptom of prosperity, and a legitimate trade-off. (It mostly results from everyone needing to be at work at about the same time.) He noted that in bad times congestion decreases on its own. (Do progressives wish to encourage bad times in order to realize their dream of car-less collective clusters? Do you remember back when they decried “little houses, all made of ticky-tacky?” It seems that now that’s the goal.)
Q& A produced a little clarification. A system requiring total reliance on car computers could work. The problem of accidents and of dangerous merges could be worked out. A blend of computer and driver might also work, but the most important obstacle to success, according to O’Toole – who had the last word – was government cooperation. He felt they had no inherent stake in change.
Which brings us to:
FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS
- Is Urban Planning, as Friedrich Hayek contended, a Socialist enterprise?
- How dangerous to the Republic are small groups with focused agendas who use the democratic ballot to achieve their ends?
- How scarce is land for development in the United States?
- If the cost of public transport is 3x that of private, as the author contends, what remains of our motive for change?
- Why can’t people – as the late, great Jimmy Durante asked – leave other people the hell alone?
- If it can be proven that the U.S. can be energy-independent without a ‘green revolution,’ would we do it?
