I
wanted to get this post out in time for Independence Day, as it
concerns one of the most important yet, on this day, overlooked forms of
independence---that is, transportation. Today people celebrate their
"freedom," whatever that means. Ask a flag waver to describe his or her
freedom to you, what makes it uniquely American and worth celebrating on
this national holiday, and you will probably get some general 5th-grade
social studies answer about how we're fortunate (already a
confused attitude towards what is otherwise a god-given right) to live
in a democracy with freedom of speech and religion and so forth,
ignoring entirely that most Western countries, including Canada and
France, have these freedoms in equal measure.
You might
hear, too, about how our forefathers threw off the yoke of British
tyranny. In our ongoing effort to convince ourselves that our freedom
only exists in these United States, we continue to locate "tyranny" in
other countries that, conveniently, Tea-Partiers and other flag-waving
rubes have never been to: whether it's the Soviet-style national
healthcare of Canada, the Maoist and anti-American secularism
of France, the (symbolic) monarchy of the UK, the Nazi-ist fever-dream
of the Euro Zone. It's a madlibs that media personalities model for the
viewers at home: select a social program, select a tyrannical regime
from the 20th century, then compare them in public.
It's
too bad that on this day we're not more preoccupied with throwing off
the tyrannies that persist in our own country, the ones that emerge
subtly and without fanfare in the midst of our very "freedom." "Free"
markets have led to a publicly-subsidized corporate oligarchy that would
terminate your job if it meant a slight increase in profits; "freedom"
of religion has led to a "christian" state that is more hung up on
decreeing who can love who than it is interested in the actual christian
mission of helping the less fortunate.
But
I want to focus here on a different tyranny, very much of a piece with
the above tyrannies, insofar as it is a function of our perverted idea
of freedom: that is, the tyranny of the automobile. (I
also wish to make a correction to the previous post: by now, readers, I
hope it is clear that this blog will feature polemics and puff on
fiction and music and modern life).
|
Life would be so much easier if cars were just people, flawed like you or I. |
The
tyranny of the automobile affects the most basic of our freedoms, the
freedom to move, to be in one place or another, as we see fit. You can
come face to face with this tyranny very easily. Say you are walking
down the sidewalk and see a friend across the street. If you were to
change your course and simply walk over to greet that friend, you could
be killed. You have to look both ways and make sure that modern metallic
death isn't barreling down at you (and even then you could be ticketed
for jaywalking); or you have to go to the nearest crosswalk, which in
some suburban areas are few and far between and allow pedestrian crossings for only fifteen seconds out of every five minutes.
Or
try biking around a city for a month without being harassed by an
indignant motorist ignorant to the fact that, were there to be an
accident, it is you who would likely die; or without experiencing the
precariousness of riding down the aisle formed by a moving vehicle and a
parked one.
Or
simply be a motorist and go experience that most absurd of modern
phenomena which claims entire days in the lives of millions of
Americans: congestion on the expressway.
|
The Cars are not to blame. |
Now some of you might say that cars accomplish a great many things and that the street is designed for
transportation and hence for cars, and that the division between
sidewalk and street exists to protect pedestrians and motorists alike.
But my question is, why must the vast majority of streets belong to
cars? With so many streets, why are there not more streets dedicated to
just bikes, or just pedestrians, or just trolleys, or just strollers, or
just wheelchairs? After all, we have parkways and freeways and highways
and expressways and tunnels and bridges (where all traffic other than
automobile traffic is prohibited, mind you) that bisect our cities and
bring noise and car wrecks within feet of our homes and places of work.
And yet where are the bikeways or the walkways or the tramways? How come
none of these share the priority of the highway? How come none of these
loom so large in our urban landscapes, or in our psyches?
In
Philadelphia, where I live, I can think of only two streets that are
closed to automobile traffic: Locust and Liacouras Walks, on the
campuses of Penn and Temple Universities, respectively. Philly is truly a
victim of the car culture, and as a result we cannot get our act
together on the mass transit front, as this recent article
in the Philadelphia Citypaper reminds us (for those of
you who are not from the Delaware Valley, SEPTA is the South Eastern
Pennsylvania Transit Authority, and is always broke). That SEPTA is
strapped for cash is not news. But this article points to a troubling
trend: even though ridership is up, funding is down. Indeed, even as
more people are moving back into the city and riding buses and trains,
SEPTA cannot perform basic maintenance. So of course, expansion is out
of the question. But it's expansion that would bring public transit to
more people, reducing dependence on cars, thus reducing traffic and
carbon emissions, and opening up streets for alternate uses, further
reducing our dependence on cars, and so on. I would hope that the
benefits of this are apparent to you, readers. But in case they are not,
here goes: reducing dependence on automobiles gives you a place to ride
your bike or stroll, lessens the chance that you or someone you love
will die in a vehicular fatality (statistically, trains crash
exponentially less than cars), and might help us as a species to avert
apocalyptic climate change.
The
article goes into the sordid history of SEPTA's funding, of its
disproportionate commitment to the suburb-benefiting railroad division,
of its inability to levy public money effectively. But what I am most
concerned with is the conversation happening on the national scale
(today is, after all, the national day), which is perhaps the greatest
detriment to transit authorities across the country.
|
The Tea Party is about as batshit as this one. |
Proponents
of the recent conservative backlash, the people who wave their flags
most forcefully today and who offer only tautologies about their
so-called "freedom," are attacking transit initiatives on the national
scale because they see them as un-American, as ostensibly infringing on
their right not to pay for things that don't directly benefit them, on
their right to not give a shit about anyone but themselves, this
wonderful thing they call "freedom." As Daniel Denvir notes in the
Citypaper article: "Conservatives
have long derided mass transit — like
welfare, perceived to be the domain of poor urban black people — as a
'socialistic program' imported from Europe." But this xenophobia is
not limited to highspeed rail or lightrail projects (which are indeed
successful European initiatives of the last 30 years), but extends to
basically any form of transportation that happens outside of an
automobile. Tea
Party
bumpkins have gone so far as to protest bicycle lanes, which, in
Philadelphia at least, is the most visible progress on the
transportation front.
I
wonder: how can one look at this and think
it is anything other than politicians in the pockets of the automobile
industry, and their gullible constituents imposing their received mode
of
"American" individualism on their countrymen? What does a bicycle lane
do to offend a Tea Partier? Most of these people live in exurbia and the
sticks anyway, and will probably never see a bicycle lane in their
lives. A bicycle lane gets installed for a pittance compared to the
obscene amount of money poured into the highway system each year. And it
goes one step toward protecting me and all other cyclists. And all that
it asks is that motorists proceed with a modicum of caution and
humility.
|
Jane Jacobs sticking it to cars.
|
But
that, of course, is too much to ask, and this, readers, is the tyranny
of the automobile. The automobile is the greatest fiction of American
individualism, fueling our erroneous beliefs that we have the freedom to
go where we want, when we want, because we're not tied to a socialist,
European, faggy, elitist train schedule. And as always, the cost of this
"automobility" is never brought up. Meaning, the billions of federal
and state dollars spent maintaining public roadways (hmmm, sounds like a
social program to me); as well as the human cost in the form of
pedestrian and vehicular deaths; and the psychological-emotional cost of
displacing people in the 60s and 70s so urban planners could drive
interstates right through their neighborhoods (more info on that here). The latter has been a great wound in the American city, from which it has yet to heal. Jane Jacobs and others tried to tell us about it, but not enough people listened....
|
People hanging out in the middle of Market St, Philadelphia, a century ago.
|
All the rhetoric of freedom and liberty and
American-ness that surrounds cars is the backbone of the ideology that
allows them to retain their dominance in our culture. But that ideology
is fabricated by people in the automotive industry who stand to make a
buck, a lot of bucks, if the car is the only acceptable mode of
transportation in this country (they've clearly already convinced the
Tea Party). The supremacy of the car has been attained with money and
lawsuits from the get go, as this insightful piece from the brilliant Atlantic Cities shows. There was a definitive moment when jaywalking
was invented, Sarah Goodyear argues, also known as the moment when cars
started to rule the streets, and the ideology machine began to turn,
and the pedestrians who were slain by automobiles were no longer thought
of as victims of an as-yet-to-be-regulated aspect of modernity, but as
perpetrators of a crime against the glory of that very modernity. Get
out of the way, or you might just get killed by a ton of American
freedom, and it will be your own fault. It is this ideology, the fact
that we take the automobile's supremacy for granted, that we ignore at
what cost it comes, that makes this supremacy into a tyranny.
So
this Independence Day, I want to celebrate the inroads that we've made
into the overthrow of the tyranny of the automobile. I'm proud to live
in a city that recognizes the need for bicycle lanes and that ensures my
natural right to move about my space freely. And I remain hopeful that
one day Philadelphia might look that way that Louis Kahn had envisioned
it when he drew up his traffic flow plan for Center City, that there
will be roads dedicated to all forms of transportation, and that even
when we find ourselves barred from a certain roadway because our vehicle
of choice is prohibited, we will see this not as an affront to our
"freedom," not as an affront to the United States, but as a just and
fair measure meant to ensure the well being of all.
|
Louis Kahn's gorgeous traffic flow plan for Center City Philadelphia.
|