Can We Kick the Car Habit?
When I was a kid, almost every adult around me smoked cigarettes and I can't recall anywhere that placed restrictions on smoking. Today, I am hard pressed to think of half a dozen people I know who smoke and smoking is prohibited in almost all public places.
A scene from Mad Men Season 1. Image via AMC.
This shift was anything but sudden—it happened slowly over a generation as people began to acknowledge that smoking was harmful. I remember when planes and restaurants had "no smoking" sections and I remember how strange the first "smoke free" bar I ever walked into seemed. Younger people who didn't live through this evolution are skeptical We assure them that the smoking in Mad Men is not a great exaggeration or just a Manhattan thing and that those instances of "historical smoking" we are warned of before the movies start are accurate reflections of a particular time.
I am beginning to believe that the gradual societal changes that occurred with smoking could happen with driving, especially driving in cities. People who kicked smoking gave up a habit that might have temporarily calmed them, but they gained better overall health, saved money and smelt better. Driving has been made very convenient and, for many people today, it is as much the default as lighting up once was. Just as the evidence that smoking was detrimental eventually became impossible to dismiss, we are approaching the point now where the negative effects of auto-centric lifestyles are becoming harder to ignore.
Certainly at the height of smoking an outright prohibition on smoking would have met resistance and any democratically elected officials who proposed it would likely soon find themselves out of power. That's probably still true. However, while there was opposition to high cigarette taxes and to limits of where smoking was allowed, people did not revolt. In many cases, the taxes collected were dedicated to educating youth about the dangers of smoking and to offset the collective costs of diminished public health due to smoking.
Similarly, it would be outlandish to ban private vehicles, but some governments are making moves to put more of the real costs of driving—of building and maintaining road systems and parking—onto the drivers themselves. Proposals include congestion pricing, parking fees, more toll roads, increases to gas taxes and licensing fees. It's going to take some real work to make these fee structures and taxing schemes truly fair, including reevaluating the zoning policies that make housing closer to jobs and services out of reach for people with lower incomes and transportation policies that make walking, biking and transit less viable options. But, just as the money from cigarette sales was meant to discourage widespread smoking in the next generation, money collected from drivers can be used to build communities that are more accessible to people who choose to drive less or not at all.
When I speak of all that can be gained by having a more walkable and bikeable small city, people around me are quick to say, "That can never happen here. Everybody drives". They give specific examples. They love where they live and they love where they work. They have no plans to change either of those things, and the only way to get from where they live to where they work is to drive.
Downtown Chicago. Image via Unsplash.
I think it would be terrible—and terribly unpopular—policy, to force people to give up their choices, but it would be good policy to design our downtowns, even small downtowns where people are driving in from more rural areas, for people rather than for cars. This would mean that when we have an opportunity to redesign streets or even parts of streets, we should use traffic calming devices that make driving over 20 miles per hour feel unsafe and uncomfortable. We should also redesign intersections with the goal of increased safety for all users, rather than to speed more vehicles through. In a small downtown, this would not add significant time to trips made in cars, but it would significantly improve conditions for people on bikes or on foot. We also should recognize the value of land in cities and stop mandating that businesses and home builders provide free off-street parking. People who want to park in downtown should be aware of and shoulder the costs and we should develop good options for people to park on the periphery and get to their destinations in the center of the city without their cars.
These small incremental adjustments would allow us to reap the benefits of walkable cities. These benefits include: more opportunities to incorporate exercise into our daily lives, chances to interact with our neighbors, the ability to allow more people to live and open or grow businesses in our town without having to make room for more cars, less noise and pollution, a thriving local economy and money to spend on things we value more than cars and pavement for cars.
The reasons to cling to the status quo are so easily countered by all we have to gain. There as as many good reasons to reduce car use as there were to quit smoking.
So, despite all the misguided and wasteful regulations I see around me that continue to encourage car dependence, I am cautiously optimistic about our future. Everybody drives....? Well, everyone used to smoke. Maybe in my lifetime, we will see this change for the better too.
Top image via Unsplash.
About the Author
Marlene Druker is all grown up and practices architecture, and rides bikes, in and around Gig Harbor, Washington. This is how she looked when her mother used to send her to the corner store to buy a pack of Rothman's Special (the red, not the blue). Believe it or not young friends, it used to be common for kids to buy cigarettes for their parents—it was a different time. Note that Marlene's mother quit smoking decades ago and now becomes enraged when anyone smokes anywhere near her.
You can connect with Marlene at :
For the first time, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted tests on 14 widely available versions of self-driving technology. Here’s what they found.