Is there (or should there be) a War on Cars?

The First Casualty of a Non-Existent War: Evaluating Claims of Unjustified Restrictions on Automobile Use, and a Critique of 'Washingtons War On Cars and the Suburbs' (35 page pdf, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Mar. 11, 2011)

Also discussed here: Washington’s War on Cars and the Suburbs: Secretary LaHoods False Claims on Roads and Transit (24 page pdf, Wendell Cox, Heritage Foundation, Jun. 17 2010)

Todd Litman’s latest report is the focus of today’s post. He analyzes the claims by a critic of sustainable transportation, Wendell Cox, point by point, with references to established authoritative sources, concluding that there is no war. Much would be improved through acknowledgement and accommodation of the needs of the motorist with those who choose other transportation options, be it transit, cycling or walking.



Key Quotes:

“"The first casualty when war comes is truth."

“Evidence of a war consists of exaggerated objections to policies such as traffic calming (which increases traffic safety), busways and bike lanes (justified to improve transport options, which helps reduce traffic and parking congestion), and more efficient road and parking pricing (justified to reduce traffic and parking problems, and finance facilities)”

“These are no more anti-car than a healthy diet is anti-food”

Incorrect assertions:

• “Critics are wrong to assume that “coercing people out of their cars” is a threat to motorists. It is simply a blunt description of transportation demand management
• Critics are wrong in assuming that such policies necessarily harm motorist
• Critics underestimate demand for alternative modes
• Critics exaggerate the threat that bike and bus lanes represent to motorists
• Critics are wrong to claim that raising road tolls, parking fees or fuel taxes is unfair
• Critics are wrong to claim that alternative modes receive an excessive share of funding
• Critics apply a double standard when they criticize highway account expenditures on alternative modes
• Critics are wrong to claim that transportation demand management programs are ineffective”

“TOD [Transit-Oriented Development] residents typically own 10- 30% fewer vehicles and drive 20-60% fewer miles than in conventional, automobile-dependent communities”

“My research indicates that residents of urban regions with high quality rail transit drive about 20% fewer annual miles than residents of regions that lack such rail, and residents of transit-oriented neighborhoods typically drive 40-60% less than residents of automobile-dependent areas, resulting in larger energy savings”

“Although few motorists want to stop driving altogether, many would prefer to drive less and rely more on walking, cycling and public transport, provided those alternatives are convenient, comfortable, safe and affordable”

Related articles

• What L.A.'s 30/10 Plan Could Mean for Transit Funding Nationwide (streetsblog.net)
• Motorists back good driving rewards (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
• Motorists becoming more 'green' (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
• Traffic lights baffle motorists (autonetinsurance.co.uk)
• Neil Fox's plea to end the war on motorists (bbc.co.uk)
• Sickening moment a car ploughs through cyclists during Brazil's Critical Mass event to protest against motorists (dailymail.co.uk)
• What do the Rising Gas Prices and Car Dependence mean for the Suburban Poor? (pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
• Can Rail Cause Sprawl? (seattletransitblog.com)
• Council's electric car purchase (bbc.co.uk)
• What was life like at home during World War 2 in America (wiki.answers.com)
• 2011 Sustainable Transport Award: Tehran Boasts Major Achievements (thecityfix.com)
• Decision Making (seattletransitblog.com)