Do Cars Make Us Less Free?
October 23, 2008
In America, automobiles are portrayed as symbols of freedom. Cars are supposed to idolize “freedom of mobility” and “rugged individualism”. Auto supporters tell us that owning a car means going wherever you want, whenever you want, living wherever you want, and without anyone to stop you. It is no surprise that car commercials do everything in their power to reinforce this ideology. Unfortunately, I believe we are no longer at a period in time when a car is the ticket to freedom – quite the opposite, actually. The car represents a host of problems for society – sprawl, pollution, and traffic, among others; but the car now also represents a problem for individuals – loss of freedom and independence.
My analysis begins with the following thought experiment:
When Southwest Airlines took to the skies in the 1970s, they marketed the “freedom to fly”. The new company believed that it should be cheaper and easier to fly to various destinations than to drive, giving people who couldn’t afford the legacy air carriers the “freedom” to travel to new places. Now imagine that at some point during the 1980s, society had invented a personal airplane that could take off and land from just about anywhere, and which could get you from any point to any other point slightly faster than commercial air travel. At first, these private planes would be a luxury to the few who could afford them, and they would be extremely convenient as well. But what would happen as more and more people bought these private planes? You would probably imagine that the sky would get clogged with planes, that there would be a lot of accidents and deaths, that it would be extremely expensive to maintain and operate your plane, and that it would be horribly problematic if the plane broke down when there was someplace you needed to go. As more private planes took to the sky, commercial airlines would feel pinched. They would cutback service and raise fares. Most (if not all) would fail and go out of business. In the end, if there was commercial service at all, it would probably be operated by the government as a social service and at a loss.
The scenario above is easy to imagine because it already happened once in our history. The fictional story above is an interpretation of what happened to mass transit systems in America (think old city streetcar networks) with the rise of the automobile.
My primarily objection to car ownership is that it limits our individual freedom in several distinct ways; among them:
Reliance - because of how the social landscape of the last several decades has played out, cars are now unarguably a necessity of life for a majority of Americans. Politicians rant and rave about the cost of food and gas prices - as if the gasoline in your tank is as critical to life as the food you put in your body. According to a 2006 Pew Research publication, however, fewer Americans enjoy driving despite (or perhaps because of) doing more of it. Our reliance on cars is clearly demonstrated when our vehicles experience inevitable maintenance problems. When a person loses access to his or her car for a few days, or god forbid, a week or more, the person questions how they will live their daily life. How will they get to work? Take the kids to school? Bring groceries home from the store? Rather than becoming more independent, we have become slaves to our cars. The fear we have of not having a car available at all times has led to the number of registered vehicles greatly outnumbering registered drivers in America over the past several decades.
Cost Constraints – according to AAA, the average cost of car ownership is close to $8000 per year; and according to a recent report published by Reconnecting America, Americans in car-oriented cities like Atlanta and Detroit now spend, on average, more per year on vehicles than they do on housing. Stories about Americans losing their homes and living in cars are written to evoke sympathy, but they validate the disturbing point that some would rather call a parking lot home than sell the vehicle for rent money. What we spend on cars is a lot of money to a lot of people; and the amount we spend on our cars is the amount of disposable income we don't have to spend on things we enjoy. The money we spend maintaining and operating our cars is money we can't spend on going to the movies, a sporting event, or concert; giving to charity; or paying off student debt. In essence, it is money we can't spend being ourselves - and that doesn't seem like freedom to me.
Lack of Alternatives - how we move ourselves from one place to another has become one of the most important issues of our time. When it comes to local transportation, the options are auto, bicycling, walking or transit - although in most places across America, bicycling and transit are either not available or not realistic options. According to the American Public Transportation Association, only 54% of households have access to transit. For others, they choose to live too far from the places they need to go to walk or bike; and for some, bicycling and walking aren't realistic due to underdeveloped infrastructure. Excessive car ownership in many American cities and strategic planning centered around car ownership has effectively killed alternatives to driving and the freedom to choose a life that doesn't center around the car.
Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the automobile has been anything but an amazing technological advance or that it isn't responsible for much of the economic progress this century. Nor am I suggesting that car ownership is bad in every instance or that we should eliminate it. There will always be those who love cars, love driving, and would be willing to pay any price to do it. The infrastructure we invested in over the past few decades can continue to hold value into the future - but it is inadequate; and we will begin to face choices about whether to simply throw more money at its expansion or to consider a fundamental change.
What I am suggesting is that we should take a step back and rethink whether a society where vehicles are necessary for everyday life is ideal, or whether we ought to work towards an end that makes alternatives available and increases the choices we have for how to live our lives.
Car ownership is a challenging issue because of the intricate link between driving and its alternatives. Over the summer I blogged about how less driving is killing public transit, underscoring the idea that the two compete with each other and emphasizing that they are actually inextricably linked. The issue is also challenging because it questions what we believe will make us happy. A lot of people will say that life without a car is one they can barely imagine - of course, it is hard to imagine otherwise when life with a car is all they know. I am a skeptic when it comes to asking people about what makes them happy because I truly believe there are too many instances in which we simply aren't in a position to know how alternative realities will make us feel.
Ultimately, we need to address philosophical questions over what American society should look like, psychological questions over what makes us happy and what we thing makes us happy, and practical considerations over how to fund and implement the infrastructures of the future. With the energy debate heating up and with the future of cities at a critical turning point - now is the perfect time to address whether or not society wants the car to be as integral a part of the next 50 years as it has been of the past 50.
My analysis begins with the following thought experiment:
When Southwest Airlines took to the skies in the 1970s, they marketed the “freedom to fly”. The new company believed that it should be cheaper and easier to fly to various destinations than to drive, giving people who couldn’t afford the legacy air carriers the “freedom” to travel to new places. Now imagine that at some point during the 1980s, society had invented a personal airplane that could take off and land from just about anywhere, and which could get you from any point to any other point slightly faster than commercial air travel. At first, these private planes would be a luxury to the few who could afford them, and they would be extremely convenient as well. But what would happen as more and more people bought these private planes? You would probably imagine that the sky would get clogged with planes, that there would be a lot of accidents and deaths, that it would be extremely expensive to maintain and operate your plane, and that it would be horribly problematic if the plane broke down when there was someplace you needed to go. As more private planes took to the sky, commercial airlines would feel pinched. They would cutback service and raise fares. Most (if not all) would fail and go out of business. In the end, if there was commercial service at all, it would probably be operated by the government as a social service and at a loss.
The scenario above is easy to imagine because it already happened once in our history. The fictional story above is an interpretation of what happened to mass transit systems in America (think old city streetcar networks) with the rise of the automobile.
My primarily objection to car ownership is that it limits our individual freedom in several distinct ways; among them:
Reliance - because of how the social landscape of the last several decades has played out, cars are now unarguably a necessity of life for a majority of Americans. Politicians rant and rave about the cost of food and gas prices - as if the gasoline in your tank is as critical to life as the food you put in your body. According to a 2006 Pew Research publication, however, fewer Americans enjoy driving despite (or perhaps because of) doing more of it. Our reliance on cars is clearly demonstrated when our vehicles experience inevitable maintenance problems. When a person loses access to his or her car for a few days, or god forbid, a week or more, the person questions how they will live their daily life. How will they get to work? Take the kids to school? Bring groceries home from the store? Rather than becoming more independent, we have become slaves to our cars. The fear we have of not having a car available at all times has led to the number of registered vehicles greatly outnumbering registered drivers in America over the past several decades.
Cost Constraints – according to AAA, the average cost of car ownership is close to $8000 per year; and according to a recent report published by Reconnecting America, Americans in car-oriented cities like Atlanta and Detroit now spend, on average, more per year on vehicles than they do on housing. Stories about Americans losing their homes and living in cars are written to evoke sympathy, but they validate the disturbing point that some would rather call a parking lot home than sell the vehicle for rent money. What we spend on cars is a lot of money to a lot of people; and the amount we spend on our cars is the amount of disposable income we don't have to spend on things we enjoy. The money we spend maintaining and operating our cars is money we can't spend on going to the movies, a sporting event, or concert; giving to charity; or paying off student debt. In essence, it is money we can't spend being ourselves - and that doesn't seem like freedom to me.
Lack of Alternatives - how we move ourselves from one place to another has become one of the most important issues of our time. When it comes to local transportation, the options are auto, bicycling, walking or transit - although in most places across America, bicycling and transit are either not available or not realistic options. According to the American Public Transportation Association, only 54% of households have access to transit. For others, they choose to live too far from the places they need to go to walk or bike; and for some, bicycling and walking aren't realistic due to underdeveloped infrastructure. Excessive car ownership in many American cities and strategic planning centered around car ownership has effectively killed alternatives to driving and the freedom to choose a life that doesn't center around the car.
Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the automobile has been anything but an amazing technological advance or that it isn't responsible for much of the economic progress this century. Nor am I suggesting that car ownership is bad in every instance or that we should eliminate it. There will always be those who love cars, love driving, and would be willing to pay any price to do it. The infrastructure we invested in over the past few decades can continue to hold value into the future - but it is inadequate; and we will begin to face choices about whether to simply throw more money at its expansion or to consider a fundamental change.
What I am suggesting is that we should take a step back and rethink whether a society where vehicles are necessary for everyday life is ideal, or whether we ought to work towards an end that makes alternatives available and increases the choices we have for how to live our lives.
Car ownership is a challenging issue because of the intricate link between driving and its alternatives. Over the summer I blogged about how less driving is killing public transit, underscoring the idea that the two compete with each other and emphasizing that they are actually inextricably linked. The issue is also challenging because it questions what we believe will make us happy. A lot of people will say that life without a car is one they can barely imagine - of course, it is hard to imagine otherwise when life with a car is all they know. I am a skeptic when it comes to asking people about what makes them happy because I truly believe there are too many instances in which we simply aren't in a position to know how alternative realities will make us feel.
Ultimately, we need to address philosophical questions over what American society should look like, psychological questions over what makes us happy and what we thing makes us happy, and practical considerations over how to fund and implement the infrastructures of the future. With the energy debate heating up and with the future of cities at a critical turning point - now is the perfect time to address whether or not society wants the car to be as integral a part of the next 50 years as it has been of the past 50.
Andrew Sullivan gets by just fine with no car, though I take it his husband drives them to The Cape each Summer. I know that when I'm with my own partner in Asia, NOT driving is great. Of course the bloody fools drive on the wrong side of the road... most disconcerting.
Here comes the deluge of Sullivan readers - including me! Just wanted to say, with 21 year-olds like you out there, I feel a little less worried about the future.
I live car-free in downtown Toronto and spend a lot of time with my sister in MD, and am continually amazed at how much she needs a car just to function.
Another Sullivan reader here. Also a non-driver! I am from Cleveland originally and now live in Columbus. People assume that because I do not drive that something is wrong with me and that I do not lead an independent life- or that I am just not really grown up yet (I am 30!)
But I agree with you 100%. A car-based culture is destroying our neighborhoods and our environment. Yes, I chose to live near public transportation and I rely on others to help me run errands that I can't do on my own. But isn't that OK? What's wrong with making housing decisions based on sustainability and convenience or accepting help from other people? The car is a wonderful machine- but it's just that- a machine. And building our lives and focus around a machine and not our relationships with other people is a little disjointed and misguided.
Rob,
Last year I was living in Darwin, a small provincial city (pop 100,000) in northern Australia, with an impoverished transport infrastructure, a scattering of public buses, and everyone else trapped in their 4WD's ostensibly to go fishing for barramundi on the East Alligator River.. but most people end up struggling to find a parking space in the tiny CBD, or at the big box shopping malls on the edge of town.
This year I'm in Lima Peru, carless in a city of 9 million people. Everything I need is within walking distance, and I work from a home office. But if anything, Lima is even more trapped by its addiction to car ownership. There is no centralised mass transit system. Private buses (glorified minivans) operate on most main roads, and taxis take up the slack on longer journeys. The city is screaming out for an underground metro system... but there's no impetus for it. Everyone wants their own car... even if it means being bogged down in traffic every night.
45 year old who's never learned to drive out because he's agreed with your POV since he was your age. I am glad to see this POV from a young person, keep up the good work on your blog.
Cars make us less free? We can be slaves to our cars. Ivan Illich in the 70s tried to enlighten the world on how much of our time is spent tending our cars, keeping us less free http://www.ranprieur.com/readings/illichcars.html "The model American male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls, insurance, taxes, and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. And this figure does not take into account the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts, and garages; time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve the quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7500 miles: less than five miles per hour. In countries deprived of a transportation industry, people manage to do the same, walking wherever they want to go, and they allocate only 3 to 8 percent of their society's time budget to traffic instead of 28 percent. What distinguishes the traffic in rich countries from the traffic in poor countries is not more mileage per hour of lifetime for the majority, but more hours of compulsory consumption of high doses of energy, packaged and unequally distributed by the transportation industry." When the math is done, your travel time plus the time it takes to earn the money to travel by car is so long that walking would be faster.
Yet another Sullivanian!
You're absolutely right to question American carmakers' favorite myth. European cities do not deform themselves for the sake of traffic; don't put "beltways" of blacktop choked with idling motors between themselves and their waterfronts. European city dwellers do a lot of walking, and are healthier for it. Car rentals are more common because people don't keep cars, and those rentals are of smaller vehicles. You couldn't fit an SUV through those narrow medieval streets. They retain their individuality, though there are superstores and shopping centers--but the parking lots are full of SmartCars. No Hummers.
But over here, we have based our national self-image on what automobiles we own. Public transportation was starved; streetcars were bought up and junked by businessmen eager to promote consumption of both automobiles and gas, one of the great crimes against the public good.
Another was the destruction of the railroad branch lines that connected American towns as well as cities. When my mom was a child, you could get pretty much anywhere you wanted to go by local train. They called it "going on the cars".
It isn't as if this can be undone; those miles of concrete (covering some of the most fertile farmland, another awful side-effect)aren't about to be ripped up for new railroad tracks.
At least we could improve what public transportation we do have, improve Amtrak, which would provide some jobs. And there are car-sharing services like zipcar.com, which everyone should check out. My husband and I live in a large city and have never had a car. We lack a whole category of conversation when our friends start exchanging car headache stories.
I am truly amazed with the great responses everyone has provided. I am one of the foremost advocates for public transit, as many of my blog posts make clear. But I want to make sure everyone is thinking about the other available options as well. Car-sharing, as far as I know, is a profitable business model that solves many (though not all) of the problems of car ownership. Also, bicycle trails are currently viewed primarily as a means of recreation, not of transportation. Land-issues aside, these trails can be built at a fraction of the cost of roads and highways, and if planned correctly, can connect to places where people live to where they want to go. The Lakefront Trail in Chicago is an excellent example of how bicycle trails can be use for commuting purposes if done right.
wademcclay, in a piece I wrote over the summer, I identified Washington DC as one of only a handful of cities in America where one can reasonably get by without a car; so I am never surprised to hear people who live there don't own one.
Backdated, I truly appreciate comments like that. I have never been to Toronto, although I hear the transit infrastructure is among the best in North America.
Anonymous #1, I am interested to learn that you live in Columbus, because it is is generally considered a city with mediocre to poor transit infrastructure. I briefly lived in Dallas, TX without a car, and the look of shock on peoples' faces when they found out was priceless. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I am very hesitant about ever living in a city like that again is that I don’t believe a person shouldn't be judged so highly based on car ownership. When women at bars lose interest in you as soon as they find out your own personal car isn’t parked out in the lot – it is not a culture I'm sure I can adapt to.
Anthony L., out of curiosity, where do you live? Do you primarily rely on walking, biking, transit?
Anonymous #2, thanks for sharing the link - those are certainly eye-opening statistics.
Mrs. Polly, great points. Europe is a great example of how we might be able to live without relying on cars. It always disheartens me to hear politicians use the "live like Europeans" line as a scare tactic. As far as I can tell, they are much better off in many respects than we are. There are many people who truly believe the generation that came before them was better off. That certainly isn't a conclusion you would draw from looking at GDP growth or any other numbers. If it is true that our parents were better off than we are - we should ask why we think that to be true?
This argument is weird. How am I enslaved to my car just because I spend money on it? You may as well argue that I am enslaved to concerts, as the money I spend going to them is money I can't spend on my car, or charity, or whatever. How is spending money on a concert being myself, but spending money on a car isn't? It's me spending the money in both cases. I like concerts and the movies, and I like being able to go when and where I like and not being limited to where public transport goes.
As for being dependent on a car because of the hassles if I don't have it - you are stretching the word "enslavement" ridiculously. People don't drop dead if they lose access to a car - life may be more of a hassle but it goes on. And people who depend on public transport equally face a hassle if the public transport is interrupted (say by a strike). If we are enslaved to any material thing, we're enslaved to food and water - people do drop dead if deprived of them. But do you really go around using the word "enslavement" for that?
The fear we have of not having a car available at all times has led to the number of registered vehicles greatly outnumbering registered drivers in America over the past several decades.
And the fear of not having electricity available at all times has led to the number of power plants in every developed country greatly exceeding peak demand. And the fear of not having water available at all times has led me to stash water bottles in a spare cupboard. If you really want something available, you build in redundancy. That's not enslavement, that's common sense.
but they validate the disturbing point that some would rather call a parking lot home than sell the vehicle for rent money.
What's disturbing about noting that people value transport?
Excessive car ownership in many American cities and strategic planning centered around car ownership has effectively killed alternatives to driving and the freedom to choose a life that doesn't center around the car.
Gosh, how on earth do epileptics manage? Anyway, any American who wants to live a life that doesn't center around the car can move to a city like New York or Boston.
now is the perfect time to address whether or not society wants the car to be as integral a part of the next 50 years as it has been of the past 50.
And the answer is, drumroll please, YES!
Unless someone comes up with a better form of private transport of course. I really like those transporters in Star Trek.
Europe is a great example of how we might be able to live without relying on cars.
I live in Europe. I don't rely on a car, but I really like having one. Along with the vast majority of Europeans. When I lived in NZ, I didn't rely on having a car, but I really liked having one. Around the world on average people like cars, even in big cities with decent public transport systems.
I can also live without electricity, hot water on tap, or central heating, but I really like having them.
Tracy W, as I conceded in the original post, there will always be those who love cars and love driving. If owning and driving a car gives you the same or more pleasure as going to a concert or a movie, then I understand why you find the argument unconvincing.
I am glad you pointed out that you live in Europe but prefer to drive a car. Obviously this is the case for enough Europeans that the roads are certainly not empty. The key is that you have choices, you have alternatives, and you choose the one that you like the best. When there are options available, we don't have to be slaves to our cars. When they become necessary to perform very basic functions of our lives, I believe it is problematic.
If you are concerned with my use of the word "enslavement", then consider your own example as proof of my point. Are we slaves to food and water? Yes we are. Humans always have been. Food and water are basic necessities of live - we must have them. The fact that cars have been elevated to the same level as food and water in culture and society is something that greatly concerns me.
Finally, I want to address your assertion that there is nothing disturbing about the fact that people value transport. On face this may be true - but cases where people choose transport over shelter, a car over a home, is deeply disturbing to me.
The key is that you have choices, you have alternatives, and you choose the one that you like the best.
As do Americans - they can move to a city or a town where they don't need to use a car. Like Boston or New York.
The fact that cars have been elevated to the same level as food and water in culture and society is something that greatly concerns me.
I don't think they have been elevated to the same level, even in the USA. I've read a lot of calls, written by Americans and by other nationalities, for more aid to poor people around the world, and while many of them say there is a moral imperative to feed the poor, I can't think of any that called for giving cars as a moral imperative. Nor can I ever recall an American worrying about all those New Yorkers who don't have cars. There may be women at bars who aren't interested in guys who own cars, but I think this has a lot to do with sterotyping - people assuming that if you don't own a car you are poor or likely to have been banned from driving by the courts.
It is nice to hear that you are consistent and use the word "enslavement" for food and water. I personally don't, and I have never heard anyone else say that we are enslaved to food and water, but I guess that's a function of who I happen to come in contact with. I note however, that actual slaves in history were beaten or killed if they tried to stop being slaves and were caught. But I have never heard of someone selling their car and moving to a carless life, and then being chased down by car manufacturers and beaten or killed for stopping being "enslaved" to cars. This is why I don't think the word "enslaved" applies to cars.
On face this may be true - but cases where people choose transport over shelter, a car over a home, is deeply disturbing to me.
I assumed that you mentioned this fact though, in the belief that the rest of us should also be disturbed by it. I am prepared to worry about people being so poor they can't afford a decent place to live, I am prepared to worry about people choosing to take dangerous drugs, I am deeply conflicted between my fears of mandating how others should live their lives and the knowledge that some adults are mentally ill and do make very bad decisions for themselves. However, I am in general inclined to think that adults who are poor, and not mentally ill or drug-addicted, probably do a better job of making decisions for themselves than I would do for them. If someone can't afford both a car and home, and they chose the car, the fact that they made that decision doesn't deeply disturb me (although that they have to make that decision in the first place is disturbing).
My apologies if I misread you and you were just mentioning a personal dislike you have that you don't expect anyone else to share, like my distaste for mushrooms.