Cars and Freedom
The automobile has long symbolised freedom and individuality. Cars are advertised as the rejection of reliance on others, allowing an individual to go where they want to, when they want to. Car-dependant suburbia has appeared in almost every country and are characterised by large roads, large gardens, large driveways and large, detached residences - the American (or English or Canadian or Australian or European) dream. Cars have dominated cities for so long that most people fail to consider any practical alternatives. For many people, the New Urbanist movement (which advocates for transport-oriented, walkable cities) is seen as a political attempt to degrade individual liberties by attacking the automobile and promoting mass transit and high-density living. Instead, society must combat this by showing the realities that car-centric design reinforces: inequality, discrimination, higher taxes and environmental catastrophes.
To state the obvious: car dependant design requires owning, insuring, maintaining, repairing, storing and fuelling a car. These actions act as barriers to entry for large segments of a population. Those who have been historically segregated have often faced uphill battles against car dependant design with prohibitively high costs which prevent integration with the rest of society. In practice, this means that minorities and the poor are often most negatively impacted by deficient design choices. Yet it is not just the poor and minorities who are disproportionately impacted by car-dependent settlements; all those who cannot drive, perhaps due to a disability, old age or because they are children, are excluded from social and economic participation or become reliant on others for basic transportation needs. This is nothing but the antithesis of the freedom which we the automobile was promised to bring.
When children must be driven to meet their friends, the poor are unable to walk, bike or use public transport to go to the supermarket, and getting to school or work can only be done when a car and driver are available, individuals are excluded from contributing to society to their maximum potential. This minimises the opportunities given to individuals and increases the tax burden on other members of society who must pay to sustain others’ poor quality of life. Yet this tax burden caused by failing to provide others with opportunities is not the only negative consequence faced by even those with the financial and physical ability to be car-dependant.
The financial costs associated with car ownership are also shouldered by car owners who would have more disposable income without reliance on cars. Furthermore, detached, single-household properties (which perpetuate car dependency) cost significantly more per capita in infrastructural costs. The cost of paving roads, providing infrastructure (such as electricity, water and heating) as well as maintaining this infrastructure increases as the distance between homes increases. These costs are so great in car-dependent suburbia that in most cases, those living in cities effectively subsidise the infrastructure costs of those living in suburbia through taxes. There is irony in the fact that using a car to gain freedom relies on taking away resources from those living in cities, often non-reliant on cars and with a smaller environmental footprint.
A full list of downsides that car dependency creates wouldn’t fit in this article. The inability for children to play outside safely, increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, urban sprawl, long commutes, flooding due to impermeable man-made surfaces, and loss of biodiversity are just a few of the ills that can be attributed to our poor urban planning.
There is some truth in the belief that New Urbanism will harm the wealthiest in society in some regards. After all, taxation must be used to the benefit of all through spending on public transportation and communal spaces, much of which should come from the rich. However, in cities which have already largely rejected the automobile, such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, the rich are able to live alongside all social strata of society. This is due to the increased opportunities and decreased inequalities which exist within cities where there are multiple transportation options. Even for the wealthy, many of the benefits of New Urban design simply cannot be bought with money.
Yet this doesn’t change the fact that cities made for living are freedom maximisers. The choice is between car dependency limiting the opportunities of the vast majority of society or creating more equitable cities where individuals are able to maximise their social contributions and wellbeing for insignificant costs to the wealthiest individuals. The discourse of freedom must be reimagined. Freedom must be viewed as a minimum baseline of opportunity given to those worst affected by social structures. In doing this, we must create a society where freedom is a given rather than something to be bought with money and generational wealth. If we are able to create dense residences with clear public transportation and communal areas in which every individual has a stake and incentive to look after we will maximise opportunities for everyone. We must turn away from the automobile and embrace the freedom gained in doing so.
