Ditch the Automobile Altogether

The debate over whether to save the American auto industry with yet more billions of taxpayers' money is the wrong one. The discussion should be about how to wean America away from the car altogether.

Instead of sinking billions now and probably more billions later in propping up a dying U.S. industry why not use that money to put laid off autoworkers to work building streetcars in American cities and a high-speed, intercity rail network? Why not take those millions of dollars that create sophisticated commercial propaganda all day on television to induce us to buy a car and put it to work reducing greenhouse gases instead?

Let the price of foreign cars increase without American competition, further reducing the number of cars on the road.

It could mean the eventual death of the dispiriting mall culture and the return of retail business to downtown areas, and with it an exodus from the suburbs back to the city.

Hell, the death of the Big Three might even save Detroit.

Comments

[BobinPgh]

Finally, some sense in the matter. There is a book called "How to live well without a car" that I recommend. I have been car - free for a year now after Monte Carlo (actually made in Canada) left me stranded and I have been putting off buying a car as long as I can. I am saving so much money even being temporarily car free. I recommend people try it. I know not everyone can, but really, aren't you just so fed up with the cars, car mechanics, car dealers, gas stations, and car dealer commercials?

[JStilabo]

I would rather be train hopping on a mass transit than having to drive everywhere. Indianapolis would be great if there was a rail system.

[EdCoughlin]

It will be quite possible to power cars on solar energy in the semi near future (2010 if you buy a Volt and put solar panels on your house). What you are presenting is a false dichotomy. The choices are not cars+doom the planet or no cars+save the planet. There is a third vastly superior option, have cars and still reduce emissions.

Hell even if there was no third option if I had to choose a bit more global warming from a relatively efficient car I was driving and losing my freedom I would choose the car. You must not live in California, here if I had no car it would take me 5 hours of swapping buses to get just about anywhere. I tend to go places with others (seldom alone) and drive a car that gets pretty decent mileage but as far as just "taking the bus" that is very difficult to fit in with the way California is built.

Could we revamp all of California with tons of trains and busses and high speed rail? Sure, for trillions of dollars (and a lot of emissions in the construction). Wouldn't it make more sense to advance electric cars for a fraction of that cost instead and encourage more home solar panel installation? I know I, for one, am buying a volt in 2010 or 2011 (depending on the initial cost) and to me it seems like a much better compromise position.

[GearheadGeek]

Great idea, Joe... ditch the automobile. Leave the millions of people living in rural areas and low-density communities on foot. Force people to haul their groceries home on the trolley that drops them a mile from their house. Ignore the actual built environment in huge parts of the country and just make an arbitrary decision that everyone can ride the bus, streetcar or light rail without bothering to figure out whether it would be feasible to provide public mass transit services to low-density areas.

Perhaps we should just abandon all the suburbs and small towns and low-density cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas et al and move into tenements in NYC?

[veracity]

good point - Rural America - "RED STATE", conservative-leaning America... is SUBSIDIZED by MASSIVE AMOUNTS - billions upon TRILLIONS of federal taxpayer dollars - for ROADS and Highways which bring them into the 20th/21st century.
But these "rural" voters are the first to talk about "INDEPENDENCE" and "SELF-RELIANCE" and accuse others of being "welfare cheats."

The movie "TRUMAN" portrays future president Harry Truman tirelessly visiting rural farms and towns out in Depression-era Missouri, trying to get reluctant citizens to vote for a million dollar bond issue "so your crops won't rot in the fields every time the roads get so muddy you can't ship your crop to the rail-road!"

We are ALL INTERCONNECTED by DEPENDENCE and modern needs, bu the Righties have mastered the propaganda of Double-Speak - funded by the MOST REACTIONARY, by HIGHWAY DEPENDENT industries in America, including trucking, construction, real-estate & developers, of course the auto manufacturers themselves, and Above All, the OIL industry.

Simply amazing how THE MORE these right-wing industries ARE DEPENDENT ON SOCIALIZED roads & highways, they more they squawk about how other programs like public education, health-care, and green energy (etc.) are "socialized" !

[sedum]

We all know what the demise of the horse carriage industry did to the economy.

Should we repeat the same tragic error? Thousands of horse carriage (and related) industry workers thrown under the.... horse trolley. Having to learn new and unfamiliar trades like electrical workers, the photo industry, telephone industry. Why even the freakish car assembly lines.

Mind you, the collapse of the auto industry was just a tad slower than bye bye horse but I suspect that we're a shade more enlightened and entreprenurial.

After all. We did invent the Edsel.

[BlackJAC]

And if everything a person needed were within walking distance, that might work. But that's not always the case with everyone. Groceries alone require some sort of large platform to bring them home, or will we all have replicators?

[begabug]

er, what about rural and small town america

[devadasi]

I totally agree with your proposal....of which I've been an advocate for years. What's needed is good mass transportation....I wouldn't dream of living anywhere where I needed a car.

[GearheadGeek]

Many people "wouldn't dream of living anywhere" but where they currently live. Some of those people live in New York and Chicago and similar cities where high density, existing mass transit and exorbitant/scarce parking means it makes vastly more sense to do most of their moving around via mass transit. Others live in places like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA or smaller cities and towns, or suburban areas with much lower density that have little or no effective mass transit available, and that low density means that it's not economical to set up mass transit in those areas. Don't be quick to outlaw the car until you know how much vast areas of the country depend on it.

[Joe Lauria - Huffpost Blogger]

I do not believe I was anywhere suggesting "outlawing" the car. But given the choice of spending billions to save the Big Three or instead investing that money in public transport, I think the choice is clear. Either the three are nationalized and produce only electric cars; or they are allowed to die and the bailout money used to hire autoworkers and others to build light rail, street cars and a high-speed national railway. I believe I mentioned that foreign car manufacturers would continue to operate in this country and there would be used American cars around for some time. If you need a car buy a Toyota or a Volvo, even if it is slightly more expensive. They obviously know what they are doing. Ford, Chrysler and GM do not. Why should they be bailed out when our money can be used more wisely?