The Elephant in the Bedroom -- Why it's Time to Scrap Suburbia
A lot of people have stated that cars are bad, but they are regularly rebutted by articles such as this one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI] in the U.S. [A related one from the same place may be found here.] However, most if not all of these articles suffer from a fatal flaw: they do not deal with the root cause of car-dependence. That happens to be suburbia and (sub)urban sprawl in general.
By reducing density to ridiculously low levels, suburbs make walking and bus service infeasible and overly expensive, while also discouraging bicycle usage. [Here in Ottawa, the local bus system is doing its best to provide service to many of the most remote areas. Sadly, budgets and “insufficient ridership” will eventually wreck these misguided efforts.] Autos, therefore, are the only practical way to get around or out of most suburbs. The problem is best highlighted by another well-known American ritual: a senior citizen is told (by his/her doctor, kids or friends) that he/she can no longer drive a car safely. If he/she lived in a real city, walking or taking the bus to the corner store or other places would still be possible. Most North American cities no longer allow this; their dependence on autos is so severe that anyone (such as the aforementioned senior citizen) who cannot drive must be put somewhere else - such as a nursing home or other “assisted-care facility.” The connection between car-dependence and the dilemma faced by the elderly (or the handicapped) is quietly ignored, even if the average Martian could see it plainly. [Indeed, the inability of some old and/or infirm people to drive could lead to a form of implicit discrimination against them in much of the U.S.]
Many people portray criticism of suburbia, like criticism of autos, as a minority phenomenon. It is true that environmentalists are usually viewed as “left-wing” and much of their criticism about pollution and “lack of long-term sustainability” [such as what will happen when oil will become scarce and very pricey] has some weight for those who resist these partisan labels of “left-wing” and “right-wing” (which are, in turn, so often tossed around when politics are discussed in the U.S.). However, there are plenty of flaws in suburbia for conservatives to criticize as well. Recent studies in the U.S. (cited by the Washington Post as well as an Australian newspaper) have shown a clear link between sprawling “single-use” suburbs and weight gain (if not downright obesity) in their residents. More recently, a local columnist named Leonard Stern also complained that criticizing suburbs is not just for liberals; his article from last week named three reasons why conservatives should object to suburbs:
- lack of thrift [usually caused by attempts to “keep up with the Jones-es”].
- lack of individualism, caused by silly suburban by-laws and zoning restrictions (such as the one that used to exist in the local suburb of Kanata banning clotheslines).
- lack of community, usually caused by poor design decisions; the notorious “snout house” design (where only the garage is visible) is mentioned here.
However, Mr. Stern neglects to mention the most salient reason why suburbs (and their enforced dependence on the private auto) is such a problem. I refer here to the tragic and horrific toll of death and injury caused by traffic accidents, a toll so appalling that it has reportedly become the leading cause of death for people under 25 worldwide. Another report states that car crashes are the leading cause of accidental death for ANYONE in the U.S. under the age of 44. This “elephant in the bedroom” issue will not go away, nor should it be ignored. The net effect is that every motorist is playing a [slightly safer] form of Russian roulette every time he or she sits behind the wheel. Inevitably, anything that forces people to drive, even when they do not need to (as suburbs do) is implicitly inhumane and detestable - and must therefore be consigned to the trash heap of history.
Another way to understand this issue is the one portrayed by John Allen Paulos in his recent book Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. As he pointed out, the chances of being killed in a plane crash are one in a million, the chances of a similar disaster while in a train, bus or ferry are one in several hundred-thousand, but the chance that you will die in a car crash is only one in six thousand, which is about a thousand times more likely. This also implies that the average motorist is twice as likely to die in a car crash as he/she is to be struck by lightning. A better way to understand the daily commute, therefore, is to imagine lemmings going down every road or freeway ... and foresee their eventual disappearance over a cliff of inevitability.
In the end, it comes down to just how much value we place on individual human life. If we claim (as we often do) that human life is worth saving, then the contemporaneous suburb and the daily commute (or “lemming run”) that it requires and enforces upon its residents needs to be curbed and ultimately abandoned. No excuses, no ifs, no ands or buts. Period.
What do others think? As ever, this well-perched philosopher would like to know.