July
1995
Subsidizing
Car Culture: Part Two: The True Costs of Driving & The
Great Suburban Build-Out
By Philip Goff
|
|
|
In this, the second of a series
of articles examining the effects of the automobile on our culture and
landscape, architect Philip Goff argues that profligate use of automobiles
has had a detrimental impact on many parts of our lives, ranging from
urban ecology, to environmental destruction, to the massive squandering
of public funds. Only when we realize that car culture is based upon
propaganda and government obstinacy will we make one of the final steps
towards a more holistic and sustainable environment.
Due to the power of corporate lobbyists and a twisted sense of American
individualism, the government has clearly shown a disregard for sustainable
modes of transportation since the end of World War II. The promotion
of car culture is clearly evident in the massive subsidies given to
motorists to enable them to drive almost anywhere, as cheaply and efficiently
as possible. The true costs of driving an automobile are obfuscated,
for their disclosure would certainly reduce auto use and make alternative
means more attractive. This would not be compatible with the interests
of the oil, car, road construction, or development industries, all of
which contribute heavily to politicians on the local and national levels.
Ample cheap and free parking is a significant way in which motorists
are subsidized. Real estate values in urban areas are costly, yet motorists
are allowed to use up to 100 square feet of public space for the storage
of their vehicles. What reserves the side of the street to be used for
the express purpose of parking cars? Could one use the space for storage
instead? To put in a trampoline, maybe? What privileges car owners to
eat up such valuable urban space, when others pay hundreds of dollars
for apartments hardly bigger than a parking space?
The allotment of public space is just one of the many ways in which
motorists are heavily subsidized in our country. Charlie Komanoff,
an
energy consultant in New York, calculates a total subsidy of $700 billion
per year, averaging out to about $5.50 per gallon, through the federal
and state government levels. He estimates that this is roughly equivalent
to what the individual motorist pays for upkeep, fuel, insurance, taxes
etc. Therefore, he reasons, driving in the U.S. is done at half-price.
The other half is provided for by the taxpayer. This puts those who
do not drive — the elderly, the poor, or those who choose
not to — at a severe financial disadvantage.
According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, in 1992 taxes
from gas, new car purchases, and registration, cover only two-thirds
of the costs of building and maintaining highways and roads. To pay
for the myriad costs associated with driving, Scientific American reports,
gas would have to be $3-$4 per gallon. This is closer to the rate found
in European countries, where gas tax is five times greater than in
the
U.S. (Additionally, taxes of new car purchases are up to ten times
greater in Europe). Considering the uproar over President Clinton’s
request for a ten cent increase in gas taxes, it is easy to see why
hidden subsidies
need to replace a system of direct taxation.
No Free Ride
The primary cost of a car-dependent transportation system is the construction
and maintenance of highways, roads, and bridges, to the tune of $200
million a day. However, there are many other ways in which motorists
are getting a “free ride.” A significant portion of our
security forces are utilized in automobile-related issues: accidents,
thefts, traffic control, and parking enforcement. These police officers
could be much better employed going after true criminals, rather than
waving rush-hour traffic along, or investigating a minor traffic accident.
Many of these accidents add yet another burden to the taxpayer by disabling
expensive pieces of public infrastructure, such as fire hydrants, light
poles, mailboxes, street signs, guard rails and planters.
Additionally, a large portion of health care costs are related to car
accidents. Oil and car companies get large public subsidies, ranging
from tax breaks to oil exploration permits on public lands. Employers
are allowed to deduct from their taxes the expense of providing parking
for their workers, and receive tax benefits for providing company cars.
They are more strictly limited when it comes to tax incentives for mass
transit or bicycle use. The environmental damage due to car use (dirty
air, dirty water, deforestation, etc.) is impossible to calculate, but
certainly not insignificant.
Perhaps the most expensive endowment of all, lies within the tangled
fabric of our foreign policy. Every year, we spend billions of dollars
to protect our oil tankers traveling through the Persian Gulf. We even
went to war to preserve our “right” to drive wherever, and
whenever, we saw fit. This prompted Senator Bob Dole to say: “We
are there for 3 letters: O-I-L. That is why we are in the Gulf. We are
not there to save democracy. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and neither
is Kuwait.” Meanwhile, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute,
if we had continued conserving oil after 1985 at the same rate as before,
we would have eliminated the need for any oil from the gulf. The industrialized
world’s thirst for oil has allowed it to become a pawn in international
politics through its intense reliance on petroleum.
Squeezing the Little Guys
Government and corporate encouragement of car use and suburban sprawl
as a support structure for our fallacious economic “growth”
is nothing new. It began in earnest in 1936 with the creation of the
National City Lines Company, a corporate front group representing General
Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, and Mack Trucks. For the next
fifteen years, this powerful company bought out 45 street car and trolley
systems throughout the country. By the 1950s, all 45 transit systems
were completely dismantled, opening the way for private car use and
increased bus service, a demand that GM was all too happy to supply.
This was the sad fate of public transportation in Los Angeles, a system
nearly as extensive as New York’s. Eventually, National City
Lines was found guilty of criminal antitrust violations, but the verdict
was
moot, for the great suburban build-out was at full throttle.
Meanwhile, in the 1930s, Roosevelt’s Federal Housing Authority
(FHA) was created to put the post-depression construction industry
back
on its feet, and to improve the housing stock for Americans. The FHA
subsidized banks through the federal treasury, and therefore allowed
for reduced downpayments, and extended mortgages. Unfortunately, the
FHA did not guarantee new loans for those who wanted to build or renovate
in the inner cities. Maybe this should come as no surprise considering
that one of its commissioners happened to be on the Board of Directors
of the Standard Oil Company. After WWII, the government allowed the
millions of returning GIs to own homes without any necessary downpayment,
and mortgage interests were made tax deductible. Thus ownership was
made less expensive than renting, and with the planned system of new
highways, white veterans flocked to the burgeoning suburbs.
As farmland and forests were being paved over with housing developments
in the 1950s, the county and state road systems were becoming overburdened.
Our economy demanded more growth, and the Federal Government began the
largest public works project in our history, the Interstate Highway
System. President Eisenhower began funding the highways after a hearty
recommendation by his self-appointed commission, chaired by Lucius D.
Clay, on the Board of Directors of General Motors. 41,000 miles of new
expressways spread over the country like a complex of veins and arteries.
Apologists for the vast new highway system insisted that they would
quicken urban evacuation in the case of a Soviet nuclear attack, and
that they would provide enormous expanses of pavement and concrete to
act as firebreaks, allowing sectors of cities to remain unscathed.
Many companies had enormous profits to make through suburban expansion.
The obvious beneficiaries were the oil and car companies, but many others
which produced appliances, lawn mowers, lawn care products, etc. stood
to cash in also. A major player was General Electric, which realized
that their fortunes lay within the increased unpopularity of urban apartment
living. To encourage this, they sponsored many exhibitions and architectural
competitions to glorify the modern suburban house. Famous architects
normally won the competitions, bringing with them legitimacy, and press
coverage, for the single family suburban home.
Forgotten Ways of Travel
While large sums of money funded the creation of highways and airports,
rail improvements were all but forgotten. Sustainable, non-polluting
alternatives have never been encouraged by our government except in
emergency situations such as oil embargoes. The sprawling suburbs came
to a crawl after the 1973 oil embargo, and subsequently President Carter
sought alternative energy sources and decreased automobile reliance.
After the election of Ronald Reagan, the oil cartel weakened, Iran
and
Iraq were soon to be engaged in a long and brutal war, and the oil
market was flooded. With cheap gas, bank deregulation, and Reagan’s
tax policies, suburbans development and car-use went back into high
gear
throughout the 1980s. During this time period, Federal funding for
highways nearly doubled while the funding for mass transit was actually
reduced
by 10%. In 1994, according to the National Association of Railroad
Passengers, $20.3 billion was assigned to roads and highways while
only $1 billion
was allocated for rail improvements.
The ultimate fallacy of an economy and lifestyle dependent upon cheap
and plentiful oil is that it is not sustainable. According to the Hubbert
Curve on oil production, an industry forecasting standard, the world
is expected to run out of its oil by 2040, at the present rate of use.
Petroleum depletion could be mitigated if motorists would pay for the
true costs of driving, thus making alternatives, such as trains and
bicycles, more attractive. Higher taxes must be levied upon gas, registration,
and new car purchases, and tolls need to be increased, especially for
solitary commuters. This would not only offset the many subsidized
costs
of auto transit, but would also create capital for rail investments.
The discouragement of automobile use must begin today, or we run the
risk of being unprepared for when the pumps run dry and “carmaggedon” is
upon us.
Next issue: The compromise of our inner cities and a critique of suburbia.
Click here to read the previous article
in this series.
Philip Goff is an architect in Manhattan who is
deeply committed to issues of public space. He is also a dedicated environmentalist
and animal rights activist.
 |
|
|
 |
