Presented to Professor Stan McMullin
Canadian Studies 12.495/496
Directed Studies Final Paper
School of Canadian Studies
Carleton University
December 18, 1996
(Jump to: Footnotes or Bibliography)
"...the car has become an article of dress without which we feel uncertain, unclad, and incomplete in the urban compound."Marshall McLuhan 1
In this day and age of endless choice in consumer products and services, consumers are led by advertising and corporate agendas to believe that purchasing an automobile is a choice. Choice, after all, has been and remains one of the most popular features of democracy. We consider it our right as consumers of the twentieth century, to choose between the many different automobile models. Increasingly, however, many people are beginning to realize that the use of the automobile is one of dependence and not of choice. Considering that the average North American works twenty-seven hours each month paying for the thirty-two hours per month he or she spends driving2, the notion of choice is put into serious question.
According to the New World Dictionary of the American Language, choice "implies the chance, right, or power to choose, usually by the free exercise of one's own judgement."3 Can we fully ascribe this meaning of choice to Canadian society's seemingly dependent relationship with the automobile? Is one truly free while paralysed in rush-hour traffic, or commuting long distances to and from work daily? This notion of choice and freedom must be challenged. Strong and ample evidence shows that, quite contrary to the popular belief which equates the car with choice, automobile use is often the result of rigid urban planning favouring long-distance commuting and fostering dependence both at the societal and the individual level.
It is the purpose of this paper to challenge the ever-so-powerful notion of choice often used to justify automobile use. We will attempt to demonstrate that the principal undercurrent driving the predominance and the success of the automobile culture is dependence, not choice. In order to carry out the task at hand, the essay will be divided into three parts. First, the major historical developments which have led to and shaped present-day automobile-centric transportation systems and societies will be traced and exposed. In particular, the discovery of oil, the invention of the internal combustion engine, and the emergence of the "auto-industrial complex" will be highlighted. Second, the contemporary impact of automobile dependence will be explored through soical, economic, public-policy and environmental lenses. In this segment, issues such as sprawl, public funding and subsidies, and automobile related injuries and deaths will be expanded upon to strengthen the argument of automobile as dependence as opposed to choice. The final section outlines some alternatives and promising solutions to our society automobile dependence woes.
With the advent of the modern automobile at the end of the last century, came prophecies of the tragic and celestial varieties. In 1898, French author Paul Adam wrote of the new found freedoms associated with the automotive vehicle. In La Morale des sports, he wrote: "the ease and frequency of traveling engenders an exchange of ideas, stimulates the intellect, breaks up prejudices, and diminishes provincialism."4 Contrarily, R.A. Lafferty wrote of quite different implications during the same period: "It will engender absolute selfishness in mankind if the driving of automobiles becomes common. It will breed violence on a scale never seen before...It will destroy the sense of neighbourhood and the true sense of Nation. It will create giantized cankers of cities, false opulence of suburbs, ruinized countryside, and unhealthy conglomerations of specialized farming and manufacturing...It will make every man a tyrant."5
Perhaps those against the introduction of the automobile in society never had a chance given the fact that throughout our history, technological mediums have continually been replaced by new mediums. Renowned Canadian author Harold Innis explains quite eloquently in The Bias of Communication that a new medium implies a control shift and a new monopoly of knowledge. For example, he writes of the Roman Empire's dependence on papyrus. Payrus was soon replaced by parchment, and later by paper.6 In the same way, the automobile replaced the bicycle and the horse as an individualized transportation medium at the turn of the century.
The automobile culture is truly a twentieth century phenomenon and, to use an Innis notion, it led to a new civilization. As far back as 800 B.C., the first steam powered fire cart generated interest among engineers, scientists and other parties in China,7 however, its mass production and consumption is less than a century old. Swiss engineer Nicholas Joseph Cugnot designed the very first steam-generating vehicle for the French governement in 1769. Strategic military purposes were driving Cugnot's efforts, as the French government saw roads as conducive to sustaining heavy wheeled traffic for its armies.8 As the result of poor road infrastructure, and superior railroad technology, in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, experiments with steam powered vehicles were largely unsuccessful on both sides of the Atlantic.9
Significant progress was made in the development of automobile viability with the internal combustion engine, patented first in the United States in the 1840s and then in France in 1860.10 This enabled two Germans, Karl Benz and Gottleib Daimler, to separately and simultaneously create the first commercially viable automobiles in 1885.11 On this side of the Atlantic, in 1893, two bicycle mechanics from Massachusetts, Charles and Frank Duryea built the first successful American car powered by an internal combustion engine.12
With the discovery of oil and the introduction of the assembly-line, what began as a pleasure vehicle for the elite, soon became an item of mass consumption. When plentiful oil wells, producing as much as seventy-five thousand barrels per day were found in Texas in 1901, the days of steam and electrically generated automotive locomotion were over. By 1905, the gasoline-powered automobile had established complete "suzerainty."13 Given gasoline's higher energy density, liquid form, and faster ignition, the sale of automobiles rose from 8,000 in 1900 to 902,000 in 1912.14
Just as important as the discovery of oil at the turn of the century was the introduction of mass production via the assembly line by Henry Ford in 1910. Essentially, this innovative approach meant large volumes of production and as a result, reduced retail prices for public consumption.15 This would not only radically transform urban landscapes but also change the way in which work was carried out. The worker would become just another factor of production, spewing out as many auto parts as possible. This idea of the division of labour and mass production originated with Adam Smith in his famous The Wealth of Nations, where the principles of power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity, speed and repetition were the central constituents.16
The marketing technique of the yearly model, introduced in the 1920s by General Motors, would contribute to the cycle of dependence to come. Signs of this were already becoming apparent in the early stage of commercial automobility when the number of motor vehicles in the United States tripled between 1919 and 1929, from 6 million to 19.7 million vehicles.17
With the introduction of the yearly model, a mass marketing technique was now in place to sustain consumer interest and demand in regard to automobile viability. The number of automobiles on the road in North America increased exponentially in the decades following the Second World War: from one car to every 3.75 people in the early 1950s, to one car for every 2.25 people in the late 1960s.18 The figures have changed very little since them. At present, the number of persons per car in Canada is 2.1, and 1.7 for the U.S., which indicates that the market has been saturated for some time in North America.19
With the advent of the automobile, resources increased for an automobile infrastructure, while resources for other modes of transportation were marginalized or rendered completely obsolete. Electric railways, trolleys, and the horse-drawn carriage all played important roles at one time in the North American transportation system, but all took a serious beating when the automobile entered the ring.
This shift from a public to a private means of transport revolutionized our urban planning and design, as well as our social interactions. The shift, however, did not occur as a natural progression; to a large extent, it was the interests of the private rather than the public sector which were the dominant proponents not only of private automobile use, but also of road and highway construction. As early as the 1920s, private interests were motivating government transportation policy to move in this direction. In the United States, these interests were collectively known as the "auto-industrial complex." It included automobile manufacturers, oil companies, road construction companies, steel and rubber industries, as well as business interests.20 At that time, mass transit still dominated transportation options. However, this changed once General Motors, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and Standard Oil began to invest in public transit systems in the 1920s. Between 1920 and 1950, General Motors purchased more than 100 electric mass transit systems in 45 American cities, allowed them to deteriorate and then replaced them with rubber-tired, diesel-powered buses.21 Furthermore, to demonstrate governement complicity in the massacre of mass transit, in 1949, the above mentioned companies were convicted by a federal jury of criminally conspiring to replace electric mass transit with diesel buses manufactured by General Motors. In the end, the court fined General Motors $5000 and its executive director $1.22
These historical developments undoubtedly contributed to the cycle of automobile dependence plaguing our societies today. While there exist many more factors, the above outlined developments are those which were most instrumental in transforming our North American cities into their current automobile-centric form.
This automobile-centricity of our transportation system has strongly influenced the social, economic, environmental, and public policy realms in ways often unknown to the average Canadian. Indeed, the automobile has become one of the many technological devices of the twentieth century firmly anchored in our cultural and collective spirit. To a large extent, we consider it an ordinary and even benign fixture. However, there is nothing benign about the automobile. It has placed alternative modes of transportation in a role of servitude, practically holding them hostage, while transforming our cities into concrete jungles.
Car dominance has translated into fewer transportation options, and automobile dependence at both the individual and societal levels. However, to ascribe the notion of dependency to the automobile demands clarity and explanation. Due to its commonly perceived benefits of greater mobility, freedom and convenience, we do not tend to consider automobile use as a bad habit or addictive behaviour in the way that we do with cigarette and alcohol consumption. While it is true that the dependency derived from automobile use is largely attributed to land use patterns, and has greater infrastructural implications than cigarette and alcohol consumption, we can deduce some common traits. Like drinking and cigarette smoking, many Canadians recognize the negative effects which result from automobile use. For example, in a survey carried out in 1994, 52% of respondants identified automobile use as the main contributor to air pollution.23 Despite the fact that the majority of Canadians understand the harmful impact of the car on the physical environment, there is a great relunctance to kick the car habit. The same survey revealed that 61% of Canadians consider the greatest chance of improving air quality lies in research to develop cars with fewer emissions.24 Interestingly, however, more fuel efficient automobiles may justify more production and will not remedy the larger problem of infrastructural demands which inevitably increase with greater car use.
The survey indicates that Canadians would rather maintain the status quo (ie. keep driving their cars) than make any real behavioural changes that would significantly address our transportation inefficiencies. Cars with fewer emissions are only viable if the total number of cars is maintained or reduced - a scenario not very likely to happen any time soon. In fact, Canada has more than 14 million cars25 and the number is increasing worldwide annually at the rate of 38 million,26 as the Third World attempts to emulate the transportation model of the so-called developed world. It is predicted that by the year 2030, one billion automobiles will tread on the Earth's surface.27
Denial is an integral part of any addictive behaviour, and, according to the statistical findings of the above survey, Canadians are addicted to their cars. Glen Wolfson of the Environment and Transportation Department of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton characterized our dependence/addiction of automobiles as: "Driving in patterns we can't change".28 In his study entitled "Automobile Dependency as a Cost", Todd Litman defines automobile dependency as a sociey which has "high levels of automobile ownership and use; a high percentage of total travel by automobile; a lack of non-automotive travel choices and significant disadvantage of non-drivers relative to drivers".29
What needs to change then, if as a society, we are to seriously modify our current transport patterns? Clearly the answer to our automobile dependence lies not in more fuel efficient vehicles but in better transportation options which would decrease automobile use. An urban design which embraced higher-density living options is also a crucial remedy to heal a society suffering from automobile dependency. These solutions would provide citizens with real transportation choices rather than the illusion of choice which is being sold with every new automobile purchase.
The above would require a massive overhaul of transportation and road planning, since current transportation and road planning favours the automobile at the expense of other modes of transportation. For example, there are 879,000 km of highway in Canada. In urban areas, up to 42 per cent of the land in the downtown core, and 18 per cent of the land in greater metropolitan areas may be occupied by motor vehicle infrastructure, including roads, rights-of-way, bridges, garages, retail outlets, and parking lots.30 For many Canadians, this automobile infrastructure has translated into jobs. When some attempt to reveal the inefficiencies of the car culture, many play the "jobs" card to justify the status quo. Overall, automobile manufacturing and its related industries (highway construction, oil drilling, retail sales and steel production) are responsible for the creation of 500,000 jobs in Canada or 10 per cent of all employment.31 While the automobile industry has stimulated activity in almost every other sector of the economy, it is a costly system which survives with the help of public financing and subsidies.
As a society, we often perceive public transit as parasitic to the public purse but the automobile is by far the larger parasite when one considers all the costs associated with its maintenance. The Transportation Master Plan prepared last year by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton revealed that public subsidies for public transportation modes were about one-fourth the amount of subsidies to automobile transportation.32 Specifically, the figures for 1993 showed that in monetary terms, public transit received about $80 million, while the automobile system received just over $315 million.33 In True Costs of Road Transport, costs associated with the automobile are categorized as internal, external, fixed or variable, market or non-market, direct or non-direct.34 Consumers tend to be most affected by internal and variable costs (i.e. fuel, parking, vehicle maintenance) and, as a result, external, fixed and longer term costs, such as road construction, "free" parking, traffic planning, land use impacts, and social inequity, are undervalued or ignored.35 The fact that drivers are exempted from paying a fair share of these external costs, which comprise one-third of total car costs,36 makes the car option an attractive and cheap one, thus contributing to automobile dependence.
In 1992, Pollution Probe carried out a study on the costs of the car in Ontario, and placed the estimate at over $4.5 billion.37 In this figure, costs for highway construction and maintenance, automobile-related interest on the provincial debt, healthcare costs and car-related policing are included. An additional $3.75 billion was spent on external, variable, and indirect car-related costs which included: loss of farmland; crop damage due to ground-level ozone; loss of productivity due to delays, injury and death; and environmental damage due to acid rain.38 When one considers the whole picture from all angles, the total expenditure for the automobile for 1991 was on the order of $8.25 billion. According to Pollution Probe, the Ontario government manages to collect only $3.48 billion in direct, automobile-based revenue per year, which includes taxes from automobile corporations, provincial gas taxes, federal gas taxes, registration fees, and other taxes. All things considered, the net loss is about $4.77 billion.39 Keeping in mind that these numbers are for a single province, we can begin to understand how the automobile infrastructure is heavily subsidized and how the low operational costs provide every incentive to use it.
In this light, how does this massive subsidized machine affect our travel and use patterns? Primarily, it makes them rather unsustainable and expensive. Also, it limits transportation choices. Nowhere is the reality of automobile dependence more apparent than in North America, the land of the automobile. In many North American cities, more than 90 per cent of commuters drive to work, compared with 40 per cent in European cities and 15 per cent in Tokyo.40 Furthermore, 40 to 50 per cent of trips in Europe are made by bicycle or on foot, while only 10 per cent of trips in the United States are made by these means.41 The largest contributing factor to such automobile dominance and dependence in North America is inefficient land use patterns which favour urban sprawl and its off-spring, the suburb.
"The car gave us the suburb and the suburb gave us the car." This saying epitomizes the co-dependence which exists between these two entities. Urban sprawl is a costly proposition, not only in monetary terms but in social and environmental terms as well. In the words of Todd Litman: "Sprawl increases the amount of land used per capita for roads, parking and building developments, comsumes greenspace and imposes higher costs for various municipal services."42 Indeed, two per cent of Toronto is devoted specifically to parking and most of Canada's largest urban centres, the Windsor-Qu‚bec City corridor for example, have been developed on the country's best agricultural land and farmland.43
Historically, the suburb was conceived with benign intentions. The first suburbs had been developed along rail and trolley lines. With the elimination of electric rail in the United States, the personal automobile took over the traditional commuting pattern permitting the suburb to sprawl even more freely and farther.44 In the 1920s, urban planners saw cars as a way to move people away from the grime of industry and to put distance between people's homes and the smokestacks.45 As the years passed, the suburbs, with their indispensable partner the automobile, took on a life of their own. They were no longer benign.
As the result of sprawl, today Canadians travel larger distances simply to meet daily needs. Most of their driving time is spent getting to and from work (41 per cent) and running errands (25 per cent).46 Ironically, in this pursuit of greater mobility via the automobile, our real mobility is declining due to increased congestion.47 This is largely attributed to the fact that where one car can go, all can go, and do.
The implications and repercussions of urban sprawl are numerous. It can create social isolation, and a lack of sense of place. With the automobile, the conquering of physical space became possible. If one owned a car, distance was no longer an important consideration in deciding where to live. However, a sense of public space was lost. As Peter Freund and George Martin explain in The Ecology of the Automobile: "The spread of the auto as the primary mode of transportation has catalyzed the deterioration of vital public space. The accomodation of space to motion in an enclosed capsule has contributed to a loss of meaning for public spaces: "The technology of modern motion replaces being in the street with a desire to erase the constraints of geography." Public space is no longer seen as a place in which to do many things but as essentially meaningless, except as something to pass through."48 Essentially, the automobile improved the speed and distance one could travel between destinations but weakened the spaces in between, rendering them dead public spaces. Ultimately, we are left with isolated, disjointed destinations scattered across a huge urban terrain sustained by an indispensable road system which serves as their lifeline.
Urban sprawl has also contributed to a human-scale loss in our lives. In the words of Marshall McLuhan: "There is a growing uneasiness about the degree to which cars have become the real population of our cities, with a resulting loss of human scale, both in power and in distance."49 Perhaps this can best be seen in the many spin-off industries of the automobile introduced in the twentieth century that have nothing to with transport and only serve to strengthen dependency on the car. For example, drive-in movies started 50 years ago in New Jersey, and their numbers have increased to nearly 3,000 across the United States.50 According to authors Peter Marsh and Peter Collett, drive-in movies encourage pychological dependence on the car for people who can transport their living room on wheels; the film simply provides the rationale to engage in social activities in cars.51 We can also note motels, drive-in restaurants, drive-through bank tellers, and drive-up telephone booths as familiar features of the ever omnipresent car culture. The automobile succeeded in creating a fragmented and clustered society; a society in which the car does the "walking" for you to the bank, to school, to work and to the park because the distances are just to great for your humble feet to bear.
The importance attributed to the automobile is also seen in the physical design of private homes. Designs of private homes changed drastically when the garage door replaced the front porch, and was prominently placed next to the entrance door for convenience and to protect the family car, treated as a family jewel, from "stranger danger." This has social implications. Few homes now display front porches in their design. Once an integral feature of the family home, porches and verandahs contribute to a sense of neighbourliness and provide public spheres where citizens can converse and children can play with little danger. With so much emphasis on car ownership, our society has essentially eliminated any kind of street life where pedestrians are the central features. With increasing traffic, inevitably street life declines. According to studies carried out by Donald Appleyard in San Franciso, residents residing on streets with light-flow traffic (2,000 vehicles per day) had three friends and six acquaintances on that same street; on the other hand, those residents living on heavy-flow traffic streets (16,000 vehicles per day), had only 0.9 friends and three acquaintances.52 In contemporary North American cities, it has become the norm to not know one's neighbour.
Ironically, by disassociating oneself from one's immediate physical environment, public safety is undermined, not enhanced. Author Jane Jacobs advanced the notion that, by providing "eyes on the street," people-filled areas become less vulnerable to crime.53 By extending the amount of time one spends in his or her car, danger to oneself and to others increases greatly.
This is proven in the large number of fatal accidents which is not negligible but is downplayed in a society where the automobile's rule is supreme. Since 1980, for example, the Pacific Northwest region of North America has witnessed over 30,000 deaths as the result of motor vehicle use, and more than two million have been injured during the same period. These statistics far exceed the number of casualities and deaths caused by violent crime.54 Bystanders have also paid a high human price due to automobile accidents. According to Transport Canada's Road Safety 1994 Annual Report, not only were 2,945 vehicle occupants killed in transportation accidents in 1993, but also 423 pedestrians, and 84 cyclists.55 Fatal motor vehicle accidents now annually claim the lives of 300,000 people worldwide.56 Most striking is the fact, that since the automobile age began, over 17 million men, women and children have died wordwide as the result of this mobile metal box.57 Certainly, any other invention which had killed such a great number of people would be heavily scrutinized by the media and placed in the spotlight for serious questioning. Despite these grim statistics, we justify the use of our cars at any cost.
During the automobile era, Canadian society has witnessed a massive exodus to the suburban and exurban regions of every major city. When our cities became places to work instead of places to live, people fled city cores in the pursuit of a middle-class refuge called the suburb. Urban sprawl promotes and perpetuates class inequity and social segregation. Suburban refuges, with their homogenized topography, are inherently classist fabrications due to the considerably high expenditures required to reside in them. In the Los Angeles central business district, two thirds of the land mass is dedicated to the automobile infrastructure, and one is unlikely to find a white middle-class pedestrian walking on the streets.58 Authors Peter Freund and George Martin explain: "It is important to note that auto-based sprawl is class-biased because of the costs of owning and using an auto, and the lack of low-cost housing suburbs. Class (and racial) segregation is a salient feature of urban sprawl in the United States and it is in some measure an outcome of planning."59
Even though the overall cost of living in the suburbs is high, especially when one compares the average middle class family's standard of living in the suburbs to that of a low income family's standard of living in the city, suburban residents are the recipients of rather generous public financing. According to a Globe and Mail editorial, the low-density urban form of suburbs was identified as "the biggest middle-class entitlement program in Canada."60 In order for the suburbs to survive and sustain highways, secondary roads, and essential services such as water and sewage, subsidies must be provided by the government.61 Furthermore, the mere nature of the low-density and expansive suburb, implies that the above services would be most costly because of the distance covered by the suburban area. At present, there is little correlation between the costs incurred to sustain surburban development and the prices acutally paid by the recipients. The same editorial refers to a study commissioned by the Task Force on the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) which notes that an amount between $700 million and $1 billion per year could be saved in the GTA by accommodating growth in more efficient urban patterns.62
Similarly, in Ottawa, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton recently reviewed its Official Plan, a legal document that sets down how land will be used in the region over the next 20 to 25 years. At the centre of the development strategy for Ottawa-Carleton is increased residential urban density, as well as making growth inside the National Capital Commission's Greenbelt, a natural buffer zone that surrounds the city, the region's first priority. The goal is to stop expansion of urban boundaries by land speculators and to utilize the capacity of existing roads, sewers and public transit.63 Understanding Residential Density (the Regional Plan Review document) explains that concerns related to cost, quality, and the amount of land devoted to urban development suggest the need for cities to become more compact, and to have a greater mix of land uses than found in typical new areas developed over the past years.64 Increased density and mixed land use would surely reduce automobile dependence and encourage more sustainable modes of transportation such as walking, cycling, and the use of mass transit.
The most vital issue is the restrictive zoning associated with urban sprawl and suburbia. The same report estimates that almost $1 billion could be saved in public expenses if the 117,000 units expected to be built in the urban area of Ottawa-Carleton by 2021 were built at densities similar to older neighbourhoods inside the Greenbelt (mostly medium to high-density neighbourhoods). This represents an estimated $12.5 million annual savings of public funds.65 Despite these savings, however, urban development will have to be made affordable for consumers if it is to prosper and succeed. According to Randall Denley of The Ottawa Citizen: "Development tends to take place where builders have purchased land and can produce affordable housing at a profit. Infill development in the inner area has been slow to materialize because buyers can get so much more home for the same price a bit farther out."66
It is precisely this kind of development "a bit further out" which invites low-density, automobile-centred and dependent suburbs to emerge in complete sameness of shape, colour, size and form along the horizon. In the United States, the problem of inefficient urban developments is just as acute, if not more so. The American government provided about $70 billion to subsidize the private suburban home market, primarily through tax deductibility of home mortage interest as recently as the early 1990s.67
As we have seen, automobile dependence has jeopardized the viability of our cities. Cities and automobiles do not mix well, and our cities across North America have suffered considerably as a result. Our natural environment has also taken a serious beating under the wheels of the car. Many recognize the links between automobile use and the state of the Earth, and the statistical findings of the survey cited earlier testify to that. In concrete terms, this vicious cycle of automobile dependence has translated into poor air quality, more smog, unbearable traffic congestion, distruptions of natural wildlife habitats, a depleted ozone layer, and serious changes in climate.
Each automobile, on average, spews over four tonnes of air pollutants each year,68 i.e. about two to three times its own weight. As many Canadians now know, the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the concentrations of gases such as carbon monoxide (CO) and dioxide (CO2), and is causing what is known as the 'enhanced greenhouse effect.'69 The overall situation is worsening even though Canadian emissions of CO2 on a per-vehicle basis have decreased in recent years as the result of more efficient fuel. Internationally, emissions are rising because of the increase in the number of automobiles in use.70 Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is Canada'a most serious air quality problem and three quarters of the ground level ozone in urban areas is caused by automobiles.71 The entire cycle of the automobile, which emcompasses its manufacture, operation, and maintenance, contributes more to toxic waste generation than does any other form of economic activity.72 These facts indicate that our car dependency carries a large environmental price which subsequently represents a hefty economic price as well.
This hefty price is well exposed in the health costs that are incurred with unlimited automobility. Pollution Probe says that six per cent of all respiratory admissions in Canadian hospitals are smog related and in the United States, the American Lung Association reports that air pollution from motor vehicles causes $40 to $50 billion in annual health care costs.73 More generally, an automobile-centred transportation system contributes to high noise levels, greater congestion, and dangerous streets, all of which foster serious stress in our cities. Among many other factors in modern society, automobile dependence jeopardizes the state of our health. We could reduce our health costs if we invested in more human friendly transportation mediums which were less dangerous and less expensive, and invested the savings in valuable social services that would benefit all segments of society.
The impact of the automobile on our society is wide reaching and complex. In no way have we exhausted all angles. By exploring social, economic and political explanations, we have, however, demonstrated how automobile dependency is facilitated and maintained. When provided with the above facts and explanations, one questions the validity of the notion of choice often ascribed to the motor vehicle. Clearly, sufficient evidence has been supplied to prove that the automobile culture is damaging economically, socially and environmentally. This transportation medium has outlived its usefulness and has proven to be quite an inefficient means of transport. In this light, what are some of the alternatives and solutions possible for us to consider and implement? How can we free ourselves from this albatross, and create for ourselves and for future generations a transportation system which provides Canadian commuters with real choices?
This lack of choice in transportation and the uniformity of environments as typified in suburban landscapes is what Marshall McLuhan called "corporate communism."74 The process of standardization, coupled with underpricing of the automobile, has indeed made it an easily sought commodity, and has erected serious barriers and obstacles to transportation diversification initiatives. In North America, public policies and economics have clearly favoured the automobile industry to the detriment of alternatives such as mass transit, cycling, and walking.
As we demonstrated earlier, this transportation bias is strongly entrenched in our urban design. Therefore, as a society which wants to explore alternatives and bring about solutions to our automobile woes, we must not only rethink our urban design but our entire urban vision. Ultimately, a human centred design, which embraces sustainability and efficiency, must prevail over corporate interests.
A model for such a human centric urban design exists in Vancouver's West End, the highest density residential area in western Canada. Here, roads are narrow, sidewalks are wide with leafy trees and shrubs, and buildings are close together. One of the pioneers who transformed the area from a concrete jungle into a pedestrian friendly neighbourhood is Gordon Price, a member of the Vancouver City Council. Price boasts proudly that for every ten pedestrians, he counts but one car, and contends that Vancouver's West End is "one of the only real answers to the quandary of creating a sustainable and environmentally sound way of life."75 The key to success for Vancouver's West End is the fact that it utilizes mixed use zoning where social exchanges are optimized and travel minimized. This type of zoning mixes stores, offices, and homes which allows one to travel shorter distances for everyday activities, and fosters a more healthy human realm. Sprawl, on the other hand, fosters segregation of commerical and residential realms, and eliminates opportunities for social play.
Mixed use zoning requires less automobile dependency and is more conducive to a thriving cycling and pedestrian culture. With smaller distances to travel, cycling and pedestrian networks develop. Narrow roads, as opposed to wide boulevards, encourage more pedestrians and cyclists to reclaim their streets. Currently, roads are largely inhospitable and unfriendly places for non-car drivers due to high speeds, noise and toxic car exhaust. Originally, roads and streets were the focal points for healthy communities, and dynamic street life, where wandering folks were crucial ingredients for their success. As David Engwicht explains in Reclaiming our Cities and Towns: "For hundreds of years the streets have been the stage for music, processions, weddings, funerals, triumphal entry of kings and queens, education, public debate, prayer, commerce and theatre."76 If pedestrians are the catalysts for healthy communities, then more needs to be done to reinforce their importance in urban design. Natural walking paths connecting public facilities would also encourage such a pedestrian culture to grow.
North America could look to the Netherlands and Denmark for examples of integrated transportation systems. Both countries took concrete and drastic measures to reduce automobile dependence and use. In the Netherlands for example, the Dutch national transportation policy made provisions to devote 10 per cent of the surface transportation budget to bicycle facilities starting in 1975.77 Today, over 30 per cent of all trips in the Netherlands are made by bicycle, while 25 per cent of all access trips to railway stations are also made by bicyle. The fact that the Netherlands has over 13,500 km of connecting cycle paths,78 giving riders uninterrupted access to destinations, undoubtedly contributes to a reduction in automobile reliance. The Netherlands provides cycling facilities holistically, that is, to and from as many different destinations as possible. To date, most Canadian cities have used a piecemeal plan in which scenic bike routes are put in place but encourage only recreational cycling. The latter does not seriously address automobile dependence.
Bicycle use in North America is largely marginalized in comparaison with European and Asian countries where, due to population and geographic constraints, bicycles are considered essential to everyday travel. A spacious land mass, wealthy populace and numerous incentives to use the automobile has made it possible for 14 million cars to roam on Canadian soil. This has presented many obstacles to the success and the growth of bicycle use during the automobile era. The two wheeled unpowered vehicle has been generally perceived as a toy for children and a mere recreational tool for adults. However, the bicycle is accessible to almost everyone without a physical disability, and a bicycle centred transportation system would benefit society economically, socially and environmentally. As Wayne Roberts explains: "...a bike-centred transportation system accomplishes many things at one time. It provides for rapid transit - bikes are about as fast as cars in normal downtown traffic. It provides a good workout that burns off fat in the short run and protects against heart disease in the long run. It creates no pollution, protecting society from billions in costs associated with car exhaust. It reduces the amount of space that has to allocated to transit, making millions of acres available for other purposes. And it's fun."79
Such a system would only be viable in high-density urban areas and not in our present day sprawl.
In terms of changing behavioural patterns, cost has a major impact. Therefore, making it more expensive to drive cars could reduce our reliance on them. Both the Netherlands and Denmark increased the sales tax on automobiles, and have reinvested the profits in public transportation initiatives. For example, in Denmark, car owners pay a sales tax of nearly 200 per cent when purchasing a car, approximately $1000 (U.S.) per year in automobile registration fees, and $1 per litre of gasoline.80 Japan also made major investments in railway infrastructure and extensions following the Second World War and imposed high user fees on automobiles as well.81
If a fairer portion of the true cost of automobility were imposed on the user, funding would become available to invest in public transit projects, such as railways. A comprehensive railway system would not only reduce our dependence on automobiles but would ameliorate our mass transportation system. 'Rail Ways to the Future', a task force of Transport 2000 Ontario, outlines steps needed to rebuild rail service in Ontario. They include: the improvement of inter-provincial and international passenger train service on principal corridor routes; the electrification of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montr‚al routes for high-speed service; the provision of interurban cars for rural and feeder services; and the replacement of service on discontinued and reduced VIA rail routes.82 These changes would undoubtedly revitalize this form of mass transit.
In Back on Track: The Global Rail Revival, Marcia Lowe lists ten advantages of rail (passenger, light and commuter) over highway and air transport: greater energy efficiency; less dependence on oil; less air pollution; lower greenhouse emissions; less road and air traffic congestion; fewer injuries and deaths; less land paved over; local economic development; sustainable land use patterns; and greater social equity.83 Surely, if such a plan to resurrect rail transit were granted public financing, it would be more cost-effective to the taxpayer in the long term, create even more jobs than our current automobile dominated system and obviously, would be less polluting. As Susan Zielinski explains: "Cars actually cost more money to our society than they contribute in jobs...A recent German study showed that highway construction generates the fewest jobs of any public infrastructure investment. Spending one billion Deutshe marks ($580 million) on highways yields only 14,000 to 19,000 jobs, compared with about 22,000 jobs in railway tracks, or 23,000 in light rail construction."84
Given our present-day obsession with job creation and our alleged concern for the state of the environment and our communities, perhaps more politicians and policy makers should take note of some of the above suggestions and findings.
These are the kind of bold measures Canada needs to take. Many will argue however, that here in Canada we do not face the same land scarcity issues as in western Europe or Japan, and that the sheer size of our country demands the use of a private vehicle to travel the great distances our geography imposes. A fact often overlooked is that almost two thirds of Canadians are concentrated in urban centres along the Canada-U.S. border. This makes the viability of intercity rail quite feasible. With greater density in our city cores, there would be less need for automobile travel. While railways linked cities together, the bicycle and other modes of mass transit could provide us with sufficient transportation options for traveling within the city limits.
Obviously, these changes will not happen overnight. In fact, based on transportation reports, about $200 billion worldwide will be spent on "smart car research" in the next twenty years.85 In light of this, our automobile dependence seems likely to plague us for a while longer. However, at the local level, initiatives can be introduced so that Canada can boast more environmentally-friendly and liveable neighbourhoods such as Vancouver's West End. Incrementally, our cities can steer themselves away from their automobile-centric forms and move in a direction which places people before automobiles.
In the Greater Toronto Area for example, Transportation Options, an organization encouraging the use of alternatives to the car, has established a guide to implementing a personal car use reduction program. The guide is called "Going Car-Free" and works very much like any other self-help, addiction-focused program. The program lasts seven weeks and has two main parts: activity weeks and meetings.86 Participants monitor and reduce their car use during the activity weeks, and the meetings bring them together to discuss their progress in the program, as well as more general car use reduction related issues.87 During the activity weeks, participants keep a diary and set reduction targets for themselves until they reach the 100 per cent reduction level. The group meetings provide a peer support network very similar to the one Alcoholic Anonoymous offers. Again, we are reminded of the similarities between alcohol dependency and automobile dependency in our society.
To conclude, the alternatives to automobile dependence will only become feasible if public policy makers encourage the kind of urban development shemes that will minimize urban sprawl and automobile dependency, and maximize higher density living arrangements with more sustainable modes of transport. As a society, we need to make it more difficult for automobile reliance to prevail. It is time to raise the alarm of automobile dependency. Clearly this essay has amply shown that we can no longer afford to accept the expensive and deadly car culture as a mere given . Its hegemony in the transportation hierarchy, and in our society needs to be challenged.
DeMarco, Thomas. "The Most Dangerous Addiction? Problems with the Automobile," in The Peace and Environment News, Ottawa, May 1995.
Durning, Alan Thein. The Car and the City. Northwest Environment Watch Report No. 3, Seattle, April 1996.
Engwicht, David. Reclaiming our Cities and Towns: Better Living with Less Traffic. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 1993.
Engwicht, David. 2040: A Message from the Future [video recording]. Australia Council for the Arts, David Engwicht Communications, 1993.
Environment Canada. "A State of the Environment Fact Sheet: Environmental Implications of the Automobile." Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1993.
Environment Canada. "Action 21: Canada's Transportation Challenge." Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1996.
Flink, James J. The Automobile Age. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988.
Flink James J. The Car Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1975.
Freund, Peter and George Martin. The Ecology of the Automobile. Montr‚al: Black Rose Books, 1993.
The Globe and Mail, Toronto, January 12, 1996.
Gordon, Anita, and David Suzuki. It's a Matter of Survival. Toronto: Stoddard Publishing Co., 1990.
Hardison, O.B. Disappearing Through the Skylight: Technology in the Twentieth Century. New York: Viking, 1988.
Hoad, Linda. "Transit Still not a Priority," in The Peace and Environment News. Ottawa, April 1996.
Innis, Harold. The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
Kainer, M. "Advice for High-Speed Train Freaks," in Transmission, Toronto, Spring/Summer 1996.
Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Time and Space 1880-1918. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Lowe, Marcia. "Back on Track: The Global Revival," Worldwatch [Paper 118], Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, April 1994.
Maddison, David, et al. The True Costs of Road Transport. London: Earthscan Publications, 1996.
Marsh, Peter, and Peter Collett. Driving Passion: The Pyschology of the Car. London: Jonathan Cape, 1986.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Toronto: Signet Books, 1964.
The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, October 14, 1995.
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Planning and Property Department. Understanding Residential Density. Ottawa, May 1995.
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Environment and Transportation Department. Improving Neighbourhood Travel Options. Ottawa, April 1996.
Transportation Options. "Going Car-Free." Toronto: Transportation Options, September 1994.
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
Zielinski, Susan, and Gordon Laird, eds. Beyond the Car. Toronto: Steel Rail Press, 1994.
Zielinski, Susan. "Transporting Ourselves to Economic Growth," posted on Internet at suez@web.apc.org.
Zuckermann, Wolfgang. End of the Road: The World Car Crisis and How we can Solve it. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 1991.
