Debunking the "war on cars"

If making transportation better is a "war on cars," then healthy eating is a "war on food," according to Todd Litman.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute researcher deftly knocks down the idea that livability is "anti-car."

Explains Litman: "People increasingly want to walk, bicycle, and use public transport, provided these modes are convenient and comfortable to use. Meeting this demand can help achieve various planning objectives, including congestion reductions, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer saving, and improved public health, to name just a few. It therefore makes sense to shift a portion of resources (road space and money) currently dedicated to automobile transport to support other modes, and to reform land use policies to help create more multi-modal communities."

The "war on cars" claim was cooked up by Wendell Cox in his paper published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s War on Cars and the Suburbs: Secretary LaHood’s False Claims on Roads and Transit. Cox "misrepresents issues and data, violating basic principles of fair debate" in his references to Litman's work, Litman writes.

"My research shows that residents of communities with high quality public transit drive fewer annual vehicle-miles on average, so most of these benefits are only percieved when impacts are measured per capita. For example, Cox compares energy consumption per passenger-mile between automobile and public transit, but totally ignores the lower annual mileage in transit-oriented communities, and therefore their greatest source of energy savings."

Litman adds, "Cox claims that public transit travel is inefficient and unfairly subsidized, based on comparisons that ignore a host of differences between automobile and transit cost profiles. When these factors are considered it turns out that transit commuters typically receive less subsidy per capita than urban motorists, and that public transit service improvements are often the most cost-effective way address urban transportation problems. 

"A particularly egregious example of Cox’s misrepresentations is his analysis of consumer savings. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, I found that households located in areas with high quality transit spend about 20% less on transportation (vehicles, fuel and transit fares) than elsewhere. This indicates that consumers receive a high financial return on their transit investments. Cox used a different dataset, the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association’s Cost of Living Index, to argue that the cities with high quality transit have higher transport costs, but that dataset is totally different; it compares the purchase price of a standard bundle of goods typically consumed by higher income households (it is designed to help businesses set executive wages), it does not account for differences in consumption and therefore the savings provided by high quality transit. Cox either did not understand these differences or intentionally misrepresents this issue in his attacks."

For more rebuttal of Wendell Cox, see "Let them eat sprawl," a recent New Urban Network blog.