Car dependency dominates physical public space. Motonormativity refers to how cars dominate ways of thought. This post is about how in discussions for improving transportation policy, perspectives on how different groups of people depend on cars in our car dependent system dominate the rhetorical space. All of these should stop, and maybe we should work on that list from the bottom up. Here’s my pitch for unapologetically supporting movement away from America’s car dependency.

First off, car culture is harmful and reform is a priority in its own right: it’s a primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, on the order of 40k Americans die due to crashes each year, orders of magnitude more are injured in crashes or suffer from traffic emissions in the air we breath, there’s psychological harm to everyone who escapes being hit but comes home with a heart pounding in fear, these harms are concentrated among vulnerable groups, tire wear is a leading cause of microplastic pollution, it inherently excludes many people who cannot drive due to disability, age, or finances, it exacerbates the cost of living crisis, it dominates public spaces so other uses become unsafe or impractical, and it burdens government budgets.

Like the climate crisis I think people block it out because it is so overwhelming to take seriously. The death toll should be enough to inspire reform but since it’s evidently not, the DOT’s 2016 Value of a Statistical Life of $9.6 million, with no adjustment for inflation, and the 39,345 traffic fatalities in 2024 alone represent $378 billion in harm. That only counts the most tragic outcomes. These harms are all downstream of policy choices, and we should change.

Good policy requires understanding multiple perspectives. But perspectives can be framed in a crass and divisive way which is so obviously counterproductive that it is generally not acceptable in good faith conversations. It’s hard to even write about because it’s rightfully uncomfortable.

For example, given racism in this country some people feel that the well being of some minority groups are at odds with other minority groups. I’ve heard this sincerely expressed verbally but rarely in print. We should of course collectively try to help all marginalized groups. Furthermore, having open political conflict between ethnic groups helps conservatives divide and defeat their opponents. An example of that dynamic is litigation against affirmative action. Hypothetically, if you were having a conversation with a left of center group about how to treat immigrants humanely, it would not be well received for somebody to argue that actually immigration is bad because some individual native born Black job applicant might lose a job opportunity to an immigrant willing to work for less. That’s not because the scenario is impossible, nor because economic justice for Black people is unimportant. But rather because a political agenda based on that divisiveness only enables the employer to pay less.

Different policies are needed to help different people in different ways. It’s worth discussing intersecting concerns from different perspectives. But outright hostility and zero sum mentality is inconsistent with policies that would be best for society overall, and only serves to protect those who already have power.

That cooperative posture breaks down with transportation policy. Constantly, at least from my reading, other needs are cited as reason to oppose reform by a wide variety of speakers.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and the details don’t matter. The point is that it’s the water in which we swim. That widespread insistence on opposing reform and shifting focus to other perspectives devalues transportation as secondary.

The objections to any reform burdening drivers or reducing driving can touch a range of concerns, not limited to

Reducing car dependency is good overall and particularly helpful for many vulnerable groups. When these other perspectives are categorically emphasized over improving transportation policy, that values the mobility of drivers now over potential mobility after the reform. That is a manifestation of car culture. Transportation is incredibly complex and of course any wide scale reforms will not directly help everyone. Yet anybody objecting to the cost of a reform for drivers is also advocating against the potential benefits for everyone else.

I don’t deny that better transportation policy would impact some people negatively, and not just car dealership owners. Although that’s also true and it would overall be very cool to cut off their profits and political donations.

If drivers lost their subsidies and thus residents of car dependent sprawl had to internalize the cost of all their driving, then living in car dependent sprawl would become much less attractive relative to other options. Or if government funding shifted from roads to transit, etc., whatever reform you choose. Demand for housing would shift from car dependent suburbs toward denser options (whether or not in prior urban centers). Along with residents, those suburbs would lose businesses, amenities, and a portion of their tax base. The largest monetary cost of this shift would fall on wealthy people who currently own some of the more expensive SFHs. For the purposes of this post about rhetorical tactics it’s noteworthy that I’ve never seen proponents of the status quo emphasize these rich homeowners as likely losers as a result of potential reforms.

The current system is so lethal, so costly in so many other ways, and hinders the mobility of so many people that moving away from it as rapidly as possible is a worthy goal. Proponents of the status quo, who object to reforms because nothing is ideal, should have the rhetorical burden of justifying their preferred system or else proposing a solution of their own.

Policies should be crafted with regard for vulnerable groups. We should make sure new transportation does not isolate people the way mid century urban highways were intended to. Make sure that all infrastructure is accessible, from curb cuts to level access boarding. Make sure that economic inequities are considered, such as the harmful existing practice of transit agencies collecting fares from all riders but specifically subsidizing richer drivers by letting them park for free at park and ride lots. Changing our transportation system is an opportunity to incorporate so many perspectives that are absent in automotive infrastructure, which is great. It’s an opportunity to incorporate the perspectives of everyone who does not drive now. That opportunity is all the more reason to reject the status quo as soon as possible.

So I encourage everyone to join me in unapologetically opposing car dependency. Advocate for reform, then advocate for even more thoughtful reforms, and when people object that it’s not perfect encourage them to think of even better ideas.