Are Urban Planners Keeping EVs – And The Automobile – Out Of The Cities Of Our Future?

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler
Over dinner with our beloved Editor-At-Large two weeks ago, Ed and I discussed what we felt was the coming “post-car” era; rampant consolidation, the death of beloved brands and the subsequent widespread love for classic cars, the adoption of other forms of mobility and a fierce anti-car backlash. A nugget of information buried at the end of a Ward’s Auto report instantly brought all my fears and apprehension to the forefront, a mere fortnight after Ed and I concluded that things weren’t going to be that bad after all. A crucial aspect of ensuring the future of any vehicle is an understanding between OEMs and city planners. An unwillingness to reform neighborhoods with charging stations, for example, is dovetailing with local pushes for bicycle riding and car-sharing. “There will be no cars in the city of 2050 if the urban planners have their way,” IHS Automotive Senior Director Philip Gott tells attendees of the CTI forum.To get the necessary context here, the Ward’s Auto article was primarily talking about the necessity of government intervention in the adoption of alt-fuel vehicles. But the notion of a carless city runs much deeper than that. There is a growing movement nowadays that sees the automobile not just as an inconvenience, but a societal menace. Some of it is rooted in environmental concerns, but a more nefarious form of this anti-car opposition is rooted on dubious social justice initiatives.A few years ago, there was a famous case where Ontario’s Attorney-General, Michael Bryant, was attacked by a drunk cyclist while driving his Saab convertible at a busy downtown Toronto intersection. Bryant, who was out with his wife, driving with the roof down, panicked and drove off, with the cyclist clinging to the car. The Saab collided with a solid object and the cyclist died. Bryant was absolved of any criminal charges in the case, but his political career was over.The uproar over the case was palpable in a city where cyclists and motorists are frequently at odds. But what began cropping up was a new form of criticism. One letter writer to NOW magazine, a Toronto alternative weekly, has forever stood out in my mind, with the commenter blasting Bryant and the automobile as being some kind of hierarchical, top-down individualistic mode of transportation (I couldn’t find the letter, so this is paraphrasing) while praising the bicycle as a grassroots form of transportation that is accessible to all.The above quote suggests that opposition to cars has moved beyond mere environmental concerns into something more ideological. As a downtown resident, I can understand the desire for less smog, less traffic congestion and more pedestrian friendly streets and public spaces. These are what ultimately created the vibrant, bustling urban cores and livable communities (pardon me – I hate that word, but it really is appropriate) that make cities great. I feel that public transit is also a necessary ingredient to this mixture, having seen first hand the nightmare that comes with inadequate infrastructure and a sub-par public transit system.If urban planners are attempting to eradicate the car from our cities, then they are simply refusing to meet reality on realities terms. Despite the best wishes of public-transit advocates, utopian cyclists and their distant cousins, the general crackpots that infest the world’s great cities, the car isn’t going anywhere. Only Copenhagen has managed to fully embrace cycling, specifically because it’s built for it. A recent trip to New York City saw my girlfriend and I walk and take the subway nearly everywhere. It was fast, efficient, emissions free and yet cars were everywhere. Livery-service Town Cars, yellow Crown Vic taxis, motorcycles, luxury SUVs and even supercars all shared the road in Manhattan, where owning a car is apparently both passé and a pain in the ass.I don’t think it would be fair to blame our current crop of urban planners. If anything, the faculty, doubtlessly hailing from the Boomer generation and desperately clinging on the outdated, asinine “critical” theories and “radical” dogma are likely spurring something as, well, vindictive as banning EV charging stations. I agree that a more walkable and transit-accessible city is always a good thing, but that should have no bearing on the presence of the automobile. My experiences with EVs have all been positive, and having a charging station near my office makes things a lot easier – but my neighborhood at home was built before WWII, when garages and outdoor electrical outlets weren’t commonplace. A community initiative to install EV chargers for example, would save me from having to run a 30 foot cord from my driveway to my dryer outlet in the basement.We’ve seen time and time again how these kinds of social engineering initiatives pan out. The bigger worry is that the opposition to the automobile has crystallized into something more visceral, more ideological and more rigid. It’s in danger of becoming a moral stance akin to one’s position on abortion or same-sex marriage. Fortunately, all it would take up here is a miserable winter of carrying home local produce from the Farmer’s Market on a bicycle and no taxi access to the downtown core to make a number of anti-car types reconsider their choices.
Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 114 comments
  • Lynn Ellsworth Lynn Ellsworth on May 26, 2012

    "Why would you hope for government intervention?" Herb, did you actually read what I wrote? I was not advocating for or against government intervention BUT I WAS reminding people that we have already had a tremendous/colossal/stupendous amount of government intervention. And most of it has been good! WE are the government. After WW II the people of California, through their government bet big on cars and trucks and built a fantastic amount of freeways. This bet paid off big - the State of California became the 6th largest economy in the world! When Reagan ran for president he somehow forgot this and said, "government is the problem". HE WAS WRONG. We ARE the government. Have we chosen bad leaders sometimes? Of course. But in general we have done a good job. What is the alternative? Are you willing to wait for me to build my section of road, willing to wait for me to weld in my section of pipe line or install my section of electric high voltage line, wait for me to build my section of the next fighter plane, willing to wait for me to inspect your meat and vegetables, willing to wait for me to put out the fire in your garage where you store gasoline for your lawnmower, or even willing to wait for me to come to your aid if your neighbor decides to raise cobras in his back yard? A few seem to think government is always wrong and always in the way. Nonsense. We are the government and we have to join together to do all the above. (My specialty is spreadsheets, so I can help the fire department keep track of their expenses when they save your garage. I don't think you would want me to weld my share of our next pipeline or round up cobras.) Back to ICEs. The ICE has been good to our standard of living for 150 years but maybe it has run its course and it is the duty of us (the government) to leave options open and to PLACE BETS on what will work in the future. Some bets will pay off.

  • Herb Herb on May 26, 2012

    As already has been stated above, an important goal should be to have everything in walking (or walkable) distance, and, if that is not possible in a distance that is supported by public transport), whether the destination is an office cubicle, a pub, a grocery, a butcher, or a supermarket. Having lived in such an "ideal" (no zoning) environment for the last eight years, I can tell you that this is a mixed blessing. To have everything in walking distance is really a joy. But you need to be deaf, totally indolent, or produce considerable noise yourself to be able to fully enjoy it. Otherwise, you will be astonished how many unpredictable noise sources there are, day in, day out, and during the night as well. Current building standards could need an improvement, as well, to protect you from in-house noise.

  • Kwik_Shift Hyunkia'sis doing what they do best...subverting expectations of quality.
  • MaintenanceCosts People who don't use the parking brake when they walk away from the car deserve to have the car roll into a river.
  • 3-On-The-Tree I’m sure they are good vehicles but you can’t base that on who is buying them. Land Rovers, Bentley’ are bought by Robin Leaches’s “The Rich and Famous” but they have terrible reliability.
  • SCE to AUX The fix sounds like a bandaid. Kia's not going to address the defective shaft assemblies because it's hard and expensive - not cool.
  • Analoggrotto I am sick and tired of every little Hyundai Kia Genesis flaw being blown out of proportion. Why doesn't TTAC talk about the Tundra iForce Max problems, Toyota V35A engine problems or the Lexus 500H Hybrid problems? Here's why: education. Most of America is illiterate, as are the people who bash Hyundai Kia Genesis. Surveys conducted by credible sources have observed a high concentration of Hyundai Kia Genesis models at elite ivy league universities, you know those places where students earn degrees which earn more than $100K per year? Get with the program TTAC.
Next