A Fantastically Stupid Article

Have you ever read an article and wondered whether the authors were being paid to write such obvious falsehoods, or if they simply lacked common sense and perception?

Well, I have just such an article for you right here. It's another in a long list of denialism about our current automobile culture. They often run on a common theme, and this one is no exception: Cars are good because people like cars, and they are a sign of wealth. Or something like that. In truth, here are the five 'myths' the authors set out to debunk:

1. Americans are addicted to driving.

2. Public transit can reduce traffic congestion.

3. We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving.

4. We're paving over America.

5. We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving.

My favorite, as you must have gathered, is #2. Is it really a myth that public transportation reduces traffic congestion? Here's an especially choice paragraph, in which the authors state that it would be just too darned hard for us to make our suburbs transit-friendly:

Many officials say we should reconfigure the landscape -- pack people in more tightly -- to make it fit better with a transit-oriented lifestyle. But that would mean increasing density in existing developments by bulldozing the low-density neighborhoods that countless families call home. Single-family houses, malls and shops would have to make way for a stacked-up style of living that most don't want. And even then the best-case scenario would be replicating New York, where only one in four commuters uses mass transit. [Emphasis mine]

Read that bold passage again. What could be a more blatant misrepresentation of what sensible planners are suggesting? Planners suggest that new development should ideally be created in a manner that creates higher-density neighborhoods. This means zoning with more regular street plans and smaller lot sizes. Where do the authors get the notion that this is the same thing as bulldozing existing neighborhoods? Again, I ask if they're honestly this stupid or if they're being paid off.

Never mind that beneath the entire article is the implicit assumption that we will have enough oil (or hydrogen, or ethanol, or magic beans) to continue running our cars at the same capacity forever. Well, I'm sorry, but we won't. We just won't. And it makes far more sense to begin planning for an oil-short future sensibly than plugging our hands over our ears and repeating that everything is fine.