The Globe and Mail has this columnist, one Neil Reynolds, whose overarching thesis week after week seems to be "Public transit shouldn't exist, everyone should drive cars." And a lot of very loud people seem to be agreeing with him.
Now, if you're a car person, I get that. You like cars, all vroom vroom and stuff, you don't want to take public transit with all the smelly proles because that will make your penis fall off, we'll have to pry your car out of your cold dead hands. Message received and understood.
But here's the part I don't get: why do you want ME in a car?
Let's put aside for a minute the fact that I'm a terrible, nervous, skittish driver - let's pretend I'm a perfectly innocuous normal driver. If I'm in a car, I'm turning left in front of you, I'm taking up a parking spot, I'm merging into your lane on the 401 at the last minute, I'm trying to squeeze car in the tiny space next to your pretty shiny new car, I'm in front of you in line at the gas station, I'm taking up an appointment slot at the mechanic's.
But if I'm on the subway, I'm not doing any of these things. I'm not in your way at all, you don't even notice me.
So why on earth would you want me in a car? Why wouldn't you support public transit just because it keeps so many people off the road and out of your way?
3 comments:
I don't get it either but I think the basic argument is that they don't want to pay for a service they don't use, period.
Something about transit makes them go absolutely crazy.
They hate the thought of all those non-drivers having independence and mobility...really, really hate it.
Sometimes it's about the money, as when GM bought all the urban trolley systems to destroy them 50 years ago.
But there's something else, isn't there? It's almost as if they're really, really disturbed that everyone doesn't share their values. It also bothers them that people without cars might potentially access their lovely gated neighborhoods.
Of course, when gas prices get back to "normal" all this transit talk will stop, too. Their short national nightmare of independence for children, seniors, disabled people and other non-drivers will be over.
Not this time, I think. Keep the faith. You're on the right side of history.
Anon: if that's the case, it's weird that he gets a Globe & Mail column. I would assume a newspaper of the Globe & Mail's stature require that columnists' analysis go beyond the very first layer of "How does this affect me?" at the very least to the second layer of "Hose does this affect me?"
Arlene: I think you're onto something with the idea that it bugs them that non-drivers have independence. I was once talking to a suburban driver who was cranky at a bus line going near his house, on the basis that people move to the suburbs specifically because they intend to drive. When I pointed out there there are also dependent seniors and youth living in the neighbourhood who can't drive and didn't choose to live there, he got kind of weird at the idea that they might want to go places without their children/parents respectively driving them.
Post a Comment