The Imaginary Constituent Always Drives
According to the narrative put forth by the Automobile Über Alles, there are two types of people in this city: freeloading hipster transplants who want frivolities like bike lanes and congestion pricing, and Real New Yorkers who need abundant free parking for their Honda Accords with rubber bumper protectors. The former set is free from all real-world concerns, just riding bikes to their barista gigs and beard-oiling appointments, and expecting the city to cater to their whims. The latter have Serious Business to attend to, and there’s one bit of business that’s more serious than them all: getting older people to doctors’ appointments.
Indeed, in recent years, getting people to doctors’ appointments has become something of a rallying cry for car dependence and the very exemplar of the all-important journey. See Mayor Bill de Blasio’s rationale for opposing congestion pricing:
“There are plenty of people who are not well-off who have reasons they have to go into the core of Manhattan for medical appointments and other matters. We need to think about how we handle that.”
And internet comments on articles about bike lanes, such as this one from Buster57 in Queens:
“As soon as bicycles are subject to registration, inspection & licensing, you need to realize drivers will be the priority. And quite frankly, I agree. You are very lucky that you can bike to work. I, on the other hand, must drive my mother to her doctor appointments and everywhere she needs to go. I wish you the blessing of growing old, then you might understand.”
At this rate it’s only a matter of time before the city prints a parking placard for “Going To The Doctor.”
I can identify with both Mayor de Blasio and Buster57. Like Buster57, I, too, have a mother, and I take her to doctors’ appointments when necessary. Like those de Blasio describes, my mother is not well-off, yet she sometimes has medical appointments in fabulous and exotic Manhattan. Sometimes, going to these appointments involves our using a car.
Yet it is precisely because I am a dutiful son that I understand how absurd both of these arguments are. People like Mayor de Blasio and Buster57 would have you believe that no important journeys take place by bicycle or subway, but as someone who has to take his mother to doctors’ appointments, I want as many avenues of travel available to me as possible — and that includes bike lanes. Does it mean I’m going to schlep mom to the dermatologist in a Bakfiets? Probably not. But when it comes to getting from my home to hers, those bike lanes can make a world of difference.
More absurd is the common argument that congestion pricing would be a “regressive tax,” disproportionately burdening poor people. Bikey Hipster Beardo may be the entitlement strawman, but when I drive Mom to the doctor in a private car I’m the very embodiment of entitlement. The majority of households in New York City (my mother’s included) are car-free, and those that do own cars are among the wealthiest. When entitled people like me choose to drive, we’re directly responsible for causing congestion, which in turn delays buses — the mode of transit on which low-income New Yorkers most depend. Indeed, the real “regressive tax” is what we’re doing now, subsidizing car travel for rich people at the expense of the poor.
Indeed, the real “regressive tax” is what we’re doing now, subsidizing car travel for rich people at the expense of the poor.
Claiming we can’t regulate the glut of luxury SUVs clogging our streets because it’s not in the interest of poor people is beyond disingenuous. It is bald-faced elitism.
Of course, you can’t expect the rich and entitled to act against their own self-interests by supporting congestion pricing — except that it is in their self-interest. As things currently stand, if I drive, I have to sit in traffic with a bunch of other drivers who have been incentivized to drive, thanks to free East River bridges and a lack of congestion tolls. While many of these people may be doing the sort of business that requires them to drive, or even taking their own aging parents to doctors’ appointments, plenty more have reasons that are at least as frivolous as those of any lushly-bearded hipster bogeyman. They’re driving because it’s cheap and they feel like it.
Don’t let the fact that I write for glossy magazines like Reclaim fool you, I’m not made of money. Still, I’d gladly pony up toll money in exchange for better-flowing traffic when I’m forced to drive, especially since I save so much money riding my bike the rest of the time.
Life in New York City is complicated and unpredictable. We all have our pet ways of getting around, but when the you-know-what hits the fan, we all want to choose the most efficient transit mode for the circumstances. But for all those transit modes to function, we need to put an end to the notion that cars deserve to sit at the top of the transportation hierarchy, and stop pretending cars are the default choice for doing “serious business.” The car should be a contingency plan, and using one should not come at the expense of the trains, buses, and bicycles that move people far more efficiently on a daily basis.
Time to invert the hierarchy.
