The War on the Car

As I watched Rob Ford being sworn-in as mayor of Toronto last week I was reminded of just how unfortunate this turn of events is when he uttered his victory slogan: “The war on the car ends here.” As his supporters cheered I think I must have heard dear ol’ Jane Jacobs doing summersaults in her grave. Dark Age Ahead indeed for her adopted city.

Funny his choice of the one word: “war” – which conjures up images of destruction and death. It seems to me that the historic record shows clearly that it’s the car itself that has left a trail of destruction and, literally death in its path. But stats on casualties aside, let’s start to imagine just how “victimised” the car driver could actually feel, even if the statement is more of a manipulative trope and a ruse than anything else.

I suppose the argument suggests that this war is waged on many fronts, starting with gas prices, tolls and taxes, and rising insurance costs. What’s more, the auto industry has been faced with major financial losses putting its very viability into question. The official response of course has embraced anew the status quo under the banner of “restructuring”, which involves plenty of lip-service on environmental stewardship and “going green” – in short the usual smoke-and-mirrors type of spin that passes for success these days. But Ontarians know of the massive job losses as well as anyone. The question is, do they really want to hold their breath as they wait for the whole thing to “recover”? In this day and age, it’s making more and more sense to “think outside the car”, so anyone still determined to hang on to the out-going mode of operating must be feeling pressure from all sides, like the whole world is against them. I suppose attacking the car by looking at its ills inflicted upon public space and the environment is one way to be scapegoated by the likes of a Rob Ford.

Here in the Plateau Mont-Royal a battle in this ongoing “war” was recently fought ostensibly over the issue of parking spaces. Traffic reduction and calming being the goal, the proposed parking plan was designed to solve particular problems and enhance business. In fact, having read the proposals, I’m baffled to this day as to what the very vocal and dare I say militant opponents to the plan objected to. And then I thought about Rob Ford’s “war”. Of course he spoke in another context, in another city, but it struck me how emotionally and ideologically charged this particular point of view is. Perhaps this is at the heart of the matter where ever car culture and its enthusiasts (whoever they may be) feel threatened: it may be political, and said to be economical, but really, it’s ideological. These people love their cars, and what cars represent to them, and they resent those of us who challenge the car, and hold it up to the emerging standards of a changing world.

So, although the parking plan in and of itself may not have been actually threatening (if you actually read it), it did garner a knee-jerk, emotional response from those who are threatened more generally by what they know Projet Montreal to represent, which is focused largely on traffic reduction and curtailment through a shift to active transport and public transit, but I digress. You can check out the party’s platform and objectives for yourself on their website. If you ask me it may well amount to real change that enjoys broad-based democratic support, but only time will tell.

The knee-jerk response is actually predictable, since it’s well documented elsewhere (Copenhagen being my favourite example) that most challenges to the status quo (especially those involving cars) are met with misconceptions, false assumptions and over-reactions. As predictable as it should be, Projet Montreal certainly failed to present their recent proposal in a way that might have nipped the objections in the bud. A lot of misconceptions about the plan were allowed to circulate, not least of which was the budgetary context in which the new arrangements were drawn-up. Where were the leaflets and adverts outlining all the good sense that Luc Ferrandez so eloquently details in his blog? Does he have a P.R. strategy for the unveiling of his next round of implementations?

It was stunning how quickly his opponents mobilised with posters that crept their way into the Mile End soon after the battle began. These opponents framed the issue with a misinterpretation of the facts, and probably fooled a lot of people along the way. But, again, it’s important to stay away from oversimplifying. And I’m certain that Ferrandez understands this. But the public does require an accessible and easily read outline of this sort of proposal early on so that the debate can start off on the right foot.

I wish I could have been the fly on the wall when Ferrandez and his opponents were ironing things out behind closed doors. My guess is that a fair bit of humble pie was served up to the detractors who were finally made to read the reasonable details outlining the purpose and the methods of the proposed changes, which should in fact to be to their benefit, as Plateau merchants.

The media has it that they were able to save face, which is good, because my guess is that in a few years time they will be backing the plan whole-heartedly, even if they don’t yet believe it themselves.