Vehicles do have costs but consider the alternatives
The social benefit of transport must be considered when discussing its social cost, Jack Crawford writes.
GERRARD Liddell (Opinion, ODT, May 5) urges us to ‘‘reflect on the amenity of our roads’’, and as an impetus for us to do this, to contemplate that ‘‘the social costs of motoring are over $6 billion per year’’ (Really?).
Furthermore, he informs us that ‘‘overseas visitors are appalled at our subtribe of drivers who charge at dilatory pedestrians, treating other road users as little better than potential roadkill’’. This all seems to be rather inflammatory language but we know that Mr Liddell is not alone in Dunedin as holding the view that motorised transport is the work of the Devil.
While it is indeed true that we have all derived enjoyment and pleasure from the deserted roads on many recent balmy autumnal afternoons, these jolly good vibes have of course come at monstrous cost for many industrious folk in the productive component of our economy, with attendant and ongoing social upheaval. Once Covid19 is conquered, or at least ‘‘eliminated’’, Mr Liddell will still be able to find his peaceful nirvana in communities such as Lawrence, or Colac Bay.
However, for the rest of us, it is axiomatic that mankind’s assimilation of scientific and technological advances over hundreds of years has resulted in our contemporary acceptance and reliance upon the instantaneous transmission of information and of knowledge, not to mention the equally immediate transfer of funds.
It seems therefore counterintuitive that the concept of the rapid transfer of people, along with materials and goods, should meet with this apparent condemnation. Societies since time immemorial have relied upon advances in the timeliness of moving people and things.
The United States, back in the 1920s, had a population of about 110 million, at the same time, used about 21 million horses. These horses all needed to be ‘‘parked’’ somewhere when not in use, and this took up a lot of space. So, the adoption of carbonfuelled trucks to transport goods within cities didn’t seem such a bad idea at that time.
If one is to contemplate the ‘‘social costs’’ associated with motoring, it seems vastly unfair to not also consider the social benefits in the efficient moving of folk, goods, produce and materials in a timely and safe fashion. I’m sure that any resourceful economist could provide the relevant data for the balance sheet.
In today’s ‘‘connected’’ civilisation, the car can be legitimately be viewed as an extension of one’s home. The negative imagery prompted by the concept of the ‘‘cluttering’’ of streets by parking cars thereon, is about as rational and relevant as would be the concept of the ‘‘cluttering’’ up of huge tracts of land for the purpose of accommodating (in our houses) all those pedestrians and cyclists.
Land which I am not free to traipse over, even though in many places it would be nice to do so.
Yes; the current iteration of the private car is damaging the planet. Just why folk have the urge to purchase taller, bulkier and heavier vehicles is something that a psychiatrist might best explain. However, this phenomenon does not negate the underlying precept that freedom of mobility, utilising a mode of transport which is rapid, safe, secure and comfortable, and which affords enhanced opportunity and convenience, is something to embrace.
The technology exists to ensure continuity and enhancement of these freedoms, with much less environmental impact. The challenge is to find ways to incentivise folk to make better decisions, in this regard.
By all means, adopt Mr Liddell’s concept of ‘‘road pricing’’, but that concept is only legitimate and fair if it also accounts for the (probably incalculable) benefits accruing to the unfettered, expeditious and safe movement of folk, produce and materials from A to B. And back again.
By way of summary, our road network is to our technologically advanced society what our vascular system is to our bodies. ‘‘Cost’’ it at your peril.