On Friday as part of
a lunchtime lecture series hosted by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s College of Urban Planning PhD Students, Gregory Shill of the University of Iowa discussed his paper “
Should Law Subsidize Driving?” Shill looked at how how the American legal system has historically tipped the scales in favor of cars, and what we can do to change that paradigm.
In his paper Shill notes that in the early 1900s, business leaders and lawmakers pushed hard to change the dominant urban mode from public transportation to the private car. And, as Streetsblog readers are well aware, continued investment in driving over transit has caused a host of social problems. In the U.S., motor vehicles are the top source of greenhouse gases and crashes are leading cause of death for children. Our auto-centric transportation system has many direct and indirect costs for society, and it hurts the most vulnerable residents — kids, seniors, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color — the most.
Shill noted that while the switch from transit to private cars, and the resulting damage to society, has been partly driven by consumer preference, but it has also been “encouraged—indeed enforced—by law. Yes, the U.S. is car-dependent by choice. But it is also car-dependent by law.”
However, Shill offers a path forward for legal solutions to reducing car-dependence. “It begins by identifying a submerged, disconnected system of rules that furnish indirect yet extravagant subsidies to driving. These subsidies lower the price of driving by comprehensively reassigning its costs to non-drivers and society at large.” He says these subsidies are found in every branch of law, including traffic rules, land use laws, and tax, tort, and environmental law. “Where [the law] is destructive, it is uniquely so: law not only inflames a public health crisis but legitimizes it, ensuring the continuing dominance of the car.” He urges a shift towards legal reforms that promote equity, economic prosperity, and health.
