Public Transportation Improves Quality of Life

After this column, I see no reason why George Will should ever get paid to write something again. First off, as Matthew Yglesias points out, he says something that's just patently false. Will: "Does [Ray LaHood] think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?" Yglesias: "Will claims to find it unbelievable that as many as 0.01 percent of Americans would ever bike to work regularly. But rather than tossing off ridicule, he might have looked up the Census Bureau’s statistics on commuting patterns and seen that right now 0.4 percent of commuters normally get to work on bicycles. Now that’s a small percentage. But it’s forty times larger than a percentage that Will deems unrealistically utopian. This would be like saying Dwight Howard is 2 feet tall."

But it gets worse. Not only does George Will hate any kind of change, he also believes that change is impossible. Change doesn't happen, you guys!

Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program "promoted" driving?

You know, it's possible that something could be popular, and nevertheless, due to government action or whatever, become more popular. I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me.

Will thinks that liberals are promoting public transportation and cycling because they hate cars:

And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America's "automobile culture," many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives. Drivers moving around where and when they please? Without government supervision? Depriving themselves and others of communitarian moments on mass transit? No good could come of this.

Based on this, I can only assume that Will hasn't ever used a decent public transportation system. Because even in a city like Chicago, whose public transportation system is not even close to one of the world's best, public transit gives you significant advantages over driving. Rather than limit one's freedom, it increases it.

I have a car. But most of the time, I don't drive it. And I like driving. I like it a lot—I bought a car even though I didn't really need one. But the fact is that much of the time public transportation is a significantly better option. Riding public transportation means I can read the news while riding to work, thus increasingly the likelihood that I'll actually start working when I arrive, rather than spending an hour surfing the internet. Riding public transportation means I don't have to deal with the stress of driving around and around looking for a parking spot. Riding public transportation means I won't get into an accident. It means I can safely make phone calls during my commute. It means that if I get drunk, I can get home without putting myself and other drivers in danger. It means I don't have to worry about gas, or maintenance, or what the hell is that sound coming from the back wheel? Riding public transportation means I save money.

Even if you're a driver who hates public transit, you should support public transportation initiatives. Why? Because public transit reduces congestion, and gets people like me off the roads, making more room for you. The only conclusion I can draw from Will's position is that he actually likes sitting in traffic.

Will also has an awfully bizarre idea about what the government does:

Today's far-seeing and fastidious government, not content with designing the cars Americans drive to their homes and the lightbulbs they use in their homes (do you know that, come 2014, the incandescent lightbulb will be illegal?), wants to say where their homes can be.

Since when did the government design cars or lightbulbs? Nevermind the fact that getting pissed off about banning the incandescent lightbulb is the most idiotic thing I can think of, since the compact fluorescent is superior to the incandescent in every single way.

At least George Will got one thing right:

But LaHood is a Republican, for Pete's sake, the party (before it lost its bearings) of "No, we can't"

The fact that he says that like it's a good thing tells you everything you need to know about the Republicans.

I'll stop now, because I couldn't possibly do as great a takedown as Amanda Marcotte. The comments to her post are also great, this one in particular, from "Lexie":

I come from the (Peoria-like) midwest. I am blind and don’t drive. In the midwest, to be blind often means to be on SSI, sitting around doing nothing all day. (And this goes for many other nondrivers with disabilities, too.)

I moved to Portland specifically because of its transit and walkability. I live in the suburbs, but I live 1/4 mile from a Max stop, blocks from 2 buses, a few MAX stops away from the commuter train, and I can walk to grocery stores, the gym, my UU church, and many other daily necessities. Good public transportation takes disabled people (and poorer people who can’t afford cars) out of the unemployment line and puts them to work. It makes us independent and able to live normal lives. When anyone starts knocking public transit, it not only means they don’t give a crap about the earth, it means they are really giving a big fuck off to the disabled, the elderly and the poor.

Amen to that.