Ferrari Mailing List: Secretary of Behavior Modification

[Larry B (larrybard]

Interesting piece by Randal O'Toole
George Will recently accused Obama’s token Republican, Transportation Secretary 
Ray LaHood, of being the “Secretary for Behavior Modification” because of his 
support for programs designed to coerce people into driving less. Speaking 
before the National Press Club on May 21, LaHood pleaded guilty as charged.
 

In the video of LaHood’s presentation, he was asked if the administration’s 
“livability initiative” is really “an effort to make driving more tortuous and 
to coerce people out of their cars.” His answer: “It is a way to coerce people 
out of their cars, yeah.”

The next question was, “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable 
communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into 
people’s lives. How do you respond?” His complete answer: “About everything we 
do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives.”

 



While these are certainly quotable, defenders of “livability” (code for 
“transportation by any mode but automobile”) would be quick to point out that 
all of LaHood’s examples are aimed at giving people choices other than driving: 
walkways, bike paths, streetcars, light rail. LaHood never mentions any actual 
techniques aimed at coercing people out of their cars.

 

Yet those coercive techniques are a major part of the livability campaign, as 
shown by Portland, Oregon, which LaHood touted as “the example” of a livability 
program. The most important of these techniques is to divert highway user fees 
to expensive forms of transportation that receive little use. Portland is 
deliberately allowing congestion to grow while it spends money collected from 
highway users on streetcars and light rail.

 

Not that Portland’s program is very successful. Despite spending more than $2 
billion on rail transit since 1980, transit’s share of Portland-area commuting 
declined from 9.8 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent in 2007. (The table says 6.5 
percent but that includes the people who worked at home.)

 

Much of the money that Portland does spend on roads goes into “traffic 
calming,” a euphemism for “congestion building.” This consists of putting 
barriers in roads, speed humps, narrowing streets, and turning auto lanes into 
exclusive bike lanes. Portland’s official objective (see table 1.2) is to allow 
rush-hour traffic to grow to near-gridlock levels (”level of service F”) on 
most major freeways and arterials.

 

“People don’t like spending an hour and a half getting to work,” said LaHood. 
But if more congestion is a key part of “livability,” then a lot more people 
are going to be doing that under the administration’s plans.

Beyond not seeing anything wrong with government coercion, LaHood can’t see the 
difference between transportation systems that pay for themselves (such as the 
interstate highways) and transportation systems that require huge subsidies 
(such as streetcars and light rail). “If somebody wants to ride streetcars or 
light rail to work,” says LaHood, then it is up to the government to provide it 
for them.

 

What if someone wants to take a helicopter to work? Or a dirigible or 
rocketship or a personal limousine? Does LaHood really believe that, just 
because someone wants something, all other taxpayers should fund it?

 

When in Congress, LaHood was known as a “moderate Republican.” I guess that is 
a euphemism for “central planner in waiting.”