Article by Thomas Krag issued in "Weekendavisen" 9.3.2001

Cars. Centrally in the myth of traffic is the dogma that we cannot and must not be restricted in our traffic opportunities. Work of charity is designated a smear campaign.

It is difficult as well to manage as to discuss transport. And it will remain so until we settle with the myth about traffic as an absolute right.

The motorways round the Danish capital are planned to be widened to make room for more cars. The widening is marketed as an initiative aiming at improving the environment.

Swedish politicians who are strong advocates of public transport have been revealed as keen users of taxis. They live in Stockholm where there is a wide choice of buses and underground railways, and they ought to make use of these opportunities. So is the point of view, as we could read in this newspaper a few weeks ago.

These two examples have more to do with each other than you would believe at first. They deal with a modern myth about traffic which makes it hardly impossible to discuss the subject. Consequently you must invent an explanation for a road widening which conflicts with all experience from this country and from abroad. And consequently choice of public transport is made a private question of choice of means of transport with individuals, who are working for the change of opportunities for the majority.

In the centre of the myth of traffic is a dogma that we cannot and must not be restricted in our traffic opportunities. If the car traffic is a problem, well, then roads must be widened or traffic reduced by the creation of public transport which is so effective that people leave their car in the carport. A footnote to the traffic myth is that biking is not a relevant alternative and that walking does not exist at all.

In many places curbing car traffic has been attempted by improvement of public transport. But every time it can be seen that in spite of the improvement of public transport in itself has been sucessful, this has on the whole not changed the use of cars. Theoretic studies show exactly the same.

But the belief in public transport as a solution of the problems in crowded car traffic remains. Latest demonstrated by a panel of listeners in Radio Copenhagen who reached the result that problems would be solved if public transport was markedly improved. This in spite of that they had been listening to experts who scarcely - in that case they must have been speaking in spite of their knowledge to the contrary - have concealed the fact that to those, who have got themselves a car, other things that better public transport are necessary to make them leave their car at home.

The fact of the matter is that the car is the top priority of the people. Apart from a few of us who for reasons of common sense, habits, conscience or ideology prefer something else, the vast majority would drive a car in connection with nearly every sort of transport - if it is at all possible. The reasons for the phenomenon may be discussed - a number of irrational elements play a part. But one won't reach far by denying it.

In places where there is lack of space an increasing number of cars will be accompanied by a constantly worse carrying through of the traffic. The myth of traffic prohibits, however, the recognition that the car system can work, only if use of cars is restricted in places and at times when there is a lack of space. Many limitations of that kind should be possible - some well known, others untried in practice in this country. At random can be named: parking limitations, parking pricing, road pricing for driving on the most strained roads at the most busy times plus longer distances to parking grounds.

Traffic planners have said this for decades, but maybe they have not spoken loudly enough. Anyhow, among politicians and ordinary people the conception of the problems is quite different. The work of charity which implies the creation of conditions, iving improvement to the great majority of car users, presupposing that a few of them transport themselves otherwise or at another time of the day, is referred to as "smear campaign against motoring". The myth of traffic is still going strong.

The problem of the myth is that it considers traffic to be an absolute right and does not take into consideration that by now the consumption of traffic is so heavy that it must be looked upon as a partly limited welfare blessing in line with any other welfare blessings.

Take homes as an example. Surely there is a general agreemnet that everybody has a right to a suitable home. There is a widespread understanding that all people cannot live in the same place and, even, that means and willingness to pay influence the quality of the home. Or the subject of hospitals. Here is a discussion, how the offer of treatment given should be, but there is no discussion about the need of management.

You could dream about a similar approach to traffic matters. But thanks to the traffic myth we still must listen to stories about that motorways improves the environment and that traffic can be limited by extension of the supply. The consequence is waste of time and resources and to that loss of political credibility. The fear of settling with the traffic myth must be enormous.