Most Americans outside the planning wonk world think about transportation in terms of roads. The TEA bill is a “highway” bill, the answer to any mobility or congestion problem is to make driving easier, etc. Even some who do wade into wonk territory maintain those (mistaken) ideas.

As someone who grew up in the suburbs and thought that way for a long time, it seems worthwhile to explain the thought process. Basically, it boils down to thinking that: “Most people drive for most trips, so we ought to focus on driving. Other alternatives like transit can be nice, but they’ll never solve much on their own because driving is the way normal people get around for most of their business”.

The statement is true so far as it goes; outside of maybe half a dozen major central cities most Americans *do* get around mostly by car these days. But that statement is only a surface-deep examination of the subject. The next level of sophistication would be to ask “Why is it that way?” Most suburbanites think the suburban way of life just happened. A couple of generations ago cars became widely available and easy to use, so everybody got one and now our driving culture is the natural way of things. So they think. In reality though, suburbia didn’t just happen. It was centrally planned, regulated, and heavily subsidized from the get-go. From zoning and red-lining to tax law to the Interstate Highway Act, American suburbia is one of the world’s greatest ever examples of social engineering. It never could have happened without absolutely tremendous institutional investment over the long term.

The fact is, suburbia happened by design. It wasn’t chance and it certainly wasn’t the free market. If we can help the roads-only crowd understand that, then they can make the logical leap forward that if we designed the system we have now, we can design a different one for the future.