1. Sharifi 1
Why Are Americans Obsessed with Their Cars?
Farid Sharifi
April 25, 2018
2. Sharifi 2
Introduction
Compared to other developed nations in Europe, Americans rely more on their own
personal automobiles for transportation than on available public transportation. The trend in
European countries in the 20th and 21st centuries has been to focus more on public
transportation infrastructure. Meanwhile, the United States has focused more on its
automobile infrastructure, including the interstate highway system.1 Today, only 5% of
Americans admit to using public transportation regularly.2 In addition, according to the World
Economic Forum’s 2016 economic competitiveness rankings, the U.S. ranks 16th in terms of
quality of infrastructure.3 In 2010, Americans drove for 85% of their daily trips compared to 50-
65% in European countries.4 Why is this the case? And how does this affect American society
and welfare at large? Often, simple geographic size is given as a reason. However, Russia has a
landmass nearly double that of the United States, yet more than 50% of Russians use public
transportation daily.5 This research attempts to investigate the reasons for the differences in
public transportation between the U.S. and Europe. In addition, this research attempts to
perform a cost/benefit analysis on America’s car dependence.
History
The roots of the difference between American and European public transportation lie in
the early 20th century. The assembly line decreased the cost of automobile manufacturing. As a
result, by the 1930s, every other American household owned a car.6 In 1928, 78% of the world’s
motor vehicles were in the U.S.7 Buehler describes this as “mass motorization.”8 Meanwhile
European households during this time were poorer, thus car ownership was lower. Because of
3. Sharifi 3
its higher demand for automobiles, the U.S. built more infrastructure for its cars than Europe.
Additionally, the automobile, and its attendant infrastructure, took hold earlier and more easily
in the United States because of its vast, undeveloped territories compared to Europe.9 In this
sense, initially, geography did make a difference. After World War II, car demand and
infrastructure in the U.S. only grew further. The Interstate Highway System, spearheaded by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was constructed in the 1950s. Although it had many purposes,
including military mobilization in the event of an atomic war, the Interstate Highway System
was meant to reduce inefficiencies in transport.10 Its consequence was to facilitate suburban
sprawl in the U.S. further. After World War II, European governments subsidized public
transportation whereas the U.S. let many modes of public transportation, such as electric
trolleys, die out.11 The consequence of this was suburban sprawl.
Suburban Sprawl
Population density in U.S. cities is among the lowest in the world. O’Sullivan compares
data from the cities of Atlanta in the U.S. and Barcelona in Spain. Average population density
per hectare in Barcelona is 171 whereas in Atlanta it is 6. The maximum distance between two
locations in Barcelona is 37 kilometers, but in Atlanta it is 138!12 Population seems to have little
to do with suburban sprawl. Paradoxically, the city of Cleveland’s population decreased 8%
from 1970 to 1990, but its territory increased by 33%.13 Suburban sprawl in the United States
has its roots in the early 20th century. Advances in transportation led manufacturing firms to be
less dependent on horse carriages, railroad hubs, and ports for transportation. Thus, they
moved away from central business districts in search of cheaper labor in the suburbs. Labor in
the suburbs was cheaper because workers no longer had to spend as much money to commute
4. Sharifi 4
to the central business districts. 14 The fact mentioned earlier that the U.S. had welcomed
personal car ownership on a much greater scale than Europe before the War also helped
contribute to suburbanization. The abovementioned Interstate Highway System only made it
easier for manufacturing firms to transport goods and commuters to get to work, and suburban
sprawl increased even more.15 Thus, suburban sprawl was a self-reinforcing phenomenon that
had fatal results for public transportation. When people are spread further apart, obviously
public transportation must cover more ground, and thus it becomes less feasible to maintain.
But suburban sprawl was even more insidious. In addition to leaving behind blighted
neighborhoods, the flight of people from the cities lowered tax revenues to maintain existing
urban public transportation and infrastructure.16 Crime increased in the inner cities and schools
became low-quality, which only contributed to the flight to the suburbs.17
The factors that cause suburban sprawl have been present in both the United States and
Europe for a long time. So, as the information presented by O’Sullivan demonstrates, why is
suburban sprawl not as pronounced in Europe? The answer lies in political differences, for
example, taxes. Home ownership is effectively subsidized by the federal and state governments
in the U.S. in the form of tax deductions for mortgage interest.18 Car use is more expensive in
Europe because of high taxes on gasoline and high sales taxes on cars. This makes public
transportation essential and keeps urban population density high.19 Meanwhile, commuting is
much cheaper in U.S., which only facilitates more car dependence.
In Europe, farmers are heavily subsidized, and thus they can afford to outbid city
dwellers for land at the fringes of city territory instead of vice versa because their willingness to
pay is higher.20 So instead of building out, European cities build up because the cost of capital
5. Sharifi 5
(building materials) is less than the cost of land. Finally, European governments spend much
more on public transportation than the United States for two reasons: European cities are
denser than American cities, and political factors have impeded the funding of public
transportation in the U.S.21 The former reason has been explained above, and the latter reason
will be explored in the following section.
Social Costs
So how does the dependence on the car affect American society at large? As it might be
expected, it does not help those who cannot afford a car. In the year 2000, 19% of people living
in American central cities are poor compared to less than half that number living in the
suburbs.22 Glaeser et al. argue that the poor cluster in cities because of better access to public
transportation there.23 The fact that public transportation is used more by the urban poor has
created a stigma against it in the United States. This stigma has prevented the political salvation
of public transportation. The suburbs have tended to be dominated by Republican voters.24
Some lawmakers that represent these suburban constituents have considered public
transportation to be a form of “welfare” that only the poor use and that only serves to enable
more poverty.25 The car dependent society also creates winners and several losers. According
to Adams, the ‘mobility-poor,’ i.e. the young, old, and poor who cannot afford a car, become
“second-class citizens.”26 If jobs, stores, entertainment, hospitals, libraries, schools, etc. are
scattered over wide swaths of land, and public transportation is almost a nonentity, then those
without a car are effectively excluded from normal life. Car dependency becomes implicitly
discriminatory.
6. Sharifi 6
The social stigma against public transportation does not exist everywhere. In countries
like the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and Japan, even the wealthy regularly use public
transportation because driving is difficult given the structure of those countries’ cities (built
around public transportation and not the automobile).27 Therefore, because of sprawl and
other public policies that stymy public transportation, the poor, and everyone else in the United
States, are left with only one option: the car. Not only does this decrease the utility of people
who cannot afford cars, it also decreases the utility of those who can afford cars but would
prefer to use other modes of transportation to economize on gasoline, economize on
insurance, economize on car repairs, reduce carbon emissions, etc. Consumer choice in the U.S.
is effectively nonexistent when it comes to transportation because the automobile has a virtual
monopoly on American consumers.
Conclusion
The American dependence on the automobile in the 20th and 21st centuries is the result
of many self-reinforcing effects. American cities grew out instead of up like European cities due
to historical and political factors. Greater reliance on cars, among other factors helped
accelerate suburban sprawl, which itself increased dependence on cars. This increased
dependence has not been unilaterally beneficial for all members of American society. It has
effectively segregated the poor into the cities where public transportation is still widely
available. These are the same cities that the wealthy left decades ago to escape crime, poor
education, and other social ills. Thus, while the automobile may have ‘liberated’ some from life
in the cities, the lack of an automobile has consigned others to substandard conditions in the
cities.
7. Sharifi 7
Endnotes
1 Buehler, Ralph. 2014. 9 Reasons the U.S. Ended Up So Much More Car-Dependent Than
Europe. February 4. Accessed February 23, 2018.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/02/9-reasons-us-ended-so-much-more-
car-dependent-europe/8226/.
2 Faris, Daniel. 2015. Why Public Transportation Is So Limited in the United States . August 17.
Accessed February 22, 2018. http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/32383-why-
public-transportation-is-so-limited-in-the-united-states.
3 World Economic Forum. 2016. Competitiveness Rankings. Accessed February 26, 2018.
http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/rankings/.
4 Buehler, Ralph.
5 Faris, Daniel.
6 Buehler, Ralph.
7 Nivola, Pietro S. 1999. Are Europe's Cities Better? September 1. Accessed February 28, 2018.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-europes-cities-better/.
8 Buehler, Ralph.
9 Ibid.
10 Nivola, Pietro S.
11 Buehler, Ralph.
12 O'Sullivan, Arthur.
13 Nivola, Pietro S.
8. Sharifi 8
14 O'Sullivan, Arthur.
15 Ibid.
16 Faris, Daniel.
17 Nivola, Pietro S.
18 O'Sullivan, Arthur. 2012. "Land-Use Patterns." In Urban Economics, by Arthur O'Sullivan. New
York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
19 Nivola, Pietro S. 1999.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Glaeser, Ed, Matthew E Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. "Why do the poor live in cities?
The role of public." Journal of Urban Economics.
23 Ibid.
24 Short, John R. 2016. Why is the U.S. unwilling to pay for good public transportation? April 1.
Accessed February 25, 2018. https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-u-s-unwilling-to-
pay-for-good-public-transportation-56788.
25 Faris, Daniel. 2015.
26 Adams, John. "Hypermobility: Too Much of a Good Thing?" RSA Journal 149, no. 5500 (2002):51-52.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41380333.
27 Glaeser, Ed, Matthew E Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. "Why do the poor live in cities?
The role of public transportation." Journal of Urban Economics.
9. Sharifi 9
Bibliography
Buehler, Ralph. 2014. 9 Reasons the U.S. Ended Up So Much More Car-Dependent Than Europe.
February 4. Accessed February 23, 2018.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/02/9-reasons-us-ended-so-much-more-
car-dependent-europe/8226/.
Glaeser, Ed, Matthew E Kahn, and Jordan Rappaport. 2008. "Why do the poor live in cities? The
role of public transportation." Journal of Urban Economics.
Nivola, Pietro S. 1999. Are Europe's Cities Better? September 1. Accessed February 28, 2018.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-europes-cities-better/.
O'Sullivan, Arthur. 2012. "Land-Use Patterns." In Urban Economics, by Arthur O'Sullivan. New
York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Short, John R. 2016. Why is the U.S. unwilling to pay for good public transportation? April 1.
Accessed February 25, 2018. https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-u-s-unwilling-to-
pay-for-good-public-transportation-56788.
