The fallacy of promoting personal choice as the answer to society’s ills is that when the consequences are significant, individuals, on the whole, don’t typically step up to the plate and make a choice in society’s best interest.  If the statistics about car use aren’t convincing enough, take a look at the astoundingly selfish behavior of residents in Perth, Australia, where lush gardens and green yards are still priorities in a city with an alarming water crisis.  Libertarian and conservative writers, like Tim Carney of AFF’s Brainwash, don’t agree with this less than sanguine view of personal choice.  Carney uses Martha Stewart’s list of 101 ways to get started in “going green,” to illustrate how people don’t need to be prodded to do good.   Writes Carney:

[T]here certainly is no inconsistency between trying to be a good steward of the environment and opposing environmental regulations. At least 98 of Martha Stewart’s 101 suggestions make this clear. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about “Fix[ing] leaky faucets” or even “Dress[ing] sustainably,” and opposing increased state control over our lives. In fact, when you read down Martha’s list, almost all of her ideas save you money (okay, not “buy[ing] organic food”) and many of them save enough money that they’re even worth your time.

I’m not sure how many people actually adhere to Martha’s checklist, but my guess, despite Carney’s faith in humanity, is not many.  This annoying reality is exactly the point of government intervention: despite all of our good intentions, we don’t often do the right thing, and, moreover, what’s in our own personal interest is often in conflict with the interests of society.  Contrary to Carney’s assertion, those of us clamoring for government activism are not trying to make people virtuous.  I don’t really care whether drivers repent or not, I’d just like them off the roads.  That’s why the most effective policy prescriptions, like carbon taxes and cap and trade systems, don’t engage in group therapy sessions; they alter the financial incentives which cause individuals to put their interests above society’s.

If personal mobility really is a necessity for Americans, maybe it’s time to resurrect a 40-year old idea for combining the best of car driving with mass transit.  Personal Rapid Transit or PRT systems consist of small cars that are summoned at will and take a handful of passengers to any predetermined destination.  This form of transit is most analogous to an elevator, in that the car sits idle without riders, passengers decide where the car will stop, and if only one person boards, the car heads straight to that destination without stopping.   Morgantown, West Virginia, home of West Virginia University, has the only operating PRT in the world, the result of a 1970s federal transportation experiment.  Despite being written off as a wrong turn in transportation policy, the PRT is now an indispensable part of the Morgantown transportation scene, and an extension is under consideration.  With university students paying for unlimited use passes at the beginning of each semester, the system enjoys operating economics that would make most transit agencies drool.  PRTs, with their high construction cost per passenger mile and logistical limitations in dense urban areas, may not be the best use of taxpayer dollars, but if they make people forget their cars, it would be money well spent.  We could even throw in a few cupholders to make people feel at home.

Photo Credit: Edmunds.com