USA Today asks, “Is USA’s love affair with the automobile over?” The Antiplanner is always irked when someone calls people’s use of cars a “love affair,” because it implies that driving is irrational. In fact, people’s use of cars is entirely rational, as they are the fastest, most-convenient, least-expensive of getting between most places inside of an urban area as well as for journeys up to a few hundred miles.
Ironically, USA Today quotes a study from the Department of Transportation (previously cited here) that pretty much concluded that the very slight (2.4%) decline in driving since its 2007 peak was almost entirely due to the economy, and not a change in tastes. USA Today pretty much ignores that conclusion so they can underscore opinions by car-haters from US PIRG who want to divert even more highway user fees to transit and other modes of transportation.
If there is any reason for a decline in driving other than the economy, it is demographics. Baby boomers are retiring and retired people don’t drive as much, especially during rush hour. The ratio of workers to non-workers is declining, so rush-hour traffic might be a little better. That doesn’t mean there is no reason to try to fix congested roads; roads that are congested today are bound to remain congested in the future unless something is done such as implementing congestion pricing.
You can find them in hard generic viagra generic tablets, soft tablets and jellies. cialis price On the off chance that any of these questions is yes then my friend, cheap Kamagra Oral Jelly and its Vardenafil (Generic Auvitra) actsby inhibiting an enzyme called PDE-5. So it is prescribed to maintain a strategic distance from fat rich eating regimen while taking this medication. levitra india Physical therapy can help you find the function of the endothelium, which is the inner lining over at this storefront cialis sale of blood vessels, which uses the nitric oxide fortifies a protein that delivers something many refer to as an envoy cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cgmp).
Ironically, just a few days ago, the Department of Transportation issued a “strategic plan” that, among other things, proposes to make the U.S. less “car-dependent.” Since cars play such an important rule in the American economy, this is equivalent to saying the administration wants to make Americans “less wealth-dependent.” Unfortunately, efforts to reduce driving tend to hurt the poor more than the rich, so another way of saying this is that the Department of Transportation wants to increase inequality.
The Antiplanner will take a detailed look at the strategic plan and many report on any findings in a future post. For now, at best, the jury is still out on future driving patterns. Any transportation official who counts on driving to decline in the future is likely to be disappointed.
We love are cars and the freedom they give us. I don’t have a “special” car that I love, but I desperately love the freedom the paved roads of this nation give me (when I own a car).
My grandfather was born in 1899, in the 1990’s he said the most impressive change he’d seen in his lifetime was the Interstate Highway system. The freedom to go where you want to go when you want to go there (and not be subject to the railroad schedules/fees other limitations) was more impressive to him than going from nothing to putting a man on the moon.
If it’s any kind of relationship then it’s certainly an arranged marriage. For the vast majority of the country, using cars for mobility is a requirement rather than a choice regardless of whether or not it is preferred. Much of America may have a “committed relationship,” but only because we have already spent all the time, money and resources to build an automobile infrastructure.
USA Today isn’t the only publication that is pointing to decreased car use. I agree it does have to do with demographics, but not only at the older end. A growing number of millennials are questioning the necessity of both car and home ownership (a perspective I happen to agree with). There was a great article in the Atlantic a year or so ago that gave a good overview of it. Granted, one could argue that as millennials get older they may have a change of perspective, move farther away from cities and decide cars are an unavoidable truth, but we’ll see.
“…….For the vast majority of the country, using cars for mobility is a requirement rather than a choice regardless of whether or not it is preferred…….”
So?
Is it preferable for people in parts of Africa, that for the vast majority of the country, walking for mobility is a requirement rather than a choice regardless of whether or not it is preferred?
Was it preferable for the people of the former USSR, that for the vast majority of the country, using trains for mobility was a requirement rather than a choice regardless of whether or not it was preferred?
We happen to live in a democracy, and public investment in the infrastructure for automobility accurately reflects the wishes of the vast majority.
The over-investment in public transport also represents democratic outcomes, in which there is a lot more ignorance and false assumptions than there is in the mandate for automobility infrastructure. For example:
“……..In Los Angeles, a city notorious for its low residential densities and dependence on private car transport, a survey showed that only 4.7 per cent of those questioned said that they would use a rapid transport system if constructed plus 2.6 per cent who said that they probably would. On the other hand 86.8 per cent said that they believed Los Angeles needed a rapid transit system. People somehow think that it would be good for other people, but not for themselves…..”
– Colin Clark, “Regional and Urban Location” (1982)
This is typical: public support for transit investment is always based entirely on the assumption that “other people” are going to use it and leave the roads clearer for “me, myself and I”. More intelligently worded surveys would reveal that these investments are always going to be a total waste of money.
The basic underlying “force of gravity” driving “sprawl”, is that rural land is very very cheap, especially relative to urban incomes, and it is far cheaper (for everyone except the rentier class), to convert this to urban use (for both residences and businesses) and pay a little extra for infrastructure and for driving automobiles; than it is to attempt to maintain an existing urban footprint, which always results in land prices orders of magnitude higher.
For example, Cheshire and Mills (1998) state that land at the centre of a growth-contained city is 325 times more expensive than in a non-growth-contained city, all other things being equal – except that the growth-contained city is also always growing far more slowly in terms of population and economic output.
The various “subsidies” and incentives to “sprawl” in the USA have made a peripheral difference, but the existential forces behind “sprawl”, produce sprawl everywhere unless it is deliberately obstructed by regulations, in which case the land-rentier class benefits greatly at the expense of the general welfare. Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, all have “sprawl”. A lag in comparison to the USA is to be expected due to later income growth, and possibly also due to higher-cost rural land (heavily subsidised, note). Further lags due to deliberate regulatory obstruction are always accompanied by urban land costs that add to the cost of living by significantly greater amounts than the cost of “automobility”.
Yes, the USA would probably have slightly less sprawl if not for mandates and “subsidies”; but there is a far stronger case to be made that the UK’s urban densities of 4 – 10 times greater than comparable US cities – and its urban land prices per square foot being 300+ times higher, is due to regulatory obstruction of natural “sprawl” processes.
Another way of putting this, is that doing it the way the UK does it, might mean that infrastructure costs borne via taxation MIGHT be $50 per annum lower per household; external costs of “automobile dependence” MIGHT be a few dollars per annum lower per household (local pollution is actually far higher and there are significant other external costs to “density”); and possibly there are “savings” (most likely forced) in lower direct cost of automobile use, possibly as high as a couple of thousand dollars per annum – but housing costs are easily $20,000 per annum per household too high, and this for 20 years (in fact mortgage terms in the UK are typically exceeding 30 years now).
The fact that this higher housing cost is around $20,000 per household per annum, is for an amount of land per person that is several times LESS, is explained by the fact that the urban land price per square foot is literally hundreds of times higher.
Of course the FIRE sector rentier classes would not have this any other way.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Ironically, USA Today quotes a study from the Department of Transportation (previously cited here) that pretty much concluded that the very slight (2.4%) decline in driving since its 2007 peak was almost entirely due to the economy, and not a change in tastes. USA Today pretty much ignores that conclusion so they can underscore opinions by car-haters from US PIRG who want to divert even more highway user fees to transit and other modes of transportation.
In spite of the headline, this AP story is provides a decent amount of balance: Americans driving less as car culture wanes.
If USPIRG’s assertions are correct (and I do not agree with those claims), then why has it failed to discuss a way for transit systems to wean their operations away from dependence on taxes and other fees diverted from highway users and toll road patrons to fund transit operating and capital deficits?
The young no longer view cars as “freedom” or a symbol of freedom. That is why use is down. If they decide to reproduce and move to a glorious suburb, that may change.
DS
“…Further lags due to deliberate regulatory obstruction are always accompanied by urban land costs that add to the cost of living by significantly greater amounts than the cost of “automobility”…”
So?
I’m sure that using cost as the only metric for weighing value propositions actually captures the value (or lack thereof) of either option–or all of the variations in between. The option that arrives at the lowest cost is not unilaterally the best holistic option over all. Coal power would be a prime example. Its appearance of “affordability” is undermined by a list of externalities, many of which we end up paying for one way or another via environmental cleanup, health care costs or carbon emissions (if you’re into that sort of thing).
There’s no doubt that suburban development brings cheaper living costs than its urban counterpart, but as someone who grew up in the suburbs I’m not sure that makes it a success. My point wasn’t really a cost comparison, it was that our car culture is now a constant because of developmental inertia rather than because everyone necessarily loves their cars.
L.A. is a great example because for as much of a transit proponent as I might be, L.A. is a lost cause for transit. The development pattern is now cemented in its option for mobility no matter how many people sign a petition for transit, because there’s no way to make it worthwhile for enough people in a catchment area in order to make it worthwhile. Most of our suburbs fall into the same reality. Even if people wanted to have a pedestrian-oriented, transit-based option for their town, they would be beyond the point of it making sense. Paolo Soleri was convinced that the only way to change existing suburbs to not be suburban was plowing everything under and starting over (a highly contested point of view in the design community).
Auto use is down because incomes are down and fewer are working than in 2008. When the economy recovers auto use and miles driven will increase.
Too many people insist upon working to direct the business of others. Mind YOUR business, and quit trying to push your imperfect manta on others. If everybody were honest with themselves they would admit that they are just as screwed up as they believe others to be – So mind YOUR business and leave it to government to accommodate what a majority of people choose to do, like drive their single occupancy vehicle, and minding to THEIR business.
“If they decide to reproduce and move to a glorious suburb”
Rewritten: If they decide to follow in Dan’s footsteps…
I see that for many it’s a committed relationship; as for me, I’ve got one foot out the door. By switching jobs, I’ve been able to cut monthly mileage from 1400 to 300, 1000 of which made up my commute. Now. I drive to the store, to the dog park, and to GTFO of the rat race once every few months. My petrol bill has plummeted and so has my stress.