Asphalt Nation

[Oxymoron]

OK, I originally posted this as a reply to "Oil and Dependency", but wasn't sure if anyone would see it, so now it's a thread.

There is a book called "Asphalt Nation" by Jane Holtz Kay. It is about the true cost of cars at every level of society and the environment. If you need facts to throw in car driver's faces this book is a must read. I will look through it again and write more about it later.

I saw her speak once and wrote some quotes down:

--1/4 of US defense budget goes to the Middle East
--It costs $50 a day to own a car
--20% of automobile related deaths are pedestrians and bicyclists
--60,000,000 square miles of the US are paved for cars
--A pedestrian requires 5 square feet when standing and 10 when walking
--A car and its access demand 300 square feet when standing, 3000 when moving at 30 mph, and proportionally more at higher speeds
--In commercial terms each shopper takes 70 times his or her floor space to drive and park the car
--Each car needs three parking spaces: home, work, and store
--33% of the life time pollutants produced by a car are created before it ever leaves the factory
--60% are created during its lifetime, and 7% in disposal

--"You're not stuck in a traffic jam, you are the traffic jam."
-German public transport campaign
--"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
-Lewis Mumford, urban prophet
--"Growth for its own sake" -slogan of the cancer cell
--"Mall-lignancy"
--"Honk if you love the environment" -an actual bumper sticker
--And saving the best for last -"Drive to work/work to drive"

This book has got a million of these--it will change your life, even if you already swore off cars years ago. I'll write again with more interesting info if I find it.

If anyone ever actually reads this book please let me know. I have never had a chance to discuss it with anyone, but would love to

[LittleBigMan]

I've always wondered exactly how much more it really costs to own and drive a second car for that person in the family who'd really rather stay home from work.

[mike]

$50.00 per day to own a car equates to $18,250.

That just doesn't seem realistic considering I know people who make $6,000 per year and still own/drive an automobile. A couple of bad stats chips away at the integrity of what otherwise would be a fascinating collection of information.

[John E]

$18K per year is 2-3X what I have heard from other sources. By far the greatest costs of owning a fairly new car are capitalization and depreciation; for an older car, repairs and maintenance gradually rise to the forefront.

My solution is to buy new cars, drive them far less than average, and keep them 20 years.

[Oxymoron]

I was wrong. I should be more careful when quoting--I must have misheard what she said in her speech, or maybe she was including other things. The figure of $50 per day is too way too high.

I looked it up in her book and she says that there is an average of $6000 in user costs per year to own and operate a 2 year-old car. That cost includes gas, parking, tires, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and tolls for the administering, building, repairing, and operating of roads.

There are also the external/social costs, paid for by the public at an average of $3000-5000 a year per car. These include parking facilities, police protection, land consumed in sprawl, registry operations, environmental damage, uncompensated accidents, etc. These hidden costs equal 35 cents a mile on average nationally, and up to $1.50 in dense urban zones.

This is just from pages 120-121 in her book. It's the stuff that can't be reduced to number that will REALLY piss you off. There is also a whole section on bikes, and others on mass-transit and walking. She is an activist and does not sugar-coat what she says, but she has done her research well and is considered an expert.

[Bigtime]

Yeah, and I bet she rides a bike to wherever she gives her speech. Her numbers sound way off to me. She says a car needs 300 square feet standing, that's 30 feet by 10 feet. She says a car going 30 MPH needs 3,000 feet, that's over half a mile!

I won't argue that cars are bad for the environment or that they kill people, this is all well documented. But our society is dependent on vehicles and if this lady wants us to all ride bikes everywhere or take the bus she is in a dream world. If she has a realistic alternative I would love to hear it.

I read somewhere that an old chainsaw produces more pollutants in one hour of use than a newer vehicle does in 8 hours of continuous driving. If she wants to be an effective activist I say she should write a book about that.
-BT

[stewartp]

Originally posted by Oxymoron
--Each car needs three parking spaces: home, work, and store
The 3 spaces can't be right. I don't have a space at the store with my name on it - reserved just for me. When I'm not there, other people park in the spaces. (don't they?)
And I don't drive to work, I cycle. And I know of many car owners who take the train or bus to work.
And if my car were parked in the garage (its not, the garage is full of bikes!) then even my home car space would not be intruding on the public.

I looked it up in her book and she says that there is an average of $6000 in user costs per year to own and operate a 2 year-old car. That cost includes gas, parking, tires, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and tolls for the administering, building, repairing, and operating of roads.

This is disengenious of her because the roads are also used by buses and trams (public transport) as well as motorcycles, cyclists and pedestrians. Even if there were NO cars we would still need roads that need maintenance and repair.

These hidden costs equal 35 cents a mile on average nationally, and up to $1.50 in dense urban zones.

How does one evaluate hidden costs. I agree that policing, registry, insurance etc, does get factored in to the cost of the car, but arriving at the amounts must be tricky

This is just from pages 120-121 in her book. It's the stuff that can't be reduced to number that will REALLY piss you off.
What pisses me off about stats is that if they can't be reduced to number then its just sucking figures out of the air.

There's no need to over-egg the anti-car argument with bad, meaningless or worthless figures or stats. People will focus on the bad stats and throw the baby out with the bath water.


Stew - the king of mixed metaphor.

[Bigtime]

I agree with Stewart. I think Oxy is a cool cat as well and I take issue with the "Asphalt Nation", not with him.

Let's not forget this either: Everything we have, everything we eat, everything we are going to have needs cars/trucks/whatever to get where it needs to go. How many jobs would be lost if we had no cars? Then it goes right down the line: parts stores, gone. Tire stores, gone. Mechanics, all gone. There is always another side to the coin that people seem to forget. It's a complicated issue for sure, and getting rid of cars would be nice but it just is not going to happen.
-BT

[thbirks]

You all need to go read this book. I don't care if you love or hate or couldn't care less about cars, this book should be required reading. I believe the subtitle is something like "how the car took over the U.S. and how we can take it back" The book explains how the automobile came to dominant our transportation system, why dependence on private car usage isn't a viable option for our future and Yes ,Bigtime, she gives ideas on how we can ween ourselves away from automotive dependency.

This is the best book on the subject that I have read and I've read quite a few. I can't defend or debate statistics. Statistics can be manipulated to prove or disprove just about anything. Hovever, I don't need statistics to prove to me car-dependence is destroying our quality of life.

[John E]

Originally posted by thbirks
I believe the subtitle is something like "how the car took over the U.S. and how we can take it back" The book explains how the automobile came to dominant our transportation system, why dependence on private car usage isn't a viable option for our future.

Hovever, I don't need statistics to prove to me car-dependence is destroying our quality of life.

I do concur with these points, particularly since our proven world-wide supply of petroleum is around 50 years, which means we will begin to run short during my sons' lifetimes (and even mine, if cycling, genes, and diet keep me going to 100). The key is to establish legally that one has the fundamental right to travel safely and conveniently by bicycle, on foot, or by mobility scooter from Point A to Point B. We simply need a ped-and-bikes-first / cars-last policy for establishing traffic controls and designing intersections and roadways. I am sick of prime arterials, legally and morally accessible to all, being designed to look, feel, and flow like freeways, complete with high-speed merges and diverges. No government agency should be permitted to build a public road without providing for non-motorized users.

By the way, I do drive, use transit, bicycle, and walk/jog. I am not necessarily anti-car, but I think our society pays a tragically high price for auto-dependence and overuse of cars. Do not worry about the economy -- over the decades, various jobs come and go, and the workforce adapts according to market cues.

[nathank]

OK, i have only skimmed this book, but it is like THE most acclaimed car/culture/environment book b/c of it's age - written sometime in the 70s i think... and i know a fair amount about this subject from various other sources, so since the comments here seem to present the general dominant US view, i'll try and widen the viewscope a little bit here...

about the numbers and statistics: if i remember right these are estimates of the TOTAL costs and sizes. For instance, $6000 (i think AAA's current number is like $6500 per year) is about the cost TO THE USER to own, insure, maintain and operate a vehicle... $6000 isn't too bad. But there are so many other costs like road construction, police service, oil subsidies to keep prices low and stable, military expenditures to help denfend/protect our oil source interests, pollution costs, etc... these costs are not visible in the $6000/year but *someone* is paying for them - in the US it gets taken out of tax dollars that could go for education or other social services --- how much money does your state or community spend on new road construction? how much money goes to police service to give speeding tickets? how much for the fancy traffic monitoring systems (signs, video, real-time monitoring) in most major cities to help alleviate traffic problems?

as for the parking space numbers: the 3 is figured as such:: 1) most people have their own parking space at home (or on the street in front of their house) that is almost always not used by them when they're not home. 2) most people have a parking space at work - while it may not be dedicated, your company must have enough spots for all the workers who drive -- and if you visit a company parking lot at 3am, you'll see almost all spots unused.. 3) then when you shop you need a parking spot - again you don't have a personally reserved spot, but every place you shop needs to have enough extra spaces so there's one for you whenever you want to shop there, so they need to come close to meeting MAXIMUM capacity ---- admittedly there is some overlap - some people live in urban areas where others park for work when they're not home but most people live in the suburbs and no one parks in front of their house during the day. and yes, there is sharing between different retail businesses... but again, if a store doesn't have enough parking then people will shop somewhere else where they can find parking (or maybe free parking) ---- thus, the statistics are difficult, but it's very close to 3 parking spots for each car operated. think about the Walmart parking lot and then the Safeway parking lot and then Blockbuster, etc... and then all the parking garages and parking lots at your company...there's a lot of parking out there and most of the stops are empty at least half the day and often 90% of the time (think about the last spot at your company or the last row at the Walmart - is it ever full? if so they're probably planning to build more right now)

in the US, the car is the accepted standard and these service expenditures go unnoticed. as an aside, in political terms, money spent on road improvements or infrastructure is always considered an 'investment' -- like "we need to build this road to invest in our local community", but when rail projects come up people say 'the train service is not profitable. Amtrak's been losing money for years. Why do we we need to SUBSUDIZE trains?'... no one expects for money spent on roads to turn a profit (possibly some toll roads but i think most loose more money than they earn), but for the train it is not an 'investment' but a 'subsidy'... do your tax dollars spent for road construction ever turn a profit? this represents the American mindset with the car as the standard.

besides the hidden societal costs of operating a motor vehicle, another big item that would help reduce people's often excessive car use is reducing the fixed cots to be per-mile costs so people realize the real costs of their actions... for example, with a few exceptions for discounts if you work near home, once you fork over the cash to insure you car it costs you no more to drive 100,000 miles in a year than 10 miles... and most people don't make the connection between usage and maintenance - they just fix the car whenever it breaks... so the per-mile cost of using a car looks like just the cost of gas (US price of gas also reduced through lots of government expenditure for oil subsidies and military protection - your gas taxes and auto registration do NOT cover all of this) which is quite cheap... i.e. if work is 5 miles away and gas costs $1/gal and your car gets 30mpg, then it *seems* like it only costs $.32 to drive to work and back... but this is not counting what you already spent on insurance, what you will spend in maintenance, and all the external costs already paid by society for roads and oil, plus the costs from pollution that society will bear in the future... even just your real direct personal *usage* cost is much higher than what you think(what's the current IRS number $1.25/mile?? i haven't driven for business in the US in a while)... not to mention the *real* total cost of driving...

in most of Europe gas costs 2-3 times as much as in the US so the per-use costs are higher, but in general the major result is that people buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and other transportation like public transit becomes more attractive because of increased money savings... but even in Europe with higher registration taxes and gas prices most of the costs are still 'invisible' to the user... the system is still set up to encorage people to drive as much as possible by making it cheap and easy.

and the main reasons why so much US government tax money is spent on the car infrastruture have to do with the fact that the automobile industry has a lot of money and makes more money the more we drive... and now almost all of business especially in the US is 'dependent' on cars (for workers to get there and shoppers to come buy stuff) so it's an 'investment' in society to makes car use cheaper, easier and more stable... i, of course, don't necessarily agree

[John E]

I find it extremely significant that Lido Iacocca, who worked almost 50 years at Ford [Mustang] and Chrysler [K-car, minivan], is now pushing his Lido Motors Neighborhood Electric Vehicles instead. The demographics are ripening, and the societal costs of autodependence are becoming increasingly apparent.

[Kevin S]

Originally posted by nathank
...Why do we we need to SUBSIDIZE trains?'... no one expects for money spent on roads to turn a profit...

Great argument. I'll be using that one the next time I hear about subsidizing the bus system in our county (a hot topic at the moment).

... (US price of gas also reduced through lots of government expenditure for oil subsidies and military protection ...[/QUOTE]

I agree that we subsidize oil via military support, but what other subsidies (sp?) are there?

Kevin S.

[nathank]

Kevin S,

other oil subsidies... hmmm, OK, on this i'm not an expert... and i don't have off hand any definite stats...

but i'm pretty sure the US govt provides various oil-exploration tax breaks and research incentives (under the guise that helping the US obtain cheap oil in the future will help the economy and allow our oil-excess-based lifestyle to continue to grow)... and then helps out with things like oil pipelines and oil-transportation infrastructure... and then softening of environmental rules so companies save money by doing fewer tests, less impact research and less paperwork... the oil companies have tons of lobby groups in Washington and i'm sure they get something for all the money they pump into their lobby groups...

if nothing else, the US and state governments basically smoothing the way and making it easier for oil companies to do what they want to do - OK, it's maybe a little overdramatic, but Stephen Segall's move from about 6 years ago about an oil company terrorizing Alaskan Inuits... it's not really an example of direct subsidy, but all local services (sherrif, etc) were on the side of the non-local oil companies instead of the local comunity - b/c of $$$ - i don't think that's too unrealistic.

and glad that you like the subsidize/investment thing - i am always amazed at the difference in attitude:: *investment* in roads and *subsidy* for public transportation --- the only way that this makes any sense is IF you subscribe to the philosophy that any normal person drives a car and only lower class people who need state assistance use public transit - i.e. subsidy... but i totally disagree with this --- being stuck in a car in traffic is not my idea of luxury and the 'good life'

[John E]

Travel by private automobile is the most heavily-subsidized mode of transportation in the history of the world. Gasoline and vehicle sales tax revenues fall far short of covering the true societal cost of motoring.

[Kevin S]

Thanks Nathank.

I'm not denying that there are subsidies, I'm just trying to get specifics -- it's very difficult to fight generalities. I want to be able to name specific subsidies the next time I get in a discussion with someone about bikes on the roadway.

I read and enjoyed Asphalt Nation a few months ago. I found that it challenged standard automobile thinking, but also painted a pretty bad picture of the old trolley and intra-city railroads also. Not in general, but whenever she talked about details she couldn't avoid talking about run-down trains and shoddy service.

Kevin S.

[LittleBigMan]

I firmly believe that every honest person admits that automobile
transportation can never be a model for worldwide transportation
planning.

The planet cannot support that many cars. Period.

I heard that China is pursuing an aggressive campaign to build new cities at an alarming pace. With the global warming already
occurring just from current auto use (a part of Antarctica's ice shelf just splintered into ice bergs recently,) the addition of a 250 million new cars would be unthinkable, especially given the poor record China has in environmental preservation.

[Spire]

I completely agree with everything that is being said. But realise how utterly dependant we are on road/car/etc.... You commute to work, which is great, but that does not mean that you do not contribute to road contruction/destructione etc.....

Everytime you buy something at a store : How did the merchandise get there? How did the raw materials for the store arrive there? How did the merchant get there? etc....

The answer to all these invariably is roads.

-- S

[Merriwether]

A politics of oil Saturday.

Here's a distinction ignored by the author of _Asphalt Nation_, at least as that author is represented here.

There are two senses of "subsidy" that are importantly different:

(1) An activity is subsidized when its costs are not recouped by direct user payments (at the time or place of the activity, per activity).

(2) An activity is subsidized when its costs, overall, are greater than its benefits, and other activities make up the difference.

Notice that (1) does not imply (2). It might be, for example, that roads cannot be provided on a per-use basis, because the number of access points to roads and the number of users makes tolls impossible. So, roads would have to be funded some other way, perhaps through gas taxes, property taxes, costs of auto pollution or something like that. Nonetheless the total cost of roads might be less than the benefits provided. So (1) would be true of roads but not (2).

I think that in fact this is the situation with roads, as things are now.

I also think that the costs of gasoline powered vehicle transportation similarly are subsidized in sense (1) and not (2), but I don't have the time to make this case in detail. As others have noticed, though, alternatives to combustion engine transporation would be staggeringly costly.

The distinction between (1) and (2) also provides a helpful rebuttal to the comparison between passenger rails and paved roads for automobiles. Roads aren't "profitable", we're told, and so they're just like railroads. Yet one is considered an investment and the other a waste of money.

Well, yes, roads don't turn a profit because they're not paid for on a per use basis, but their near universal use makes a powerful case that they are worth the total cost of providing them. Passenger railroads, on the other hand, are clearly just a way to incinerate huge amounts of cash. No one rides them, unlike roads which are heavily used.

An even clear indictment of passenger rail comes from noticing that cargo trains are profitable. Cargo rail companies own rail lines and trains and still turn a profit. So the unprofitability of passenger trains is not because of some impossibility of charging privately for the costs of use, as is the case with roads, but simply because almost no one wants to take a long, slow train ride to his destination. And who can blame him?

[MichaelW]

Originally posted by Merriwether
A politics of oil Saturday.

An even clear indictment of passenger rail comes from noticing that cargo trains are profitable. Cargo rail companies own rail lines and trains and still turn a profit. So the unprofitability of passenger trains is not because of some impossibility of charging privately for the costs of use, as is the case with roads, but simply because almost no one wants to take a long, slow train ride to his destination. And who can blame him?

Big cities like London , Tokyo etc rely heavily on railroads to service their commuter needs. It would be impossible for over 1million people to commute into London by car, there simply isnt room to park them all. In the UK, the rail network is overburdened by the sheer number of people who use it. After decades of under-investment, the infrastructure is in desparate need of updating.
In France and Japan where they take rail investment more seriously, long distance travel by rail is achieved at speeds of 200km/hr, from city centre to centre, not to some edge of town airport.

[cycletourist]

Someone earlier said this book was published in the 70's. That isn't true, Asphalt Nation was published in 1997.

The thing I don't like about statistic heavy books like this one is that I forget most of what I read. I remember the basic idea but not all the numbers.

But two things that made a lasting impression on me were;

1) The need for automobile parking causes buildings to need twice as much land which encourages urban sprawl. It also means the city has to build and maintain twice as much water, sewer, and power line to get, and keep everyone connected.

2) The GeneralMotors/Firestone/StandardOil/MacTruck conspiracy in the late 1940's and early 1950's to eliminate competing forms of transportation.

Those four companies made an insane amount of money off of WW2 and, instead of using that money to improve their own product, they set up a dummy company called American City Lines and used it to buy out and shut down trolly lines.

Because of this, we Americans have become slaves to the automobile while europe has built a much more sensible transportation infrastructure.

The moral of the story: If the govt doesn't create a transportation plan that benifits the citizens of that country, then private enterprise will create a transportation plan that benifits itself.

[Merriwether]

Originally posted by MichaelW


Big cities like London , Tokyo etc rely heavily on railroads to service their commuter needs. It would be impossible for over 1million people to commute into London by car, there simply isnt room to park them all. In the UK, the rail network is overburdened by the sheer number of people who use it. After decades of under-investment, the infrastructure is in desparate need of updating.
In France and Japan where they take rail investment more seriously, long distance travel by rail is achieved at speeds of 200km/hr, from city centre to centre, not to some edge of town airport.

Michael, yes, you're quite right that passenger trains may well be able to make a go of it in some cases. The eastern seabord of the U.S. may be another case. The cities are not very far apart, and trains can move from city center to city center quickly.

By and large across the U.S., though, airplanes and then driving are much favored compared to trains. This is sensible given both the large distances in the U.S. and the great spread of cities and suburbs.

[Richard D]

Originally posted by Merriwether


By and large across the U.S., though, airplanes and then driving are much favored compared to trains. This is sensible given both the large distances in the U.S. and the great spread of cities and suburbs.

Wouldn't airplanes linked to a fast train service, linked to underground/metro systems feeding the suburbs/cities be an even more sensible alternative?

Richard

[Chris L]

OK, I've only really skimmed this thread, but I'm going to make a couple of points here. Firstly, nobody was talking about banning automobiles outright. However, at present, I believe society seems to be obsessed with the other extreme (i.e. trying to over encourage their use) which, really, is just as bad. Imagine if a Middle Eastern war forced the price of fuel to shoot up tomorrow. Personally I think there is a lot of middle ground here that hasn't yet been explored.

And can anyone tell me why 'public' transport is expected to be profitable and pay it's own way, while 'private' transport gets subsidised to the hilt with my taxes? Seems to me that somebody important has some serious problems with their definitions here. Perhaps if trains and buses were subsidised the way that private cars are now, they'd be a bit more efficient.

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by Chris L
Firstly, nobody was talking about banning automobiles outright.

:eek:

You haven't softened up a bit, have you Chris? ;)

However, at present, I believe society seems to be obsessed with the other extreme (i.e. trying to over encourage their use) which, really, is just as bad. Imagine if a Middle Eastern war forced the price of fuel to shoot up tomorrow. Personally I think there is a lot of middle ground here that hasn't yet been explored.
Albert Einstein once said something along these lines: the measure of intelligence is the ability to delay gratification. So, let's think ahead and solve this problem reasonably before the
situation forces us to solve it through crisis.

[Oxymoron]

It's been interesting to read what people have had to say about this book. I think what I like most about it is that it challenges one to critically think. What this book taught me goes way beyond cars. I now am always looking at the true costs behind things--the web of conections. Everything we do affects someone or something somewhere in both negative and positive ways. The formula of analysis that is used in this book is very valuable to me. Of course this thinking is tiring as any good act can be seen for the possible bad it could cause, and any bad act can be justified as good on some warped level.

I just wish more people would look at how they act and see the consequences. The things that give me so much trouble everyday are the thigs that could be easily avoided if people used a little critical thinking skill. For instance, cutting someone off in your car causes a chain of negative feelings eminating from both sides of the encounter that lasts all day. Us cyclists get to our desitnations upset and annoyed, and none of those drivers look particularly blissful either. But if they cut us a little slack, and we ride respnsibly then everyone would be happier.

The Amish looked at cars this way when they were invented and decided that they would cause impatience and self-importance. They may have been on to something in their rejection of a driving culture.

If everyone thought a little and respected each other then we wouldn't have half the posts we do on this forum because we wouln't have anything to complain about. Drivers would drive cautiously and safely. A general concern for others would lead to better roads for biking, more pedestrian access, and more public transit. A concern for the health of others would lead to a reduction in exhaust--both that I have to breath directly on my bike and that in the atmosphere. But NOBODY seems to think beyond "I'm hungry, let's go to the store for the third time today, where are my keys, get the hell out of my way." This applies to any subject.

Maybe instead of memorizing four years of specialty knowledge in college, people should be taught critical thinking skills. I don't seem to meet very many college grads with them, and that scares the crap out of me. These are the people who are making decisions everyday that affect all our lives.

[thbirks]

Well I took a trip to the library this weekend and picked up Asphalt Nation. I read it a couple of years ago, but now I want to reread it. I think the thing about the book is that it puts it all together. Many times people talk about the problems of car-dependence, but they talk about a single aspect at a time. Asphalt Nation lays all the problems out to paint the big picture. Before I read this book I was already dealing with my personal disatisfaction with car-dependce. After reading the book I cannot look at the car the same way that I used to. I can't go anywhere in a car and feel good about it, even if feeling good about driving were possible in NJ.

I also picked up a book called "The End of the Road" by Wolfgang Zuckermann. I've read this book before but also wanted to reread it. I think this book is an easier read than Asphalt Nation and the author admits to both currently owning a car and to coveting cars in the past.

[Allister]

I haven't read this book myself, but I must. There was an interesting story on Backgroud Briefing (ABC radio) that you might find interesting. It aired about a year and a half ago and caused quite a stir at the time. It was entitled 'The Cars That Ate Our Wallets'.

Read the transcript here. (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s171994.htm)

[Merriwether]

Originally posted by Richard D


Wouldn't airplanes linked to a fast train service, linked to underground/metro systems feeding the suburbs/cities be an even more sensible alternative?

Richard

If it could be provided at a total cost less than that of roads and private automobiles. But why think this is true?

Well, here's one argument that it's true made many times on this board. That argument is that we're stuck with roads and cars because of arbitrary government decisions to "subsidize" roads and not rail.

However, experience in the U.S. suggests that, apart from a few atypically dense urban areas, cars and roads are faster than trains and so people will pay significantly more-- a lot more-- to use cars and roads rather than trains.

The S.F. Bay Area is nice example. There is an expensive electric train, BART, which runs through a lot of both sides of the Bay. Apart from commutes into San Francisco, which is very crowded and very expensive to park in, BART is little used (indeed, even for commuting to S.F. it's used less than roads). Throughout the Bay Area outside of S.F., it's faster to drive than to take the train. So you have many adults who've spent their whole lives in the Bay Area who have never-- not once-- been on a BART train.

This isn't because of some conspiracy of Detroit automakers, Republicans, and oil barons. It's because just about everyone who can afford to would rather drive than spend time on the slow trains. It's faster to do the whole trip in a car, even counting road congestion, especially when one factors in the possibility of combining other errands with one's automotive commute.

The result is that if BART had to rely on fares _plus taxes from a group of taxpayers roughly the size of its user base_ it would fold in a week. Only because it is heavily subsidized through sales taxes by plenty of people who never ride it can it continue to operate.

Now you might say, "yes, but if money comparable to roads were sunk into the trains, and the system expanded still further, then it would be more attractive. Lots more people would take it in preference to driving".

Yes, you might say that, but notice that what is taken to be an article of faith is exposed for what it is: a dubious empirical proposition. That proposition is that if public funding equal to that now given to roads were given to trains and rails trains would be as popular as cars on existing roads. I can't offer decisive proof that this claim is wrong, at least not off of the top of my head, but I can offer strongly suggestive evidence that it is wrong. The evidence is that even when the cost of driving gets very high in the U.S., even in congested areas like Los Angeles or the East Bay, people keep driving. They stay in their cars almost no matter what. And, more the point, even where the cost of driving is high, in terms of congestion, road taxes, etc., rail systems have a very small ridership in comparison to the number of people who drive along directly competing routes. Even the vast majority of those who live near stations, and want to go to other places near stations, will drive-- except for the already conceded exception of some S.F. stations. They do this because it's faster and more convenient overall, even with highways crowded as they are.

This is in part, of course, because of the fact that many people want to live on a larger plot in more suburban, or less densely urban, areas instead of a dense city center. But, notice the key word in the previous sentence: that's what people _want_.

So, even if the trains were a _lot_ cheaper, like half their price, and driving much more expensive, there wouldn't be mass movement to commuter trains. People by and large have enough money that they're willing to trade more money for the convenience of driving their own cars, or for living in more suburban areas. And all indications are that they would trade even _more_ than they now do.

And the Bay Area, even leaving aside S.F., is densely populated by American standards. Moving into even more spead out suburban or rural areas, the case for centralized rail travel makes even less sense. That's why in most suburban areas it's uncommon even to have _busses_, much less capital intensive transport like trains.

But, yes, rail can make sense in very crowded areas. NYC, S.F. and I guess a few other places in which parking space is at a premium are examples that come to mind. And I don't have anything against rail per se-- if it makes sense then by all means let's do it. But the vast majority of the U.S. is not like Manhattan or San Francisco. It just doesn't make sense to spend huge amounts on commuter trains in those areas.

Of course, you can then say that we should stop "permitting" people to buy land far from cities and live there. But now we're widening the discussion considerably. Now we're arguing that that we should force lots of people into dense settlements in cities when they would clearly prefer to live otherwise. Now maybe we should do this. Maybe we should leave aside considerations like the cheap cost of land in suburban and semi-rural areas, the low price of gas. These are facts, after all, which you might think would tell against the scarcity of open space and gasoline and therefore against the urgency of wide scale change. Maybe we ought to direct our attention to the so-called "intangible" harms of "sprawl", or "oil dependence", or whatever. Maybe-- but notice that even if this is true, this is a very different argument than the one that is often made or suggested in this forum. That argument, again, is that the ubiquity of auto travel and roads in the U.S. is simply the product of an arbitrary public policy, a policy which just as easily could have gone another way. The different claim is that while people's preferences now are strongly in favor of auto travel, or for other goods which require the costs of auto travel, we should nonetheless make people pay the large cost of having their strong preferences frustrated because of other benefits.

Now, again, maybe this claim is even true. But it has to be shown that it is. I've yet to hear a decisive argument. (Though, as I think of it, one might point to the large number of traffic deaths as a strong reason to reduce driving. That's a bit different than what's usually claimed, but it's at least a prima facie reason. Of course, maybe we should just step up traffic enforcement, but anyway... ) In any event, the claim now under discussion is hardly the same thing as the claim that it's just an arbitrary matter that we have lots of cars on roads as opposed to rails and trains.

Cheers.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Merriwether

However, experience in the U.S. suggests that, apart from a few atypically dense urban areas, cars and roads are faster than trains and so people will pay significantly more-- a lot more-- to use cars and roads rather than trains.

In Australia that is certainly not the case. Having used the train between the Gold Coast and Brisbane, I honestly can't see why anyone would ever drive between the two cities. The train is both faster and cheaper. I think this shows what could be done if a bit of effort was made. However, the concept of 'change' seems to be beyond the great unwashed, and unfortunately, they have voting rights in elections.

:(

[cyclezealot]

It's only because the U.S. does little to make them convenient- invests little- that the public is so set in its ways. What you do not try you do not know. Having used trains repeatedly in Europe, why subject yourself to the stress. You see wacko drivers everywhere in the U.S., including out in th middle of nowhere. Really the trains in the U.S. , times I have used them are pretty full.
Can't imagine subjecting yourself to hours of gruiling driving or airport searches and hassle. Trains are so much more relaxing.

[John E]

Rail is the most civilized mode of motor transport ever devised. (All of us can identify the most civilized mode of transport, irrespective of power source!)

[Oxymoron]

The convenience and cost of public transit is directly related to the nmber of users. I don't like taking the bus in my city because it only comes once an hour, and doen't go where I want. But...in places like big European cities where a lot of people use public transit, it is cheaper and the bus etc. comes every 15 minutes.

Up until the 1950's, rural areas of the US had an inter-urban system. One could take a train from any town to the next town over, or followed it for a number of towns. The stadium in my city is on the tracks and has stairs leading to what used to be a train station. That is how fans got there. They didn't leave room for parking, and now that the trains are shut down and everyone drives they have to park in people's yards. I remember getting all sorts of messed up at a certain arena in Oakland, CA and taking the BART home. Couldn't have driven if I wanted to. People in my town get drunk and drive anyways. Game days are very dangerous biking days here.

I have taken the train cross country a couple times. Not only was it faster, it was way more relaxing than driving. Sometimes you couldn't even see any roads. I didn't like not being able to stop and explore though. The seat tickets were resonable, but getting a bed costs a lot--but is so much fun. And you get to eat in a nice restaurant! If it were subsidized more and was cheaper I'd travel only by train. Best of all, no full cavity body searches!

In response to previous concerns, the problem with consumers getting what they want, is that we can't all have what we want. The convenience of the car is negated when everyone is driving one and they're all stopped in traffic. (Has anyone seen the first scene from "Office Space" where the old guy with the walker is passing all the cars on the freeway?) Unfortunately, the general public is not capable of logical thought patterns.

Isn't the idea of individual freedom tied in with the idea of not violating someone else's rights? All this "convenience" leads to a tyranny of the majority where the rights of the minority are ignored. The idea of the US's system is that the majority has an obligation to protect the minority. I'm still waiting...

Thanks for the transcript link, and the heads up on the Zuckerman book.

[Bigtime]

I've only taken the train once, and I managed to get on the wrong one. Instead of going to LA I ended up in Oakland. It was a great side trip that cost me nothing except a few hours. The only problem I see with trains is the convenience of them (or lack of). There are many, many places that do not have train service. But when you tell someone you got there by train they always do a double take. "A train? Wow!" It's almost an exotic way to travel nowadays.

I had an idea that I thought was pretty good, but maybe it isn't;) I suggested that if your license plate ended in 1 or 2, you don't drive that day (let's say Monday). 3 or 4, you don't drive Tuesday, 5 or 6 would be Wednesday and so on. I'm not sure how you would handle personalized plates but it could be done. That way you are cutting down on traffic/pollution/road wear/insert adjective here but you are not causing people undue hardships. I think most of us could go one day without a car. If you had an emergency obviously the rules could be waived. The fines that are created could be used to improve roads (like creating more bike paths!!) I'm sure some people will find a way around the idea, but I thought it would be interesting to at least try it.
-BT

[cycletourist]

Bigtime, I had an idea similar to yours that I like very much. But I don't think it will ever happen (unless I become President someday).

Nationalize automibile liscensing and use color-coded liscense plates.

Red plates would be good on Monday, Wednsday, and Friday and cost $150 per year.

Blue plates would good on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday and also cost $150 per year.

White plates would be good 7 days a week but cost 3 times as much ($450 per year).

Hopefully, that would encourage one-third of drivers to opt for 3 day plates and get creative about transport the rest of the week. If not, then I would just keep raising the price until people get the idea :=)

[cyclezealot]

One freedom Americans seem to hold in little regard- the right to not need a car. Think of the expense- insurance, gas, maintenance,parking and on and on. And rarely is it any fun anymore. Americans are turing into raging maniacs.. About 80% of of us live in urban areas. It does not matter that driving in Kansas might be more pleasurable. In societies with readily available mass transit, you may not even need to own a car.
The biggest group of us drive in Manhattan or Los Angeles. Remember the scene in Steve Martin's "L A Story." The shoot out on the LA freeway. Great scene. But not really that exeragated and usually far more serious. Reality is the road rage we see in Miami and everywhere esle. People are just not equipped for a 2 hour drive home. If We don't find a more user friendly way of getting about, I predict people will fall apart emotionally and financially.
I savor the thought of sitting in a train's club car having a beer,instead of being intoxicated and having police on my bumper.
You can act responsibly and get into your car, when you get to your destination, -should you need one.
Also, you have the possiblity of connecting with people instead of maybe running into them.

[aturley]

I found this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/28/MN205538.DTL) in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. Basically it talks about how people don't want to give up the freedom their cars offer. It mentions that people love to drive their cars. I'm not conviced. I think most people haven't seriously considered the alternatives to driving everywhere.

andy

[cyclezealot]

I agree, I would not think of not having a car in my garage, and going wherever, whenever. But if I could commute to work on a convenient train and its schedule was reliable; might I often not choose that over freeway gridlock- if I had that option.
It would be nice to know I had a way to work, when the car is on the fritz. Why do so many poor people have job problems. they can not afford to keep the monstorious repair bills up to date on their worn out cars. And they can not afford car payments forever- in order to keep their jobs. And then we dump on the poor as deserving to be poor, since they lack motivation, when everything in the system works against them.

[Bigtime]

"Why do so many poor people have job problems. they can not afford to keep the monstorious repair bills up to date on their worn out cars. And they can not afford car payments forever- in order to keep their jobs. And then we dump on the poor as deserving to be poor, since they lack motivation, when everything in the system works against them."

I for one do not dump on the poor, but you are absolutely right...It's a catch 22, need a good car to go to school/work but can't afford one unless I work more, can't work more unless I have a good car and can pay the premiums...

I rode the bus for nearly four years exclusively while I was in college. I can tell you from experience it sucks a@@. During the day they only come by every half hour, and if you miss one you get to sit there for another half hour. If I had a car I could have run my errands and been back home long before the bus even shows up. Not to mention they stop every quarter mile and pick people up. And if you want a bus after 10 at night forget it.

I could go on but you get the idea. There are people in this city who have lived here their whole lives and never once set foot on a bus or a bike. I did my time and I won't go back until some major changes are made. I still ride my bike to work a couple days a week and to the store if it's something small. But if I need to get someplace within an hour or two I jump in my car, and I make no apologies for it. Maybe it works well in other cities but where I live mass transit is a mass joke.
-BT

[Chris L]

Originally posted by aturley
I found this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/28/MN205538.DTL) in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday. Basically it talks about how people don't want to give up the freedom their cars offer

And what freedom is that exactly? I have never owned a car in my life, and yet I seem to have more freedom than anyone who does own a car. All I ever hear from some of my car driving friends is how much it costs to maintain the thing and how much of a pain in the butt it is. I genuinely wonder why they even bother.

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by Chris L
I have never owned a car in my life...
(May I quote you? ;) )

My mother, born 1927 in Boulder, Colorado, USA, remembers that
the family owned a car at first, but it disappeared from the scene when she was still small. They got along without ever owning a car again.

This tells me one thing: my grandparents' town was favorable to people that did not own cars. Perhaps very few did at that time. Today, in our marvelous world of opportunity, one can do absolutely nothing unless one owns a car.

I realize this happened during the "Great Depression." But is
car-dependence really an improvement? What good is owning a car if it enslaves you, instead of freeing you?

Originally, the idea of owning a car offered people freedom to get away. But now, it's impossible to get away from owning a car.

[cycletourist]

The root of the automobile=freedom myth is the idea that you can jump in and go anywhere at anytime. But for those who can not afford car ownership, having this illusion of freedom means giving up financial freedom.

Not a fair trade... not even close.

[cyclezealot]

On the other hand Cycletourist, you might call our obsession with the Automobile a form of slavery too. I much prefer my addiction to cycling. It is healthier emotionally more rewarding.
But, I plan within reason to be a slave to bank loans, auto insurance companies, auto repair shops, smog inspections, all that fun stuff.

[cycletourist]

I understand your point, Cyclezealot. I too, own an automobile even tho for years I swore I would never buy one. It just got to be too difficult to live without.

But I still resent being enslaved by the damned thing.