You might want to double check that statement.

It's not running out of petroleum that is the problem. It's the conflicts that occur as dependent economies vie for control of remaining global supplies. Currently we've been seeing the result of oil-producing economies losing revenues due to decreases in oil prices. We oil-dependent economies need to realize that the problems of oil-dependency don't stop when we reduce our own dependency any more than the problems of slavery stopped when the slaves were freed. There are still economic expectations on the supply side that have to be either met or mitigated/changed. No one seems to ever see how the hyperconsumerism and automotivism that drive GDP in wealthy economies is in the interest of fuel-producers whose economies need to be reformed so they are less dependent on fuel sales and foreign investment for their own economic welfare.

There is a little interesting book by C.S. Lewis titled "The Great Divorce" in which he (Lewis) suggests that Hell will be a gray town of endless urban sprawl, because no one who chooses to end up in Hell would ever want to live in community with others. So, everyone who arrives in the town is allowed to live anywhere they wish, and have whatever kind of home they want, but are constantly setting out further and further away from the town to find what they believe will be freedom and peace.

As long as all people are naturally inclined to pull away from community and seek isolation, and do nothing to counteract that natural inclination, they're all going to cling to their cars and feed them as much petrol as they must. Economics are a secondary contributing factor at best to the rise/fall of the auto culture. Any invention is only as good or mal as the people who create and use them, and it's no new revelation that most people won't do the work it takes to have complex relationships with their neighbors; and they see no inherent danger in that choice.

jessica

Interesting. Does that relate to my comment?

OK. I'm wrong about tracking fuel prices. I'm right that the decline is modest and it's on the rise again.

Vehicle Miles Traveled: A New Look at Our Evolving Behavior - dshort - Advisor Perspectives

Thanks for the good link. The conclusions printed in the article are at odds with your own conclusions.

VMT is still below the peak last reached almost 10 years ago, so this trend has continued through times of changing economic conditions and volatile gas prices. The article concludes that "the driving boom is over." I would say that constitutes "significant changes in our relationship with cars" and coincides with Kunstler's prediction. So maybe, upon closer examination, he was right after all, and five years sooner than he said!

[HR][/HR]


Quote from: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/d...s-Traveled.php

You don't think so? You seem to argue that people drive cars because it is economically convenient. And if/when it ceases to be economically convenient, people will reduce the use of their cars. This may be true or not true, I don't know. My point is that the human heart is far more culpable for an "auto culture" than economics ever will be. And I think it's likely humans will continue to have economically inconvenient lifestyles in order to avoid existing in challenging relationships. It is a characteristic basic to humanity. Just ask anyone who commutes more than 30 minutes by car per day why they don't live near their jobs; I would be interested in their reasons wouldn't you?

Yeah, I guess I don't know what my opinion is. On a social level, I look at the world around me and don't perceive a change in attitudes about driving. But then I don't hang with young people that much either.

Considering that gasoline cost 30 cents a gallon when I started working, and I was earning $3700 before taxes then, it should be over 9 bucks now...... I'd say gas is cheap, just more than we are used to.

Most social changes aren't very noticeable until they're pretty well advanced. That's why people who plan for the future pore over these obscure statistics so intently. And of course they can still change.

BTW. the younger Millennials are not the only age group that's driving less. So are the Baby Boomers, of all people.

Well, how quickly my opinion changes. Roody convinced me to verify the relationship of miles driven to fuel prices. The correlation is not in fact strong. There are other things to look at too, like the relationship to unemployment.

Yes, I would be interested how people respond to the question of commuting time vs where you live. I've myself, been a person that drove nearly an hour to work every day. And I guess I don't have a rational answer. I was part of the driving culture and didn't question it. I made decisions about where to live based on various factors including what parts of the city have the right "culture" and attractiveness and my friends and family. And was married to a person with her own career. Then the choice of where to work felt independent of that. And it also seemed like the work-choice was temporary. But the fact is that I moved a lot more than I changed jobs!

So somebody as irrational as me is not a good person to explain it.

I think many people want to drive less but the problem is similar to the vegetarian problem: i.e. people want to go vegetarian because it's healthy and saves animals but when they realize how much it limits their food selection and how much of the menu is open to them if they just give in and eat meat, the mind rationalizes the temptation and they give up the discipline.

College,
I believe you are more focused on the real cause now rather than the symptoms as so many others seem to be. They blame the technology for the condition that birthed the technology.

C.S. Lewis is right it is a natural condition for us to avoid the massive effort close contact with others require. Because of that those that can or could always look for a way to add distance to those contacts. Hence the Roman devised word from 2000 years ago that we get Suburbs from.

Technology from horse and wagon to bicycles and finally cars are simply off shoots to wanting to keep others at arms length.

Nothing we have come up with so far addresses this natural desire for space better than the car. And until they find a way to give people that same physical separation with other forms of transportation private vehicles will be with us long after people pushing for a return to foot and pedal power are passed away.

But we are also good at rationalizing. Some say we haven't returned to miles driven in 10 years as an indication cars are on the decline. Yet at the same time the fact that Bicycle Sales to adults is still lower this year than it was in 1973 doesn't effect their contention that cycling in the U.S. Is on the rise.

Another thought on the distance between work and home: Once I started bike commuting I liked it that work was 20 miles away. It increased my bicycling distance. Now I work for the same employer but work at home. I don't like that as much. My bicycle riding is now optional and needs to be justified with respect to the rest of my life. As such it often takes a back seat. The commute to work never did.

The same thing happened to me when I moved to a house that's only a couple blocks from my work. For me, It's a better choice to live closer to shopping and recreational activities and a bit farther from work. However, I have never sustained a commute greater than 30 minutes, although such is possible in the near future.

Gas prices adjusted for inflation are pretty interesting, and there are many surprises for most people. At the moment, they're in the range of their historic average--around 2.50/gallon.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...soline2013.jpg

And if you notice the best selling vehicle in the US is pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago. Auto sales reach six-year high, but has demand peaked? - NY Daily News

That article says car sales peaked in 2000 at 17 million, dropped to 10 million during the recession, and bounced back to 16 million in 2014 as people finally replaced aging cars. However they don't expect more growth, partly because people are driving less.

But what are they buying more of? What is the best selling vehicle for the same time period? If cars are dead because of a 10 year slump what about Bikes with a 40+ year slump? Which is bouncing back faster? And more to the point why?

Bicycle sales don't necessarily correlate with the amount they're ridden. Many people buy a bike, ride it a few times, and then leave it in the garage. Some people buy a new bike several times unnecessarily, thinking a different bike will ride better, hurt their butt less, etc. Old bikes can be maintained and ridden a long time while new bikes can be bought and stored and not ridden.

Part of the "auto age" is the very independent thinking of individuals.

One jumps in ones car (which may also be a status symbol) and drives where and when one wants.

And, while "road trips" may be a rarity, one has everything to do it.

It would make more sense to drive a neighborhood electric vehicle around the neighborhood, then rent a car (or take public transportation) for those longer trips.

Rather than pay somebody to deliver the groceries (or hardware), one drives to the store, fills up the car or pickup, and drives back home.

And, of course, there is a time crunch. I rode my bike 40 miles around town yesterday... 3 hours or so of hard work. It still adds up with driving, but it would have been about an hour or so of driving.

Anyway, I could imagine a city like NYC moving away from personal vehicles, but even so, the city is overcrowded with taxis. But, transportation just becomes more difficult in the distant suburbs, both on an individual basis as well as for organizing public transportation.

Bikes are great, but I'm not seeing a huge shift to using them for transport.

Tandempower, same can be said for older cars. Used car sales soared at the beginning of the recession and make up a majority of the vehicles on our roads.

The point is the F series truck is on top of the new car sales "again" just like it was before the recession. It is not an economical vehicle to drive nor is it all that different from the F series before the recession.

When I commuted to work and College in the 70s bicycles represented less than 4 percent of choices people made for transportation. 40 years later where are we?

Just as an aside: from the U.S. Census site; The combined rate of bicycle commuting for the 50 largest U.S. cities increased from 0.6 percent in 2000 to 1.0 percent in 2008–2012.
That leaves 99 percent that don't get to work or school by bike. Or about what it was when I commuted by bicycle in the 70s.

Are cars lasting longer?

30 or 40 years ago, put 100,000 miles on a car, and it was pretty much toast.

Now a lot of cars are tipping over 200,000 miles. Perhaps also more miles with the first owner.

I'm not sure about the average consumer. My parents used to buy a new car every 8 years or so. Perhaps a bit less frequently now that my father has passed away and my mother isn't commuting.

One generation later, I don't think my brother or myself has ever bought a new car.

And, of course, looking at sales, one has to look beyond a single manufacturer like Ford, and look at all companies including imports which may be eating further into the US market.

Hmmm.... looking at this, the auto sales wax and wane a bit, but the peak auto sales (new?) hit back in 1973.
? U.S. car sales 1951-2014 | Statistic

Although, perhaps that is made up for a bit by light trucks.
Saving the U. S. Car Industry

I wasn't comparing bikes to cars, just explaining how bike sales don't correlate with riding. Motor-vehicle sales probably correlate more with driving because it's a more expensive item that people are less likely to buy and not drive, unless they have a specific strategy for conserving it by using other forms of transportation whenever possible.

Trucks are for hauling, though many people use them more for driving than hauling. Practical-minded people may be thinking it's economical to get a truck for hauling when they need to haul something and then try to economize how much they drive to make up for the low fuel efficiency.

This is such a vague statistic. If the US annexed Copenhagen or Amsterdam, how much would all the bike commuters in those cities raise the "4%" you mention? Yet anyone who sees the popularity of bicycle commuting in those cities assumes it's more significant than cities where the percentage is low or lower. Now tell me how the total number of people making up those "4%" compares with the total number of bike commuters in Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

Why diminish the significance of people who ride bikes just because they're spread out through a number of areas where huge numbers of people drive cars? Statistics are biased and biasing by their very nature.