Are we reaching peak car?
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...articlecontent

This article appeared in the Globe and Mail in October.

The article is good but the comments afterward are even better. Almost all of them have a similar philosophy to those of us that like to frequent LCF.

We are not alone.:thumb:

Interesting article.

And that, Mr. Litman says, should be enough in itself to push economists, planners and politicians to take a good hard look at the future. “A lot of current policies are misguided,” he says. “They might have made sense 40 or 50 years ago, but now it makes absolutely no sense to continue the policy distortions that encourage auto use.”

Somehow, I just don't get all excited about a 1.7 percent drop in car usage over a 11 year period.

I liked the comment about how "Cars are the new tobacco." It does appear that people's frustration with the car is growing and that they are questioning the role of the car in their lives.

As Dynodonn says, 1.7 percent drop is not much. But I find that there is any drop at all is tremendously significant.

Here is a talk that gives one hope. People tend to do what they see being done. So the more people see that living car free is possible, the more they will join in. It's quite an amazing talk. Do Lectures- Understanding the super social ape

"We are ‘a super-social ape’. We exist to converse, to chat, to gossip. Whole social movements can be explained by utilising this core theory." Mark Earls

To me, 1 to 2 less cars out of 100 is really not overall noticeable during a rush hour commute.

I spent (wasted) too much money on cars over the years. Now I just buy the basic model I need to get the job done. My love affair is long gone.

Populations have increased in that same 11 year period, so a 1.7 percent drop is a good trend.

More importantly to me are the readers comments. Highly favourable to car-lite/car-free living. Not bad for a newspaper with a large national circulation, not just Toronto-centric.

You have to look at trends and on a longer scale. The big changes are not on the highway. They are in peoples minds. This is 1.7% less rather than 1.7% more so its really a 3.4% shift. It's also a reversal of direction. But most importantly, it says that people are starting to register their discontent. They are starting to look around for answers and talking to other people.

I met a woman yesterday, she did not know that I was car-free and out of the blue she made an observation about public transit in Little Rock and asked me whether I thought it was possible to live without a car in Little Rock. She was pleasantly surprised to discover that I had been car-free in Little Rock for almost 7 years.

As Mark Earls points out in his talk, people live to be social. We take our cues from each other. If you watch the video, you will see one man dancing at a concert. For the longest while it is just him. But then another man joins him. Then after a while, a 3rd and 4th people join. Then more, and then more and more. It's not a straight line progression. In terms of the video, I'd say we are at the point where the second man starts dancing. It doesn't look significant, but it is. "One Robin does not make a Spring" as the saying goes, but it's generally a good indicator.

+1

Ninety percent of those letters were written by highly intelligent and thoughtful people. I'm impressed.

Actually It's good enough regarding America's population has increased a lot in those 11 years.

The mess the world is in didn't happen all at once. Cleaning it up will also not happen all at once.

One of the comments (actually the first one on the long list) was:This is absolutely true in my life. The further I get away from my car, the more free I feel. The less I drive, the more I realize it was an addiction rather than a necessity.

The beauty of the Internet is that small groups of like minded eccentrics find each other and provide mutual ratification of their beliefs.

I agree. Let's have a group hug, myrridin!:hug:

The article refers to a 1.7 % per capita drop so the population would have to rise by less than 1.7% over the same period to translate into a real drop in car usage.

That's because you don't understand the ramifications.

Any drop is a "real" drop.

I think you meant to say "drop in total miles driven nationwide." Mileage rates--both total and per capita--have risen every year for more than 100 years. Therefore, any drop whatsoever is a "real" drop and is socially significant. For the record, total miles driven in the US have dropped in recent years.

Of course, if the kids read this so-called carfree forum, they will be advised to get their licenses as soon as they turn 16. In a recent thread, I was the only one who endorsed the idea of a young person deferring his DL. I feel vindicated reading here that many young people are making that choice already.

No. I read the article and it refers to "driving in the nation's five largest cities" which in the context of the article I take to refer to Canada.

You might care to re-read the article.

It was an unclear sentence, further confused by mention of an Australian researcher or some such.

Regardless, a per capita drop is still a "real" drop. It's just one way of measuring it that in some ways is more meaningful, since it points out trends and personal habits. In addition, real miles driven have dropped in the US, as I said. The article says that US miles are at the same level as in 1998. Since population has increased quite a bit in 13 years, this also implies a per capita drop in the US.

Okay.

If the population of a town is 10 and they drive a total of 1,000 miles, then the per capita milage is 100. Two years later the per capita milage has fallen 10% to 90 but on counting the inhabitants we find the population has risen 10% to 11. Under this scenario the total milage must have been 990 which represents a drop of only 1%. If the population had doubled, a 10% drop in per capita milage would mean they had driven a total milage of 1,800 or an 80% increase.

"Are We Reaching Peak Car?"

Whatever about 'we', 'they' certainly aren't.

They being India (population 1.15 billion) and China (population 1.3 billion).

I wouldn't pop the champagne quite yet.

I still believe the recession is the cause of this 1.7% drop in auto usage. People are just too broke to drive and millions are out of work. The article states that governments will have to change their revenue expectations regarding toll and parking fees but I've not seen that all all. Highway tolls and parking fees are INCREASING even during the recession adding more to the motorist woes.

What is the X factor in all of this is public transit. If cities and states across the nation started increasing their funding for bus and rail transport, more people will become carfree since the motor car is rapidily becoming unaffordable. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening and in fact, it's just the opposite.

I think the record will show that both vladvm and dcrowell supported you and that I, while not directly advising any particular course of action, did challenge the majority line.

There are a couple of factors that might drive some of the decrease in driving.

The decrease is happening in 5 Canadian cities. In Canada the price of gas is near $5 a gallon. Sometimes more. These cities tend to be more densely populate than US cities, so traffic congestion is nasty. Canadians own far fewer cars per capita than Americans (Canada = 620 US=868 per 1000 people). Canadians pay higher taxes than Americans and would seem to have less disposable income to throw for gasoline.

Nonetheless, there is a lot of evidence than something similar is happening in the US. I can give only personal evidence. I have 3 children, 2 of whom have DLs and cars. One lives in the Toronto area and (as much as possible) beats traffic by taking the train to work. The other is moving to downtown Des Moines so he can walk to work.

To the point ArtKansas made, there is also a lot of evidence that the trend is starting. City governments across North American understand the urgent need to reduce congestion in their centers. There is a strong will in most cities (at least in the north half of the US...) to support transportation alternatives.

I say the writing is on the wall... You can argue thatn 1.7% is a significant figure or not. I don't think the statistic matters.

It's happening.