Will We Ever Reduce Auto Dependency

[beechnut79]

I had a thread under this same title on the original forum inspired by the Fourth Turning book. It has now been nearly a half century since the so-called modern Winter of our Discontent, when folks including myself had to wait in long lines to get gasoline due to a supposed shortage. Many at the time including my own parents doubted the sincerity of the shortage because, once the price reached a certain level, you could once again get all the gas you wanted, anytime of day or night. One thing it did accomplish was to call attention to our over dependence on the auto for our sole in many cases transportation needs. There was at the time a fleeting moment when interest in public transportation accelerated, only to fall back to the background once the shortage was over.  Guess what! Today we are even more dependent on the auto than we were at that time, as the far flung so-called exurbs situated beyond the long established suburbs with their spread out landscape ascended to prominence.

With the recent spike in gasoline prices the thought crossed my mind again. But every time the price goes up demand seems to go up as well, so go figure. We were debating as to how high the price would have to get before a significant drop in consumption would occur. When first rideshare and then food and grocery delivery services began dotting the landscape it was widely assumed that they would help to reduce car dependency as a ride could be summoned and food and groceries delivered through gig economy apps, saving traffic and gasoline. It is now very obvious that it didn't work out this way as any traffic savings were negated by the volume of folks wanting a slice of the gig economy pie. Full disclosure: I am a food delivery driver and have been at it for five years.

Back even before the gas shortage hit, at a time when folks seemed more idealistic and felt more warm and generous toward others and humanity in general, pollution became a central concern yet it was more concentrated on industrial factory pollution as opposed to that generated by excess car traffic. The move toward unleaded gasoline may have been a step in the right direction but quite obviously not enough. The unfortunate byproduct is that it was no doubt one of the things that led to the downfall of manufacturing employment within the US.

Much has been made about switching to hybrid or totally electric vehicles. Can be done but it won't do anything to curb traffic congestion. We can't continue to build our way out of said congestion forever. So, what do you all think? Obviously there so far hasn't been the will to do anything to reduce auto dependency. What do you see happening?

[David Horn]

(09-27-2021, 11:19 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Much has been made about switching to hybrid or totally electric vehicles. Can be done but it won't do anything to curb traffic congestion. We can't continue to build our way out of said congestion forever. So, what do you all think? Obviously there so far hasn't been the will to do anything to reduce auto dependency. What do you see happening?

Fully autonomous on-demand vehicles should have a true impact on congestion, but even that will not make urban commuting sensible.  The answer has to be much better public transport, coupled with on-demand for the "last mile".  We won't see it in action, but it seems to be in the planning stages already.  Maybe we will see it, but only in the movies.

[galaxy]

It's already happening, at a gradual pace that began to pick up in the early 2010s. Personally, I'm actually not that concerned and don't see it as a major future problem, though obviously it would be better if the problem were solved now.

[pbrower2a]

(09-27-2021, 03:18 PM)galaxy Wrote: It's already happening, at a gradual pace that began to pick up in the early 2010s. Personally, I'm actually not that concerned and don't see it as a major future problem, though obviously it would be better if the problem were solved now.

When we run out of petroleum, and most people are priced into either immobility or means of travel that do not depend on fossil fuels, then the car culture is over.

That's basic economics. Anything can be priced so far that people are compelled to seek alternatives.

[David Horn]

Just a touchstone: the ubiquitous Ford F-150 pickup will be available as an all-electric vehicle in the next year or two. Everyone assumed this would be a niche vehicle, but good for PR, Ford management included. Advance sales are already at 150,000 vehicles, and Ford has agree to build a new facility in Dearborn to handle the load. Toal investment: $11.4 Billion and 11,000 new jobs.

I think the buggy whip factory just saw its successor emerging from the womb.

[Eric the Green]

(09-27-2021, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 03:18 PM)galaxy Wrote: It's already happening, at a gradual pace that began to pick up in the early 2010s. Personally, I'm actually not that concerned and don't see it as a major future problem, though obviously it would be better if the problem were solved now.

When we run out of petroleum, and most people are priced into either immobility or means of travel that do not depend on fossil fuels, then the car culture is over.

That's basic economics. Anything can be priced so far that people are compelled to seek alternatives.

I expect the car culture to continue, as electrified. It's too ingrained, and costs come down. Used electric cars will be available, although new batteries may be needed for them. Costs will come down for those too.

The only thing that holds me back buying an electric car now, besides cost, is how long I have to wait for a charge to complete if I run low on the road. Also, road repair/towing services need to adapt to electric cars, including portable charging in their trucks. Also, I don't drive much anyway now.

Hydrogen cars are another alternative being developed. Hydrogen will need to be available without using methane to make it, if this option is to make any difference as an alternative to fossil fuels.

More rail and mass transit is certainly another alternative that we need, and neighborhoods/business districts that are transit oriented. More working from home is a trend that could decrease congestion. Also, better city planning is needed, with more and cheaper housing in central cities and near industries. People need to work closer to where they live, and some industries (especially high tech) are moving out to exurbs and suburbs.

Talk on a small discussion board is nice, but we need action. Contacting Senator Manchin right now, whether you live in WV or not, is the absolute necessity if we are to start making these alternatives through Biden's Build Back Better Bill (BBBBB) and suspending the filibuster to pass the voting rights acts. Without these, the odds severely decrease for any action to save our country and our world. Please contact him today; this is being decided right now. Email is easy. https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe

[Eric the Green]

(09-27-2021, 01:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 11:19 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Much has been made about switching to hybrid or totally electric vehicles. Can be done but it won't do anything to curb traffic congestion. We can't continue to build our way out of said congestion forever. So, what do you all think? Obviously there so far hasn't been the will to do anything to reduce auto dependency. What do you see happening?

Fully autonomous on-demand vehicles should have a true impact on congestion, but even that will not make urban commuting sensible.  The answer has to be much better public transport, coupled with on-demand for the "last mile".  We won't see it in action, but it seems to be in the planning stages already.  Maybe we will see it, but only in the movies.

On-demand hauling and short-distance shipping would still be needed, and roads are still needed for these vehicles. There's only so much you can carry on a bus. I don't think there's an alternative to in-person shopping, even though on-line shopping is much touted and used. But getting just the right fit in every respect and good advice is important. Not to mention going for in-person appointments and gatherings is better than zooming. And people like to go on trips and be at the wheel. So cars will remain. They just need to be reduced in number and their fuel changed.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2021, 03:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 01:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 11:19 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Much has been made about switching to hybrid or totally electric vehicles. Can be done but it won't do anything to curb traffic congestion. We can't continue to build our way out of said congestion forever. So, what do you all think? Obviously there so far hasn't been the will to do anything to reduce auto dependency. What do you see happening?

Fully autonomous on-demand vehicles should have a true impact on congestion, but even that will not make urban commuting sensible.  The answer has to be much better public transport, coupled with on-demand for the "last mile".  We won't see it in action, but it seems to be in the planning stages already.  Maybe we will see it, but only in the movies.

On-demand hauling and short-distance shipping would still be needed, and roads are still needed for these vehicles. There's only so much you can carry on a bus. I don't think there's an alternative to in-person shopping, even though on-line shopping is much touted and used. But getting just the right fit in every respect and good advice is important. Not to mention going for in-person appointments and gatherings is better than zooming. And people like to go on trips and be at the wheel. So cars will remain. They just need to be reduced in number and their fuel changed.

I think we can agree that the transportation system of 2060+ will be drastically different the system in place today -- even though the pathways (roads, birdges, tunnels) will likely be the same, albeit improved.  What we don't know yet is the impact on where we'll all live.  Urban living has its cheerleaders, and so do suburban and rural.  I suspect that climate change will drive this, and demographics will drive transportation.

[pbrower2a]

(09-28-2021, 02:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 06:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 03:18 PM)galaxy Wrote: It's already happening, at a gradual pace that began to pick up in the early 2010s. Personally, I'm actually not that concerned and don't see it as a major future problem, though obviously it would be better if the problem were solved now.

When we run out of petroleum, and most people are priced into either immobility or means of travel that do not depend on fossil fuels, then the car culture is over.

That's basic economics. Anything can be priced so far that people are compelled to seek alternatives.

I expect the car culture to continue, as electrified. It's too ingrained, and costs come down. Used electric cars will be available, although new batteries may be needed for them. Costs will come down for those too.

Obviously those will not be cars as most people know them. We are also likely to see self-driving vehicles because the auto insurance business will price driving one's own car into the comparative stratosphere. For pleasure travel beyond a certain range (a long daily commute) we may be obliged to rent cars to fit the purpose. Scenic drive? Bubble top. Driving between Los Angeles and Dallas in the summer through the blazing desert (Dallas is almost as hot as Phoenix)? You might want to have a car that reflects off much heat.

Portable fuel (such as gasoline) is much more expensive than electric power.

Quote:The only thing that holds me back buying an electric car now, besides cost, is how long I have to wait for a charge to complete if I run low on the road. Also, road repair/towing services need to adapt to electric cars, including portable charging in their trucks. Also, I don't drive much anyway now.

How low... and where. I expect motels to become charging stations by default. With self-driving vehicles one might be tempted to let the car drive through the night, especially in hot deserts... you will want to take breaks, Just stop at a motel, and jump into the pool!

Quote:Hydrogen cars are another alternative being developed. Hydrogen will need to be available without using methane to make it, if this option is to make any difference as an alternative to fossil fuels.

It takes energy to split hydrogen from water, and we will need a huge amount of it. It is easy to generate heat from motive power but less than equally efficient to generate motive power from heat. One other way of getting hydrogen is to split it from hydrocarbons, which leaves behind large quantities of petroleum coke as a byproduct. It lacks a large market, although I can imagine it having potential in structural use. iron and steel production? .

Quote:More rail and mass transit is certainly another alternative that we need, and neighborhoods/business districts that are transit oriented. More working from home is a trend that could decrease congestion. Also, better city planning is needed, with more and cheaper housing in central cities and near industries. People need to work closer to where they live, and some industries (especially high tech) are moving out to exurbs and suburbs.

The Interstate Highway System practically killed passenger rail. Mass transit is fine if one does not need to wait... but have you ever seen the people waiting for a bus to go back to what I figure are slum apartments? Such people seem terribly downtrodden. Drive a car, and you might have a more positive outlook on life, which is good for productivity and competence.

Better city planning likely implies the replacement of post-WWI 'starter homes' that are now slums with giant apartment blocks. A warning: those new apartment blocks had better be livable. We all know about the giant towers such as Pruitt-Igoe intended as housing for people with low incomes; they dehumanized the tenants.



Caveat: many of the demolitions are not of bad housing, but instead of structures (including the cranes of a shipyard) that became economically obsolete. Of course anything that dehumanizes people is obsolete from its inception.

......

Quote:Talk on a small discussion board is nice, but we need action. Contacting Senator Manchin right now, whether you live in WV or not, is the absolute necessity if we are to start making these alternatives through Biden's Build Back Better Bill (BBBBB) and suspending the filibuster to pass the voting rights acts. Without these, the odds severely decrease for any action to save our country and our world. Please contact him today; this is being decided right now. Email is easy. https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe

We liberals have a short time-frame in which to start improving America. The erratic behavior of Donald Trump may have given that to us, but we need to recognize the opportunity for what it is. If we blow it, then the Right will offer its solution of mass suffering on behalf of economic policies that create extreme wealth for a few that may never trickle down. I expect the GOP to be as ruthless in its drive for power as in 1994 and 2010; to turn up the demagoguery on behalf of the ignorant, cowardly, and superstitious; and to use power that it gets to entrench itself and establish a Corporate State much like Pinochet's Chile in which 95% of the people suffer for 2%. (The other 3% would do well in any system -- the military, police, certain professionals such as physicians and engineers, and those attorneys who willingly enforce the Law of the Jungle upon helpless people.

[pbrower2a]

I would like to see a pattern in which people can get around in vehicles the size of golf carts, with either long-distance commuting or recreational travel mostly by vehicles that we rent for such a purpose -- and do so rarely. Most commuting would be by public transit such as subways and buses. Obviously one would need to separate freight vehicles from the tiny golf-cart like vehicles (or even pod-like vehicles somewhat like those in the introduction to The Jetsons, except grounded. (Aircraft between buildings? Let's save the Buck Rogers stuff for science fiction where it belongs even if it might be convenient. Mid-air collisions at vehicular speeds are simply too dangerous, as they not only introduce the hazard of forces of collision but also of falls.

Most people seem to prefer doing their own grocery shopping, especially in buying produce and meats that one must see to be satisfied.  People go into a grocery store with vague desires and solidify those while there.  People practically grounded? That would be unthinkable in one of the most nomadic populations ever known: Americans. We have geographic mobility that herdsmen of the Gobi would have thought extreme.

I can imagine pod-like travel taking advantage of transshipment by rail, especially if rail allows great flexibility as one can embark on the train with a pod-like vehicle and disembark at another station. If one seeks to visit a good friend at MIT  and one lives near Princeton, then one has one's pod entering the freight at Princeton and leaving it at Boston and then letting it take one to MIT. Does this sound good? (The passenger compartment will be much more comfortable, so the pod might drop you off at or near the platform at Princeton and pick you up at or near the platform at Boston).  Or -- they are so inexpensive that they can be rented much like rental cars.

[theypo]

(09-29-2021, 10:16 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2021, 03:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 01:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-27-2021, 11:19 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Much has been made about switching to hybrid or totally electric vehicles. Can be done but it won't do anything to curb traffic congestion. We can't continue to build our way out of said congestion forever. So, what do you all think? Obviously there so far hasn't been the will to do anything to reduce auto dependency. What do you see happening?

Fully autonomous on-demand vehicles should have a true impact on congestion, but even that will not make urban commuting sensible.  The answer has to be much better public transport, coupled with on-demand for the "last mile".  We won't see it in action, but it seems to be in the planning stages already.  Maybe we will see it, but only in the movies.

On-demand hauling and short-distance shipping would still be needed, and roads are still needed for these vehicles. There's only so much you can carry on a bus. I don't think there's an alternative to in-person shopping, even though on-line shopping is much touted and used. But getting just the right fit in every respect and good advice is important. Not to mention going for in-person appointments and gatherings is better than zooming. And people like to go on trips and be at the wheel. So cars will remain. They just need to be reduced in number and their fuel changed.

I think we can agree that the transportation system of 2060+ will be drastically different the system in place today -- even though the pathways (roads, birdges, tunnels) will likely be the same, albeit improved.  What we don't know yet is the impact on where we'll all live.  Urban living has its cheerleaders, and so do suburban and rural.  I suspect that climate change will drive this, and demographics will drive transportation.

I agree.

[pbrower2a]

Some of us discuss technology; some of us discuss technology; some of us discuss engineering projects. The automobile as a one-size-fits-all solution to middle-class travel (except in New York City, where personal automobiles are restricted due to costs of parking and garage space to at the least the upper middle class) is such because of the huge investment in infrastructure to accommodate it, with such infrastructure committing people to the automobile in part because the automobile renders other transportation (such as bicycles, scooters, and vehicles resembling golf carts) too dangerous for such use.

Railroads would have been wise to collaborate with the rental-car business; railroads were competing with highway travel and had such advantages as safety. The private vehicle offered flexibility once near the destination. This of course was before air travel became the norm for long-distance travel.

Air travel is even less efficient in fuel than private automobiles... but far safer and swifter. It was originally a luxury, but it is now more efficient than driving an automobile more than about 200 miles. If your ultimate destination is less between 20 and 100 miles or you have multiple stops, then one might as well rent a car. Rental cars are of course cars that one does not own.

Transportation is inseparable from housing. In the last forty years we have had some of the most perverse social policies in housing... zoning that requires quarter-acre lots prices multitudes into very bad housing or even homelessness. Stalinist-style housing blocks (such as Pruitt-Igoe) might fit people accustomed to facing imprisonment if they gripe about anything in the "Workers' and Farmers' State" or such a right-wing nightmare as Pinochet's Chile. For basic dignity it is best that we solve our 'housing problem' some way other than building prison-like warehouses for poor people who actually do the work and punish them for ingratitude for being priced out of anything else. The freedom to complain about inadequacies in life is essential if we are to do anything to relieve people of those inadequacies.

I expect much real estate to be 'repurposed' to accommodate higher densities of population. Much of what we have is ideal for an America with half its current population, and then less concentrated geographically. We need to revitalized cities that globalization has ravaged. The neoliberal ideology of the last forty years has basically rewarded people for being rich and well-connected and punished people for being poor. To suggest that neoliberal ideal will further entrench itself and make life harsher for anyone not already rich ignores the egalitarian trend in Millennial and likely Homeland ideology. To be sure, X learned quickly to suffer with a smile on the job and endorse the reactionary politics of bosses and owners while on company property... but they griped about work to their Millennial and Homeland children (and still do), which may explain why people under 40 so reject the plutocratic order that we now have.

The last 1T demonstrated a large investment in affordable housing. with huge tracts of farmland and orange groves becoming huge tracts of single-family housing. Much of that housing has approached the end of the service life of it as well as the infrastructure (schools, streets, and sewers) that allowed millions to live like the fictional Ward Cleaver family of early television. .

I expect housing patterns to change. I expect vehicles to change -- with electric vehicles and vehicles that drive themselves. (You will submit to giving responsibility for driving a car to a very smart computer just to keep your auto insurance rate from becoming prohibitive).

[beechnut79]

(10-07-2021, 11:39 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some of us discuss technology; some of us discuss technology; some of us discuss engineering projects. The automobile as a one-size-fits-all solution to middle-class travel (except in New York City, where personal automobiles are restricted due to costs of parking and garage space to at the least the upper middle class) is such because of the huge investment in infrastructure to accommodate it, with such infrastructure committing people to the automobile in part because the automobile renders other transportation (such as bicycles, scooters, and vehicles resembling golf carts) too dangerous for such use.

Railroads would have been wise to collaborate with the rental-car business; railroads were competing with highway travel and had such advantages as safety. The private vehicle offered flexibility once near the destination. This of course was before air travel became the norm for long-distance travel.

Air travel is even less efficient in fuel than private automobiles... but far safer and swifter.  It was originally a luxury, but it is now more efficient than driving an automobile more than about 200 miles. If your ultimate destination is less between 20 and 100 miles or you have multiple stops, then one might as well rent a car.  Rental cars are of course cars that one does not own.

Transportation is inseparable from housing. In the last forty years we have had some of the most perverse social policies in housing... zoning that requires quarter-acre lots prices multitudes into very bad housing or even homelessness. Stalinist-style housing blocks (such as Pruitt-Igoe) might fit people accustomed to facing imprisonment if they gripe about anything in the "Workers' and Farmers' State" or such a right-wing nightmare as Pinochet's Chile. For basic dignity it is best that we solve our 'housing problem' some way other than building prison-like warehouses for poor people who actually do the work and punish them for ingratitude for being priced out of anything else. The freedom to complain about inadequacies in life is essential if we are to do anything to relieve people of those inadequacies.

I expect much real estate to be 'repurposed' to accommodate higher densities of population. Much of what we have is ideal for an America with half its current population, and then less concentrated geographically. We need to revitalized cities that globalization has ravaged.  The neoliberal ideology of the last forty years has basically rewarded people for being rich and well-connected and punished people for being poor. To suggest that neoliberal ideal will further entrench itself and make life harsher for anyone not already rich ignores the egalitarian trend in Millennial and likely Homeland ideology. To be sure, X learned quickly to suffer with a smile on the job and endorse the reactionary politics of bosses and owners while on company property... but they griped about work to their Millennial and Homeland children (and still do), which may explain why people under 40 so reject the plutocratic order that we now have.  

The last 1T demonstrated a large investment in affordable housing. with huge tracts of farmland and orange groves becoming huge tracts of single-family housing. Much of that housing has approached the end of the service life of it as well as the infrastructure (schools, streets, and sewers) that allowed millions to live like the fictional Ward Cleaver family of early television. .

I expect housing patterns to change. I expect vehicles to change -- with electric vehicles and vehicles that drive themselves. (You will submit to giving responsibility for driving a car to a very smart computer just to keep your auto insurance rate from becoming prohibitive).

Paragraph by paragraph response, followed by my own 2c.

P1:  Bicycle riding has picked up within the last few years. Chicago has many dedicated bicycle lanes. True that the fetish for blown-up highway funds nearly starved out alternatives such as passenger rail and the long-distance bus model highlighted by firms such as Greyhound (leave the driving to us). A Chicago Tribune editorial way back in 1993 stated that back when the interstate highways were built, we had no serious economic competition, therefore we could afford to be wasteful. We no longer can, so let's stop making like we are still living in the 1950s. We may no longer be living like "Leave it to Beaver", but the fetish for the car culture and single family homes hasn't seem to have budged much. Only difference may be that car owners no longer seem to be giving their cars (mostly female) pet names, such as Miss Linda B.

P2:  There is some variation of this in what some call the "Kiss and Ride" programs where one spouse might drop the other off at the train station and then head home or to wherever. Single people most likely would have to park and ride, and there are designated areas for that. We might initiate a discussion on whether high-speed rail will ever really take off here in the US.

P3:  While I haven't flown since 2007, I have rented cars a few times since, last in May of last year to travel to Michigan. I am right outside of Chicago and drive an older car that I have had a lot of work put into. Therefore if I need to travel outside of the local area I would invest in renting a car to avoid the possibility of a breakdown in the middle of nowhere.  But there is currently a severe shortage of rental cars available. Just heard that yesterday.

P4:  This one falls into the "don't get me started" category. Ever since the late 1980s the nature of our job and housing markets has helped to create a homeless problem which seems to continually grow more acute. California probably is the worst culprit, and one saving grace is the fact that they don't need to experience the bitter cold winters found in much of the rest of the country. We need to expand Right to Shelter laws. Currently MA is the only entire state that has it, along with NYC. A Reddit piece recently stated that the time has come for us to end our love affair with single family homes. But the true paramour here might be government zoning commissions and home owners' associations. I feel that if nothing else rooming houses need to come back. This would go a long way toward alleviating the problem.

P5:  Another one in the "don't get me started" genre.  First sentence described something that went on back in the seemingly placid postwar era. Especially with what was then known as Urban Renewal. When much poor yet mostly liveable housing was destroyed and not enough replacement housing was offered. And let's not forget all the folks who lost their homes to make way for the Interstate highways. Many jurisdictions are eager to employ the power of eminent domain to force people from their homes to make way for more upscale develoopments to private developers. This was largely ignored until a Connecticut woman, Suzette Kelo, had the audacity to sock it to 'em so to speak. She got to keep her pink house but it was moved to a new location. And as of a couple of years ago the land the house and others were forcibly taken from continued to sit empty and undeveloped. As a result, Ms. Kelo became what, in a thread on the original forum, referred to as an accidental celebrity. A movie was even made based on her story. The rest of P5 more or less self-explanatory IMO.

P6:  I grew up in that time and there wasn't much talk of insufficient or unaffordable housing. But the Levittown style development were the precursors of the so-called McMansions we now see. Most likely none of the primary posters here will live long enough to see it, but one day many of these might be the next generation of flop houses.

P7:  Falls into the we shall see category. Part of me hopes that the SDCs won't appear until after I am gone from this earth.

My2c:  With gas approaching 6 dollars a gallon in many places, just yesterday I ask the woman behind the convenience store whether she has seen any drop in consumption due to the record high prices, and she replied with an emphatic "No Sirree"! She refused to discuss the issue any further though. What do you feel the tipping point will be? 10 dollars, or even more? Have we gone beyond our love affair with cars and now consider them just as a necessary evil for most? Having to have a car is, after all, a huge financial burden. Not only the escalating cost of gas, but also insurance which is required by law nearly everywhere, maintenance, licensing, parking in many locales, and since most folks have to buy their cars on time, there is also financing. Plus the cost of the car itself.

[Eric the Green]

It is an important concern. Well worth discussion and consideration.

20th century cities were built around the automobile. Los Angeles and San Jose CA are examples. It has been hard to establish a workable, useable transit system in San Jose and Los Angeles in the midst of urban sprawl. Some progress has happened since 1976, when this city expanded its ancient bus system which had been deliberately reduced and its trolleys replaced in order to boost car, tire and gas businesses some decades earlier. So, we put in a light rail system, but it has its limits too. And we have park and ride lots and more bike lanes. Our downtown was made more safe for pedestrians, and more-dense housing has been added near transit routes, although housing costs near jobs have become outrageous. I don't know how much of this kind of slow progress has happened in red-state Texas, also the location of many sprawling, expanded 20th century cities, or Phoeniz AZ or Atlanta GA etc..

The car won't go away though, so at some point, if we choose to respond to our conditions in our industrialized civilization, we will need electric and fuel cell cars and other alternatives to gas-driven autos. It will take some subsidies, I think, to people that can't afford new electric cars. Tech for charging will need to include on-the-street methods like those being installed in advanced countries in Europe.

[beechnut79]

Just found this piece on the Reddit forum. Titled What would it take to start a social movement to expand public transit. Posted here for discussion purposes only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/c...vement_to/

[David Horn]

(06-18-2022, 09:55 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: Just found this piece on the Reddit forum. Titled What would it take to start a social movement to expand public transit. Posted here for discussion purposes only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanning/c...vement_to/

I've always been baffled by how poorly Americans adjust to change in comparison to Euorpeans, who suffered from stasis for centuries.  It took two world wars to finally get their attention, but Europeans finally agreed to be less individual and more communal.  Let's admit it, we're not there yet, and current cultural pressures are actually pushing us the other way.  Like Europe, we may have to suffer a fall before we get back to our feet, evaluate what went wrong, and do something productive about it.  

Public transporation is only one of many issues.  We still have no universal healthcare, or an agreement that people need to be housed as a higher priority than NIMBYism.  We have a long road to travel to get somewhere sane, and, sadly, it's looking less likely to happen soon than it did just a few months ago.

[pbrower2a]

(06-11-2022, 10:54 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(10-07-2021, 11:39 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some of us discuss technology; some of us discuss (economics); some of us discuss engineering projects. The automobile as a one-size-fits-all solution to middle-class travel (except in New York City, where personal automobiles are restricted due to costs of parking and garage space to at the least the upper middle class) is such because of the huge investment in infrastructure to accommodate it, with such infrastructure committing people to the automobile in part because the automobile renders other transportation (such as bicycles, scooters, and vehicles resembling golf carts) too dangerous for such use.

P1:  Bicycle riding has picked up within the last few years. Chicago has many dedicated bicycle lanes. True that the fetish for blown-up highway funds nearly starved out alternatives such as passenger rail and the long-distance bus model highlighted by firms such as Greyhound (leave the driving to us). A Chicago Tribune editorial way back in 1993 stated that back when the interstate highways were built, we had no serious economic competition, therefore we could afford to be wasteful. We no longer can, so let's stop making like we are still living in the 1950s. We may no longer be living like "Leave it to Beaver", but the fetish for the car culture and single family homes hasn't seem to have budged much. Only difference may be that car owners no longer seem to be giving their cars (mostly female) pet names, such as Miss Linda B.

As climates warm, private vehicles may have their ultimate nastiness of cooking their drivers and passengers. Sure, there is air conditioning, but when one first gets into a car that has been in a parking lot for a day it will be a kiln. Warming weather may make bicycling more pleasant, at least during the winter. I'm not going to say that people will go to two-wheelers even during the much-rarer blizards and (more debilitating) cold rains. Bicycles will be good ways to get to the park-and-ride from housing areas.  

Quote:

Quote:Railroads would have been wise to collaborate with the rental-car business; railroads were competing with highway travel and had such advantages as safety. The private vehicle offered flexibility once near the destination. This of course was before air travel became the norm for long-distance travel.

P2:  There is some variation of this in what some call the "Kiss and Ride" programs where one spouse might drop the other off at the train station and then head home or to wherever. Single people most likely would have to park and ride, and there are designated areas for that. We might initiate a discussion on whether high-speed rail will ever really take off here in the US.

Well known. This practically assumes that we will go back to the post-WWII pattern in which "Wifey" took male bread-winning "Hubby"  to the commuter train and returned home to be the stereotypical housewife. Or she had only a part-time job to make ends meet... a poorly-paid, numbingly-awful job. The historical cycle can bring back patterns that seemed tolerable at the time but odious soon afterward. Nobody works as a maid, convenience-store clerk, or sweat-shop worker as an assertion of Self.   

Quote:

Quote:Air travel is even less efficient in fuel than private automobiles... but far safer and swifter.  It was originally a luxury, but it is now more efficient than driving an automobile more than about 200 miles. If your ultimate destination is less between 20 and 100 miles or you have multiple stops, then one might as well rent a car.  Rental cars are of course cars that one does not own.

P3:  While I haven't flown since 2007, I have rented cars a few times since, last in May of last year to travel to Michigan. I am right outside of Chicago and drive an older car that I have had a lot of work put into. Therefore if I need to travel outside of the local area I would invest in renting a car to avoid the possibility of a breakdown in the middle of nowhere.  But there is currently a severe shortage of rental cars available. Just heard that yesterday.

This may be one way to keep a car from having to be scrapped after ten years. Cars with over 100,000 miles are living on borrowed time, and I am not sure that I want to be stuck in Cleveland with a broken-down car where I know nobody. (This is also a good reason to develop a network of friends in cities in which you do not live), 

Many people are keeping their cars longer, which is possible with oil changes to protect the engine, car washes to protect the undercarriage, and defensive driving to reduce the frequency of severe collisions. 

We are likely to end up with electric vehicles to replace contemporary "gas buggies". To be sure, electrical energy isn't without environmental cost, but it costs far less than hydrocarbon fuels that one must literally carry in a fuel tank.   

Quote:

Quote:Transportation is inseparable from housing. In the last forty years we have had some of the most perverse social policies in housing... zoning that requires quarter-acre lots prices multitudes into very bad housing or even homelessness. Stalinist-style housing blocks (such as Pruitt-Igoe) might fit people accustomed to facing imprisonment if they gripe about anything in the "Workers' and Farmers' State" or such a right-wing nightmare as Pinochet's Chile. For basic dignity it is best that we solve our 'housing problem' some way other than building prison-like warehouses for poor people who actually do the work and punish them for ingratitude for being priced out of anything else. The freedom to complain about inadequacies in life is essential if we are to do anything to relieve people of those inadequacies.

P4:  This one falls into the "don't get me started" category. Ever since the late 1980s the nature of our job and housing markets has helped to create a homeless problem which seems to continually grow more acute. California probably is the worst culprit, and one saving grace is the fact that they don't need to experience the bitter cold winters found in much of the rest of the country. We need to expand Right to Shelter laws. Currently MA is the only entire state that has it, along with NYC. A Reddit piece recently stated that the time has come for us to end our love affair with single family homes. But the true paramour here might be government zoning commissions and home owners' associations. I feel that if nothing else rooming houses need to come back. This would go a long way toward alleviating the problem.

Our tax laws and our pro-landlord policies practically condemn us to overpriced, awful housing, Profit is the only recognized virtue in our plutocratic society, and human values are tossed out as if they were obsolete fads. To build high-rises one must build them as self-contained communities, complete with retail and service businesses.  The bottom floor may need to be dedicated to restaurants, retail shops, medical clinics, repair shops, bank branches, a library, religious bodies, maybe elementary school, postal and delivery stations, fitness centers, and perhaps even a police station. Obviously such depends upon people having income adequate to support the small businesses in the self-contained buildings. This assumes that poverty is not the norm. I can't imagine even a grocery store located in Pruett-Igoe Towers.   A town of 10,000 can support that stuff unless it is a spent mining town or an industrial wreck. Why can't a giant apartment block? 

We will need some semblance of nature to maintain our humanity, but that is an architectural issue. 

3T ways have atomized us, often into swine. We reverse that lest that become part of the national character. At the best the generational cycle breaks bad habits due to cultural conflicts and economic failures. We let this work lest we build damaging and ultimately ruinous rot into the system. Big trouble arises if the generational cycle stops.    

Quote:

Quote:I expect much real estate to be 'repurposed' to accommodate higher densities of population. Much of what we have is ideal for an America with half its current population, and then less concentrated geographically. We need to revitalized cities that globalization has ravaged.  The neoliberal ideology of the last forty years has basically rewarded people for being rich and well-connected and punished people for being poor. To suggest that neoliberal ideal will further entrench itself and make life harsher for anyone not already rich ignores the egalitarian trend in Millennial and likely Homeland ideology. To be sure, X learned quickly to suffer with a smile on the job and endorse the reactionary politics of bosses and owners while on company property... but they griped about work to their Millennial and Homeland children (and still do), which may explain why people under 40 so reject the plutocratic order that we now have.  

P5:  Another one in the "don't get me started" genre.  First sentence described something that went on back in the seemingly placid postwar era. Especially with what was then known as Urban Renewal. When much poor yet mostly liveable housing was destroyed and not enough replacement housing was offered. And let's not forget all the folks who lost their homes to make way for the Interstate highways. Many jurisdictions are eager to employ the power of eminent domain to force people from their homes to make way for more upscale develoopments to private developers. This was largely ignored until a Connecticut woman, Suzette Kelo, had the audacity to sock it to 'em so to speak. She got to keep her pink house but it was moved to a new location. And as of a couple of years ago the land the house and others were forcibly taken from continued to sit empty and undeveloped. As a result, Ms. Kelo became what, in a thread on the original forum, referred to as an accidental celebrity. A movie was even made based on her story. The rest of P5 more or less self-explanatory IMO.

Two tendencies lead to the destruction of archaic infrastructure: economic irrelevance from obsolescence, and things being pushed to service long beyond their expected life. What seemed reasonable in the immediate post-war era in which some farmer on the fringe of the ever-advancing urban sprawl could subdivide his cornfield or ranch into suburban tracts of "ranch" houses may not be possible this time. All housing must either be demolished or gutted after a certain amount of time. 

In rural areas, the Interstate Highway System was a boon to rural areas through which they passed. So if Interstate 63 met State Highway 22 on your farm and the state DOT decided that your farm would be the site of the interchange, then you would get paid for your land, and some motel, restaurant, and gas station chains might be making offers that would solve all your economic problems. You might do less farming and simply take in the rent or invest the proceeds. Hey -- Gulf Oil (which then owned Holiday Inn) paid good money for your former cornfield and dairy barn, so you become a shareholder with the proceeds.. An Interstate interchange brought plenty of retail traffic to your community that was never going to be there otherwise. 

The problem came with urban Interstates in which the urban renewal that came with them often became "Negro removal". Destroying an established community to put in a freeway and interchanges was not going to bring new business on the whole, but it would splinter communities. Even worse, leaded fuel was the norm. so those communities got a huge new dose of environmental lead and some vile consequences. As we all should know, environmental lead as dusts or fumes cause a loss of intelligence and of impulse control. That means crime. The disappearance of environmental lead in the 1970's led to falling crime rates and delayed recoveries of educational attainment. but in the meantime great damage arose. Where freeway traffic was heaviest and slowest just before entering the central business district, lead pollution was most intense and so was the damage.       

Quote:

Quote:The last 1T demonstrated a large investment in affordable housing. with huge tracts of farmland and orange groves becoming huge tracts of single-family housing. Much of that housing has approached the end of the service life of it as well as the infrastructure (schools, streets, and sewers) that allowed millions to live like the fictional Ward Cleaver family of early television.

.P6:  I grew up in that time and there wasn't much talk of insufficient or unaffordable housing. But the Levittown style development were the precursors of the so-called McMansions we now see. Most likely none of the primary posters here will live long enough to see it, but one day many of these might be the next generation of flop houses.

It was so affordable that people took it for granted. People scream bloody murder when gas prices go from a gallon for roughly 15 minutes of work to a gallon for half an hour of work. It means that vacations become staycations, with people finding alternatives to taking road trips -- like painting the house, putting in a garden, relying upon local attractions, or participating more in such local life as there is. People might still have their twenty-minute one-way commutes, but one might wangle oneself into working close to home if one has a job in a low-paying place such as a convenience store or fast-food place. Maybe you work at Chez Mac when the job available was 20 miles away and there was no job where you were. Then such a job opened up locally. That's a pay raise without getting any more cash.   

Quote:I expect housing patterns to change. I expect vehicles to change -- with electric vehicles and vehicles that drive themselves. (You will submit to giving responsibility for driving a car to a very smart computer just to keep your auto insurance rate from becoming prohibitive).

P7:  Falls into the we shall see category. Part of me hopes that the SDCs won't appear until after I am gone from this earth.[/quote]

Isn't that how things go? Fuel prices have typically been cyclical. Real estate has its ups and downs, with 'ups' for landlords being dreadful times for renters and vice-versa. It always seems that high prices are the optimum for profiteers who have every incentive to institutionalize their gouging indefinitely, but that usually breaks down. Price-cutting is one way to get a larger share of a seemingly-shrinking market. 

The COVID-19 crisis has shown people that many of them can work at home or at least closer to home. The problem is that much of the work that can go from New York City to Scranton, Pennsylvania can then go to some place where living standards are far lower than those in Scranton. 

Unintended consequences  are never predictable for content and character, but they are certain to happen. We have yet to see the full consequences of COVID-19 (and don't fool yourself -- over one million deaths compares to any American war except the Civil War for demographic effects) in economics, politics, technology, and culture. The neoliberal era of super-low pay for expendable workers that began with Ronald Reagan becoming President is likely over. People made adjustments such as delaying marriage or childbirth, staying with parents after completing their intended schooling,. or even turning to illicit means of making money (such as drug trafficking). Many who have lived their entire peak years of productivity and income in an era of low wages and high rents are now entering 'elder care' after miserable lives, and what did they achieve through their misery? 

I see something terribly wrong with doing a job for a pittance, having no meaningful opportunity for advancement, and then having the obligation to put on that big, bright "Happy to Serve You!" smile that I have seen but never believed. No, workers were not lazy or incompetent. We got plenty of cheap restaurant meals and low retail prices, but at a great price to those who made those possible. Two of the companies in the best position to take advantage of such, Sears and K-Mart, are practically dead. I shed no tears except for those who put in several dedicated toil in such places only to find themselves destitute.    

[/quote]
Finally, 

Quote:My2c:  With gas approaching 6 dollars a gallon in many places, just yesterday I ask the woman behind the convenience store whether she has seen any drop in consumption due to the record high prices, and she replied with an emphatic "No Sirree"! She refused to discuss the issue any further though. What do you feel the tipping point will be? 10 dollars, or even more? Have we gone beyond our love affair with cars and now consider them just as a necessary evil for most? Having to have a car is, after all, a huge financial burden. Not only the escalating cost of gas, but also insurance which is required by law nearly everywhere, maintenance, licensing, parking in many locales, and since most folks have to buy their cars on time, there is also financing. Plus the cost of the car itself.

People will adjust. They always do. At some point, people find some alternative. 

High prices, except for Giffen's paradox (which applies to the Irish potato famine, so I need not go into the details) always result in lesser consumption. The pleasure trips vanish. People consolidate trips or even start taking dial-a-ride services. (I am finding that the local trips within a town of 12,000 devour gas rapidly and cause much wear on my car, so I might as well take the bus). For the gouger, changed habits make less-reliable customers in good times. I didn't take super-long road trips with sub-2-a-gallon gasoline during the worst of the COVID-19 crisis; there was simply no place to go. Now there are places to go, but geting there is fiendishly expensive. 

I see gasoline prices already dropping from recent highs. People have written off this summer as a fun one already.