Why do people drive so much? A look at the costs.

[futurebird]

I just created this graph for the wikipedia article on the Effects of the automobile on societies. (It's based on a similar graph in the book Transportation for Livable Cities By Vukan R. Vuchic, a great read for anyone interested in sustainable development.) The article still needs a lot of work, but I wanted to share what I added today.

Comments

Re: Hmm, I think I misread a few things

[futurebird]

I've always considered sales tax unfair, but then again, I was born in Oregon. :)

Sales tax can be bad, but gas tax is a must. It's too low and not paying for the highways as it is let alone all of the other problems cars cause. These problems really hit the poor more, you should see the asthma rates in the Bronx-- it's awful.

And eveyone ends up paying for the highways, even those without cars.

Ditto for parking lots. We need to get rid for the laws that force busineses to build them. Eveyone pays for that too in higher prices and urban sprawl that forces more people to drive.

As for urban planning, making the cities more affordable to live would be a great idea, I just don't think our current law makers really give a damn about that.In general this is true, but there are exceptions. We're building a lot of public housing in New York these days, and it's not the old kind, but rather income integrated, so it won't isolaote people

Re: The reason is simple, the realities of day to day life

[futurebird]

These data are only for cities. In rural areas, there will probably stil be free parking and there's nothing to toll, so people will keep driving. Car ownership is a burden on many poor families. When the readership increases public transport the networks will have the money to expand and improve service reaching more people. More people will be able to take advantage of the less expensive option and avoid the economic burden of car ownership. Don't forget the very poorest people can't afford cars at all, and without good public transport they are stranded.

[amberskyfire]

I think a lot of the reason is also because public transportation is inconvenient in that it does not go door to door. They only run on main routes and not many people live within a few blocks of a bus route. Most people have to walk at least one mile to get to a bus stop and that's not something most would want to do even in good weather

Re: I'll add one more thing here

[futurebird]

I think you have the wrong class-angle on this issue. One of the reasons theses kinds of changes don't happen is due to class inertia. Suburban politicians hate this stuff-- and the sprawl is killing the inner city, and no one really cares.

Re: It's not just the surburbs

[futurebird]

I can't really argue with that!

[sunlightlotus]

I dunno, in my city, the public transportation is soooooo slow. I can drive to work in 20 min, pay no parking or tolls, but it would take over an hour on the bus. If I am driving to an event downtown, with 3 people in my car - it still only costs $6 or maybe $8 to park; but if we take the mass transit, that's $12 total. Also, limited people seem to live near the mass transit, so its a matter of driving there, parking and riding.

I rode the bus one summer to take classes - to save gas and parking money. It was cost effective, but I get summers off so the 1and a half to get there and 2 hours home (including the waits for the bus) wasnt an issue.

[caliantrias]

This is a fantastic graph but I have some questions and challenges

[futurebird]

1) How can the 'rail' column claim 0 environmental costs? Rail is either diesel or electric and both result in carbon emissions.

I tried to put a thin little hairline in there, but the cost per-person, per-ride are literally so small that on this scale they vanish.

2) Same question for social costs and rail.

Ditto.

3) The out-of pocket sections for auto should include depreciation on the vehicle, insurance and maintenance.

There are captured in the below the line costs called "indirect user costs" -- I guess some people think about these things when they get ready to use a car, but there's a lot of evidence that people only really consider the direct cost of gas.

4) Time. I commute 45 miles a day. On good run, it takes me about 45 minutes. On a bad run, about an hour. I have often thought a high speed rail would be great up the corridor I drive. Today I calculated it out and realized that a rail system would probably not save me time and, in fact, would cost me more time unless I parked a car at the other end. Time may not be

[futurebird]

You know, I a times I get weary. It's like dealing with people who deny that global waring is happening. You can present all of the facts in the world and they still object because the facts just don't match their vision of reality. I made this chart because of a frustrating conversation that I had over at the politics forum and I thought that a little illustration would help people to understand the economic dynamics of the situation. You're totally right about people finding "holes" in it, but, at times my patience gets rather thin, especially when I'm the only one bringing any hard facts to the conversation at all. There are dozens of books on this topic, and although these things were debated trough the 70s and 80s, in recent years the planning wisdom has simply shifted. At what point do you draw the line and say "go find your own facts?"

Frankly, I get sick of being the only one doing the back and forth and I wish others would jump in and say something, but perhaps they rightly realize that it's pointless.

What do you think?

[futurebird]

For what it's worth you inspired me to add a few more paragraphs of explanation to the wikipedia.