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.

Re: Uh, no

[futurebird]

Situations differ so much from individual to individual to family to family you can't make a sweeping generalization for that.

What generalization? That poor people spend a greater percentage of their income on transpoartaion? That's just a fact. The nation’s poorest families spend about 40% of their take home pay on transportation. For those with access to public transportation the percentage is much lower, for those keeping a car running the percentage is quite high. I think increasing access should be a big priority so people have more options.

Something like 10 percent of Americans do not own a car. They are almost overwhelming poor and they live in urban areas. (though there are some people in rural areas without cars. See: Transportation for Livable Cities By Vukan R. Vuchic for these stats)

A lot of poor families are working families, and depending on the circumstances of their situation, they need their car.Improved public transpiration can help address this. One of the reasons people need a car is because public

Re: You're clearly misreading and/or misrepresenting my points

[futurebird]

oh. I didn't really get that.

Re: You're clearly misreading and/or misrepresenting my points

[futurebird]

I'm sorry I spent the weekend trying to convince a pair of socialists why the gas tax wasn't "regressive" and I'm a little trigger happy on this whole issue at the moment. (and crabby)

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

[dracumancer]

I don't think that futurebird, and the modern environmental community, really are harping on individual choices. We understand that people will do what's easy and logical, but our government and economic systems often make the logical and easy choice the less efficient and less environmentally friendly choice. This is the case when we subsidize roads and hide the cost of parking