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

[gifa]

This assumes that every city has a decent public transit system.

I live in Kansas City, Missouri. If I were to ride the bus to work (which is only a 20-30 minute drive on the highway for me through the Grandview Triangle) I'd first have to drive about halfway there to get to the nearest bus route that takes me to my place of work. That drive would take about 15 minutes, because it's slightly out of my way and not within reach of a highway, so lots of stop and go. THEN, once I was there, and on the bus, it'd take me about 45 minutes to ride the rest of the way into work. The round trip would cost me 2 dollars and 2 hours. I put in about 20 bucks of gas in my 30 mpg car per week...

Ride the bus? Save money? Save time? I don't think so. Not here anyway.

[futurebird]

One of the reasons that transit systems are in such poor shape is due to low readership. This manes there are fewer buses and so it's not worth it. You need a critical mass of people using public transport before it starts to make sense. With greater uses comes greater investment and better service.

There was a time when no one wanted to drive because there were no gas station to refill cars and the roads were too bumpy and made for horses.

To make the transition smoother in regions with poor transit systems these changes might be tied to greater investment in pubic transpiration at the same time. But, I'm certain some of the libertarians who lurk around here would object, so as a starting port for the discussion I thought it'd make sense to look at the real costs of driving.

[futurebird]

NYC has a long tradition of making great plans, some of the time planning has backfired. Much of the planning in the 60s and 70s was really off base, Highways cut of pedestrian access to the the waterfronts. Planning focused on moving the car in and around New York City and even the subway system fell in to disrepair. Furthermore, there was this bizarre idea, that cities were going to get smaller and smaller no matter what, and that the car had made cities "obsolete" So big urban centers like New York had to "plan for shrinkage" --reduce city services, reduce the density of neighborhoods and plan to be absorbed in to the suburban fabric.

Of course, that turned out to be the greatest pile of nonsense ever created. We have more people in the city today than ever before. More people then 5-points era new york, but lower crime, healthier living conditions and stellar public services.

Of course, we are choking on the traffic now and have zero space into which to expand the road infrastructure, but foresight like that doesn't seem to

[gifa]

At one time, Kansas City had a trolley system. But it failed.

They've been trying to install a light rail here for the past 10 years, but every time it goes up for vote, it fails, why? Because the people who want to raise the taxes to put it in are only wanting to put it in between the Country Club Plaza, and the downtown area... which doesn't serve the people who live here, just the people who visit here.

And if you wanna talk about bumpy roads, come on down to Kansas City, I'll show you bumpy roads. They were throwing huge 6' x 12' iron plates over the holes.

[futurebird]

which doesn't serve the people who live here, just the people who visit here.

It's really sad when lawmakers can only think of public transportation as a tourist trap.