So far the comments following INFRASTRUCTURE MEDIA raise few serious questions. EMR addressed one and will try to get to a second one but there is one inquiry that deserves special attention. It is buried so deep in musings, cuteness, irrelevant reminiscences, misconceptions, Idea Spam and Intentional Information Sabotage that few may have gotten to it so it will be addressed here.
Burying relevant observations and questions is yet another demonstration why THE LITMUS TEST is critical.
The fact that there are few thoughtful comments is evidence that ALMOST NO ONE is willing to seriously consider looking into the ABYSS that is life in the Post Autonomobile Age – especially in the US.
Richard Florida – and many others – contend that the Autonomobile Age is almost over. An ever growing number have been predicting this since 1925 but the evidence is now overwhelming that dominance of the Large, Private Vehicle is in decline – except in the imagination of those who are promoting INFRASTRUCTURE MANIA.
Yes, humans will use vehicles and yes, some vehicles will be operated exclusively by their owners but no amount of subsidy can sustain for much longer a condition where Large, Private Vehicles are the dominant mode by which Urban humans achieve Mobility and Access. It is a matter of physics as well as economics.
THE QUESTION IS:
At 11:28 PM on the day before Groundhog’s Day Jim Bacon asked:
“Ed, I’m curious about this statement:
“At the present time half of the working adults in the US cannot afford to buy and maintain a Large, Private Vehicle that is fuel efficient AND safe to drive on the Interstate Highway System.”
“I’m wondering what you base that upon. If you said that half the working adults cannot afford a “new” large, private vehicle, then I would find that plausible. But the average age of the auto fleet is close to 10 years now. There are a lot of depreciated, inexpensive second-hand cars on the market.
“Admittedly, the older the car, the more expensive the maintenance. That’s probably a bigger cost than gasoline.
“Still, I’m wondering what you base the statement on.”
EMR is glad Mr. Bacon raised this question!
SOME BACKGROUND
The statement quoted above is from the current draft of WHAT FOLLOWS THE AUTONOMOBILE (Forthcoming).
Most know that with respect to the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis, the fact that X percent of the Y cohort cannot afford the median priced house is an eye catcher. But is there a similar hook for the Mobility and Access Crisis?
To find shelter when there is no Affordable Housing close to Jobs / Services / Recreation / Amenity, citizens have been forced to seek Housing in locations that are Accessible only with Large, Private Vehicles.
This has made the Mobility and Access Crisis worse and worse each year as TTI documents in its annual Urban Mobility Study.
Some understand that even within the settlement patterns that are designed to optimize use of Large, Private Vehicles these vehicles have NEVER been able to provide Mobility and Access to over half the individuals in the resident population. The majority of the population is too young, too old or too unfirm to drive and park Large, Private Vehicles.
Even in Planned New Communities with:
● Densities as low as 10 persons per acre at the Alpha Community scale,
● Abundant sidewalks, bike paths,
● Many Clusters and Neighborhoods with higher density, some with mixed uses, and
● A concerted effort to provide non-Large, Private Vehicle Mobility and Access,
The percentage of citizens that could use Large, Private Vehicles by themselves has almost never been over 50 percent. This is because these places tend to attract larger families and do not provide the amenities sought by the Households without children.
It is clear to a growing number – those who bother to consider the facts – that even with free fuel and Gee Whiz technology Large, Private Vehicles cannot provide Mobility and Access for the majority of citizens in large Urban agglomerations. The reasons are spelled out in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.
There is NOT ONE large Urban agglomeration on the planet that does not have one or more shared vehicle systems. The Urban areas with:
● The highest value per square foot of built space,
● The highest value per square foot of land area, and
● The most voluntary visitors (aka, tourists)
Are almost always served by shared vehicle systems.
The days of Dallas, Houston, Denver and Salt Lake thumbing their noses at shared vehicle systems is history.
Pedestrian and bike trips are the fastest growing mode of travel in almost every large Urban agglomeration except in China. That will change now that there are new taxes on private cars in recognition of the fact that shared-vehicles and pedestrian / bike movement is necessary to support large Urban agglomeration. The vast Chinese investment in High Speed Rail is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of an attempt – which would eventually fail – to provide the Mobility and Access to which Chinese citizens aspire via Large (or small), Private Vehicles.
AND AFTER THE CAR?
To move past THE PROBLEM and consider what comes AFTER the car, a new perspective was needed. That ‘hook’ caught the attention of Jim Bacon.
The statement:
“At the present time half of the working adults in the US cannot afford to buy and maintain a Large, Private Vehicle that is fuel efficient AND safe to drive on the Interstate Highway System.”
is crafted to make clear that:
● Even “working adults” – and not just welfare slackers, meandering teens and old folks – are in need of alternatives to Large, Private Vehicles. (Including the able-bodied but unemployed would increase the percentage but detract from the focus.)
● Buy AND maintain in SAFE condition are important parameters because when a vehicle is over 3 or 4 years old (out of the dealer’s ‘free service’ sales incentive) the cost of maintenance increases dramatically and the more Gee Whiz technology, the higher the cost to keep the vehicle up to spec and thus ‘safe’ and fuel efficient.
● Fuel efficiency is critical because of the rising cost of energy. Fuel efficiency and maintenance go hand in hand.
● The test of “Safety on the Interstate System” is the key.
Old and poorly maintained cars are not safe to drive at high speed, especially on ‘mixed-traffic’ expressways with sleep deprived over-the-road-drivers pushing long haul rigs with multiple safety violations much less other unsafe drivers in unsafe cars.
Drop the Interstate speed limit to 50 mph and those who could afford a ‘safe’ car would increase by at least 10 percent. Pandering politicians keep raising the speed limit to the determent of fuel efficiency AND safety.
If there was a rational criteria of visibility FROM a vehicle, the number of cars that are deemed ‘safe’ to drive on the Interstate system would go down by about the same amount as decreasing the speed limit would raise the qualifying vehicles.
There have been aerodynamic cars since the mid 20s but only when fuel efficiency became a concern did wind drag become a major design consideration. The design to increase efficiency has drastically reduced visibility from the car.
As EMR pointed out to Larry Gross:
The strategy of autonomobile makers has been:
● Deliver as little real change as possible each year,
● Induce purchase of new vehicles as often as possible,
● Make the vehicles as expensive as possible so that the profit per unit is as high as possible.
All these
factors increase the percentage who cannot afford a safe, fuel efficient vehicle.
IS THE 50 PERCENT NUMBER PRECISE?
With so many variables it is hard to say but using the criteria for ‘affordability’ for location efficient mortgages and other parameters the number ‘half the working adults” is probably ‘conservative.’ EMR is ALWAYS conservative.
If drive-til-you-qualify is thought of as the way that Affordable and Accessible Housing is provided for those at the bottom of the food chain, then long distances on the Interstate system – or similar limited access roadways – will be required.
Actually, very long distance commuting has been on the decline for 30 years according to Census Data. But that is not the issue. Being forced to own a Large, Private Vehicle to travel 3, 5 or 10 miles contributes to the cumulative problem of space to drive and park and the disaggregation of Urban fabric.
If one has to own a jalopy to drive 15 miles a day to work, the settlement patterns makes these citizens a slave to both economic and spacial parameters.
More in WHAT COMES AFTER THE AUTONOMOBILE.
Oh yes, it looks like the pandering politicians of the Commonwealth will join hands to approve the $4 Billion Beg, Barrow and Steal Anti Mobility and Access Boondoggle.
Even if it cannot be stopped now, it will die soon due to its short-sighted design.
At least one can say “WHAT DID I TELL YOU!!”
AARRRGH SQUARED!!
EMR