Has the Industrialized World Reached Peak Travel?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Has the Industrialized World Reached Peak Travel?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Saturday January 1, 2011 @07:12AM from the i-blame-the-lack-of-flying-cars dept.

Harperdog sends this excerpt from Miller-McCune: "A study (abstract) of eight industrialized countries, including the United States, shows that seemingly inexorable trends — ever more people, more cars and more driving — came to a halt in the early years of the 21st century, well before the recent escalation in fuel prices. It could be a sign, researchers said, that the demand for travel and the demand for car ownership in those countries has reached a saturation point. 'With talk of "peak oil," why not the possibility of "peak travel" when a clear plateau has been reached?' asked co-author Lee Schipper ... Most of the eight countries in the study have experienced declines in miles traveled by car per capita in recent years. The US appears to have peaked at an annual 8,100 miles by car per capita, and Japan is holding steady at 2,500 miles."

11 of 314 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Far from it... by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-01 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

We simply either cant spend the money, wont spend the money or cant/wont approve new infrastructure projects that will ease the traffic burden. One prime example was ripping down the West Side Highway in NYC (instead of fixing or replacing it), and then "wondering" why congestion increased when "suddenly" the drivers who used to use the WSH are now on surface streets or migrating to the FDR drive.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
1. Re:Far from it... by cduffy · 2011-01-01 07:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As population density increases in some region, it becomes harder (disproportionately more expensive) to increase the carrying capacity of roads in proportion
  This is true. However, a conclusion that sprawl is cheaper to maintain would be wildly inaccurate.
  I spent some time reviewing alternatives for the Austin Comprehensive Plan -- discussing zoning, city layout, pollution levels, cost to build and maintain roads, man-hours and funds wasted by commuting, and the like for several different development scenarios. The high-density, compact city was not only environmentally preferable -- it was by far the most economically efficient way to manage our anticipated growth.
  Increasing capacity of existing roads (while still keeping them focused around single-occupancy vehicles) is inordinately expensive, yes. On the other hand, planning a compact, high-density city that puts people in walking or cycling distance of their work, schools and shopping avoids creation of those vehicle-miles altogether -- and creates a more livable, healthier city to boot.
2. Re:Far from it... by TooMuchToDo · 2011-01-01 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which will work fine until oil is at $120-150/barrel, and you're spending a non-negligible amount on fuel for commuting and can't afford your mortgage and food.
  There are billions of people between India and China who are going to be driving soon. And who will be using oil to do so. Don't kid yourself, the suburbs are unsustainable.
3. Re:Far from it... by Scott+Wood · 2011-01-01 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You claim to speak for all Americans and Europeans?
  I would much rather live in a proper city (they're not all slums) than a suburb or exurb. I hate being tied to a huge hulk of oil-gobbling pollution-spewing metal that I must take everywhere I go (and always be sober to do so), with so much land being dedicated to the storage of said hulks of metal at every destination (you say you don't like concrete -- do you like asphalt?). Unfortunately, the city I live in (Austin, but it applies in much of the US) has zoned mostly low density and thus high density areas are expensive due to limited supply relative to demand, and jobs are scattered in the suburbs, so I'm stuck with the car.
  If you like your exurb (but apparently not the one you work in, since you feel the need to commute), fine, but don't complain about gas tax increases or other driving charges to pay for your highways and to keep CO2 and oil consumption under control. Don't complain if you get charged higher utility rates than urban customers because you need more pipe/wire distance per person. Don't complain if more of your local taxes have to be spent on police and fire coverage to cover the same number of people. Don't complain if state/federal tax money is spent on the more efficient population centers, particularly for things like transit. Don't complain that natural gas/electricity has to be kept cheap so you can heat/cool your large detached house.
4. Re:Far from it... by Grishnakh · 2011-01-01 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As I just posted to someone else,
  Manhattan is a case study of a city full of rich people. If you're not one of the rich people working in the fashion or finance industries, and instead have to work a working-class job like cleaning the toilets for one of the nice Manhattan offices, you're relegated to a slum in one of the other boroughs and have to commute in by train every day.
  It's not that hard to have a really nice, dense, and safe non-slum city when you move all the poorest people (who do all the shit jobs) out of the city and force them to commute.
5. Re:Far from it... by pstorry · 2011-01-01 12:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nonsense. Oil already hit $120 a few years back, and I don't know anyone who had to chose between commuting and traveling. Even if it hits $200 per barrel 5 years from now, my car will be ready for replacement, and I can buy another one which uses half as much fuel.
  Just so I'm clear on this... Your solution to "Fuel is getting more expensive, at some point I may not be able to commute" will be "I need to buy a new car".
  Hmmm.
  I think I'm beginning to see why America has such a large deficit...
6. Re:Far from it... by spike+hay · 2011-01-01 17:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In the last couple of decades inner cities have become pretty nice for the most par. Most major citiesl have clean, low crime cores nowadays due to redevelopment and the fact that people don't like to drive an hour or more to get to work or anywhere with more culture than a Supercuts in a stripmall. Of course, that goes along with high rent. Where I am (Seattle) it's the suburbs that are trashy and have crime problems. I can certainly walk out my door at any time of night (and I often do) with no problems.
  
  --
  If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Sheesh, trends don't == natural law. by RyanFenton · 2011-01-01 07:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Improved communications, including the Internet has helped make some forms of travel less necessary.
2. Optimized analysis of usage patterns have allowed businesses to minimize travel costs better.
3. A general drastic shift in income towards the more wealthy at the cost of growth in other income levels has minimized the ability for most folks to have the opportunity for leisure travel (time as much as money).
Those create a trend - but there's no inherent "peak travel" there. Start electing folks who will tax wealth in order to give meaningful freedom to everyone else again (see: 1940's to 1970's US), and you will see more frequent travel again as people have resources to start businesses, engage in leisure activities, and do more than just go to WalMart every long once in a while, rather than a few rich having exponential increases.
Ryan Fenton
1. Re:Sheesh, trends don't == natural law. by hot+soldering+iron · 2011-01-01 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This rant (most definitely a rant) is USA-centric and brings up several points that people don't want to think about. If that distresses you, you may wish to skip it.
  Sorry, but a government that taxes the wealthy for the benefit of the majority is not going to happen. I'm afraid that sociologically, we may have hit a "tipping point" where the wealthy elite have taken control of the government/energy corporations (Illuminati for all you conspiracy theorists out there), and are driving the economy and public policy in such a way that it will separate the poor and what used to be the middle class from the wealthy, and reduce them to a point where it's all they can do just to survive. They're being driven into economic slavery, and when you're hungry enough, you'll gladly give up these "freedoms" to stay warm and have a good meal.
  Yeah, I know it sounds very doom and gloom, but think... How many families do you know that still go on Sunday drives? Still have vacation homes in the country? Still have vacations, period? How many people now have advanced degrees, and aren't able to do much more than high school drop outs? Remember how our parents could travel all over the world on a moments notice, without being molested and intimidated by our own government "to protect us"? We used to protect ourselves, now we're not even supposed to do that. We've just supposed to be good victims, or be arrested and forced into slave labor in the privatized prison system.
  The majority of our population is talented and skilled enough for factory work, which creates wealth from raw materials, but some traitors convinced us that getting rid of the factories and moving to a "service-based" economy was a good thing. Not for us, it hasn't been. The industrialization of the factories brought wealth to the majority of our population, and now that it's gone the majority of our population is living on the thin edge of poverty and living off the taxes of the fraction that are skilled enough to be valuable in a global arena. Yes, being on an even footing with the rest of the world meant we had to give up many advantages we enjoyed. The government quit being "for the people" a long time ago, and became "for the people that pay and/or scare us legislators".
  They couldn't legally take away our rights overnight, like they would have wished, so they did it slowly, over time, making it seem reasonable, and they kept increasing the costs of our liberty. So it's "fiscally responsible" to stay home, watching the stupid reality shows, thinking that the boogey men are going to kill us if we don't hide behind our wonderful governmental overlords.
  Quick side-note: According to many students I know studying for a law-enforcement career, you are automatically ineligible if your IQ measures too high on their standardized tests. "Too high" is approx 90. Still less than average. They want morons with a desire to be in charge, and a taste for violence against the majority of the population. They don't have the high intelligence required for one of the remaining occupations, and aren't normally curious or smart enough to realize that the government and policies that they are enforcing are causing a majority of the problems they are "fighting" every day. They just know what they've been told to do, and they think that they are good heroic boys and girls for doing what they've been told.
  These trends aren't "natural law" in the slightest. They've been carefully engineered. You think that the shambles our economy and government are in is just poor planning? That we don't know enough about economics, or good management practices, to set good policies? The original founding of this country was so well thought out, that it's taken over 200 years to subvert and twist it from the inside, by controlling the weak, greedy, and power hungry.
  The worst part is that they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. The elite (Bilderburgs, Tri-lateral Commission, Illuminati, whatever name you want to give them) seem to operate on the principal that
  
  --
  When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Re:Apples-Oranges by noidentity · 2011-01-01 08:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Their wanting to call it "peak travel" is clearly just an attempt to make it seem dramatic like peak oil. It's like calling every attempt to hide something X-gate.
Re:Awaiting next revolution by careysub · 2011-01-01 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

... it could be fast rail if it weren't for the fact that excessive govt regulation [emphasis added] and problems getting right-of-way means that it will never happen...
Come again? Since every high speed rail system in the world has been built by using large government subsidies (just like the original U.S. transcontinental rail system), and usually at least a government partnership if not as an outright government-run project, how is "excessive government regulation" to blame for the lack of high speed rail? Note also that those rights-of-way can only be obtained only through the government exercising its right of eminent domain.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj