Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Has the Industrialized World Reached Peak Travel?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

8 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Far from it... by RobertM1968 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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...

  2. Sheesh, trends don't == natural law. by RyanFenton · · 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

  3. Re:Awaiting next revolution by careysub · · 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