Five Myths?

The authors say these are myths:

5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture, by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley, Commentary, Washington Post: They don't rate up there with cancer and al-Qaeda … but suburban sprawl and automobiles are rapidly acquiring a reputation as scourges of modern American society. Sprawl, goes the typical indictment, devours open space, exacerbates global warming and causes pollution, social alienation and even obesity. And cars are the evil co-conspirator -- the driving force, so to speak, behind sprawl. Yet the anti-suburbs culture has also fostered many myths about sprawl and driving…:

1. Americans are addicted to driving.

...Some claim that Europeans have developed an enlightened alternative. ... Europeans may enjoy top-notch transit and endure gasoline that costs $5 per gallon, but in fact they don't drive much less than we do. In the United States, automobiles account for about 88 percent of travel. In Europe, the figure is about 78 percent. And Europeans are gaining on us.

The key factor that affects driving habits isn't population density, public transit availability, gasoline taxes or even different attitudes. It's wealth. Europe and the United States are relatively wealthy, but American incomes are 15 to 40 percent higher than those in Western Europe. And as nations such as China and India become wealthier, the portion of their populations that drive cars will grow.

2. Public transit can reduce traffic congestion.

…Even though spending on public transportation has ballooned to more than seven times its 1960s levels, the percentage of people who use it to get to work fell 63 percent from 1960 to 2000 and now stands at just under 5 percent nationwide. Transit is also decreasing in Europe, down to 16 percent in 2000. ...

We have to be realistic about what transit can accomplish. Suppose we could not only reverse transit's long slide but also triple the size of the nation's transit system and fill it with riders. Transportation guru Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution notes that this enormous feat would be "extremely costly" and, even if it could be done, would not "notably reduce" rush-hour congestion, primarily because transit would continue to account for only a small percentage of commuting trips.

But public transit still has an important role. Millions of Americans rely on it as a primary means of transportation. Transit agencies should focus on serving those who need transit the most: the poor and the handicapped...

3. We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving.

Polls often show that Americans think that air quality is deteriorating. Yet air is getting much cleaner. … Air quality has been improving for a long time. More stringent regulations and better technology have allowed us to achieve what was previously unthinkable: driving more and getting cleaner. Since 1970, driving -- total vehicle miles traveled -- has increased 155 percent, and yet the EPA reports a dramatic decrease in every major pollutant it measures. Although driving is increasing by 1 to 3 percent each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent annually. Pollution will wane even more as motorists continue to replace older, dirtier cars with newer, cleaner models.

4. We're paving over America.

How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent? That's the Census Bureau's figure. And even much of that is not exactly crowded: The bureau says that an area is "developed" when it has 30 or more people per square mile. ... One need only take a cross-country flight and look down, however, to realize that our nation is mostly open space. ... The United States is not coming anywhere close to becoming an "Asphalt Nation," to use the title of a book by Jane Holtz Kay.

5. We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving.

What should be done about global warming? The Kyoto Protocol seeks to get the world to agree to burn less fossil fuel and emit less carbon dioxide, and much of that involves driving less. But even disregarding the treaty's economic costs, Kyoto's environmental impact would be slight. ... Nations such as China and India were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol; yet if we're serious about reversing global warming by driving less, the developing world will have to be included.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … expects the temperature to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100. What does the IPCC think the effects of global warming may be? Flooding may increase. Infectious diseases may spread. Heat-related illness and death may increase. Yet as the IPCC notes repeatedly, the severity of such outcomes is enormously uncertain.

On the other hand, there's great certainty regarding who would be hurt the most: poor people in developing nations, especially those who lack clean, piped water and are thus vulnerable to waterborne disease. The IPCC points out that … simple measures such as adding screens to windows can help prevent diseases (including malaria, dengue and yellow fever) from entering homes. …

Two ways of dealing with global warming emerge. A more stringent version of Kyoto could be crafted to chase the unprecedented goal of trying to cool the atmosphere of the entire planet. Yet if such efforts resulted in lower economic growth, low-income populations in the United States and developing countries would be less able to protect themselves from the ill effects of extreme heat or other kinds of severe weather.

Alternatively, the focus could be on preventing the negative effects -- the disease and death -- that global warming might bring. Each year malaria kills 1 million to 3 million people, and one-third of the world's population is infected with water- or soil-borne parasitic diseases. It may well be that dealing with global warming by building resilience against its possible effects is more productive -- and more realistic -- than trying to solve the problem by driving our automobiles less.

On (1), how does saying that Europe will soon drive as much as we do, that public transportation doesn't change driving habits much, and that if we get wealthier we'll drive more show that "Americans are addicted to driving" is a myth? Arguing that everyone in the world is addicted to driving doesn't prove Americans are not.

Point (3) seems hard to swallow too. The argument is that pollution levels have been declining even as the number of cars have increased, therefore there's no need to do anything to reduce driving. But that doesn't mean that cutting the number of cars wouldn't cut pollution even more. It's also notable that all the arguments are about particulate levels at the ground level, not about about green house gases.

All in all, a pretty lame defense of doing nothing to try and prevent global warming. Basically the proposal in the last paragraph is to forget about driving less to try and combat global warming. Instead, we should fight malaria and other diseases as a means of "building resilience against its possible effects." Let's fight those diseases with all our might anyway, but really, what a dumb idea for fighting global warming.

Update: Paul Krugman sends along this graph on the price of gas and fuel consumption.

Comments

[Al Buono]

This piece is so lame --- obviously pr from some corporate mind bending tank -- I can only wonder why you bothered to publish it simply to criticize it?

[koen]

Good news for the people in Bangladesh and those islands in the pacific that are disappearing: You might be losing your entire country and everything you own to the sea, but at least you don't have malaria!

[Meh]

What bothers me is that they don't cite references for their figures. I have no idea what the 88% vs 78% means. Is it journeys? Passenger miles? Anyone?

10% can be a significant difference and cherrypicking wealth as causal out of a number of correlators neatly avoids dealing with genuine geographic issues that also in part explain the difference between the US and Europe.

While we're at it, what is this "Europe" that they speak of? EU-15? Or what?

[ctm]

Ahhh...

I feel so much better now. We don't have to do anything about Global Warming. We just need to spray more for mosquitoes.

Ecological collapse be damned!

[Ninjaplease]

Driving isn't the biggest polluter... It's flatulent cows raised for the global meat industry--I'm looking at YOU Argentina!, and space heating.

Space heating is something like 2/3 of our CO2 production. Now many businesses are finding ways to recycle heated air that would normally be vented from buildings. The problem is that HEPA filters are needed and those will have to be cleaned periodically, but heating bills should lower substantially.

[Bupa]

Why does anyone read the Washington Post? This ridiculous article is looooong. That's a lot of space devoted to a lame article that eventually posits a false choice. They claim we have a choice to adapt to Global Warming or to prevent it. The fact is we must adapt to the effects of Global Warming that we can't prevent (the globe will continue to get warmer for a while even if we stopped producing greenhouse gases today) and we must prevent what we can.

Ninjaplease is a little confused “Driving isn't the biggest polluter... It's flatulent cows raised for the global meat industry”. Though he is confused, he is on to something. Cars pollute more than cows but people would produce fewer greenhouse gases if everyone became a vegan. Here is an interesting study comparing the net reduction in greenhouse gases of changing diet and changing cars.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf

It is a false choice. You can change your car and change your diet. Anne already drives a Prius. Will she cut down on her red meat as well?

[ken melvin]

Enlightened bastards, aren't they? Statistics and damned lies. Or, is it simply damned lies. They couldn't be tht dumb, could they? Come let me show them what happened to Santa Clara valley, once on of the richest farming areas in the world; take them out to measure the surface area of DC, LA, ...

[lickedcat]

Actually, I think vegans produce more flatulence than the average person. Isn't persuing a vegetatian lifestyle then exacerbating the global warming problem. Definetly an ironic conumdrum for the environmentally sensitive. Since global warming is related to levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is an idea of pumping carbon dioxide into the earths crust. So I'm suggesting pumping all the hot air and flatulence into the ground. Thereby solving all our problems.

[howard]

let's also note that in number two, they don't tell us whether that 7x gain is real or nominal; given that inflation is 5x since the mid-'60s, i suspect it's nominal, and that therefore it's another phony stat comparable to number one.

number three is also a strawman argument.

number four is completely pointless and extraneous: the point is that the highway trust fund keeps building new highways, whether we need them or not.

number five is a strawman argument.

this couldn't be shoddier.

[M1EK]

Number one is obviously false - and misleading even if it were true - by choosing the "number of trips" metric. (Now that I can't walk long distances any more, I drive on almost every trip I make, but because I live in an urban-pattern neighborhood, I still drive 1/3 the miles of my suburban friends).

My experience in England, for instance, is that the work commute is FAR more likely to occur on mass transit, but that shopping errands are almost as likely to occur by car as they are here (to the new hypermart on the edge of town). They still drive far less on that once-weekly trip than the average US exurbanite does to their strip mall of choice.

The author of this story is a hack, plain and simple.

[ken melvin]

They are from: REASON FOUNDATION free minds and free markets.

[ken melvin]

http://www.reason.org/aboutreason.shtml

[Bernard Yomtov]

Why, why, why does the paper publish stuff like this? At a minimum they ought to ask the authors to tell us whether the spending data is real or nominal (good point, Howard) and how the 78% vs 88% figure was arrived at, and why #3 has anything to do with global warming.

Does the Post have any actual editors - you know, people who edit the articles?

[Bernard Yomtov]

BTW, Western European countries generally use about 1/4 or less as much gasoline per capita as the US.

link

[donna]

There are lies, damn lies, statistics and then idiotic "journalism". Please. We live in the fricking suburbs, we KNOW what they look like!

[bakho]

On Monday December 23rd 1946, almost nine million (8,872,244) trips were made on NYC transit subways and buses. Since then mass transit ridership has declined and recent made a comeback with the drop in crime, but has never come close to reaching the levels of ridership 59 years ago.

From the NYTimes:

The system was providing about eight million rides a day in the 1940's. With the postwar population booming, it would register an annual record in 1947 of 2.05 billion passengers.
On July 1, 1948, the fare was raised to a dime, but ridership had already begun to decline as private cars proliferated, wartime shortages of gasoline ended and the economy slowed. By 1982, the annual number dipped below one billion for the first time since World War I. With the city's population growing again and billions of dollars invested in subway improvements, ridership began to rebound. Today, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, with MetroCards replacing coins or tokens, subway ridership averages 4.5 million on weekdays and about 1.4 billion a year.

[bakho]

What is missing from their article? Missing is a cost comparison of auto V mass transit counting all the subsidies- roads, parking, energy, etc. The authors are in favor of expanding freeways, both numbers of lanes and total roads. However, they miss some of the other effects of auto reliance, namely that autos enable sprawl and inefficient planning. Looking at percentage of trips can be misleading. Europeans may make many fewer trips because services are available with a short walk instead of a 20 minute drive to Walmart. I spent 2 weeks in Spain and never once stepped into a car. Everything was bus, light rail and rail and walking. Walking home from the clubs at 3 AM was just a continuation of the party and did not involve DUI. In the US, the infrastructure of most locations does not allow for people that don't drive or have someone to drive them.

[yartrebo]

"1. Americans are addicted to driving."

The figures are highly selective (how about counting km driven per person, or litres of gasoline and diesel used per person). Second, even if Europeans were big car addicts, two wrongs don't make a right.

"2. Public transit can reduce traffic congestion."

Without public transit, Manhattan and much of Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn would have to be depopulated because the gridlock would just be that bad. In NYC mass transit accounts for a large portion of rides, especially commutes to/from Manhattan.

"3. We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving."

This is a strawman. Of course there are other ways to cut pollution, like using less electricity or by using a more efficient car.

"4. We're paving over America.
How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent?"

And what 5.4% are developed? For the most part it's prime farm and forest land.

"5. We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving."

Another strawman.

[calmo]

Shoddy, scattered, disconnected, lame/limp...but possibly deliberately so, until ken comes along and ruins that perfectly good rescue...again.
Just when I think the WaPo is testin its 'Letters to the Editor' section.
Dang.
Is this it: antagonize your regulars with a post from a guest source that attacks Beef eatin, SUV drivin, (Ok, pavement lovin, for you Prius drivers), Football watchin, lawn mowin (reminder for self today) decent Americans. [Basically: me first and second. You can wait.] Then allow tag team, Sam an Ted, to defend themselves against (to be roasted by) the might of the 'no mo limpo' WaPo readers who can still type.
Sam an Ted, not the most robust Myth Busters of the American Lifestyle, sadly may only serve as pawns for the WaPo editors who may increase circulation with this article, but do nothing for the view that asks us to reconsider the consumption society.
So, people, --beef eatin, pavement lovin, football-baseball watchin, people, (ok, soon to be lawn-mowin too)...are we going to just trash Sam an Ted or pick up those ideas which were so poorly handled and determine if WaPo did need to squash them?

[ken melvin]

Did libertarians ala the church of Scientology brainwash the WP's editorial staff. Did they, Hiatt et al, read Ayn Rand at too early an age. Come to think of it, confusing erotica and economics may explain everything.

[mrrunangun]

Public transit makes a lot of sense in Manhattan, NYC generally, and among other densely populated urban areas on the eastern seaboard. It doesn't make economic sense in the less densely populated areas which characterize most of the country. It is 3 1/2 miles from my home to the nearest bus stop. No bus lines run here because the sparse population doesn't suffice to support a bus line. The nearby small city of 100,000 has meager county-subsidized bus service. Europe has sufficiently greater population density than USA to permit economical public transit. Germany's nationwide population density is about 600/ sq mi and USA's is about 80/sq mi. The article's dismissal of population density as an important factor makes no sense to me.

[Movie Guy]

I read this WaPo article this morning. The moment I spotted the authors names, I knew that this was a piece written by the Toll Road Boys, headed up by Robert Poole. With that in mind, I ignored their title and subtitles, and focused on the content. There were no U.S. national statistics errors. Well, maybe one - the ratio of passenger vehicle travel to other forms is 89%, not 88%, based on my read of USDOT data. Aside from that quibble, they nailed it. Even their emission information is correct with the exception of vehicle and industry CO2 emissions, which EPA does not exert control over at this time. Careful selection of statistics is the Reason Foundation's trademark on matters of surface transportation and urban development. They know their stuff, and they know how to sell their proposals from coast-to-coast and on Capitol Hill. That I oppose much of their thinking really doesn't matter unless I have a better argument or proposal. It's not easy to walk around this group as you have to have solid proposals to counter their well known and endorsed plans. Effective counters can be raised, but not without a thorough knowledge of transportation, economic development, and planning issues.

I wasn't particularly interested in the myths angle as evidenced in the article's subtitles, as I know that their interest in pushing toll roads and other congestion relief infrastructure. Moreover, I understand from numerous transportation studies that there is no major movement away from passenger vehicles (cars, crossovers, SUVs, vans, and pickups) at this time. It may happen eventually, but the transition implementation costs will be quite large, and people will be reluctant to shift to other means of transportation until we ramp up our light and heavy rail infrastructure. Conservation initiatives certainly have their place, but overall reduction of passenger automobiles will be a long term project that will be met with considerable resistance, even in metropolitan settings other than heavy hub centers.

I am surprised that more blogs haven't picked up on this article or the energy initiative from the President's State of the Union address, Twenty In Ten: Strengthening America's Energy Security.

More on the Reason Foundation's specialty of surface transportation and urban planning here:

Transportation and Tolls, Reason Foundation

Surface Transportation Innovations Newsletter Archive, Reason Foundation

Urban Futures, Reason Foundation

[Movie Guy]

Vehicle Emissions

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use: 1985-2004

Index of Key Air Pollutant Emissions from U.S. Transportation: 1990-2003

[ken melvin]

Why assume the problem is transporting people from exurbia to metropolis? Energy gets dear enough, they'll hie their dumb arses closer to work and they won't go to the damned mall. Stupid is hard to defend.

[Movie Guy]

Vehicle Gasoline Consumption

Summary of Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer, 1978-2005, USDOT

Summary of Manufacturer CAFE Fines Collected, 1983-2005, USDOT

Fuel Economy Standards

Final rule
Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks
Model Years 2008-2011
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* An excellent read for understating the decision process involved in CAFE standards, including REFORMED CAFE.

Study of Feasibility and Effects of Reducing Use of Fuel for Automobiles
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
Report to Congress
August 2006
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
U.S. Department Of Transportation

[Movie Guy]

This is worth reading:

Building Roads to Reduce Traffic Congestion in America's Cities:
How Much and at What Cost?
By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. and M. Gregory Fields
Project Director: Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Reason Foundation Mobility Project

Addendum: State Data
Detailed State-by-State Analysis of Future Congestion and Capacity Needs
Building Roads to Reduce Traffic Congestion in America’s Cities: How Much and at What Cost?
By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. and M. Gregory Fields
Reason Foundation Mobility Project

Map: Traffic Congestion in 2030, by State

David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E., Professor of Transportation Studies, UNC Charlotte (and here)

[Movie Guy]

Getting up to speed on surface transportation issues is within reach. I recommend starting with this background information before jumping to specific cases regarding passenger travel. I believe it helps to put everything in perspective.

Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, USDOT

State Transportation Statistics, 2005, USDOT

[Movie Guy]

2001 National Household Travel Survey

Daily Passenger Travel
Table A-10, Distribution of Trips by Mode of Transportation, in Percent

Table A-11, Distribution of Trips by Trip Purpose, in Percent

Table A-12, Distribution of Trips by Time of Day, in Percent

Table 1, Mode of Transportation Used to Commute to Work in the Past Week

[Movie Guy]

2001 National Household Travel Survey

Long-Distance Travel
Table 4, Percent of Long-Distance Trips by Mode and Roundtrip Distance

Table A-24a, Long-Distance Trips by Purpose, in Percent

Table A-24b, Long-Distance Trips by Mode and Purpose, in Percent

Table A-25, Long-Distance Trips and Miles by Destination, in Percent

[Movie Guy]

State Transportation Statistics, 2005

Chapter D - Passenger Travel, State Transportation Statistics
Table 4-1, Commuting to Work by State: 2004

Table 4-2, Licensed Drivers: 2004

Table 4-3, Transit Ridership in the 50 Largest Urbanized Areas: 2003

Table 4-4, Urban Transit Ridership by State and Transit Mode: 2003

[Movie Guy]

State Transportation Statistics, 2005

Chapter E - Registered Vehicles and Vehicle-Miles Traveled, State Transportation Statistics
Table 5-1, Motor-Vehicle Registrations by State: 2004

Table 5-3, Highway Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) by State: 1999 and 2004

Table 5-4, Highway, Demographic, and Geographic Characteristics of 30 Largest Urbanized Areas: 2004

Table 5-5, Highway Congestion and Congestion Costs in the 50 Largest Urban Areas: 2003

[Movie Guy]

State Transportation Statistics, 2005

Chapter F - Economy and Finance, State Transportation Statistics
Table 6-8, Transportation Expenditures by State Governments: 2003

Table 6-9, Transportation Revenues Collected by State Governments: 2003

Table 6-10, Federal and State Funding of Public Transit: 1995, 2000, and 2004

Table 6-12, State Motor Fuel Tax Rates: 2004

[Movie Guy]

State Transportation Statistics, 2005

Chapter G - Energy and Environment, State Transportation Statistics
Table 7-1, Transportation Energy Consumption by Energy Source by State: 2001

Table 7-2, Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector by State: 2001

Table 7-4, Motor Fuel Use by State: 2004

Table 7-5, Alternative-Fueled Vehicles in Use by Fuel Type by State: 2002

[Movie Guy]

U.S. Traffic Distribution by Census Region - Metropolitan vs. Rural Travel

It might help to note the breakdown of metropolitan and rural travel by region of the United States in order to determine where to apply priorities of research and spending to bring about the largest potential reductions in traffic congestion and gasoline consumption of passenger vehicles.

It is clear from the following information that one would want to tackle the traffic volumes in metropolitan areas as the principal priority. Whatever viable solution undertaken for metropolitan areas would provide the greatest reduction in traffic congestion and overall gasoline consumption among passenger vehicles in the USA based on miles driven, average vehicle speeds (well below normal fuel efficiency levels), and vehicle idle time while the engines were still operating. The household passenger vehicle miles traveled distribution is 76.3% metropolitan to 23.7% rural.

As evidenced in studies, the mpg fuel consumption in metropolitan areas is significantly higher than in rural areas due to vehicle mpg and traffic density. Examples include average speeds ranging from 7 mph to 19 mph to perhaps 30 mph (a bit of a stretch), including stop and go travel, in many metropolitan areas as compared to over 48 mph in rural areas. All are situations which affect fuel economy, and metropolitan areas normally come out on the losing end with very few exceptions, if any.

The difference in miles driven on a per trip basis indicates that rural travel generally results in longer trips by a few miles (2.5 to 3.5 additional miles on average based on a USDOT survey), but the fuel efficiency savings of travelling at the most fuel efficient rates of speed in rural areas as opposed to metropolitan stop and go travel easily offset the slight mileage differences in terms of overall fuel consumption. Similarly, metropolitan travel is generally increased by more opportunities for relatively short commutes to a broader range of social activity locations as well as general proximity to services for most needs. In general, there is less likelihood of households combining trip purposes in metropolitan areas than in rural settings.

Here the data:

Regions

New England - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts , New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Middle Atlantic - New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
East North Central - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
West North Central - Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
South Atlantic - Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia,Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida
East South Central - Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi
West South Central - Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas
Mountain - Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Pacific - California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii

2002 Share of Light Vehicle (LV) Travel in Metropolitan Areas of All Travel by Light Vehicles in the Region

New England - 86.6%
Middle Atlantic - 88.2%
East North Central - 77.1%
West North Central - 56.9%
South Atlantic - 76.4%
East South Central - 56.2%
West South Central - 74.1%
Mountain - 64.6%
Contiguous Pacific - 92.5%
Alaska - 38.3%
Hawaii - 68.3%
U.S. Total - 76.3%

2002 Share of Light Vehicle (LV) Travel in Non-Metropolitan Areas of All Travel by Light Vehicles in the Region

New England - 13.4%
Middle Atlantic - 11.8%
East North Central - 22.9%
West North Central - 43.1%
South Atlantic - 23.6%
East South Central - 43.8%
West South Central - 25.9%
Mountain - 35.4%
Contiguous Pacific - 7.5%
Alaska - 61.7%
Hawaii - 31.7%
U.S. Total - 23.7%

2002 Share of Light Vehicle (LV) Travel on Non-Metropolitan Interstates

New England - 2.3%
Middle Atlantic - 2.7%
East North Central - 4.8%
West North Central - 8.7%
South Atlantic - 5.5%
East South Central - 7.8%
West South Central - 6.3%
Mountain - 10.3%
Contiguous Pacific - 2.0%
Alaska - 18.2%
Hawaii - 0.0%
U.S. Total - 5.3%

National Share of Total Gasoline Use in 2000

New England - 4.8%
Middle Atlantic - 11.1%
East North Central - 15.9%
West North Central - 7.8%
South Atlantic - 19.8%
East South Central - 6.8%
West South Central - 12.3%
Mountain - 6.6%
Contiguous Pacific - 14.3%
Alaska - 0.2%
Hawaii - 0.3%

Sources: Census Regions and Divisions of the United States, Argonne National Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory Hydrogen Production Study
---

Average Vehicle Trip Lengths and Purpose of Trips

Based on USDOT survey:

To/From Work:
14.8% of all travel; 2.9% additional work-related
Metropolitan - 10.6 miles
Rural - 14.0 miles

Family & Personal Business:
44.6% of all travel
Metropolitan - 6.8 miles
Rural - 9.5 miles

School & Church:
9.8% of all travel
Metropolitan - 5.9 miles
Rural - 7.6 miles

Social & Recreational:
27.1% of all travel
Metropolitan - 11.8 miles
Rural - 14.1 miles

Other
0.8% of all travel

Sources: Federal Highway Administration, USDOT, and here

[Meh]

Nice flood of stats there, MG.

I can't seem to find breakdown of trips by passenger-mile, rather than mode.

Maybe you can point me to it, since you obviously have a lot better grasp of the US data than I do?

[hey]

Meh:

I just found these statistics from the OECD at http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,2340,en_2649_37433_2345918_1_1_1_37433,00.html

the excel sheet
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/353365538624

Due to these figures roughly 96% of passenger-kilometres in the USA come from private cars, compared to 82% in Germany. But more important the total passenger-kilometres (bus+train+privat) to citizen ratio is roughly twice as high for the US than for Germany.

says...

hey - and the US is approximately how many times bigger than Germany?

One needs to look at geography and population density when discussing vehicle use.....

[ken melvin]

"hey - and the US is approximately how many times bigger than Germany?

One needs to look at geography and population density when discussing vehicle use....."

Needs running around the bush another time or two.

[Steve]

Point 3: "Air quality has been improving for a long time" is a reiteration of a flawed right wing talking point that tries to imply that the air is getting cleaner all on its own so there is no need to regulate polluters, tax dirty energy, pass further CAFE standards, reduce driving.

The point should be that the air isn't getting cleaner on its own it is getting cleaner because of regulate polluters, tax dirty energy, passing CAFE standards.

[cm]

Large-scale public transit has its limitations too. There is the obvious flexibility issue -- if in any particular case you want to make a single-destination trip to where the train/bus goes (without changing lines often), it's fine, otherwise the ride+walk will quickly take too long to be worthwhile. Then at least with rail-bound transit there are capacity limits and peak usage, but even with buses so many vehicles fit on a block/station lane, and only so many passengers can safely wait at the curb.

In many cities, (existing) transit systems only work because ridership is strictly limited as most are using cars. When I used public transit in my previous job, I had to routinely miss often multiple trains because they were so full that I couldn't get on, and popular line-changing stations platforms became precariously full when schedules got backed up. Driving took me significantly less, even figuring in congestion.

One thing that may work is "transit lite", coop or company chartered shuttles, the expanded version of ride-sharing. They can take load off of large-scale transit routes, and provide more flexibility too. The multitude of small routes and schedules may be too much for a central authority to handle.

[cm]

Steve: Don't forget taking the pollution outside the surveying jurisdiction (e.g. offshoring). A lot of industrial pollution was probably reduced that way.

[piglet]

"Due to these figures roughly 96% of passenger-kilometres in the USA come from private cars, compared to 82% in Germany. But more important the total passenger-kilometres (bus+train+privat) to citizen ratio is roughly twice as high for the US than for Germany."

Thanks for providing some meaningful data exposing the blatant lies ("in fact, they don't drive much less") of this article. Add to this the fact that Germans are driving more efficient cars, on average, then it's not so surprising that gasoline per capita is so much higher in the US than anywhere else. And to the often heard "but the US is geographically bigger" argument, the answer is simple. It is suburbia as a mode of living that is responsible for the longer trips, not the distance between the coasts. Most Americans, just like most Germans, live in urban agglomerations, and most of their trips are between home, work and shopping.

Note one thing. Germany is a car country. The German economy is so dependent on the car industry that former chancellor Schroeder was dubbed the VW chancellor. Germany's highway system is maybe the densest in the world, and there are no speed limits. Germans are almost as addicted to driving than Americans. In this respect, the authors are not that far from the truth. But this doesn't change the fact that, yes, the Americans *are* addicted to driving and they are wasting even more energy than "necessary" by choosing to drive the world's most inefficient car fleet, and the reason for that is simply that gas has been too cheap.

And: Americans are far more *dependent* on driving than Europeans thanks to the unsustainable suburbia model. This is something that should worry Americans unless they believe that oil is an unlimited resource. Americans will have a much harder time adapting to higher gas prices. Europeans are not necessarily more "enlightened", but they haven't gone as far as Americans in adopting a car-centered culture, not even Germany. For one thign, they simply don't have the space for suburbialand. And in a more crowded country, the negative effects of car domination become obvious very soon. So the tide in Europe is now turning away from car culture towards expanding public transport and making the city more livable.

[piglet]

"In many cities, (existing) transit systems only work because ridership is strictly limited as most are using cars. When I used public transit in my previous job, I had to routinely miss often multiple trains because they were so full that I couldn't get on, and popular line-changing stations platforms became precariously full when schedules got backed up. Driving took me significantly less, even figuring in congestion."

That is simply a result of lacking public investment, not of public transport's inherent limits. It is of course a vicious circle: people don't use public transport because it's underfunded, and public transport is underfunded because too few people are using it. Especially, the wrong people. Balaker and Staley claim that the richer you are, the more likely you are to go by car. In fact, in the US you mostly see poor people in public transport. Not so in European cities. There, you see all kinds of people taking the underground. Punks right next to executives in suits. The more efficient public transport is, the more this will be the case.

[piglet]

Bernard Yomtov: thanks for the link.

Here's the Motor gasoline consumption per capita (Liters per person) for several countries:

Year 2003 2000 1990
Country
Canada CAN 1,203.7 1,182.7 1,168.7
France FRA 260.4 302.2 416.1
Germany DEU 402.7 450.4 507.6
Switzerland CHE 656.2 698.0 702.8
United Kingdom 436.0 477.8 555.8
United States 1,635.2 1,633.9 1,542.1

Really interesting, especially the drop in Europe.

[Bernard Yomtov]

piglet,

You're welcome. As for population density, note that both Australia and Canada have densities around 1/10 that of the US yet use substantially less gasoline. The figure for Australia is 907 liters.

[reason]

cm... good comments about public transport, but isn't the issue of parking missing? It is a big reason for people to use public transport in big cities, particularly if they work in the center. But people are right there is a positive feedback loop, good frequent public transport encourages people to use it. Infrequency rapidly makes trip times too long. And to make it effective you need a mix of express and frequent stopping services (In London it takes a hell of time to get about.)
I've often though what really would make the difference in colder climates is covered bicycle paths. Hard to build on top of existing infrastructure, but if they were built in from scratch. That together with really well designed folding bicycles/bags with covered drive shafts (no oil).

says...

Mr. Yomtov - gross population density is a misleading statistic - most of Canada is a wasteland of ice and tundra - usable density is not that different than comparable regions of the US. I agree with your overall point but the method you are chosing grossly exagerates.

What would be intersting to compare would be something like Greater Toronto to Greater Atlanta to Greater Barcelona - cities with similar economies and population. Then things like climate could be factored in and out. Same goes for Greater Tokyo, New York, Mexico City.

says...

Reason - the comments regarding parking are very interesting as far as the core cities go.

What we need in my area of the world is transit in the industrial areas. It is these sprawling wastelands that require all workers to have reliable cars. It would be interesting to see how we could re-design our industrial parks for some form of transit.

I know it is more interesting for elitists to always discuss Manhattan, but the scale of industrial America is staggering. Manhattan works - it is the other 298 million people that need help.

In Industrial areas mixed use doesn't always cut it - who wants to live besides a rendering plant? However there are ways to use the roads after busienss hours with things like Soccer Domes and Dance Studios.

I would be intereseted to hear any other ideas about intensification of industrial areas.

[cm]

piglet: Of course it's a vicious circle. But when I say "existing" that includes the infrastructure in which the transit is embedded, e.g. existing roads, railway installations, and buildings. The last major chance of modifying city transportation infrastructure offered itself in Germany after WW2. Then cities were built out into the surrounding area in the car paradigm. These days you cannot remodel much because buildings and established neighborhoods are in the way who will fight claw over tooth. At least in Germany it's less a matter of the "wrong people". Transit will be used by virtually everybody who can reasonably use it, but if you are not connected well, it doesn't work that nicely. It's one thing to speak loftily about the virtues of transit, and another to walk a mile between home/job/station in wind, rain, and muddy paths or being sprayed with gunk from the street by passing cars, with bag or suitcase in hand. Been there, done that. And please don't say "well then move closer to the station".

I offered the idea of smaller-scale transit coops as something that may work with current infrastructure. What is your response to that?

[cm]

reason: Yes of course, parking is an issue, but mostly in the scenario of driving into the city from outside. Outside areas tend to have been built in the car paradigm, and the parking situation is not as severe. Where the city is cobbled together from previously urban cores, each ex-core will have parking scarcity, but generally not "in between" or "outer" areas.

Aside from that, the periphery (or at least areas close to major traffic arteries) tends to be connected well to downtown. But most/much business (by volume of people) taking place outside of downtown, the problem tends to be connectivity between peripheral areas. Based on the way many cities have grown, you generally have a spoke-like structure, possibly with rings or cross-cuts. The farther out you go the worse the coverage and connectivity. Nothing new here, it's the same principle everywhere.

[Tom Marney]

"What would be intersting to compare would be something like Greater Toronto to Greater Atlanta to Greater Barcelona - cities with similar economies and population. Then things like climate could be factored in and out. Same goes for Greater Tokyo, New York, Mexico City."

Try http://www.amazon.com/Sustainability-Cities-Overcoming-Automobile-Dependence/dp/1559636602/sr=1-1/qid=1170119121/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3890921-0767640?ie=UTF8&s=books. Over thirty bucks in paperback and worth every penny.

[Movie Guy]

Posted by: hey | Jan 29, 2007 4:22:43 AM -

Meh:

I just found these statistics from the OECD at http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,2340,en_2649_37433_2345918_1_1_1_37433,00.html

the excel sheet
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/353365538624

"Due to these figures roughly 96% of passenger-kilometres in the USA come from private cars, compared to 82% in Germany. But more important the total passenger-kilometres (bus+train+privat) to citizen ratio is roughly twice as high for the US than for Germany."

===========

I appreciate your effort, hey. I respectfully disagree, though, based on an analysis of USDOT data from which OECD extracts data.

This statement is inaccuate: "Due to these figures roughly 96% of passenger-kilometres in the USA come from private cars, compared to 82% in Germany."

USA travel data:

The passenger-miles or passenger-kilometers from private cars or private vehicles including passenger cars, light trucks (including SUVs), and motorcycles in the USA is 82.1% if including 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks from the passenger-mile analysis. If excluding travel miles by 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks, the correct figure is 86.67%.

My analysis is based on the latest available U.S. data, Table 1-37: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Updated September 2006; using 2004 data).

A few more points are worthy of noting:

Local travel, that of less than 100 miles round trip, naturally differs from long distance travel (that in excess of 100 miles round trip). Passenger-miles travel by passenger vehicle (as described above) is 86.6% for local travel, whereas all long distance travel by passenger vehicles is 89.5%. Aircraft travel continues to gain travel share as the destination distance increases, and travel over 1,000 miles serves a major breaking point.

On a person-miles basis, long distance travel breaks down in the following manner:

Person-miles (millions):
Personal-use vehicle - 55.9%; 760,325 million miles
Airplane - 41.0%; 557,609 million miles
.. (Commercial Airplane - 40.5%; 551,314 million miles)
Bus , Intercity - 0.7%; 9,945 million miles
Bus, Charter or Tour - 1.3%; 17,136 million miles
Train - 0.8%; 10,546 million miles
Ship, Boat, Ferry - 0.3%; 4,278 million miles
Other - 0.1%; 840 million miles
Not Reported - 133 million miles

I will post the information in detail below. Everyone is welcome to pull out their calculators and verify the information.

[Movie Guy]

Posted by: Meh | Jan 29, 2007 3:09:53 AM - I can't seem to find breakdown of trips by passenger-mile, rather than mode. Maybe you can point me to it, since you obviously have a lot better grasp of the US data than I do?

Apologies for not responding earlier. I have been rather busy.

I will identify the sources and post information related to your request below.

[Movie Guy]

Here are two sources for passenger-miles.

Pocket Guide to Transportation 2006

Table 12, Passenger-Miles, 2003

----

National Transportation Statistics, USDOT

Table 1-37: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Updated September 2006)

Table 1-39: Long-Distance Travel in the United States by Selected Trip Characteristics: 2001

[Movie Guy]

2003 Passenger-Miles Data, USDOT

Table 12, Passenger-Miles, 2003

Aircraft - 10.3%
All Passenger Vehicles (including motorcycles) - 86.29%
Buses - 2.77%
Rail - 0.6%

All aircraft - 529,539; 10.3%
..Air carrier - 505,339; 10%
..General aviation - 15,200 (year 2000); 0.3%
All passenger vehicles (including motorcycles) - 4,360,151; 86.29%
..All passenger vehicles (excluding motorcycles) - 4,347,988; 86.04%
..Passenger cars - 2,641,885; 52.28%
..Motorcycles - 12,163; 0.24%
..Other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles - 1,706,103; 33.76%
....* vans, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and other 2-axle, 4-tire motor vehicles that are not passenger cars;
Buses - 140,160 (including school buses); 2.77%
All Rail - 30,321; 0.6%
..Rail, Transit - 15,082; 0.3%
..Rail, Commuter - 9,559; 0.19%
..Rail, Intercity/Amtrak - 5,680; 0.11%
Other transit (ship, boat, ferry) - 1,892; 0.04%

Total - 5,053,063; 100%

* 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks' mileage data appears to have been excluded from the analysis.

[Movie Guy]

2004 Passenger-Miles Data, USDOT

Table 1-37: U.S. Passenger-Miles (Updated September 2006; using 2004 data below)

All Aircraft - 10.55%
All Passenger Vehicles (including motorcycles) - 82.1%
Trucks, 2-axle, 6-tire and combination - 4.16%
Buses - 2.59%
Rail - 0.57%

All aircraft - 573,793; 10.55%
..Air carrier - 557,893; 10.26%
..General aviation - 15,900 (year 2001); 0.29%
All passenger vehicles (including motorcycles) - 4,465,175; 82.1%
..All passenger vehicles (excluding motorcycles) - 4,452,414; 81.86%
..Passenger cars - 2,693,872; 49.53%
..Motorcycles - 12,761; 0.23%
..Other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles - 1,758,542; 32.33%
....* vans, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and other 2-axle, 4-tire motor vehicles that are not passenger cars
Trucks, 2-axle, 6-tire and combination - 226,505; 4.16%
..Truck, single-unit 2-axle 6-tire or more - 81,107; 1.49%
..Truck, combination - 145,398; 2.67%
Buses - 140,716 (including school buses); 2.59%
..* less motor bus and demand responsive - 118,377; 2.17%
Transit, total - 49,073; 0.9%
Rail, Intercity/Amtrak - 5,511; 0.1%

Total - 5,438,434; 100%

Transit, total - 49,073; 0.9%
Motor bus - 21,377
Trolley bus - 173
Demand Responsive - 962
Rail, light - 1,576
Rail, heavy - 14,354
Rail, commuter - 9,719
Ferry boat - 393
Other - 519
* Motor bus and Demand Responsive are doubled counted as their totals are included in the Buses total of 140,716

All Rail - 31,160; 0.57%
..Rail, light - 1,576
..Rail, heavy - 14,354
..Rail, commuter - 9,719
..Rail, Intercity/Amtrak - 5,511

If excluding 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks from the passenger-mile analysis, the changes are as follows:

Total - 5,438,434
less Trucks, 2-axle, 6-tire and combination - 226,505
Adjusted Total - 5,211,929

All aircraft - 573,793; 11%
All passenger vehicles (including motorcycles) - 4,465,175; 86.67%
Buses - 140,716 (including school buses); 2.7%
All Rail - 31,160; 0.6%

[Movie Guy]

Table 1-39: Long-Distance Travel in the United States by Selected Trip Characteristics: 2001

Roundtrips to destinations at least 50 miles away:

Person trips (thousands):
Personal-use vehicle - 89.3%
Airplane - 7.4%
..(Commercial Airplane - 7.1%)
Bus , Intercity - 0.9%
Bus, Charter or Tour - 1.2%
Train - 0.8%
Ship, Boat, Ferry - 0.1%
Other - 0.1%
Not Reported - 0.2%

Person-miles (millions):
Personal-use vehicle - 55.9%; 760,325 million miles
Airplane - 41.0%; 557,609 million miles
.. (Commercial Airplane - 40.5%; 551,314 million miles)
Bus , Intercity - 0.7%; 9,945 million miles
Bus, Charter or Tour - 1.3%; 17,136 million miles
Train - 0.8%; 10,546 million miles
Ship, Boat, Ferry - 0.3%; 4,278 million miles
Other - 0.1%; 840 million miles
Not Reported - 133 million miles

All transportation modes, Person trips (thousands):
Less than 200 miles - 47.7%; 1,249,018 million miles
200-299 miles - 17.4%; 456,100 million miles
300-499 miles - 14.4%; 377,177 million miles
500-999 miles - 10.3% 269,109 million miles
1,000-1,999 miles - 5.1%; 132,548 million miles
2,000 miles or more - 5.1%; 133,174 million miles

All transportation modes, Person-miles (millions):
Less than 200 miles - 12.9%; 175,171 million miles
200-299 miles - 8.2%; 110,937 million miles
300-499 miles - 10.7%; 144,972 million miles
500-999 miles - 13.6%; 185,695 million miles
1,000-1,999 miles - 13.4%; 189,468 million miles
2,000 miles or more - 40.8%; 554,569 million miles

Vehicles, Personal-use vehicle trips (thousands):
Less than 200 miles - 51.8%; 1,209,312 million miles
200-299 miles - 18.8%; 439,120 million miles
300-499 miles - 15.2%; 355,501 million miles
500-999 miles - 9.9%; 231,182 million miles
1,000-1,999 miles - 3.1%; 71,481 million miles
2,000 miles or more - 1.3%; 29,498 million miles

Vehicles, Personal-use vehicle-miles (millions):
Less than 200 miles - 22.4%; 170,441 million miles
200-299 miles - 14.0%; 106,748 million miles
300-499 miles - 17.9%; 136,328 million miles
500-999 miles - 20.7%; 157,405 million miles
1,000-1,999 miles - 12.8%; 97,652 million miles
2,000 miles or more - 12.1%; 91,749 million miles
...Total miles: 760,325 million miles

[Movie Guy]

Local Trips, Table A-10, Distribution of Trips by Mode of Transportation, in Percent

Table 4, Percent of Long-Distance Trips by Mode and Roundtrip Distance

Under 100 Miles:
Personal vehicle - 86.6%
Transit - 1.5%
School Bus - 1.7%
Walk - 8.6%
Other - 1.7%

100-299 Miles:
Personal vehicle - 97.2%
Air - 0.2%
Bus - 1.6%
Rail - 0.9%
Other - 0.2%

300-499 Miles:
Personal vehicle - 94.3%
Air - 1.5%
Bus - 3.4%
Rail - 0.7%
Other - 0.1%

500-999 Miles:
Personal vehicle - 85.9%
Air - 10.3%
Bus - 3.2%
Rail - 0.6%
Other - 0.0%

1000-1999 Miles:
Personal vehicle - 53.9%
Air - 42.4%
Bus - 2.6%
Rail - 0.9%
Other - 0.1%

2000 or more Miles:
Personal vehicle - 22.2%
Air - 74.8%
Bus - 1.4%
Rail - 0.8%
Other - 0.8%

All Long Distance Travel: (over 100 miles round trip)
Personal vehicle - 89.5%
Air - 7.4%
Bus - 2.1%
Rail - 0.8%
Other - 0.2%

[Movie Guy]

Posted by: piglet | Jan 29, 2007 9:49:16 AM:

[from poster, hey] - "Due to these figures roughly 96% of passenger-kilometres in the USA come from private cars, compared to 82% in Germany. But more important the total passenger-kilometres (bus+train+privat) to citizen ratio is roughly twice as high for the US than for Germany."

piglet - "Thanks for providing some meaningful data exposing the blatant lies ("in fact, they don't drive much less") of this article. Add to this the fact that Germans are driving more efficient cars, on average, then it's not so surprising that gasoline per capita is so much higher in the US than anywhere else. And to the often heard "but the US is geographically bigger" argument, the answer is simple. It is suburbia as a mode of living that is responsible for the longer trips, not the distance between the coasts. Most Americans, just like most Germans, live in urban agglomerations, and most of their trips are between home, work and shopping."

piglet,

I recommend that you note the corrections posted above.

The USA passenger-miles or passenger-kilometers from private cars or private vehicles including passenger cars, light trucks (including SUVs), and motorcycles in the USA is 82.1% if including 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks from the passenger-mile analysis. If excluding travel miles by 2-axle, 6-tire and combination trucks, the correct figure is 86.67%.

All information that I posted is identified by source and is easily verifiable.

The transportation information in the original article isn't inaccurate, by the way. They quoted no incorrect transportation statistics, a few minor quibbles but nothing more. It's more a matter of what they didn't say than any challenges to their data references. For example, it's not too hard to substitute European rail travel data for some U.S. air travel data. The effect is somewhat of a wash in many regards. Air travel is the USA is the substitute for train travel for shorter distance trips, unfortunately.

As for USA travel distances,

Average Vehicle Trip Lengths and Purpose of Trips

Based on USDOT survey:

To/From Work:
14.8% of all travel; 2.9% additional work-related
Metropolitan - 10.6 miles
Rural - 14.0 miles

Family & Personal Business:
44.6% of all travel
Metropolitan - 6.8 miles
Rural - 9.5 miles

School & Church:
9.8% of all travel
Metropolitan - 5.9 miles
Rural - 7.6 miles

Social & Recreational:
27.1% of all travel
Metropolitan - 11.8 miles
Rural - 14.1 miles

Other
0.8% of all travel

Sources: Federal Highway Administration, USDOT, and here

says...

MG - lighter slower less miles

Pretty much sums up where we need to go. The question becomes how to get there.

And don't underestimate the effects of geography. As cm suggested, weather will have an impact on behaviour. Wait for a bus at -20 and driving looks pretty good.

Same thing for the statistics of energy use for buildings. Oregon is cheaper to heat and cool than Edmonton or Houston. parts of Europe have much better climate than big parts of North America and Australia.
(My definition of better climate is one you can be outside in comfortably without too much stuff)

[hey]

MG:
2003 Passenger-Miles Data, USDOT

Table 12, Passenger-Miles, 2003
Aircraft - 10.3%
All Passenger Vehicles (including motorcycles) - 86.29%
Buses - 2.77%
Rail - 0.6%

Thanks for the corrections.
I think within the OECD Data they have excluded air travels - excluding them from your data in Table 12 would lead app. to their numbers. I missed that.
Nevertheless that make sense since air travels play only an important role for far distant trips (above 1000 miles), where public transport would make no sense.

But that is not the important point, since 82% - 96% (or 78% - 88% with air travel) does not reflect that americans use their cars (in terms of billion passenger-kilometres) twice as often as the germans.

[piglet]

Movie Guy: If I understand correctly, the 96-82 statistics from the OECD excludes air travel, while your statistics includes air travel. Since we are comparing the US to other countries, your "correction" doesn't help our discussion unless you can provide comparable data for other countries.

By the way, the OECD data also exclude walking and bicycle as modes of transportation. They are clearly more widely practiced in Europe than in the US. Now, what was the question again? "Europeans may enjoy top-notch transit and endure gasoline that costs $5 per gallon, but in fact they don't drive much less than we do." That is the claim in the article that I have called a "blatant lie". The OECD data for 2003 give the number of passenger-kilometers (in billion) by private car as follows:
Germany 764.4
France 738.6
USA 7543.7
On Nationmaster.com, I found the following population figures (in million, for 2005): Germany 82.4, France 60.9, USA 298.4.

That gives the following passenger-kilometers per capita:
Germany 9277
France 12128
USA 25280.

So if we can trust the OECD, then yes, Americans clearly drive much more car than Europeans.

I also posted figures about gasoline consumption per capita. What's your take on that, Movie Guy? Balaker and Staley claim that European transport habits are not that different, and that fuel taxes and public transport don't matter. Yet the bottom line is that Europeans (rich Europeans!) get along with three to 6 times less fuel per capita than Americans. What part of that do you think needs correction?

Frankly, I don't know why are bombarding us with those tons of statistics. Your data may be verificable but almost none of them is relevant for this discusion since we are interested in international comparisons. So please, before you post more lenghty statistics, please explain in short the point you are trying to make.

[piglet]

Once gain the fuel consumption statistics. Above, I posted gasoline per capita but this doesn't take Diesel into account. At earthtrends (this is really an excellent resource), you will find both the gasoline and Diesel per capita. The most meaningful statistics is probably this:

Road sector energy consumption in Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent (ktoe) for the countries shown above:

Year 2003 2000 1990
Canada CAN 41,030 39,392 33,094
France FRA 43,294 43,056 36,958
Germany DEU 53,335 57,267 51,427
Switzerland 5,399 5,461 4,861
United Kingdom 39,776 39,577 37,039
United States 521,469 492,577 392,554

This is quite interesting. Here's the same data per capita:

2003 2000 1990
Canada 1,297 1,284 1,195
France 721 726 651
Germany 646 695 647
Switzerland 747 762 711
United Kingdom 671 675 653
United States 1,782 1,733 1,536

Was that helpful?

[Movie Guy]

Posted by: piglet | Jan 30, 2007 2:52:03 PM:

Piglet, that's a very good post. You have blown a large hole in the argument presented by the Toll Road Boys. I don't agree with your last paragraph, though.

I wish that I had the time to discuss some of the points in detail right now, but I am pressed for time.

The short answer in my opinion is that the use of rail, whether intercity or between cities and towns has a significant impact on lowering vehicle use in Europe as well as the proximity of job locations. Similarly, Europeans normally organize their vacation time in one or two time periods and therefore that travel is concentrated as opposed to duplicated many times a year. That's not a perfect answer, but it's my best shot right now.

Excluding air travel from such discussions skews the OECD data rather badly if also considering U.S. travel patterns. The level of air travel in the USA is nothing short of staggering to include travel of less than 150 miles - the short hops that so many take during business travels.

The issue of fuel use per capita is a more complicated matter, but let's take into consideration not only longer trip distances (as evidenced in the USDOT data) but also the engine displacement sizes and emission control requirements for our Class 8 tractors/trailers and midsize cargo movers (that covers the majority of diesel consumption other than industrial and farming applications), and similar considerations for passenger vehicles plus stricter safety requirements that result in more weight (at least for some of the midsize models and all the larger vehicles using gasolines including SUVs and pickup trucks). And yes, we're horsepower and torque happy in the USA with our trucks (almost all of them, that is) and automobiles (again, most).

I will have to take a closer look at the OECD data and see what they have not addressed. Oh, I do like your
earthtrends source.

Apologies for my time constraint.

That was a very good post. And this is a good thread of comments.

[Movie Guy]

piglet,

Do you have a link for the Balaker and Staley data? I would like to read what you are citing.

[piglet]

I don't know which data Balaker and Staley are referring to. I am only citing the Washington Post article. Thanks for your interest ;-)

[Cyrille]

I don't see how it can be said that Europeans organise their vacations in one or two time periods, as opposed to Americans. Especially if you consider the example I know best, the French.
To start with, we have about twice as much vacation as Americans. Hard to imagine that with that we'd be taking less.
Second, tradition/ culture/ school vacations mean that you are pretty much expected to take 4 periods of vacation in the year (more if you follow school patterns): Summer break, Christmas, Easter, plus at least one of Winter break (in February, to go skiing) or All saints break (so long Summer, we'll miss you). Then May is scattered with bank holidays, so that you have at least one long weekend, that most people will take.
Then, many family have a "countryside house" where they'll go pretty much every weekend during the summer.

So not just the one period.

Also, whatever the relevance of car standards which I leave to a different debate, if Americans drive twice as many KILOMETRES or more despite using the plane for trips that Europeans would make by car (or sometimes by train, but don't think that as many Europeans travel by train as would make economical sense), it's hard to argue that they don't drive much more than we do.

In short, I would say we drive way too much, but Americans do so to a whole new level of magnitude.

[piglet]

I don't get the reasoning behind the vacation period argument either. I assume that Europeans travel more, due to the longer vacation time available, and they travel at all times of the year. The train network is dense and very efficient (no check-in time, easy connections, high-speed trains on important axes) but still it has a hard time competing with the road and cheap air travel (both of which are highly subsidized, of course). Then there is the obsession of many politicians to privatize the networks, which has been tried in the past with desastrous consequences but never mind. My guess is that politicians would love to get rid of the responsibility for maintaining efficient infrastructures. Very short-sighted since in the end, they will be held responsible anyway.

[Alex]

1 is not true, European countries with better life standards than US still spent much less fuel. Look at Norway or Luxembourg.
In US people drive more and US cars are much less efficient.