Monday, May 11, 2015

Peak car?

Ever since some alarmist came up with the economically nonsensical term peak oil, we’ve been inundated with peak this, that, and the other thing. There’s peak helium. How about peak phosphorus?

More recently, the term has been twisted from a supply issue to a demand issue, such as peak smart phone. And now peak car. Yet, reading about peak car, the Antiplanner can’t help but feeling that this is neither a supply nor a demand issue but more wishful thinking on the part of city officials who are doing their best to create auto-hostile environments.

Millennials don’t drive? It turns out that’s not true, just as it isn’t true that Millennials avoid the suburbs...

The fundamental problem for anti-auto people is that cars are faster, less expensive, and more convenient than the alternatives for most urban trips. Bicycles may work for short trips and for people of a certain athletic ability, but a city that depends on bicycles is not going to be as wealthy as one that uses cars. Transit is simply non-competitive without gargantuan subsidies...

Labels: , , ,


At 1:17 PM, Blogger Rkeezy said...

Transit is non-competitive without gargantuan subsidies, which wouldn't be required had we had the foresight to dig more tunnels when it didn't cost a billion dollars a mile. IMO, we bite the bullet on this one now or a bigger bullet later.

In any case, bicycling and walking just aren't long term, widely adoptable solutions like autos and transit.

At 2:39 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Underground transit is still transit, and it's a lot more expensive to build than it is above ground. Bicycling will always be "adoptable" for those brave, fit, and/or foolish enough to adopt it. And walking should always be adoptable for people who can actually walk.

At 9:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Talk about living in a fantasy world. Check on the statistics on Citi Bike, who they are and how many accidents and deaths have been attributed to this form of commuting.


At 9:47 AM, Blogger Rkeezy said...

Anon, that article is about bike share users, not all bicyclists. And the "confirmation" of all these studies weren't done by any government entities, just people with vested interests in promoting anti-car agendas. "Vested" as in they stand to make money! I guess you trust Big Corp to take everyone's interests (yours) into account.

All this misdirection on bikeshare ignores that they are basically unusable in practical applications, and way more expensive than just taking the bus. But we continue to reconfigure our streets to prioritize this tiny minority of commuters.

Also, if you can't make your argument without being rude, you're just making yourself look stupid.

At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Corwin, who filed court papers on New Year’s Eve, charges that the city was reckless and negligent to be operating a bike- share program without helmets that could be rented out."



Post a Comment

<< Home