Prices Change Behavior
Well, it looks pretty conclusive at this point that gasoline consumption isn’t immune to the laws of supply and demand:
Americans scaled back their driving during June by almost 5 percent in response to soaring fuel costs, the government said on Wednesday — a day after announcing the biggest six-month drop in U.S. petroleum demand in 26 years.
The Transportation Department said U.S. motorists drove 12.2 billion fewer miles in June compared to a year earlier, marking the eight month in a row that travel declined in the face of record gas prices as Americans change their driving habits, buy more fuel-efficient cars and switch to public transport.
One striking thing about this is that it really is difficult to respond to changing gasoline prices in the short-run. Logistically, it’s simple enough to say to yourself “next time I buy a new car, I’ll make sure to get a fuel efficient one” or “next time I change houses or jobs, I’ll consider the cost of transportation as a major factor” but people don’t buy new cars, or switch houses, or change jobs all that frequently. But even in the short-term it seems that people adapt.
But the adaptations we’re looking at have been short-term kludges rather than serious long-term solutions. What’s more, they haven’t been happening in the face of smart policy. On the contrary, many jurisdictions seem to be cutting back on transit offerings in response to pressure on local government budgets. But if the price of gasoline were to rise as a result of smart policy — carbon pricing, or a higher gasoline tax, for example — then a couple of things could be different. One is that the increase in costs could be gradual and certain. The difficulty of short-term adaptation needn’t be quite so painful since the very short-run changes could be small. But since the small changes would be paired with a credible commitment to escalate the level of change over the medium- and long-term, it incentives would still exist to make long-range planning in a more sustainable way. Meanwhile, a healthy chunk of the revenue garnered from the pricing policy or tax could be plowed into building sidewalks and bike lanes, light rail lines and enhanced bus service, etc. — the kind of things that would make it easier for people to live decent lives in a world of reduced driving.
77 Responses to “Prices Change Behavior”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 13th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Nice picture of a traffic jam in Geneva Switzerland.
As for cutting back in the short-term. I suspect we are finding out how much driving is truly discretionary. All those little separate suburban trips to the grocery store for a carton of milk or to the video store for a single DVD. By planning their lives more efficiently, most suburban Americans can probably cut out 5% or more of their driving with no real change in lifestyle. Just by making fewer bigger shopping trips and less pointless little car errands for little things.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
OK, Matt. In case you haven’t noticed, the great majority of Americans–especially those on the socioeconomic bottom for whom the Democrats are supposed to advocate–think it’s government’s job to get gas prices down. The broad [albeit very shallow] polling support for offshore drilling [despite the abundant evidence of its ineffectiveness] shows that all too well. And you expect any conceivable administration to pursue a “smart” policy of raising gas prices? You’re right on the merits of the policy, of course. But being the wise wonk only gets you so far. That the pain would be felt only gradually wouldn’t disguise the fact that the government is following a policy under which massive numbers of people would lose in the short term. We saw what happened with health care in 1993-1994; a broad but vague public support curdled when Harry and Louise started ticking off the short-term losses. If you were advising the Obama Administration, then, what would you suggest politically for getting us from here to there?
August 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
There also seems to be pretty solid evidence that the drop in demand has deterred speculators and lowered gas prices. Why doesn’t Obama use this to counter McCain’s argument that part of the reason for offshore drilling is to influence the market in the short-term? He could essentially say by investing in alternative sources and focusing on reducing demand, he is offering the same short-term benefits without the long-term costs. (I’ll admit, my understanding of economics is fairly limited… is this wrong?)
August 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Matt said:
Unfortunately, too few people think this way. The focus is always on greener power generation, greener buildings and greener cars. Not greener places with fewer cars. The Lieberman-Warner bill, as originally drafted, included no provisions for directing cap and trade revenues to spark VMT reduction by encouraging more walking, biking and public transportation. After some last minute advocacy, the version that hit the Senate floor included a small sliver of funding for VMT reduction. But it was a foot in the door. There will be opportunities to expand that sliver next year.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Americans scaled back their driving during June by almost 5 percent in response to soaring fuel costs
Gas reached $4.13 in June. It’s now down to $3.86. I wonder what will happen to driving this month.
One striking thing about this is that it really is difficult to respond to changing gasoline prices in the short-run.
Not really. There are a number of fairly simple ways of significantly reducing gas costs in the short-run, as the recent reduction in VMT suggests.
Meanwhile, a healthy chunk of the revenue garnered from the pricing policy or tax could be plowed into building sidewalks and bike lanes, light rail lines and enhanced bus service, etc.
Back to the same old refrain. Well yes, a healthy chunk of that revenue could be spent on transit. But it shouldn’t be. And it probably wouldn’t be.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
On the one hand, the intelligence of the programs improving life for cycle commuters on the road is probably more critical than the volume of funds, since a crash program is going to end up with a lot of bike lanes painted at the edges of roads with lots of intersections, and the increase in the risk of cycle commuting that comes from mixing edge of road bike lanes and turning cars.
And there might be a better political chance of getting a big chunk of money invested into a national electrified express freight rail system, given that most motorists would be somewhat less than unhappy to see fewer semi-trucks on the road.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
SpikeA2,
After some last minute advocacy, the version that hit the Senate floor included a small sliver of funding for VMT reduction. But it was a foot in the door. There will be opportunities to expand that sliver next year.
I wouldn’t count on it. Obama, by the way, wants to increase fuel economy standards (which will lower the effective price of auto fuel), get 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015, create a $7,000 federal tax credit for people who buy new-technology cars, and spend $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, develop better batteries for electric and PHEV cars, and upgrade the electrical grid in anticipation of large-scale recharging of electric and PHEV vehicles using residential electricity.
Needless to say, all of this encourages people to keep driving, and keep lobbying for more roads and highways, instead of encouraging them to leave their cars at home and use transit instead. So I assume you oppose all this, right?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
For those interested in keeping track, per the DOE, real gasoline prices (August 2008 dollars) were $3.241/gallon in June ‘07, $3.142 in July ‘07, and $2.944 in August ‘07.
Moving forward to 2008, we get $4.109 in June, $4.085 in July, and $3.792 in August. I am not sure if that is actual for August or the DOE estimate from the spreadsheet in question, which is available here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html
Anyway, so will July and August 2008 continue the trend of year-over-year decreases in VMT? I know my bet!
August 13th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Anyway, so will July and August 2008 continue the trend of year-over-year decreases in VMT?
Probably, but as a result of the substantial reduction in gas prices since June, Americans will probably be doing a lot more driving this month than they would have done if gas prices were still as high as they were two months ago.
If any case, the VMT figures reflect a large element of short-term overreaction. Gas accounts for only a small fraction of the total costs of owning and operating a car, but people tend to overreact to gas price increases because they are reminded of them so frequently. AAA estimates that the total average annual cost of owning and operating a passenger vehicle in 2008 will be less than 4% higher than in 2007. Barely higher than the general rate of inflation. And part of that increase comes from more expensive tires, financing, license, registration and taxes.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
It may just be my imagination, but my freeway drive in the morning is in the good direction that always flows freely. It seems to me that the traffic has slowed down by nearly 10 mph. I’ve inflated my tires and have been staying in the right lane and have raised my mpg from 28.6 to 31.3.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Gas accounts for only a small fraction of the total costs of owning and operating a car, but people tend to overreact to gas price increases because they are reminded of them so frequently. AAA estimates that the total average annual cost of owning and operating a passenger vehicle in 2008 will be less than 4% higher than in 2007. Barely higher than the general rate of inflation. And part of that increase comes from more expensive tires, financing, license, registration and taxes.
Two quick comments. First, just because the percentage of total ownership costs for a car has only gone up a few percent (which I dispute – see second point) doesn’t mean that people aren’t suffering – because Americans spend a large percentage of their income on transportation, a few percent increase in that really adds up.
Second, I was curious about how the AAA could possibly calculate the cost of gas as being relatively so low — by my calculations, our total cost of ownership has gone up at least 8% this year. So I looked at their assumptions for 2007:
http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/20073261133460.YourDrivingCosts2007.pdf
Their key assumption is that the average car (not the average SUV, mind) depreciates by 3,400 a year, which is patently nonsense. Our car cost 20k 5 years ago, we drive it 12k miles a year, and we can expect to drive it for at least 5 more years; at that point it will *still* have considerable value. By their calculation, our car is essentially valueless after five years, which is absurd. The AAA figures are highly problematic at best, in other words.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:21 am
lobster,
Two quick comments. First, just because the percentage of total ownership costs for a car has only gone up a few percent (which I dispute – see second point) doesn’t mean that people aren’t suffering – because Americans spend a large percentage of their income on transportation, a few percent increase in that really adds up.
I didn’t say they aren’t suffering. I’m saying the suffering isn’t nearly as severe as it may superficially appear, because gas is generally only a small fraction of the total cost of owning and operating a car. Even with gas at $4/gallon, it appears that the average cost of running a car is at worst only marginally higher as a fraction of the average household income than it has generally been over the past 40 years or so. And the cars of today are much better in almost every way than the cars of the past. Much safer, much more reliable, requiring much less maintenance, with much better handling, much more efficient (in terms of engine power per unit of fuel consumption), much more comfortable and with all sorts of features and functions that were once luxury items or didn’t exist at all. But people tend to forget that. Just as they tend to forget that we are coming out of a long period, roughly between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s, of unusually low real gas prices.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:36 am
One striking thing about this is that it really is difficult to respond to changing gasoline prices in the short-run.
Not really, and especially not in June. All sorts of summer vacation plans involving long-range drives can be readjusted. Weekend trips to the beach or lake can be replaced by shorter trips to the pool or pond. The RV expedition to the national park can be replaced with a car trip to a local historical site. The weekly 30 or 60 mile trip to the mall in rural areas can be changed to a more efficient monthly trip. Kids on a tight gas budget can look for different kinds of summer jobs that keep them closer to home, and they can cruise the local hangouts in one car with four riders rather than two cars with two riders each.
But I’m more interested in seeing how the high gas prices affect the purchasing decisions in the upcoming fall new car buying season. Interestingly, high gas prices might actually boost car sales. For their driving that is not discretionary, car owners might decide that they cannot afford to hang onto their gas guzzler for another two years, and will accelerate their plans to buy that new hybrid.
Bike paths? Sure, that makes sense for the few areas in the United States where they are applicable, and might have some marginal impact on consumption habits. But the fuel savings represented are a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous savings that would be reaped by doubling automobile fuel efficiency. In a country like the United States, with a population density of 31 people per square kilometer, which places it 180th in the world, promotion of fuel efficiency is the way to go.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:40 am
A couple others points about the AAA calculations:
One simple observation is that reducing vehicle miles doesn’t just save on gas, but also depreciation. In that sense it is entirely possible the effects of gas price increases would be magnified, not diluted, by this component of the costs of car usage.
A slightly more complex observation is that as usage decreases, the cost per mile is increasing. That of course is because there are some fixed cost components to car ownership. But what that means is that as usage decreases, the incentive to entirely replace the car (rather than merely reduce usage) is increasing. I think that could end up being increasingly relevant for households with multiple cars–meaning the marginal benefit of a household’s last additional car could end up falling below the cost of ownership as household car usage decreases–which again could have something of a magnifying effect with respect to any factor that leads to less usage.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Dan Kervick,
I think it is true that higher fuel prices could somewhat accelerate the pace of car turnover, but that can be a pretty expensive proposition if you are talking about a replacement a substantial amount of time ahead of schedule, particularly when you consider the shape of depreciation curves. And it is probably also worth noting that prices for used “gas-guzzlers” aren’t going to be helped by higher prices, and that effect will be amplified if a lot of people are looking to dump those “gas guzzlers” ahead of schedule. So I suspect some people are going to find themselves in the position of having to keep their “gas-guzzler” LONGER than expected simply because they are not going to be able to get as much trade-in or private sale value for it.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Oh, and a note on population density:
National population density isn’t a particularly useful measure when it comes to anticipating travel needs, since people do not travel to and from points scattered randomly around the country. What you really need is something like weighted population density, because people are usually travelling to and from places where there are other people.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:05 am
One reason that it is perceived to be a bigger impact is that when the price of a necessity is substantially more than someone is used to, making up the difference comes out of disposable income after food, rent/mortgage, etc. have been covered. And regular expenses tend to rise over time toward available income.
In most post WWII recoveries, median real wages have risen substantially over the course of the recover, so that at a point more than five years in, there would be a bit of cushion in the budgets of many households. But with close to stagnant median real incomes over the current (or else recently concluded) recovery, there is likely to have been less of that kind of cushion in many households, when they started dipping into disposable income to cover the unexpected cost of gas for the week.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Another note on density:
To give an idea of why weighted densities really do matter, it appears that about half of the U.S. population lives on just 1% of the land of the United States:
http://www.radicalcartography.net/?density-pa
Also at that link you can see a chart of population distribution by density, which indicates that the U.S. population distribution peaks at around 3000 people per square mile, as compared to the around 80 people per square mile if you calculate a nationwide population density.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:50 am
DTM,
National population density isn’t a particularly useful measure when it comes to anticipating travel needs, since people do not travel to and from points scattered randomly around the country. What you really need is something like weighted population density, because people are usually travelling to and from places where there are other people.
Oh, the irony. It was just a week or so ago that you were making the nonsensical argument that increases in Census Bureau Urban Area densities, which have virtually no relevance to transit and housing policy, are evidence of a shift in preferences towards higher-density lifestyles.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:05 am
But the fuel savings represented are a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous savings that would be reaped by doubling automobile fuel efficiency.
Yes. The automobile is so overwhemingly dominant in our surface transportation system that only remotely realistic way of significantly reducing the overall amount of energy consumed and pollution emitted by our transportation system is cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. There is essentially zero chance of achieving significant energy and pollution benefits from trying to coax or coerce people into using public transportation instead of driving, or trying to coax or coerce people into switching to smaller housing and higher-density lifestyles.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:21 am
The horse is so overwhemingly dominant in our surface transportation system that only remotely realistic way of significantly reducing the overall amount of energy consumed and pollution emitted by our transportation system is cleaner and more fuel-efficient horses.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Granpa Dixner, c. 1890 Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Oh, you wicked liar. You are counting by trips, rather than travel miles, and as you know full well that railroads are the dominant surface transportation system, and that the increase in the use of horses since 1870 has been as a result of more people and more goods traveling further (and more frequently) by rail.
But you horse advocates always count trips instead of miles, when you can get away with it.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Mixner said:
Of course not. All of that is necessary, but not sufficient. We must do everything we can to make driving cleaner while we are also giving people the choice of affordable and convenient alternatives to driving.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Kent Said:
Actually, I believe that chair sculpture in the background is in South West DC. It is one of my favorite works of public art in DC after The Awakening. Few people in DC know of the chair because you actually have to cross the Anacostia River to see it.
Of course their may be more than one sculpture like this in the world and I could be wrong. Why do you think it is in Geneva?
August 14th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Oops I meant the sculpture is in South EAST DC. Not South West.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Over the last 15 years we have had a few spikes into the $2 range, and over the last 3-5 quite a bit of discussion about the possibility of peak oil approaching/arriving. We could have taken these as cautions/warnings and gotten serious about either improving the fuel economy/fuel source of our personal vehicles or undoing some of the exurbanization that got rolling in 1970. Instead we chose to do neither, and take full advantage of the periods of $1-1.50 gas to buy ever-larger vehicles, Hummers, and to drive more at every opportunity.
Now we have had a bit of a wake-up call with a period of $4. Of course, as with all market swings it is now falling back a bit and may well end up at $3.50 for a period of time. What will we as a nation and a society do? My guess: breath a sigh of “relief” and go back to sucking down as much gas as we can. Until next time, which I suspect will be far worse than this little bump.
What really puzzles me are the people like Mixmaster. Although he is well-trained in the eristic pretzel logic of the Radical Right and you can’t trust a single statistic he quotes it is clear that he _does_ read the real information and probably does know what the true situation is. Yet here he is day after day tirelessly arguing the “you are a bunch of Peter Pottumuses; shut up and let my people drive their Hummers” line. What does he think the long-range consequence of this is going to be? If the Saudi fields take a true nose-dive in 2012, say, oil hits $300, and we have made no preparation for this? Does he really think we will all somehow live blissfully in our exurban 1/3 acre mansions driving Hummer H3s to the grocery store /when there isn’t any oil/? How exactly is that going to work?
And again, this question is asked in the context of the assumption that Mixmaster and those who pay him know exactly what is going on but have some reason to mightily pretend that it isn’t.
Cranky
August 14th, 2008 at 8:05 am
And of course the mountains in the background are a sure give away that this is not DC.
Two screw ups in one day before coffee. My apologies to Kent.
I think I was getting used to watching X-Files movies and TV shows which frequently had mountains in the background in scenes that took place in DC.
Again, my apologies for wasting everyone’s time.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
In defense of the car, there is every reason to believe it will remain a very important mode of transport for the conceivable future. Indeed, we can look to economically developed places which already had high gas prices and see that while people do indeed use more public transit, bikes, and so on, they nonetheless still use cars quite a bit as well. So as SpikeA2 suggests, the only rational approach to higher fuel prices and increased environmental and national security concerns is a multi-mode one, meaning we can invest in improving the alternative modes, but we should also invest in improving cars, since they are not about to vanish as an important mode of transport.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
It seems that people have jumped from a statistic (miles driven dropped 4.3% in July) to a conclusion (the typical motorist is changing his/her habits & driving modestly less). That may be true, but it also may not be.
Has anyone looked at the distribution of those fewer miles driven? Isn’t it fairly likely that the majority of the population has made little or no change to their driving habits (after all, in the short run, gas consumption is notoriously inelastic), while a minority of the population literally can no longer afford to fill up its tanks, and is driving much less. Faced with a choice of not eating or not driving, these folks are “choosing” not to drive. Supplementing that, of course, is the fact that unemployment has surged…these folks are probably driving much, much less than they did a year ago.
The heroic story about how the resourceful American consumer is fighting back in the face of adversity looks a bit different from that perspective, no?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
burrite,
Here is some detailed information about the distribution of the decreases in miles:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08juntvt/08juntvt.pdf
It does appear that the cuts in miles are pretty broadly distributed by geographic region, state, and type of road. However, to really answer your question you could do something like try to find correlations between the state-by-state numbers and other variables (e.g., state demographic and economic data).
August 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
That’s DC! Wow! I’m going skiing next weeekend.
But seriously, folks, it’s interesting how quickly people have gotten used to the gas prices that were seen as the end of civilization as we know it just a few months or years ago. I remember all of the hand wringing when gas went over the unheard of price of two dollars a gallon – when was that, two or three years ago? Then three dollars was seen as Armageddon, but four! – the horror, the horror. We’ve heard three years of talk about “sky high gas prices” but now that its fallen back a bit, to around $3.70, the radio is talking about “cheap gas.”
All of this supports the thesis that what most people spend on gas still isn’t that significant a part of their expenditures, it’s just very noticeable. I have been shopping for a car lately and doing the math on what I will actually save over the course of a year if I buy an expensive hybrid or a relatively cheap conventional car. I determined that I wouldn’t break even on cost for the hybrid until about five or six years of driving at current or higher prices. (I bought the hybrid anyway, now I can feel noble).
I really don’t think there will be much real and lasting change in behavior until gas hits around ten dollars a gallon in current dollars.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Virginia,
I guess it depends on what you consider a “real and lasting change in behavior”. We already know vehicle miles are down around 5% since this time last year, and of course the natural trend is for vehicle miles to increase (e.g., simply due to population increases). In fact, although vehicle miles did increase slightly in 2006 and 2007, those increases were already well below the anticipated trend prior to the runup in gas prices. So, we have really been below the original expected trend for a while, and now are getting way below the original expected trend as the actual trend turns negative.
Moreover, we have good reason to believe that any reduction in vehicle miles due to higher fuel prices will be drawn out over time. Indeed, undoubtedly what we are seeing right now is in part a delayed reaction to prior price increases, not an immediate reaction to the most recent price increases. So, So, even if real gas prices have in fact leveled off (which is a premature conclusion, considering that this time last year they were also trending down), it would be reasonable to anticipate it will take some additional time before vehicle miles go back to increasing at a normal rate.
So, suppose real gas prices have leveled out and we end up a total of somewhere around 10-20% below the original anticipated trend in vehicles miles on an ongoing basis. I think that isn’t an unrealistic scenario based on what we know so far, and I would personally say that would count as a pretty significant change.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
As they say, nothing is more devastating to an opinion then a number. Assume that somebody buys a new car for $20,000 and drives it for 10 years at 12,000 miles per year. Further assume that at the end of 10 years, the car is taken to the junk yard so that it has 0 value. A very simple calculation shows that the average depreciation is 17 cents/mile. Assume that the vehicle gets an overall average of 25 miles/gallon and that gas costs $4.00/gallon. Another very simple calculation shows that the average cost per mile of gas is 16 cents. Sounds like the cost/mile of gas is nearly as great as the cost/mile of depreciation, hardly a throwaway. Now, of course, one can argue that $20,000 is somewhat low for a new car these days and that 25 miles/gallon is rather pessimistic. However, one could also argue as to whether 120,000 miles to totally depreciate a car is too low as todays’ vehicles can easily exceed that figure without an engine or transmission overhaul (a former colleague put 275,000 miles on a 1991 Honda Accord without an engine overhaul or a new transmission).
August 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
What interests me is the scale of this change in behaviour. A 5% drop in driving after an approximately 30% jump in fuel price. I’m all for measures to limit driving through taxation, better transit as a result, etc. etc. But this price inelasticity would suggest that for significant behaviour shifts, the required level of taxation is very, very high, no?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Sam,
Well, again there is good reason to believe that there will be a considerable delay before the full response to higher fuel prices will be realized. In fact, there was a 2004 metastudy, available here . . .
http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/papers/transprev243.pdf
. . . that estimated in response to a permanent 10% increase in real fuel prices:
“Volume of traffic will fall by roundly 1% within about a year, building up to a reduction of about 3% in the longer run (about 5 years or so).”
So using that estimate, the full effect of a 30% increase in fuel prices on traffic should be closer to a 10% reduction in the long run, not just 5%. And again, I think in light of all this what we are really seeing is in part the delayed effect on traffic from price increases in previous years, with many of the effects of the latest price increases still to come.
By the way, they also found a greater effect on fuel usage than traffic, including a 6% reduction in the long run for that same 10% increase in real fuel prices, or close to a 20% reduction in fuel use in the long run after a 30% increase in real fuel prices. So if your goal for higher fuel taxes was not so much reduced traffic as reduced fuel use, then you would need less of a tax to achieve a particular reduction target.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Matt is talking about changing policy, and for 50 years the ‘policy’ has been to feed the American public a heavily sweetened pabulum of lies, promises, and done deals. Hey! Buy a car and you get a girl with it- then when you leave your great job in Chicago’s Loop, you can drive home on deserted highways through the Rockies!
During that same period of time- less, actually- we could have become 100% solar, wind, and hydro power, at the cost of 1% of our GDP annually. That wasn’t the policy.
It is true that, although the Populists lost the presidential elections of the 1890s, all of their policy proposals were adopted within 40 years.
But we don’t have 40 years.
For the past seven years the important changes in policy have been happening at the municipal and county level- something Matt might ponder the next time he feels the need to rail at ‘zoning regulations’. As long as our national capital is all like Terry Schiavo, zoning regulations will be where the solutions are being created.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Sam Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
To get the behavior effects through tax on gasoline alone, yes. Price elasticity of demand for new vehicles is much higher than price elasticity of demand for gasoline, which is the basis for the proposed three tier excise on vehicle efficiency … eg, a 10% levy on cars below current fleet fuel efficient, no levy on vehicles from the current fleet fuel efficiency to twice, a 10% subsidy on vehicles twice current fleet fuel efficiency or better.
The balance on the pool can be used to fund fuel efficient rolling stock and infrastructure upgrades for school bus fleets and local transit routes.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
One thing a new administration could do is reform the emissions/safety certification for new import models. Even Ford (and possibly GM) might support that, given the lag in getting their factories converted over to smaller vehicles. Ford’s strategy is to
A different fleet does change the kind of driving that people do.
In the meantime, people will keep their big shiny pickups and SUVs in the garage, starting them up occasionally to keep them from seizing up, because the private sale market is barely there, and the trade-in value leaves them in the hole.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Mixner: There is essentially zero chance of achieving significant energy nd pollution benefits from trying to coax or coerce people into using public transportation instead of driving, or trying to coax or coerce people into switching to smaller housing and higher-density lifestyles.
Ha! Coax or coerce. Apparently, people can change their driving habits on a dime. The other day TV showed Russian tanks cruising on what was described as the main highway of Georgia, and imagine that: there was no traffic whatsoever.
That said, I wonder how to estimate efficiency of a tank. Per kilometer, it was probably atrocious. But, on the brighter side, it was a public form of transportation shared by many riders.
Anyway, we have some data points of succsesful coaxing commuters to alter driving habits.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
BruceMcF:
That makes a goodly degree of sense, and explains why the Big Three look pretty fucked right now, with sales of the gas guzzlers falling by much higher rates than the driving levels our host cites.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
An inexpensive and relatively easy solution that would have a large impact is to increase work-from-home opportunities where possible (office jobs, etc.) While I hope employers offer more opportunities in the future, many employees do not take advantage of existing tele-work policies, probably because they think it would hurt their careers.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
SpikeA2,
Of course not. All of that is necessary, but not sufficient.
Huh? Why is it “necessary?” It completely contradicts your goal of shifting travel away from the use of cars and towards greater use of public transportation. All the policy proposals of Obama’s I described will making driving more attractive compared to using transit, not less. All of them will encourage people to keep driving, keep buying cars, and keep lobbying for more and better roads and highways.
We must do everything we can to make driving cleaner while we are also giving people the choice of affordable and convenient alternatives to driving.
But Obama’s policies are obviously inconsistent with that goal. The $150 billion he’s proposing to spend commercializing and subsidizing hybrid and electric cars could be spent expanding and subsidizing transit instead. The $7,000 tax credit he’s proposing to give to people for buying new-technology cars could be used to give tax credits to people for using transit instead. He’s actively promoting driving, and actively discouraging transit. To advance your goal, you need government policies that would make driving significantly more expensive compared to transit than it would otherwise be. Obama’s policies will have exactly the opposite effect.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Whoever comes up with a horse that produces half as much horseshit — that man will be a millionaire! It’s clear that the future might bring horses bred to produce no shit at all, and anyone who disputes this is wrong, because I say so.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Ha! Coax or coerce. Apparently, people can change their driving habits on a dime.
Driving less is not the same thing as using public transportation more. The recent increase in transit ridership represents only a tiny fraction of the reduction in VMT and passenger-miles for cars. This means that the vast majority of the reduction in car travel represents a reduction in total travel by any mode, period. Not the substitution of transit for cars. With respect to commuting, some of the VMT reduction has probably been achieved through increased use of telecommuting and working-from-home, and also compressed work schedules (working four 10-hour days per week rather than five 8-hour days; or working nine 9-hour days every two weeks rather than ten 8-hour days). Some of the VMT reduction has probably also come from an increase in car-pooling and ride-sharing. That reduces VMT but not passenger-miles.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
This means that the vast majority of the reduction in car travel represents a reduction in total travel by any mode, period. Not the substitution of transit for cars.
Nor is it the substitution of teleportation devices for cars. Thing is, Mixner is happy to tell us that the future belongs to personal teleportation devices, because he alone is gifted with omniscience and a capacity to bullshit that could power the state of Delaware.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Huh? Why is it “necessary?” It completely contradicts your goal of shifting travel away from the use of cars and towards greater use of public transportation.
The fact that you conceive of transportation policy as a binary, zero-sum contest between cars an public transit is the reason we don’t take you seriously, and why nobody but noobs talks to you anymore.
[well, among other reasons.
]
August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
SpikeA2,
Mixner Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
There’s no contradiction at all, unless someone were to try to slip in a tacit “completely” in there somewhere, as in “your goal of completely shifting travel away” … private vehicles have a long term niche in an integrated transport system. Indeed, exactly as local trucks and long distance electric rail are strongly complementary technologies for freight, private vehicles on the public right of way and trunk dedicated transport corridors are strongly complementary technologies for passenger transport.
Ensuring that the majority of the population has the option of making required trips by means other than cars, allowing people in households the option of reducing the number of cars they must own to get around, and shifting total miles traveled from less efficient private vehicles to more efficient dedicated transport corridors are all goals that are compatible with large number of people relying on private vehicles for large numbers of trips into the indefinite future.
The idea that the most serious proposals for a post Auto-Uber-Alles transport system involve a different one size fits all mode of transport is either a serious breakdown in ability to comprehend or a pretense aimed at setting up a straw horse argument.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Mixner said:
That’s not my goal. My goal is to pursue a set of policies that will simultaneously reduce our dependence on petroleum while reducing CO2 emissions. A major component will be far more efficient single occupancy vehicles. However, cleaner driving alone isn’t enough. We also need a vigorous VMT reduction strategy that will result in mode shift from driving to walking, biking and public transportation by giving people options for getting from Point A to Point B without an automobile. That policy will be furthered by the integration of transportation planning and regional land use planning to encourage location efficiency, thereby reducing the distance between our destinations.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
BruceMcF,
There’s no contradiction at all, unless someone were to try to slip in a tacit “completely” in there somewhere, as in “your goal of completely shifting travel away” …
No, there is most definitely a contradiction. “Completely contradicts your goal of shifting travel away…” (what I wrote) does not mean “Contradicts your goal of completely shifting travel away….” (your stupid strawman version of what I wrote). Try responding to what I actually wrote.
All of Obama’s proposals that I described have the effect of reducing the cost of driving relative to the cost of using transit. They all favor using private motor vehicles over using transit. That completely contradicts SpikeA2’s stated goal of less use of cars and more use of transit.
private vehicles have a long term niche in an integrated transport system.
Huh? “Niche?” Private vehicles are the overwhelmingly dominant form of surface transportation. Public transportation is the “niche.” It provides less than 2% of total passenger-miles of surface transportation in the United States. Private vehicles provide around 96%.
Ensuring that the majority of the population has the option of making required trips by means other than cars, allowing people in households the option of reducing the number of cars they must own to get around, and shifting total miles traveled from less efficient private vehicles to more efficient dedicated transport corridors are all goals that are compatible with large number of people relying on private vehicles for large numbers of trips into the indefinite future.
Spike doesn’t merely want people to have the “option” of using means other than cars, he wants them to actually use means other than cars. His goal is not merely a change in potential use, but a change in actual use.
And Obama’s policy proposals are likely to have exactly the opposite effect on actual use than the one Spike seeks. Your claim that Obama’s policies will not do this is just nonsensical. It’s like saying that giving someone a voucher for a 50% discount on all future gas purchases for their car, but no equivalent financial incentive to use transit, would not encourage them to drive instead of use transit.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:25 am
SpikeA2,
That’s not my goal.
So the person who wrote comment #4, who said he wants “greener places with fewer cars” and “VMT reduction by encouraging more public transportation,” wasn’t you, but an imposter posting under your name, was it?
August 15th, 2008 at 7:47 am
> Spike doesn’t merely want people to have the
> “option” of using means other than cars, he
> wants them to actually use means other than
> cars. His goal is not merely a change in
> potential use, but a change in actual use.
I am guessing that Mixmaster is in his early 20s, and is unaware either by personal experience or research that the transition to a _100%_ automobile-based lifestyle didn’t really get rolling until 1970. Were automobiles important before that? Sure – look at the statistics on family car ownership in the 1920s. 100% auto-based with no other transport options? Not until the exurb (as opposed to suburb) transition which wasn’t significant until 1970 and didn’t pick up real steam until 1980. So in 28 years American transportation patterns have changed drastically, but to Mixmaster they way things were in the exurb where he grew up in the 1990s is the way things always have been and always will be; no change is possible.
Cranky
August 15th, 2008 at 9:08 am
For what it is worth, in Post #4 SpikeA2 was referring to the lack of a provision in the original Lieberman-Warner that would have the effect of shifting VMT to alternative modes of transportation. I see no claim in that post that SpikeA2 believes reducing VMT should be our primary goal, ahead of the alternative primary goal of reducing our dependence on petroleum and reducing carbon emissions. And it seems entirely consistent with the plan outlined in Post #48 to want such a provision, since that plan includes both promoting cleaner/more efficient cars and alternatives to cars at the same time.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
BruceMcF,
Note here that I was indeed responding to what Mixner wrote. While he/she re-iterates the claim, it remains the case that no contradiction exists without tacitly converting a shift away from current levels of reliance on automobiles into a complete shift away from automobiles.
BruceMcF:
Note that Mixner engages in a non sequiter here … the conclusion that the share of private vehicles in passenger transport cannot decline because most public transport today is air-born cannot logically follow from a static observation of the distribution.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
DTM,
For what it is worth, …
As usual, very little.
…in Post #4 SpikeA2 was referring to the lack of a provision in the original Lieberman-Warner that would have the effect of shifting VMT to alternative modes of transportation.
Yes, he was referring to that lack disapprovingly. Now he claims he didn’t really mean that.
I see no claim in that post that SpikeA2 believes reducing VMT should be our primary goal, ahead of the alternative primary goal of reducing our dependence on petroleum and reducing carbon emissions.
Since I didn’t say that reducing VMT by encouraging more transit was Spike’s “primary” goal, this is completely irrelevant. He clearly indicates that it is one of his goals, whether or not his goals also include reducing petroleum dependence and carbon emissions.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
BruceMcF,
While he/she re-iterates the claim, it remains the case that no contradiction exists without tacitly converting a shift away from current levels of reliance on automobiles into a complete shift away from automobiles.
No, Bruce, you’re still spouting utter nonsense. No one except you has referred to a “complete shift away from automobiles.” Spike didn’t say he wants a “complete” shift away from automobiles, just some degree of shift away from automobiles. And Obama’s proposals completely contradict that goal, because they encourage more car-buying, encourage more driving and encourage more demand for government spending on roads and highways.
Note that Mixner engages in a non sequiter here … the conclusion that the share of private vehicles in passenger transport cannot decline because most public transport today is air-born cannot logically follow from a static observation of the distribution.
It’s your statement that’s a nonsequitur. I didn’t suggest that the “the share of private vehicles in passenger transport cannot decline.” Obviously, it can decline. But I don’t it’s likely to over the long term. I was attacking your absurd characterization of private motor vehicles as a “niche” in our transportation system. Private motor vehicles are not a “niche,” they’re the overwhelmingly dominant form of transportation.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:33 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
laptop battery
March 1st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:00 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:45 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
This is right here, in the present, not the future.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:38 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra