Message from a friend of mine:  "The trend toward less driving and less car ownership seems to be transitioning from a one-off curiosity to a long-term trend, especially among teen-agers and twenty-somethings.  And once again, consumer electronics has something to do with it."

 

Article:

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/06/4000000-fewer-vehicles-on-us-roads-in-2009/

 

  We have another thread about this. Anyway, in my humble opinion it has more to do with economics than with electronics. More and more, young people are choosing not to drive because they can't afford it. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the automobile era.

The most efficient transportation network is not always the most desirable.

 

The personal conveyance preference will continue.  Even these young Americans would prefer that to public transportation as soon as they start making money.  The solutions to our problems are not a return to trains and busses.  Call them selfish, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are for eliminating personal vehicles.

 

The statistic you'd need to test this theory is average disposable income for the <18 demographic.  If teens have more money but fewer cars, then it discredits the notion that they're just economically strapped and bolsters the argument that they're doing it because of a genuine shift in American culture.  If teens actually do have less money, then it favors the economic argument.

We also need to remember that young people today are spending more money on things like cell phones, cable/internet, iPods, computers, etc... that young people 20 years ago were not spending ANY of their money on. 

 

I don't buy the notion that young people today are strapped with more debt and less disposable income than previous generations... I think they/we just spend it on different things.  If you really want a car then dump the cell phone and internet and you'll have enough money to make the payments.

There are some great graphics with this piece, including a chart showing the 50 and 100 most congested metro areas (Cleveland and Columbus are in this top 50 but not Columbus -- yet Columbus has gotten most of the highway dollars in the past decade)......

 

U.S. driving decline is in reverse

Feb. 24, 2010

By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

 

The historic drop in driving that began in 2007 and the dramatic decline in gridlock that accompanied it have ended, according to a report today by a firm that tracks congestion in the USA.

 

Using 12-month averages, the study found that driving increased by 0.3% in September, 0.2% in October, 0.3% in November and 0.2% in December over the same periods a year earlier, according to federal data.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-23-congestion_N.htm

The Boston Globe

 

A love too fast, then the crash

By James Carroll

March 8, 2010

 

THE GREAT American romance is over. The automobile has gone from being the joyous emblem of what made this nation great to being the symbol of its social, political, environmental, and economic, well, car wreck. Especially after World War II, when Detroit discovered color, the continental kit, wrap-around windshields, and tail-fins, cars were sexy modes of escape. We defined our dreams by what we drove, from snappy coupes when we wanted to turn heads, to station wagons when we wanted domestic bliss, to the foreign car when we wanted cosmopolitanism, to the dark faux-limo when we wanted to trumpet success. When Detroit went from being the global generator of wealth to being junk city, the automobile genius of Japan seemed ascendant, and Americans transferred their affection. Even patriotism took second place to love of a terrific car.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/08/a_love_too_fast_then_the_crash/?s_campaign=8315

The End of the Automobile Era?

12 April 2010 - 5:00am

Author: Norman Garrick

 

Could this be the end? Two recent events signal a dramatic shift in American attitudes towards transportation and the proper role of transportation in making American cities, says Norman Garrick.

 

On a recent Thursday in February, two disparate incidents in cities on opposite coasts may have signaled the end of the hundred-year ascendancy of automobiles in American life. In Portland, Oregon, the city council voted 5-0 to accept a new bike plan with the ambitious goal of increasing the percentage of people riding bikes from 6% (the highest of any big city in the country) to 25%. Three thousand miles away, on the opposite coast, the New York City Department of Transportation announced that they would make permanent the closing of Broadway to vehicle traffic.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.planetizen.com/node/43731

The real reason you're broke

For a huge number of troubled debtors, it all began with a car. Too much car, financed too long, traded too soon.

 

[Related content: savings, cars, used cars, car loans, Liz Pulliam Weston]

By Liz Pulliam Weston

MSN Money

 

If you're constantly broke and can't figure out why, the answer may be sitting in your driveway.

 

Americans are spending more on their vehicles than ever before -- about $8,600 a year on average -- and it's driving some to the breaking point.

 

Credit counselor Bill Thompson of Jacksonville, Fla., estimates that one out of every four clients his agency sees has overspent -- sometimes dramatically -- on a car.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/TheRealReasonYoureBroke.aspx

We also need to remember that young people today are spending more money on things like cell phones, cable/internet, iPods, computers, etc... that young people 20 years ago were not spending ANY of their money on. 

 

I don't buy the notion that young people today are strapped with more debt and less disposable income than previous generations... I think they/we just spend it on different things.  If you really want a car then dump the cell phone and internet and you'll have enough money to make the payments.

bingo. when I was 21 I had a hideous car (with payments), and a t.v. thats it.I also worked two jobs and put myself through school with no help (loans or family). I typed my papers in the library.

the following items I think most 21 year olds find "essential" did not exist or I did not have :

cell phone

data phone

computer/lap top

internet access

dvd

tvo

ipod

mp3

wii

playstation

flat screen

cable or satellite

I am sure I am missing many things. So  :cry: one of the reasons  it is so hard b/c many people (of all ages) are brainwashed to think they need all this stuff and they really do not. We are professional dual income home owners and only have a few of the items above and share one car. Priorities. Still I do not deny that it is tough right now, but not falling for the lie you need a bunch of material crap helps.

I'd actually take the opposite route:  I would much rather have that complete compendium of consumer luxuries than a car that required payments of roughly the equivalent of all of those combined.  Therefore, despite having a pretty good job for someone who's only 28, my car is a 2001 Nissan Altima that I bought in 2007 with cash--no payment necessary.  Many of the secretaries and other administrative personnel at my firm drive better cars than I do.  But I do have all of those goodies you listed that I care to have, including more computing firepower than may be strictly necessary and enough bandwidth to download the entire Internet in a couple of femtoseconds--and I have room in my budget to get those things on that list that I don't have if I ever decide I want them.

the problem is a lot of people want all these things and a new car! We share a paid off 2002 car and still don't have all that crap. But to each there own. I rather go to Europe at 1-2x a year plus a bunch of other places than have a lot of junk. 

Aha, there's where I have an edge on you--I don't really feel the need for out-of-town (especially international) vacations that often, so that frees up some money in the budget.

 

To each their own--but not overextending on a car can free up a *lot* that can be divided across a wide variety of other activities.  It's not called a big-ticket item for nothing.  The only thing that gets people in more trouble is overextending on a house.  (People talk about houses as investments, and they do last longer and retain more value than cars, but people do nevertheless get themselves into a great deal of trouble by underestimating just what it costs to own a home.)

To each his/her own, I guess.

 

I bought my vehicle new (2006 Toyota RAV4 Limited) and paid off the vehicle in installments over 60 months. It's an SUV that got 27 MPG new, and I achieve somewhere in the range of 21-24 MPG now, and I've put 113,000 miles on it since then. I travel for my passion, and I drive to my job at Xavier because I can't rationalize taking the bus to work because it is not economically feasible for me to do so. I bike on some days when I'm not doing a long ride after work.

 

I'm about to purchase another new vehicle, probably a Suburu Outback Sport, Outback, Mini Cooper Countryman (the new SUV for 2011!), Toyota 4Runner, the Jeep Grand Cherokee (the new 2011 version) or maybe an Audi A4. I haven't decided, yet I'm stuck on a new vehicle. I know that there is a depreciation for these cars, and that some get much worse gas mileage than others, but that is of little concern. If I was worrying about gas prices and how green I am, I wouldn't travel for practically my second living, something that I truly enjoy doing. And I enjoy driving, just not the same commute, although I am looking for a MUCH sportier/stronger vehicle than my 4-cyl. RAV4.

 

As much as I'd like to drive less and own fewer vehicles, I like having my options and I'm more than willing to pay for a vehicle that I know has a strong warranty, and is free of problems. I'm not sold on public transport, especially here in Cincinnati, because it quite frankly sucks, but that's just for this locale. Chicago? I am willing to NOT give up my vehicle, but take transit because it is cheaper than driving, and convenient.

I have a nine-year-old sports coupe with 125,000 miles on it (I've put all but 18 miles on that car since I bought it new). But now I don't drive it out of town anymore because those long drives put a lot of stress on it. Instead I rent cars for those trips, which cost less than half of the IRS/AAA rate. Most of my in-town trips are made on foot or transit, so rarely use it anymore. Fortunately I have two car rental businesses within walking distance of where I live.

I would say that, given the car's depreciated value, especially with that age and mileage, that it would make sense to continue driving it. I tested around the idea of renting a SUV for the weekend, but I couldn't get it to be economically feasible.

On Friday morning I rented a Nissan Versa from Enterprise and drove it to Youngstown. Then on Saturday I drove it Columbus. Then on Sunday I drove it to do some shopping. Rental cost for those three days: $60. Gasoline: $30. Total: $90. BTW, I put 450 miles on the rental car in those three days.

 

If I drove my own car, the cost would be $247.50. Even if I was reimbursed at the rate my employer reimburses me (20 cents per mile for most trips), it would have been $90. Actually only about 430 miles of that total was for business travel (or $86) so I actually saved my employer by renting instead of driving my own car.

 

Wasn't that nice of me?

I have a nine-year-old sports coupe with 125,000 miles on it (I've put all but 18 miles on that car since I bought it new). But now I don't drive it out of town anymore because those long drives put a lot of stress on it. Instead I rent cars for those trips, which cost less than half of the IRS/AAA rate. Most of my in-town trips are made on foot or transit, so rarely use it anymore. Fortunately I have two car rental businesses within walking distance of where I live.

I agree this is the way to go. Being liberated from a car payment for years has been nice. Our 8 y.o car only has 67,000. I understand enterprise delivers cars to the door (should one not be able to walk to the lot)

Having one car ('02 Sante Fe) paid off for a few years and the other one (new '09 Malibu) scheduled to pay off this year I don't feel the same pressure that I used too.  Plus both the wife and I are car light, with commutes under 5 miles each way, and she will take the bicycle out and ride to work.  So if you are smart about it you can have the 2 cars and still be able to afford it.

Anything that's good (cars, medical drugs, food, etc) if overused becomes an evil.

    There's a story that Henry Ford imagined that his cars would be used in rural areas, since urban areas already had rail transportation. What actually happened is that most cars ended up in cities. Incidently, Henry Ford also owned a railroad, the Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton, which was renowned for its high degree of maintenance.

 

 

On Friday morning I rented a Nissan Versa from Enterprise and drove it to Youngstown. Then on Saturday I drove it Columbus. Then on Sunday I drove it to do some shopping. Rental cost for those three days: $66. Gasoline: $30. Total: $96. BTW, I put 450 miles on the rental car in those three days.

 

If I drove my own car, the cost would be $247.50. Even if I was reimbursed at the rate my employer reimburses me (20 cents per mile), it would have been $90. Actually only about 430 miles of that total was for business travel (or $86) so I actually saved my employer $10 by renting instead of driving my own car.

 

Wasn't that nice of me?

 

Ken, most of the costs of using your own car are fixed, so you paid them whether you rented or not.  The wear and tear and depreciation are minimal on a 450 mile trip, so you just can't assume a savings based on not driving your own car.

On Friday morning I rented a Nissan Versa from Enterprise and drove it to Youngstown. Then on Saturday I drove it Columbus. Then on Sunday I drove it to do some shopping. Rental cost for those three days: $66. Gasoline: $30. Total: $96. BTW, I put 450 miles on the rental car in those three days.

 

If I drove my own car, the cost would be $247.50. Even if I was reimbursed at the rate my employer reimburses me (20 cents per mile), it would have been $90. Actually only about 430 miles of that total was for business travel (or $86) so I actually saved my employer $10 by renting instead of driving my own car.

 

Wasn't that nice of me?

 

Ken, most of the costs of using your own car are fixed, so you paid them whether you rented or not. The wear and tear and depreciation are minimal on a 450 mile trip, so you just can't assume a savings based on not driving your own car.

 

There is a certain sweet spot in the life of a car where it will keep going on and on with trips around town, but you are taking a risk to try driving it more than 30-50 miles or so in one go. If you don't make long car trips with much frequency, it can be cheaper to own such a car (for cost of admission plus insurance purposes) and use rentals to take longer trips.

But you are STILL paying for most of those things on your personal car when you rent.

We recently had to "junk" a car that was 11 years old, and it was the only car we owned.  When we decided to go down to one car, we decided that it was worth renting a car when going on long trips.  We figured that it wasn't worth having something happen to our only car while on a road trip, and we knew that we were trying to hold off buying a car for a long time.  Sure, we still paid insurance on our old car, but we felt that we were keeping on to the old car longer by having a rental for the long trips.  Also, our car was a small two-door, so it was nice to have something a little larger for luggage.

When you first get a car, most of the costs are fixed, usually associated with paying off the purchase price (yet if you use the car a lot, you're going to need another new car a lot sooner!). After the warranty expires and the car gets older, most of the costs are variable -- associated with wear and tear.

 

My car is 9 years old and has 125,000 miles on it. Its battery will survive the summer but not the winter. The transmission slips in cold weather. Then there's the brakes/bearings -- I'm not sure what that rubbing noise is but it sounds expensive. I'm delaying that for as long as I can.

 

Today, the only fixed cost with my car is my monthly insurance and annual registration costs. The insurance is mostly for the value of my car in case of theft or vandalism. I am paying only $90 per month, and according to my insurance agent, if I stored my car and didn't drive it anymore, I might save $10 per month. If I drove it as often as I used to (20,000 miles per year), my insurance would rise into the low- to mid-$100s. Instead, I'm driving the car perhaps 5,000 miles per year.

 

Anyway, that $90 per month is $3 per day. Even if I took that into account, I'm still saving money for me or my employer by renting a car for out-of-town trips. Plus my employer pays for the rental cars but it won't pay for repairs to my aging car, nor will it pay me to buy a new car.

 

Until I started working from home a little over a year ago, I was spending $300 to $800 every few months on repairs to and replacement parts on my car (tires, battery, brakes, electrical stuff, radiator flushing, manual transmission maintenance, etc).

 

Now I am spending perhaps $300 to $800 per year on repairs. A big reason for that big drop in costs is I only use my car for short trips I can't reach by walking or transit. And I fill my car's gas tank MAYBE once a month.

 

All of this has helped me to reduce my annual costs of living to just $18,000 per year and to increase the amount allocated to my savings and retirement.

 

Sorry Dan, but I'm just not going to take financial advice from you.

Dan you make a good point. Owning but not using a car is more expensive than not owning a car, and so Ken's math would only be correct if he sold the car, rather than leave it at home. It might still be cheaper to rent, but not as much cheaper as shown.

Dan you make a good point. Owning but not using a car is more expensive than not owning a car, and so Ken's math would only be correct if he sold the car, rather than leave it at home. It might still be cheaper to rent, but not as much cheaper as shown.

If you have a car that's good for driving around town, but is likely to break down if you put the stress on it involved in a long trip, renting a car is cheaper than tempting fate and needing garage work.

 

If you take long trips frequently, though, it should be cheaper to have a car that can handle a long trip reliably.

 

Having a junker car costs less initially and costs less to insure. So, as long as it's not too much of a junker (i.e. it can reliably get you around town), and as long as you don't go on too many long trips, owning a junker and renting for trips is cheaper.

All I was questioning was your statement that to drive your personal car would have cost you $247.50. It just isn't so.

 

 

No offense, but I'm going to listen instead to AAA's estimation of the costs of driving. If you don't like it, write a letter to them not to me.

^You're missing Dan's point. AAA's estimates take into account more than just tires, and maintenance that you save by renting.

 

AAA takes into account fuel, maintenance, tires, insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation, and finance charges to come up with their "cost of driving" number. You are saving wear and tear on your car by renting, but insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation, and finance charges are all sunken costs that you are paying periodically regardless of whether or not you actually drive the vehicle. That is why your estimate of $247.50 is unrealistic.  The AAA number is for estimating only anyway.  I mean, you can't make the argument that it would have cost you $247.50 to drive your car on that trip, but it would have cost you $0.00 to sit in your driveway.  That simply doesn't make sense.

 

Now if you didn't own a vehicle it would be another story, but if you already own a vehicle it will always be cheaper to drive that vehicle on long trips.

 

http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/200948913570.DrivingCosts2009.pdf

And you're missing mine.... That at this stage of my car's age, the fixed costs are smaller and the variable costs are greater. My car is just about fully depreciated. I pay no finance charges. And the only taxes I'm paying anymore are fuel taxes which are variable. Plus, I'm pretty sure if I take my car out on the open highway now, with the sound the brakes/bearings make after a while, the sonofabitch is going to catch fire. And it's going to happen on the most remote section of road (In 1988-89 I had a car I called Christine because it was from hell like Stephen King's and while I'm lucky to have survived it, I will always be nervous driving on long trips).

 

If I drove my own car to Youngstown and Columbus last week for work, it would have cost my employer $99.50 instead of the $90 it cost in rental car fees and gasoline. Here's why...

 

I get reimbursed at 20 cents per mile for driving alone and 25 cents per mile for driving with at least one passenger. I drove to Youngstown alone (80 miles RT) and drove to Columbus (270 miles RT) with a passenger...

 

150 miles x $0.20 = $32

270 miles x $0.25 = $67.50

 

Plus I had peace of mind knowing that I was driving a more reliable car, it wasn't in danger of catching on fire or otherwise breaking down, and if it did I had Entperprise's road service available.

 

So I did the smart thing anyway you care to spin it.

this thread is an interesting reminder on what a pain in the arse car ownership is, or thankfully was in my case. ugh.

 

upside for my ny transitopia carless self:

my costs are approx $1K/yr for my day to day transportation. thats right, only about a gee a year.

 

downside:

if i cant get it free my rare car rental costs are basically double because i have to buy temporary car insurance too.

 

 

And you're missing mine.... That at this stage of my car's age, the fixed costs are smaller and the variable costs are greater. My car is just about fully depreciated. I pay no finance charges.

If the fixed costs are smaller because your car is fully depreciated and you have no finance charges, than the cost per mile is going to be far short of the AAA average. It might still be cheaper to rent, and certainly considering the lack of confidence you have in the reliability of the car it seems wiser to rent, but your comparison of the AAA average for driving and $0 for not driving was a false comparison.

^Exactly.  Based on the circumstances it sounds like KJP made the smart choice by renting based on his belief that the chances of a breakdown were high at highway speeds.  That's a smart choice, but that doesn't mean it was the cheaper choice.  There is a difference. 

 

At the 15.1 cents per mile that Dan cited, it's obvious that it would be cheaper to drive your own vehicle.  Now, if you believe your car is at a higher risk of breakdown than that is something you would have to quantify on your own based on the likelihood of breakdown and the likely repair costs.  If those are taken into account then it's very possible that renting was the "cheaper" alternative.

So what you're saying is it's impossible to tell what the cheaper choice was, since we can't know for sure if the car would have broken down? Strictly speaking, that's true, but come on... Now you're splitting hairs.

 

If an owner thinks there is a high probability his car will break down on a given trip, for all intents and purposes it is "cheaper" to rent.

 

Another point: when a car is fully depreciated, but is in working order, it's actually worth more to its owner than the book value. You couldn't just sell it and hope to get another car in as good of shape at the same book value. This throws a wrench in a lot of calculations you might try to make.

Out of curiosity, what is (your opinion) the chance that your car will break down at highway speeds? Most wear and tear occurs not at highway speeds (not in excess), but in stop-and-go traffic. I've not yet had a vehicle break down on me, mechanically, in years and I drive a 2006 Toyota RAV4 with over 110,000 miles, and abuse the hell out of it (dirt roads, sloshing it through water and mud, city streets). Oddly enough, my parents 2003 Nissan Pathfinder has more issues, and it has only 50,000 miles, but it sits in the garage most of the time which is leading to some issues on its own.

Every breakdown I've had with every car I've ever owned has been at highway speeds, FWIW, and while the majority of my driving by distance is highway, the majority of my driving by time-in-car is city.

Every breakdown I've had with every car I've ever owned has been at highway speeds, FWIW, and while the majority of my driving by distance is highway, the majority of my driving by time-in-car is city.

 

Ditto.

Our car broke down for good when I was driving on I74. 

Another point: when a car is fully depreciated, but is in working order, it's actually worth more to its owner than the book value. You couldn't just sell it and hope to get another car in as good of shape at the same book value. This throws a wrench in a lot of calculations you might try to make.

 

Yes...I was actually thinking about this today as I allowed my friend who is in town this weekend to borrow my car.  He lives in NYC and never drives and, frankly, is a terrible driver.  So I'm sitting here mildly nervous that he may wreck my car and am thinking "how much would I make him pay me if he wrecks it"?

 

I have been the only owner of my car (a 2002 VW Jetta) and I've taken pretty good care of it.  It has 115,000 miles and based on how it's driving and how I've maintained it, I feel pretty strongly that it will make it to 200,000 miles.  It's paid off and I'm about to transition to a new job where I will be working downtown, this ending my need to drive to work ever.  So it will basically sit in the garage most of the time until I need it to go golfing, out of town, etc.  I see no reason this car won't last me another 8 years and another 100,000 miles for effectively only the cost of maintaining and using it.

 

Now, if I had to replace it, I would not feel comfortable buying a similar used car for what I would likely get for it's book value.  There's an element of genetics with cars I think and despite the same make and model, not all cars are equal.  So even if I replaced it with another 2002 VW Jetta with similar mileage, I wouldn't feel like I was getting an equivalent vehicle.  If I were to buy a new or slightly used vehicle, I would suddenly have a car payment.

 

So I basically decided I would make him give me $20,000 to go buy a new car should he wreck it ;)

Here's another article from the automotive world about declining auto ownership:

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/23/report-teen-car-sales-drop-as-jobs-remain-scarce/

 

Changing Travel Demands: Implications for Planning

Todd Litman

Sun, 08/22/2010 - 18:14

 

The graph below shows the most recent USDOT vehicle-travel data covering the last 25 years. Although vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) grew steadily during most of the Twentieth Century, in recent years the growth rate stopped and even declined a little. It is now about 10% below where it would have been had past trends continued.

 

This is particularly notable because during this period both population and economic activity grew, so VMT per capita and per unit of economic activity declined. This has important implications for planners.

 

The Twentieth Century was the period of automobile ascendency, during which personal motor vehicles grew from virtually nothing to becoming the dominant travel mode in most developed countries. During this period it made sense to invest in automobile-oriented infrastructure: paved roads, highways and parking facilities. However, demographic and economic trends are changing travel demands. Aging population, rising fuel prices, increasing urbanization, increasing traffic congestion, improvements in alternative modes, changing consumer preferences, and increased health and environmental concerns are all reducing demand for automobile travel and increasing demands for travel by other modes. Although automobile travel will not disappear, it will not grow as it did in the past, and in many developed countries motor vehicle travel will be flat or negative in the future.

 

 

A sign of things to come. My prediction: within 10 years, the first divided highway (ie: SR11 except in the Youngstown area, US20 west of Norwalk, US50 in SE Ohio) in Ohio will be abandoned or heavily scaled back...

 

Michigan to curb road projects as gas tax revenue shrinks

Last Updated: November 23. 2010 12:12PM

Outlook is for drastic cut in reconstruction, resurfacing of major thoroughfares in 2012

Tom Greenwood / The Detroit News

 

Michigan could see half of its road construction budget disappear by 2012, taking with it scores of repair projects and thousands of jobs in a state that relies heavily on its freeways.

 

A freefall in gas tax revenue over the last decade has the Michigan Department of Transportation projecting its repair budget for 2012 to be $626 million, a slice of the $1.4 billion spent in 2010. And Michigan barely escaped the same fate for 2011, said Bill Shreck, MDOT director of communications, when it faced an $84 million shortfall in its effort to qualify for federal matching funds.

 

"Until the 2011 budget, we were never faced with actually leaving federal money on the table," Shreck said. "We'd move things back and forth and sometimes delay projects, as long they didn't compromise the safety of the public."

 

READ MORE AT: http://detnews.com/article/20101123/METRO/11230311/Michigan-to-curb-road-projects-as-gas-tax-revenue-shrink

 

^Michigan to curb road projects."

 

He he he  :-D

I don't know that we'll get to the point where many highways are abandoned wholesale, but I can certainly see a major relaxing of standards.  The requirements for paved shoulders on interstates has gotten pretty absurd for instance.  Just look at the widened I-75 in Butler County.  It's a 12 lane road but with only 8 usable lanes with full size right AND left shoulders.  It says something when you can fit all the through lanes of the existing road on just one side of the new highway during construction.  Top it off with the the concrete median barrier and attendant storm drainage, and you have a very expensive road.  I believe a full size left shoulder is required when there's just three lanes each way.  We already can't afford to build and maintain roads like this, and we're going to be even less able to as time goes on. 

 

So what will that look like?  As I said at the beginning, I don't think we'll see wholesale abandonments of many roads, but a definite scaling back.  Those shoulders will probably just be left to deteriorate.  They may revert to gravel or grass.  I wouldn't be surprised to see maintenance of the travel lanes shift to more of a lane-by-lane basis, where the more heavily traveled right lane is resurfaced while the not-so-bad passing lane is left alone for a few more years.  This already happens on some roads, but I suspect it will become more prevalent.  Many of those underutilized rural divided highways will probably lose their left lane and shoulders to deterioration, with passing zones maintained at regular intervals. 

 

Even with this, among other cutbacks like tearing down street lights or converting signalized intersections to stop signs (something very prevalent in the decimated areas of central Detroit) we still have so many roads that it probably won't make a huge difference to a lot of people that don't travel long distances by car or truck frequently.  You may not be able to go 60 mph on a rutted gravel road, but it takes much MUCH less work to maintain a 30 mph surface. 

I've been driving a 94 Camry since 1998, and my parents had bought it in either '93 or '94. Yeah it's needed some work at times, and i'll probably buy a new vehicle around the 250,000 mark next year.    But that's only out of necessity, not luxury.

 

Whatever the appeal of buying the latest and greater car is, I just don't    see it.  Seems like a lot of these cars, at least the high end models and gas guzzlers, are a waste of money and negative investment

Ohio cities, including the 3Cs, just don't get it. So much of our transportation dollars are being spent to add more and more roads and bridges with no concern for how we'll pay for them, let alone maintain them. That's what happens when urban residents sit on their asses and let suburban/exurban/rural Ohio decide our policies.

One thing that pisses me off is we build them 5 lanes of highway and all people do is spread out in equal distances away from each other throughout those 5 lanes and then maintain the same speed as everyone else.  Slower traffic doesn't move to right except to pass anymore in sprawlville usa.  If we enforced these types of laws, maybe that highway would only have to be three lanes wide.  I'm looking at you Butler County! 

I think the fact we're facing revenue shortfalls (er, excessively large road spending!) BEFORE the Baby Boom starts to turn 65 years old, and BEFORE we are facing serious oil production shortages, I think abandonment of sections of major highways is realistic.

 

These scenes may well become more and more common in the next 5-10 years....

 

 

 

 

KJP,

 

Chill, bro.

 

Barring nuclear powered electric cars or something of that nature, conventional automobiles are likely to be virtually gone in 100 years or so. Sure, someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to keep driving, but driving at the scale that we have today is likely to ge gone eventually.

 

That said, you think that our highways will be abandoned in 10 years? Even for a peak oil doomer, that is an agressive prediction. In Ohio's climate, the surface layer of our highways is expected to last 20 to 30 years, so it's safe to assume that most of today's highways will last until at least 2030.

 

Here's my prediction:

 

As oil production peaks (indeed, it appears that it already has), people will consume less oil. This can happen due to a number of factors:

 

• Drivers will replace their existing cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, thus being able to drive the same number of miles on less energy.
  
• The number of drivers will decrease as the Baby Boomers retire.
  
• The number of drivers will decrease because fewer young people will start driving, or they will start driving later in life.
  
• Federal and State gasoline taxes will rise incrementally, making it more expensive to drive.
  
• Drivers will cut back on discretionary driving as it becomes unaffordable.
  
• Drivers will cut back on driving when average speeds decrease due to gradually deteriorating roads.
  

 

    So, by 2020, I don't think we will notice a huge difference. Instead of a catastrophe, the changes will be gradual, like watching a tree grow. Will gasoline prices ever reach $10 a gallon? Not necessarily. The price might remain more or less constant as production declines because both supply and demand are declining at the same rate.

 

    By 2030, though, it will start to get interesting. By this time, the Baby Boomers will be not just retiring, but dying off. Oil production will really start to decline to the point that we can't maintain what we have by improvements in efficiency. Positions in state highway departments that are currently held by said Baby Boomers will be filled by younger workers (if they are filled at all) who were born into a world of declining oil production, and who can't remember the 1950's, 60's, and 70's.

 

    But this is all 20 years away. Any projection over 20 years into the future is just a guess.