Trans Sport is like a Trans Am, but a van!

 

not

Great for picking up soccer moms!

 

Oh.  I thought it was the Pontiac Transport that was a chick magnet.  I mean...picture yourself driving to the club in this!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pontiac_trans_sport_concept.jpg

 

LMAO! Dude, that vehicle is from Mars!

I've been seeing a lot more 1988-89 Honda CRX's on the road lately.  Those are the super-lightweight chick cars that got the ridiculous 55mpg, and it appears people are doing what it takes to get them out of the junk yard and back on the road.   

They're also easy to put them where you want in traffic due to their small size and excellent handling. That's especially important on Cincinnati's narrow streets with lots of blind curves. If you drive one up the Cut-in-the-Hill or that blitz out of the FWW tunnel though, you might as well tuck in behind the semis in the right lane 'cause you're not going to go any faster than them.

 

Come to think of it, I bet young people are flying less also.

 

Basicly, there's less petroleum available per person. Something's got to give.

Younger people are driving less because they can't afford to drive. The unemployment rate of thsoe under 25 is significantly higher than the general population. Add to that the staggering cost of student loans for degrees in worthless fileds with no demand, 3.99 a gallon gas and high insurance costs. It all boils down to simple economics, They can't afford a car, and all the over regulation means you can't build an affordale car any more.

 

Let the economy improve, unemployment goes down and many "urbanists" who claim to love public transportation, can finally afford a car? Watch how fast they will buy one.

 

It's true that there are a lot of young people without jobs due to the poor economy and because baby boomers are hanging on to jobs longer than expected. But I just don't see miles driven per capita to return to the rates they once were.

Young People Are Driving Less—And Not Just Because They're Broke

June 11, 2012 • 10:30 am PDT

JAKE BLUMGART

 

As a teenager, I had little interest in driving. I lived in Prince George’s County, Maryland, mere blocks from the D.C. city line, with a bus hub down the hill and three Metro stations a mile or so from my parents’ house. And by the time my weekend evenings were done, I was rarely in any shape to get behind the wheel. (Sorry, Mom!)

 

I never got my driver’s license, which makes me an outlier in a nation of car lovers. But I have something in common with today’s teens. Recent studies show that American teenagers are far less likely to have their drivers’ licenses than their counterparts thirty years ago, and the trend continues to a lessening degree through the 20-something cohort. Today only 22 percent of drivers are under 30, down from a third in 1983.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.good.is/post/young-people-are-driving-less-and-not-just-because-they-re-broke/

I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeat anything. Count me among the Gen Y pool that wants to drive less. The money issue is part of it, but I don't think fully accounts for the psyche shift. Environmental consciousness plays a part, at least for me. Rules for when and how teenagers can drive are also more restrictive than they used to be, taking a bite out of the much-desired freedom talked about earlier.

 

I'm moving to Los Angeles in the fall, traditionally one of the most car-centric cities in the usa. While I'm going to keep my car, I'm going to take public transportation to school every day, even though it takes twice as long for the following reasons:

 

Money: Parking permits near school cost hundreds of dollars a semester. A student transit pass can be had for ~$50 a semester

Stress: Why fight the legendary LA traffic every day when I don't have to?

Time: True, I lose 30 minutes of every day, but I can spend that time reading (or more realistically, accidentally napping).

 

LA's transit is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than it was just 30 years ago when I first visited LA. There wasn't a single rail transit line and the only regional commuter rail service was an experimental route out to Oxnard that failed after a year or so of startup. Now look at it:

 

Dedicated ROW (mostly rail) transit in LA close-in communities totaling 88 miles:

 

 

 

Metrolink regional rail system (LA-based) on 512 route miles throughout Southern California (also references LA local rail transit lines):

 

One that sticks out is that there is no rail link to LAX from downtown. Wonder why?

One that sticks out is that there is no rail link to LAX from downtown. Wonder why?

 

Who makes more money by not having a rail link to LAX?

One that sticks out is that there is no rail link to LAX from downtown. Wonder why?

 

Who makes more money by not having a rail link to LAX?

 

Cab drivers, of course. I am now enlightened.

 

Cab drivers, of course. I am now enlightened.

 

Only partially. You're forgetting the airport itself which makes a ton of money off parking revenues, plus independent parking lot owners around the airport, plus private shuttle bus services some of which are owned by various large venues like convention centers and tourist sites.

I visited LA briefly for the first time six years ago and was amazed by the urbanism and the alternative transportation. I took Metrolink to the city from the south and saw passengers with bicycles getting on or off at about every stop.  Union Station was crawling with people wheeling bicycles as I took the subway to Hollywood.

In the Public Interest :

Led by Youth Americans Are Driving Less, But When Will Lawmakers Notice?

The answer: They won't. Not the current crop, at least, including such political visionaries such as our very own Gov. John Kasich whose first act before even officially taking office was to dismiss funding for the 3Cs rail.

 

When the Baby Boomer generation that grew up in the 1950s "Happy Motoring Society" and now occupies most political offices finally retires, is ousted en masse, and/or bites the Big One in sufficient numbers to allow the younger generations to take over, that's when we will see a shift in policy on transportation. Until then, get used to projects that will add more lanes to I-71 and the like and seeing that touted as "progress."

May 2012

Young Americans' waning interest in driving has implications for transportation policy, report says

By Julie Sneider, assistant editor

 

As Congress grapples with long-term legislation that will fund the nation’s transportation programs, lawmakers might want to consider a recent report that shows Americans are driving less, a trend primarily driven by young people who are seeking transportation alternatives such as trains and buses.

 

Americans’ love of driving had been increasing steadily from the end of World War II until early in the 21st century. But in 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles than in 2004, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund and the Frontier Group recent report, “Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy.”

 

Leading the trend away from driving are younger Americans, defined in the report as the 16-to-34-year-old age group. From 2001 to 2009, the average number of auto vehicle-miles traveled in that age demographic fell 23 percent, from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita. During that same time period, the average number of passenger miles (via train or bus) traveled by young people soared by 40 percent, the report states.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Young-Americans-waning-interest-in-driving-has-implications-for-transportation-policy-report-says--31035

 

 

So ODOT continues to pour 99 percent of transportation tax dollars into rebuilding and expanding highways even as fewer people are driving in Ohio and nationwide. More Ohio households are without cars (9 percent) and more people are taking trains and buses. The United Transportation Union based in Cleveland says combined bus and rail ridership is up 30 percent nationwide since 2000.

 

Meanwhile, miles driven in cars have fallen 6.3 percent (see chart above) since their peak in June 2005 to depths not seen in more than a decade, according to federal transportation statistics. When combined with more fuel-efficient cars, gas tax revenues have plummeted. Congress has bailed out the insolvent federal Highway Trust Fund with more than $35 billion since 2008 and pledged another $19 billion in general taxes in the next two years to sustain our overbuilt highway system. It’s time for ODOT to follow the lead of Ohio’s citizens and align its spending priorities to the transportation modes that Ohioans are increasingly choosing.

What exactly is the y-axis on that graph?  And how do they "population-adjust" these numbers, and why do they do it rather than use the absolute number of vehicle-miles driven?

So 1971 (0%) is the control?

What exactly is the y-axis on that graph?  And how do they "population-adjust" these numbers, and why do they do it rather than use the absolute number of vehicle-miles driven?

 

I think the Y axis is the percentage difference from the base year (1971) [EDIT, MH said it first.]. Its essentially an index but would be clearer, IMHO, without the "%" on the y axis labels, because that invites misinterpretation of year to year changes further to the right.  I don't understand the "down 6.27 from peak" tag though.  From the graph is looks to be down about 10 percentage points from peak, which, looks to be closer to an 11% drop from peak.  And yeah, the "population adjustment" is kind of the elephant in the room, because absolute VMT is probably the better measure for thinking about road network capacity constraints.

Well if total VMT is still going down even as population goes up, that means VMT per person is going down even more. 

Yeah, I wanna be able to show the graph to dumbasses, but if I don't understand the graph then uh...

OK, here's a couple of other charts I found......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And from the Federal Highway Administration in 2008 (with more declining years still to be documented)....

 

 

And an article......

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/10/us-road-travel-falls-to-lowest-levels-since-2003/1#.UEpZObIibhc

So ODOT continues to pour 99 percent of transportation tax dollars into rebuilding and expanding highways even as fewer people are driving in Ohio and nationwide.

 

A lot of money was expended on upgrading the historic streetcar systems in the 1920's, then by 1955 just about all of the streetcar systems in Ohio were out of service.

 

Cincinnati built a big, beautiful railroad passenger stadium at a time when passenger rail was already in decline.

 

Cincinnati also built a 3rd runway that opened just about the time that airline traffic declined for the first time.

 

They say that generals are always prepared for the previous war. It doesn't surprise me at all that ODOT is apparently making the same mistake.

Well if total VMT is still going down even as population goes up, that means VMT per person is going down even more. 

 

Well that's just it, the first graph didn't show total VMT, it was "population adjusted" so was more of a per capita look.  Which I probably should have made clear is still very interesting in its own right.

 

The third and fourth graphs in KJP's new set shows total VMT, and the drop is much less dramatic.  And is likely related at least in part to the overall economy.  The trends for younger groups are also interesting, but it's impossible to know how much is due to a shift in preferences with likely long term consequences versus shorter term trends related to the economy.  I'm still open to there being some kind of fundamental shift, just not sure these data are dispositive.

Well if total VMT is still going down even as population goes up, that means VMT per person is going down even more. 

 

True, but you couldn't get that from the graph posted earlier because relative numbers don't necessarily tell you much about absolute aggregate numbers.

 

Some of the graphs in KJP's second post above, however, are much more informative (and much more straightforward, which often correlates strongly with being informative).

 

Looking at the last graph in the latter post (absolute VMT), the downshift (no pun intended ... well, OK, who am I kidding ...) is still too short to be called a trend, IMHO.  Four years isn't peanuts, but it's not necessarily enough to signal a change yet, particularly given that almost all of those four years have been recession years or anemic growth years.  What I'll be much more interested to see is the trend when the economy picks up again.  That will go a long way towards answering the question of whether people actually want to drive more but were simply unable to afford to for a few years, or whether we've turned a cultural corner towards alternative forms of transportation and more local lifestyles.

 

ETA: StrapHanger types faster than me.  Back to Mavis Beacon.

We don't have enough data yet to declare America's car-driving party is over yet. We could be at the beginning of something. Maybe not. But the data suggesting we're at the start of a possible topping out/decline in driving is even more interesting when considering this:

 

The two largest generations in American history are Generation Y (80 million) and the Baby Boom (75 million). That is half of this nation's population:

 

> Generation Y is getting their driver's licenses much later than their parents did (let alone not having cars), suggesting a structural change that appears to be cultural. If it was just economic, they'd be getting their licenses but not buying cars;

> The Baby Boomers have started retiring and will continue leaving the workforce in the next 20 years while entering assisted living centers;

> As for other population/demographic groups, the Middle Class is shrinking which could mean fewer second cars, more shared trips and less vehicle-miles traveled.

> Fuel costs and other costs of driving/buying cars have remained high since 2005. Will they stay high?

^I get this Kiplinger weekly newsletter thing. It sez gas prices will remain above $3.75 with occasional spikes over $4.00 in 2013.

 

Kiplinger is awesome. Been a reputable publication since at least back to when I was in college 25 years ago.

What exactly is the y-axis on that graph?  And how do they "population-adjust" these numbers, and why do they do it rather than use the absolute number of vehicle-miles driven?

 

It seems like it's the total miles driven divided by the driving population. (And then divided by the 1971 rate to get a "growth percentage".) That way, we're looking at miles driven per person, and it doesn't just keep growing because the population is growing.

 

I think the biggest factor is cost of driving. I can't tell you how many times I hear that people are refraining from travelling because of cost.

 

"My daugher used to visit me once a month, but she can't afford it anymore because it costs her $35 in gas." - one of my neighbors

 

If those charts are for the whole United States, I think the situation in California is bringing the average miles per person down. The cost of driving is higher in California, first because it is in a different petroleum market, farther from the Gulf Coast, and second because California law specifies a blend of gasoline that is supposed to reduce emiisions, but is more expensive, and third because the insurance rates are higher there. So, fewer people are driving in California, particularly young people.

Whenever new bridges or highway expansions are proposed, the reports usually say things like, "the current highway is projected to reach 100% of its capacity by 2016," or, "projections show the highway will carry x vehicles daily by 2050."

 

So, my question is, at what point do we start taking the recent decline in driving into consideration for those purposes? If driving has plateaued for the past 5 years, isn't that a sign that we need to take into consideration the possibility that driving will not return to the previous rate of growth?

The projections are mostly a sham anyway.  They really have no way of accurately predicting traffic.  If they underestimate and the road gets congested then it's "well, we need to significantly increase our projections!"  On the other hand, when they overbuild a road to try to future-proof it, that induces so much development and driving all by itself that it becomes self-fulfilling.  It's a pretty classic "if you build it they will come" situation.  What doesn't get nearly enough study, partly because it happens so rarely in this country, is that when you close down a road or otherwise reduce capacity, you don't get carmageddon.  Necessary traffic shifts to other modes, some redistributing of routes happens, and many trips simply evaporate. 

 

When I was in college we had a lecture by a planner from Copenhagen.  I can't remember his exact position, but it was something like city architect or head traffic engineer or something like that.  What really stuck in my mind from that lecture was his statement that "when a road becomes too congested, we narrow it."  That sounds unfathomable, but the idea is that a congested road is being overutilized because it's better than the surrounding alternatives.  So they use some of the road space to make the alternatives better (bike and bus lanes, mainly), or simply introduce street parking and other narrowing features like islands or medians to shift the traffic to other existing routes and modes. 

 

I hope with more state DOT's and cities adopting complete streets policies (though implementation is still pretty lacking, especially at the state level) that we'll see more of this.  We have so much road capacity in this country that repurposing some of it should be easy.  Cities are able to do road diets fairly easily because they greatly expanded and widened their surface street networks to handle very large traffic volumes before the interstate highways were built out and siphoned away much of that traffic.  Since those extra wide boulevards and parkways and arterial streets were never narrowed back again afterwards means that public transit can't compete even for those local trips anymore, but the space is there to give them some priority treatment without crippling the street network.  Let's hope we see more shifts to this line of thinking.

 

I think the biggest factor is cost of driving. I can't tell you how many times I hear that people are refraining from travelling because of cost.

 

"My daugher used to visit me once a month, but she can't afford it anymore because it costs her $35 in gas." - one of my neighbors

 

If those charts are for the whole United States, I think the situation in California is bringing the average miles per person down. The cost of driving is higher in California, first because it is in a different petroleum market, farther from the Gulf Coast, and second because California law specifies a blend of gasoline that is supposed to reduce emiisions, but is more expensive, and third because the insurance rates are higher there. So, fewer people are driving in California, particularly young people.

 

I second all of this. In California, many people have cut back on weekend trips due to cost. Instead of going somewhere every couple of weeks, it might be every couple of months. Once people get down to that level, owning a car seems kind of pointless. More people are renting.

 

*Gen Y is shifting at the same time. After realizing they don't need a car to survive and stay employed (which is only true in a handful of places), they don't have the same desire to purchase. Renting is becoming the new normal.

It turns out the Atlantic did a good article on this:

 

The Cheapest Generation

Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy

By DEREK THOMPSON and JORDAN WEISSMANN

 

In 2009, Ford brought its new supermini, the Fiesta, over from Europe in a brave attempt to attract the attention of young Americans. It passed out 100 of the cars to influential bloggers for a free six-month test-drive, with just one condition: document your experience online, whether you love the Fiesta or hate it.

 

Young bloggers loved the car. Young drivers? Not so much. After a brief burst of excitement, in which Ford sold more than 90,000 units over 18 months, Fiesta sales plummeted. As of April 2012, they were down 30 percent from 2011.

 

Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-cheapest-generation/309060/1/

I don't think there's a single, easy, identifiable answer to all of this. I look at the impact on the transportation system as a whole, and what it could all look like in 5, 10, 20, or even more years from now. I believe that all of the cultural, economic, demographic and political influences will cause our transportation system to undergo some of the most dramatic changes since the 1950s in the coming years and decades.

It is interesting that we've seen an overall decline in driving, yet ODOT goes with projections where there was no looming economic depression or even collapse in sight. Of course, when I was at City Council in Columbus pointing this out to argue against further expanding capacity of the downtown split/I-70 and I-71, ODOT acknowledged that yes, driving had been on the decline. City Council then unanimously voted to approve a couple million city dollars to be spent and gave them the OK to do the ~$2 billion project. After they were made aware that driving had been on the decline for years if they weren't already. That's what passes for "liberal" democrat leadership. In Ohio.

That's what passes for "liberal" democrat leadership. In Ohio.

 

Boy, aren't you glad you moved on??

It is interesting that we've seen an overall decline in driving, yet ODOT goes with projections where there was no looming economic depression or even collapse in sight. Of course, when I was at City Council in Columbus pointing this out to argue against further expanding capacity of the downtown split/I-70 and I-71, ODOT acknowledged that yes, driving had been on the decline. City Council then unanimously voted to approve a couple million city dollars to be spent and gave them the OK to do the ~$2 billion project.

 

I agree with everything that's been said, especially KJP's comments about this being the cusp of a large cultural transition based on the reduction in driving.  The interesting thing about Keith's comments above is that these massive transportation projects are tied into so many other special interests including local construction companies, labor unions, etc.  There is a big economic development impact to getting a major project like this in your district and it would take a local rep with some major cahones to vote against such projects

It is interesting that we've seen an overall decline in driving, yet ODOT goes with projections where there was no looming economic depression or even collapse in sight. Of course, when I was at City Council in Columbus pointing this out to argue against further expanding capacity of the downtown split/I-70 and I-71, ODOT acknowledged that yes, driving had been on the decline. City Council then unanimously voted to approve a couple million city dollars to be spent and gave them the OK to do the ~$2 billion project.

 

I agree with everything that's been said, especially KJP's comments about this being the cusp of a large cultural transition based on the reduction in driving.  The interesting thing about Keith's comments above is that these massive transportation projects are tied into so many other special interests including local construction companies, labor unions, etc.  There is a big economic development impact to getting a major project like this in your district and it would take a local rep with some major cahones to vote against such projects

 

Like Steve Chabot?

That's what passes for "liberal" democrat leadership. In Ohio.

 

Liberal =/= Progressive

 

Many "blue" regions behave similarly.

Yahoo news today is reporting that American salaries have dropped to the level of 1989.

 

I think it's pretty simple: people can no longer afford to drive like they used to. Sure, young people are spending their money on cell phones instead of cars, but the point is that they simply have less to spend and can't afford both.

 

 

Yahoo news today is reporting that American salaries have dropped to the level of 1989.

 

I think it's pretty simple: people can no longer afford to drive like they used to. Sure, young people are spending their money on cell phones instead of cars, but the point is that they simply have less to spend and can't afford both.

 

You may think its that simple but industry observers don't. There are a number of issues at work including long-term, cultural changes. Lack of funds is clearly making things worse but is not the only factor, as this article from last month's Motor Trend notes....

 

Why Young People Are Driving Less

Is the Automobile Over?

From the August, 2012 issue of Motor Trend

By Todd Lassa

 

Gen Y has car enthusiasts, of course, just like every other age group. As always, car enthusiasts are a minority. Today's young people appear to have less interest in driving and owning a car than do their mainstream, non-enthusiast older counterparts.

 

The Great Recession's effect on the ability of 16- to 34-year-olds to find a good-paying job has exacerbated this, according to the Frontier Group's study, "Transportation and the New Generation," by Benjamin Davis and Tony Dutzik, released last spring. If the U.S. automotive market has truly recovered from its 10.4-million-unit nadir in 2009 to an expected 13.5- to 14-million this year, it's without much help from the under-35 age group.

 

The share of 14- to 34-year-olds without a driver's license was 26 percent in 2010, up from 21 percent in 2000, the study says, quoting the Federal Highway Administration. In 2009, the 16- to 34-year-old age group took 24-percent-more bike trips than in 2001, even as its population shrank by 2 percent. The same age group walked to more destinations in '09 than in '01, and the distance it traveled by public transit increased 40 percent.

 

Young people are returning to big cities and to near-urban, walkable suburbs, co-author Dutzik says. Many remain "connected" via smartphone for their entire mass transit commutes to and from work. They also are more interested in saving the planet, he says, though the economy remains the biggest factor. These young non-drivers are weaning themselves from cars, and won't necessarily rush to buy them when the job market improves.

 

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2012/1208_why_young_people_are_driving_less/#ixzz26Jf306sD

 

EDIT: I should add this piece. Yes, they're iLiving, but the article suggests it's not a consolation prize from driving. Instead it's their preferred alternative....

 

7/06/2012 @ 4:52PM |28,537 views

Generation Y Going Nowhere, And They're Fine With That

Bob Lutz, Contributor

I'm a car guy, and that's (mostly) what I write about.

 

....Generation Y eschews all this. To them, that electrifying moment we all experienced when Dad first gave us the car keys and told us to be back at 11 p.m. (no beer stains or other spots in the car, for God’s sake) has been beneficially replaced by the glowing moment when their eager little fingers lovingly, incredulously caressed their first smart phone.

 

“How silly of these young twerps,” harrumph the older generations. “Don’t they know the car enables freedom, travel, friends, dating, and (cough), even….teen-age sex?”

 

I have news: It’s we older folks who don’t get it. Armed with the capabilities of their ever-more sophisticated iThings, replete with social networking enabling close, immediate exchange of thoughts and experiences with countless “friends,” who needs to actually get in a car and go to a drive-in?

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/07/06/why-generation-y-isnt-catching-car-fever/

 

 

Or this......

 

7/02/2012 @ 3:35PM |3,600 views

Why Generation Y Sees No Need To Get Behind The Wheel

Micheline Maynard, Contributor

Sorting out the new American auto industry

 

....Instead, the entry level buyers that the auto industry counts on to keep hope alive just don’t seem interested — either in cars, or in driving at all. Reuters reports a startling statistic: more than one-quarter of 16 to 34 year olds, who are known as Generation Y or the Millenials, do not even have a driver’s license.

 

That’s a potentially huge issue for the automobile industry, since Generation Y, some 80 million strong, is bigger than the post-World War II baby boom.

 

....Alix Partners, the global consulting firm, has come up with a name for this group: Generation Neutral. If people were getting driver’s licenses at the same rate as in 2000, we’d have 5 million more people on the road, it says. And, if people were driving as much as they did a decade ago, there would be 420 billion more miles traveled.

 

Reuters says the federal government’s National Household Travel Survey shows that from 2001 to 2009, the average annual number of vehicle-miles traveled by people ages 16-34 dropped 23 percent, from 10,300 to 7,900.

 

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/07/02/why-generation-y-sees-no-need-to-get-behind-the-wheel/

^

23% is a big drop.....

X posted this in the Buy My Bike thread, but it works here just as well......

 

"Bicycles run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat."

Spain's empty highways lead to bankruptcy

 

 

By by Katell Abiven (AFP) – Oct 28, 2012

 

MADRID — At the Leganes toll booth outside Madrid, the workers scan the horizon for cars. In Spain's recession, the stream of paying drivers has slowed to a trickle and the toll road is all but bankrupt.

Like the housing bubble, pumped up until it burst in 2008, and its speculation-funded phantom airports, the folly of Spain's road-building boom too is now being laid bare in vast stretches of tarmac.

"Right now we can't meet our debt repayments. We are in the hands of the judge," said Jose Antonio Lopez Casas, director of Accesos de Madrid, the company that manages two major highways around the capital.

The two highways, Radial 3 and Radial 5, opened in 2004 at the height of Spain's construction boom. Now the company owes 660 million euros ($850 million) to the bank, 340 million to the builders and 400 million to residents evicted to build it.

Since the Madrid-Toledo highway entered bankruptcy proceedings in May, the trend has spread, with five other major routes following.

"It's no surprise," says Paco Segura, a transport specialist at the environmental campaign group Ecologists in Action.

"In Spain, just as there was a real estate bubble, there was also a bubble in infrastructure, and one of the areas that got most developed was the motorways," he added.

"We built thousands and thousands of kilometres of motorways on routes that did not have the traffic concentration to justify it."

 

Read more at:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iG9kIvCItOt2P08GOk5Mbmt84dDA?docId=CNG.1d490f0cdd7932b347e2cb36777d2fbd.6e1

How will Ohio respond? By trying to add more lane-miles in a futile attempt to induce more driving that will only bankrupt ODOT? Or by diversifying its transportation system to one that actually responds to public demand?

 

 

CHARTS: The Great Decline Of American Driving

Doug Short, Advisor Perspectives

 

The Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Commission has released the latest report on Traffic Volume Trends, data through September. Travel on all roads and streets changed by -1.5% (-3.6 billion vehicle miles) for September 2012 as compared with September 2011. The 12-month moving average of miles driven increased a tiny 0.27% from September a year ago (PDF report). And the civilian population-adjusted data (age 16-and-over) has set a new post-financial crisis low.

 

Here is a chart that illustrates this data series from its inception in 1970. I'm plotting the "Moving 12-Month Total on ALL Roads," as the DOT terms it. See Figure 1 in the PDF report, which charts the data from 1987. My start date is 1971 because I'm incorporating all the available data from the DOT spreadsheets.

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/population-adjusted-vehicle-miles-2012-11#ixzz2DLsSBIKO

It seems the total miles driven ebbs and flows with the economy. This downturn has been especially slow in recovering, so it makes sense the mileage trends down accordingly. Until we see a trend opposite the general health of the economy, you can't really correlate the downward trend with a lack of interest in cars. People drive less because they simply can't afford it.

 

And the period between 2005 and 2008 shows that skyrocketing housing costs squeezed people's already tight budgets. The illusion of a healthy economy brought on by the housing bubble.

 

This isn't directed at anybody's posts. Just my musings.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors at work.  Digging deeper into the statistics show declines in driving and significant increases in transit usage even among high wage earners who haven't had troubles with the economy.