Thank you.

People need to realize that just because others make choices or have preferences that they may not agree with or don’t even like, it doesn’t mean that said people are “stupid” or “manipulated by evil (insert the villan du jour here).”

We’ve been going to hell in a handbasket since I was a kid in the early 1970s, and people have been predicting the “death of the car” since about the late 1950s.

I picked the wrong career – as a professional doomster, I could have simply dusted off the old arguments, updated them for curent events, and received plenty of time on CNN. Which would have enabled me to afford a bigger house, lots of first-class travel to interesting places and maybe even a luxury-sport sedan, all while I extolled the virtues of green, urban living.

Thank you.

Stein X Leikanger: We have three major auto companies in dire straits, they have delivered cars to the mindset prevailing in this thread: many of us like to own our own things, and this includes a car. We like owning cars, we enjoy driving them, and even taking care of them.

There are several major auto manufacturers who have made a lot of money, and remain viable today, by meeting this desire.

Do not confuse the inept management of some companies and a temporary (though increasingly severe) economic recession with a wholesale desire to repudiate automobile ownership.

Stein X Leikanger: Now – quite a few people in the US (and Europe) do not own their cars (or homes). They are owned by banks or financial institutions. Because of easy credit, the car companies loaded up the vehicles with tonnage and extras, knowing that customers would still find the proposition affordable, until the credit disappeared.

That is called, “don’t buy more car than you can afford, and don’t buy it so often.” That is a call for fiscal prudence, not a repudiation of automobile ownership.

And, for the record, I own my car – a 2003 Accord EX – free and clear. I like owning it, and driving it.

Stein X Leikanger: GM/FORD/CHRYSLER went belly-up, and the rest of the industry is hurting.

Not seeing this, and thinking it will go away as a major problem all on its own, is folly.

Again, this is the result of a recession, and the failure of GM and Chrysler (not so much Ford) to adequately downsize. GM, in particular, is sized for about 35 percent of the market through its divisional structure, dealer body and retiree commitments, but it will be lucky to claim about 15 percent.

Plus, markets are driven by aspirations as much as anything else. People may not be able to afford a new car NOW, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t want one.

Also note that some of this year’s huge decline in sales is being driven by:

*Fear, as even people with solid incomes and decent jobs pull out of the market, in reaction to the unceasing bad economic news. The herd mentality works regarding bad news, too.

*Improved durability of modern vehicles. I can remember when some of the cheaper cars – both imported and domestic – showed signs of rust after 3-4 years. A car that hit 100,000 was basically shot, unless it had been babied. Now a car with reasonable care can be expected to travel 150,000 miles, and 200,000 miles isn’t out of the question, with the proper care.

Stein X. Leikanger: I also enjoy driving cars, and will continue to do so — though congestion, rush hour, parking problems, etc, are taking some of the lustre off the fun.

Those aren’t much of a problem around here, although I can understand why, say, a New York City resident would not want a car. But that is the choice for the New York City resident to make. What works in New York City may not work – or be wanted – in other places.

For the record, every New York City resident who wasn’t poor or low income that I’ve ever met not only owned a car, but a place in either upstate New York or New England. I guess carless city living isn’t so bad if you can escape from it regularly…

Stein X Leikanger: Since car companies are dependent upon spewing out millions of cars, and people just keep adding up, while space remains the same — it’s not difficult to figure out where this proposition is headed.

That problem stems from population growth, not automobile ownership, and much of U.S. population growth is fueled by immigration. Which is a completely separate issue.

Stein X Leikanger: It will become increasingly inconvenient and expensive to own and operate vehicles in areas where congestion is an issue.

It’s already inexpensive and inconvenient to drive in the city, and people do it anyway.

Stein X Leikanger: (City planners are even designing roads that make maneuvering large cars tricky inside habitable areas.)

Which is an artificial constraint, not some sort of natural reaction to automobile ownership. I wonder if those city planners have taken into account delivery vans, taxis, etc.? Or will people and goods be transported via levitation to those areas?

Stein X Leikanger: The number of cars on the roads will not rise at the same rate as we’ve seen; and cars overall will become smaller.

Very true, but a reduction in the rate of growth of auto sales reflects a maturation of the market and limited population growth, especially in western Europe, where the population of several countries is either stagnant or falling.

A reduction in the size of typical vehicle sold – which, I agree, will also happen – does not mean that people are repudiating automobile ownership.

Stein X. Leikanger: This does not mean that people will stop owning cars. (Heck, if I dislike the conclusions I reach after my experiment in carshare I’ll go back to owning one or two again).

But, you said this in the original post: Here’s the thing: people don’t want cars, we want mobility.

Which is a completely different line of thought.

For some people, no doubt this is true. But, as I said before, people like to own things, and lots of us like to own a car.

Stein X Leikanger: But people are looking for alternatives that afford mobility, with as little inconvenience as possible, while flexibility remains high.

But that will not help GM, Ford and Chrysler. Given their current financial condition, the last thing that they can afford to do is retool for a completely different line of business, even with government aid.

Stein X Leikanger: If an alien sentient being was introduced to today’s car manufacture, and got an explanation of the process and its result, they’d probably conclude we’re all completely insane. Just think of all the metal GM has been desperately moving around the world, at a loss, for years and years.

You are tarring an industry with the problems of one or two companies. Overcapacity in an industry, which is limited to a few companies, is not the same thing as a complete repudiation of automobile ownership and use.

If the alien looked at Toyota or Honda, he’d probably be impressed.

That was a fabulous post. Should be on the editorial page of a major newpaper and lead article in the next issue of Mother Jones.

Forget Europe/US here, gerber. It just obscures the issue.

We have three major auto companies in dire straits, they have delivered cars to the mindset prevailing in this thread: many of us like to own our own things, and this includes a car. We like owning cars, we enjoy driving them, and even taking care of them.

Let me take this item-by-item.

Now – quite a few people in the US (and Europe) do not own their cars (or homes). They are owned by banks or financial institutions. Because of easy credit, the car companies loaded up the vehicles with tonnage and extras, knowing that customers would still find the proposition affordable, until the credit disappeared.
And when said credit disappeared, GM/FORD/CHRYSLER went belly-up, and the rest of the industry is hurting.

Not seeing this, and thinking it will go away as a major problem all on its own, is folly.

I also enjoy driving cars, and will continue to do so — though congestion, rush hour, parking problems, etc, are taking some of the lustre off the fun.
Since car companies are dependent upon spewing out millions of cars, and people just keep adding up, while space remains the same — it’s not difficult to figure out where this proposition is headed. It will become increasingly inconvenient and expensive to own and operate vehicles in areas where congestion is an issue. (City planners are even designing roads that make maneuvering large cars tricky inside habitable areas.)

The number of cars on the roads will not rise at the same rate as we’ve seen; and cars overall will become smaller.

This does not mean that people will stop owning cars. (Heck, if I dislike the conclusions I reach after my experiment in carshare I’ll go back to owning one or two again).
Put people are looking for alternatives that afford mobility, with as little inconvenience as possible, while flexibility remains high.

And the company (companies) that figure out how to provide that will make a hell of a lot of money, which is the point of it all.

If an alien sentient being was introduced to today’s car manufacture, and got an explanation of the process and its result, they’d probably conclude we’re all completely insane. Just think of all the metal GM has been desperately moving around the world, at a loss, for years and years.

Things are going to change. Stewart Udall saw the need at an early point, but people weren’t receptive. Today, you’ll find a much higher receptivity, and we’ll see some very interesting (and profitable) solutions.

A little injection of reality into this discussion:

First, when one goes to Europe, one discovers that, despite much higher population densities and more mass transit, there is still plenty of traffic. Cities are clogged with traffic (and it largely consists of private passenger cars, not buses or taxis), finding a parking space in the cities is tough, and yet everyone who can afford to do so owns a private automobile.

One reason vehicle ownership rates are lower is because many people receive their vehicle as an employment perk (to avoid sky-high income taxes), so they don’t officially “own” a car, even though they are free to use said car as they wish. This is why my German aunt had a VW Polo which she drove to work every day, even though she officially didn’t own a car.

The Autobahns in Germany regularly come to a standstill during the height of the holiday travel seasons. Remember, the Autobahn is a multi-lane, limited access highway system designed to ensure the smooth flow of traffic. It was the inspiration for the Pennsylvania Turnpike and later the Interstate Highway System.

During Labor Day weekend, my wife and I drove from Myrtle Beach to Harrisburg, Pa, via I-95, and weren’t held up once by traffic.

So it appears as though Europeans like cars, too. If I recall correctly, miles driven has been increasing faster in Europe than it has been in the United States.

Second, surveys repeatedly show that a majority of Europeans want the same housing that Americans want – a detached home on a plot of land. Space limitations and government restrictions price this option out of the reach of a large number of Europeans.

Third, Americans have always had the option of living in compact communities that can be traversed without a car.

They are called “cities.”

Unless someone passed a law requiring people to move out of the cities and into the suburbs, the idea that Americans are being denied this choice of community is nonsense. Here in Harrisburg, there are plenty of neighborhoods that fit this description. Some are on the upswing, and some are collapsing. But the options are available to people who want them.

So people are not being denied anything.

The problem is that lots of people are making a different choice than the one deemed desirable by the chattering classes (most of whom have a home in the country in addition to that city penthouse apartment), so we have to invent the fiction that some sort of malevolent force is keeping people out of the city.

Well, there is a malevolent force pushing some people out of the city – it’s called inept city government, but since the Republican Party hasn’t been a major power in most of our major cities for decades, we have to pretend as though this reason doesn’t exist.

If people want to live in the city, that is their choice, and I certainly support it, although I would note that it’s hardly as glamorous and exciting as portrayed by Sarah Jessica Parker and the gang. Nothing wrong with mass transit, either, although I would prefer that any subsidies go towards maintenance and upkeep instead of union featherbedding or keeping politicians’ inept relatives on the payroll. We certainly have no intention of driving when we visit New York City. Of course, we also have no intention of living in New York City, either – at least I hope we never have to.

Lots of us prefer living in a less dense environment, don’t mind shopping at big box stores for certain items (deodorant, shaving creme and soap are the same, whether they come from Costco or the corner grocery store, except that they are usually cheaper at Costco), and have a “been there, done that” attitude when it comes to urban living.

Finally, the idea that we are only looking for mobility misses the key point that many of us like to own our own things, and this includes a car. We like owning cars, we enjoy driving them, and even taking care of them.

Yes, it costs money, but so do cable television, clothes that are more stylish than the Mao suit, eating out at nice restaurants and regular vacations.

We don’t “need” those to survive either, but I’m not working just to survive. For me, life is too short to aspire to riding the subway. Others may have different aspirations, which are certainly just as valid, as long as everyone heeds the maxim my parents taught me – “Stay out of other people’s business.”

Also the drive to and from work is not gridlock so I count it as me time. I have no desire to share that with anyone.

Here is what I love — Europeans telling Americans that they are doing it all wrong and that we need to do it like they do.

Ah, I didn’t know that Stewart Udall, interior secretary for Kennedy and Johnson, was European! Amazing!

===
@charleywhiskey

Have traveled extensively in the US, and also lived there. Am quite aware of the vast distances. Did also point out in my comments that I would opt for my own car if I lived out yonder.

Am also aware that average daily driving distance in the US is 30 miles, and absolutely hate driving in LA, a place where they might as well use magnets for bumpers.

Think of Mr. Udall’s suggestions, proffered in 1972, as a possible cure. Or else look forward to Google Earth views of fairly monotonous asphalt and concrete.

Living in a big city it would probably be nice if people just drove mopeds or something. Small enough to not need a full sized parking space and can carry cargo. Then again, I’m imagining pictures of 3rd world countries where bikes and mopeds dart between very large trucks…not pretty.

psarhjinian There’s a lot to be said for low-rise tenements and Victorian/Edwardian street planning, as well as integration of commerce and residential units. The best, most desirable, least-dysfunctional neighbourhoods generally follow this trend. The detriment to areas like this? They’re not car- or big-box friendly. Park your car on the street, pay a few bucks more for the privilege of shopping in a smaller store and suck it up.

Note that this largely obviates the need for ubiquitous public transit because you’ve built a sane community where everything is within walking or short-ride distance. You’re down to improving the commuter rail- and/or bus systems that handle work traffic, rather than pumping money into bus routes to service vast wastelands of suburban sprawl. It also doesn’t eliminate the car–you’re still quite free to own one–it just removes the absolute need for one.

This is the sort of development in Cambridge/Boston, and a good friend who lives in Cambridge is able to walk to all shopping, and walk to work. His 2001 Civic has about 36k miles on it, and his wife’s Odyssey gets even less use.

Here is what I love — Europeans telling Americans that they are doing it all wrong and that we need to do it like they do.

Ah, was Stewart Udall, interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, a European?
I didn’t know that. Amazing!

The US auto industry is in serious trouble. Some new thinking is required.

I have lived in and been to a variety of places in the US.
Charleywhiskey writes:
OK, Stein, you and Bobby Goodman need to spend a little time in, say Prescott, Arizona, or Bozeman, Montana, or Brewton, Alabama, or Daytona Beach, Florida.

Two out of four ain’t bad. My tours of the US gave me a varied perspective on the place — from areas where congestion means you and a gopher two miles away from you, to areas with cars with effing interlocked bumpers pushing their way to and from work.

As clearly stated in one of my comments to this blog, it’s going to take time to change, and I would definitely need a car if I lived in a rural area.

But the solution to the troubles of Detroit does not lie in manufacturing MORE cars, but in providing for SMARTER mobility – there’s a need for that in more places than you’d believe.

Check out Philly Carshare for one solution.
Here are their models: The PhillyCarShare fleet includes over two dozen makes and models.[7] Nearly half the fleet is made up of hybrid vehicles, including the Toyota Prius and Camry Hybrid. Other cars include the Honda Civic, Toyota Tacoma, Honda Element, Mazda Miata, Mazda3, Audi A4, Volvo S40, Mini Cooper, BMW 328j, Lexus IS250, Toyota Acura, and Toyota Sienna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhillyCarShare

Where I live, we book the car on the net. Within a half km radius of where I live, I have dozens of cars available, in parking garages. I reserve the type of car I need for the period I require it, and can extend that period if necessary. When through with the car, I drop it off and don’t think of it again.

Pretty neat.

I agree completely with your first statement. That’s why I keep calling for a carbon tax, and an oil tax as well if it is felt that the cost of military adventures and supply uncertainty needs to be factored into the cost of oil. But these taxes should be applied to carbon and/or oil (probably “and”) and not to a particular source of emissions or use of fuel (i.e. not to cars). Then INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE can decide for themselves how they best want to use the carbon emissions or fuel that they allot themselves, given the price. We would probably find, for example, that a lot of people would prefer to do more driving, and less meat eating. Agriculture causes a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions–somewhere around 20% of all of it, I think, and producing X# of calories of meat causes probably at least five times as much greenhouse gas emission as vegetable or grain production.

I lived in DC, about 8 minutes walk from a subway stop. Nonetheless, it took me 40 minutes door to door to get to my doctor’s office, downtown, vs. 20 minutes by car or bicycle. And if I wanted to then go to my health club? Forget it. Public transit is great in cities like Manhattan and Paris and London, and many other places in the European Community, but for most people in most of the US it’s not very practical. Our country was mostly built around the car. It would take 75-100 years of zoning for density to make public transit practical for a large percentage of Americans. (It’s not a bad idea, though, although I’m not sure how it would fare politically.)

I should also note that for years I lived in DC without a car. I went everywhere on my bicycle. I almost never used public transportation, because the bicycle was far faster.

Having said all that, I’m all for having some public transit. Some people can’t drive or don’t want to, and public transit takes a bit of pressure off of the roads for the rest of us. But it would be nuts to force the auto companies into a business for which there is little demand and little practicality. For that matter, the US auto companies have enough trouble just making cars. I can’t imagine trying to shift them into being “mobility” companies.

There is one matter where I agree with BJ-Bill: It’s the economy, stupid.

Without money, we won’t be able to afford cars, nor mass transit.

Get rid of the sprawl and you both reduce car usage and cut down the need to public transit.

I love cars, and I love to drive, too. I live in New York City. I want a car. I miss having one. That being said, the only reason I can reasonably justify one is to get out of town because it makes virtually no sense in town.

But I think, as car people, we’re in the minority. Most of the non-car people I know love the freedom that a car gives them but aren’t especially enamored of the car itself. It’s a tool, an appliance to them.

I think the thrust of the article is not to force us all into living like Europeans, but rather to have us evaluate more carefully the choices we make with respect to what our tax dollars subsidize. I agree we need to fix the roads we have and maintain them properly. But I also believe that there is value in subsidizing increased density in large parts of the country, especially in the metropolitan areas noted in earlier comments. Mass transit and density will never make sense in rural or semi-rural areas. However, I believe it’s worthwhile to provide incentives for new development in the suburbs and cities–where the majority of Americans live–to be denser rather than not. Any transformation will of course take many years, but that is no excuse for trying to make prudent development decisions now.

The 2.8 are not in trouble because I owned 4 cars a year and a half ago and I only own 2 now. They are in trouble because of the last 3 cars that I have purchased over the last 6 years, they made none of them (2 Hondas and a Toyota). I bought American until 2002 when I just couldn’t stand it anymore.

I have one daughter who lives in Manhattan and one who lives in near north Chicago. They don’t need cars. I live in Ohio and I am quite unlikely to move to either city. I need a car, and so does my wife. I like to drive. I don’t want to walk to the grocery store.

I don’t like big fat heavy cars. I never have. But the 2.8 are not the only sinners to me. M-B and BMW are just as guilty. I think the newer Accords are too big. But, that critique is not a prelude to claiming that cars are bad. They are not. They maybe inappropriate in some places like the centers of European cities, or even parts of Manhattan at certain times, but cars are generally fun, are more fun if they are light and simple, and I like them.

Personally, I think the US should build more highways and improve the ones we have. I don’t think we should try to solve global warming on the backs of automobile owners. Lets replace fossil fuel power plants with nuclear, and use electricity to replace fossil fuel for home heating, and railroad propulsion. I would be all in favor of a substantial gasoline tax and an annual curb weight tax, but I think that anyone who believes that Americans want to or will consent to live like Europeans, is just mistaken.

We like to drive and we like cars. Deal with it.

Here on the East Side of St. Paul, people commute in from Western Wisconsin (passing many farms along the way) and parts of Minnesota that are, frankly, farm country. They come in to office and manufacturing jobs.

There’s nothing inherently “rural” about the lifestyle of many people, except that cheap gas and expensive highway subsidies make it possible for them to pretend to be gentleman farmers on their 3-acre lots.

And, in building our communities this way, we’ve made ourselves reliant on the automobile, expensive highway construction and cheap gas. This was, strategically, a bad plan.

Actually, Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution; government is the problem.” And based on what you wrote earlier, I’m not sure which part of that you disagree with.

My apologies for singeing.

I’ve had it with overwhelming American corporate malfeasance that gets gussied up as Darwinian-viable public policy and then attempts to cement its own immutable worldview by casting government as some kind of lurching Frankenstein’s monster that we the citzens should fear and distrust.

Beauty of the American Experiment? Of the people, by the people, and for the people. When Ronnie Baby said, “Government is the enemy”, he declared war on US. 30 years on,the battleground couldn’t be much starker.

Administrations come and go, but programs last *forever.* We’re still subsidizing mohair production for Great War service uniforms.