Pete C. said:
Not really, most people live 20 - 40 miles outside of those metro areas.
The current mass transit systems do not reach out nearly far enough to
make a real dent in the number of people who have to commute by car. The
current mass transit basically functions to shuttle people in to the
city from outlying parking lots where land is cheaper, not to get them
from their homes to the city.
Learn a little about demographics and geography. Metropolitan areas,
particularly the larger ones, stretch for more than 40 miles. You may live
40 miles from the city, but you're still in the metro area.
As oil becomes more scarce and more expensive, it will become increasinly
impossible for most people to live that far out. By necessity, housing
patterns will become more dense and mass transit will expand to serve those
dense housing patterns. Work places will cluster by economic necessity
because they will depend on people being able to get to work without a car.
Lifestyles will change due to the new energy realities. You're absolutely
right that mass transit cannot adequately serve a highly dispersed
population, but that population will, by necessity, become less dispersed.
In larger metro areas, you'll see expanded commuter trains with busses
bringing people from surrounding communities to train stations.
People live far from the transit or work node because they can...not because
they have to. Once they can longer sustain themselves that way, that will
change. In the process, many McMansions will collapse in value.
Even extending these rail lines another 50 miles out from the cities
will no eliminate the commuting since it still has individual pickup
points wide distances apart and people still need to get from their
homes to those stations. This is not a case where a few more miles of
rail line will allow people to walk a few blocks from their homes to the
rail station as is the case in many denser areas in Europe.
See my comments above. The solution is not expanding mass transit to serve
every person on their half acre lot. The solution is to change settlement
patterns so that we can once again live and work in areas served by a better
supported mass transit system.
Part of the pattern will include, like in Europe, bus systems that are
coordinated with train systems so that smaller communities and neighborhoods
that aren't next to the rail stations are also served. Think of all the
parking lot space at the train stations that will be saved!
I apparently am as I see similar percentages of larger vehicles, but at
least 50% are carrying some cargo. Also realize that due to taxes and
insurance in the US it is not economically feasible to have a second
small car for commuting purposes. If you need the larger vehicle for
some portion of your life, you end up having to also use it for non
cargo uses as well since the additional cost of taxes and insurance far
outweigh the potential gas savings.
The cars on the highways where I live are primarily office commuters. If
they need a large vehicle, it's only for their home and garden needs; not
for working needs. We're actually thinking of purchasing a pickup truck
with three other families so that there is that one cargo vehicle when
needed for home needs. No need to commute in it, though.
Back when I commuted regularly in my truck (I telecommute full time
now), I calculated the economics of a second small car for commuting. At
the time it worked out to spending something like $1,500 per year in
extra taxes, insurance and maintenance to save about $300 in gas. Even
at today's gas prices it would have been a loss.
Congratulations for telecommuting...the ultimate energy saver. Even without
the neighborhood pickup truck though, on the rare occasion that I have to
move or transport something, I can rent a truck and spend much less than
owning one and commuting in it.
