Americans' love affair with cars starts to skid

Traffic, bad road etiquette - not gas prices - drive many people
off roads

A new poll suggests that driving is becoming more of a burden for many
Americans and drivers are upset with increasing traffic jams and rude
behavior of other motorists.

Updated: 7:17 p.m. ET Aug. 1, 2006

WASHINGTON - Americans love their automobiles, but not as much as they
used to.

Nearly seven in 10 drivers enjoy getting behind the wheel, while the
rest think it's a chore. In 1991, nearly eight in 10 said they liked
driving.

The biggest reasons for dreading the road: traffic and the behavior of
other drivers. Only 3 percent point to high gas prices.

"Other drivers get on my nerves," said Steve Heavisides, a
45-year-old teacher from Vernon, Conn., who had just returned home from
a short drive. "There was a women who could have gone right on red
and she was just sitting there talking on her cell phone. People
don't pay attention and that gets on your nerves."

About one in four drivers thinks of his or her car as "something
special" instead of just a "means of transportation," according
to a poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center. Nearly one in
three thinks it has "a personality of its own."

Americans have been loving their cars for about a century, buying
increasingly bigger, faster and more expensive cars while the rest of
the world moves toward economy and efficiency. But the new poll
suggests that driving is becoming more of a burden for many.

The souring attitudes evolved as many Americans moved farther from
central cities, generating longer commutes and more congestion. By
2001, the U.S. had more personal vehicles (204 million) than licensed
drivers (191 million).

Urban drivers endured an average of 47 hours of rush hour traffic
delays in 2003, a threefold increase from two decades earlier. The
worst problems were in Los Angeles, where the average driver suffered
almost 100 hours of traffic delays. That's about four full days of
waiting for the car in front of you to move.

"I sit there in traffic when it should take half an hour, now it's
taking an hour and 15 minutes," said Stacy Baglio, 36, who drives 28
miles to her sales job in northern New Jersey. "People are weaving in
and out of traffic. There is no common courtesy whatsoever."

Pew conducted the survey of 1,048 drivers from June 20 to July 16. It
has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The results were compared with a Gallup poll done in 1991.

The new poll's results were consistent among drivers of cars, pickups
and SUVs. There were few regional differences among drivers, although
northeasterners were more likely than drivers in the rest of the
country to have "shouted, cursed or made gestures to other drivers"
in the past year.

The key to rediscovering automotive bliss: Zen out. Too many people
think of driving as competition, says Leon James, co-author of the
book, "Road Rage and Aggressive Driving." Happy drivers think of
traffic simply as part of the process of getting from one place to
another, kind of like the process of taking a shower to get clean, he
said.

"Americans are nice people," said James, a psychology professor at
the University of Hawaii. "But there are certain areas that have to
do with games and competition, where we become less nice to each
other."

Jennifer Geisinger seems to have it figured out. The 31-year-old
Realtor from suburban Minneapolis said she loves to drive her 1999
Honda CRV.

"It's something about being in control and getting out on the
road," Geisinger said. "I don't have a sports car and I don't
speed. But I love my car."

Geisinger also has something in common with 68 percent of all drivers:
"Oh I sing, of course," she said, adding that her stereo plays
country, opera and Broadway show tunes.

-Sidebar

Other findings from poll of 1,048 drivers
- 69 percent Americans say they enjoy driving their automobiles, down
from 79 percent in 1991.
- 68 percent said they have sung out loud in their cars in the past
year.
- 38 percent said they had "shouted, cursed or made gestures to other
drivers" in the past year. Women were just as likely as men to admit
the practice.
- 6 percent said they had fallen asleep while driving in the past
year.
- 7 percent said a person's car reveals the most about "what
someone is like," compared with 54 percent who said a person's home
is most revealing, and 24 percent who cited clothing.
- 31 percent said their car has a personality of its own.

Reasons people enjoy driving
- 21 percent said it's relaxing, quiet time or time to be alone.
- 19 percent said they enjoy the scenery or "getting away from
things."
- 14 percent cited freedom and independence.

Reasons people consider driving a chore
- 23 percent said traffic and congestion
- 14 percent said other drivers, bad drivers or rude drivers
- 3 percent said gas prices

Source: Pew Research Center http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14137896/
-----

- gpsman

The war against the car will never succeed


MARGARET WENTE


The other day, as I drove to my exercise class (yes, yes, I know there's
a contradiction there), people on the radio were telling me to take the
TTC. There was a smog alert, and I was contributing to the problem. But
it's next to impossible to get to my class by bus, so I drove.

"Hah!" said my instructor, the Pilates queen. "You know what TTC means?
Take The Car." She's no fan of Toronto's public transit. That's too bad
because, according to the politicians and the urban planners, public
transit is the answer to all our woes. Everyone knows cars are
responsible for everything from gridlock to pollution and obesity. Pry
people from their cars, and the world will be a better place.

Unfortunately, most people are refusing to co-operate. In 1988, TTC
ridership was 463 million, the second largest in North America. By last
year, despite the Greater Toronto Area's explosive growth, ridership had
shrunk to 410 million.

Transit advocates blame higher fares and service cutbacks for this
decline. If only we invest more in improving public transit, more people
will use it. To a limited extent, this may be true. But transit
advocates ignore the overwhelming evidence from around the world: People
still prefer their cars.

"It may not be the faster way, but public transit remains the better
way," The Toronto Star argued this week. New statistics on commuting
times reveal what everyone already knows: Public transit is a whole lot
slower than driving. People who commute to work by car spend an average
of 59 minutes on the road each day (round trip). Transit riders spend
106 minutes. The Star says the answer is massive new investments from
all levels of government so public transit can "better compete against
the unwholesome lure of the automobile." My own trip to work takes less
than 20 minutes by car, but an hour by TTC, much of it standing up. The
unwholesome lure of the automobile is darned hard to resist.

Southern Ontario is the third-fastest growing region in North America --
in the next 25 years, the population is projected to grow by a
staggering four million people. So what's the plan for constructing new
road systems and highways? Um, there isn't one. The province plans to
re-engineer people's behaviour so they'll take public transit.

Last month, Ontario unveiled a new long-range plan to put an end to
car-dependent urban sprawl. Higher-density developments will reduce the
sprawl, promote more "compact living" and build "complete communities,"
where people can live, work, shop and play without needing a car. Not
only will this plan cut down on smog and gridlock, promises the
government, but it will enhance people's sense of community (because
they'll be closer together, I guess) as well as improve public health.

"Studies tell us that people living in car-dependent communities miss
out on natural opportunities for physical activity," declared the
minister of infrastructure. "Moreover, they are prone to health
problems, such as obesity and heart disease. Our children, in
particular, are at much greater risk." In other words, make the little
buggers walk.

As for Toronto, everyone agrees it should become more like Paris, where
people live in higher-density apartment buildings instead of
single-family houses, and walk everywhere to do their shopping. There's
just one problem: Most Parisians don't live in central Paris any more.
Three-quarters of them live in the suburbs, where they can find
single-family houses, get around by -- mon Dieu! -- car and shop at --
quelle horreur! -- supermarchs and big-box stores.

The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the
fact that most people don't want to live near their work. And because
people are so mobile, they no longer have to. On top of that, people use
their cars for much more than commuting. According to one study, 20 per
cent of all trips by auto are for work, 20 per cent for shopping, and 60
per cent for things that are "social." The idea that public transit can
replace the car in people's busy lives is a fantasy.

As for lower-income people -- supposedly the main beneficiaries of
public transit -- they have an alternative, too. It's called used cars.

And yet, nowhere in all the hype about the province's new growth plan is
there a mention of the words "roads" or "highways." This omission
reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's comment about railways, whose
construction he opposed because they "only encourage the common people
to move about needlessly."

Public transit systems are certainly no bargain. "Transit subsidies are
hugely greater than any subsidies to the automobile," says Peter Gordon,
a California professor of planning and economics. And some people say
the cleaner, greener virtues of public transit are vastly overstated.
"Most new autos generate little or no more pollution per passenger
vehicle mile than the average bus," says Robert Bruegmann, author of
Sprawl: A Compact History. He argues it would require a massive increase
in the use of public transportation and improvements in transit vehicles
to bring about any meaningful reduction in energy use or pollution.

Mr. Bruegmann's comments about urban planners' war against sprawl are an
apt description of the mindset behind Ontario's new master plan. "Very
few people believe that they themselves live in sprawl. Sprawl is where
other people live, particularly people with less taste and good sense
than themselves. Much anti-sprawl activism is based on a desire to
reform these other people's lives."

If we really wanted to tackle smog and congestion, we wouldn't be
fantasizing about massive new investments in public transit. We'd be
investing in transportation infrastructure, less polluting fuels, more
intelligent roads and vehicles with sensors to control traffic flows,
peak-time user fees and more flexible forms of public and private
transport, such as group taxis. But you won't find the planners talking
about these things because, to do so, they would have to concede defeat
to the unwholesome lure of the automobile -- to say nothing of the
overwhelming preference of the public. And that would be very, very
wicked.

gpsman wrote:

> Traffic, bad road etiquette - not gas prices - drive many people
> off roads
>
> A new poll suggests that driving is becoming more of a burden for many
> Americans and drivers are upset with increasing traffic jams and rude
> behavior of other motorists.

At least that'll help cut down on excessive use of petroleum products !

Graham

gpsman wrote:
> Traffic, bad road etiquette - not gas prices - drive many people
> off roads

Bad road etiquette??? HAHAHAHA. Drivers are psychopaths - that's the
way to phrase it.

Ivan wrote:
> My own trip to work takes less
> than 20 minutes by car, but an hour by TTC, much of it standing up. The
> unwholesome lure of the automobile is darned hard to resist.

Assuming an average speed of 30 mph for that trip to work, that results
in a distance 10 miles. I can ride my bike that far in about 40
minutes, give or take. Those in better shape with a better bike could
make that trip in less than half an hour.

But, I'd still drive if the weather was bad, or if it was after sundown.

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Ivan wrote:
>> My own trip to work takes less
>> than 20 minutes by car, but an hour by TTC, much of it standing up. The
>> unwholesome lure of the automobile is darned hard to resist.
>
> Assuming an average speed of 30 mph for that trip to work, that results
> in a distance 10 miles. I can ride my bike that far in about 40
> minutes, give or take. Those in better shape with a better bike could
> make that trip in less than half an hour.

You beat to it. The bicycle is a great personal point-to-point on demand
vehicle. Anything inside 10 miles is essentially a draw with a car
because traffic and signal light timing dominates the trip. (exception if
you live in the middle of nowhere and your entire 10 miles is in the
middle of nowhere and don't deal with traffic signals every mile to half
mile or less)

My 9.5 mile ride to work is 35minutes. I can drive a 9 mile route in
25minutes. 5 minutes less coming home for both. Technically I could ride
the 9 mile route, but it's rather unpleasant to ride, the first half
would be all four lane shoulderless arterial, a good hunk with 60mph+
speeds in a 45mph zone and chaotic flow. The last half would be on a two
lane road that is under construction with possibily fatal drop offs,
extra narrow lanes and heavy traffic. I take the hills and the .5
penalty of the other route. Not that I haven't ridden similiar to the 9
mile route, I just don't want to do 9 miles of it in one stretch, a mile
or two here and there I'll do. It's just unpleasant.

> But, I'd still drive if the weather was bad, or if it was after sundown.

That reminds me, I need to buy a nice light for the cannondale.

Ivan wrote:
> The war against the car will never succeed
>
>
> MARGARET WENTE
>
>
> The other day, as I drove to my exercise class (yes, yes, I know there's
> a contradiction there), people on the radio were telling me to take the
> TTC. There was a smog alert, and I was contributing to the problem. But
> it's next to impossible to get to my class by bus, so I drove.
>
> "Hah!" said my instructor, the Pilates queen. "You know what TTC means?
> Take The Car." She's no fan of Toronto's public transit. That's too bad
> because, according to the politicians and the urban planners, public
> transit is the answer to all our woes. Everyone knows cars are
> responsible for everything from gridlock to pollution and obesity. Pry
> people from their cars, and the world will be a better place.
>
> Unfortunately, most people are refusing to co-operate. In 1988, TTC
> ridership was 463 million, the second largest in North America. By last
> year, despite the Greater Toronto Area's explosive growth, ridership had
> shrunk to 410 million.
>
> Transit advocates blame higher fares and service cutbacks for this
> decline. If only we invest more in improving public transit, more people
> will use it. To a limited extent, this may be true. But transit
> advocates ignore the overwhelming evidence from around the world: People
> still prefer their cars.
>
> "It may not be the faster way, but public transit remains the better
> way," The Toronto Star argued this week. New statistics on commuting
> times reveal what everyone already knows: Public transit is a whole lot
> slower than driving. People who commute to work by car spend an average
> of 59 minutes on the road each day (round trip). Transit riders spend
> 106 minutes. The Star says the answer is massive new investments from
> all levels of government so public transit can "better compete against
> the unwholesome lure of the automobile." My own trip to work takes less
> than 20 minutes by car, but an hour by TTC, much of it standing up. The
> unwholesome lure of the automobile is darned hard to resist.
>
> Southern Ontario is the third-fastest growing region in North America --
> in the next 25 years, the population is projected to grow by a
> staggering four million people. So what's the plan for constructing new
> road systems and highways? Um, there isn't one. The province plans to
> re-engineer people's behaviour so they'll take public transit.
>
> Last month, Ontario unveiled a new long-range plan to put an end to
> car-dependent urban sprawl. Higher-density developments will reduce the
> sprawl, promote more "compact living" and build "complete communities,"
> where people can live, work, shop and play without needing a car. Not
> only will this plan cut down on smog and gridlock, promises the
> government, but it will enhance people's sense of community (because
> they'll be closer together, I guess) as well as improve public health.
>
> "Studies tell us that people living in car-dependent communities miss
> out on natural opportunities for physical activity," declared the
> minister of infrastructure. "Moreover, they are prone to health
> problems, such as obesity and heart disease. Our children, in
> particular, are at much greater risk." In other words, make the little
> buggers walk.
>
> As for Toronto, everyone agrees it should become more like Paris, where
> people live in higher-density apartment buildings instead of
> single-family houses, and walk everywhere to do their shopping. There's
> just one problem: Most Parisians don't live in central Paris any more.
> Three-quarters of them live in the suburbs, where they can find
> single-family houses, get around by -- mon Dieu! -- car and shop at --
> quelle horreur! -- supermarchs and big-box stores.
>
> The idea that people will use public transit to get to work ignores the
> fact that most people don't want to live near their work. And because
> people are so mobile, they no longer have to. On top of that, people use
> their cars for much more than commuting. According to one study, 20 per
> cent of all trips by auto are for work, 20 per cent for shopping, and 60
> per cent for things that are "social." The idea that public transit can
> replace the car in people's busy lives is a fantasy.
>
> As for lower-income people -- supposedly the main beneficiaries of
> public transit -- they have an alternative, too. It's called used cars.
>
> And yet, nowhere in all the hype about the province's new growth plan is
> there a mention of the words "roads" or "highways." This omission
> reminds me of the Duke of Wellington's comment about railways, whose
> construction he opposed because they "only encourage the common people
> to move about needlessly."
>
> Public transit systems are certainly no bargain. "Transit subsidies are
> hugely greater than any subsidies to the automobile," says Peter Gordon,
> a California professor of planning and economics. And some people say
> the cleaner, greener virtues of public transit are vastly overstated.
> "Most new autos generate little or no more pollution per passenger
> vehicle mile than the average bus," says Robert Bruegmann, author of
> Sprawl: A Compact History. He argues it would require a massive increase
> in the use of public transportation and improvements in transit vehicles
> to bring about any meaningful reduction in energy use or pollution.
>
> Mr. Bruegmann's comments about urban planners' war against sprawl are an
> apt description of the mindset behind Ontario's new master plan. "Very
> few people believe that they themselves live in sprawl. Sprawl is where
> other people live, particularly people with less taste and good sense
> than themselves. Much anti-sprawl activism is based on a desire to
> reform these other people's lives."
>
> If we really wanted to tackle smog and congestion, we wouldn't be
> fantasizing about massive new investments in public transit. We'd be
> investing in transportation infrastructure, less polluting fuels, more
> intelligent roads and vehicles with sensors to control traffic flows,
> peak-time user fees and more flexible forms of public and private
> transport, such as group taxis. But you won't find the planners talking
> about these things because, to do so, they would have to concede defeat
> to the unwholesome lure of the automobile -- to say nothing of the
> overwhelming preference of the public. And that would be very, very
> wicked.
>
> mwente@globeandmail.



Ivan, why did you post your drivel here about Canada? Last time I
checked this is an American Newsgroup. Google groups is an American
entity. Made by Americans, and owned and opererated by Americans.

Your post belongs in the Canadian Newsgroup.

The one thing that I don't like about Canada is the currency. With
Queen Elizabeth II on every coin and ever paper bill. It's disgusting.
Independence is too important!!!


East-

In article .com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Traffic, bad road etiquette - not gas prices - drive many people
>off roads

If it really did, we'd get rid of the traffic in short order.

>Nearly seven in 10 drivers enjoy getting behind the wheel, while the
>rest think it's a chore. In 1991, nearly eight in 10 said they liked
>driving.

It's the aging of America; it's turning the US into a country of Nervous Nellie
types.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.