What Will The World Be Like With Hundreds Of Millions More Cars?

[hatrack]

I am sitting in the back of a motionless taxi on the way from New York's JFK airport to a meeting in the city. It's a blazing hot morning. A preview of global warming, I wonder? I felt vaguely guilty about hailing a cab to research a story on innovative ideas in transportation, especially when I knew that a new train connection from the airport had recently opened, but I didn't want to be late for my appointment. Yet now here I am stuck in traffic, and it isn't even rush hour.

My taxi driver, recently arrived from India, knows a few tricks. He edges the cab toward an exit ramp and then barrels along city streets for a few blocks before heading back onto a slightly less congested stretch of the expressway. His radio is tuned to traffic reports -- a long litany of pile-ups, closed lanes, construction delays, or inexplicable slowdowns on most major roads. "It's one big parking lot out there," the announcer says, and I suddenly feel an exhaust-induced burning at the back of my throat. "How's that new Air Train to the airport?" I casually ask the driver just after he'd swerved off the expressway again and nearly sideswiped a hapless pedestrian who dared to cross the street. "People don't want to take trains," he declares in a voice that clearly indicates this portion of our conversation is over. We fight endless tides of traffic all the way to Manhattan. Sixty minutes and $45 later, I arrive at the offices of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 38 minutes late.

I sometimes find it hard to believe there could be any more cars in the world than there are today. Yet if economic forecasts are to be believed, auto use will rise dramatically in coming years as emerging middle-class households in China, India and even Africa achieve the universal dream of owning their own means of transportation.

EDIT

Following in the footsteps (rather than the tire tracks) of Rome and Madrid and London, I believe people in Eastern Europe and Asia and someday even North America -- where car culture was born and remains stubbornly embedded -- will eventually discover an important truth: The auto is at its best and its most useful as just one of many ways to get around. This revelation hit home for me that day I was stuck in the back seat of a New York taxi. I vowed then and there to try the new Air Train when returning to the airport. My train ride back to JFK, which cost a total of seven bucks, was smooth and simple, even at rush hour, and I arrived quite early for my flight. Car culture, I decided while relaxing over a meal and glass of wine in the airport lounge, no longer represents either privilege or progress.

EDIT

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/30057/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. For one thing, Peak Oil will happen much sooner than later.

Gas-rationing cards like during WWII might be in the future unless it's a free market program where only those can afford to drive will be able to purchase petroleum.

[PerceptionManagement]

2. Well, if it makes my commute less crowded...

Bring it on! LOL!

[philb]

18. Peak oil is fairly immaterial to this issue; the real constraint is GW

and global environmental effects of fossils fuels; which are already huge and getter bigger rapidly.
Artic permofrost & ice cap/glacier effects are unprecedented and serious
Effect on the Gulf Stream cycle is already significant and serious
high ocean surface temperatures and increased magnitude of hurricanes and ecosystem effects are already huge and serious
droughts, heat waves, flooding, desertification effects are already huge and serious

http://www.flcv.com/green.html

[MindPilot]

3. I would gladly leave my car at home if I could, but there's no alternative

My commute is 30 minutes by car. It's over two hours if I take the bus, and who can be away from a bathroom for that long?

[Poppyseedman]

4. Hundred of millions of cars?

There are about 250 million motor vehicles in the USA today, which includes buses, trucks, motorcycles, both private and public cars.
http://www.bts.gov/

For the rest of the world to add hundreds of millions of additional vehicles, {which I assume is several hundred million} they would need to do some serious catching up in development of their economies and disposable income.

Sure, there will be more cars in China and India and developing Asian countries, but they aren't going to transform themselves anytime soon into a USA like coast to coast economic powerhouse where everybody drives.

The coming enviro nightmare will have to wait.

[NickB79]

5. China to have 140 million cars by 2020

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/04/content_371641.htm

"China expects to have 140 million automobiles plying its roads by 2020, seven times more than now, fueling demand for transportation infrastructure and services, state media reports."

And India just as much of a contender as well:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GB24Df05.html

"With almost 24% growth in car sales in 2004, India has emerged as the fastest-growing car market in the world, outstripping China's estimated 13.7% growth last year. But India's potential looks even more promising, so much so that investment banking firm Goldman Sachs has predicted that it will have the largest number of cars by 2050. However, at this point, India is still far behind in terms of car sales compared to other Asian giants like China, South Korea and Japan. But considering that India's auto industry really took off only as recently as 2000, it has done amazingly well."

Even if they don't transform themselves into a US coast-to-coast driving culture, they will add as many new cars in the next decade as we have in the entire US right now. That is scary.

[Poppyseedman]

6. That is scary.?

Why is that scary?

If you consider the technology advances we have made made since the 1970's in controlling automotive emissions, we can assume by the year 2020 we will have made more advances, even if we only manage to match the same advances by 50 % we have negated the effect of maybe 100 million cars. By 2020 automotive emissions may be in the same category as the horse manure problem plaguing major cities before the horseless carriage.

Even if we don't do any of the above, is it scary enough to deny millions of people outside of the western world a higher standard of living?

[phantom power]

7. On the other hand...

what's their standard of living going to be if we all die?

as far as auto "emissions," the most dangerous emission of all is CO2. Can't control that. And just because technology exists, doesn't mean they can afford to adopt it. The Chinese are burning coal for their power, and polluting themselves to death. That's all regardless of everything we've learned about why it's bad to burn coal.

[Poppyseedman]

9. Dramatics doesn't add any meaningful dialogue

what's their standard of living going to be if we all die?

Please source any reference that makes that claim.

[phantom power]

11. No refs, it's my opinion.

What's coming our way is going to be dramatic. Good word.

[NickB79]

8. I worry about Peak Oil and global warming

Even if those 200+ million cars all get 40 mpg, they will still burn massive amounts of oil, precipitating the peak sooner, and creating an even harder crash after the peak.

Also, no amount of emissions controls can stop the basic chemistry behind burning hydrocarbons = released CO2 into the atmosphere. Making cars more fuel efficient goes a long way, but again, even at 40 mpg these millions of cars will release massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

And I would strongly dispute the argument that personal vehicles contribute to a higher standard of living in developing countries. Build sustainable neighborhoods and easily accessible public transportation and you have a higher standard of living than neighborhoods build around our car-centered culture. The air is cleaner, people are healthier, obesity rates go down as people walk and bike more than they drive, and crime goes down.

[Poppyseedman]

10. Really? You have it reversed

And I would strongly dispute the argument that personal vehicles contribute to a higher standard of living in developing countries.

Personal vehicles are the result of higher standards of living. It's normally the first step in a persons raise up the ladder. Once you own a vehicle, you have far more opportunities in life choices. My point is if we make owning a personal vehicle more difficult because of environmental restrictions or so called sustainable life issues, these people will never get out of poverty and move up on the ladder of life to a more equitable world.

Build sustainable neighborhoods and easily accessible public transportation and you have a higher standard of living than neighborhoods build around our car-centered culture.

Not to be obnoxious, but you have no idea what you are talking about. That model worked before the advent of technology. It no longer works in todays high tech cultures. Even the remotest areas can access technology today. That model works in cities like NY and Paris because they basically were built before the 20 th century

[Pooka Fey]

13. Sustainable neighborhoods, easily accessible public transportation

are development patterns that no longer work in today's high tech cultures, you say? But yet this model does work in NY and Paris because they were built before the 20th century? Some of Paris had to be rebuilt in the late 1940's because it was damaged in WWII, so not all of it was built before the 20th century - do you believe that the rebuilt walkable neighborhoods do not function as well technologically as the ancient walkable neighborhoods? I would guess that you don't.

High tech or low tech capabilities have nothing with city development patterns. Urban sprawl, with it's resultant air pollution and traffic snarls, doesn't make Los Angeles or Phoenix technologically superior to NYC or Paris. Metros located every 1/4 mile and neighborhoods with shops and groceries within walking distance do not make Paris or NYC technologically inferior.

You argue that a personal vehicle is a sign of a more equitable world, and necessary for the poor to climb out of poverty. No, everyone getting around is a sign of a more equitable world (not necessarily by car) - which is why the NYC and Paris metro systems were so successful and revolutionary when they opened around the turn of the 20th century. They made easy, quick and reliable transportation available to everyone. As did the streetcar system in Los Angeles before it was bought by automotive and big oil companies and then eliminated, forcing people to rely on cars and spurring the development which we now call "urban sprawl". But now in Phoenix or LA - if you are too poor to have a car, (which happens even in a 1st world country) - you are severely handicapped in your options for getting to work on time. How is that more equitable than a metro system you can count on that costs about $1.20 per ride?

Your argument in support of the personal automobile for everyone makes me wonder if you read the OP. Wasn't he saying that by taking a cab, he was $45 poorer and 38 minutes late for his meeting because all he did was sit in traffic for 60 minutes; but then by returning to the airport on the train - he was early, relaxed, and comfortable, and it only cost $7 ? I just spent 2 weeks in Paris, without a car. Everything that I needed was either available to me by walking or by taking a metro ride. Oh, and the skies were a lovely clear blue color that I haven't seen here in my home city since one hour after the last rainfall - which was about 6 months ago.

http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0802/ped/

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Huh?

So you think the "new model" of putting people 50 miles from where they work and leave them reliant on one form of transport is an improvement? What happens when that form of transport is no longer viable, for enviromental or ecomonic reasons?

If we had a truly "hi-tech" society, we'd all be teleworking from home, not spending an hour each morning to drive to a cubicle with a PC. We do have an Oil-mad society, though.

I don't see that as a good thing.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Advances since the 70's?

Lots were made during the 70s. Fuck all has been done since the pressure was taken off: Only in the last couple of years - with enviromentalism become "cool and sexy" - have we seen any resurgent intrest in hybrids or alt. fuels. The average US car gets the same sort of MPG and the same co2 output as the average car of 1977.

[Grover_Cleveland]

12. I do not own a car.

But I do value the technological advances of today's new cars.

The U.S. has far more cars today than 40 years ago, but far less pollution comes from those cars. For example, lead emissions are down more than 99%.

Personally, I consider the burning of fossil fuels to be an outdated technology. I am in favor of using nuclear power to extract water from hydrogen, and using that hydrogen to fuel automobiles.

The problem is not so much the number of cars, as it is the outdated source of fuel used by those cars.

[Massacure]

15. Fossil Fuels are not necessarily outdated.

Fuels similar to them can be made sythetically and renewably and would not require a huge shift in infrastructure.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. But...

...If you made it last week out of potato peelings (or whatever) it's not a fossil fuel, it's just fuel. Nobody is synthesising fossil fuels, by definition. :P

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.