technology assessment of changes in the future use and ... · cars and their usage,and eventually,...

Technology Assessment of Changes in theFuture Use and Characteristics of the

Automobile TransportationSystem—Volume III: Public Participation

October 1979

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-600030

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003 -00710-0

ForewordAn assessment of the future use and characteristics of the automobile transporta-

tion system was undertaken (1976-78) by OTA at the request of Senator Warren G.Magnuson, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, andTransportation. The study addressed issues and policy options pertaining to mobility,energy, environment, safety, and cost and capital. The time frame was both near-term(through 1985) and long-term (into the next century).

The specific objectives of the study were:

The results of the technical analysis, carried out by the OTA Transportation Pro-gram with the help of an advisory panel, consultants, and contractors, were publishedin February 1979 in a two-volume report. The first volume is a summary of the find-ings. The second contains a detailed discussion of issues, policy options, and estimatedeffects. Volume II also contains a description of expected technological developmentsthrough 1985 and by the end of the century.

This report—volume III—presents the findings of a nationwide public participa-tion effort conducted in 1978 in conjunction with the assessment. The intent of thepublic participation program was twofold:

● to solicit commentary on the issues, alternatives for personal transportation,and Federal Government policy options; and

Essentially, this report is a synopsis of what people said. It is illustrative of attitudesand viewpoints of a wide variety of Americans. The discussion is deliberately in-formal, and verbatim quotes are used frequently so as to capture both the substanceand the tone of the respondents’ remarks as accurately as possible.

Chapter 1 highlights the major viewpoints expressed on issues and options infuture personal transportation. Chapter 2 contains background information on the“car culture, ” the origin of automobile assessment, and the role of public participationin the technology assessment process.

The core of the report—chapters 3 through 7—is a compilation of commentsabout mobility, costs, energy, environment, and safety from people throughout thecountry. The order in which they are presented is indicative of the degree of concernexpressed by the respondents, i.e., comments on mobility appear first since this issueappeared to be the primary concern of most of the participants.

Ill

OTA AutomobileAssessment Advisory Panel

Director of the Office of Environmental ResearchFord Motor Company

S.Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Virginia

Lawrence J. White***Graduate School of Business AdministrationNew York University

Howard YoungUnited Auto Workers

The OTA Automobile Assessment Advisory Panel provided valuable advice, critique, andassistance to the OTA staff throughout this assessment. Their participation, however, does not nec-essarily constitute approval or endorsement of this report. OTA assumes sole responsibility for thereport and the accuracy of the content.

OTA Transportation Program

Eric H. Willis, Assistant DirectorScience, Information, and Transportation Division

Robert L. Maxwell, Transprotation Program Managcr

M. Junior Bridge Debi Chertok D. Linda Garcia

Larry L. Jenney H. James Leach Kathleen G. Lolich

Linda McCray Joel A. Miller Paula Walden

Contractor Technical Support

Nancy Wrigley Marese A. Miles

Public Participation Working Group

Olivia Cammack Mia Choumenkovitch Del Dobbins

Mark Horowitz William B. Lindsay Lena Lupica

Larry Newlin Alyce Pannell Observer: Alvin Frost

Publishing Office

John C Holmes, Publishing Officer

Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming

Contents

Chapter

1.

2.3.4.5.6.7.8.

Page

Summary of Viewpoints . . . . . . . . . . . ........4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......25Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...29Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...33A Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......37

A.B.c.D.

Brochure/Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material. .55Sample Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......71Background Briefs on Working Group Members. . . . . . . . . .......72

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. page

1. Passenger Car Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102. Costs of Owning and Opera3. 1977 Traffic Crash Data. . .4. Brochure Distribution List.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

1. Response Location. . . . . . . .

ing an Automobile, 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. Modes of Personal Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73. U.S. Demand for Oil in 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...264. Sources of Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..30

v ] ]

SUMMARY OF VIEWPOINTS CHAPTER A

To increase access to jobs, homes, recreation, corporate, but not be limited to, the develop-and services, a multifaceted approach was men t of additional transport t i on modes, im-broadly supported. Such an approach should in- proved use of existing modes and servicesr im-

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

Homeward bound commuters at the beginning of the rush hour on Shirley Highway, Northern Virginia(note bus and carpool lanes)

2 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

plementation of varied and flexible work sched-ules, and changes in current land use develop-ment patterns.

Many people felt that the “psychology ofmobility” should be closely examined in orderto understand the relationship of mobility topeople’s lives, and, ultimately, to develop betterways to meet these human requirements. At thesame time, the “psychology of automobility”should be addressed to determine driver and oc-cupant attitudes and behavior. In the opinion ofthe respondents, this could lead to the develop-ment of appropriate improvements in existingcars and their usage, and eventually, to devel-opment of better modes and transportationsystems for the future.

The vast majority of the respondents viewedcost as the major constraint to automobility. Atthe household level, this includes purchaseprice, maintenance, repair, taxes, parking in-surance, and fuel. At the national level, the con-cern about cost centered primarily on road re-pair and maintenance. Congestion was also con-sidered a potential constraint on auto travel anda major irritant, particularly in urban areas dur-ing peak commuting hours, in their estimation.

Energy, safety, and environmental problemswere viewed as short-term difficulties that couldbe rectified through technological and institu-tional changes. The “energy crisis” was seen as apolitical dilemma, rather than a true resourceshortage. To offset a supply shortage, whetherthe cause is political or natural, a number of ac-tions should be taken, among them deregulationof fuel prices, development of alternative fuelsand more fuel-efficient modes, and gas rationing(in the case of severe shortage). Participants in-dicated that no tradeoffs are necessary orwanted in the attainment of national energy andenvironmental goals.

While automobile use controls were thoughtto be a potential multipurpose solution by therespondents (i. e., to reduce congestion, pollu-tion, and fuel use), such controls were not gen-erally endorsed because they were viewed as alimitation on mobility. Because the automobileprovides over 90 percent of today’s personaltransportation, to reduce automobility wasperceived as a reduction in mobility-a highlyundesirable consequence, according to the par-ticipants.

While respondents expressed concern aboutdeath, injury, and property damage due to traf-fic accidents, these problems were not viewed asa constraint to automobility. Instead, they wereconsidered hazardous byproducts of car travel.To reduce accidents, the primary necessity isdriver improvement, said the respondents. Thisshould involve a major national effort to erad-icate drunken driving, and stricter, more uni-form enforcement of traffic laws and lowerspeed limits.

The barriers 10 innovation and problem solv-ing are institutional, not technological, theyclaimed. To the participitants, the credibility ofGovernment and industry is weak. The public,according to the respondents, doesn’t knowwhat or whom to believe More informationwith wide public distribution is desired. Addi-tionally, the respondents viewed the FederalGovernment as inept and cumbersome. It enactstoo much legislation which it is then unable toenforce. It ignores the potential of local ini-tiative in relieving societal difficulties, theycomplained.

Profit, almost to the exclusion of societalwell-being, motivates the automobile industry,many respondents charged. The industry hasnot done enough to eliminate the adverse im-pacts of its products and is sluggish in innova-tion. It is manipulative of the public throughadvertising and the Government through exten-sive, high-pressured lobbying. A greater play offree market forces might alleviate some of theseinstitutional difficulties, the respondents said.

The automobile is almost the sole mode ofpersonal transportation in the United States to-day, they noted. Mass transportation accountsfor less then 2 percent of national travel, andtherefore, is considered neither a viable alterna-tive nor a sufficient complement to the existingpersonal transportation system. Because ofproblems arising from an essentially one-modesystem (i. e., what happens when the car breaksdown?), energy and environmental concerns,and spiraling congestion, participants stressedthe need for a multimodal system with well-co-ordinated intermodal connections for the future.No one mode should dominate the system, theysaid, and system components should be energyefficient, nonpolluting, safer, more durable, lesscostly (financially and socially), and quieterthan today’s vehicles.

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER

2

Americans are always “on the go,” m os tl y i n automobiles. Following the inven-tion of this horseless carriage, car ownership rates and vehicle miles of travel per yearc1imbed rapidly, and continue to do so. In the process, the automobile has become thefocal point of American life, and automobility has become almost synonymous withmobility. The automobile may face serious constraints i n the future, however, becauseof the tenuous fuel situation, heightened environmental sensitivity, and 1essinging tol-erance for growing congestion.

4 ● Changes In the Future Use and characteristics of the Autornobile Transportation system

When the automobile was first introduced inthe 1ate-1800’s, the United States was an agricul-tural country with about 2.4 million miles ofroads, most without hard-surface pavement.Roads were used primarily for the movement ofagricultural goods, freight, and ● the mail. Per-sonal travel was limited, difficult, and costly.The country now has 3.8 million miles of well-paved roads used primarily for the movement ofpeople, due in the large part to the widespreadavailability of the automobile.

Until the early 1900’s, Americans relied large-ly on railroads and other “mass” carriers fortheir personal mobility. The number of regis-tered vehicles at the turn of the century was8,000. Today, the American public is almostsolely dependent on the privately owned auto-mobile for travel. U.S. manufacturers are cur-rently producing 40,000 cars daily. The registra-tion figures have soared to 118 million, or ap-proximately one car for every two people in theUnited States.

Our once agricultural economy has changedinto a technological one, heavily dependent onthe automotive and supporting industries.

About one in six American jobs is related to theautomobile. Transportation costs (mostly auto-motive) represent one of the largest householdexpenditures, along with housing and food. Alltransportation accounts for about 20 percent ofthe gross national product (GNP). Estimates ofthe portion of the GNP attributable to the auto-mobile system range as high as 10 percent.

Reflecting national desires for increased andimproved mobility, public policy has stronglysupported the growth of the automobile trans-portation system. The interstate highway net-work was financed with public dollars. Pricecontrols and subsidies kept the cost of fuel andother raw materials used by the automobile ar-tificially low. This helped make automobiletravel affordable to increasingly larger numbersof people. Land development patterns geared toreliance on automobile travel were encouragedby various Government policies. Mass trans-portation was largely ignored by both thetraveling public and the Government. The sub-sequent decline of mass transit further stim-ulated the rising dominance of the car for per-sonal travel.


Interstate construction in an urban area financed with public dollars

Ch. 2—Introduction “ 5

The popularity, availability,use of the automobile resultedture” -a lifestyle dependent on

and pervasivein a “car cul-

the car to pro-vide access to widely dispersed jobs, homes, andservices. While the car is appreciated for themobility i t offers, its use has created problems,such as environmental degradation, energy de-pletion, death, and injury.

Congress requested OTA to study the futureof the automobile in 1976, this request was stim-ulated by a variety of concerns:

a ) The 1973-74 oil crisis had occurred, andthreats of a worsening energy shortageloomed.

b) Lawsuits were pending in several parts ofthe country as diverse groups of citizens at-tempted to block further construction ofhighways which were seen as a threat tocommunity cohesion and an inducementfor itravel.

c) Criticismharmconsumwellsources.

However, growing concern about the adverseeffects of automobile usage has not dampenedAmericans’ desire for mobility nor has it de-creased the amount of driving.

Edward Cornish explains in his book on thestudy of the future:

In addition to discounting the future, most peo-ple tend not to recognize gradual change. Forexample, a 2 percent increase per year in airpollution might attract little notice, yet it meansthat air pollution will double in 34 years! Thedoubling of the population of a city over thecourse of a generation means a drastic transfor-mation of the life of that city for better or worse.Futurists generally want to identify such gradualchanges, so that they can be monitored andtimely action taken to avoid painful crises.

Essentially, this is the thrust of OTA’s researcheffort-to help Congress identify technological-ly induced changes and to evaluate policies thatcould enhance the benefits and alleviate the dis-advantages.

I Tht’ Stu(l} of t ho [ u tur(, An In I rocju< t lon [(, t hc’ Ar-[ ,~n(l SC I-

enc (’ ot 1 lnder~tancl I n~ .]nd Sh,)pl nx ‘ronlorrou \ \\ orld [-din, ]rd( orn]th, \I (~rld Futur(, s()( lot} \ \ .]~}l]ngton I ) ( lo;~ ( rh, \pc]rt Ic ul<ir t’xc erpt ti di ( ont<llnt,(l ]n dn d rt I< lo (,nt I [ ]t,,i ro~% .ir(]~ .]l’hll(~s(~ph~ ot FLI turlsm Tlf(’ } I{fl< r f.t [ )(x c,nlbt,r ] Q77 I

During the auto assessment, OTA examinedissues and policies pertaining to vehicles, road-ways, and related industries, services, and insti-tutions, Issue areas identified for study were:

●

●

Mobi l i ty—how to provide adequatemobility for all citizens. Despite the highautomobile ownership figures, i t is esti-mated that 40 percent of the U.S. popula-tion is “transportation disadvantaged” or,in short, without access to an automobile.This encompasses mostly the low-income,elderly, handicapped, and young people.Energy—how to conserve fuel supplies,and to develop and convert to new ones.As a Nation making up 6 percent of theworld’s population, Americans consume athird of all the oil used in the world everyday. Automobile transportation alone inthe United States accounts for 30 percent ofthat consumption.creasedlow-occupancy automobile

of automotive travel focused onul emissions, noise, excessive landtion (for parking and servicing asas roadways), and depletion of re-

●

●

photo Credit S ylvia Johnson 1979

Gas station closed during 1979 energy crunch

Environment—how to reduce the adverseimpacts of automobiles and highways onthe environment. Automobile emissionsare a major source of air pollution, but theenvironmental impacts of cars are not lim-i ted to atmospheric degradation. Noise,disposal of solid wastes (scrap vehicles andparts), water and soil contamination, andland consumption are problems also.Safety—how to reduce death and injurydue to traffic accidents. Since 1900, 2 mil-lion people have died as a result of automo-bile crashes—three times as many as havebeen killed in all U.S. wars. In 1977 alone,almost 48,000 people died and over 4million individuals were injured in motorvehicle accidents.

6 . changes In the future use and Characteristics of The Automobile Transportat ion System

● Cost and Capital —how to control the indi-vidual and societal costs of the automobiletransportation system, and provide thenecessary capital to maintain the Nation’sprivate and public investment in the sys-tem. Over 80 percent of all Americanhouseholds own one or more vehicles. Theindividual cost of owning and operatingthese vehicles includes purchase price, fuel,repair and maintenance, taxes, insurance,and storage. On a national scale, the publiccost of the system is most readily seen inGovernment (at all levels) expenditures onthe highway system, which amounted to$28 billion in 1977. As for the U.S. automo-bile industry, it faces a major task in meet-ing Federal Government mandates for ve-hicular improvements, and the smallercompanies may face severe financial dif-ficulties as a more competitive, less dif-ferentiated automotive market evolves.

With issues identified, the OTA staff ana-lyzed present and potential Government policiesrelated to these issues. Among the tasks carriedout during the study was a public participationprogram designed to gather commentary on thesubstantive material covered in the assessmentfrom people throughout the country,

While there has been general acceptance ofthe need to incorporate public participation intothe OTA research effort, there has been lessagreement about who constitutes “the public”

Figure 1 .—Response Location

and what are the best mechanisms for gatheringand incorporating the “public’s views. ” Duringthe automobile assessment, an attempt wasmade to reach a broad cross section of people byusing several outreach techniques.

The divergent needs and views that character-ize the public and their attitudes toward theautomobile were sought and examined to givethe OTA staff a better understanding of theproblems and concerns inherent in automobiletransportation. Also, it was felt that publiccommentary would help focus attention onspecific points of interest. The resultant publicparticipation program was an attempt to reachfor and encourage comment from a wide varietyof the U.S. populace.

Ultimately, about 1,300 people participatedin the public participation program (see figure1). They included unionists and corporate man-agers; members of public interest organizationsand civic groups; academicians; local, State,and Federal Government officials; professionaland trade association representatives; and indi-viduals from the general, unorganized, unaffili-ated public. Homemakers, technical experts, in-ventors, a sprinkling of teenagers and octoge-narians, urban designers, educators, car enthu-siasts, and veteran cyclists—men and womenfrom across the country graciously took thetime to share with the OTA staff their thoughtson the future use and characteristics of the auto-mobile transportation system.

P A

Questionnaires/written comments

MOBILITY

3

CHAPTER

An auto is a headache. There is always something wrong with it. I would be im-mobilized without my car.

The automobile is the only reliable local transport, but the roads are so con-

gested that much time is lost driving.

The automobile provides excellent mobility for all members of my family.However, because of it, there is no alternative type of transportation, so we arestuck if the car breaks down.

The auto provides the lowest cost transport for my family, but it still costs toomuch for us.

The car is part of our American heritage. It is the symbol of freedom and inde-pendence.

We are slaves to this gas-guzzling, air-polluting, noisy monster of technology.

These are a few of the commments heardthroughout the country about the advantagesand disadvantages of the automobile. They typ-ify the competing needs and the conflictingvalues individuals sometimes hold. Social andeconomic well-being are primary goals com-monly held by Americans. Essential to the at-tainment of these goals is the ability to reachjobs, consumer goods and services, recreationareas, and other desired activities— in short,mobility. It became apparent, in listening to thecomments of individuals in many parts of theUnited States, that American society is not hav-ing a love affair with the car so much as it ishaving a love affair with mobility. To the extentthat the car provides that highly valued service,it, too, is a target of much American affection(see figure 2).

Mobility, of course, is the basic purpose ofthe automobile, and the widespread desire formobility provided the impetus for the rapid andwidespread development of the automobiletransportation system. The magnitude of the ef-fects of this system cannot be measured solely in

Figure 2. —Modes of Personal Transportation a

Auto 92%

I

terms of mobility, though. It is one of the largestemployers in the country. It is the largest con-sumer of petroleum. It is a major land user andcontributor to air pollution in urban areas.Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death andinjury nationally.

7

8 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

Because the system is so pervasive, to lack anautomobile in the United States today is to lackmobility. The problem is particularly acute forfour segments of the population-the old, thepoor, the handicapped, and the young-who donot have or cannot use a car and who are some-times referred to as the “transportation dis-advantaged. ” Their incomes are typically low.With the possible exception of the young, manylive in areas served poorly, or not at all, by pub-lic transportation. Where public transportationis available, service is infrequent, physically in-accessible, too costly, or not close to desireddestinations. Estimates of the size of this seg-ment of the public range as high as 40 percent ofthe population,

While concern was expressed for the needs ofthe “transportation disadvantaged” during thepublic participation effort, attention was fo-cused mostly on the transportation needs ofsociety in general. “When my car breaks down,I am ‘transportation disadvantaged, ’ too, ” alabor union official told us. “When my husbandtakes the car to work, my kids and I are withouttransportation, ” said an Ohio homemaker.“The rich can afford any kind of transportationthey want. The Government subsidizes trans-portation for the poor. What about the middle-income people, like me, who are barely able tomake ends meet in the face of rising car costs,bus fares, housing, etc.?” asked another.

Discussion frequently centered on whethermobility is a right or a privilege. The consensusappeared to be that mobility should be a right ofthe American public. In the midst of one suchdiscussion, however, a Massachusetts residentasked, “Are we just assuming we must be mo-bile? To get a promotion, people often mustmove. The Government is guilty of this, as is in-dustry. Why must one move to advance in em-ployment?” In Alaska, a woman remarked,“Too much mobility traps us—really takes uptime. ” An elderly Iowan suggested that, per-haps, “mobility should be redefined. ”

For the auto assessment, no attempt wasmade to redefine mobility; rather, the staff ac-cepted the traditional definition of personalmobility as the physical movement of peoplefrom place to place. In considering mobility,some technological substitutes for physicalmovement were examined, such as telecommu-


Mobility: a right or a privilege?

nications, and lifestyle and land use changesthat might reduce the need or desire to travel.

Most of the respondents felt that it was notcost-efficient to retrofit mass transportationsystems with equipment to make them more ac-cessible to the handicapped or infirm. This wasalso the feeling of many of the elderly and han-dicapped people to whom we spoke. Commonviews were that needed equipment changesshould be incorporated as existing systems areupdated or replaced; separate and more flexibletransportation services (such as dial-a-ride andminibuses) should be made available for peoplewith special needs, and “transportation stamps”or a similar fare subsidy be provided to low-in-come people. It was never once suggested byany of the 1,300 people we heard from that sub-sidies for the “transportation disadvantaged” bediscontinued. Instead, respondents concernedthemselves with the problem of how to increasemobility for everyone.

Ironically, many of the middle-aged, middle-income, and nonhandicapped people we talked

C h . 3 — M o b i l i t y ● 9

to stressed the need for public transportation forthe “transportation disadvantaged, ” whilemany of the latter felt that public transportationwas more appropriately the mode for theformer. A wheelchair-bound California womantold us that even if buses were easier for her toboard, she probably wouldn’t use them. Why?“Because by the time I wheeled uphill severalblocks to the bus stop, I would be too tired toget on the bus, ” she explained. Her car, on theother hand, was far easier and less time-con-suming for her to use. Elderly people said theyfelt safer from crime when using their own carsthan they did when walking to and from andriding the bus. Low-income people pointed outthat the public transportation systems that doexist were designed to move higher income sub-urbanites to downtown areas. Rarely were thesesystems able to accommodate the destination re-quirements of inner city, suburban, or ruralpoor.

In a number of places the OTA staff visited,there was debate about the seeming discrepan-cies between the beliefs and actions of individ-uals. While there was almost unanimous desireexpressed for alternative modes in addition to orin place of the car, there was less agreementabout who would use these modes. “Sure, peo-ple want buses—for somebody else, ” a shop-keeper claimed. “There ought to be more buses.No, I can’t use the bus because . . . . ,“ quite afew people said.

Despite these types of comments, it must bekept in mind that the overwhelming majority ofthe respondents indicated a desire, and more im-portantly, a need for additional modes of travelor ways to increase accessibility to their variousactivities. It is also necessary to remember thatthere is currently very little public transporta-tion available, and what does exist, for the mostpart, does not even come close to offering theamenities of an automobile—convenience, com-fort, availability, and more. As respondentswere fond of pointing out, there really aren’tany “viable” alternative modes at present, cer-tainly not on a large scale.

A variety of reasons were offered for the pres-ent popularity of the car. The main one was, aspreviously mentioned, “There are no alter-natives. “ “It is a necessity, especially for emer-gencies, ” is another comment we heard fre-quently. “It allows me to live and work where I

choose, and to travel to places inaccessible byother means of transport. ” “Riding public trans-portation rather than using a car is a step downin status.” Industry or Government has “forcedus to depend heavily on the car. ” “We have carsbecause we want them. ” “It beats walking. ”Some people we heard from said they had to usethe car because they were physically unable, dueto age or handicap, to ride public transporta-tion.

In some States, people commented that racistattitudes often guided modal choice and devel-opment. The ‘ respondents who made thisclaim —all of whom were white—said that pub-lic transportation has evolved in a “Catch 22”atmosphere. On the one hand, they said, publictransportation was viewed as a welfare issue,and since “it is commonly believed that onlyminority races are on welfare, white {officialdomignores public transportation, just as they ig-nore minorities. ” On the other hand, “The pub-lic transportation systems that have been devel-oped have been designed to meet the needs ofhigher income whites, rather than the lower in-come of any race. Those whites, then, won’tride public transport t ion because they considerit beneath them, so public transportation failsall the way around. ”

The most frequently mentioned attribute ofthe car was convenience. In the words of oneperson, “You can go where you wish to go whenyou wish to. “ “The car is there when you needit, the bus isn’t, ” said another. Despite time-consuming traffic delays, respondents notedthat a major advantage of the car over otheravailable modes was that car travel is faster.Additional attributes listed were flexibility,comfort, freedom, privacy, and independence.Many people said they liked the autonomusfeeling of traveling in their own cars.

The load-carrying capacity of autos was oftenmentioned. Architectural students who hadlarge projects to transport to and from class,homemakers who shopped for their families,traveling salespeople who carried samples oftheir wares, all appreciated the space a car pro-vided for their “freight, ”

Ease and dependability were also favorite at-tributes, as were route choice and choice ofcompany. The latter evoked an array of com-plaints about “gum chewing, ” “foul smelling, ”“impolite” individuals with whom the respond-

10 ● Changes in the Future Use and characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

Phota Credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

The load carrying capacity of autos is a help to this suburban homemaker

ents had had to share public transportation atone time or another. Many people claimed thatthe car provided the most economical form oftravel. Those who made this claim invariablyadded that they traveled in groups, i.e., withtheir families on vacations or in carpools forcommuting.

For many of the respondents, efficiency,cleanliness, and adaptability were importantaspects of a car. A handful of individuals, most-ly homemakers, claimed additionally that adrive in the car was the only place “to get awayfrom it all. ”

In describing those aspects of the car they ap-preciated the most, people commonly coupledtheir remarks with, “I need the car for work. ”This was particularly true for commuters wholived at the fringe of suburbia or residents ofrural areas where distances between home, em-ployment, and recreation areas are great, andpublic transportation is either unavailable,minimal, or poor. Others indicated a need forthe car to carry out the responsibilities of theirjobs.

Occasionally, pleasure was cited as a plus forautomobiles. The pleasure derived from the

Table 1 .—Passenger Car Use*

Percent distribution

Percent Average tripPercent of travel length one-

Purpose of travel of trips (VMT) way (miles)

Work, including commuting 36 42 10.2

Family business, includingShopping................ 31 19 5.6

Educational, civic, orreligious.................. 9 5 4.7

Social and recreational . . 23 33 13.1‘ 1969 dataSOURCE Federal Highway Administration Nafionwide Personal Transporta-

t ion Study Report No 10. Purposes of Automobile Trips andTravel 1974 p 13

“pride” or “luxury” of ownership, “ego satisfac-tion, “ “power behind the wheel, ” “pleasant sen-sations when driving, ” and “prestige of owninga fancy vehicle. ” An Ohio businessman told us,“It’s fun to drive and be in command of mySpaceship Capri with all its gadgets—CB,AM/FM radio, central window and door lockcontrols, odometer . . . .”

A similar viewpoint which surfaced repeated-ly in the discussions on mobility focused on the“psychology of mobility.” “We must understandwhy mobility is so highly valued in order to de-velop viable alternatives to the car should it be-

Ch. 3—Mobi l i ty ● 1 1

come necessary to do so. ” “Is mobility fun initself, or just a way of getting from one place toanother?” “Attitudes should be examined. ” “Theinfluence of affluence should be considered. ”“What is the collective interest as opposed to thecollective individual interest?” “social contact islost in cars. “ “Teenage morals are lost in cars. ”“The little car is destroying us socially. I can’tstand my kids on long trips in a small car. ” “Ourinclination is to say that the individual car ishere to stay and should be, but we’re not sure— is Detroit influencing our wants and desires?”

A related perception was the need to under-stand the “psychology of automobility, ” or-, asone person succinctly put it, the “you-are-what-you-drive syndrome. ” A vehicle’s size and styleoften compose a partial profile of the owner.For example, “I believe in conservation andhelping to improve the environment, so I drive aVolkswagen and carpool to work, ” an urbanNew Englander told us. A young Maryland manstated, “I want to impress my friends with mytoughness, so I drive a ‘muscle’ car. ” A midwest-

erner said, “I grew up in a poor section of townand have worked my way up. My old friendsand family know I’m making i t when drive i nmy expensive, new car. ”

The OTA staff did not attempt to do a de-tailed behavioral analysis during the assessmentof the future of the automobile, nor were thevarious amenities compared —beyond the mo-bility offered by each—of currently availablemodes. As a frame of reference in the technical

part of the analysis, the staff developed a “basecase” which projected general automobile sys-tem characteristics and use under two assump-tions: 1 ) the automobile has a continuing role insatisfying travel demand, and 2 ) current FederalGovernment policies and programs would con-tinue in substantially their present form until2000. This allowed the staff to estimate adverseand beneficial effects that could result from pur-suing present policy and provided a referencepoint for comparing al ternat ives to currentpolicy. It was not intended that the base case be

Photo credit. New York City Transit

Public transportation in New York City


interpreted as the auto staff’s idea of a probable,or even possible, future.

Some of the base case projections were that:

● the automobile would remain the dominantform of transportation,

● the number of autos would increase by 50percent,

. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would in.crease 75 percent,

● road construction would diminish substan-tially, and

● congestion would triple.

To enhance mobility, the following policy op-tions were considered:

increase in funding for public transporta-tion, including paratransit,auto disincentives to encourage publictransportation ridership,implementation of transportation systemmanagement techniques (such as improvedvehicular flow and increased ridesharing)to reduce congestion, andchange in land use development patterns tominimize travel requirements.

To a limited degree, the potential impact oftechnological substitutes for travel (such as tele-communications) and lifestyle changes (such asalternative work schedules) were consideredalso,

A major finding of the technical analysis wasthat only a severe petroleum shortage or gaso-line rationing would result in major reductionsin automobile travel. A fivefold increase (over1975 levels) in Federal funding assistance topublic transit could increase transit ridership byup to 50 percent in dense urban areas. Currentridership is so low, however, that even a SO per-cent increase would have little overall impact onauto travel. (Mass transportation now accountsfor less than 2 percent of total passenger milestraveled. A ridership increase of 50 percentwould raise that total to only about 3 percent. )

Perhaps, as a Virginia respondent suggested,the goal here should be to decrease congestionby 50 percent, rather than to concentrate on in-creasing transit ridership by 50 percent. Byfocusing on lowering congestion, she claimed,there would probably be more efficient utiliza-tion of existing facilities without the necessity of

major capital expenditures. Inexisting facilities that could betively included transit (higher

her opinion, theused more effec-ridership; better

intermodal interface) as well as highways (in-creased ridersharing; improved traffic flow, es-pecially for high-occupancy vehicles). OTA’sstudy of this question concluded that transpor-tation system management, which is essentiallywhat the Virginia respondent had in mind,would have useful application only in the shortrun, and even then, would have minimal impacton reducing auto travel. Respondents, in gener-al, appeared to feel otherwise.

Like the elderly Iowan who suggested that aredefinition of mobility might be in order andthe Virginian who implied a need for redefini-tion of goals, many respondents said that theFederal Government should “rethink its ap-proach” to transportation. Our current ap-proach, as interpreted by these respondents, is“to concentrate on modes and not needs. ” TheGovernment tends, they claim, to concentrate“on how much money to give a particularmode, ” instead of “how much money or othersupport is necessary to ensure mobility, regard-less of the mode. ” More simply, the travel needsof people should dictate the approach totransportation system development, rather thanthe capital needs of various modes. “Trans-portation planning should not be done inDetroit, ” stated a Tennessee man.

It was also apparent from the responses ofmany people that they felt a variety of actionswas needed to alleviate the adverse effects ofauto travel and to facilitate overall mobility.The actions they suggested ranged from non-transportation options (land developmentchanges, alternative working patterns, im-proved communications) to a multiplicity ofmodal options (from improved cars to advancedpublic transportation systems).

The OTA technical assessment concluded thatchanges in lifestyle, land use patterns, or thedevelopment of advanced communications sys-tems as a substitute for travel could have signifi-cant impacts on auto travel, but probably notbefore 2000. This is due, mainly, to the longleadtimes needed to implement such changes ona large enough scale to have a major impact.

Many respondents interpreted the phrase—“change of lifestyle’’—as meaning a “decrease in


Photo credit David Plowden

Land use planning —The Brooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway at Columbia Heights, N.Y. No extra land in addition to thefreeway right-of-way had to be bought to create the promenade in Brooklyn— and the right-of-way for the freeway itself is only

50 feet wider than the old street over which the entire structure is set

the comfort index. ” They viewed it, for the most said. “Carpools are not active here due to in-part, as a lowering of their standard of living, a surance restrictions, ” said another person. “All“return to primitive living. ” They did not think of us need to be thinking about the psychologythat any reduction in “quality of life” was neces- of mobility, ” stated a Portland, Oreg., resident.sary insofar as mobility and the adverse impacts “Kids shouldn’t be expected to ride buses, ifof automobility are concerned. adults won’t. ”

Technology was not the constraint, theymaintained, to the alleviation or resolution ofsocietal problems, such as mobility. It is, in-stead, institutional arrangements (Governmentregulations, for example) and a lack of basicunderstanding of human behavior and needsthat constrain the availability of mobility. “TheFederal Government must do away with bar-riers to innovation, ” a city dweller in Alaska

Because mobility and automobility have be-come almost synonymous, attempts to restrictuse of the automobile have been regarded gener-ally as infringements on mobility. It is now rec-ognized, however, that unrestrained automobil-ity may conflict with other national goals andthat reducing automobile travel may be an im-portant means of achieving major energy, envi-ronmental, and safety benefits.


Respondents in a variety of locations statedthat the “reasons for the search for alternativesto the automobile are congestion, pollution, andland waste. ” We were often told that more is atissue than roads in the many highway fightsthroughout the country. In one area, a residentsaid that neighborhood cohesion and the senseof community were at stake, The controversialhighway “would create a Chinese wall in themidst of the community . . . local streets wouldbe cut off and the neighborhood chopped inhalf. ” In other places, respondents said it was“corporate economic interests vs. people’s in-terests; “ “urban vs. rural interests;” “suburban-ites pitted against city dwellers;” “entrenchedroadbuilding bureaucrats vs. fanatic environ-mentalists;” or, “the perpetuation of the auto-mobile to the detriment of transportation. ”

The prospect of reducing automobility to pro-mote other social goals raises many questions.Can the American public modify its preferencefor automobility —a preference encouraged bythe Government for decades and fosteredthrough billions of industry advertising dollars?Will the intended reductions in automobileusage actually occur, and will projected energy,environmental, and safety benefits materialize?Will, for example, parking restrictions for com-muters merely result in more auto trips by fami-ly members using; the cars that are left at home?Will a higher gasoline tax or a special tax onfuel-inefficient cars discourage their purchase,but actually increase the distances driven per carowner as consumers begin switching to fuel-efficient automobiles? Knowledge of how theautomobile best functions in a transportation

system is imperfect, and it is not known at whatpoint increased automobile use becomes self-de-feating or, conversely, at what point decreasedautomobility might lead to increased mobility.

Limiting automobility and increasing overallmobility are not necessarily incompatible goals,particularly in urban areas where two-thirds ofthe population now lives. “All reports, from thelocal to the national level, conclude that some-thing has to be done about transportation prob-lems, so it’s just a matter of what and when, ” aTennessee man told us.

The overwhelming consensus of the respond-ents was that there must be “viable alternatives”to the automobile transportation system. By“viable” they meant additional modes that were“truly competitive with the automobile” interms of availability, comfort, and cost. “Weshould never get tied to one system, becausewhen it breaks down, we are in serious trouble. ”

While there was strong support for alter-natives, opinion diverged on whether or not thealternatives should be developed as “supple-ments” to automobile transportation, as anOhio transit official felt, or as actual “substi-tutes” for auto travel, as other respondents(including many car enthusiasts) advocated.The respondents were almost unanimous intheir support for a multimodal system, how-ever, and the multimodal system often includedan “improved car. ”

OTA’s study of trends in automotive technol-ogy indicates that the car of 2000 will be smaller(due to downsizing for energy efficiency) andlighter (due to materials substitution). The use

Photo credit Universi ty 01 Tennessee Pho to c rd i t : Sylvia Johnson 1979

Mobility at a standstillThe risks involved--accidents and parking violations— note the boot on the front wheel of the car on the right for violating

parking restrictions in an urban neighborhood


of plastics and aluminum will increaser whilethe use of steel and cast iron will decrease. Fueleconomy is expected to increase, averaging 27.5mpg by the year 2000 (the fleetwide average isnow 15 mpg). Production of alternative fuelsprobably will be limited, so gasoline would re-main the predominant form of energy neededAdditionally, if manufacturers meet emissionstandards specified by the Clean Air Act, the“improved car” would also be cleaner in 2000,but pollution would continue to be a problem incongested urban areas.

“We are not married to the Detroit auto, ” saidan auto club official. The “improved car” of thefuture, according to the respondents, should besmaller, lighter, safer, energy efficient (prefer-ably fueled by something other than gasoline),nonpolluting, cheaper, and more durable. Ob-jecting to the trend of downsizing, an Alaska re-spondent quipped, “Next year I’m gonna buy asmall car, and the following year, I’m gonnabuy one for the other foot. ”

Worried about the use of lighter weight mate-rials in automobiles, a California fleet managersaid he hoped more thought would be given tosafety because “building foam rubber dodgemcars won’t protect us” from bad drivers. Henoted, however, that “3, 000 lbs of machinery tomove a 200-lb person horizontally in a seatedposition represents the ultimate in overkill. ” Onthe east coast, a similar comment was made by ayoung art student: “It is silly to have 2 tons ofmetal to move 100 pounds of me. ”

A variety of owner-ship arrangements was dis-cussed by respondents. Some individuals pre-


A sightseeing shuttle bus is one transportation alternativefor tourists

terred a rental car option. Others suggested mu-nicipal or neighborhood ownership of a carfleet. Still others mentioned the possibility ofwide-scale joint ownership of vehicles ( a prac-tice that appears to be slowly growing now, es-pecially in the purchase of recreation vehicles,such as boats and campers). Most of the re-spondents who talked about an improved carsaid they felt either that it should be or that itwould continue to be an individually ownedmode. As one person said, “People will drive aslong as fuel is available. ” “Americans are will-ing to risk the hazards and expense of drivingfor the convenience, ” a businessman told us.

Should the auto be the major form of trans-portation in 2000? Yes and no was the “clearcut”answer we received. Of those who responded af-firmatively, more than half said, in essence,“yes, but . . . .” Some of the more common sen-timents were:

The car should be part of a multimodaltransportation system.The car will dominate, but it will be an im-proved car.The car will continue to be the major modein rural areas, but certainly not in cities.Autos shouldn’t be the major mode, butprobably will be.Cars should be used for recreation, notcormmuting.If substitute fuels are found and costs arelowered, autos will continue to be the ma-jpr mode.Cars will be the major mode unlesssomething better is found.

“something better” most frequently su -gested was a form of mass transportation.“Americans enjoyed the privilege off commutingby mass transportation before autos infestedour country, ” a railroad buff wrote us. Bothrespondents who said that the automobilewould continue to dominate and those who saidthat the automobile should not be the dominantmode stressed the need for a for a multimodalsystem.

When asked how they would design the per-sonal transportation system of 2000, about halfof the respondents described a multimodal sys-tem with a car (in some, the automobile domi-nated; in others, mass transportation domi-nated). About half described a multimodal sys-


tern without a car. A very small number of re-spondents said the system should remain as it isnow. Whatever the components, plans shouldbe designed “for moving people, not movingvehicles, ” according to most respondents.

In general, the respondents—pro-car, no-car,and those who took the middle ground—em-phasized the desire for increased mobility for allsegments of society. They stressed the import-ance of good intermodal connections. “If atransbus can accommodate wheelchairs, why

not bicycles?” a group of cyclists asked. “All thetime I save flying from one city to another is lostin trying to get from the airport to my place ofbusiness, ” a salesman noted.

Clear and concise information about faresand routes would be readily available and easilyobtained in these futuristic systems. Vehicle

designs would be more practical and changedless. Buses, for example, would have “widerdoors and seats, lower steps and floors, andwindows that open but don’t blow you out ofyour seat. ” A surprising number of people saidthey would separate cars and trucks.

The mass transportation of their collectivedesign would be economical, environmentallysound (quieter and nonpolluting), widely avail-able, efficient, frequent, convenient, demand-responsive, fast, safe, clean, comfortable, anddependable.

Of the additional or substitute modes sug-gested, fixed guideway systems appeared to bemost popular. A wide variety was mentioned—conventional train, rapid transit, trolleys, ad-vanced group rapid transit, monorails, and au-tomated highways. “Railroads were viable

Ch. 3—Mobi l / ty ● 1 7


A route sign for public transportation, National Airport,Northern Virginia

when we had less population, ” a northwesternerpointed out, “but opponents today would haveus believe that present high densities are notenough to support rail. ”

The next most popular mode was buses. Rec-ognizing the need to reduce congestion, officialsfrom one State auto club said they were en-couraging members to ride a bus at least once aweek. “You may like it, ” they are tellingmembers. Just as they stressed the need for im-provements in the car, respondents stressed theneed for improved buses.

“A bus is just a bus now. There’s no choice intypes and styles like cars and trains. Maybe weneed a variety of buses—some with champagneservice, for instance, and some without, ” an ur-ban designer said. Buses shouldn’t be on “wan-dering goat routes” either, a New Mexico mancomplained. Many respondents claimed thatadvertising for buses was needed to counteractthe “sex appeal advertising for cars. ” Much tothe amusement of those around her, one work-shop participant wondered aloud what a “sexy

Photo Credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

A popular mode: buses. School buses could be used tomeet general transportation needs

bus would look like. ” Other respondents feltthat more use should be made of school busesfor general transportation. A southerner sug-gested a “quick change” bus—one that could beused for carrying people during the day andconverted to a freight carrier during the night.

Air transport was the third most favoredform of future travel. “Hovercraft,” “flyingcars, “ “commuter helicopters, ” and “antigravitymachines, ” were among the new forms sug-gested by respondents, in addition to expandeduse and improvement of conventional modescurrently available.

Cycles—primarily bikes, but also motor-cycles and mopeds—were frequently included inthe future transportation system designs. “Abicycle with a bubble to protect me from rainand cold weather would be ideal, ” a Washing-ton, D, C., woman said. There was considerablediscussion about whether there should be sep-arate pathways for bikes and motorized vehi-cles. Cyclists argued that separate pathwayswould limit their travel, unless the network was

18 . Changes in the Future Use and characterlstics of the Automobile Transportation System

Photo credits Sylvia Johnson, 1979

Cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists

as extensive as roadways, They seemed to favordedicating more existing road space to cyclists,rather than using up additional land for biketraffic. In making provision for increased bikingin their year 2000 plans, respondents oftennoted the physical benefits that would derivefrom cycling.

For the same reason, walkways were often in-cluded in the respondents’ plans. The followingbrief exchange, which took place in Alaska, wassimilar to whatcountry:

First person:

Second person:

First person:

Third person:

Second person:

we heard in other parts of the

“Walking is a viable alterna-tive now. ”“No, it’s not, not now. It’svery dangerous. ”“Yes it is. Inconvenient, yes,but also viable. ”“Well, kids walk all over theplace. The viability of walk-ing is probably more a matterof attitude than space. ”“But providing space mightchange t h o s e l a z y a t t i -tudes . . . .“

Non-transportation options were invariablypart of the schemes. Of these, “land use change”was the most frequently mentioned. “We need aMarshall Plan for the United States. We’re amess, d sprawling mess, ” an Oregon respondentstated. Other options often discussed were alter-native working patterns and telecommunica-tions.

Not surprisingly, congestion was eliminatedin all personal transportation schemes for thefuture. “Let’s not waste time trying to cure con-gestion after the fact, let’s prevent it in ad-vance, ” said one individual, reflecting the viewsof many respondents.

The OTA study projected that congestionwould almost triple by the year 2000, despiteimprovements in traffic management. Busesprobably will remain the backbone of urbanpublic transportation and the principal alter-native, though a limited one, to the automobilefor intercity travel. There will be some minorimprovements in comfort and ride quality, andsome advances in increased accessibility (lowersteps and wider doors, for instance) for the han-dicapped and elderly. In general, however, nomajor changes in bus technology are expected.Some shift from heavy to light rail for new ur-ban transit systems may occur. Automatedguideway transit will see only limited applica-tion by 2000. Overall, the technical researchfindings show that an auto-dominated system(with some improvements in engine technol-ogy, fuel efficiency, and pollution control) willcontinue in the year 2000.

Whatever the system, respondents insisted ona “consistent mobility policy, ” not a “continua-tion of the car vs. transit policy. ” “There is nosuch thing as private transportation any more, ”a northern man remarked. “The car is not pri-vate transportation. Even though private indi-viduals may own them, the public pays forthem—from the subsidies for research to im-prove them; to the roads they ride on; to the badeffects of their usage, such as natural resourceexhaustion, pollution, and congestion .-We haveto have public consistency in our transport pol-icy, ” he explained.

The OTA technical analysis indicated that themajor threat to mobility was the supply of af-fordable energy. The majority of the respond-ents, however, viewed cost as the principalthreat to mobility. As one individual said,“Economics got us into the car; economics willdrive us out. ”

Ch. 3-MobJIUy • 19

IMPORTED

l)1MM) H~1JS ~1IOl" UEW

Photo Cfpdl/ US Deparlmpnl 01 T!2nSpOria/lOn

A "consistent mobility policy" is needed, not a "car vs. transit" policy

COST

One point became abundantly clear during the course of the public participationeffort. There is little knowledge and even less understanding on the part of the public,including Government officials, about the actual costs off the American transportationsystem and its various components. There is also a lack of understanding about theway costs are computed and compared. In short, as many respondents said, “There islots of confusion over what is and isn’t on costs. ”

“If costs were figured accurately, roads mightnot always be built, ” remarked a highway offi-cial from a northern State. A southern rail em-ployee said, “Highway planners have alwayscompared the costs of highways to the cost ofpublic transportation, and never included thecost of the automobile. Automobile costs mustbe included; otherwise, the cost comparison willnot be fair. ”

From nontransportation workers we heard:“The cost of municipal services for the autoshould be included in statements about the costof the automobile transportation system. ” “Weneed information on the true costs of the car sys-tem (cost of health care, roads, parking, pollu-tion from cars) to make accurate cost compar-isons with other modes. ” “What is the cost ofreglation?”

A misperception of many respondents wasthat motorists, through highway users’ taxespay all the costs of the automobile transporta-tion system. In actuality, these taxes cover 7 0percent of the cost of road construction andmaintenance, administration and research, safe-ty (including highway police), interest, and debtretirement. The remaining support comes fromgovernment revenues drawn from property andmiscellaneous taxes, bond proceeds, investmentinterest, and general fund appropriations.

The OTA technical analysis shows that ap-proximately $28 billion was spent for highwaypurposes by all levels of government in 1977.The Federal Government provided about one-quarter of that amount. Federal financial sup-port is not limited to highway projects, how-ever. It included such things as special tax

allowances for the fuel and materials industries,and R&D programs.

A substantial number of respondents viewedthe Federal Government as “so heavily involvedin the cost structure [of the automobile trans-portation system] that to back out would causechaos. ” When some individuals would say,“Let’s hope we don’t turn to Government financ-ing for personal transportation, ” the aforemen-tioned respondents would counter with, “We’realready there. Do we dig in further or get out?”

The confusion over what an individual paysand what the Government contributes to per-sonal transportation stimulated discussion onprivate versus public financing of transporta-tion systems. “Government interference in theautomobile manufacturing industry should bediscontinued at once. Let the manufacturers getback to competing for the marketplace. Freecompetition will lower consumer costs. ” “Gov-ernment mandates elevate costs, said one

21

22 ● Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Tran

Photo credi t U.S. Department of Energy


Confusion exists on the individual and public costs ofpersonal transportation

group. Another said, “The Government mustprotect the consumer from industry price-fixingand price-gouging. ”

There appeared to be a slight preferenceamong the respondents for “marketplace con-trol of the costs” of the automobile (or “in-dividual”) transportation system. Some re-spondents thought this would bring car costsdown. Others, however, felt that “full cost pric-ing” would cause substantial price jumps, and asa result “might change the face of personaltransportation in the United States. ”

Opinion was about evenly split, however, onwhether mass transportation should be publiclyowned and operated, or owned and operated byprivate enterprise. There was wide agreementthat mass transportation should be “cost com-petitive” with the car. Disenchantment with theFederal Government’s management record,rather than the use of public funds for transpor-

Tab

costs’

e 2.—Costs of Owning and Operating anAutomobile, 1976 (cents per mile)

Type of auto

Sub-Standard Compact compact

Depreciation 4 9 3 8 3 2Maintenance, accessories,

parts and tires 4 2 3 4 3 1Gas and 011 (excluding taxes) 3 3 2 5 18Garage. parking, and tolls 2 2 21 21Insurance 17 16 15State and Federal taxes 16 12 09

Total costs per mile 179 146 126“ Based on driving 10000 miles per yearSOURCE: Federal Highway Administration. Costs of Owning and Operating an

Automobile. 1976. p 2

tation, was the main bone of contention in thediscussions.

The use of public funds to provide mobilityfor the transportation disadvantaged met withn o t h e topiction otranspor do

amount of funds being or to be spent. Thehat did stimulate debate was the applica-f such funds. Do you provide separateortation facilities for- the disadvantaged,you provide transportation subsidies for

disadvantaged individuals and let them choosewhich mode best suits their needs? Do you makeall transportation accessible to all segments ofthe population?

Some individuals felt that mass transporta-tion was a “welfare” issue and, as such, was ap-propriate for all “transportation disadvan-taged. ” Welfare is thought of primarily in eco-nomic terms. The “transportation disadvan-taged” from whom we heard most often werenot as concerned about their ability to pay forservices as they were concerned about theaccessibility of transportation facilities. In manyinstances, they pointed out how much easierand more practical it was for them to travel in acar than on public transport. “Most public facil-ities—whether it’s restrooms, movie theaters, orbuses—are not built to accommodate short peo-ple (like children), slow-moving elderly people,people on crutches or in wheelchairs, ” theynoted. The same is true of mass transportation.Low-income people pointed out that publictransportation systems rarely served their desti-nation requirements. In other words, said the“transportation disadvantaged” among the re-spondents, “public transportation is designed toaccommodate the ‘transportation advantaged’. ”

Because they are now predominantly depend-ent on the autombile, most of the respondentsspent time discussing their worries about theout-of-pocket expense of cars. For the mostpart, the respondents perceived the purchaseprice of automobiles as higher than ever and ris-ing rap idly. They were partially right. In fact,the cost of automobile ownership and operation(in constant dollars) decreased steadily from1960 to 1973. Since then, however, the trend hasreversed, due primarily to the increased costs offuel, repair, maintenance, insurance, and emis-ssions control and safety features.

With regard to repair and maintenance, thegeneral feeling was that the industry should beencouraged by the Federal Government andpressured by consurncrs to make more durable,less complicated vehicles with less frequent ex-terior design changes and more practical intern-al design. “Detroit controls the auto industryand should be encouraged to develop a betterproduct. ” “Obsolescence is a goal to be doneaway with. ” The complexity of equipment is ex-acerbated by Gov e r n m en t regulations, many re-spondents charged.


Repair and maintenance services

Feeling “ripped of f,” respondents complainedbitterly about “inadequate,” “poor-, ” “over-priced, ” and sometimes “fraudulent” mainte-nance and repair services. Mechanics should berequired to pass a “competency test’ and be“licensed to practice, ” some individuals said.“There should be more public trade high schoolsor more vocational training” to} increase thenumber of mechanics and improve their skills.“Car repair shops should be regulated” to ensuregood and reasonably priced services.

Those

Ch. 4—Cost ● 2 3

who were annoyed by both the costand shortage of parking —Washington, D. C.,residents, in particular—often pointed an accus-ing finger at the Federal Government for not ad-hering to rules it mandated for many jurisdic-tion across the country. While Federal agenciesare pressuring States to raise parking fees andreduce parking spaces, these same agencies areproviding their employees with free or low-costparking. Parking cost was often a factorr in a re-spondent’s opinion that the car was an uneco-normical form of travel. In addition, many re-spondents were bothered by the “necessity” ofowning more than one car, the decreasin finan -cial value of vehicles after purchase, and the in-creasing operation costs.

Insurance was occasionall ly mentionedbecause of concern over rising premiums andthe need for financial prpoectio in case of acci-den t. The four most common suggestions madeby the respondents were that the Governmentshould control insurance costs, "nationalize" theinsurance industry, inst itute a nationwide no-fault insurance pollicy, require all drivers tohave insurance.

The OTA study found that insurance costshave declined in real dollars since 1950. It is un-likely that such declines will continue becausethe number of accidents is expected ti increase,and the cost of medical care and car repair arerising. Consequently, the OTA staff briefly ex-amined three policy options to control con-sumer costs: national no-fault insurance andother modifications in insurance practices, Gov-ernment regulation of repair practices, andGovernment incentives or standards to increaseautomobile durability and maintainability.

Respondents most frequently suggested in-creased mass transportion and increased ride-sharing to relieve congestion. The OTA studyconsidered an additional measure—pricing —asa curb on congestion. Under a congestion cost-pricing scheme, motorists would be charged afee to drive in specific areas during peak traveltimes. Theoretically, the fee would be proper-tionate to what a driver contributes to the totalcongestion of the area. A successful demonstra-tion prograrm of congestion cost-pricing wascarried out in Singapore in 1975. The trafficrestraint scheme included parking fees, arealicenses, and a park-and-ride system to providemotorists with an alternative mode of transpor-

tation. To enter a designated area where conges-tion was to be reduced, a driver had to display asupplementary license that could be bought inthe post office or other public service areas.Mass transportation, including carpools, wasexempt from the additional license require-ments. Within 6 months after implementing theprogram, the volume of traffic entering the re-stricted zone had been reduced by 40 percent.

The economic structure of the automobile in-dustry was briefly examined in the OTA assess-ment in terms of the number of jobs involvedand the impact of the estimated costs of Govern-ment regulation. Many of the people we talkedto preferred less Government regulation andmore marketplace control over products andprices. A large number, however, were criticalof what they perceive as “sluggishness” on thepart of industry in innovation and quality con-trol, attitudinal manipulation through advertis-ing, and unwarranted profits. “Big industry hastoo much control. We should be more observantof industry impact on our lives, ” we heardmany times.

Respondents felt that, in addition to lookingat industry structure and performance, OTAshould also consider the structure and perform-ance of the Federal Government. The majorityof the respondents were very critical of Govern-ment’s management record. “The FederalGovernment should coordinate its activities bet-ter. ” “The Federal Government needs to do abetter job leading, clean up its management ef-forts, and waste less money. ” “It is institutional,not technological, problems that constrain thedevelopment of decent transportation. ” “Wefeel that the Government should be an acti-vator, not a controller. ” “The Governmentshouldn’t own and operate anything; it shouldbroker services, ”

“The Federal Government belongs in the pic-ture, ” a New Hampshire man told us, “butthey’ve just mishandled things so far. ” He wenton to explain that the “railroads are screwed upbecause they end up in congressional commit-tees concerned with regulation. The highway

program was successful because it was handledby a construction-oriented committee. If rail-roads had been the responsibility of the PublicWorks Committee instead of the InterstateCommerce Committee, railroads would be ingood shape. ”

Others claimed that Government policieshave distorted the development of an adequatepersonal transportation system. An Oregonman wrote, “Through your office, I appeal toour Federal Government to create a politico-economic environment wherein the intrinsicmerits of each mode determine the nature andextent of its use. Unless Government ownershipof roads and facilities for navigation and avia-tion ceases to distort relationships, equalizationof opportunity to demonstrate merit demandscomparably heavy public investment in railwayfacilities. ” Another said, “Federal money in-fluences States to do wrong things, like buildingunnecessary interstates that they can’t maintain,when the State road system is good enough. ”

Public investment in and the financingmechanism for the Nation’s roadway networkwere examined by the OTA study. It was pro-jected that road construction would taper off,and maintenance and repair activities wouldgrow. In general, respondents indicated littledesire for major new road construction any-where in the country. “The Governmentshouldn’t provide roads we don’t need and can’tafford, ” Instead they felt that efforts should bedirected at “protecting the current investment”in the roadway network by promoting more ef-ficient usage and better repair and maintenance.The OTA analysis highlighted the future needfor highway maintenance and its spiraling cost.It was noted in the analysis that there is confu-sion over what actually constitutes “mainte-nance” and how such activity could be best fi-nanced. Some individuals felt that the HighwayTrust Fund should be used to provide incentivesfor more efficient use of the Nation’s highwaysand pay the costs of repair and maintenance.Many individuals opposed trust funds, sayingthat: “Trust funds are too rigid in long-rangeplanning. They don’t give Congress the flexibili-ty to change according to needs. ” Such funds“tie us to one technology too much. ”

In sum, respondents felt that the cost struc-ture of the American personal transportationsystem is so complex, and the Government’s in-volvement in it so intricate, that it merits a farmore detailed examination than the OTA studywas able to give it. “The Federal Governmentshould re-examine its overall transportationfunding policies in order to discover and under-stand the inequities, before it attempts tomodify or transform the system. ”

ENERGY

“The Federal Government’s credibility is not too good on the energy issue, ” a mid-western farmer told us. “One agency announces one thing on Monday, then anotherFederal agency announces just the opposite on Tuesday, ” Similar remarks were heardthroughout the country. Most respondents felt the energy situation was more apolitical problem than a supply shortage at present, although they readily ack-nowledge concern about the limitations of all natural resources.

An Alaska workshop participant voiced a re- ion, however, was that the “energy crisis” wascurrent comment we heard: “When there is an contrived by industry to justify increased prices.abundance, we waste the i tern, whatever it is. ”The often expressed desire for conservation Fuel cost was the central theme in discussionsmeasures stemmed, of course, from the concern about energy. Several respondents urged thatabout supply limitations. The prevailing opin- consumers and Government policy makers

Photo Credits Sylvia Johnson.1979

Miles per gallon is a selling point for this transportation mode

25

26 ● Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

“look at the cost, not the price” of fuel in theirdeliberations on the subject. Despite respond-ents’ annoyance a t what they perceived as unfairfuel price increases by the oil industry, theymost often suggested deregulation of gas forseemingly contradictory reasons.

There was a belief that deregulation wouldencourage more competition within the fuel in-dustry and consequently serve as a control onprice levels. “We feel strongly that the freemarket should be allowed to set the price offuel . . . . This would be a strong form of con-trol, ” a group of southwesterners said. “Therewould probably have to be some allowancemade for the poor, though. ” It was also believedthat deregulation would result in the surfacingof the “true cost” of fuel which would most like-ly be higher than current levels. These higherleves would then induce supply conservation --higher prices wouldd encourage less purchasingand more efficient use of petroleum. In line withthis second belief was the oft-repeated requestthat the Federal Government raise gas taxes sub-stantially —“not in dribs and drabs” —to serveessentially the same purpose: conservation.

Rationing was seen by many as a plausibleconservation tool and the most equitable interms of distribution. Another mechanism forsaving fuel that was often mentioned wasaccessibility —changes in land use developmentpatterns to minimize travel needs. In the North,East, South, and West, we heard that “mostpeople favor the 55-mph speed limit, but don’tfollow it. The Government must enforce thislaw to save gas, and more importantly, lives. ”Better traffic management is needed, theyadded, to reduce congestion and save fuel. “Itmakes no sense to have 55-mph speed limits, 70-mph road designs, and 125-mph engine capaci-ty, “ said a woman race car driver. In someplaces, we were told that “lifestyle and drivingmust slow down t o save energy. ” Overall , re-spondents seemed to agree that, while individ-uals shared the responsibility for using naturalresources wisely, the stimulus for conservationprobably would “still have to come through ex-ternal forces, ” i.e., the Federal Government.

The ever-present threat of another oil em-bargo and the prospect of severe depletion ofworldwide petroleum supplies led the OTA autostaff to consider policy options that wouldreduce auto fuel consumption and expedite de-

Photo credit U S , Department of Energy,

Rationing coupons designed as a result ofthe 1973-74 energy crisis

● more stringent fuel economy standards,

● a u t o use controls and transit promotion,● improved transportation systerm manage-

ment,. increased gasoline taxes, and● gasoline rationing.

Figure 3.— U.S. Demand for Oil in 1976(millions of barrels per day (M MB D))

Electricitygeneration

Auto 1.6 Residential-Transportation commercial

5.2

9 I

Small 1truck

Other & h e rtruck

1.0 transportation2.1

Total: 17.5 MMBD (42%

SOURCE” Executive Office of the President,P/an, April 29, 1977

Industrial3.2

imported)

The National Energy

Ch. 5—Energy ● 2 7

Photo Credits Sylvia Johnson 1979

Energy crisis 1979

The results of the OTA analysis indicated thatthe first three might be beneficial, but wouldhave only a small effect on conservation of fuelconsumption. If the Nation were to face a seri-ous or prolonged scarcity of petroleum, only ra-tioning or very large fuel price increases throughtaxation or deregulation would reduce petrol-eum consumption in the automobile sector by asignificant amount. The OTA study concludedthat sooner or later, a shift would have to bemade from petroleum to alternative energy

sources for the automobile, and a strongGovernment program of support and incentivesmight be necessary to accomplish this.

Talk about conservation during the publicparticipation effort often sparked discussionsabout the effect of decreased fuel usage on theNation’s economy. Automobile transportationis the largest consumer of petroleum in theUnited States, constituting about 30 percent ofthe total demand, and consumption is rising.The OTA research showed that deregulation ofpetroleum prices could allow market forces tobalance supply and demand, but might have in-flationary effects on the national economy, im-pose a disproportionate burden on low-incomepersons, and generally restrict the use of theautomobile.

“If the current car is unsatisfactorty, then let’simprove it, ” said a midwestern auto owner, giv-ing voice to a popular notion. On the westcoast, representatives of a State auto club toldus about their “target car” program which wasdesigned to encourage the domestic auto indus-try to improve their products. Eleven factorswere chosen for rating. “Imports were wayahead when we began the program, but theUnited States has caught up fast because of com-petition, Government regulations, cost, andpeople’s interest in fuel economy, ” they told us.

We also heard from inventors who wereworking on alternatively fueled vehicles and in-dustry officials who were experimenting withnew engine designs. In addition to improvedcars, respondents called for more and improvedmass transportation vehicles in response to im-


pending energy shortages. Improved engines,the use of alternative fuels, energy efficientmodes-all were supported by most of the re-spondents.

The lack of an effective national energy policywas frequently criticized. “We don’t want anenergy policy dictated by . . . Iran, ” one NewEnglander told us. A southerner complainedthat the Federal Governrnent “should get out ofthe oil industry’s bed. ” A college studentasserted that “Congress has blown the energysituation. ” In general, respondents said thatunder a national energy policy, the FederalGovernment should provide support for indus-try research and development of alternativefuels, decrease the Nation’s dependence onforeign oil, and continue to pressure the auto-mobile industry for better engines and smallercars. Respondents also stressed the need “to getat more basic energy issues, beyond the autoa lone,” such as the tradeoffs between residen-tial, transportation, and industrial energy

needs; the amounts of energy needed to produceenergy; and the “true” relationship of energy tothe U.S. economy.

“True” is an adjective that surfaced repeated-ly during the public participation program.What are the true costs, true relationships,what’s the true story?, we were asked over andover again. People were hungry for informationand were often uneasy with opinions they ex-pressed due to uncertainty about the “facts” onwhich they were basing their viewpoints. Re-spondents were critical of “misleading” adver-tisements and “contradictory” Government pro-nouncements. They emphasized the need for ac-curate information about industry products andproblems facing the Nation as a result of usingthese products. It was mainly during discussionsof energy (because of the widespread confusionover the existence of an “energy crisis”) and costthat the need for improved consumer commun-ications was most frequently emphasized.

ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER

0Automobile emissions are major contributors to air pollution, primarily in urban

area where automobile exhaust is a principal source of carbon monoxide, hydrocar-bons, and nitrogen oxides. Other forms of pollution noise, water pollution, soil con-tamination, and solid waste — are problems generated by automobile usage, but not tothe same degree. For this reason, the OTA study concentrated on aut{~rn[>bile air pollu-tion.

“Like the ‘energy crisis, ’ air pollution also hasan identity problem, ” explained a southwesternhealth department official. There is confusionabout its existence because it is not a tangiblesubstance that has precise parameters. “Peoplegenerally don’t believe there is a pollution prob-lem because they can’t see it, ” he claimed, “sothey don’t pay attention to air pollution alertsor other bad air warnings.

On the contrary, most of the people we talkedto seemed to believe the existence of air pollu-tion. They were, however, leery of the scantyfacts to which they had access. Here, again, theyasked for more information. They wanted defin-itive “proof” that air pollution was harmful tohuman health and welfare, and that pollutionwas indeed extensive. Here, again, they werecritical of what they termed “mixed messages”from the Federal Government.

A State government representative told usthat “the Feds need to put teeth into their regula-tions if they expect us to believe that they andthe problems are serious. ” A labor union manwho was unhappy about industry moving fromhis State to the south where environmental re-quirements are less stringent wanted to know,“Why is it OK to pollute in the south, but not inthe midwest? If air pollution is bad for us, theGovernment shouldn’t be allowing it to increaseanywhere .“

With the exception of some rural small townrespondents, most of the people we heard fromfelt that environmental problems were nation-wide in scope. Therefore, Federal Governmentinvolvement in helping reduce these problemswas justified, they said. They stated that the

Photo credit U.S. Department of Transportat ion

Federal Government should provide uniformguidance in this matter, and local and Stateauthorities should be responsible primarily forprogram design and implementation. “Moral”and financial support should come from the na-tional level. Federal environmental guidelinesand/or regulations should leave ample room for“local initiative. ”

“Concord, New Hamphsire, is not New YorkCity. “ “Akron, Ohio, is not Washington, D. C.”“Albuquerque, New Mexico, is not Los An-geles. “ “Iowa cars shouldn’t have to meet strin-gent California emissions standards. ” “Don’tlegislate rules for big cities and force them onsmall towns and rural areas. We’re not thesame, ” was usually the initial response. Yet, inreflecting further on the environmental situationin their areas, residents frequently expressed thesame concerns as big city inhabitants—how to

29

copeport,

Carbon monoxide Hydrocarbons

1 13“5 30.2

Totals (million tons per year)

Nitrogen oxides

20.0

KEY: u uAutomobile b Other mobilec Stationary and

miscellaneousd1975 Datab Passenger cars only.‘Light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks (gasoline and diesel), buses, motocycles, aircraft, pipeline, marine craft and militaryvehicles,

SOURCES EEA Gasoline Consumption Model,TRC and Argonne National Laboratory, Priorties and Procedures for the Development of Standards ofPerformance for New Stationary Sources of Atmospheric Polh.men, 1976

with automobile pollution, oxidant trans-noise from increasing traffic, and sprawl-

ing development (with subsequent loss of farm-land) encouraged by road construction. Themessage they wanted to convey was: Don’t tellus what to do; help us to learn what the prob-lems and potential solutions are, then encourageus by incentive to help alleviate these problems.

They criticized the industry for “dragging itsfeet” on automobile emission controls and sug-gested that the Federal Government prod the in-dustry with stronger incentives. The FederalGovernment, on the other hand, was criticizedfor the “conflicts among safety, pollution, andfuel economy goals. ” Although concern aboutair pollution was expressed mostly by urbanresidents, both urban and rural people com-plained about increasing traffic noise and itsundesirability. A Californian chided Govern-ment officials and others for concern about traf-fic noise “when viewed in light of half our popu-lation’s penchant for high wattage stereo sys-terns. ”

Respondents were distressed, too, by whatthey deemed “excessive space demands” of theautomobile system. Roads, accommodatingcars mostly, comprise a large part of the spacetaken in cities and suburbs. A frequent criticismof highway construction was that it “encour-aged waste, poor development, and poor trans-portation.” More thought should be given toland use development and the compatibility of avariety of transportation modes, from the auto-mobile to mass transit, they said. There shouldbe changes in development patterns that wouldencourage more efficient use of natural re-sources, such as energy and land. A related sug-gestion was that the Federal Government shouldbe considering “the global impact of our waste”of diminishing resources.

As expected, cost received a great deal of at-tention in the discussions about the environ-ment. Typically, we heard: “We’re not sure wecan afford small increases in air quality andhigh-cost technology. “ “The Government mustlook closely at the cost-benefit tradeoff between

Ch. 6—Environment ● 3 1

emissions and the economy." “The cost andcomplexity of automobiles are due to emissionand safety device legislation. ” “The societal im-pact of pollution should be a major factor in anycost analysis performed by the Government. ”

Essentially, the repondents felt that theburden of pollution control should be on theautomobile manufacturers. The Federal Gov-ernment should encorurage the development andpurchase of nonpolliitomg vehicles, more effi-cient use of available transportation facilities(such as carpooling and priority bus lanes), andimprroved land use planning, thely said. TheOTA analysis showed that the introduction ofnew technol ogy for automobile propulsion sys-tems and synthetic fules may create new adverse

impacts on the ennvironment. Particulate emis-sions from diesel engines are of special concernbecause of their possible carcinogenic prop-erties.

Based on the OTA analysis, it appears thatadditional measures to control automobile emis-sions will be necessary to meet air quality stan-dards in urban areas. The data showed that fur-ther tightening of new-car emission standards,particuarly for nitrogen oxides, wouldd be onlymarginally helpful, and the cost of achievingthis benefit Would be high.

The OTA study also found that a nationwideprogram of inspection and maintenance of ve-hicles in use could produce substantial reduc-tions in automobile emissions and consequent

i m p r o v e m e n t in air quality. The analysisshowed, too, that control of automobile usewould be effective as a supplementary measurei n specific locations. However, as a general na-tionwide strategy, automobile use controls ap-pear to be of limited value.

Respondents rarely mentioned inspection andmaintenance, and when they did, the response

B U S E S

4 P A S S E N G E R

P O O L C A R S

I I P M - I I A M

Photo Credit Sylvia Johnson 1 9 7 9

Carpooling and busing help reduce pollutionand congestion

was mixed. Restricted automobility was notpopular among the respondents because theyviewed it as an intrusion on their presentfreedom of movement. It should be remem-bered, though, that decreased automobility wasa factor in the majority of the respondents’designs for a future personal transportationsystem.

Present policies, according to the OTAanalysis, appear to be adequate to minimizeother environmental impacts of all automobiles,such as noise, community disruption by roadconstruction, disposal of scrap vehicles andparts, water and soil contamination. Respond-ents were concerned that present environmentallaws are not well understood, nor adequatelyenforced. They tended to support strengtheningand expanding programs to improve environ-mental quality, particularly in the areas of airand noise.

SAFETY CHAPTER

7

“Safety’s not a problem in my State, ” we were told by one middle-aged man in apredominantly rural State. “There are so few cars on the road here that I put my Timemagazine on the steering wheel and drive to work at 80 mph. By the time I get there,I’ve finished reading the magazine. ” (Statistics released in the local press shortly afterwe heard these remarks showed that this particular State had one of the highest trafficacciclent rates in the country.)

Respondents of all ages, from diverse back-grounds, from large and small communities,from every region of the United States insistedthat “cars aren’t the cause of accidents, peopleare!” A member of a leading automobile asso-ciation stated that safety was one of hisorganization’s main concerns, and that theyviewed “the person behind the wheel” as theprimary problem.

People complained bitterly about drunkdrivers and “just plain bad drivers. ” They wereangry about people who “drive aggressive] y andtake their frustrations out behind the wheel of acar;” those who think it’s “neat to get loaded onnarcotics or liquor and attempt to drive;” andthose “who think O to 80 in 6 seconds is thegreatest thing in the world and will leave tons ofrubber on the pavement to prove it (they alsoleave cadavers when something goes wrong), ”Many respondents compared the safety rates forauto travel to travel by mass transportation.“Thousands of people died on the highways lastyear, but not one person died on Amtrak, ” aMassachusetts woman noted.

More responsibility should be placed on thedriver, respondents said, and stronger penaltieslevied on those who drive recklessly. This wasthe one area where people generally agreed thatFederal, State, and local governments should beheavily involved. They also said that nationaldisincentives aimed at drunk drivers and habit-ually poor drivers should be adopted nationallyand applied uniformly.

Current driver education programs are inade-quate, they said, and licensing requirementsshould be tightened. Driver education programs

Table 3.— 1977 Traffic Crash Data

Crashes a 17,600,000Vehicles Involveda . 29,800,000Injuries b ., ... ., ., 4,392,000DeathsC.................... 47,700

Auto occupants.............................................. (27.400)P i c k u p , v a n o c c u p a n t s (5,200)M o t o r c y c l e (4,200)P e d e s t r i a n , p e d a c y c l e . . . . . . . . . . . (8,600)T r u c k , b u s , a n d o t h e r (2,400)

E s t i m a t e d . . . . . . . . . . . . c o s t o . $44 billionaOTA estimates from National Safely CounciI databu.s. Public Health ServiceCU.S. DOT Fatal Accident Reporting System figures roundeddu.s. DOT updated area originally from 1975 Societal Costs of Motor Vehicle

Accidents This figure does not include costs associated with pain.suffering loss of reIationship, and the I Ike

should not be limited to the young or beginningdrivers, rather they should be extended todrivers of all ages. For example, some Stateagencies and a number of companies now offerdefensive driving courses for their employees.Some even require their employees to take thesecourses periodically. Additionally, “license ex-ams should be standardized, ” we were told,“and testing should be continuous, not just aonce-in-a-lifetime event. ”

Cyclists should obey traffic laws, too, andmotorists should be trained to watch out for cy-clists, “just as they watch out for trucks andmotorcycles and taxicabs,” northwestern re-spondents told us. Several bike riders suggestedrequiring a license and/or a minimum age forcycling. As one cyclist put it, “Fifty percent ofthe bike accidents occur to kids under 12, and 50percent of the auto accidents involve peopleunder 24. Maybe the legal age limit for cyclistsshould be 12 at a minimum, and for car drivers,at least 24. ”

33



Hazardous road conditions place an extra strain on drivers

“The psychology of driving and bad drivingshould be examined, ” said one woman, reiter-ating the viewpoint of many respondents. “Wedon’t understand the man-machine interface toowell, ” another person said, then added that “thedrinking and driving relationship should be ex-amined closely. “ “Drinking to excess and driv-ing is macho, ” explained a southerner.

Various approaches were suggested to curbabusive use of alcohol, which was viewed bymany respondents as “the No. 1 social and safe-ty problem. ” Businesses, unions, and policedepartments throughout the United States areexperimenting with rehabilitation programs.Tavern owners in one State we visited are heldpartially responsible for the sobriety, or lackthereof, of their customers. In June 1978, theGovernor of Ohio signed a bill requiring in-surance groups of 25 or more to cover in- andout-patient treatment for alcoholics. The re-spondents claimed that much more needs to beclone: programs should be expanded, assistanceextended, and peer pressure applied in the effortto combat alcoholism.

“Uniformi t y“ was a key word in the safetydiscussions. “The Nation needs uniform trafficcodes and road standards. ” “Penalties for trafficviolations should be uniform, strict, and rigidlyenforced. “ “Inspection and maintenance shouldbe uniformly required throughout the U. S.”“The Federal Government should set uniformmanufacturing standards. ”

Vehicles and roadways were not ignored inthe safety discussions, although they were ofless concern than bad drivers. The most com-monly heard remarks about roads emphasizedthe need for better maintenance and repair ofthe Nation’s bridges and highways, the removalof hazardous obstacles and “death traps, ” andthe improvement of signing and lighting. A sub-stantial number of people said that “trucks andcars don’t mix, ” and that the two should beseparated. Many suggested that trucking ingeneral be greatly decreased with railroadsmoving more freight. They also favored a re-duction in truck weight limits. While a handfulof people thought speed limits should be raised,most said they favored the 55-mph limit andthat it should be better enforced.

Photo credit U S Department of Transportion

“Trucks and cars don’t mix . . . .“

As for automobiles themselves, some individ-uals felt that the Federal Government should“mandate fail-safe cars. ” A larger number saidthat “industry should improve car designs” tomake them safer. The results of surveys by twoauto clubs in the midwest and northwest, whichwere shared with us, illustrate the type of re-sponse we received on the issue of safety de-vices. The survey respondents indicated thatthey were aware of the utility of seat belt usage,but felt that mandatory use was unwarranted. Itis contrary to “freedom of choice. ” “We don’twant Government agencies telling us what todo, ” said respondents, although many claimedthat they voluntarily use seat belts now. Para-doxically, most of the people we talked to pre-ferred to be in charge of their own individualsafety, but wanted someone else, i.e., theGovernment or industry, to be responsible forthe safety of others (most frequently mentionedwere family members ).

To safeguard “pedestrians who don’t havebumpers, ” it was suggested that with advance-ments in electronics it would perhaps be possi-ble to equip future vehicles with a pedestrian- oraccident-avoidance device. Accidents were notthe only thing motorists were trying to avoid.

36 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportat ion System

They were also fearful of crime. “People arebecoming so frightened that we use cars insteadof buses, ” a California woman told us. An east-erner claimed, “People feel safe in their carswith all the buttons pushed down. They don’thave this degree of safety when walking on citystreets or riding public transportation. ”

Respondents focused mainly on measures toimprove driving habits as the principal means toincrease safety. The OTA analysis found that in

the next 5 to 10 years, the greatest safety ben-efits would accrue from reduction of alcohol useassociated with driving, strict enforcement ofthe 55-mph speed limit, and increased use ofseat belts. The technical research also indicatedthat a long-range plan for a higher level of safe-ty should include improved auto crashworthi-ness, occupant restraint systems, and vehicle de-signs to mitigate pedestrian injuries, as well asthe elimination of roadside hazards.

Beyond periodic trips to the voting booth and occasional brief appearances atpublic hearings, U.S. citizens usually have had little access to the Government deci-sionmaking process. In an effort to broaden their involvement, citizens–- throughlitigation and public protest —have demanded the development of additional channels

for making their views known and thereby influencing Government policy.

In response to this demand, Congress hasmandated increased citizen participation inGovernment activities, from planning to actualimplemental ion of programs. Experimentationwith techniques for public participation is underway in several Government agencies. Becausethere has been limited experience with an ex-panded public participation process, a briefdiscussion of the automobile assessment’s publicparticipation program may be useful to othersengaged in such activites.

In the automobile assessment, the OTA staffoperated under two assumptions:

. A better understanding of people’s needs,attitudes, and behavior is needed in orderto build more humane and satisfactory sys-tems, transportation being only one. Whatbetter source of information is there, then,than people themselves?

● Involvement t of a diverse group of people inthe assessment would lead to a better un-derstanding of the advantages and disad-vantages of the automobile transportationsystem and, hence, to a more thoroughanalysis.

In designing the citizen participation programfor the assessment, an effort was made to stimu-late public commentary on substantive ques-tions, to facilitate the public’s ability to partici-pate in the study, and, where possible, to estab-lish a two-way dialog. Too often, even now,public participation efforts are limited to publichearings, held during the traditional work day(between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.), in a handful of ma-jor cities. The schedule typically allots partici-pants 5 to 10 minutes to speak, which usuallymeans time to read a prepared statement. Thereis no discussion, and those conducting the hear-

ing rarely make any response to testimony andcomments offered by the public “witnesses, ”who tend to be persons with a professional ororganizational interest in the subject under con-sideration. In form, the hearing process moreclosely resembles a quasi-legal proceeding thanan open forum for mutual exchange of views.

The OTA staff decided to exclude public hear-ings and to rely on other methods to reach thepublic. The methods included a brochure and -questionnaire, workshops, interviews, small-group discussions, and regular meetings with aPublic Participation Working Group. The intentwas to employ techniques that would encouragediscussion and informal exchange of views with-out the trappings of a formal judicial procedure.This was done, also, with the intent of expand-ing public participation in general and exposingGovernment activity to closer scrutiny by abroader range of the public.

The data collected are fairly representative ofAmerican thinking on the subject of the futureuse and characteristics of the automobile trans-portation system. This is due to the diversityand number of people involved, and to the na-tionwide and open-forum characteristics of theprogram. However, it is only a very small pieceof what is needed in terms of public dialog andparticipation in Government decisionmaking onthe topic of personal mobility. It is hoped thatthis effort will serve as a point of departure fromwhich others can continue.

Brochure and questionnaire. A brochure, en-titled “The Automobile: It’s Driving Us ToThink, ” was distributed throughout the UnitedStates during June 1978. (See appendix A.) Itcontained a brief discussion of the origin of theautomobile assessment, the issues identified for

37


study, and background information on OTA.Enclosed was a short questionnaire designed toexplore the recipient’s views on issues, techno-logical alternatives for personal mobility, andpolicy options for the Federal Government.About 17,000 copies were mailed, and almost700 responses were received. This is a responserate of approximately 4 percent.

The questionnaire raised basically the sametopics that were considered in other parts of thepublic participation activity and in the technicalanalysis itself. An open-ended questionnairewas used to give respondents the greatestamount of leeway in selecting points for com-ment and articulating their replies. Space wasalso provided for additional comments that re-spondents wished to make.

Members of Congress from areas where auto-mobile assessment workshops were not schedul-ed were asked to assist in the distribution of thebrochure and questionnaire by sending it to alimited and randomly selected number of peopleon their mailing lists. Help was also obtainedfrom national organizations which had no con-nection with the automobile transportationsystem. (See table 4 for distribution list.)

Table 4.— Brochure Distribution List

Congressman Morris K, Udall. Arizona. ... .2,000Congressman John J. Cavanaugh, Montana .. 2,000Congressman Olin E. Teague, Texas . .. 2,000Congressman Hami l ton F ish , New York , . , 1 ,000C o n g r e s s m a n W y c h e F o w l e r , G e o r g i a 2 . 0 0 0Washington State Energy Off Ice, Washington 1,800Indiana University, Purdue, Indiana 500National Rural Center, national 1,800National Economists Club. national 1,200Parents Without Partners, national 1,500O T A , P u b l i c A f f a i r s , n a t i o n a l 1,200

Total . . .. .17,100

While this technique produced a large numberof responses, i t was limiting in that the staff wasunable to pursue specific points made by indi-vidual respondents. However, some of thesepoints were incorporated in later discussionswith other people during workshops and inter-views. The major difficulty encountered withthis and other outreach techniques used wasputting together written (and oral) materials inan even-handed, objective manner. What ap-pears to one individual to be fair presentationappears to another as misrepresentation. Illus-

trative of this dilemma was that environmental-ists tended to criticize the brochure for being“too lenient on the auto and its impact, ”whereas auto industry officials tended to label it“biased” against the automobile.

Workshops. Eight workshops were held—four in July and four in September 1978—atlocations throughout the country. The sitesselected were Concord, N. H.; Akron, Ohio; Ft.Dodge, Iowa; Portland, Oreg.; Anchorage,Alaska; Los Angeles, Calif.; Albuquerque,N. Mex.; and Memphis, Term, (See appendix Bfor copies of the workshop notice, agenda, andhandout material. )

Basically, three criteria were used in site selec-tion. First, the staff felt that a workshop shouldbe held in each of the major regions of the coun-try to sample whatever regional differencesthere might be in attitudes and travel habits.Second, a range of sparse to dense populationwas needed to determine differences, if any, inattitudes about transportation and travel needsand patterns. (Viewpoints throughout the coun-try were found to be similar on the topic of per-somal transportation, regardless of the region orthe size of the community. ) Third, an effort wasmade to select areas that are not generally vis-ited by Government representatives in otherpublic outreach programs.

Anchorage was included not only because itmet the criteria, but also because Alaska is alarge area on the brink of what could be sub-stantial development. The staff was interested inknowing if transportation decisions being madein that State would mirror those of the “lower48, ” or if Alaskan development might introduceinnovation in modes and usage that would beapplicable elsewhere in the United States. Ak-ron, Ohio, was added to the list because itseconomy is largely dependent on the automobileindustry. The remaining six sites were selectedbased mostly on their regional location (north-east, midwest, northwest, west, southwest,southeast ) and size (rural, small town, medium-sized town, large metropolitan area).

Mailing lists for each workshop location wereassembled with the help of chambers of com-merce, local government officials, and occa-sionally, the district office staff of Members ofCongress. These lists contained the names of avariety of individuals living in and around the

Photo credits. Bob Ounsmore and Vicki Sibley

Involving the public— citizens from the east to west coasts provided valuable input to the public participation process

A Public Participation Ch. 8- S • 39 Proces


communities to be visited. An average of 3 0people attended each of the workshops, five ofwhich were held on a weekday evening (7 to10:30 p.m. ) and three on Saturdays (9 a.m. to 4p.m. ). Participants were encouraged to air theiropinions, and time was allocated for dialogamong the participants and the two or threeOTA staff members in attendance.

Interest appeared to be higher and attendancegreater at the evening sessions, even though theshortened time period allowed less discussion.Some adjustments were made in the OTA pres-entation and wording of questions following thefirst few workshops, primarily at the suggestionof participants. This helped later participants tounderstand more easily the nature of the effortand resulted in better response during the re-maining sessions. While there was a good mixamong the participants in terms of backgroundexperience and community activities, there wasnot as much balance as the staff would haveliked in terms of age, sex, and race. More inten-sive efforts to reach people in these categories isneeded for future efforts of this sort.

The workshops were the most time-consum-ing of the public participation measures used,but they also resulted in a substantial amount ofinformation. The administrative effort waslarge due to the need for travel and hotel ac-commodations, room arrangements, audio-visual equipment rental, compilation of mailinglists, preparation of handout materials, and amyriad of other tasks. Where time allows, aworkshop is a good method for stimulating pub-lic discussion and obtaining a variety of com-ments.

Interviews and small group discussions. Over200 people were interviewed individually or insmall groups throughout the country. In someinstances, the discussions took place as an extrasession of an annual conference, such as thoseconducted by the American Institute of Plannersor the National Council for the TransportationDisadvantaged. Interviews were arranged inevery community where the staff held work-shops—including, in one case, a stopover loca-tion. Meetings with special groups were ar-ranged also, such as one meeting with a groupof architectural students and a separate meetingwith the students’ professors. Occasionally,spontaneous interviews took place—as in one

case when an OTA staff member struck up aconversation with a rural southern shopkeeper.

The format for these sessions was similar tothe workshops: a brief explanation about thestudy and OTA, then questions and discussion.(See appendix C for a sample of the questionsasked. ) This method of gathering public com-mentary allowed the OTA staff to discuss re-spondents’ viewpoints in more detail than waspossible at workshops. It was also the easiestand least costly technique to organize and im-plement, and it seemed to be the most produc-tive with respect to quantity of detailed com-mentary.

Public Participation Working Group. Thisgroup was composed of nine people from theWashington, D. C., metropolitan area. Theywere selected on the basis on their travel needsand modal choices, rather than technical trans-portation expertise. The members represented amix of income level, age, sex, and race. Somemembers owned cars, some did not. Some hadtechnical knowledge about various aspects ofthe automobile transportation system; some didnot. They represented themselves, rather thanan organization. (See appendix D for a briefbackground description of working group mem-bers. )

The working group was established primarilyto provide an ongoing mechanism throughwhich a small number of people from the gen-eral public could comment on the proceduraland substantive aspects of the automobileassessment and the public participation pro-gram. Over time, the members became familiarwith the general concerns of OTA and with theimmediate problems of the OTA staff conduct-ing the assessment.

Eight full-day meetings were held on Satur-days between April and mid-December 1978.Initially, the members were asked the samebasic questions as in the questionnaire. As timepassed, they were given materials to read per-taining to the future of the automobile; presen-tations were made by the staff which providedthem with additional information; and discus-sions took place during which the members’views and need for more information were ex-amined. During their last meetings, the ques-tions asked of them initially were repeated, andtheir responses discussed. Generally, their views

Ch. 8—A Public Participation Process ● 4 1

had not changed much over the course of 8months, nor did they differ substantially fromresponses received through other channels. Thisis probably due to the fact that the automobile isa well-known technology. If the assessment haddealt with a less familiar technology, the work-ing group responses might have differed greatlyfrom the beginning of their participation to theend, or might have differed from the commentsof less informed respondents.

In summary, participants in all aspects of theprogram appeared eager to comment on thestudy and seemed to be generally pleased withthe approaches used. Less than a dozen peopleout of the 1,300 respondents objected to the pro-gram as a whole or to specific parts. Three in-dividuals said that the distribution of the ques-tionnaires was a “rip off of taxpayers’ money. ”A northwestern couple charged that the “hiddenagenda of the auto assessment is to do awaywith the car and democracy. ” A few individualswho were affiliated with the auto or auto-re-lated industries claimed that the assessment staffwas “trying to stack the workshops with radi-cals, hippies, and screaming environrnentalists. ”Interestingly, a car enthusiast who attended aworkshop said that he was “disappointed thatthere weren’t any radicals in attendance. ”

For- the most part, respondents answeredquestions enthusiastically. They made construc-

tive suggestions on both the content of theassessment and the public participation pro-gram. Additionally, many requested more in-formation from the staff and asked for copies ofthe report when published.

“This is the first time I’ve seen a Washingtonbureaucrat, ” several people commented. Otherssaid the quest ions “triggered new thoughts” andsometimes changed their perspectives. Somesaid they en j eyed the “exchange of ideas” duringthe discussions. A western man said he came tothe workshop “because I thought there would bea good cross section of people, and I was inter-ested in the direction of transportation. I gotmore answers than I expected. ”

An auto club official wrote to us: “I compli-ment you on conducting a good work-shop . . . . Your presentation of data and alter-natives was without prejudice. All participantshad the opportunity to express their concernsand recommendations. I am pleased to have hadthe ppportunity to participate. ” Many question-naire respondents said they appreciated beinginformed about the study and being offered thechance to voice their concerns and opinions. InWashington, D. C., a public participationWorking Group member said, “We havelearned while participating. ”

So did we.

Appendixes

Appendix A

BR

OC

HU

RE

/QU

ES

TIO

NN

AlR

E

45

THE AUTOMOBILE It's Driving Us To Think

..

• , • CONGRESS OF '~ :I ~ THE UNITED STATES

OllIe. of Teehnology Assessment WASHINGTON. D .. C. 20510

-0 ~o

o

Dear Citizen:

The future use and characteristics of the automobile transportation system is the topic of a study being conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). and the topic of this booklet. As a research arm of the United States Congress, OTA is responsible for examining a variety of technologies and their impact on society to help our legislative representatives determine the appropriate role for the Federal Government in technology development and usage. It is the purpose of this brochure to briefly discuss the issues being examined in the automobile study.

Sincerely. ~

~N.U~ Russell W. Peterson Director Office of Technology Assessment

DIVIDED HIGHWAY BEGINS

The automobile has become increasingly importantin our lives since the turn of the century when it firstbegan to make its way over the globe. Few people atthe time could have foreseen that it would ever suc-cessfully compete with the railroads. The greatest ob-jections raised against the newfangled motor car werethat its commotion frightened the horses, and it kickedup dust around the farmlands.

Most assumed that its emissions could not possiblybe worse than the daily sanitation problems andassault to the eyes and nose presented by horses onthe city streets. In New York City alone in the late1800’s, about 2.4 milliongallons of urine fell onmidst of all this, abouteach year, aggravatingclogging the streets.

pounds of manure and 60,000the streets every day. In the15,000 horses dropped deadthe unhealthy situation and

The automobile brought welcome relief from horseand buggy transportation, and offered a host of newbenefits as well. The automobile provides speed, com-fort, privacy, door-to-door service-mobility wheneverand to wherever we wish. These conveniences provedso attractive that, by 1928, there were more cars thantelephones in the United States, and after World War II,almost every family in the expanded American middleclass owned at least one car. Greater personal mobilitybecame so common it was taken for granted by most ofus. Then, the suburbs began to grow. Stores, churches,recreation areas, and employment centers followedresidential development and spread far beyond the cityboundaries.

Because of the popularity of the automobile, risingcar ownership rates, and sprawling low-density devel-opment, transit service dwindled. Owning a car gradu-ally became a necessity. The profusion of automobilesand changing American lifestyles (such as the 9-to-5workday and 5-day workweek) combined to produceseveral adverse impacts (traffic congestion and airpollution, for example).

In the 1950’s, alarmed by increasing smog causedpartially by automobile exhaust, citizens in LosAngeles, Calif., demanded corrective action. Emissioncontrol technology was available to automobile manu-facturers at the time, but for a variety of reasons, the in-dustry balked at the utilization of such technology. TheState of California responded by legislating emissioncontrol. The Federal Government eventually followedsuit and instituted measures to improve air quality incities all over the country by controlling sources ofpollution, including automobile exhaust.

Public concern regarding the automobile coversmore than air pollution, however. For instance, theprice of fuel is rising and is likely to continue to do so.Each year the United States imports more foreign oil.The number of traffic deaths and injuries is staggering.As old cars are scrapped, their bodies and parts createa solid waste disposal problem. Because the automo-bile has permitted homes, offices, shops, and neces-sary services to be located far apart, those who cannotdrive are at a disadvantage. One major alternative, pub-lic transit, in many places does not exist, costs toomuch, or is inconvenient.

4

CHECKING UNDER THE 11000 MOBILITY: Two-car barrageThe Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a re-

search arm of the United States Congress, is designedto act as an early warning system for Congress by pro-viding assessments on various technologies, theirpotential or actual impacts, alternative technologies,and relevant Government policy options. Generalistsand specialists from the professions and the publicpool their efforts to develop broad, accurate, in-depthassessments. At the request of Congress, OTA isstudying the future of the automobile transportationsystem to determine the short- and long-range impactson society and the appropriate role for the FederalGovernment. OTA’s preliminay assessment of the au-tomobile identified five issue areas for study: mobility,environment, energy, safety, and cost and capital.

In 1892, when the automobile was intro-duced in this country, we were an agricul-tural Nation, close to the land and close toour homes. Individual mobility was limited,and travel minimal. Now, however, travel iscrucial to our economy and to our daiIy Iives,and the car provides most of our mobility.

Currently, the American automobile trans-portation system contains about 100 millioncars (the national population totals about 200million people) which are driven on 3.8million miles of roads, streets, and highways

6 7●

throughout the United States. About onemillion miles of this roadway are built ormaintained by Federal funds and carry aboutthree-fourths of all vehicular travel.

Despite the high auto ownership figures,only 60 percent of our population drives. Theother 40 percent of us who do not drive—because we are too young, too old, too dis-abled, or too poor to afford a car—must de-pend on others to drive us to our variousdestinations, or rely on alternative modeswhich offer fewer advantages than the auto-mobile in terms of convenience, comfort, andspeed.

Basically, there are three ways society canimprove mobility. First, facilitate the physicalmovement of people from place to place.Second, improve accessibility by movingpeople and activities closer together. Third,reduce the need for travel by developing and

utilizing technological subtitutelecommunications), or by changing atti-tudes and lifestyles (voluntary simplicity,perhaps).

The Federal Government has concentratedon facilitating physical movement. It hasfunded, in varying degrees, projects such asroadway construction, special transportationservices, and mass transportation. Generally,the Government’s position has been finan-cially supportive of the growth of the auto-mobile industry. Although its actions have af-fected land use extensively, the Federal Gov-ernment has shied away from direct land usemanagement.

ENVIRONMENT: Caught in a clutchOne of the greatest environmental con-

cerns associated with the automobile is at-mospheric pollution. The Nation’s Capital, acity with little industrial activity, still findsitself periodically strangled by air pollution,especially in the hot summer months whenhigh humidity adds to the problem. Over 90percent of the carbon monoxide comes fromcars driven into, out of, and around the city.Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emittedby automobiles contribute to the contamina-tion as well.

8 9

While experts disagree about the severityof health hazards these air pollutants maypose, most agree that the continued pollu-tion of the atmosphere will cause severedamage in the long run. Whether from theautomobile or other sources, air pollutantsappear to be at least partialIy responsible forincreases in cancer and other diseases, in-terference with normal weather patterns, anddamage to plant and animal life. As a resulto f federa l l y mandated techno log ica lchanges, emissions from new automobileshave been greatly reduced and will be re-duced further as requirements of the CleanAir Act are met.

Additional environmental impacts asso-ciated with the automobile transportationsystem are noise, water polIution, solid

waste disposal, and sometimes disruptiveconsumption of land, particularly in residen-tial areas. Within the past 20 years, theFederal Government has become concernedenough to enact legislation in defense of theenvironment. Emission control spread na-tionwide with the passage of the Clean AirAct of 1963 and subsequent amendments.The National Environmental Policy Act waspassed in 1969. In 1972, the Noise ControlAct became law, and the Federal Water Pollu-tion Control Act was also passed. From thisspate of legislative activity emerged thePresident’s Council on Environmental Quali-ty and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency.

ENERGY: Fill’er upSince the automobile was first introduced

in the United States, triIIions of dollars havebeen spent structuring the Nation and ourlifestyles around the car. Cheap, plentifulpetroleum encouraged the dominance of theautomobiIe in our transportation system. To-day, although the United States comprisesonly 6 percent of the world’s population, itoperates more than half the world’s cars,trucks, and buses.

J

10 11●

Each year we import more oil due to:

● Our voracious appetite for fuel (automo-biles consume about 30 percent of ourpetroleum supply);

● Dwindling domestic supplies; and

. Our energy-dependent economy.

By becoming more dependent uponforeign sources for oil, we may be risking ournational security. Another oil embargo couldseriously hurt the economy of this country.Transition to alternate energy sources (syn-thetic fuels from coal, shale oil, or alcohol,for example) will take time, 15 to 25 yearsperhaps. Implementation of conservationmeasures will take time, too, but may providesome short-term relief from increasing oil im-port pressures.

SAFETY: Proceed with cautionThis country annually suffers thousands of

deaths, millions of injuries, and billions ofdollars in property damage due to traffic ac-cidents. Forty-six thousand lives were lostand 4 million people were injured in highwayaccidents in 1976. These astonishing figures

Federal concern about the gravity of theenergy situation prompted the establishmentof the nationwide 55 mph speed limit in 1974,the creation of the U.S. Department of Energyin 1977, and the current high-priority Presi-dential effort to obtain legislative support fora national energy plan.

12 13

belie the fact that the United States has thelowest rate, based on vehicle miles of travel,of traffic deaths and injuries i n the developedworld. Be that as it may, car accidents are ourleading cause of injury, with 50 percent ofthose accidents suspected to be related toalcohol abuse.

Traffic safety is a complex matter involvingvehicles, roadways, users, and the varioussupport systems. It has long been a concernof the Federal Government as evidenced bylaws passed in the early 1800’s in an attemptto reduce casualties resulting from poorstagecoach operations. To protect the riders,one law required lamps at night, and anothermandated fines for drunk drivers. It was notuntil 1966, however, that the Federal Govern-ment became heavily involved in highwaysafety legislation, enacting the National Traf-fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and theHighway Safety Act. Under the National Traf-fic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, new motorvehicles and vehicle components must meetcertain safety requirements before they canbe sold to the public. The Highway SafetyAct administers 18 safety programs in areassuch as driver education, traffic law enforce-ment, roadside design, and school transpor-tation safety.

COST AND CAPTITAL: Stops And BondsTransportation takes a hefty chunk out of

the average American household budget.Generally, only housing and food expensesare greater—and often not by much—thanautomobile expenditures. These costs in-clude purchase price, maintenance andrepair charges, fuel bills, parking fees, and in-surance premiums. Many Americans haveturned to smaller cars in response. Often

I

14 15●

cheaper to purchase and operate than do-mestic models, foreign cars comprisedabout 20 percent of the new-car market in theUnited States between 1976 and 1977,Spurred by this foreign competition and byFederal legislation, Detroit reacted by cre-ating smaller, more fuel-efficient models ofits own.

Much of the economy of this countrydepends in some way on the car. One out ofevery six jobs derives from it, either directlythrough the automobile industry (assemblyline workers, for example) or indirectlythrough auto-related services (garage me-chanics and tire manufacturers, for example).Our transportation system accounts forabout 20 percent of the gross national prod-uct, and the automobile accounts for abouthalf of that.

Federal financial involvement in the auto-mobile transportation system began earlyand gradually broadened in its application.Federal funds have provided subsidies forthe materials and energy industries whichsupply and serve the auto industry; financedroad construction projects throughout thecountry; supported research, development,and demonstration programs; funded someplanning efforts at the State level; promotedregional transportation coordination; andmore.

THE CLOVERLEAF: InterrelationshipsEnvironmental concerns about the auto-

mobile are often depicted as contrary to U.S.economic and energy goals. The businesssector of the country is reluctant to spend itsmoney on research and technology gearedtoward improving the environment because itis feared that environmentally safe automo-biles will then be too expensive for theAmerican consumer. Decreased sales wouldcause the industry to suffer, possibly re-sulting in plant closings and layoffs thatwould affect the economic health of the en-tire Nation. On the other hand, a fundamentalchange in the economic base of this country,st imulated by protect ive environmentallegislation or energy constraints or someother cause may be beneficial to the labormarket. For instance, the President’s Councilon Environmental Quality found in 1975 that,while there were some job losses resultingfrom environmental legislation, the emergingenvironmental industry had produced aneven larger number of new jobs, for a net gainin the overall labor market.

Like the other auto issues, implementationof safety improvements affects cost and cap-ital concerns. The technology exists tosubstantially reduce traffic mortality. How-ever, utilizing that technology would be verycostly. We have found, for example, that in-terstate highways and freeways are thesafest roads, but it would take huge sums ofmoney to reconstruct all the roads in thiscountry to meet interstate standards. Safety

o

16 17

devices in automobiles also tend to increasethe cost of cars. Unsure of the public’s will-ingness to pay for the improved safety of itsvehicles, the auto industry remains reluctantto risk installation of these devices for fear ofa decline in sales and profits.

Additionally, some individuals resist man-dated safety equipment as an infringementof civil rights. As more Americans purchasesmaller and lighter cars—for energy, en-vironmental, and/or cost reasons—safetymay decrease. This is because occupant pro-tection is a function of crash distance andrelative vehicle weights.

Alternatives to automobile transportationdo exist in many areas throughout the coun-try. Efforts to constrain auto usage in theseareas, because of energy, environmental, orcongestion problems, are often resisted bycitizens who view the constraints as limita-tions on mobility. In considering alternatives,OTA is examining new automotive technolo-gies as well as alternatives to the automobilein toto as a mode of personal transportation.

18

AUTO ASSESSMENT: Merging trafficThese, then, are the issues and some of

the interrelationships which OTA is currentlyexamining in its study of the automobile.Because public participation is so importantfor the operation of our democratic govern-ment, OTA invites your comments on theissues, transportation alternatives (includingthe automobile), and policy options for Gov-ernment action.

Send your comments to:

Transportation ProgramAttn: Public ParticipationOffice of Technology AssessmentUnited States CongressWashington, D.C. 20510

19●

54 ● Changes In the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

QUESTIONNAIREThe Future of the AutomobileWith You in the Driver’s Seat

Actions taken by the Federal Government in the nearfu ture cou ld dras t ica l ly change the automobi letransportation system as we now know it, or Increaseour dependence on the automobile by the year 2000.Your answers to the fol lowing questions wiII h e l pGovernment officials decide what course of action tofollow in the future of the automobile.

1.

2.

3.

4.

What are the major advantages and disadvantagesof the automobile for you?

What actions could you take to reduce thesedisadvantages. or Increase the advantages?

—

What actions Could the Federal Government taketo reduce the disadvantages, or Increase the ad-vantages?

- -—

Should the automobile be the major means oftransportation for your area in 2000? if not, whatalternatives would you suggest?

5. Describe the transportation system of 2000 as youwould like it to be.

6. What do you perceive the Federal Government’srole to be in transportation now? in the year2000?

7. if you have other comments about the automobileas it relates to transportation, please note thesebelow, or include them on a separate sheet(s) andmail them to us along with this questionnaire.

8. if you belong to an organization which would havean interest in the auto assessment, please in-dicate.

Organization:

Address:Street

City State Zip

President:

9. if you would like to be kept informed about thisassessment, please indicate:

Name:

Address:Street

City State Zip

Appendix B

WORKSHOP NOTICE, AGENDA,PROBLEM STATEMENT, HANDOUT MATERIAL

T E C H N O L O G Y A S S E S S M E N T B O A R D C o n g r e s s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e sRUSSELL W. PETERSON

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS., CHAIR MANDIRECTOR

LARRY WINN, JR., KANS.. VICE CHAIRMAN O F F I C E O F T E C H N O L O G Y A S S E S S M E N T D a n i e l DE S I M O N EERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE. TEX.ADLAI E. STEVENSON, ILL. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON , D.C. 20510CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHIOORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH JOHN W. WYDLER, N.Y.

RUSSELL W. PETERSON

You are cordially invited

to participate in a public workshop

on the Future Use and Characteristics

of the Automobile Transportation System

Tuesday, September 19, 1978

Library, Grant High School

2245 N.E. 36th Avenue

Portland, Oreg.

7:00– 10:30 p.m.

Background: A study of the future use and characteristics of the automobile transporta-tion system is being conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment, a research arm of theUnited States Congress. Requested by the Senate Commerce, Science, and TransportationCommittee, the auto assessment has focused on five issue areas: mobility, energy, environ-ment, safety, and cost and capital. Workshops will be held in eight locations throughout thecountry as part of a nationwide public participation effort designed to augment staff researchand analysis.

Purpose of Workshop: To gather public commentary on the issues, the alternatives forpersonal transportation, and the policy options relevant to the Federal Government’s role inthe future of the automobile transportation system.

Registration: Open to the general public (i.e., no affiliation is needed to be eligible toattend), participation will be limited to the first 50 registrants. This will enable those who par-ticipate ample opportunity to take part in the dialogue and enable the OTA staff to respond toquestions and listen to the discussion. A registration card is enclosed for your convenience.Please pass this information to other individuals who may be interested in attending or toorganizations who may want to send representatives.

55


AGENDA

Workshop onThe Future Use and Characteristics


7:00 p.m. Opening Remarks7:10 p.m. Auto assessment presentation7:40 p.m. Question and answer session8:10 p.m. Subgroup formation and discussion9:15 p.m. Subgroup presentations9:45 p.m. General discussion

10.30 p.m. Adjournment

AGENDA

Workshop onThe Future Use and Characteristics


9:00 a.m.9:15 a.m.

10:00 a.m.10:20 a.m.11:30 a.m.

Noon1:15 p.m.2:30 p.m.3:00 p.m.4:00 p.m.

Opening remarksAuto assessment presentationQuestion and answer sessionSubgroup formation and discussionSubgroup presentationsLunchSubgroup discussionSubgroup presentationsGeneral discussionAdjournment

App. B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material ● 5 7

WORKSHOP PROBLEM

One goal of our society is to enable citizens totake part in activities that enhance our socialand economic wel1-being. Essential to the attain-ment of this goal is the ability to reach jobs,consumer goods and services, recreation sites,and other desired activities.

There are three ways to facilitate reachingdesired activity sites. The first approach —andthe traditiona1 one-– is to improve m o b i l i t y ,that is, the ease with which people physicallymove from place to place. The second is to in-crease accessibility by locating people and ac-tivities in greater proximity to one another. Thethird is to reduce the need to make trips by usingtechnological substitutes for physical move-ment, such as telecommunications.

asked to devise a mobility plan for the year 2000that takes these projections into account:

1.

2.

3.

4.

How do you envision the personal trans-portation system for the year 2000 foryour area, for the National What would bethe characteristics of this system (modesof travel, types of vehicles, energy andsafety features, environrnental factors,and so forth)? Would present levels of mo-bility be maintained or increased? If in-creased, for whom and how? What wouldbe the rural urban or regional differences?

What would be the tradeoffs in terms ofenergy, natural resources, environnment,

sa fe ty , and monnetary cost for such a mo-

b i l i t y sys tem?

What would be the role of a ) Goernment,b ) industry, and c ) the priate citizen inthe development, management, and main-tenance of such a system? Folr example,what would be the ratio of public and pri-vate funding for the systerm and its variouscomponents? With regard to public fi-nancing, how would funds be raised (gen-eral or specific taxes), and how wouldthey be distributed (i. e., subsidies, grants,other)?

Do you have other concerns about person-al transportation now or in the future thatyou wish to express?

58 ● Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobi le Transportat ion System

HANDOUT MATERIALS

AUTOMOBILETECHNOLOGYASSESSMENT

To assess changesin the future use and characteristics

of the automobile transportation systemin the near term (to 1985) and the

long term (to 2000 and beyond)

OBJECTIVES:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

To describe the factors that influence the characteris-tics of the automobile system, its use, and servicessupporting its use.To identify and characterize potential changes inautomobile use and characteristics.To assess the near-term and far-term effects of variousalternative Federal Government policies relating toautomobile use and characteristics.To present the findings of the assessment in a formuseful to the Congress and the public.

S T U D Y A P P R O A C H

Identify and analyze issues.Describe the automobile transportation system andproject its future development.Formulate conditions and events that could impact thesystem or alter its development.Identify and analyze policy options that could beadopted by Congress to influence future automobileuse and characteristics.Assess the consequences and impacts of policyoptions.Present findings to the Congress and the public.

THE BASE CASEOR NO-POLICY-CHANGE

BASELINE

A projection of current trends and conditions assuming- existing policies are continued (and extended)

no major resource constraints, catastrophes, wars, etc.Population Growth: 0.9% to 1985; 0.7% to 2000GNP Growth: 3.5% per yearDisposable Personal Income: Doubles by 2000Petroleum: Price increase of 3% per year (constant $)

$25.60 per barrel; gasoline $1.24 per gallon (constant $) in2000.

Demand will be met by:oil imports

- synthetic fuels (2.75 MMBD in 2000)electric and hybrid vehicles

Lifestyles: No major shift

BASE CASE 1985-2000● Auto fuel consumption 4-5 million barrels per day (MMBD)● Oil import 10-13 MMBD. Oil shortfall - world demand exceeds supply

ALTERNATIVES Increased domestic production

pricing, taxes- more efficient systems

- telecommunications- land use policies- life style changes

- methanol, synthetic fuels- electricity

App.

U.S. PETROLEUM DEMAND

175 M M B D

1976 1985 2000

B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material ● 5 9

NATIONAL EMISSION LEVELSBY SOURCE, 1968-2000

ESTIMATED PETROLEUMIMPORTS

Pet ro leum Requi red Estimated cost o fD e m a n d Pet ro leum Price Impor ts

(All Sectors) Impor ts $ Barrel Per YearM M B D M M B D (1975 $) ( 1975 $)

1977 1 7 8 8.5 $1.150 $42 billion

1985 201 10 $17 $62 billion

2000 22.4 126 $26 $120 billion

CARBONMONOXIDE

PRICONTROL

NATIONAL EMISSION LEVELSBY SOURCE, 1968-2000

HYDROCARBONS & NITROGEN OXIDES

1968 1975 1985 2000(PRECONTROL)

Source: 1968 Data, NAPCA, 1975 Data, EPA, ProJections, Energy andEnvironmentol Analysis Inc. (EEA) from EPA data

Note Assumes compliance with 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments on new car

emlssions but no vehicle-in-use controls

ENVIRONMENTAir pollution, noise, solid waste,

water contamination, community impacts

BASE CASE 1985-2000●

●

●

●

Carbon monoxide –25 to 30 million tons per year fromautos

- over 20 AQCRs in violationOxidants - over 60 AQCRs in violation

(primarily stationary sources)-130 million people exposed to hazardous

concentrationsSynthetic fuels - potential major environmental impactCommunity disruption -40% of 1970-75 levels

ALTERNATIVES

. Auto use controls; control of other mobile & stationarysources

● Research on health effects

PROJECTED NUMBER OF AIRQUALITY CONTROL REGIONS

IN VIOLATION OF AMBIENT AIRQUALITY STANDARDS

DEGREE OF VIOLATION

R

o\,ER STA N DA R D

/ DOUBLE THESTANDARD

CL’ RRENT STANDARD

10,MG M I (8. HR )

u I

1I I I 1 I I I I I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

NUMBER OF AQCRS IN VIOLATION

60 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics

PROJECTED NUMBER OF AIR QUALITYCONTROL REGIONS IN VIOLATION OFAMBiENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

- OXIDANTS –


SAFETY

BASE CASE 1985-2000● Highway fatalities and injuries continue to increase

64,000 deaths, 5 million injuries-year 2000-due to:- increasing vehicle miles traveled- increasing number of small cars, large trucks

● Because of the lack of definitive goals- Planning and evaluation of safety improvement is

inadequate- Coordinated program of local, State, and Federal actions

is not established– Level and allocation of resources is inadequate-Technical improvements are not achieved on a timely

basis

1975 MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHSTATISTICS*

PropertyDamage

Number (Number ofof Crashes Deaths Injuries Vehicles)

—

Automobiles 13,500,000 27,500 2,400,000 22,500,000

Total Motor 16,500,000 46,000 4,000,000 27,000,000Vehicle

Total Costs $37.6 $13.3 $6.1 $18.2($ billions)

* Sources NHTSA and National Safety Council

MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS

30,000

[

Using Base Case Auto VMT Adjusted To

20,000 Reflect Total Motor Vehicle Trauel (i.e.,Trucks, Buses, Motorcycles)

10,OOO

1 11960 1970 1980 1990 2000

MOBILITY

BASE CASE 1985-2000● Congestion in urban areas increased significantly● Attempts to achieve large increases in transit ridership

result in substantial increases in operating deficits

ALTERNATIVES●

●

●

●

Expanded transit services - increased Federal funding- special programs for the

handicappedWider use of carpools, vanpools, and incentives for highoccupancy vehiclesImproved accessibility through Federal/ local land usepoliciesImproved telecommunications

FEDERAL OUTLAYS FORTRANSPORTATION

$ Billions Outlays for Transportation $ Billions

App. B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material . 61

BASE CASE – TRANSIT FINANCING ANDRIDERSHIP (BILLIONS PER YEAR – COSTS

IN 1975 DOLLARS)

1975 1985 2000

Federal Capital Grants $1.2 $1.7 $1.7 ●

Federal Operating Assistance $0.3 $0.9 $0.9Total State & Local Funds $1.7 $2.7 $4.9

.—————— ——————— ——————— ——————— ————————— —-—-

Transit Ridership 5.6 6.5 6.5 ●

(Billions of RevenuePassengers Per Year)

●

●

COST AND CAPITAL●

●

BASE CASE 1985-2000

●

●

●

●

Decrease in highway construction –increased maintenanceIncreased competition among auto manufacturers due tonarrower product size differentiationPossible failure of one or more of the major automanufacturersIncrease in auto ownership and operating costs

TECHNOLOGICALDEVELOPMENTS

1985-2000

Development and large-scale utilization and commer-cialization of:–Liquids from oil shale and tar sands- Synthetic fuel from coal– MethanolMore efficient propulsion systems–Spark ignition, diesel- Gas turbine, stirlingDevelopment and large-scale commercialization of electricand hybrid vehiclesGreater utilization of lightweight materialsImproved emission controls-Particularly NOxImproved safety technology

ALTERNATIVES

● Greatly increased Federal funding to meet highwaymaintenance and transit operating needs

● Control of auto maintenance and repair costs


ASSESSMENTOF THE FUTURE

CHARACTERISTICSAND USE

OF THE AUTOMOBILETRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

S E P T E M B E R 1 1 , 1 9 7 8


BASE CASE

The “Base Case” is a projection of some features of the automobile transportation system tothe year 2000. It assumes that present Government policies and programs will be continued, that thepopulation will grow at a moderate rate, that life styles will not change significantly, and that theeconomy wiII stay healthy and vigorous. The Base Case indicates the direction that present policy isleading and serves as a frame of reference for the study. Some principal Base Case projections are:

Projections 1975 1985 2000Population

U.S. population (millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 233 260Urban area population (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 (61%) 149 (64%) 177 (68°/0)Licensed drivers (millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , . . . . . . . 130 151 177Male/female drivers (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71/59 78173 89188Economics

Gross national product ($ trillions)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 2.22 3.72Disposable personal income per capita ($ thousands)* . . . . . . . 5.0 6.7 10.1Automobile transportation system

Autos in use (million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annual transit rides (billions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gasoline price per gallon ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fleet fuel economy (MPG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petroleum used by autos (MMBD)#. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petroleum imports (MMBD)# . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Auto emissions (millions of tons per year)

Carbon monoxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oxides of nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Highway deaths (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

961.05.6

$0.5713.5

5.07.4

69.37.94.0

46

1181.46.5

$0.7719.4

4.810.0

32.63.52.7

58

1481.86.5

$1.2124.6

4.812.5

27.32.92.9

64

● In 1975 dollars.

#Million barrels per day.

64 . Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Autornobile Transportation System

ENERGY

Domestic petroleum production slackened in the 1960’s and peaked in the early1970’s. World production, while still increasing, is expected to peak between 1985 and2000. If consumption continues to climb, it is anticipated that a petroleum shortage—accompanied by a significant increase in petroleum prices —will develop before the end ofthe century.

U.S. PETROLEUM

25DEMAND

r 224MMBD

25r

SUPPLY22.4

NOTE Assumescontinuation of‘27.5 MPG for new

cars beyond 19851976 1985 2000

SOURCE SyDec/ EEA Phase I report and OTA staff estimates

I Lower 48 (incl. offshore}

1 I 1 [ I I1977 1985 1990 1995 2000

Continuing high demand in the face of limited supply will force prices upward andstimulate develc)pment of alternative energy sources. For the automobile these might beshale oil, tar sands, coal liquids, alcohol, and electricity. All are more costly than petroleumat present, and a substantial shift to any would take many years to accomplish. In the mean-time, petroleum conservation would make the supply last longer, thus buying time andsmoothing out the transit ion.

●

●

●

●

●

SOME LAWS AND POLICIES IN EFFECT

Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which permits rationing of petroleum-based fuels and price controls during an emergency.Nationwide 55 mph speed limit which went into effect in 1974.Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 which set a 27.5 mpg standard for averagenew car fuel economy by 1985.Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976which will put 7,500 to 10,000 electric vehicles into use by 1984.Several programs in the Department of Energy to develop gas turbine and Stirlingengines and-to promote research on synthetic fuels.

Some Conservation Methods Some Alternative Energy SourcesSmaller, lighter cars Methanol and ethanolIncreased engine efficiency Shale oi I and oi I from tar sandsIncreased use of mass transit Coal liquidsCar and van pools Electric and hybrid vehiclesTravel restrictions (time & place) HydrogenIncreased gasoline taxesGas guzzler taxDecontrol of fuel pricesGasoline rationing

App. B— Workshop No flee, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Materia/ ● 6 5

ENVIRONMENTWidespread and intensive use of the automobile, the predominant mode of personal transporta-

tion in this country, has caused serious concern about effects on the environment. Chief amongthese is air pollution. Others are noise, water pollution (from road salt, lead, used oil, and spilledfuels), solid waste (scrapped batteries, tires, and auto bodies), and community disruption. There isalso concern that the advent of new automotive technology may bring new or increased environmen-tal hazards.

The major air pollutants emitted by automobiles are carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC),and nitrogen oxide (NOX). CO—resulting from incomplete combustion of fuel — is harmful to human,animal, and plant life. HC and NOX interact in sunlight to produce photochemical oxidants (smog),which are lung irritants that are especially harmful to the old, the infirm, and the very young.

SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION

co HC

40 4 0 –

30 -

20 –

10 -

1968 1975 1985 2000 1968 1975 1985 2000

NOX

Other mobile

1 [ I Auto I1368 1975 1985 2000

Although automobile emissions will drop significantly by 2000 they will still be far fromeliminated, particularly in urban areas. It is projected that about 130 million people in U.S. cities willstill be exposed to hazardous levels of smog or CO by the year 2000.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●


Department of Transportation Act of 1966 which protects natural beauty in parks, recreationalareas, and historical sites.National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which calls for study of environmental impacts whenplanning federally assisted highways.Highway Act of 1970 which sets air quality and noise level standards for highway projects.Clean Air Act of 1970 and later amendments which set emission standards for new autos through1981. (CO: 3.4/gm/mi, HC: 0.41 gm/mi, NOX: 1.0 gm/mi).Noise Control Act of 1972 which authorizes EPA to set noise control standards for alltypes of motor vehicles.

SOME METHODS TO REDUCE

Improved emission control devices on ●

new carsCleaner engines ●

Use of electric vehicles in urban areasStaggered work patterns

AUTO AIR POLLUTION

Periodic inspection and maintenance ofautomobiles in useRestrictions on auto use in certain areasor at certain times

66 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristlcs of the Automobile Transportation System

SAFETY

In 1977, 47,715 people died in traffic crashes on U.S. streets and highways, and over 4.3 millionwere injured. The cost of property damage alone exceeded $18 billion.

Between now and 2000, it is expected that the death and injury rates (the numbers per mile oftravel) will decrease. The totals of highway deaths and injury, however, will keep growing as therewill be more drivers, more cars on the road, and more miles traveled. Over the remainder of this cen-tury, it is projected that about 1 million people will die and 130 million will be injured in trafficcrashes.

HIGHWAY DEATHS

10t

1975 Autos in use — 96 millionAuto VMT* — 1 trillionDrivers — 130 million

1985 Autos in use — 118 millionAuto VMT — 1,4 trillionDrivers — 151 million

“Includes autos truckspedestrians and cyclists

2000 Autos in use — 148 millionAuto VMT — 1.8 trillionDrivers — 177 million

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Safety is a complex problem that involves driver behavior, vehicle characteristics, roadwayfeatures, and driving conditions. Safety is a matter of both design and use. Safety is not just an in-dividual concern. Industry has a part to play. All levels of Government— local, State, and Federal—are involved. There is no single, simple solution to the problem of highway death and injury.

●

●

●


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—50 standards governing such features as brakes, safetyglass, and seat belts are now in force; 20 revisions or new standards are under consideration.Federal Highway Safety Program Standards—there are 18 standards dealing with highway design,driver licensing, police, medical services, and the like.55 mph Speed Limit—established in 1974 as an energy conservation measure, it is now con-sidered an important safety measure as well.

SOME WAYS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY

Short Term Long Term

Reducing drunk driving Improved occupant restraintsObservance of the 55 mph speed limit 40 to 50 mph crash protectionIncreased seat belt use (voluntary or man- Better driver training and licensingdatory) Reducing hazards to pedestrians and cyclistsPassive restraints Removal of roadside obstacles and traffic

hazards


MOBILITYAlmost every aspect of our daily life is shaped by the automobile. Over 90 percent of personal

travel today is by automobile. About 85 percent of all households own an automobile, and nearly halfown two or more (not counting light trucks, vans, and campers). We now spend about $30 billion ofFederal, State and local funds each year to build and maintain the street and highway network.

In large cities, public transit is available as an alternative for those who do not choose to driveand for those who cannot because of poverty, age, or physical handicap. Despite $4.5 billion in Fed-eral aid to transit in 1977, the service in many communities is less than adequateis virtualIy no alternative to the automobile for trips beyond walking distance.

The present and expected future demand for personal travel is illustrated byjections shown below.

Base case projections

In rural areas there

the Base Case pro-

1975 1985 2000

Automobiles (million)* . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 118 148Licensed drivers (million) . . . . . . . . . . 120 151 177Autos per licensed driver . . . . . . . . . . .73 .78 .84Vehicle miles traveled (trillion)* . . . . . 1.03 1.43 1.80VMT per licensed driver (thousand) . . 7.9 9.5 10.2Urban driving under congested

conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% 14% 24%Transit ridership (billions). . . . . . . . . . 5.6 6.5 6.5

● Excludes vans, light trucks, and campers.

Whether these expected levels of travel will materialize depends upon a continuing supply ofpetroleum or substitute fuels at reasonable cost. But we will also face other mobility problems.Streets and highways will require more maintenance as they age and traffic grows heavier. Conges-tion in urban areas is expected to worsen. Supporting even a modest increase in transit service willentail major increases in State and local operating subsidies by 2000. The problem confronting theFederal Government is how to allocate resources so as to assure adequate mobility for all.


●

●

●

●

Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 which established the basic system of Federal aid to States forhighways

Highway Revenue Act of 1956 which set up the Highway Trust Fund to help finance highwayconstruction

Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964 which provides Federal aid to transit

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 which allows Federal highway funds to be used for transit

SOME ALTERNATIVES

building more highwaysmaking more efficient use of existing highwaysimproving urban transit systemsimproving rural and intercity public transportationpromoting paratransitspecial aid to those who do not own an automobile or cannot driveimproving accessibility through land use planningfostering telecommunications as a substitute for travel


COST AND CAPITAL

The cost of the automobile transportation system is felt in many ways. For the typical house-hold, automobile ownership and use represents the second or third largest item in the budget—exceeded only by housing and sometimes food. The building and maintenance of roads costs tax-payers over $30 billion annually. For industry, compliance with Government regulations and develop-ment of new technology for the future automobile transportation system entails large capital in-vestments. Ultimately these new engines, alternative energy sources, better automobiles, and im-proved highways will be translated into higher costs to the consumer. Accompanying these costswill be the need for increasing expenditures to support public transit as a means of relieving conges-tion, saving energy, and providing mobility to those who cannot, or choose not, to own or use theautomobile.

The figures and table below illustrate three aspects of the cost of personal transportation.

COST OF OWNING AND OPERATING DISTRIBUTION OF TOTALA STANDARD-SIZE AUTOMOBILE* HIGH WAY DISBURSEMENT*

Deprecitin4 . 7

100

90

I Law enforcement I

/Y

Garage, parking,and tolls

21$40

Maintenance, accessories, 30

20

10

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Year

● Based on 1976 data, assuming 10,000 miles per year ‘Federal State nd local governments combined

PROJECTED TRANSIT COSTS1975 dolIars (biIIions)

1975 1985 2000— .Federal capital funds. ., . . . . . . . . . . . 1.21 1.71 1.71Local matching (20 percent) . . . . . . . . .30 .43 .43Federal operating assistance. . . . . . . .30 .93 .93Local share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 2.27 4.47Total Federal aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.51 2.64 2.64Total local burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.71 2.70 4.90

SOME WAYS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN INFLUENCE COSTS

. reguIation of repair practices and costs

. incentives or standards for auto durability

. no-fauIt insurance● decontrol of fuel prices

● underwriting R&D for new technology● capital assistance to industry for high-risk ventures● changes in highway and transit funding● levying tolIs and fees on autos i n congested areas

AUTOMOTIVE PROPULSION SYSTEMS

The Otto Cycle Engine is the spark-ignition, internal combustion engine curren Iy used in mostpassenger cars. Gasoline and air are mixed in the carburetor, fed into the combustion chamber, andignited ‘by an electric spark. The expanding gases in the cylinder push a piston to provide motivepower.

The Stratified Charge Engine is a slightly modified Otto cycle engine. Fuel is fed into the com-bustion chamber in a way that produces a rich fuel-air mixture near the spark plug and a lean mixtureelsewhere. The spark plug ignites the rich mixture, which in turn ignites the lean mixture, producinga more complete burn and—in some designs—a more efficient use of fuel.

The Diesel Engine is an internal combustion engine that uses the heat of compression ratherthan a spark to ignite the fuel-air mixture. The diesel engine is used extensively in trucks and busesand in some models of Volkswagen, Oldsmobile, CadiIlac, Mercedes, and Peugeot automobiles.

The Gas Turbine (Bray ton Cycle) Engine uses the expanding gases from a continuous burning offuel to drive a turbine. Most of the turbine output is used as motive power, but some is used to drive acompressor to provide air for the combustion process.

The Stirling Cycle Engine is an external combustion engine. The heat from fuel burned outsidethe engine is used to expand a confined working fluid (usually helium or hydrogen) which in turnpushes a piston. The expanded (and therefore cooled) working fluid is compressed and reheated foranother piston stroke.

Electric Motors for automobiles operate from energy stored in batteries. Mechanical devices,such as flywheels or regenerative braking systems, may be added to augment or to conserve the sup-ply of electricity.

Hybrid Vehicles use two different sources of energy. The most common combines a batterypowered electric motor with an internal combustion engine that supplies auxiliary power for periodsof increased load, such as during acceleration or high-speed cruise.

70 ● Changes In the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Several alternatives to gasoline are being considered as future automotive fuels. Among theseare shale oil, oil from tar sands, coal liquids, alcohol, and hydrogen. In comparison with gasoline, allnow cost more to produce and require more energy for extraction and refining. A table summarizingthe advantages, problems, and state of development of these fuels is on the reverse side.

Shale oil is a petroleum-like substance that is contained in certain rock or shale. The recoveryprocess involves heating the shale to evaporate the oil, which is then drawn off and condensed. Theresulting crude shale oil can then be refined to produce a synthetic gasoline with properties close tothose of petroleum based fuel.

Several pilot plants are now in operation. Large-scale commercial production is not likely for 10to 15 years.

Tar sands are sand and clay saturated with a heavy oil. The extraction and refining processes aresimilar to those for shale oil. The final product has properties similar to gasoline.

A commercial plant, producing 50,000 barrels per day, is in operation in Canada. Commercializa-tion in the United States is not expected for 10 to 15 years.

Coal liquids can be produced by several different methods. The basic process uses steam toadd hydrogen to the coal. Ash, sulfur, and other contaminants are removed. The product is thenupgraded and refined to gasoline or diesel fuel.

A commercial facility is now operating in South Africa. Several pilot plants exist in the UnitedStates, but extensive commercial production is believed to be 10 to 20 years away.

Alcohol fuels—ethanol (ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol) and methanol (methyl alcohol or woodalcohol) —offer promise as automotive fuels. Each can be used in pure form or in blends of up to 20percent with gasoline, a mixture known as gasohol.

Ethanol comes from the fermentation of grains, plants, and agricultural or municipal waste.Methanol can be produced from coal, natural gas, naphtha, and (not as easily) the same sources asethanol.

Automobiles in Brazil have been using ethanol blends for several years. Gasohol is now beingsold in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. California has initiated a gasohol program, and Colorado has ap-proved one. it is estimated that it would take 10 to 15 years to build the industrial capacity sufficientto meet 10 percent of our daily automotive fuel demand.

Hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe, offers great potential as a transportationfuel. It can be stored as a gas, liquid, or metal hydride.

Hydrogen is being successfully used as a fuel in the U.S. space program. Large-scale produc-tion and use as an automotive fuel is believed to be at least 25 years away and is contingent uponsolution of the problems of conversion, storage, handling, and safety in use.

Appendix C

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

What are the major advantages and disadvan-tages of the automobile for you? What ac-tions could you take to reduce these disadvan-tages? What actions could the Federal Gov-ernment take to reduce the disadvantages?

Describe the transportatiton system of 2000 asyou would like it to be, or as you envision itmight become.

Should the automobile be the major means oftransportation for your area in 2000? If not,what alternatives would you suggest? Whatactions could the Federal Government take, ifany, to assist in transportation in your area?

What do you perceive the Federal Govern-ment’s role to be in transportation in 1978? in2000?

To what extent can voluntary fuel conserva-tion methods, increases in transit and para-transit usage, and moderate increases in fueltaxes meet national energy goals? If the goalsare not met, what are the most effective andequitable means of mandatory conservationor allocation of petroleum resources?

Assuming that a shift from petroleum forautomotive use is necessary, by what means,

● To what extent should the Federal Govern-ment increase funding of capital and operat-ing expenses for transit sytems and promotcand remove institutional constraints on para-transit systems to increase mobility, particu-larly for the disadvantaged and handicapped?

7?

Appendix D

BACKGROUND BRIEFS ONWORKING GROUP MEMBERS

BACKGROUND

Female; auto owner; suburbanite; carpools toand from work; works in center city; active inauto consumer affairs; two children dependenton her for transportation; has built and racedstock cars.

Female; auto owner; city dweller; works ir-regular hours (5: 00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. ); drives toand from work; has done consulting work onissues of concern to women and minoritygroups; journalist in transportation.

Male; police officer (responsibilities have in-cluded community relations, work with teen-agers, as well as law enforcement activities);small business owner (two-way radio com-munications); auto owner; camps out frequentlywith family so uses car extensively for recrea-tion in addition to work.

Male; non-auto owner; commutes by transitfrom city residence to suburban job; family re-lies on transit, walking, orfor mobility.

Female; auto owner; cityemployment in city; works

car-owning friends

resident; walks toprofessional]y and

as volunteer on variety of ects.

futurist-oriented proj-

Female; aged 72; city dweller; fixed income;non-auto owner; walks and uses transit systemdaily.

Male; auto owner; commutes to work by car;lives and works in suburbs; active in communi-ty affairs (including transportation issues); pro-fessional experience in urban affairs.

Male; auto owner; commutes from suburbanresidence to city employment by transit; usescar primarily for long-distance trips and er-rands; active professionally and on volunteerbasis in areas of rural transportation and mo-bility for the transportation disadvantaged.

Female; auto owner; self-employed, relies onauto for work purposes (presently conducts artsprogram for inmates of local prison); has donecommunity work in area of environmental im-pacts on health of children.

72