How is the gasoline it buy for my lawnmower a fair way to pay for the highways? I have never used my lawnmower on the street.Maybe the same way an elderly person living in north OKC pays a sales tax that goes to a street car he will likely never use? We all pay our fair share even on things we don't use. As far as your lawnmower not going on the street, that is pretty irrelevant. Gasoline is a fuel that is used in a lot of other things besides cars driving on highway.

Boats, yard tools, go cars, ATV's etc. all use them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some helicopters use gasoline? I seem to remember a gyro-copter I saw awhile back using a four-stroke gasoline engine.

^

I certainly won't argue that taxpayers don't pay for things they don't use. I was specifically responding to the poster on why a percentage based tax on fuel is not a good way to recover the cost of those who use the roads. Gasoline use should not dictate the amount of money to find roads -- because there are a ton of uses for gasoline that do not use roads, and as cars become more fuel efficient (or even not use gasoline at all) we are only reducing revenue against the same cost.

From the AP on Sunday

Americans and their cars: A love affair on fumes? (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/americans-and-their-cars-love-affair-fumes)


But six decades later, take a moment the next time you're stuck in traffic to consider where we're headed. America's romance with the road may be fading.

After rising almost continuously since World War II, driving by American households has declined nearly 10 percent since 2004, a drop whose start before the Great Recession suggests economics may not be the only cause.

"There's something more fundamental going on," says Michael Sivak, a researcher at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

The average American household now owns fewer than two cars, returning to the levels of the early 1990s.

More teens are waiting to get a license — or not getting one at all. Less than 70 percent of 19-year-olds now have one, down from 87 percent two decades ago, government figures show.

But six decades later, take a moment the next time you're stuck in traffic to consider where we're headed. America's romance with the road may be fading.

After rising almost continuously since World War II, driving by American households has declined nearly 10 percent since 2004, a drop whose start before the Great Recession suggests economics may not be the only cause.

"There's something more fundamental going on," says Michael Sivak, a researcher at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

The average American household now owns fewer than two cars, returning to the levels of the early 1990s.

More teens are waiting to get a license — or not getting one at all. Less than 70 percent of 19-year-olds now have one, down from 87 percent two decades ago, government figures show.

The internet.

What? You mean everything you find on the internet isn't a valid source and tells the full truth? SHOCK!

No that's not what I meant.

I knew this before I looked for confirmation. (Confirmation bias?) Probably the same has happened due to online retailing across most age groups, or at least it's cut down on driving from my own house.


Today, many teenagers are deciding to wait to get their driver's licenses, a shift documented in several recent studies. One this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the percentage of high school seniors who had a driver's license fell from 85% in 1996 to 73% in 2010. The study analyzed results of a survey given annually to 15,000 seniors from 130 public and private schools.

What's less clear is whether the decline is a fundamental change in how young Americans get from point A to point B and the end of an entrenched national tradition, or whether it's primarily a reaction to the Great Recession.

Some experts, like Michael Sivak, director of Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, argue that at least part of the drop is permanent and that it's part of a global decline in driving among young people. He contends that part of the shift is rooted in the growth of access to the Internet: Modern teens can connect with each other through social media, so there's less of a need to get together by driving to popular hangouts or by cruising.

Many teens taking a pass on a driver's license (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/13/teen-drivers-license/2891701/)

you are right mkjeeves - the reason many kids want a license in the 80's was because the automobile meant freedom from the social isolation caused by sprawl. The car could over-come the distance easily. Now, the remedy for social isolation (which still exists btw) is the internet. Humans are a social animal and are not built for isolation - which is why solitary confinement is a form a punishment, yet we voluntarily inflict that punishment on our children so they can play in a cul-de-sac free from all outside dangers. It is kind of a sick rational.

you are right mkjeeves - the reason many kids want a license in the 80's was because the automobile meant freedom from the social isolation caused by sprawl. The car could over-come the distance easily. Now, the remedy for social isolation (which still exists btw) is the internet. Humans are a social animal and are not built for isolation - which is why solitary confinement is a form a punishment, yet we voluntarily inflict that punishment on our children so they can play in a cul-de-sac free from all outside dangers. It is kind of a sick rational.

It would be interesting to see if over time and given the opportunity, children (the teenagers we were talking about) would choose being socially isolated by living in density without the internet and social media or by living in the burbs with internet and social media. My money would be on the latter.

It would be interesting to see if over time and given the opportunity, children (the teenagers we were talking about) would choose being socially isolated by living in density without the internet and social media or by living in the burbs with internet and social media. My money would be on the latter.

I think they are going to choose the City. Many simply don't want a car and the ones that do don't want to pay $450/mo to own one - and eventually they are going to want to go somewhere.

I think they are going to choose the City. Many simply don;t want a car and the ones that do don't want to pay $450/mo to own one.

Plus, living without the internet is much more likely to occur in the burbs, than in a dense urban core.

Plus, living without the internet is much more likely to occur in the burbs, than in a dense urban core.

LOL. My mother-in-law lives in rural Alabama and has internet.

LOL. My mother-in-law lives in rural Alabama and has internet.

Good for her. Where I live it costs in excess of $100 per month, so I tell the kids to wait until they get to a free hot-spot if they've got any big downloads to do. Maybe I'm just cheap. Maybe your MIL isn't. I just know that there are a LOT more free hot-spots in the metro than in my back pasture.

Plus, living without the internet is much more likely to occur in the burbs, than in a dense urban core.

We have friends that live down in the World Golf Village area and the fastest internet they can get is 3mbps, and cell phone service - forget it - it is spotty at best.

And yet, it's a fundamental reason some people have cut down on driving over the last couple of decades, along with the economy.

And yet, it's a fundamental reason some people have cut down on driving over the last couple of decades, along with the economy.

I look at my 15 year old son as window on the future. He has zero interest in driving - I mean none. He doesn't even want to drive around the subdivision. He does socialize with friends via PS3 and his computer but at some point he will need to go to work. He won't be able to do that via the internet for his first couple of jobs. Up until about a year ago he didn't even want a job because he didn't want to have to drive there. Then I started taking him to some of the urban parts of Jacksonville where he could live, work, and play all within a few blocks. Once he realized that you should have seen his face light up. It is like a whole world just opened up to him - and it did.

He has just started looking for colleges and right now his primary must-have is access to mass transit and walkable neighborhoods. He (and his mother) have honed in Palm Beach Atlantic University. It is adjacent to downtown West Palm Beach which is one huge walkable area. Less than a half mile from campus is the Tri Rail station which will take him all up down SE Florida and in a few years he can take the train all the way back here to Jacksonville. The most expensive form of transportation he will need is a bicycle.

Yesterday it was announced that Tampa, St Petersburg, McDill AFB, and Gibsonton will all be connected by high speed ferry. These areas are already walkable (except of Gibsonton) and connecting them with mass transit is only going to create more synergy. It is going to allow people living in these areas to access even more places without owning a car.

Tampa Bay High Speed Ferry Project (http://www.tampabayhighspeedferry.com/)

You comment about your son highlights more of the reasons the interest in cars has decreased. It's not because they are flocking to mass transit. It's because they're lazy and don't want to get up from the couch where their games/phones are to DO anything. It's the absolute laziest generation ever. They want everything at their fingertips with the least amount of effort possible. The behavior is enabled by those that continue to take them everywhere at the teen's request. Do those parents even realize they've turned into a taxi service rather than just parental transport? Another side of it is just cost. As the economy fell, fewer people can afford to pay for their kids to have a car. While many have to pay for it themselves, that's not true of the vast majority. As the economy picks back up, teens will have access to more jobs (that were previously held by older people during the downturn), there will be more disposable income to spend on cars/gas/insurance/etc. and you're going to see a return to the road.

Think about how gas prices affected the size of cars in the 70s. They shrunk, gas went back down and cars got to the size of boats again. They didn't start shrinking again until efficiency ratings forced them to.

You comment about your son highlights more of the reasons the interest in cars has decreased. It's not because they are flocking to mass transit. It's because they're lazy and don't want to get up from the couch where their games/phones are to DO anything. It's the absolute laziest generation ever. They want everything at their fingertips with the least amount of effort possible. The behavior is enabled by those that continue to take them everywhere at the teen's request. Do those parents even realize they've turned into a taxi service rather than just parental transport? Another side of it is just cost. As the economy fell, fewer people can afford to pay for their kids to have a car. While many have to pay for it themselves, that's not true of the vast majority. As the economy picks back up, teens will have access to more jobs (that were previously held by older people during the downturn), there will be more disposable income to spend on cars/gas/insurance/etc. and you're going to see a return to the road.

Think about how gas prices affected the size of cars in the 70s. They shrunk, gas went back down and cars got to the size of boats again. They didn't start shrinking again until efficiency ratings forced them to.

Are you sure you aren't a closet New Urbanist? Also, people are flocking to mass transit. Ridership is at an all-time high and cities across the country are bringing new systems on-line as fast as funding can be secured.

Record 10.7 Billion Trips Taken On U.S. Public Transportation In 2013 (http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2014/Pages/140310_Ridership.aspx)


In 2013 Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation, which is the highest annual public transit ridership number in 57 years, according to a report released today by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). This was the eighth year in a row that more than 10 billion trips were taken on public transportation systems nationwide. While vehicle miles traveled on roads (VMT) went up 0.3 percent, public transportation use in 2013 increased by 1.1 percent.

...

Heavy rail (subways and elevated trains) ridership increased by 2.8 percent across the country as 8 out of 15 transit systems reported increases. Heavy rail in Miami, FL, saw an increase of 10.6 percent that was mostly due to increased frequency during peak service. Other heavy rail systems with increases in ridership for 2013 were in the following cities: Los Angeles, CA (4.8%); New York, NY (4.2%); and Cleveland, OH (2.9%).

Nationally, commuter rail ridership increased by 2.1 percent in 2013 as 20 out of 28 transit systems reported increases. With a new rail line that opened in December 2012, commuter rail in Salt Lake City, UT, saw an increase of 103.3 percent. The following five commuter rail systems saw double digit increases in 2013: Austin, TX (37.3%); Harrisburg-Philadelphia, PA (33.9%); Anchorage, AK (30.0%); Lewisville, TX (23.0%); Stockton, CA (19.9%); Minneapolis, MN (12.5%); and Portland, OR (10.3%).

Light rail (modern streetcars, trolleys, and heritage trolleys) ridership increased 1.6 percent in 2013 with 17 out of 27 transit systems reporting increases. Systems that showed double digit increases in 2013 were located in the following cities: New Orleans, LA (28.9%); Denver, CO (14.9%); and San Diego, CA (10.4%). Ridership in the following cities also saw increases in 2013: Seattle, WA – Sound Transit (9.8%); Pittsburgh, PA (7.5%); Salt Lake City, UT (6.8%); Los Angeles, CA (6.0%); San Jose, CA (3.6%); and Philadelphia, PA (3.5%).

Bus ridership increased by 3.8 percent in cities with a population of below 100,000. Nationally, bus ridership in communities of all sizes remained stable, declining by 0.1 percent.
Large bus systems with increases were located in the following areas: Washington, DC (3.5%); Houston, TX (3.4%); Cincinnati, OH (3.4%); and Seattle, WA (3.1%).

In case you missed it, all of those increases are in large metro areas, of which OKC is not. They all have a much larger population than OKC (other than Anchorage which has other reasons) that make my argument for me. It's faster to ride the transit system than your own car because of traffic. OKC does not have that issue, even in rush hour. That's been my argument for why it's simply not going to work here, although I support the effort to try. It just has to be done properly, and I'm not sure I trust the city to do it in a way that actually works.

The report above only mentions those that had increases. They do not mention the rates at which there was a decrease in the cities that saw a decline....since it's 1/4 of those reported, that's a pretty large number to ignore (8 out of 28 did not see an increase). And bus ridership did decrease.

You might wish to examine your own sources before posting them if they happen to solidify the counter argument.