Technology Assessment of Changes in the

Future Use and Characteristics of the

Automobile Transportation

System—Volume III: Public Participation

October 1979

Foreword

An assessment of the future use and characteristics of the automobile transportation system was undertaken (1976-78) by OTA at the request of Senator Warren G.

Magnuson, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation. 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 Program with the help of an advisory panel, consultants, and contractors, were published

in February 1979 in a two-volume report. The first volume is a summary of the findings. The second contains a detailed discussion of issues, policy options, and estimated

effects. Volume II also contains a description of expected technological developments

through 1985 and by the end of the century.

This report—volume III—presents the findings of a nationwide public participation effort conducted in 1978 in conjunction with the assessment. The intent of the

public 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 attitudes

and viewpoints of a wide variety of Americans. The discussion is deliberately informal, and verbatim quotes are used frequently so as to capture both the substance

and the tone of the respondents’ remarks as accurately as possible.

Chapter 1 highlights the major viewpoints expressed on issues and options in

future personal transportation. Chapter 2 contains background information on the

“car culture, ” the origin of automobile assessment, and the role of public participation

in the technology assessment process.

The core of the report—chapters 3 through 7—is a compilation of comments

about mobility, costs, energy, environment, and safety from people throughout the

country. The order in which they are presented is indicative of the degree of concern

expressed by the respondents, i.e., comments on mobility appear first since this issue

appeared to be the primary concern of most of the participants.

Ill
OTA Automobile

Assessment Advisory Panel

Director of the Office of Environmental Research

Ford Motor Company

S.Fred Singer

Professor of Environmental Sciences

University of Virginia

Lawrence J. White***

Graduate School of Business Administration

New York University

Howard Young

United Auto Workers

The OTA Automobile Assessment Advisory Panel provided valuable advice, critique, and

assistance to the OTA staff throughout this assessment. Their participation, however, does not necessarily constitute approval or endorsement of this report. OTA assumes sole responsibility for the

report and the accuracy of the content.
OTA Transportation Program

Eric H. Willis, Assistant Director

Science, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21

Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......25

Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...29

Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...33

A Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......37

A.

B.

c.

D.

Brochure/Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material. .55

Sample Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......71

Background Briefs on Working Group Members. . . . . . . . . .......72

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. page

1. Passenger Car Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2. Costs of Owning and Opera

3. 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. U.S. Demand for Oil in 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...26

4. 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 developand services, a multifaceted approach was men t of additional transport t i on modes, imbroadly supported. Such an approach should in- proved use of existing modes and servicesr imPhoto 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 schedules, and changes in current land use development patterns.

Many people felt that the “psychology of

mobility” should be closely examined in order

to understand the relationship of mobility to

people’s lives, and, ultimately, to develop better

ways to meet these human requirements. At the

same time, the “psychology of automobility”

should be addressed to determine driver and occupant attitudes and behavior. In the opinion of

the respondents, this could lead to the development of appropriate improvements in existing

cars and their usage, and eventually, to development of better modes and transportation

systems for the future.

The vast majority of the respondents viewed

cost as the major constraint to automobility. At

the household level, this includes purchase

price, maintenance, repair, taxes, parking insurance, and fuel. At the national level, the concern about cost centered primarily on road repair and maintenance. Congestion was also considered a potential constraint on auto travel and

a major irritant, particularly in urban areas during peak commuting hours, in their estimation.

Energy, safety, and environmental problems

were viewed as short-term difficulties that could

be rectified through technological and institutional changes. The “energy crisis” was seen as a

political dilemma, rather than a true resource

shortage. To offset a supply shortage, whether

the cause is political or natural, a number of actions should be taken, among them deregulation

of fuel prices, development of alternative fuels

and more fuel-efficient modes, and gas rationing

(in the case of severe shortage). Participants indicated that no tradeoffs are necessary or

wanted in the attainment of national energy and

environmental goals.

While automobile use controls were thought

to be a potential multipurpose solution by the

respondents (i. e., to reduce congestion, pollution, and fuel use), such controls were not generally endorsed because they were viewed as a

limitation on mobility. Because the automobile

provides over 90 percent of today’s personal

transportation, to reduce automobility was

perceived as a reduction in mobility-a highly

undesirable consequence, according to the participants.

While respondents expressed concern about

death, injury, and property damage due to traffic accidents, these problems were not viewed as

a constraint to automobility. Instead, they were

considered hazardous byproducts of car travel.

To reduce accidents, the primary necessity is

driver improvement, said the respondents. This

should involve a major national effort to eradicate drunken driving, and stricter, more uniform enforcement of traffic laws and lower

speed limits.

The barriers 10 innovation and problem solving are institutional, not technological, they

claimed. To the participitants, the credibility of

Government and industry is weak. The public,

according to the respondents, doesn’t know

what or whom to believe More information

with wide public distribution is desired. Additionally, the respondents viewed the Federal

Government as inept and cumbersome. It enacts

too much legislation which it is then unable to

enforce. It ignores the potential of local initiative in relieving societal difficulties, they

complained.

Profit, almost to the exclusion of societal

well-being, motivates the automobile industry,

many respondents charged. The industry has

not done enough to eliminate the adverse impacts of its products and is sluggish in innovation. It is manipulative of the public through

advertising and the Government through extensive, high-pressured lobbying. A greater play of

free market forces might alleviate some of these

institutional difficulties, the respondents said.

The automobile is almost the sole mode of

personal transportation in the United States today, they noted. Mass transportation accounts

for less then 2 percent of national travel, and

therefore, is considered neither a viable alternative nor a sufficient complement to the existing

personal transportation system. Because of

problems arising from an essentially one-mode

system (i. e., what happens when the car breaks

down?), energy and environmental concerns,

and spiraling congestion, participants stressed

the need for a multimodal system with well-coordinated intermodal connections for the future.

No one mode should dominate the system, they

said, and system components should be energy

efficient, nonpolluting, safer, more durable, less

costly (financially and socially), and quieter

than today’s vehicles.
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER

2

Americans are always “on the go,” m os tl y i n automobiles. Following the invention of this horseless carriage, car ownership rates and vehicle miles of travel per year

c1imbed rapidly, and continue to do so. In the process, the automobile has become the

focal point of American life, and automobility has become almost synonymous with

mobility. The automobile may face serious constraints i n the future, however, because

of the tenuous fuel situation, heightened environmental sensitivity, and 1essinging tolerance for growing congestion.
4 ● Changes In the Future Use and characteristics of the Autornobile Transportation system

When the automobile was first introduced in

the 1ate-1800’s, the United States was an agricultural country with about 2.4 million miles of

roads, most without hard-surface pavement.

Roads were used primarily for the movement of

agricultural goods, freight, and ● the mail. Personal travel was limited, difficult, and costly.

The country now has 3.8 million miles of wellpaved roads used primarily for the movement of

people, due in the large part to the widespread

availability of the automobile.

Until the early 1900’s, Americans relied largely on railroads and other “mass” carriers for

their personal mobility. The number of registered vehicles at the turn of the century was

8,000. Today, the American public is almost

solely dependent on the privately owned automobile for travel. U.S. manufacturers are currently producing 40,000 cars daily. The registration figures have soared to 118 million, or approximately one car for every two people in the

United States.

Our once agricultural economy has changed

into a technological one, heavily dependent on

the automotive and supporting industries.

About one in six American jobs is related to the

automobile. Transportation costs (mostly automotive) represent one of the largest household

expenditures, along with housing and food. All

transportation accounts for about 20 percent of

the gross national product (GNP). Estimates of

the portion of the GNP attributable to the automobile system range as high as 10 percent.

Reflecting national desires for increased and

improved mobility, public policy has strongly

supported the growth of the automobile transportation system. The interstate highway network was financed with public dollars. Price

controls and subsidies kept the cost of fuel and

other raw materials used by the automobile artificially low. This helped make automobile

travel affordable to increasingly larger numbers

of people. Land development patterns geared to

reliance on automobile travel were encouraged

by various Government policies. Mass transportation was largely ignored by both the

traveling public and the Government. The subsequent decline of mass transit further stimulated the rising dominance of the car for personal travel.

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

Interstate construction in an urban area financed with public dollars
Ch. 2—Introduction “ 5

The popularity, availability,

use of the automobile resulted

ture” -a lifestyle dependent on

and pervasive

in a “car culthe car to provide access to widely dispersed jobs, homes, and

services. While the car is appreciated for the

mobility i t offers, its use has created problems,

such as environmental degradation, energy depletion, death, and injury.

Congress requested OTA to study the future

of the automobile in 1976, this request was stimulated by a variety of concerns:

a ) The 1973-74 oil crisis had occurred, and

threats of a worsening energy shortage

loomed.

b) Lawsuits were pending in several parts of

the country as diverse groups of citizens attempted to block further construction of

highways which were seen as a threat to

community cohesion and an inducement

for i

travel.

c) Criticism

harm

consum

well

sources.

However, growing concern about the adverse

effects of automobile usage has not dampened

Americans’ desire for mobility nor has it decreased the amount of driving.

Edward Cornish explains in his book on the

study of the future:

In addition to discounting the future, most people tend not to recognize gradual change. For

example, a 2 percent increase per year in air

pollution might attract little notice, yet it means

that air pollution will double in 34 years! The

doubling of the population of a city over the

course of a generation means a drastic transformation of the life of that city for better or worse.

Futurists generally want to identify such gradual

changes, so that they can be monitored and

timely action taken to avoid painful crises.

Essentially, this is the thrust of OTA’s research

effort-to help Congress identify technologically induced changes and to evaluate policies that

could enhance the benefits and alleviate the disadvantages.

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

issues and policies pertaining to vehicles, roadways, and related industries, services, and institutions, Issue areas identified for study were:

●

●

Mobility—how to provide adequat e

mobility for all citizens. Despite the high

automobile ownership figures, i t is estimated that 40 percent of the U.S. population 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 the

world’s population, Americans consume a

third of all the oil used in the world every

day. Automobile transportation alone in

the United States accounts for 30 percent of

that consumption. creasedlow-occupancy automobile

 of automotive travel focused on

ul emissions, noise, excessive land

tion (for parking and servicing as

as roadways), and depletion of re-

●

●

photo Credit S ylvia Johnson 1979

Gas station closed during 1979 energy crunch

Environment—how to reduce the adverse

impacts of automobiles and highways on

the environment. Automobile emissions

are a major source of air pollution, but the

environmental impacts of cars are not limi ted to atmospheric degradation. Noise,

disposal of solid wastes (scrap vehicles and

parts), water and soil contamination, and

land consumption are problems also.

Safety—how to reduce death and injury

due to traffic accidents. Since 1900, 2 million people have died as a result of automobile crashes—three times as many as have

been killed in all U.S. wars. In 1977 alone,

almost 48,000 people died and over 4

million individuals were injured in motor

vehicle accidents.
6 . changes In the future use and Characteristics of The Automobile Transportation System

● Cost and Capital —how to control the individual and societal costs of the automobile

transportation system, and provide the

necessary capital to maintain the Nation’s

private and public investment in the system. Over 80 percent of all American

households own one or more vehicles. The

individual cost of owning and operating

these vehicles includes purchase price, fuel,

repair and maintenance, taxes, insurance,

and storage. On a national scale, the public

cost of the system is most readily seen in

Government (at all levels) expenditures on

the highway system, which amounted to

$28 billion in 1977. As for the U.S. automobile industry, it faces a major task in meeting Federal Government mandates for vehicular improvements, and the smaller

companies may face severe financial difficulties as a more competitive, less differentiated automotive market evolves.

With issues identified, the OTA staff analyzed present and potential Government policies

related to these issues. Among the tasks carried

out during the study was a public participation

program designed to gather commentary on the

substantive material covered in the assessment

from people throughout the country,

While there has been general acceptance of

the need to incorporate public participation into

the OTA research effort, there has been less

agreement about who constitutes “the public”

Figure 1 .—Response Location

and what are the best mechanisms for gathering

and incorporating the “public’s views. ” During

the automobile assessment, an attempt was

made to reach a broad cross section of people by

using several outreach techniques.

The divergent needs and views that characterize the public and their attitudes toward the

automobile were sought and examined to give

the OTA staff a better understanding of the

problems and concerns inherent in automobile

transportation. Also, it was felt that public

commentary would help focus attention on

specific points of interest. The resultant public

participation program was an attempt to reach

for and encourage comment from a wide variety

of the U.S. populace.

Ultimately, about 1,300 people participated

in the public participation program (see figure

1). They included unionists and corporate managers; members of public interest organizations

and civic groups; academicians; local, State,

and Federal Government officials; professional

and trade association representatives; and individuals from the general, unorganized, unaffiliated public. Homemakers, technical experts, inventors, a sprinkling of teenagers and octogenarians, urban designers, educators, car enthusiasts, and veteran cyclists—men and women

from across the country graciously took the

time to share with the OTA staff their thoughts

on the future use and characteristics of the automobile 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 immobilized without my car.

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

stuck if the car breaks down.

The auto provides the lowest cost transport for my family, but it still costs too

much for us.

The car is part of our American heritage. It is the symbol of freedom and independence.

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

These are a few of the commments heard

throughout the country about the advantages

and disadvantages of the automobile. They typify the competing needs and the conflicting

values individuals sometimes hold. Social and

economic well-being are primary goals commonly held by Americans. Essential to the attainment of these goals is the ability to reach

jobs, consumer goods and services, recreation

areas, and other desired activities— in short,

mobility. It became apparent, in listening to the

comments of individuals in many parts of the

United States, that American society is not having a love affair with the car so much as it is

having a love affair with mobility. To the extent

that 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 of

the automobile, and the widespread desire for

mobility provided the impetus for the rapid and

widespread development of the automobile

transportation system. The magnitude of the effects 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 largest

employers in the country. It is the largest consumer of petroleum. It is a major land user and

contributor to air pollution in urban areas.

Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death and

injury nationally.

7
8 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

Because the system is so pervasive, to lack an

automobile in the United States today is to lack

mobility. The problem is particularly acute for

four segments of the population-the old, the

poor, the handicapped, and the young-who do

not have or cannot use a car and who are sometimes referred to as the “transportation disadvantaged. ” Their incomes are typically low.

With the possible exception of the young, many

live in areas served poorly, or not at all, by public transportation. Where public transportation

is available, service is infrequent, physically inaccessible, too costly, or not close to desired

destinations. Estimates of the size of this segment of the public range as high as 40 percent of

the population,

While concern was expressed for the needs of

the “transportation disadvantaged” during the

public participation effort, attention was focused mostly on the transportation needs of

society in general. “When my car breaks down,

I am ‘transportation disadvantaged, ’ too, ” a

labor union official told us. “When my husband

takes the car to work, my kids and I are without

transportation, ” said an Ohio homemaker.

“The rich can afford any kind of transportation

they want. The Government subsidizes transportation for the poor. What about the middleincome people, like me, who are barely able to

make ends meet in the face of rising car costs,

bus fares, housing, etc.?” asked another.

Discussion frequently centered on whether

mobility is a right or a privilege. The consensus

appeared to be that mobility should be a right of

the American public. In the midst of one such

discussion, however, a Massachusetts resident

asked, “Are we just assuming we must be mobile? To get a promotion, people often must

move. The Government is guilty of this, as is industry. Why must one move to advance in employment?” In Alaska, a woman remarked,

“Too much mobility traps us—really takes up

time. ” An elderly Iowan suggested that, perhaps, “mobility should be redefined. ”

For the auto assessment, no attempt was

made to redefine mobility; rather, the staff accepted the traditional definition of personal

mobility as the physical movement of people

from place to place. In considering mobility,

some technological substitutes for physical

movement were examined, such as telecommuPhoto credit Sylvia Johnson 19799

Mobility: a right or a privilege?

nications, and lifestyle and land use changes

that might reduce the need or desire to travel.

Most of the respondents felt that it was not

cost-efficient to retrofit mass transportation

systems with equipment to make them more accessible to the handicapped or infirm. This was

also the feeling of many of the elderly and handicapped people to whom we spoke. Common

views were that needed equipment changes

should be incorporated as existing systems are

updated or replaced; separate and more flexible

transportation services (such as dial-a-ride and

minibuses) should be made available for people

with special needs, and “transportation stamps”

or a similar fare subsidy be provided to low-income people. It was never once suggested by

any of the 1,300 people we heard from that subsidies for the “transportation disadvantaged” be

discontinued. Instead, respondents concerned

themselves with the problem of how to increase

mobility for everyone.

Ironically, many of the middle-aged, middleincome, and nonhandicapped people we talked
Ch. 3—Mobility ● 9

to stressed the need for public transportation for

the “transportation disadvantaged, ” while

many of the latter felt that public transportation

was more appropriately the mode for the

former. A wheelchair-bound California woman

told us that even if buses were easier for her to

board, she probably wouldn’t use them. Why?

“Because by the time I wheeled uphill several

blocks to the bus stop, I would be too tired to

get on the bus, ” she explained. Her car, on the

other hand, was far easier and less time-consuming for her to use. Elderly people said they

felt safer from crime when using their own cars

than they did when walking to and from and

riding the bus. Low-income people pointed out

that the public transportation systems that do

exist were designed to move higher income suburbanites to downtown areas. Rarely were these

systems able to accommodate the destination requirements of inner city, suburban, or rural

poor.

In a number of places the OTA staff visited,

there was debate about the seeming discrepancies between the beliefs and actions of individuals. While there was almost unanimous desire

expressed for alternative modes in addition to or

in place of the car, there was less agreement

about who would use these modes. “Sure, people want buses—for somebody else, ” a shopkeeper claimed. “There ought to be more buses.

No, I can’t use the bus because . . . . ,“ quite a

few people said.

Despite these types of comments, it must be

kept in mind that the overwhelming majority of

the respondents indicated a desire, and more importantly, a need for additional modes of travel

or ways to increase accessibility to their various

activities. It is also necessary to remember that

there is currently very little public transportation available, and what does exist, for the most

part, does not even come close to offering the

amenities of an automobile—convenience, comfort, availability, and more. As respondents

were fond of pointing out, there really aren’t

any “viable” alternative modes at present, certainly not on a large scale.

A variety of reasons were offered for the present popularity of the car. The main one was, as

previously mentioned, “There are no alternatives. “ “It is a necessity, especially for emergencies, ” is another comment we heard frequently. “It allows me to live and work where I

choose, and to travel to places inaccessible by

other means of transport. ” “Riding public transportation rather than using a car is a step down

in status.” Industry or Government has “forced

us to depend heavily on the car. ” “We have cars

because we want them. ” “It beats walking. ”

Some people we heard from said they had to use

the car because they were physically unable, due

to age or handicap, to ride public transportation.

In some States, people commented that racist

attitudes often guided modal choice and development. The ‘ respondents who made this

claim —all of whom were white—said that public transportation has evolved in a “Catch 22”

atmosphere. On the one hand, they said, public

transportation was viewed as a welfare issue,

and since “it is commonly believed that only

minority races are on welfare, white {officialdom

ignores public transportation, just as they ignore minorities. ” On the other hand, “The public transportation systems that have been developed have been designed to meet the needs of

higher income whites, rather than the lower income of any race. Those whites, then, won’t

ride public transport t ion because they consider

it beneath them, so public transportation fails

all the way around. ”

The most frequently mentioned attribute of

the car was convenience. In the words of one

person, “You can go where you wish to go when

you wish to. “ “The car is there when you need

it, the bus isn’t, ” said another. Despite timeconsuming traffic delays, respondents noted

that a major advantage of the car over other

available modes was that car travel is faster.

Additional attributes listed were flexibility,

comfort, freedom, privacy, and independence.

Many people said they liked the autonomus

feeling of traveling in their own cars.

The load-carrying capacity of autos was often

mentioned. Architectural students who had

large projects to transport to and from class,

homemakers who shopped for their families,

traveling salespeople who carried samples of

their wares, all appreciated the space a car provided for their “freight, ”

Ease and dependability were also favorite attributes, as were route choice and choice of

company. The latter evoked an array of complaints 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 at

one time or another. Many people claimed that

the car provided the most economical form of

travel. Those who made this claim invariably

added that they traveled in groups, i.e., with

their families on vacations or in carpools for

commuting.

For many of the respondents, efficiency,

cleanliness, and adaptability were important

aspects of a car. A handful of individuals, mostly homemakers, claimed additionally that a

drive in the car was the only place “to get away

from it all. ”

In describing those aspects of the car they appreciated the most, people commonly coupled

their remarks with, “I need the car for work. ”

This was particularly true for commuters who

lived at the fringe of suburbia or residents of

rural areas where distances between home, employment, and recreation areas are great, and

public transportation is either unavailable,

minimal, or poor. Others indicated a need for

the car to carry out the responsibilities of their

jobs.

Occasionally, pleasure was cited as a plus for

automobiles. The pleasure derived from the

Table 1 .—Passenger Car Use*

Percent distribution

Percent Average trip

Percent of travel length onePurpose of travel of trips (VMT) way (miles)

Work, including commuting 36 42 10.2

Family business, including

Shopping................ 31 19 5.6

Educational, civic, or

religious.................. 9 5 4.7

Social and recreational . . 23 33 13.1

‘ 1969 data

SOURCE Federal Highway Administration Nafionwide Personal Transportation Study Report No 10. Purposes of Automobile Trips and

Travel 1974 p 13

“pride” or “luxury” of ownership, “ego satisfaction, “ “power behind the wheel, ” “pleasant sensations when driving, ” and “prestige of owning

a fancy vehicle. ” An Ohio businessman told us,

“It’s fun to drive and be in command of my

Spaceship Capri with all its gadgets—CB,

AM/FM radio, central window and door lock

controls, odometer . . . .”

A similar viewpoint which surfaced repeatedly in the discussions on mobility focused on the

“psychology of mobility.” “We must understand

why mobility is so highly valued in order to develop viable alternatives to the car should it be-
Ch. 3—Mobility ● 1 1

come necessary to do so. ” “Is mobility fun in

itself, or just a way of getting from one place to

another?” “Attitudes should be examined. ” “The

influence of affluence should be considered. ”

“What is the collective interest as opposed to the

collective individual interest?” “social contact is

lost in cars. “ “Teenage morals are lost in cars. ”

“The little car is destroying us socially. I can’t

stand my kids on long trips in a small car. ” “Our

inclination is to say that the individual car is

here to stay and should be, but we’re not sure

— is Detroit influencing our wants and desires?”

A related perception was the need to understand the “psychology of automobility, ” or-, as

one person succinctly put it, the “you-are-whatyou-drive syndrome. ” A vehicle’s size and style

often compose a partial profile of the owner.

For example, “I believe in conservation and

helping to improve the environment, so I drive a

Volkswagen and carpool to work, ” an urban

New Englander told us. A young Maryland man

stated, “I want to impress my friends with my

toughness, so I drive a ‘muscle’ car. ” A midwesterner said, “I grew up in a poor section of town

and have worked my way up. My old friends

and family know I’m making i t when drive i n

my expensive, new car. ”

The OTA staff did not attempt to do a detailed behavioral analysis during the assessment

of the future of the automobile, nor were the

various amenities compared —beyond the mobility offered by each—of currently available

modes. As a frame of reference in the technical

part of the analysis, the staff developed a “base

case” which projected general automobile system characteristics and use under two assumptions: 1 ) the automobile has a continuing role in

satisfying travel demand, and 2 ) current Federal

Government policies and programs would continue in substantially their present form until

2000. This allowed the staff to estimate adverse

and beneficial effects that could result from pursuing present policy and provided a reference

point for comparing alternatives to current

policy. It was not intended that the base case be

Photo credit. New York City Transit

Public transportation in New York City
12 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

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 dominant

form of transportation,

● the number of autos would increase by 50

percent,

. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would in.

crease 75 percent,

● road construction would diminish substantially, and

● congestion would triple.

To enhance mobility, the following policy options were considered:

increase in funding for public transportation, including paratransit,

auto disincentives to encourage public

transportation ridership,

implementation of transportation system

management techniques (such as improved

vehicular flow and increased ridesharing)

to reduce congestion, and

change in land use development patterns to

minimize travel requirements.

To a limited degree, the potential impact of

technological substitutes for travel (such as telecommunications) and lifestyle changes (such as

alternative work schedules) were considered

also,

A major finding of the technical analysis was

that only a severe petroleum shortage or gasoline rationing would result in major reductions

in automobile travel. A fivefold increase (over

1975 levels) in Federal funding assistance to

public transit could increase transit ridership by

up to 50 percent in dense urban areas. Current

ridership is so low, however, that even a SO percent increase would have little overall impact on

auto travel. (Mass transportation now accounts

for less than 2 percent of total passenger miles

traveled. A ridership increase of 50 percent

would raise that total to only about 3 percent. )

Perhaps, as a Virginia respondent suggested,

the goal here should be to decrease congestion

by 50 percent, rather than to concentrate on increasing transit ridership by 50 percent. By

focusing on lowering congestion, she claimed,

there would probably be more efficient utilization of existing facilities without the necessity of

major capital expenditures. In

existing facilities that could be

tively included transit (higher

her opinion, the

used more effecridership; better

intermodal interface) as well as highways (increased ridersharing; improved traffic flow, especially for high-occupancy vehicles). OTA’s

study of this question concluded that transportation system management, which is essentially

what the Virginia respondent had in mind,

would have useful application only in the short

run, and even then, would have minimal impact

on reducing auto travel. Respondents, in general, appeared to feel otherwise.

Like the elderly Iowan who suggested that a

redefinition of mobility might be in order and

the Virginian who implied a need for redefinition of goals, many respondents said that the

Federal Government should “rethink its approach” to transportation. Our current approach, as interpreted by these respondents, is

“to concentrate on modes and not needs. ” The

Government tends, they claim, to concentrate

“on how much money to give a particular

mode, ” instead of “how much money or other

support is necessary to ensure mobility, regardless of the mode. ” More simply, the travel needs

of people should dictate the approach to

transportation system development, rather than

the capital needs of various modes. “Transportation planning should not be done in

Detroit, ” stated a Tennessee man.

It was also apparent from the responses of

many people that they felt a variety of actions

was needed to alleviate the adverse effects of

auto travel and to facilitate overall mobility.

The actions they suggested ranged from nontransportation options (land development

changes, alternative working patterns, improved communications) to a multiplicity of

modal options (from improved cars to advanced

public transportation systems).

The OTA technical assessment concluded that

changes in lifestyle, land use patterns, or the

development of advanced communications systems as a substitute for travel could have significant impacts on auto travel, but probably not

before 2000. This is due, mainly, to the long

leadtimes needed to implement such changes on

a large enough scale to have a major impact.

Many respondents interpreted the phrase—

“change of lifestyle’’—as meaning a “decrease in
Ch. 3—Mobility ● 1 3

Photo credit David Plowden

Land use planning —The Brooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway at Columbia Heights, N.Y. No extra land in addition to the

freeway 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 inpart, 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 psychology

that 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, if

of automobility are concerned. adults won’t. ”

Technology was not the constraint, they

maintained, to the alleviation or resolution of

societal problems, such as mobility. It is, instead, institutional arrangements (Government

regulations, for example) and a lack of basic

understanding of human behavior and needs

that constrain the availability of mobility. “The

Federal Government must do away with barriers to innovation, ” a city dweller in Alaska

Because mobility and automobility have become almost synonymous, attempts to restrict

use of the automobile have been regarded generally as infringements on mobility. It is now recognized, however, that unrestrained automobility may conflict with other national goals and

that reducing automobile travel may be an important means of achieving major energy, environmental, and safety benefits.
14 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

Respondents in a variety of locations stated

that the “reasons for the search for alternatives

to the automobile are congestion, pollution, and

land waste. ” We were often told that more is at

issue than roads in the many highway fights

throughout the country. In one area, a resident

said that neighborhood cohesion and the sense

of community were at stake, The controversial

highway “would create a Chinese wall in the

midst of the community . . . local streets would

be cut off and the neighborhood chopped in

half. ” In other places, respondents said it was

“corporate economic interests vs. people’s interests; “ “urban vs. rural interests;” “suburbanites pitted against city dwellers;” “entrenched

roadbuilding bureaucrats vs. fanatic environmentalists;” or, “the perpetuation of the automobile to the detriment of transportation. ”

The prospect of reducing automobility to promote other social goals raises many questions.

Can the American public modify its preference

for automobility —a preference encouraged by

the Government for decades and fostered

through billions of industry advertising dollars?

Will the intended reductions in automobile

usage actually occur, and will projected energy,

environmental, and safety benefits materialize?

Will, for example, parking restrictions for commuters merely result in more auto trips by family members using; the cars that are left at home?

Will a higher gasoline tax or a special tax on

fuel-inefficient cars discourage their purchase,

but actually increase the distances driven per car

owner as consumers begin switching to fuelefficient automobiles? Knowledge of how the

automobile best functions in a transportation

system is imperfect, and it is not known at what

point increased automobile use becomes self-defeating or, conversely, at what point decreased

automobility might lead to increased mobility.

Limiting automobility and increasing overall

mobility are not necessarily incompatible goals,

particularly in urban areas where two-thirds of

the population now lives. “All reports, from the

local to the national level, conclude that something has to be done about transportation problems, so it’s just a matter of what and when, ” a

Tennessee man told us.

The overwhelming consensus of the respondents 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” in

terms of availability, comfort, and cost. “We

should never get tied to one system, because

when it breaks down, we are in serious trouble. ”

While there was strong support for alternatives, opinion diverged on whether or not the

alternatives should be developed as “supplements” to automobile transportation, as an

Ohio transit official felt, or as actual “substitutes” for auto travel, as other respondents

(including many car enthusiasts) advocated.

The respondents were almost unanimous in

their support for a multimodal system, however, and the multimodal system often included

an “improved car. ”

OTA’s study of trends in automotive technology indicates that the car of 2000 will be smaller

(due to downsizing for energy efficiency) and

lighter (due to materials substitution). The use

Photo credit University 01 Tennessee Photo crdit: Sylvia Johnson 1979

Mobility at a standstill

The 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
Ch. 3—Mobility ● 1 5

of plastics and aluminum will increaser while

the use of steel and cast iron will decrease. Fuel

economy is expected to increase, averaging 27.5

mpg by the year 2000 (the fleetwide average is

now 15 mpg). Production of alternative fuels

probably will be limited, so gasoline would remain the predominant form of energy needed

Additionally, if manufacturers meet emission

standards specified by the Clean Air Act, the

“improved car” would also be cleaner in 2000,

but pollution would continue to be a problem in

congested urban areas.

“We are not married to the Detroit auto, ” said

an auto club official. The “improved car” of the

future, according to the respondents, should be

smaller, lighter, safer, energy efficient (preferably fueled by something other than gasoline),

nonpolluting, cheaper, and more durable. Objecting to the trend of downsizing, an Alaska respondent quipped, “Next year I’m gonna buy a

small car, and the following year, I’m gonna

buy one for the other foot. ”

Worried about the use of lighter weight materials in automobiles, a California fleet manager

said he hoped more thought would be given to

safety because “building foam rubber dodgem

cars won’t protect us” from bad drivers. He

noted, however, that “3, 000 lbs of machinery to

move a 200-lb person horizontally in a seated

position represents the ultimate in overkill. ” On

the east coast, a similar comment was made by a

young art student: “It is silly to have 2 tons of

metal to move 100 pounds of me. ”

A variety of owner-ship arrangements was discussed by respondents. Some individuals prePhoto credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

A sightseeing shuttle bus is one transportation alternative

for tourists

terred a rental car option. Others suggested municipal or neighborhood ownership of a car

fleet. Still others mentioned the possibility of

wide-scale joint ownership of vehicles ( a practice that appears to be slowly growing now, especially in the purchase of recreation vehicles,

such as boats and campers). Most of the respondents who talked about an improved car

said they felt either that it should be or that it

would continue to be an individually owned

mode. As one person said, “People will drive as

long as fuel is available. ” “Americans are willing to risk the hazards and expense of driving

for the convenience, ” a businessman told us.

Should the auto be the major form of transportation in 2000? Yes and no was the “clearcut”

answer we received. Of those who responded affirmatively, more than half said, in essence,

“yes, but . . . .” Some of the more common sentiments were:

The car should be part of a multimodal

transportation system.

The car will dominate, but it will be an improved car.

The car will continue to be the major mode

in rural areas, but certainly not in cities.

Autos shouldn’t be the major mode, but

probably will be.

Cars should be used for recreation, not

cormmuting.

If substitute fuels are found and costs are

lowered, autos will continue to be the majpr mode.

Cars will be the major mode unless

something better is found.

“something better” most frequently su -

gested was a form of mass transportation.

“Americans enjoyed the privilege off commuting

by mass transportation before autos infested

our country, ” a railroad buff wrote us. Both

respondents who said that the automobile

would continue to dominate and those who said

that the automobile should not be the dominant

mode stressed the need for a for a multimodal

system.

When asked how they would design the personal transportation system of 2000, about half

of the respondents described a multimodal system with a car (in some, the automobile dominated; in others, mass transportation dominated). About half described a multimodal sys-
16 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

tern without a car. A very small number of respondents said the system should remain as it is

now. Whatever the components, plans should

be designed “for moving people, not moving

vehicles, ” according to most respondents.

In general, the respondents—pro-car, no-car,

and those who took the middle ground—emphasized the desire for increased mobility for all

segments of society. They stressed the importance of good intermodal connections. “If a

transbus can accommodate wheelchairs, why

not bicycles?” a group of cyclists asked. “All the

time I save flying from one city to another is lost

in trying to get from the airport to my place of

business, ” a salesman noted.

Clear and concise information about fares

and routes would be readily available and easily

obtained in these futuristic systems. Vehicle

designs would be more practical and changed

less. Buses, for example, would have “wider

doors and seats, lower steps and floors, and

windows that open but don’t blow you out of

your seat. ” A surprising number of people said

they would separate cars and trucks.

The mass transportation of their collective

design would be economical, environmentally

sound (quieter and nonpolluting), widely available, efficient, frequent, convenient, demandresponsive, fast, safe, clean, comfortable, and

dependable.

Of the additional or substitute modes suggested, fixed guideway systems appeared to be

most popular. A wide variety was mentioned—

conventional train, rapid transit, trolleys, advanced group rapid transit, monorails, and automated highways. “Railroads were viable
Ch. 3—Mobil/ty ● 1 7

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

A route sign for public transportation, National Airport,

Northern Virginia

when we had less population, ” a northwesterner

pointed out, “but opponents today would have

us believe that present high densities are not

enough to support rail. ”

The next most popular mode was buses. Recognizing the need to reduce congestion, officials

from one State auto club said they were encouraging members to ride a bus at least once a

week. “You may like it, ” they are telling

members. Just as they stressed the need for improvements in the car, respondents stressed the

need for improved buses.

“A bus is just a bus now. There’s no choice in

types and styles like cars and trains. Maybe we

need a variety of buses—some with champagne

service, for instance, and some without, ” an urban designer said. Buses shouldn’t be on “wandering goat routes” either, a New Mexico man

complained. Many respondents claimed that

advertising for buses was needed to counteract

the “sex appeal advertising for cars. ” Much to

the amusement of those around her, one workshop participant wondered aloud what a “sexy

Photo Credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

A popular mode: buses. School buses could be used to

meet general transportation needs

bus would look like. ” Other respondents felt

that more use should be made of school buses

for general transportation. A southerner suggested a “quick change” bus—one that could be

used for carrying people during the day and

converted to a freight carrier during the night.

Air transport was the third most favored

form of future travel. “Hovercraft,” “flying

cars, “ “commuter helicopters, ” and “antigravity

machines, ” were among the new forms suggested by respondents, in addition to expanded

use and improvement of conventional modes

currently available.

Cycles—primarily bikes, but also motorcycles and mopeds—were frequently included in

the future transportation system designs. “A

bicycle with a bubble to protect me from rain

and cold weather would be ideal, ” a Washington, D, C., woman said. There was considerable

discussion about whether there should be separate pathways for bikes and motorized vehicles. Cyclists argued that separate pathways

would 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 favor

dedicating more existing road space to cyclists,

rather than using up additional land for bike

traffic. In making provision for increased biking

in their year 2000 plans, respondents often

noted the physical benefits that would derive

from cycling.

For the same reason, walkways were often included in the respondents’ plans. The following

brief exchange, which took place in Alaska, was

similar to what

country:

First person:

Second person:

First person:

Third person:

Second person:

we heard in other parts of the

“Walking is a viable alternative now. ”

“No, it’s not, not now. It’s

very dangerous. ”

“Yes it is. Inconvenient, yes,

but also viable. ”

“Well, kids walk all over the

place. The viability of walking is probably more a matter

of attitude than space. ”

“But providing space might

change those lazy attitudes . . . .“

Non-transportation options were invariably

part of the schemes. Of these, “land use change”

was the most frequently mentioned. “We need a

Marshall Plan for the United States. We’re a

mess, d sprawling mess, ” an Oregon respondent

stated. Other options often discussed were alternative working patterns and telecommunications.

Not surprisingly, congestion was eliminated

in all personal transportation schemes for the

future. “Let’s not waste time trying to cure congestion after the fact, let’s prevent it in advance, ” said one individual, reflecting the views

of many respondents.

The OTA study projected that congestion

would almost triple by the year 2000, despite

improvements in traffic management. Buses

probably will remain the backbone of urban

public transportation and the principal alternative, though a limited one, to the automobile

for intercity travel. There will be some minor

improvements in comfort and ride quality, and

some advances in increased accessibility (lower

steps and wider doors, for instance) for the handicapped and elderly. In general, however, no

major changes in bus technology are expected.

Some shift from heavy to light rail for new urban transit systems may occur. Automated

guideway transit will see only limited application by 2000. Overall, the technical research

findings show that an auto-dominated system

(with some improvements in engine technology, fuel efficiency, and pollution control) will

continue in the year 2000.

Whatever the system, respondents insisted on

a “consistent mobility policy, ” not a “continuation of the car vs. transit policy. ” “There is no

such thing as private transportation any more, ”

a northern man remarked. “The car is not private transportation. Even though private individuals may own them, the public pays for

them—from the subsidies for research to improve them; to the roads they ride on; to the bad

effects of their usage, such as natural resource

exhaustion, pollution, and congestion .-We have

to have public consistency in our transport policy, ” he explained.

The OTA technical analysis indicated that the

major threat to mobility was the supply of affordable energy. The majority of the respondents, however, viewed cost as the principal

threat to mobility. As one individual said,

“Economics got us into the car; economics will

drive us out. ”

COST

One point became abundantly clear during the course of the public participation

effort. There is little knowledge and even less understanding on the part of the public,

including Government officials, about the actual costs off the American transportation

system and its various components. There is also a lack of understanding about the

way costs are computed and compared. In short, as many respondents said, “There is

lots of confusion over what is and isn’t on costs. ”

“If costs were figured accurately, roads might

not always be built, ” remarked a highway official from a northern State. A southern rail employee said, “Highway planners have always

compared the costs of highways to the cost of

public transportation, and never included the

cost of the automobile. Automobile costs must

be included; otherwise, the cost comparison will

not be fair. ”

From nontransportation workers we heard:

“The cost of municipal services for the auto

should be included in statements about the cost

of the automobile transportation system. ” “We

need information on the true costs of the car system (cost of health care, roads, parking, pollution from cars) to make accurate cost comparisons with other modes. ” “What is the cost of

reglation?”

A misperception of many respondents was

that motorists, through highway users’ taxes

pay all the costs of the automobile transportation system. In actuality, these taxes cover 7 0

percent of the cost of road construction and

maintenance, administration and research, safety (including highway police), interest, and debt

retirement. The remaining support comes from

government revenues drawn from property and

miscellaneous taxes, bond proceeds, investment

interest, and general fund appropriations.

The OTA technical analysis shows that approximately $28 billion was spent for highway

purposes by all levels of government in 1977.

The Federal Government provided about onequarter of that amount. Federal financial support is not limited to highway projects, however. It included such things as special tax

allowances for the fuel and materials industries,

and R&D programs.

A substantial number of respondents viewed

the Federal Government as “so heavily involved

in the cost structure [of the automobile transportation system] that to back out would cause

chaos. ” When some individuals would say,

“Let’s hope we don’t turn to Government financing for personal transportation, ” the aforementioned respondents would counter with, “We’re

already there. Do we dig in further or get out?”

The confusion over what an individual pays

and what the Government contributes to personal transportation stimulated discussion on

private versus public financing of transportation systems. “Government interference in the

automobile manufacturing industry should be

discontinued at once. Let the manufacturers get

back to competing for the marketplace. Free

competition will lower consumer costs. ” “Government mandates elevate costs, said one

21
22 ● Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Tran

Photo credit U.S. Department of Energy

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

Confusion exists on the individual and public costs of

personal transportation

group. Another said, “The Government must

protect the consumer from industry price-fixing

and price-gouging. ”

There appeared to be a slight preference

among the respondents for “marketplace control of the costs” of the automobile (or “individual”) transportation system. Some respondents thought this would bring car costs

down. Others, however, felt that “full cost pricing” would cause substantial price jumps, and as

a result “might change the face of personal

transportation in the United States. ”

Opinion was about evenly split, however, on

whether mass transportation should be publicly

owned and operated, or owned and operated by

private enterprise. There was wide agreement

that mass transportation should be “cost competitive” with the car. Disenchantment with the

Federal Government’s management record,

rather than the use of public funds for transporTab

costs’

e 2.—Costs of Owning and Operating an

Automobile, 1976 (cents per mile)

Type of auto

SubStandard Compact compact

Depreciation 4 9 3 8 3 2

Maintenance, accessories,

parts and tires 4 2 3 4 3 1

Gas and 011 (excluding taxes) 3 3 2 5 18

Garage. parking, and tolls 2 2 21 21

Insurance 17 16 15

State and Federal taxes 16 12 09

Total costs per mile 179 146 126

“ Based on driving 10000 miles per year

SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration. Costs of Owning and Operating an

Automobile. 1976. p 2

tation, was the main bone of contention in the

discussions.

The use of public funds to provide mobility

for the transportation disadvantaged met with

no 

the 

topic

tion o

transp

or do

amount of funds being or to be spent. The

hat did stimulate debate was the applicaf such funds. Do you provide separate

ortation facilities for- the disadvantaged,

you provide transportation subsidies for

disadvantaged individuals and let them choose

which mode best suits their needs? Do you make

all transportation accessible to all segments of

the population?

Some individuals felt that mass transportation was a “welfare” issue and, as such, was appropriate for all “transportation disadvantaged. ” Welfare is thought of primarily in economic terms. The “transportation disadvantaged” from whom we heard most often were

not as concerned about their ability to pay for

services as they were concerned about the

accessibility of transportation facilities. In many

instances, they pointed out how much easier

and more practical it was for them to travel in a

car than on public transport. “Most public facilities—whether it’s restrooms, movie theaters, or

buses—are not built to accommodate short people (like children), slow-moving elderly people,

people on crutches or in wheelchairs, ” they

noted. The same is true of mass transportation.

Low-income people pointed out that public

transportation systems rarely served their destination requirements. In other words, said the

“transportation disadvantaged” among the respondents, “public transportation is designed to

accommodate the ‘transportation advantaged’. ”
Because they are now predominantly dependent on the autombile, most of the respondents

spent time discussing their worries about the

out-of-pocket expense of cars. For the most

part, the respondents perceived the purchase

price of automobiles as higher than ever and rising rap idly. They were partially right. In fact,

the cost of automobile ownership and operation

(in constant dollars) decreased steadily from

1960 to 1973. Since then, however, the trend has

reversed, due primarily to the increased costs of

fuel, repair, maintenance, insurance, and emisssions control and safety features.

With regard to repair and maintenance, the

general feeling was that the industry should be

encouraged by the Federal Government and

pressured by consurncrs to make more durable,

less complicated vehicles with less frequent exterior design changes and more practical internal design. “Detroit controls the auto industry

and should be encouraged to develop a better

product. ” “Obsolescence is a goal to be done

away with. ” The complexity of equipment is exacerbated by Gov e r n m en t regulations, many respondents charged.

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

Repair and maintenance services

Feeling “ripped of f,” respondents complained

bitterly about “inadequate,” “poor-, ” “overpriced, ” and sometimes “fraudulent” maintenance and repair services. Mechanics should be

required to pass a “competency test’ and be

“licensed to practice, ” some individuals said.

“There should be more public trade high schools

or more vocational training” to} increase the

number of mechanics and improve their skills.

“Car repair shops should be regulated” to ensure

good and reasonably priced services.

Those

Ch. 4—Cost ● 2 3

who were annoyed by both the cost

and shortage of parking —Washington, D. C.,

residents, in particular—often pointed an accusing finger at the Federal Government for not adhering to rules it mandated for many jurisdiction across the country. While Federal agencies

are pressuring States to raise parking fees and

reduce parking spaces, these same agencies are

providing their employees with free or low-cost

parking. Parking cost was often a factorr in a respondent’s opinion that the car was an uneconormical form of travel. In addition, many respondents were bothered by the “necessity” of

owning more than one car, the decreasin finan -

cial value of vehicles after purchase, and the increasing operation costs.

Insurance was occasionallly mentioned

because of concern over rising premiums and

the need for financial prpoectio in case of acciden t. The four most common suggestions made

by the respondents were that the Government

should control insurance costs, "nationalize" the

insurance industry, inst itute a nationwide nofault insurance pollicy, require all drivers to

have insurance.

The OTA study found that insurance costs

have declined in real dollars since 1950. It is unlikely that such declines will continue because

the number of accidents is expected ti increase,

and the cost of medical care and car repair are

rising. Consequently, the OTA staff briefly examined three policy options to control consumer costs: national no-fault insurance and

other modifications in insurance practices, Government regulation of repair practices, and

Government incentives or standards to increase

automobile durability and maintainability.

Respondents most frequently suggested increased mass transportion and increased ridesharing to relieve congestion. The OTA study

considered an additional measure—pricing —as

a curb on congestion. Under a congestion costpricing scheme, motorists would be charged a

fee to drive in specific areas during peak travel

times. Theoretically, the fee would be propertionate to what a driver contributes to the total

congestion of the area. A successful demonstration prograrm of congestion cost-pricing was

carried out in Singapore in 1975. The traffic

restraint scheme included parking fees, area

licenses, and a park-and-ride system to provide

motorists with an alternative mode of transpor-
tation. To enter a designated area where congestion was to be reduced, a driver had to display a

supplementary license that could be bought in

the post office or other public service areas.

Mass transportation, including carpools, was

exempt from the additional license requirements. Within 6 months after implementing the

program, the volume of traffic entering the restricted zone had been reduced by 40 percent.

The economic structure of the automobile industry was briefly examined in the OTA assessment in terms of the number of jobs involved

and the impact of the estimated costs of Government regulation. Many of the people we talked

to preferred less Government regulation and

more marketplace control over products and

prices. A large number, however, were critical

of what they perceive as “sluggishness” on the

part of industry in innovation and quality control, attitudinal manipulation through advertising, and unwarranted profits. “Big industry has

too much control. We should be more observant

of industry impact on our lives, ” we heard

many times.

Respondents felt that, in addition to looking

at industry structure and performance, OTA

should also consider the structure and performance of the Federal Government. The majority

of the respondents were very critical of Government’s management record. “The Federal

Government should coordinate its activities better. ” “The Federal Government needs to do a

better job leading, clean up its management efforts, and waste less money. ” “It is institutional,

not technological, problems that constrain the

development of decent transportation. ” “We

feel that the Government should be an activator, not a controller. ” “The Government

shouldn’t own and operate anything; it should

broker services, ”

“The Federal Government belongs in the picture, ” a New Hampshire man told us, “but

they’ve just mishandled things so far. ” He went

on to explain that the “railroads are screwed up

because they end up in congressional committees concerned with regulation. The highway

program was successful because it was handled

by a construction-oriented committee. If railroads had been the responsibility of the Public

Works Committee instead of the Interstate

Commerce Committee, railroads would be in

good shape. ”

Others claimed that Government policies

have distorted the development of an adequate

personal transportation system. An Oregon

man wrote, “Through your office, I appeal to

our Federal Government to create a politicoeconomic environment wherein the intrinsic

merits of each mode determine the nature and

extent of its use. Unless Government ownership

of roads and facilities for navigation and aviation ceases to distort relationships, equalization

of opportunity to demonstrate merit demands

comparably heavy public investment in railway

facilities. ” Another said, “Federal money influences States to do wrong things, like building

unnecessary interstates that they can’t maintain,

when the State road system is good enough. ”

Public investment in and the financing

mechanism for the Nation’s roadway network

were examined by the OTA study. It was projected that road construction would taper off,

and maintenance and repair activities would

grow. In general, respondents indicated little

desire for major new road construction anywhere in the country. “The Government

shouldn’t provide roads we don’t need and can’t

afford, ” Instead they felt that efforts should be

directed at “protecting the current investment”

in the roadway network by promoting more efficient usage and better repair and maintenance.

The OTA analysis highlighted the future need

for highway maintenance and its spiraling cost.

It was noted in the analysis that there is confusion over what actually constitutes “maintenance” and how such activity could be best financed. Some individuals felt that the Highway

Trust Fund should be used to provide incentives

for more efficient use of the Nation’s highways

and pay the costs of repair and maintenance.

Many individuals opposed trust funds, saying

that: “Trust funds are too rigid in long-range

planning. They don’t give Congress the flexibility to change according to needs. ” Such funds

“tie us to one technology too much. ”

In sum, respondents felt that the cost structure of the American personal transportation

system is so complex, and the Government’s involvement in it so intricate, that it merits a far

more detailed examination than the OTA study

was able to give it. “The Federal Government

should re-examine its overall transportation

funding policies in order to discover and understand the inequities, before it attempts to

modify or transform the system. ”
ENERGY

“The Federal Government’s credibility is not too good on the energy issue, ” a midwestern farmer told us. “One agency announces one thing on Monday, then another

Federal agency announces just the opposite on Tuesday, ” Similar remarks were heard

throughout the country. Most respondents felt the energy situation was more a

political problem than a supply shortage at present, although they readily acknowledge concern about the limitations of all natural resources.

An Alaska workshop participant voiced a re- ion, however, was that the “energy crisis” was

current 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 discussions

measures stemmed, of course, from the concern about energy. Several respondents urged that

about 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 their

deliberations on the subject. Despite respondents’ annoyance a t what they perceived as unfair

fuel price increases by the oil industry, they

most often suggested deregulation of gas for

seemingly contradictory reasons.

There was a belief that deregulation would

encourage more competition within the fuel industry and consequently serve as a control on

price levels. “We feel strongly that the free

market should be allowed to set the price of

fuel . . . . This would be a strong form of control, ” a group of southwesterners said. “There

would probably have to be some allowance

made for the poor, though. ” It was also believed

that deregulation would result in the surfacing

of the “true cost” of fuel which would most likely be higher than current levels. These higher

leves would then induce supply conservation --

higher prices wouldd encourage less purchasing

and more efficient use of petroleum. In line with

this second belief was the oft-repeated request

that the Federal Government raise gas taxes substantially —“not in dribs and drabs” —to serve

essentially the same purpose: conservation.

Rationing was seen by many as a plausible

conservation tool and the most equitable in

terms of distribution. Another mechanism for

saving fuel that was often mentioned was

accessibility —changes in land use development

patterns to minimize travel needs. In the North,

East, South, and West, we heard that “most

people favor the 55-mph speed limit, but don’t

follow it. The Government must enforce this

law to save gas, and more importantly, lives. ”

Better traffic management is needed, they

added, to reduce congestion and save fuel. “It

makes no sense to have 55-mph speed limits, 70-

mph road designs, and 125-mph engine capacity, “ said a woman race car driver. In some

places, we were told that “lifestyle and driving

must slow down t o save energy. ” Overall , respondents seemed to agree that, while individuals shared the responsibility for using natural

resources wisely, the stimulus for conservation

probably would “still have to come through external forces, ” i.e., the Federal Government.

The ever-present threat of another oil embargo and the prospect of severe depletion of

worldwide petroleum supplies led the OTA auto

staff to consider policy options that would

reduce auto fuel consumption and expedite dePhoto credit U S , Department of Energy,

Rationing coupons designed as a result of

the 1973-74 energy crisis

● more stringent fuel economy standards,

● a u t o use controls and transit promotion,

● improved transportation systerm management,

. increased gasoline taxes, and

● gasoline rationing.

Figure 3.— U.S. Demand for Oil in 1976

(millions of barrels per day (M MB D))

Electricity

generation

Auto 1.6 ResidentialTransportation commercial

5.2

9 I

Small 1

truck

Other &he r

truck

1.0 transportation

2.1

Total: 17.5 MMBD (42%

SOURCE” Executive Office of the President,

P/an, April 29, 1977

Industrial

3.2

imported)

The National Energy
Ch. 5—Energy ● 2 7

Photo Credits Sylvia Johnson 1979

Energy crisis 1979

The results of the OTA analysis indicated that

the first three might be beneficial, but would

have only a small effect on conservation of fuel

consumption. If the Nation were to face a serious or prolonged scarcity of petroleum, only rationing or very large fuel price increases through

taxation or deregulation would reduce petroleum consumption in the automobile sector by a

significant amount. The OTA study concluded

that sooner or later, a shift would have to be

made from petroleum to alternative energy

sources for the automobile, and a strong

Government program of support and incentives

might be necessary to accomplish this.

Talk about conservation during the public

participation effort often sparked discussions

about the effect of decreased fuel usage on the

Nation’s economy. Automobile transportation

is the largest consumer of petroleum in the

United States, constituting about 30 percent of

the total demand, and consumption is rising.

The OTA research showed that deregulation of

petroleum prices could allow market forces to

balance supply and demand, but might have inflationary effects on the national economy, impose a disproportionate burden on low-income

persons, and generally restrict the use of the

automobile.

“If the current car is unsatisfactorty, then let’s

improve it, ” said a midwestern auto owner, giving voice to a popular notion. On the west

coast, representatives of a State auto club told

us about their “target car” program which was

designed to encourage the domestic auto industry to improve their products. Eleven factors

were chosen for rating. “Imports were way

ahead when we began the program, but the

United States has caught up fast because of competition, Government regulations, cost, and

people’s interest in fuel economy, ” they told us.

We also heard from inventors who were

working on alternatively fueled vehicles and industry officials who were experimenting with

new engine designs. In addition to improved

cars, respondents called for more and improved

mass transportation vehicles in response to im-
28 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

pending energy shortages. Improved engines,

the use of alternative fuels, energy efficient

modes-all were supported by most of the respondents.

The lack of an effective national energy policy

was frequently criticized. “We don’t want an

energy policy dictated by . . . Iran, ” one New

Englander told us. A southerner complained

that the Federal Governrnent “should get out of

the oil industry’s bed. ” A college student

asserted that “Congress has blown the energy

situation. ” In general, respondents said that

under a national energy policy, the Federal

Government should provide support for industry research and development of alternative

fuels, decrease the Nation’s dependence on

foreign oil, and continue to pressure the automobile industry for better engines and smaller

cars. Respondents also stressed the need “to get

at more basic energy issues, beyond the auto

a lone,” such as the tradeoffs between residential, transportation, and industrial energy

needs; the amounts of energy needed to produce

energy; and the “true” relationship of energy to

the U.S. economy.

“True” is an adjective that surfaced repeatedly during the public participation program.

What are the true costs, true relationships,

what’s the true story?, we were asked over and

over again. People were hungry for information

and were often uneasy with opinions they expressed due to uncertainty about the “facts” on

which they were basing their viewpoints. Respondents were critical of “misleading” advertisements and “contradictory” Government pronouncements. They emphasized the need for accurate information about industry products and

problems facing the Nation as a result of using

these products. It was mainly during discussions

of energy (because of the widespread confusion

over the existence of an “energy crisis”) and cost

that the need for improved consumer communications was most frequently emphasized.
ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER

0

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

area where automobile exhaust is a principal source of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Other forms of pollution noise, water pollution, soil contamination, and solid waste — are problems generated by automobile usage, but not to

the same degree. For this reason, the OTA study concentrated on aut{~rn[>bile air pollution.

“Like the ‘energy crisis, ’ air pollution also has

an identity problem, ” explained a southwestern

health department official. There is confusion

about its existence because it is not a tangible

substance that has precise parameters. “People

generally don’t believe there is a pollution problem because they can’t see it, ” he claimed, “so

they don’t pay attention to air pollution alerts

or other bad air warnings.

On the contrary, most of the people we talked

to seemed to believe the existence of air pollution. They were, however, leery of the scanty

facts to which they had access. Here, again, they

asked for more information. They wanted definitive “proof” that air pollution was harmful to

human health and welfare, and that pollution

was indeed extensive. Here, again, they were

critical of what they termed “mixed messages”

from the Federal Government.

A State government representative told us

that “the Feds need to put teeth into their regulations if they expect us to believe that they and

the problems are serious. ” A labor union man

who was unhappy about industry moving from

his State to the south where environmental requirements are less stringent wanted to know,

“Why is it OK to pollute in the south, but not in

the midwest? If air pollution is bad for us, the

Government shouldn’t be allowing it to increase

anywhere .“

With the exception of some rural small town

respondents, most of the people we heard from

felt that environmental problems were nationwide in scope. Therefore, Federal Government

involvement in helping reduce these problems

was justified, they said. They stated that the

Photo credit U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Government should provide uniform

guidance in this matter, and local and State

authorities should be responsible primarily for

program design and implementation. “Moral”

and financial support should come from the national level. Federal environmental guidelines

and/or regulations should leave ample room for

“local initiative. ”

“Concord, New Hamphsire, is not New York

City. “ “Akron, Ohio, is not Washington, D. C.”

“Albuquerque, New Mexico, is not Los Angeles. “ “Iowa cars shouldn’t have to meet stringent California emissions standards. ” “Don’t

legislate rules for big cities and force them on

small towns and rural areas. We’re not the

same, ” was usually the initial response. Yet, in

reflecting further on the environmental situation

in their areas, residents frequently expressed the

same concerns as big city inhabitants—how to

29
cope

port,

Carbon monoxide Hydrocarbons

1 13“5 30.2

Totals (million tons per year)

Nitrogen oxides

20.0

KEY: u u

Automobile b Other mobilec Stationary and

miscellaneous

d

1975 Data

b Passenger cars only.

‘Light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks (gasoline and diesel), buses, motocycles, aircraft, pipeline, marine craft and military

vehicles,

SOURCES EEA Gasoline Consumption Model,

TRC and Argonne National Laboratory, Priorties and Procedures for the Development of Standards of

Performance for New Stationary Sources of Atmospheric Polh.men, 1976

with automobile pollution, oxidant transnoise from increasing traffic, and sprawling development (with subsequent loss of farmland) encouraged by road construction. The

message they wanted to convey was: Don’t tell

us what to do; help us to learn what the problems and potential solutions are, then encourage

us by incentive to help alleviate these problems.

They criticized the industry for “dragging its

feet” on automobile emission controls and suggested that the Federal Government prod the industry with stronger incentives. The Federal

Government, on the other hand, was criticized

for the “conflicts among safety, pollution, and

fuel economy goals. ” Although concern about

air pollution was expressed mostly by urban

residents, both urban and rural people complained about increasing traffic noise and its

undesirability. A Californian chided Government officials and others for concern about traffic noise “when viewed in light of half our population’s penchant for high wattage stereo systerns. ”

Respondents were distressed, too, by what

they deemed “excessive space demands” of the

automobile system. Roads, accommodating

cars mostly, comprise a large part of the space

taken in cities and suburbs. A frequent criticism

of highway construction was that it “encouraged waste, poor development, and poor transportation.” More thought should be given to

land use development and the compatibility of a

variety of transportation modes, from the automobile to mass transit, they said. There should

be changes in development patterns that would

encourage more efficient use of natural resources, such as energy and land. A related suggestion was that the Federal Government should

be considering “the global impact of our waste”

of diminishing resources.

As expected, cost received a great deal of attention in the discussions about the environment. Typically, we heard: “We’re not sure we

can afford small increases in air quality and

high-cost technology. “ “The Government must

look closely at the cost-benefit tradeoff between
Ch. 6—Environment ● 3 1

emissions and the economy." “The cost and

complexity of automobiles are due to emission

and safety device legislation. ” “The societal impact of pollution should be a major factor in any

cost analysis performed by the Government. ”

Essentially, the repondents felt that the

burden of pollution control should be on the

automobile manufacturers. The Federal Government should encorurage the development and

purchase of nonpolliitomg vehicles, more efficient use of available transportation facilities

(such as carpooling and priority bus lanes), and

imprroved land use planning, thely said. The

OTA analysis showed that the introduction of

new technol ogy for automobile propulsion systems and synthetic fules may create new adverse

impacts on the ennvironment. Particulate emissions from diesel engines are of special concern

because of their possible carcinogenic properties.

Based on the OTA analysis, it appears that

additional measures to control automobile emissions will be necessary to meet air quality standards in urban areas. The data showed that further tightening of new-car emission standards,

particuarly for nitrogen oxides, wouldd be only

marginally helpful, and the cost of achieving

this benefit Would be high.

The OTA study also found that a nationwide

program of inspection and maintenance of vehicles in use could produce substantial reductions in automobile emissions and consequent

improvemen t in air quality. The analysis

showed, too, that control of automobile use

would be effective as a supplementary measure

i n specific locations. However, as a general nationwide strategy, automobile use controls appear to be of limited value.

Respondents rarely mentioned inspection and

maintenance, and when they did, the response

BUSE S

4 PASSENGE R

POOL CAR S

II PM - II A M

Photo Credit Sylvia Johnson 197 9

Carpooling and busing help reduce pollution

and congestion

was mixed. Restricted automobility was not

popular among the respondents because they

viewed it as an intrusion on their present

freedom of movement. It should be remembered, though, that decreased automobility was

a factor in the majority of the respondents’

designs for a future personal transportation

system.

Present policies, according to the OTA

analysis, appear to be adequate to minimize

other environmental impacts of all automobiles,

such as noise, community disruption by road

construction, disposal of scrap vehicles and

parts, water and soil contamination. Respondents were concerned that present environmental

laws are not well understood, nor adequately

enforced. They tended to support strengthening

and expanding programs to improve environmental quality, particularly in the areas of air

and noise.
SAFETY CHAPTER

7

“Safety’s not a problem in my State, ” we were told by one middle-aged man in a

predominantly rural State. “There are so few cars on the road here that I put my Time

magazine 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 after

we heard these remarks showed that this particular State had one of the highest traffic

acciclent rates in the country.)

Respondents of all ages, from diverse backgrounds, from large and small communities,

from every region of the United States insisted

that “cars aren’t the cause of accidents, people

are!” A member of a leading automobile association stated that safety was one of his

organization’s main concerns, and that they

viewed “the person behind the wheel” as the

primary problem.

People complained bitterly about drunk

drivers and “just plain bad drivers. ” They were

angry about people who “drive aggressive] y and

take their frustrations out behind the wheel of a

car;” those who think it’s “neat to get loaded on

narcotics or liquor and attempt to drive;” and

those “who think O to 80 in 6 seconds is the

greatest thing in the world and will leave tons of

rubber on the pavement to prove it (they also

leave cadavers when something goes wrong), ”

Many respondents compared the safety rates for

auto travel to travel by mass transportation.

“Thousands of people died on the highways last

year, but not one person died on Amtrak, ” a

Massachusetts woman noted.

More responsibility should be placed on the

driver, respondents said, and stronger penalties

levied on those who drive recklessly. This was

the one area where people generally agreed that

Federal, State, and local governments should be

heavily involved. They also said that national

disincentives aimed at drunk drivers and habitually poor drivers should be adopted nationally

and applied uniformly.

Current driver education programs are inadequate, they said, and licensing requirements

should be tightened. Driver education programs

Table 3.— 1977 Traffic Crash Data

Crashes a 17,600,000

Vehicles Involveda

. 29,800,000

Injuries b ., ... ., ., 4,392,000

DeathsC.................... 47,700

Auto occupants.............................................. (27.400)

Pickup, van occupant s (5,200)

Motorcycl e (4,200)

Pedestrian, pedacycle.......... . (8,600)

Truck, bus, and othe r (2,400)

Estimated ............costo . $44 billion

aOTA estimates from National Safely CounciI data

b

u.s. Public Health Service

CU.S. DOT Fatal Accident Reporting System figures rounded

d

u.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 beginning

drivers, rather they should be extended to

drivers of all ages. For example, some State

agencies and a number of companies now offer

defensive driving courses for their employees.

Some even require their employees to take these

courses periodically. Additionally, “license exams should be standardized, ” we were told,

“and testing should be continuous, not just a

once-in-a-lifetime event. ”

Cyclists should obey traffic laws, too, and

motorists should be trained to watch out for cyclists, “just as they watch out for trucks and

motorcycles and taxicabs,” northwestern respondents told us. Several bike riders suggested

requiring a license and/or a minimum age for

cycling. As one cyclist put it, “Fifty percent of

the bike accidents occur to kids under 12, and 50

percent of the auto accidents involve people

under 24. Maybe the legal age limit for cyclists

should be 12 at a minimum, and for car drivers,

at least 24. ”

33
34 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

Photo credit Sylvia Johnson 1979

Hazardous road conditions place an extra strain on drivers

“The psychology of driving and bad driving

should be examined, ” said one woman, reiterating the viewpoint of many respondents. “We

don’t understand the man-machine interface too

well, ” another person said, then added that “the

drinking and driving relationship should be examined closely. “ “Drinking to excess and driving is macho, ” explained a southerner.

Various approaches were suggested to curb

abusive use of alcohol, which was viewed by

many respondents as “the No. 1 social and safety problem. ” Businesses, unions, and police

departments throughout the United States are

experimenting with rehabilitation programs.

Tavern owners in one State we visited are held

partially responsible for the sobriety, or lack

thereof, of their customers. In June 1978, the

Governor of Ohio signed a bill requiring insurance groups of 25 or more to cover in- and

out-patient treatment for alcoholics. The respondents claimed that much more needs to be

clone: programs should be expanded, assistance

extended, and peer pressure applied in the effort

to combat alcoholism.

“Uniformi t y“ was a key word in the safety

discussions. “The Nation needs uniform traffic

codes and road standards. ” “Penalties for traffic

violations should be uniform, strict, and rigidly

enforced. “ “Inspection and maintenance should

be uniformly required throughout the U. S.”

“The Federal Government should set uniform

manufacturing standards. ”

Vehicles and roadways were not ignored in

the safety discussions, although they were of

less concern than bad drivers. The most commonly heard remarks about roads emphasized

the need for better maintenance and repair of

the Nation’s bridges and highways, the removal

of hazardous obstacles and “death traps, ” and

the improvement of signing and lighting. A substantial number of people said that “trucks and

cars don’t mix, ” and that the two should be

separated. Many suggested that trucking in

general be greatly decreased with railroads

moving more freight. They also favored a reduction in truck weight limits. While a handful

of people thought speed limits should be raised,

most said they favored the 55-mph limit and

that it should be better enforced.
Photo credit U S Department of Transportion

“Trucks and cars don’t mix . . . .“

As for automobiles themselves, some individuals felt that the Federal Government should

“mandate fail-safe cars. ” A larger number said

that “industry should improve car designs” to

make them safer. The results of surveys by two

auto clubs in the midwest and northwest, which

were shared with us, illustrate the type of response we received on the issue of safety devices. The survey respondents indicated that

they were aware of the utility of seat belt usage,

but felt that mandatory use was unwarranted. It

is contrary to “freedom of choice. ” “We don’t

want Government agencies telling us what to

do, ” said respondents, although many claimed

that they voluntarily use seat belts now. Paradoxically, most of the people we talked to preferred to be in charge of their own individual

safety, but wanted someone else, i.e., the

Government or industry, to be responsible for

the safety of others (most frequently mentioned

were family members ).

To safeguard “pedestrians who don’t have

bumpers, ” it was suggested that with advancements in electronics it would perhaps be possible to equip future vehicles with a pedestrian- or

accident-avoidance device. Accidents were not

the only thing motorists were trying to avoid.
36 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

They were also fearful of crime. “People are

becoming so frightened that we use cars instead

of buses, ” a California woman told us. An easterner claimed, “People feel safe in their cars

with all the buttons pushed down. They don’t

have this degree of safety when walking on city

streets or riding public transportation. ”

Respondents focused mainly on measures to

improve driving habits as the principal means to

increase safety. The OTA analysis found that in

the next 5 to 10 years, the greatest safety benefits would accrue from reduction of alcohol use

associated with driving, strict enforcement of

the 55-mph speed limit, and increased use of

seat belts. The technical research also indicated

that a long-range plan for a higher level of safety should include improved auto crashworthiness, occupant restraint systems, and vehicle designs to mitigate pedestrian injuries, as well as

the elimination of roadside hazards.
Beyond periodic trips to the voting booth and occasional brief appearances at

public hearings, U.S. citizens usually have had little access to the Government decisionmaking process. In an effort to broaden their involvement, citizens–- through

litigation 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 has

mandated increased citizen participation in

Government activities, from planning to actual

implemental ion of programs. Experimentation

with techniques for public participation is under

way in several Government agencies. Because

there has been limited experience with an expanded public participation process, a brief

discussion of the automobile assessment’s public

participation program may be useful to others

engaged in such activites.

In the automobile assessment, the OTA staff

operated under two assumptions:

. A better understanding of people’s needs,

attitudes, and behavior is needed in order

to build more humane and satisfactory systems, transportation being only one. What

better source of information is there, then,

than people themselves?

● Involvement t of a diverse group of people in

the assessment would lead to a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the automobile transportation

system and, hence, to a more thorough

analysis.

In designing the citizen participation program

for the assessment, an effort was made to stimulate public commentary on substantive questions, to facilitate the public’s ability to participate in the study, and, where possible, to establish a two-way dialog. Too often, even now,

public participation efforts are limited to public

hearings, held during the traditional work day

(between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.), in a handful of major cities. The schedule typically allots participants 5 to 10 minutes to speak, which usually

means time to read a prepared statement. There

is no discussion, and those conducting the hearing rarely make any response to testimony and

comments offered by the public “witnesses, ”

who tend to be persons with a professional or

organizational interest in the subject under consideration. In form, the hearing process more

closely resembles a quasi-legal proceeding than

an open forum for mutual exchange of views.

The OTA staff decided to exclude public hearings and to rely on other methods to reach the

public. The methods included a brochure and -

questionnaire, workshops, interviews, smallgroup discussions, and regular meetings with a

Public Participation Working Group. The intent

was to employ techniques that would encourage

discussion and informal exchange of views without the trappings of a formal judicial procedure.

This was done, also, with the intent of expanding public participation in general and exposing

Government activity to closer scrutiny by a

broader range of the public.

The data collected are fairly representative of

American thinking on the subject of the future

use and characteristics of the automobile transportation system. This is due to the diversity

and number of people involved, and to the nationwide and open-forum characteristics of the

program. However, it is only a very small piece

of what is needed in terms of public dialog and

participation in Government decisionmaking on

the topic of personal mobility. It is hoped that

this effort will serve as a point of departure from

which others can continue.

Brochure and questionnaire. A brochure, entitled “The Automobile: It’s Driving Us To

Think, ” was distributed throughout the United

States during June 1978. (See appendix A.) It

contained a brief discussion of the origin of the

automobile assessment, the issues identified for

37
38 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

study, and background information on OTA.

Enclosed was a short questionnaire designed to

explore the recipient’s views on issues, technological alternatives for personal mobility, and

policy options for the Federal Government.

About 17,000 copies were mailed, and almost

700 responses were received. This is a response

rate of approximately 4 percent.

The questionnaire raised basically the same

topics that were considered in other parts of the

public participation activity and in the technical

analysis itself. An open-ended questionnaire

was used to give respondents the greatest

amount of leeway in selecting points for comment and articulating their replies. Space was

also provided for additional comments that respondents wished to make.

Members of Congress from areas where automobile assessment workshops were not scheduled were asked to assist in the distribution of the

brochure and questionnaire by sending it to a

limited and randomly selected number of people

on their mailing lists. Help was also obtained

from national organizations which had no connection with the automobile transportation

system. (See table 4 for distribution list.)

Table 4.— Brochure Distribution List

Congressman Morris K, Udall. Arizona. ... .2,000

Congressman John J. Cavanaugh, Montana .. 2,000

Congressman Olin E. Teague, Texas . .. 2,000

Congressman Hamilton Fish, New York, ., 1,000

Congressman Wyche Fowler, Georgia 2.00 0

Washington State Energy Off Ice, Washington 1,800

Indiana University, Purdue, Indiana 500

National Rural Center, national 1,800

National Economists Club. national 1,200

Parents Without Partners, national 1,500

OTA, Public Affairs, nationa l 1,200

Total . . .. .17,100

While this technique produced a large number

of responses, i t was limiting in that the staff was

unable to pursue specific points made by individual respondents. However, some of these

points were incorporated in later discussions

with other people during workshops and interviews. The major difficulty encountered with

this and other outreach techniques used was

putting together written (and oral) materials in

an even-handed, objective manner. What appears to one individual to be fair presentation

appears to another as misrepresentation. Illustrative of this dilemma was that environmentalists 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—at

locations throughout the country. The sites

selected were Concord, N. H.; Akron, Ohio; Ft.

Dodge, Iowa; Portland, Oreg.; Anchorage,

Alaska; Los Angeles, Calif.; Albuquerque,

N. Mex.; and Memphis, Term, (See appendix B

for copies of the workshop notice, agenda, and

handout material. )

Basically, three criteria were used in site selection. First, the staff felt that a workshop should

be held in each of the major regions of the country to sample whatever regional differences

there might be in attitudes and travel habits.

Second, a range of sparse to dense population

was needed to determine differences, if any, in

attitudes about transportation and travel needs

and patterns. (Viewpoints throughout the country were found to be similar on the topic of persomal transportation, regardless of the region or

the size of the community. ) Third, an effort was

made to select areas that are not generally visited by Government representatives in other

public outreach programs.

Anchorage was included not only because it

met the criteria, but also because Alaska is a

large area on the brink of what could be substantial development. The staff was interested in

knowing if transportation decisions being made

in that State would mirror those of the “lower

48, ” or if Alaskan development might introduce

innovation in modes and usage that would be

applicable elsewhere in the United States. Akron, Ohio, was added to the list because its

economy is largely dependent on the automobile

industry. The remaining six sites were selected

based mostly on their regional location (northeast, midwest, northwest, west, southwest,

southeast ) and size (rural, small town, mediumsized town, large metropolitan area).

Mailing lists for each workshop location were

assembled with the help of chambers of commerce, local government officials, and occasionally, the district office staff of Members of

Congress. These lists contained the names of a

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

communities to be visited. An average of 3 0

people attended each of the workshops, five of

which were held on a weekday evening (7 to

10:30 p.m. ) and three on Saturdays (9 a.m. to 4

p.m. ). Participants were encouraged to air their

opinions, and time was allocated for dialog

among the participants and the two or three

OTA staff members in attendance.

Interest appeared to be higher and attendance

greater at the evening sessions, even though the

shortened time period allowed less discussion.

Some adjustments were made in the OTA presentation and wording of questions following the

first few workshops, primarily at the suggestion

of participants. This helped later participants to

understand more easily the nature of the effort

and resulted in better response during the remaining sessions. While there was a good mix

among the participants in terms of background

experience and community activities, there was

not as much balance as the staff would have

liked in terms of age, sex, and race. More intensive efforts to reach people in these categories is

needed for future efforts of this sort.

The workshops were the most time-consuming of the public participation measures used,

but they also resulted in a substantial amount of

information. The administrative effort was

large due to the need for travel and hotel accommodations, room arrangements, audiovisual equipment rental, compilation of mailing

lists, preparation of handout materials, and a

myriad of other tasks. Where time allows, a

workshop is a good method for stimulating public discussion and obtaining a variety of comments.

Interviews and small group discussions. Over

200 people were interviewed individually or in

small groups throughout the country. In some

instances, the discussions took place as an extra

session of an annual conference, such as those

conducted by the American Institute of Planners

or the National Council for the Transportation

Disadvantaged. Interviews were arranged in

every community where the staff held workshops—including, in one case, a stopover location. Meetings with special groups were arranged also, such as one meeting with a group

of architectural students and a separate meeting

with the students’ professors. Occasionally,

spontaneous interviews took place—as in one

case when an OTA staff member struck up a

conversation with a rural southern shopkeeper.

The format for these sessions was similar to

the workshops: a brief explanation about the

study and OTA, then questions and discussion.

(See appendix C for a sample of the questions

asked. ) This method of gathering public commentary allowed the OTA staff to discuss respondents’ viewpoints in more detail than was

possible at workshops. It was also the easiest

and least costly technique to organize and implement, and it seemed to be the most productive with respect to quantity of detailed commentary.

Public Participation Working Group. This

group was composed of nine people from the

Washington, D. C., metropolitan area. They

were selected on the basis on their travel needs

and modal choices, rather than technical transportation expertise. The members represented a

mix of income level, age, sex, and race. Some

members owned cars, some did not. Some had

technical knowledge about various aspects of

the automobile transportation system; some did

not. They represented themselves, rather than

an organization. (See appendix D for a brief

background description of working group members. )

The working group was established primarily

to provide an ongoing mechanism through

which a small number of people from the general public could comment on the procedural

and substantive aspects of the automobile

assessment and the public participation program. Over time, the members became familiar

with the general concerns of OTA and with the

immediate problems of the OTA staff conducting the assessment.

Eight full-day meetings were held on Saturdays between April and mid-December 1978.

Initially, the members were asked the same

basic questions as in the questionnaire. As time

passed, they were given materials to read pertaining to the future of the automobile; presentations were made by the staff which provided

them with additional information; and discussions took place during which the members’

views and need for more information were examined. During their last meetings, the questions asked of them initially were repeated, and

their responses discussed. Generally, their views
Ch. 8—A Public Participation Process ● 4 1

had not changed much over the course of 8

months, nor did they differ substantially from

responses received through other channels. This

is probably due to the fact that the automobile is

a well-known technology. If the assessment had

dealt with a less familiar technology, the working group responses might have differed greatly

from the beginning of their participation to the

end, or might have differed from the comments

of less informed respondents.

In summary, participants in all aspects of the

program appeared eager to comment on the

study and seemed to be generally pleased with

the approaches used. Less than a dozen people

out of the 1,300 respondents objected to the program as a whole or to specific parts. Three individuals said that the distribution of the questionnaires was a “rip off of taxpayers’ money. ”

A northwestern couple charged that the “hidden

agenda of the auto assessment is to do away

with the car and democracy. ” A few individuals

who were affiliated with the auto or auto-related industries claimed that the assessment staff

was “trying to stack the workshops with radicals, hippies, and screaming environrnentalists. ”

Interestingly, a car enthusiast who attended a

workshop said that he was “disappointed that

there weren’t any radicals in attendance. ”

For- the most part, respondents answered

questions enthusiastically. They made constructive suggestions on both the content of the

assessment and the public participation program. Additionally, many requested more information from the staff and asked for copies of

the report when published.

“This is the first time I’ve seen a Washington

bureaucrat, ” several people commented. Others

said the quest ions “triggered new thoughts” and

sometimes changed their perspectives. Some

said they en j eyed the “exchange of ideas” during

the discussions. A western man said he came to

the workshop “because I thought there would be

a good cross section of people, and I was interested in the direction of transportation. I got

more answers than I expected. ”

An auto club official wrote to us: “I compliment you on conducting a good workshop . . . . Your presentation of data and alternatives was without prejudice. All participants

had the opportunity to express their concerns

and recommendations. I am pleased to have had

the ppportunity to participate. ” Many questionnaire respondents said they appreciated being

informed about the study and being offered the

chance to voice their concerns and opinions. In

Washington, D. C., a public participation

Working Group member said, “We have

learned while participating. ”

So did we.
Appendixes
Appendix A

BROCHURE/QUESTIONNAlRE

45
DIVIDED HIGHWAY BEGINS

The automobile has become increasingly important

in our lives since the turn of the century when it first

began to make its way over the globe. Few people at

the time could have foreseen that it would ever successfully compete with the railroads. The greatest objections raised against the newfangled motor car were

that its commotion frightened the horses, and it kicked

up dust around the farmlands.

Most assumed that its emissions could not possibly

be worse than the daily sanitation problems and

assault to the eyes and nose presented by horses on

the city streets. In New York City alone in the late

1800’s, about 2.4 million

gallons of urine fell on

midst of all this, about

each year, aggravating

clogging the streets.

pounds of manure and 60,000

the streets every day. In the

15,000 horses dropped dead

the unhealthy situation and

The automobile brought welcome relief from horse

and buggy transportation, and offered a host of new

benefits as well. The automobile provides speed, comfort, privacy, door-to-door service-mobility whenever

and to wherever we wish. These conveniences proved

so attractive that, by 1928, there were more cars than

telephones in the United States, and after World War II,

almost every family in the expanded American middle

class owned at least one car. Greater personal mobility

became so common it was taken for granted by most of

us. Then, the suburbs began to grow. Stores, churches,

recreation areas, and employment centers followed

residential development and spread far beyond the city

boundaries.

Because of the popularity of the automobile, rising

car ownership rates, and sprawling low-density development, transit service dwindled. Owning a car gradually became a necessity. The profusion of automobiles

and changing American lifestyles (such as the 9-to-5

workday and 5-day workweek) combined to produce

several adverse impacts (traffic congestion and air

pollution, for example).

In the 1950’s, alarmed by increasing smog caused

partially by automobile exhaust, citizens in Los

Angeles, Calif., demanded corrective action. Emission

control technology was available to automobile manufacturers at the time, but for a variety of reasons, the industry balked at the utilization of such technology. The

State of California responded by legislating emission

control. The Federal Government eventually followed

suit and instituted measures to improve air quality in

cities all over the country by controlling sources of

pollution, including automobile exhaust.

Public concern regarding the automobile covers

more than air pollution, however. For instance, the

price 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 create

a solid waste disposal problem. Because the automobile has permitted homes, offices, shops, and necessary services to be located far apart, those who cannot

drive are at a disadvantage. One major alternative, public transit, in many places does not exist, costs too

much, or is inconvenient.

4
CHECKING UNDER THE 11000 MOBILITY: Two-car barrage

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a research arm of the United States Congress, is designed

to act as an early warning system for Congress by providing assessments on various technologies, their

potential or actual impacts, alternative technologies,

and relevant Government policy options. Generalists

and specialists from the professions and the public

pool their efforts to develop broad, accurate, in-depth

assessments. At the request of Congress, OTA is

studying the future of the automobile transportation

system to determine the short- and long-range impacts

on society and the appropriate role for the Federal

Government. OTA’s preliminay assessment of the automobile identified five issue areas for study: mobility,

environment, energy, safety, and cost and capital.

In 1892, when the automobile was introduced in this country, we were an agricultural Nation, close to the land and close to

our homes. Individual mobility was limited,

and travel minimal. Now, however, travel is

crucial to our economy and to our daiIy Iives,

and the car provides most of our mobility.

Currently, the American automobile transportation system contains about 100 million

cars (the national population totals about 200

million people) which are driven on 3.8

million miles of roads, streets, and highways

6 7

●
throughout the United States. About one

million miles of this roadway are built or

maintained by Federal funds and carry about

three-fourths of all vehicular travel.

Despite the high auto ownership figures,

only 60 percent of our population drives. The

other 40 percent of us who do not drive—

because we are too young, too old, too disabled, or too poor to afford a car—must depend on others to drive us to our various

destinations, or rely on alternative modes

which offer fewer advantages than the automobile in terms of convenience, comfort, and

speed.

Basically, there are three ways society can

improve mobility. First, facilitate the physical

movement of people from place to place.

Second, improve accessibility by moving

people and activities closer together. Third,

reduce the need for travel by developing and

utilizing technological subtitu

telecommunications), or by changing attitudes and lifestyles (voluntary simplicity,

perhaps).

The Federal Government has concentrated

on facilitating physical movement. It has

funded, in varying degrees, projects such as

roadway construction, special transportation

services, and mass transportation. Generally,

the Government’s position has been financially supportive of the growth of the automobile industry. Although its actions have affected land use extensively, the Federal Government has shied away from direct land use

management.

ENVIRONMENT: Caught in a clutch

One of the greatest environmental concerns associated with the automobile is atmospheric pollution. The Nation’s Capital, a

city with little industrial activity, still finds

itself periodically strangled by air pollution,

especially in the hot summer months when

high humidity adds to the problem. Over 90

percent of the carbon monoxide comes from

cars driven into, out of, and around the city.

Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted

by automobiles contribute to the contamination as well.

8 9
While experts disagree about the severity

of health hazards these air pollutants may

pose, most agree that the continued pollution of the atmosphere will cause severe

damage in the long run. Whether from the

automobile or other sources, air pollutants

appear to be at least partialIy responsible for

increases in cancer and other diseases, interference with normal weather patterns, and

damage to plant and animal life. As a result

of federally mandated technological

changes, emissions from new automobiles

have been greatly reduced and will be reduced further as requirements of the Clean

Air Act are met.

Additional environmental impacts associated with the automobile transportation

system are noise, water polIution, solid

waste disposal, and sometimes disruptive

consumption of land, particularly in residential areas. Within the past 20 years, the

Federal Government has become concerned

enough to enact legislation in defense of the

environment. Emission control spread nationwide with the passage of the Clean Air

Act of 1963 and subsequent amendments.

The National Environmental Policy Act was

passed in 1969. In 1972, the Noise Control

Act became law, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was also passed. From this

spate of legislative activity emerged the

President’s Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

ENERGY: Fill’er up

Since the automobile was first introduced

in the United States, triIIions of dollars have

been spent structuring the Nation and our

lifestyles around the car. Cheap, plentiful

petroleum encouraged the dominance of the

automobiIe in our transportation system. Today, although the United States comprises

only 6 percent of the world’s population, it

operates 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 (automobiles consume about 30 percent of our

petroleum supply);

● Dwindling domestic supplies; and

. Our energy-dependent economy.

By becoming more dependent upon

foreign sources for oil, we may be risking our

national security. Another oil embargo could

seriously hurt the economy of this country.

Transition to alternate energy sources (synthetic fuels from coal, shale oil, or alcohol,

for example) will take time, 15 to 25 years

perhaps. Implementation of conservation

measures will take time, too, but may provide

some short-term relief from increasing oil import pressures.

SAFETY: Proceed with caution

This country annually suffers thousands of

deaths, millions of injuries, and billions of

dollars in property damage due to traffic accidents. Forty-six thousand lives were lost

and 4 million people were injured in highway

accidents in 1976. These astonishing figures

Federal concern about the gravity of the

energy situation prompted the establishment

of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit in 1974,

the creation of the U.S. Department of Energy

in 1977, and the current high-priority Presidential effort to obtain legislative support for

a national energy plan.

12 13
belie the fact that the United States has the

lowest rate, based on vehicle miles of travel,

of traffic deaths and injuries i n the developed

world. Be that as it may, car accidents are our

leading cause of injury, with 50 percent of

those accidents suspected to be related to

alcohol abuse.

Traffic safety is a complex matter involving

vehicles, roadways, users, and the various

support systems. It has long been a concern

of the Federal Government as evidenced by

laws passed in the early 1800’s in an attempt

to reduce casualties resulting from poor

stagecoach operations. To protect the riders,

one law required lamps at night, and another

mandated fines for drunk drivers. It was not

until 1966, however, that the Federal Government became heavily involved in highway

safety legislation, enacting the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the

Highway Safety Act. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, new motor

vehicles and vehicle components must meet

certain safety requirements before they can

be sold to the public. The Highway Safety

Act administers 18 safety programs in areas

such as driver education, traffic law enforcement, roadside design, and school transportation safety.

COST AND CAPTITAL: Stops And Bonds

Transportation takes a hefty chunk out of

the average American household budget.

Generally, only housing and food expenses

are greater—and often not by much—than

automobile expenditures. These costs include purchase price, maintenance and

repair charges, fuel bills, parking fees, and insurance premiums. Many Americans have

turned to smaller cars in response. Often

I

14 15

●
cheaper to purchase and operate than domestic models, foreign cars comprised

about 20 percent of the new-car market in the

United States between 1976 and 1977,

Spurred by this foreign competition and by

Federal legislation, Detroit reacted by creating smaller, more fuel-efficient models of

its own.

Much of the economy of this country

depends in some way on the car. One out of

every six jobs derives from it, either directly

through the automobile industry (assembly

line workers, for example) or indirectly

through auto-related services (garage mechanics and tire manufacturers, for example).

Our transportation system accounts for

about 20 percent of the gross national product, and the automobile accounts for about

half of that.

Federal financial involvement in the automobile transportation system began early

and gradually broadened in its application.

Federal funds have provided subsidies for

the materials and energy industries which

supply and serve the auto industry; financed

road construction projects throughout the

country; supported research, development,

and demonstration programs; funded some

planning efforts at the State level; promoted

regional transportation coordination; and

more.

THE CLOVERLEAF: Interrelationships

Environmental concerns about the automobile are often depicted as contrary to U.S.

economic and energy goals. The business

sector of the country is reluctant to spend its

money on research and technology geared

toward improving the environment because it

is feared that environmentally safe automobiles will then be too expensive for the

American consumer. Decreased sales would

cause the industry to suffer, possibly resulting in plant closings and layoffs that

would affect the economic health of the entire Nation. On the other hand, a fundamental

change in the economic base of this country,

stimulated by protective environmental

legislation or energy constraints or some

other cause may be beneficial to the labor

market. For instance, the President’s Council

on Environmental Quality found in 1975 that,

while there were some job losses resulting

from environmental legislation, the emerging

environmental industry had produced an

even larger number of new jobs, for a net gain

in the overall labor market.

Like the other auto issues, implementation

of safety improvements affects cost and capital concerns. The technology exists to

substantially reduce traffic mortality. However, utilizing that technology would be very

costly. We have found, for example, that interstate highways and freeways are the

safest roads, but it would take huge sums of

money to reconstruct all the roads in this

country to meet interstate standards. Safety

o

16 17
devices in automobiles also tend to increase

the cost of cars. Unsure of the public’s willingness to pay for the improved safety of its

vehicles, the auto industry remains reluctant

to risk installation of these devices for fear of

a decline in sales and profits.

Additionally, some individuals resist mandated safety equipment as an infringement

of civil rights. As more Americans purchase

smaller and lighter cars—for energy, environmental, and/or cost reasons—safety

may decrease. This is because occupant protection is a function of crash distance and

relative vehicle weights.

Alternatives to automobile transportation

do exist in many areas throughout the country. Efforts to constrain auto usage in these

areas, because of energy, environmental, or

congestion problems, are often resisted by

citizens who view the constraints as limitations on mobility. In considering alternatives,

OTA is examining new automotive technologies as well as alternatives to the automobile

in toto as a mode of personal transportation.

18

AUTO ASSESSMENT: Merging traffic

These, then, are the issues and some of

the interrelationships which OTA is currently

examining in its study of the automobile.

Because public participation is so important

for the operation of our democratic government, OTA invites your comments on the

issues, transportation alternatives (including

the automobile), and policy options for Government action.

Send your comments to:

Transportation Program

Attn: Public Participation

Office of Technology Assessment

United States Congress

Washington, D.C. 20510

19

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

QUESTIONNAIRE

The Future of the Automobile

With You in the Driver’s Seat

Actions taken by the Federal Government in the near

future could drastically change the automobile

transportation system as we now know it, or Increase

our dependence on the automobile by the year 2000.

Your answers to the following questions wiII hel p

Government officials decide what course of action to

follow in the future of the automobile.

1.

2.

3.

4.

What are the major advantages and disadvantages

of the automobile for you?

What actions could you take to reduce these

disadvantages. or Increase the advantages?

—

What actions Could the Federal Government take

to reduce the disadvantages, or Increase the advantages?

--—

Should the automobile be the major means of

transportation for your area in 2000? if not, what

alternatives would you suggest?

5. Describe the transportation system of 2000 as you

would like it to be.

6. What do you perceive the Federal Government’s

role to be in transportation now? in the year

2000?

7. if you have other comments about the automobile

as it relates to transportation, please note these

below, or include them on a separate sheet(s) and

mail them to us along with this questionnaire.

8. if you belong to an organization which would have

an interest in the auto assessment, please indicate.

Organization:

Address:

Street

City State Zip

President:

9. if you would like to be kept informed about this

assessment, please indicate:

Name:

Address:

Street

City State Zip
Appendix B

WORKSHOP NOTICE, AGENDA,

PROBLEM STATEMENT, HANDOUT MATERIAL

T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT B OAR D Congress of the United State s

RUSSELL W. PETERSON

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS., CHAIR MAN DIRECTOR

LARRY WINN, JR., KANS.. VICE CHAIRMAN O FFICE OF T ECHNOLOGY A SSESSMENT Daniel DE SIMON E

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OLIN E. TEAGUE. TEX.

ADLAI E. STEVENSON, ILL. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

TED STEVENS, ALASKA CLARENCE E. MILLER, OHIO

ORRIN 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 transportation system is being conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment, a research arm of the

United States Congress. Requested by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Committee, the auto assessment has focused on five issue areas: mobility, energy, environment, safety, and cost and capital. Workshops will be held in eight locations throughout the

country as part of a nationwide public participation effort designed to augment staff research

and analysis.

Purpose of Workshop: To gather public commentary on the issues, the alternatives for

personal transportation, and the policy options relevant to the Federal Government’s role in

the future of the automobile transportation system.

Registration: Open to the general public (i.e., no affiliation is needed to be eligible to

attend), participation will be limited to the first 50 registrants. This will enable those who participate ample opportunity to take part in the dialogue and enable the OTA staff to respond to

questions 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 to

organizations who may want to send representatives.

55
56 . Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

AGENDA

Workshop on

The Future Use and Characteristics

of the Automobile Transportation System

7:00 p.m. Opening Remarks

7:10 p.m. Auto assessment presentation

7:40 p.m. Question and answer session

8:10 p.m. Subgroup formation and discussion

9:15 p.m. Subgroup presentations

9:45 p.m. General discussion

10.30 p.m. Adjournment

AGENDA

Workshop on

The Future Use and Characteristics

of the Automobile Transportation System

9:00 a.m.

9:15 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

10:20 a.m.

11:30 a.m.

Noon

1:15 p.m.

2:30 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

Opening remarks

Auto assessment presentation

Question and answer session

Subgroup formation and discussion

Subgroup presentations

Lunch

Subgroup discussion

Subgroup presentations

General discussion

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

WORKSHOP PROBLEM

One goal of our society is to enable citizens to

take part in activities that enhance our social

and economic wel1-being. Essential to the attainment 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 reaching

desired activity sites. The first approach —and

the traditiona1 one-– is to improve mobility,

that is, the ease with which people physically

move from place to place. The second is to increase accessibility by locating people and activities in greater proximity to one another. The

third is to reduce the need to make trips by using

technological substitutes for physical movement, such as telecommunications.

asked to devise a mobility plan for the year 2000

that takes these projections into account:

1.

2.

3.

4.

How do you envision the personal transportation system for the year 2000 for

your area, for the National What would be

the characteristics of this system (modes

of travel, types of vehicles, energy and

safety features, environrnental factors,

and so forth)? Would present levels of mobility be maintained or increased? If increased, for whom and how? What would

be the rural urban or regional differences?

What would be the tradeoffs in terms of

energy, natural resources, environnment,

safety, and monnetary cost for such a mobility system?

What would be the role of a ) Goernment,

b ) industry, and c ) the priate citizen in

the development, management, and maintenance of such a system? Folr example,

what would be the ratio of public and private funding for the systerm and its various

components? With regard to public financing, how would funds be raised (general or specific taxes), and how would

they be distributed (i. e., subsidies, grants,

other)?

Do you have other concerns about personal transportation now or in the future that

you wish to express?
58 ● Changes in the future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

HANDOUT MATERIALS

AUTOMOBILE

TECHNOLOGY

ASSESSMENT

To assess changes

in the future use and characteristics

of the automobile transportation system

in the near term (to 1985) and the

long term (to 2000 and beyond)

OBJECTIVES:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

To describe the factors that influence the characteristics of the automobile system, its use, and services

supporting its use.

To identify and characterize potential changes in

automobile use and characteristics.

To assess the near-term and far-term effects of various

alternative Federal Government policies relating to

automobile use and characteristics.

To present the findings of the assessment in a form

useful to the Congress and the public.

STUDY APPROAC H

Identify and analyze issues.

Describe the automobile transportation system and

project its future development.

Formulate conditions and events that could impact the

system or alter its development.

Identify and analyze policy options that could be

adopted by Congress to influence future automobile

use and characteristics.

Assess the consequences and impacts of policy

options.

Present findings to the Congress and the public.

THE BASE CASE

OR 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 2000

GNP Growth: 3.5% per year

Disposable Personal Income: Doubles by 2000

Petroleum: Price increase of 3% per year (constant $)

$25.60 per barrel; gasoline $1.24 per gallon (constant $) in

2000.

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 MMBD

1976 1985 2000

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

NATIONAL EMISSION LEVELS

BY SOURCE, 1968-2000

ESTIMATED PETROLEUM

IMPORTS

Petroleum Required Estimated cost of

Deman d Petroleum Price Imports

(All Sectors) Imports $ Barrel Per Year

MMB D MMB 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 LEVELS

BY SOURCE, 1968-2000

HYDROCARBONS & NITROGEN OXIDES

1968 1975 1985 2000

(PRECONTROL)

Source: 1968 Data, NAPCA, 1975 Data, EPA, ProJections, Energy and

Environmentol 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

ENVIRONMENT

Air pollution, noise, solid waste,

water contamination, community impacts

BASE CASE 1985-2000

●

●

●

●

Carbon monoxide –25 to 30 million tons per year from

autos

- over 20 AQCRs in violation

Oxidants - over 60 AQCRs in violation

(primarily stationary sources)

-130 million people exposed to hazardous

concentrations

Synthetic fuels - potential major environmental impact

Community disruption -40% of 1970-75 levels

ALTERNATIVES

. Auto use controls; control of other mobile & stationary

sources

● Research on health effects

PROJECTED NUMBER OF AIR

QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS

IN VIOLATION OF AMBIENT AIR

QUALITY STANDARDS

DEGREE OF VIOLATION

R

o\,ER STA N DARD

/ DOUBLE THE

STANDARD

CL’ RRENT STANDARD

10,MG M I (8. HR )

u I

1

I 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 QUALITY

CONTROL REGIONS IN VIOLATION OF

AMBiENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

- OXIDANTS –

of the Automobile Transportation System

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 CRASH

STATISTICS*

Property

Damage

Number (Number of

of 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 27,000,000

Vehicle

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 1

1960 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

handicapped

Wider use of carpools, vanpools, and incentives for high

occupancy vehicles

Improved accessibility through Federal/ local land use

policies

Improved telecommunications

FEDERAL OUTLAYS FOR

TRANSPORTATION

$ Billions Outlays for Transportation $ Billions
App. B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material . 61

BASE CASE – TRANSIT FINANCING AND

RIDERSHIP (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 $0.9

Total State & Local Funds $1.7 $2.7 $4.9

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

Transit Ridership 5.6 6.5 6.5 ●

(Billions of Revenue

Passengers Per Year) ●

●

COST AND CAPITAL

●

●

BASE CASE 1985-2000

●

●

●

●

Decrease in highway construction –increased maintenance

Increased competition among auto manufacturers due to

narrower product size differentiation

Possible failure of one or more of the major auto

manufacturers

Increase in auto ownership and operating costs

TECHNOLOGICAL

DEVELOPMENTS

1985-2000

Development and large-scale utilization and commercialization of:

–Liquids from oil shale and tar sands

- Synthetic fuel from coal

– Methanol

More efficient propulsion systems

–Spark ignition, diesel

- Gas turbine, stirling

Development and large-scale commercialization of electric

and hybrid vehicles

Greater utilization of lightweight materials

Improved emission controls-Particularly NOx

Improved safety technology

ALTERNATIVES

● Greatly increased Federal funding to meet highway

maintenance and transit operating needs

● Control of auto maintenance and repair costs
62 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

ASSESSMENT

OF THE FUTURE

CHARACTERISTICS

AND USE

OF THE AUTOMOBILE

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

SEPTEMBER 11,197 8
App. B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material ● 6 3

BASE CASE

The “Base Case” is a projection of some features of the automobile transportation system to

the year 2000. It assumes that present Government policies and programs will be continued, that the

population will grow at a moderate rate, that life styles will not change significantly, and that the

economy wiII stay healthy and vigorous. The Base Case indicates the direction that present policy is

leading and serves as a frame of reference for the study. Some principal Base Case projections are:

Projections 1975 1985 2000

Population

U.S. population (millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 233 260

Urban area population (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 (61%) 149 (64%) 177 (68°/0)

Licensed drivers (millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , . . . . . . . 130 151 177

Male/female drivers (millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71/59 78173 89188

Economics

Gross national product ($ trillions)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 2.22 3.72

Disposable personal income per capita ($ thousands)* . . . . . . . 5.0 6.7 10.1

Automobile 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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

1.0

5.6

$0.57

13.5

5.0

7.4

69.3

7.9

4.0

46

118

1.4

6.5

$0.77

19.4

4.8

10.0

32.6

3.5

2.7

58

148

1.8

6.5

$1.21

24.6

4.8

12.5

27.3

2.9

2.9

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 early

1970’s. World production, while still increasing, is expected to peak between 1985 and

2000. 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 of

the century.

U.S. PETROLEUM

25 DEMAND

r

224

MMBD

25

r

SUPPLY

22.4

NOTE Assumes

continuation of

‘27.5 MPG for new

cars beyond 1985

1976 1985 2000

SOURCE SyDec/ EEA Phase I report and OTA staff estimates

I

Lower 48 (incl. offshore}

1 I 1 [ I I

1977 1985 1990 1995 2000

Continuing high demand in the face of limited supply will force prices upward and

stimulate develc)pment of alternative energy sources. For the automobile these might be

shale oil, tar sands, coal liquids, alcohol, and electricity. All are more costly than petroleum

at present, and a substantial shift to any would take many years to accomplish. In the meantime, petroleum conservation would make the supply last longer, thus buying time and

smoothing out the transit ion.

●

●

●

●

●

SOME LAWS AND POLICIES IN EFFECT

Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which permits rationing of petroleumbased 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 average

new car fuel economy by 1985.

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976

which 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 Stirling

engines and-to promote research on synthetic fuels.

Some Conservation Methods Some Alternative Energy Sources

Smaller, lighter cars Methanol and ethanol

Increased engine efficiency Shale oi I and oi I from tar sands

Increased use of mass transit Coal liquids

Car and van pools Electric and hybrid vehicles

Travel restrictions (time & place) Hydrogen

Increased gasoline taxes

Gas guzzler tax

Decontrol of fuel prices

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

ENVIRONMENT

Widespread and intensive use of the automobile, the predominant mode of personal transportation in this country, has caused serious concern about effects on the environment. Chief among

these is air pollution. Others are noise, water pollution (from road salt, lead, used oil, and spilled

fuels), solid waste (scrapped batteries, tires, and auto bodies), and community disruption. There is

also concern that the advent of new automotive technology may bring new or increased environmental 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 I

1368 1975 1985 2000

Although automobile emissions will drop significantly by 2000 they will still be far from

eliminated, particularly in urban areas. It is projected that about 130 million people in U.S. cities will

still be exposed to hazardous levels of smog or CO by the year 2000.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

SOME LAWS AND POLICIES IN EFFECT

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 which protects natural beauty in parks, recreational

areas, and historical sites.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which calls for study of environmental impacts when

planning 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 through

1981. (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 all

types of motor vehicles.

SOME METHODS TO REDUCE

Improved emission control devices on ●

new cars

Cleaner engines ●

Use of electric vehicles in urban areas

Staggered work patterns

AUTO AIR POLLUTION

Periodic inspection and maintenance of

automobiles in use

Restrictions on auto use in certain areas

or 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 million

were 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 of

travel) will decrease. The totals of highway deaths and injury, however, will keep growing as there

will be more drivers, more cars on the road, and more miles traveled. Over the remainder of this century, it is projected that about 1 million people will die and 130 million will be injured in traffic

crashes.

HIGHWAY DEATHS

10

t

1975 Autos in use — 96 million

Auto VMT* — 1 trillion

Drivers — 130 million

1985 Autos in use — 118 million

Auto VMT — 1,4 trillion

Drivers — 151 million

“Includes autos trucks

pedestrians and cyclists

2000 Autos in use — 148 million

Auto VMT — 1.8 trillion

Drivers — 177 million

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Safety is a complex problem that involves driver behavior, vehicle characteristics, roadway

features, and driving conditions. Safety is a matter of both design and use. Safety is not just an individual 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.

●

●

●

SOME LAWS AND POLICIES IN EFFECT

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—50 standards governing such features as brakes, safety

glass, 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 considered an important safety measure as well.

SOME WAYS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY

Short Term Long Term

Reducing drunk driving Improved occupant restraints

Observance of the 55 mph speed limit 40 to 50 mph crash protection

Increased seat belt use (voluntary or man- Better driver training and licensing

datory) Reducing hazards to pedestrians and cyclists

Passive restraints Removal of roadside obstacles and traffic

hazards
App. B— Workshop Notice, Agenda, Problem Statement, Handout Material ● 6 7

MOBILITY

Almost 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 half

own two or more (not counting light trucks, vans, and campers). We now spend about $30 billion of

Federal, 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 drive

and for those who cannot because of poverty, age, or physical handicap. Despite $4.5 billion in Federal aid to transit in 1977, the service in many communities is less than adequate

is virtualIy no alternative to the automobile for trips beyond walking distance.

The present and expected future demand for personal travel is illustrated by

jections shown below.

Base case projections

In rural areas there

the Base Case pro1975 1985 2000

Automobiles (million)* . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 118 148

Licensed drivers (million) . . . . . . . . . . 120 151 177

Autos per licensed driver . . . . . . . . . . .73 .78 .84

Vehicle miles traveled (trillion)* . . . . . 1.03 1.43 1.80

VMT per licensed driver (thousand) . . 7.9 9.5 10.2

Urban 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 of

petroleum 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. Congestion in urban areas is expected to worsen. Supporting even a modest increase in transit service will

entail major increases in State and local operating subsidies by 2000. The problem confronting the

Federal Government is how to allocate resources so as to assure adequate mobility for all.

SOME LAWS AND POLICIES IN EFFECT

●

●

●

●

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

highways

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

construction

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 highways

making more efficient use of existing highways

improving urban transit systems

improving rural and intercity public transportation

promoting paratransit

special aid to those who do not own an automobile or cannot drive

improving accessibility through land use planning

fostering telecommunications as a substitute for travel
68 ● Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System

COST AND CAPITAL

The cost of the automobile transportation system is felt in many ways. For the typical household, 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 taxpayers over $30 billion annually. For industry, compliance with Government regulations and development of new technology for the future automobile transportation system entails large capital investments. Ultimately these new engines, alternative energy sources, better automobiles, and improved highways will be translated into higher costs to the consumer. Accompanying these costs

will be the need for increasing expenditures to support public transit as a means of relieving congestion, saving energy, and providing mobility to those who cannot, or choose not, to own or use the

automobile.

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

COST OF OWNING AND OPERATING DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL

A STANDARD-SIZE AUTOMOBILE* HIGH WAY DISBURSEMENT*

Deprecitin

4 . 7

100

90

I Law enforcement I

/

Y

Garage, parking,

and tolls

21$

40

Maintenance, accessories, 30

20

10

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

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

PROJECTED TRANSIT COSTS

1975 dolIars (biIIions)

— 1975 1985 2000 .

Federal capital funds. ., . . . . . . . . . . . 1.21 1.71 1.71

Local matching (20 percent) . . . . . . . . .30 .43 .43

Federal operating assistance. . . . . . . .30 .93 .93

Local share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 2.27 4.47

Total Federal aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.51 2.64 2.64

Total 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 most

passenger cars. Gasoline and air are mixed in the carburetor, fed into the combustion chamber, and

ignited ‘by an electric spark. The expanding gases in the cylinder push a piston to provide motive

power.

The Stratified Charge Engine is a slightly modified Otto cycle engine. Fuel is fed into the combustion chamber in a way that produces a rich fuel-air mixture near the spark plug and a lean mixture

elsewhere. The spark plug ignites the rich mixture, which in turn ignites the lean mixture, producing

a 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 rather

than a spark to ignite the fuel-air mixture. The diesel engine is used extensively in trucks and buses

and 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 of

fuel to drive a turbine. Most of the turbine output is used as motive power, but some is used to drive a

compressor to provide air for the combustion process.

The Stirling Cycle Engine is an external combustion engine. The heat from fuel burned outside

the engine is used to expand a confined working fluid (usually helium or hydrogen) which in turn

pushes a piston. The expanded (and therefore cooled) working fluid is compressed and reheated for

another 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 supply of electricity.

Hybrid Vehicles use two different sources of energy. The most common combines a battery

powered electric motor with an internal combustion engine that supplies auxiliary power for periods

of 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 these

are shale oil, oil from tar sands, coal liquids, alcohol, and hydrogen. In comparison with gasoline, all

now cost more to produce and require more energy for extraction and refining. A table summarizing

the 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 recovery

process involves heating the shale to evaporate the oil, which is then drawn off and condensed. The

resulting crude shale oil can then be refined to produce a synthetic gasoline with properties close to

those of petroleum based fuel.

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

to 15 years.

Tar sands are sand and clay saturated with a heavy oil. The extraction and refining processes are

similar 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. Commercialization 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 to

add hydrogen to the coal. Ash, sulfur, and other contaminants are removed. The product is then

upgraded and refined to gasoline or diesel fuel.

A commercial facility is now operating in South Africa. Several pilot plants exist in the United

States, 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 wood

alcohol) —offer promise as automotive fuels. Each can be used in pure form or in blends of up to 20

percent 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 as

ethanol.

Automobiles in Brazil have been using ethanol blends for several years. Gasohol is now being

sold in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. California has initiated a gasohol program, and Colorado has approved one. it is estimated that it would take 10 to 15 years to build the industrial capacity sufficient

to meet 10 percent of our daily automotive fuel demand.

Hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe, offers great potential as a transportation

fuel. 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 production and use as an automotive fuel is believed to be at least 25 years away and is contingent upon

solution of the problems of conversion, storage, handling, and safety in use.
Appendix C

SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

What are the major advantages and disadvantages of the automobile for you? What actions could you take to reduce these disadvantages? What actions could the Federal Government take to reduce the disadvantages?

Describe the transportatiton system of 2000 as

you would like it to be, or as you envision it

might become.

Should the automobile be the major means of

transportation for your area in 2000? If not,

what alternatives would you suggest? What

actions could the Federal Government take, if

any, to assist in transportation in your area?

What do you perceive the Federal Government’s role to be in transportation in 1978? in

2000?

To what extent can voluntary fuel conservation methods, increases in transit and paratransit usage, and moderate increases in fuel

taxes meet national energy goals? If the goals

are not met, what are the most effective and

equitable means of mandatory conservation

or allocation of petroleum resources?

Assuming that a shift from petroleum for

automotive use is necessary, by what means,

● To what extent should the Federal Government increase funding of capital and operating expenses for transit sytems and promotc

and remove institutional constraints on paratransit systems to increase mobility, particularly for the disadvantaged and handicapped?

7?
Appendix D

BACKGROUND BRIEFS ON

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

BACKGROUND

Female; auto owner; suburbanite; carpools to

and from work; works in center city; active in

auto consumer affairs; two children dependent

on her for transportation; has built and raced

stock cars.

Female; auto owner; city dweller; works irregular hours (5: 00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. ); drives to

and from work; has done consulting work on

issues of concern to women and minority

groups; journalist in transportation.

Male; police officer (responsibilities have included community relations, work with teenagers, as well as law enforcement activities);

small business owner (two-way radio communications); auto owner; camps out frequently

with family so uses car extensively for recreation in addition to work.

Male; non-auto owner; commutes by transit

from city residence to suburban job; family relies on transit, walking, or

for mobility.

Female; auto owner; city

employment in city; works

car-owning friends

resident; walks to

professional]y and

as volunteer on variety of

ects.

futurist-oriented projFemale; aged 72; city dweller; fixed income;

non-auto owner; walks and uses transit system

daily.

Male; auto owner; commutes to work by car;

lives and works in suburbs; active in community affairs (including transportation issues); professional experience in urban affairs.

Male; auto owner; commutes from suburban

residence to city employment by transit; uses

car primarily for long-distance trips and errands; active professionally and on volunteer

basis in areas of rural transportation and mobility for the transportation disadvantaged.

Female; auto owner; self-employed, relies on

auto for work purposes (presently conducts arts

program for inmates of local prison); has done

community work in area of environmental impacts on health of children.

72