How will the economy adjust to the coming obsolescence of the automobile as a means of mass transport?
Americans love their cars, but the supply of oil is limited and will become increasingly expensive. The current patterns of transport and settlement cannot be sustained for more than a few decades. The domestic auto makers Ford, GM and Chrysler are faltering already. Should governments shift infrastructure investments to new modes of transport before the oil runs out?. Note that roads are a public subsidy to the auto industry. (A subsidy to domestic manufactures might be justified, but a subsidy to foreign manufactures is questionable.) Would investment in rail, for example, be a better long term investment of public funds? What will happen to suburban real estate as transport costs escalate?
Answer:
first the economy is flexible when it adjusts to change. As this type will not happen over night anyway. Jobs will shift and modes will change. The 3 big ones are dropping in the ratings even as we write.
The problem will not be oil and gas by the way, the math is simple there are too many cars on the road, in ten years rush hour will run from 4AM to 12 noon and 2 PM till 8PM. right now in DC wwe go from 5am to 10 am and 4pm to 7pm. Parking spacing will become (or have become) something to kill for. At the rate of new drivers each year and old ones not falling off the system, we have overloaded the system.
rail however is not the working solution, it helps but will not solve the issue.
In Washington DC the rail (Metro) is a failure for two primary reasons.
First to get to a station to go anywhere most of the riders have to drive or take a bus to get to the subway. The end points where put in geographic spaced locations that do not server the masses.
Second DC and many larger cities became as planned de-centralized after the 1950's. The idea was 2 fold ease the crowding by having people drive in different directions and it was harder for the "commies" to bomb a city when everything was spread out. (poor logic in hindsight) this was during the cold war.
On the side also the Metro is totally government supported, it would go bankrupt and never would have been built without taxpayer money.
Bottom line is there needs to be another way to move the masses of people around.
One word. Bicyles.
For local commuting better than cars. Especially in big cities. Hail the death of the "Iron Coffin".
Are you posing this question, or is a liberal teacher of yours? The oil suplly is several hundred years from depletion (the U.S. has a hundred year supply in reserves alone), but even so, of course other options should be explored. As far as car companies faltering, this has nothing to do with oil prices or shifts in transportation, since Japanese car companies are doing quite well. They are faltering for complex reasons of American economics, unionized labor, poor quality, etc, but thats a whole seperate discussion. As far as how the economy will adjust? Just fine, the same way the horse drawn carriage industry did when cars were invented. Whatever the new chosen transport is, jobs will be created in that sector and the workforce will adapt. The man who used to rivet quater panels for car bodies will now maintain drive shafts on a light rail system and so on. Since changes like this do not happen overnight, the adaptation will not be drastic. 40 years ago there were no computer technicians, now that industry is huge, while something like coal mining, which used to be big, is obsolete now since cleaner burning and cheaper sources of energy have been found. Don't lose sleep, we'll be fine.
American cities, outside the East Coast, are not good places for any other form of transport. While Manhattan spans only a few square miles, transit systems in cities like LA fail to attract such wide use of the service because the area is so expansive. Such a HUGE investment would be necessary to create an system even close to as efficient as what cars do now.
The rise of the automobile has shaped the development of urban centers. To maintain the current infrastructure of cities and for cities to maintain the populations, a fuel alternative has to be made. The best way to do this is to subsidize the research for fuel alternatives.
An alternative is that within an exisiting city, new Central business districts within suburbs can emerge which could eventually serve as a center for a new smaller city. We could feasibly have a greater number of smaller cities which reduces the distance traveled and thus would serve to cut the transportation costs.
Ceteris Paribus, suburban real estate prices will drop according to the bid rent function(describing the relationship between distance/cost of travel to the central business district to the price of land).
While I would welcome a greater investment in rail and other means of mass transit, I think you had best save your nails for the coffin of the auto industry for some other use.
Before cars become totally obsolete industry will find other ways to extend their utility through hybrids, electric vehicles or other propulsion systems. I don't think Americans will easily give up the freedom of personal vehicles. Even though they probably should consider more transportation choices.
The automotive industry needs to find ways to adapt to the changing transportation environment. Obviously the gas guzzler will be relegated to museums at some point. That won't happen for a while.
One possibility I don't hear discussed much, but I think it is technologically possible, is to develop a way to transmit electricity without wires and to subscribers. Were that technology to be developed--and I'd love to hold the patent on it when it does--you would buy electricity for all your home and transportation needs and tap the sources as you need them.
Transmission wires would disappear and electricity would be transmitted through the air to subscribers whose use would be metered and monitored. You could use it for your home, your car or your lawn mower. The electricity would come from geothermal, nuclear, solar or other power sources--which are abundant on this planet.
It may take space technology to bring this to us. But I think it will come in your lifetime--possibly even in mine.
And there is a lot more oil than you probably think. It won't be cheap as the world goes on using it, but it will still be there.
I would love to see where this winds up going.
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers:
largest component of the factor distribution of income?
What does the IMF do ? how are they funded?
what are the implications for the yuan as a result of China's decision to move away from its peg to the $US
Which country is the most economically prepared?
What is the consumer' income.?
How can the world survive without money?
This is a morbid question but...?
what is the relevance of ecommerce to the agricultural sector in subsaharan africa?
Is economics really a science since everything depends on human behavior?
Answer:
first the economy is flexible when it adjusts to change. As this type will not happen over night anyway. Jobs will shift and modes will change. The 3 big ones are dropping in the ratings even as we write.
The problem will not be oil and gas by the way, the math is simple there are too many cars on the road, in ten years rush hour will run from 4AM to 12 noon and 2 PM till 8PM. right now in DC wwe go from 5am to 10 am and 4pm to 7pm. Parking spacing will become (or have become) something to kill for. At the rate of new drivers each year and old ones not falling off the system, we have overloaded the system.
rail however is not the working solution, it helps but will not solve the issue.
In Washington DC the rail (Metro) is a failure for two primary reasons.
First to get to a station to go anywhere most of the riders have to drive or take a bus to get to the subway. The end points where put in geographic spaced locations that do not server the masses.
Second DC and many larger cities became as planned de-centralized after the 1950's. The idea was 2 fold ease the crowding by having people drive in different directions and it was harder for the "commies" to bomb a city when everything was spread out. (poor logic in hindsight) this was during the cold war.
On the side also the Metro is totally government supported, it would go bankrupt and never would have been built without taxpayer money.
Bottom line is there needs to be another way to move the masses of people around.
One word. Bicyles.
For local commuting better than cars. Especially in big cities. Hail the death of the "Iron Coffin".
Are you posing this question, or is a liberal teacher of yours? The oil suplly is several hundred years from depletion (the U.S. has a hundred year supply in reserves alone), but even so, of course other options should be explored. As far as car companies faltering, this has nothing to do with oil prices or shifts in transportation, since Japanese car companies are doing quite well. They are faltering for complex reasons of American economics, unionized labor, poor quality, etc, but thats a whole seperate discussion. As far as how the economy will adjust? Just fine, the same way the horse drawn carriage industry did when cars were invented. Whatever the new chosen transport is, jobs will be created in that sector and the workforce will adapt. The man who used to rivet quater panels for car bodies will now maintain drive shafts on a light rail system and so on. Since changes like this do not happen overnight, the adaptation will not be drastic. 40 years ago there were no computer technicians, now that industry is huge, while something like coal mining, which used to be big, is obsolete now since cleaner burning and cheaper sources of energy have been found. Don't lose sleep, we'll be fine.
American cities, outside the East Coast, are not good places for any other form of transport. While Manhattan spans only a few square miles, transit systems in cities like LA fail to attract such wide use of the service because the area is so expansive. Such a HUGE investment would be necessary to create an system even close to as efficient as what cars do now.
The rise of the automobile has shaped the development of urban centers. To maintain the current infrastructure of cities and for cities to maintain the populations, a fuel alternative has to be made. The best way to do this is to subsidize the research for fuel alternatives.
An alternative is that within an exisiting city, new Central business districts within suburbs can emerge which could eventually serve as a center for a new smaller city. We could feasibly have a greater number of smaller cities which reduces the distance traveled and thus would serve to cut the transportation costs.
Ceteris Paribus, suburban real estate prices will drop according to the bid rent function(describing the relationship between distance/cost of travel to the central business district to the price of land).
While I would welcome a greater investment in rail and other means of mass transit, I think you had best save your nails for the coffin of the auto industry for some other use.
Before cars become totally obsolete industry will find other ways to extend their utility through hybrids, electric vehicles or other propulsion systems. I don't think Americans will easily give up the freedom of personal vehicles. Even though they probably should consider more transportation choices.
The automotive industry needs to find ways to adapt to the changing transportation environment. Obviously the gas guzzler will be relegated to museums at some point. That won't happen for a while.
One possibility I don't hear discussed much, but I think it is technologically possible, is to develop a way to transmit electricity without wires and to subscribers. Were that technology to be developed--and I'd love to hold the patent on it when it does--you would buy electricity for all your home and transportation needs and tap the sources as you need them.
Transmission wires would disappear and electricity would be transmitted through the air to subscribers whose use would be metered and monitored. You could use it for your home, your car or your lawn mower. The electricity would come from geothermal, nuclear, solar or other power sources--which are abundant on this planet.
It may take space technology to bring this to us. But I think it will come in your lifetime--possibly even in mine.
And there is a lot more oil than you probably think. It won't be cheap as the world goes on using it, but it will still be there.
I would love to see where this winds up going.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers: