
Peak car - edward
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_car
======
jgrahamc
I'm part of this phenomenon. I don't own a car but instead cycle to work, use
public transport a lot, taxis, and, on the rare occasions I need to drive
myself, Zipcar. There are a lot of things I like about Zipcar but I'll point
out two that are not directly economic: I don't need to worry about the car
once I've finished with it (a real concern in a big city with vandalism,
theft) and I can rent different size cars (5 seater for normal times, 7 seater
if I have lots of guests).

~~~
djthorpe
I fear we are part of a small self-selecting group that has chosen the
convenience to living in densely populated, well connected cities and are
relatively well-off. I doubt you'll hear a lot about "peak car" outside these
small groups or areas.

For many, I suspect the car represents a great deal of freedom in exactly the
same way that not owning a car means to this self-selecting group: making a
decent living, access and comfort, etc.

The real aim to force the decline of car use is sustainability, efficiency and
equality. It's not going to happen without huge investments and will affect
the whole economy negatively for decades, which is why Governments shy away
from doing anything very serious about it.

In the meantime, I'm also happy to not own a car, cycle to work, etc. But if I
lived outside central London I would get one immediately.

~~~
zippergz
_I fear we are part of a small self-selecting group that has chosen the
convenience to living in densely populated, well connected cities_

I think there's also the issue of differing definitions of "convenience." I
used to live in a city where I walked or used public transit to get
everywhere. Now I live in a suburb and drive everywhere, and I find most of
the things I like to do MORE convenient. Yeah, in the city it was easy to walk
to bars and restaurants, but I don't eat out that much, and I'm beyond the age
where I want to hang out in bars.

As just one example, I like to cook at home, and grocery shopping when I have
to carry everything in my arms is a pain in the butt. I know people like to
talk about how much fresher your food is when you buy just what you need every
day, and that sounds great, but I have a lot of other things going on in my
life. Having to plan time to go to the grocery store every day after work is a
hassle. Being able to drive five minutes to the store, park easily, and carry
my stuff home in my trunk, is vastly more convenient than what I did when I
lived in the city.

Having lived both ways for several years, I will never willingly go back to
living in a densely populated city.

~~~
saurik
I agree with this. I can drive to a store, buy what I want, and then drive
home faster than friends of mine who live in San Francisco can even get on a
bus to get to their destination. Walking around through crowded urban streets
carrying valuable items you just purchased is also sub-ideal. I can buy things
that are large or small, or that require refrigeration: no difference. I can
make multiple stops without having to carry a ton of stuff through all my
subsequent stops, as I can leave the stuff in my car.

My car is essentially a portable home I get to take with me wherever I am: it
has first aid equipment, it has water and snacks, and secure storage. If you
are optimizing for convenience, the correct choice is to separate things by
networks of roads and use cars: that's why they exploded in popularity. You do
want to live near where you _work_ , but most of the people commuting long
enough distances to make that matter are doing that due to economic issues
(cost of living), not due to fundamental requirements for car deployment.

The issue is just that it isn't sustainable: it uses too much energy at too
high an externality cost for us all to have this amazing level of convenience.
It requires too much land to be paved and too much oil to be burned. But
people should not confuse sustainability with convenience: dense urban areas
that are not conducive to cars are not "convenient". To the extent to which
people who live in them think they are convenient, it is because they don't
understand most of the downsides they know about to cars are caused by dense
urban environments.

~~~
avn2109
>> '...dense urban areas that are not conducive to cars are not "convenient'."

I'm carless here in the city, and my very heavy groceries from two different
stores are about to be delivered by Instacart. I'm lounging around in my PJ's.
If this isn't convenient I don't know what is.

------
Theodores
Almost everyone gets a car when they have children, in the UK it is considered
a necessity. However not so many people are starting families when compared to
former times, they are starting later too. What this means is fewer purchases
of family cars and all those journeys to shops and schools.

We are also creatures of habit so we stick to the transport we know. What
happens when previous generations literally clog up all the roads with their
cars so there is no room for the cars that a new generation would potentially
own? I think that this has happened, owning a car would be impossible in many
parts of most city or town centres. If not actually impossible, just very
expensive or a lot of hassle when it comes to parking. Why go through all of
that when you can just hop on buses and trains, to catch up with
games/reading/emails on the phone/tablet?

Once you have a generation that have settled in to using public transport or
cycling the barrier to entry for motoring is quite high and there is no peer
pressure or real benefit to having a car - unless a family comes along.

Whilst pockets of 'peak car' may exist in cities realising that the car is
totally impracticable, there will be growth in more pointless journeys between
pointless places beyond the realms of suburbia. Outside the cities there is
universal belief that you have to learn to drive as soon as possible, getting
a job would be impossible without an ability to drive there. Hence inexorable
growth, a long way to 'peak car'.

~~~
arethuza
However, this is about car use rather than car ownership - I agree that
_owning_ a car is still regarded as normal for parents but I see a lot of
people, including my own family, behaving in ways that reduces the amount we
drive. There are a lot of factors in this including improving public transport
(e.g. I rather like the trams here in Edinburgh even though the project to
install them was a fiasco), greater use of cycles - including people taking
young kids on bikes, very strict new drink driving laws here in Scotland,
reduction of parking spaces in city centers, park and ride schemes round
cities etc.

~~~
baking
This is based on old data, but when I was working in energy consulting the
number of miles driven per registered vehicle did not change much from year to
year except when there were supply disruptions. Also, miles driven was an
estimate based on hard numbers like the number of registered vehicles so not a
great indicator. Here is some recent info on US vehicle registration:

[http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/21/has-america-already-
hi...](http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/21/has-america-already-hit-peak-
car/)

------
yesbabyyes
This is so relevant. In Sweden, there is currently (for the last 15 years or
so) a big push to build new and bigger motorways. At the same time, Bil
Sweden, the Swedish interest organization for motor traffic, publishes
statistics on the share of the population having a driver's license.[1]

Ever since I found this document I've been convinced of the decline of
driving. The statistics are per age group, and the only age groups where the
population share with a driver's license are still increasing are 67 years and
up. All the rest seem to have peaked during the last 15 years. 18 year olds
are the exception, where there is a small increase during the last few years.
Still, it's at around 30% up from 25% ca 10 years ago, while it was 50% in
1989.

Cars are so old school. And the explosion engine is just... Well it feels like
steam punk to me. I just don't get the fascination. This is from a guy who's
currently working to get a license, since I moved back out to my family's farm
from the city. I still view it as good to have, not something that excites me
at all.

[1]
[http://www.bilsweden.se/statistik/korkort](http://www.bilsweden.se/statistik/korkort)

~~~
burntsushi
> Cars are so old school. And the explosion engine is just... Well it feels
> like steam punk to me. I just don't get the fascination.

A lot of people don't "get" my fascination with programming. Others don't
"get" my fascination with American football. Others don't "get" my fascination
for living in population sparse areas.

There's nothing to "get" other than the fact that all have different likes and
dislikes. Some people like cars for their freedom, for their solitude and/or
for their speed. Maybe there are other reasons too!

~~~
yesbabyyes
Of course, and that's ok with me. I guess I'm coming from a place where it was
expected for a boy to be fascinated with mopeds, tractors, cars, cranes,
anything with an engine. Not that there aren't many in my generation who, like
me, never shared that fascination, but it was still expected, or it felt like
that in a way, you get me?

And to not like that, and not even get a driver's license (regardless of
whether you really need it, or a car, having access to great public transport
and communications and whatnot), making certain people - in your own family,
even - disregard you automatically, like you're not actually a man, or you're
not actually grown up.

I've come to terms with all that now, and I understand it way better than when
I was in my twenties and younger, but it still exists, and again, to me it's
just weird.

To clarify, I don't look down on e.g. my father for not "getting" computers
and the Internet, even though I know it would be a great resource for him. I
get the feeling that it's not mutual, though.

------
netcan
I read an article by a good journalist and nonfiction writer about “Peak ___”.

On one hand, I think it’s an interesting concept for annotating historical
events that are likely to happen. On the other hand, i think the “peak oil”
idea of an inevitable supply crisis was generally poorly explained and
understood.

On the positive side, if we start by identifying relevant historical Peak X
points, we might get something useful. Cars are a technology. Does technology
peak? Have we passed “Peak Agriculture?” Will there be a “Peak Literacy?”

We need a better historical account of how things peak for this perspective to
be useful for anything but long term business strategy.

[https://www.straight.com/news/818136/gwynne-dyer-forget-
peak...](https://www.straight.com/news/818136/gwynne-dyer-forget-peak-oil-
weve-reached-peak-everything)

~~~
eru
We are definitely way past peak employment in agriculture.

~~~
rjsw
Are we ?

I don't know either way but the countries with fastest population growth tend
to be ones with lots of agriculture.

~~~
eru
Lots of agriculture, yes. But as productivity improves, everyone needs less
people working in agriculture.

Here are some graphs over time: [http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-
agriculture/agricultural...](http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-
agriculture/agricultural-employment/)

~~~
rjsw
I'm interested in total numbers, not proportion of the population.

~~~
eru
Read further. They have those, too.

------
deathanatos
The article lists San Francisco as having total vehicle kilometers traveled as
having declined "-4.8%"; but I would be more interested in seeing the suburbs,
too; does it matter if local city centers are declining if the surrounding
suburbs are all increasing?

I work in SF, and I don't drive any miles in SF. But I drive ~35 miles daily
to get to the public transport (CalTrain[1]). There's a less-driving-time
public transit route to work, but it doubles to triples the commute time,
which is unacceptable.

That said, I also don't "commute solo" … the difference between the HOV and
non-HOV lanes is too great.

I also lived in Providence, RI, for a bit; there the transit system suffered
two interesting "failures":

1\. it was quicker for me to not take the bus that went right in front of my
house; walking was routinely faster. This was mostly because…

2\. the bus I was connecting from arrived 2 minutes after my connection had
left.

(and if you're going to encourage _more_ people to trade driving for public
transit, CalTrain is going to need more capacity; trains are routinely full:
i.e., there is so little room that it is difficult to board the train, let
alone sit.)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
If your work is within walking/running/cycling distance I think those options
essentially always win over anything else in densely populated areas.

I recently spent half a year in central London, 6 km from home to work. I
would run or longboard it in < 40 minutes one way, taking the tube or bus took
> 60 minutes door-to-door, so even including a quick shower running was
faster. If you count in the money saved on not taking the tube, not needing a
gym membership, and the time saved by not having to do any workouts after you
come home from work, it's a big win.

I did have to limit myself to 3 days running a week (2 days longboarding), or
my knees started complaining. Also, London: fix your goddamned pavements, they
are un-bloody-skateboardable. We have invented concrete and asphalt, you don't
need to use cobblestones everywhere.

------
ScottWhigham
This makes no sense unless the distribution between rural vs. urban
populations changes. If most of the projected population growth (to 10bb
people by 2083 [1]) happens in areas where there is mass transit, then great -
this seems plausible. If the % of the population growth continues to be what
it is today (close to 50/50 [2]), then this just cannot be plausible. 5bb
people in 2083 is unlikely to be result in fewer than the number of drivers
that there are on the roads right now (roughly 1bb) [3].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth)
[2]
[http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-...](http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-
urbanization-prospects-2014.html) [3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle)

------
phunge
Matt Yglesias's recent article on how car commuting is actually on the rise in
the US: [http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8505097/car-
commuting](http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8505097/car-commuting)

Was surprised when I read that. He also ascribed some of the misperception to
a young urban journalist echo chamber effect.

------
stegosaurus
Cross country, UK public transport is a shambles. As far as I can tell, it
excels at two use cases - infrequent journeys and/or too poor to own a car, or
so rich that the cost is irrelevant.

A cross country train here essentially has to be booked in advance. Random
example - London to York, ~200mi journey, £110 anytime single ticket one way.

And that's for a single person. Add in a partner, friends or children and
watch the fares explode into the stratosphere.

This nonsense doesn't happen on the London Underground, or on a local bus.

Basically, public transport turns life into a game of 'what will I do in x
weeks time?'... the only people that really buy tickets for 'now' are business
travellers and the elite.

It bothers me that the only reason I really want a car is for the journeys
that are actually the most trivial to solve. A train ticket from A to B should
never cost more than fuel and depn that a car would use from A to B. Yet it
does. eh.

(If you book weeks in advance it's sort of OK. But that's not life. Not a life
I want to live, anyway.)

Heh. Just had a look at travelling to my hometown for a weekend. A few days
out. Few hundred miles. 160GBP return. To me that's basically a troll fare.
It's basically matching the fuel and depreciation on a new van, except one
person can make the journey with a suitcase or two. Ace.

~~~
bobbles
When I was travelling with my SO we ended up in Manchester and needed to get
to London. I can't remember the exact fare but it was something like 150
pounds each for the one way train ride ($580 AUD total) vs a similar length
trip in Australia which would have been about $110 AUD total.

A complete rip-off IMO.

~~~
stegosaurus
It really is just hilariously broken. I do not understand it.

Many people seem to hanker for re-nationalisation of the railways. I just want
to see sensible business methods really.

If you price railway tickets reasonably you have a potential market of
millions. Perhaps even 10M+. If you price them as toys for the rich, everyone
drives cars. What is going on here? Bonkers.

I take budget coaches because they let me book at short notice, often at 1/5th
the price or less.

------
Aqwis
>The theory is disputed by the UK Department for Transport, which predicts
that road traffic in the United Kingdom will grow by 50% over the coming 25
years

Any insight as to why they would predict this if road traffic empirically has
been flat since the nineties?

~~~
fredley
Because their budget is dependent on their own forecast of road traffic?

~~~
justincormack
Not as simple as that I don't think. Despite figures about decline in road
traffic, there is a big division between London, where the traffic decline has
been most (indeed, Wikipedia provides no ex-London numbers) and the rest of
the country, where public transport is much worse. For example half the bus
journeys in England took place in London.

The UK currently buys more new cars than anywhere else in Europe as well,
partly due to credit availability, but clearly there is demand, and there is a
huge pro road pro motorist lobby, as is clear when fuel taxes are increased.

So I think the DoT have ended up reflecting largely this pro car part of the
UK.

~~~
kjjw
I buy new cars in the uk using credit but don't drive them much. My baseline
miles per week is 0. Occasionally we use our car at the weekend. Still, I buy
a brand new expensive car every few years. I guess I just old enough to.be
effected by the idea of the car as a status symbol, but young enough to be
caught up in urbanism.

~~~
justincormack
So you rent a status symbol to put outside your house? What an easy thing to
just stop doing.

~~~
kjjw
Gosh you're right, I'll do it right now! Thanks!

~~~
justincormack
Get yourself one of these instead
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Headington_Shark](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Headington_Shark)

~~~
kjjw
I see it often enough already. In fact, I'd rather it was on someone else's
house. I would forget it was up there if it was on my own.

------
bane
It's interesting that most of the countries with observed post-peak-car
figures are relatively advanced countries, but most of which have had very
good public mass-transit for a very long time. Yet the downturn didn't really
occur until around 1994.

It's important to realize that this peak has occurred not just after the
construction of mass-transit systems, but after the widespread availability of
the internet has allowed for telecommuting.

I live in a not-super-well connected suburb mass-transit wise, but my whole
area has Fios. Because of that I've basically worked from home for the last
5-6 years. My most recent job even has a corporate policy favoring
telecommuting because it lets them keep facility costs low. We have to come in
2-3 days a week for face-to-face meetings and other coordinating activities,
but they offer robust remote access solutions, BYOD, etc. and make it very
welcoming and easy to telecommute.

I've recently become surprised at how many of my neighbors work for places
with similar policies.

~~~
dennisgorelik
Yes: the main driver in car usage decline is better software and networking.

You already named remote work, but it does not end there.

There are remote games, remote movies (Netflix, YouTube), remote shopping
(Amazon), remote communities (HN), etc.

------
mathattack
I'm curious what happens with driverless cars. Do people go more places
without the hassle of actually driving? Do car miles go up because the cars
drive in circles in lieu of parking? Or does it go down because we view
driving as a variable cost more than fixed?

------
brianbreslin
This doesn't really take into consideration the growing middle classes in
developing nations who will soon be able to afford automobiles.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I was thinking this as well. Car use seems to grow with industrialization and
spread, then apparently shrinks with automation and urbanization. And if you
look at the population that is entering into more general industrialization
you see growing market for cars.

------
galfarragem
As long as we have suburbs we cannot erradicate cars: suburbs lifestyle imply
that we use cars.

So the decline of cars proves the decline of suburbs. Thank god.

~~~
Gorkys
Not necessarily - in America yes that is the way things work at the moment,
but not all over the world. There are may suburbs with good public transport
where having a car is less necessary.

~~~
galfarragem
It's very difficult to have sustainable/economical public transportation with
the population density existent in the suburbs.

~~~
netcan
It's not necessarily impossible.

Some big Australian cities work reasonably well with 'cars optional' suburb.
They have an overall feel and lifestyle that I imagine would be familiar and
comfortable enough for most American suburb dwellers.

For a quick and dirty snapshot: Suburbs are considered similar to small 'urban
towns.' They typically have a train station (some Sydney suburbs have cool
ferry stations) at the centres and the suburb stretches for a 1-2 mile radius
from there. They are usually denser and have a more town center feel near the
center. Inner city suburbs feel more urban. The really distant suburbs are
more car centric and often have a semi-rural feel. Suburbs on the Dandenong
foothills in Melbourne are a cool example of this.

Basically the nearer the city centre and suburb centre you live, the less cars
are necessary or convenient. It's not extreme though. Most people have cars
everywhere but the level of use varies. I would estimate that >50% live
someplace where car free living is possible without too many trade offs.

Realistically though, the way to prevent cars is to make them unaffordable.
That's an option, but I don't think you can call it a victory for quality of
life by itself if it's achieved by making something people want unaffordable.

~~~
hibikir
You are talking about something that has very little to do with the population
density and zoning of an American midwestern suburb: What we mean is something
like this, where having no car makes you a second class citizen.

[https://goo.gl/maps/U5qhh](https://goo.gl/maps/U5qhh)

What you call a suburb is more like what in Spain are called 'ciudades
dormitorio': Small towns with a much higher population density than the
american suburb, and that have good communications with downtown. People live
less than a mile away from a train station that drops them in a public
transportation hub in downtown Madrid. It's still a suburb, but it has
absolutely nothing to do with what an American describes.

~~~
hammock
They are called the same in English: bedroom town.

------
contingencies
Since most people here are American, I figured I'd share my own story. I'm
Australian and don't drive, except occasionally motorbikes in more liberal
countries where a license is not required.

Having lived in a few places and now having a child, I can tell you that in my
experience not having a car is a pain in the ass outside of major city centers
in Australia, New Zealand and most of the US. However, it is super easy in
China and Europe. In China you use taxis and long distance
trains/places/buses. In Europe things are often walkable and there are great
train systems and many airports.

To me it feels like the US, Australia and New Zealand bought too heavily in to
the 1950s suburban dream and the car society around it, and now have a lot of
catching up to do. Unfortunately, reclaiming streets from cars is difficult.

Wisdom from India: _The Highway and Automobile culture are symbols of
totalitarian cultures which deny people more sustainable and equitable
alternatives for mobility and transport._ \- Vandana Shiva, February 19, 2004.

Another instance of "we out-capitalism'd you!" from China: _China has the
world 's longest [high speed rail] network with over 16,000 km (9,900 mi) of
track in service as of December 2014 which is more than the rest of the
world's high speed rail tracks combined._ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
speed_rail_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China)

~~~
sukilot
Those are bizarre definitions of "totalitarinism" and "capitalism".

~~~
contingencies
It seems we have an ism-schism.

------
lukaslalinsky
I use my car almost exclusively for long distance trips, so it stays parked
near my home most of the time. But I still want it parked there, because I can
decide at any time to make a trip and just go. Not worry about rental
pickup/return times, reservations, mileage limits, etc. I was getting a new
car last year and there was about a month after I sold my old one and before I
got the new one. Almost immediately after selling the old car I felt like one
of my freedoms was taken from me.

------
oflordal
I have been thinking this will change as self driving cars becomes more
prevalent. Commuting by car is very inefficient since all the time spent
driving is wasted (compared to public transport were you can potentially work
on the way to work, or cycling/walking were you get exercise). Self driving
cars that are sufficiently good to handle the commute most days would change
this and allow you to live further away from work in places that lack public
transportation.

~~~
Toenex
If you own a car today it spends most of it's life sat there waiting for you.
Not so the self drive car which can be off doing errands - picking up those
Amazon deliveries for instance - or working as a taxi for someone like Uber
and making you some money by providing the individual, door to door, on demand
public transport we want. This is gong to have a significant impact on how
many of us own a vehicle I would imagine.

------
kristopolous
How does this theory affect the BRICS? (edit: The atlantic has an opinion
here: [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-
rich...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-rich-worlds-
peak-car-moment-car-sharing-carpooling-car-ignoring/263086/))

~~~
bornabox
In Brasil, the nascent middle class consumes cares. It's a status symbol and a
dream for many. It's a different culture. In the big cities (São Paulo, Rio,
etc) the public transportation is miserable. Buses and Metro are overcrowded
and Metro doesn't have a good penetration. So, no, in Brasil at least, no
Peak-Car for quite some time.

------
gregpilling
Car production continues to climb.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#World_motor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#World_motor_vehicle_production)

There was a slowdown in 08, 09, and then back to growth. Internationally, it
is expected to keep growing according to the auto manufacturers. Growing
markets will account for a lot of that, for example in India auto ownership is
at 1/10th the US and expected to continue to grow for a long time.

------
ychantit
I think the peak is happening because it's a lot more expensive to own a car
and people prefer to share or borrow one when they really need it.

For instance parking ticket has skyrocket by 300% this year in paris, fr ! You
don't want to have a car parked there ...

[http://www.metronews.fr/paris/stationnement-a-paris-les-
tari...](http://www.metronews.fr/paris/stationnement-a-paris-les-tarifs-
explosent-pour-les-riverains/mnln!baMJWQiXCTmws/)

------
xasos
With the advent of public transport, it looks like more people are moving to
the city. This may also take into account people not needing to own cars,
because of the ease of use of Lyft and Uber.

------
Tloewald
I hope this is true, but I suspect self-driving cars will cause an upward
inflexion.

~~~
praptak
Who knows, they might enable much better service levels in public transit too.

~~~
Tloewald
Absolutely — let's hope so. (Of course, there are plenty of public transport
systems that could run automated but don't owing to regulations or
unionization -- a relative of mine used to work as a driver on BART, which
essentially involved reading and occasionally pressing a "deadman" button.)

You can easily imagine the cost of taxi service going down to the marginal
cost of fuel and vehicle wear-and-tear, which would be far cheaper than
private ownership. But I suggest that will ALSO vastly increase passenger
miles. (It might yet reduce the carbon footprint of car manufacture.)

The biggest cost for driving is time (gas, etc., a distant second). Efficient
taxis will lead to less car pooling, more trips (because they will be less
expensive in money and time -- you can watch TV, read, or chat with friends
while driving).

It's hard to see how this can possibly reduce passenger miles.

Also imagine the increase in drug abuse! Now a pub crawl can continue while
driving, and on the way home.

~~~
praptak
> vastly increase passenger miles

Ok, this might break the "peak car" but I'm fine with increasing passenger
miles as long as passenger-CO2 and passenger-congestion go down. A self-
driving minibus that you can call like a taxi but share with other passengers
is my equivalent of the flying car :-)

~~~
Tloewald
> I'm fine with increasing passenger miles as long as passenger-CO2 and
> passenger-congestion go down

Yes but the idea that people will opt for a minibus over an individual taxi
when the cost is trivial is optimistic. The marginal cost for a trip is gas +
maintenance. The way to drive down emissions is to _make people pay for them_.

One of the "advantages" of driverless is that passengers will likely become
less sensitive to congestion (because they're reading or sleeping). It's again
hard to image much effort going into reducing congestion if people are less
likely to notice it.

I don't see how this scenario reduces emissions or congestion.

