Friday, September 02, 2005
New Orleans disaster due to lack of automobiles
Why do natural disasters cause such serious problems in developing countries when those problems tend to be relatively minor in developed countries? And why is New Orleans suffering so badly when it is in a developed country? The simple answer to both these questions is automobility.
Automobiles allow people to quickly evacuate prior to a disaster given minimal warning. After the event, auto owners in damaged areas can retreat to other areas that have sanitation and other support. But those lacking automobiles have a difficult time getting away from the disaster area.
New Orleans has a higher percentage of people who don't own automobiles than most U.S. urban areas. Moreover, as the above link to Census Bureau data shows, these are disproportionately black. Nearly two thirds of auto-less households in New Orleans are black, while less than a third are white. (Other races make up about 5 percent.)
Nearly a quarter of black households in the New Orleans urban area do not own an automobile. These are the ones who were left behind to fend for themselves. By comparison, more than 90 percent of white households own at least one automobile and were easily able to evacuate prior to the hurricane.
As I have pointed out in public debates, it would be less expensive (and more useful) to give every poor family a free automobile than it is to build rail transit in an urban area. I shudder when I think that the usual response from rail advocates is, "We can't let poor people have cars. That would cause too much congestion." As the soviets knew, the solution to congestion is poverty. And if they don't care what happens to poor people, then what is happening in New Orleans shouldn't bother smart-growth advocates.
Automobiles allow people to quickly evacuate prior to a disaster given minimal warning. After the event, auto owners in damaged areas can retreat to other areas that have sanitation and other support. But those lacking automobiles have a difficult time getting away from the disaster area.
New Orleans has a higher percentage of people who don't own automobiles than most U.S. urban areas. Moreover, as the above link to Census Bureau data shows, these are disproportionately black. Nearly two thirds of auto-less households in New Orleans are black, while less than a third are white. (Other races make up about 5 percent.)
Nearly a quarter of black households in the New Orleans urban area do not own an automobile. These are the ones who were left behind to fend for themselves. By comparison, more than 90 percent of white households own at least one automobile and were easily able to evacuate prior to the hurricane.
As I have pointed out in public debates, it would be less expensive (and more useful) to give every poor family a free automobile than it is to build rail transit in an urban area. I shudder when I think that the usual response from rail advocates is, "We can't let poor people have cars. That would cause too much congestion." As the soviets knew, the solution to congestion is poverty. And if they don't care what happens to poor people, then what is happening in New Orleans shouldn't bother smart-growth advocates.
Comments:
The situation in New Orleans happend due to the fact the Bush administration cut fuding for projects that would have prevented the massive flooding in the first place. Furthermore, the President's delay in rescuing those trapped in the disaster during the critical hours made the situation far worse than it should have been.
The people of New Orleans were given three days to leave which was plenty of time but the governor did not feel the hurricane warrented total evacuation. A mistake.
As a result, once the dams broke and the flooding began, there was little time to leave with the highways were jammed with traffic. The motorcar was ineffective in this has proven true in almost every natural disaster. Being in New York City during the blackout and 9/11, I can assure you those with motorcars were stuck in traffic by the thousands as bridges, tunnels and streets were clogged with no one moving.
As I have pointed out in public debates, it would be less expensive (and more useful) to give every poor family a free automobile than it is to build rail transit in an urban area. I shudder when I think that the usual response from rail advocates is, "We can't let poor people have cars. That would cause too much congestion." As the soviets knew, the solution to congestion is poverty. And if they don't care what happens to poor people, then what is happening in New Orleans shouldn't bother smart-growth advocates
The people of New Orleans were given three days to leave which was plenty of time but the governor did not feel the hurricane warrented total evacuation. A mistake.
As a result, once the dams broke and the flooding began, there was little time to leave with the highways were jammed with traffic. The motorcar was ineffective in this has proven true in almost every natural disaster. Being in New York City during the blackout and 9/11, I can assure you those with motorcars were stuck in traffic by the thousands as bridges, tunnels and streets were clogged with no one moving.
As I have pointed out in public debates, it would be less expensive (and more useful) to give every poor family a free automobile than it is to build rail transit in an urban area. I shudder when I think that the usual response from rail advocates is, "We can't let poor people have cars. That would cause too much congestion." As the soviets knew, the solution to congestion is poverty. And if they don't care what happens to poor people, then what is happening in New Orleans shouldn't bother smart-growth advocates
>>>>>>As I have pointed out in public debates, it would be less expensive (and more useful) to give every poor family a free automobile than it is to build rail transit in an urban area<<<<<<<
The last time I checked, New Orleans had very little in the way of rail transit. Other than Amtrak, the city had no subway system or commuter rail line. The trolley service in New Orleans is a tourist attraction that adds to the city not subtract.
Motorcar ownership is far more costly than just the cost of the vehicle. According to AAA, the average cost to operate a vehicle in the United States varied between $4,000 - $6,000 dollars per year. Compare this with the cost of public transportation of about $780.00 dollars per year which is affordable for the poor.
When you add the cost of gas, tolls, tickets, parking, repairs, maintanence and insurance, the cost of owning a motorcar in New Orleans would have been extreamly expensive considering the income of the average family in New Orleans.
Since the city had very little in the form of rail transit, it's possible if they invested in a commuter rail line, tens of thousands might have been saved since the high cost of car ownership prevented thousands from leaving the disaster.
The last time I checked, New Orleans had very little in the way of rail transit. Other than Amtrak, the city had no subway system or commuter rail line. The trolley service in New Orleans is a tourist attraction that adds to the city not subtract.
Motorcar ownership is far more costly than just the cost of the vehicle. According to AAA, the average cost to operate a vehicle in the United States varied between $4,000 - $6,000 dollars per year. Compare this with the cost of public transportation of about $780.00 dollars per year which is affordable for the poor.
When you add the cost of gas, tolls, tickets, parking, repairs, maintanence and insurance, the cost of owning a motorcar in New Orleans would have been extreamly expensive considering the income of the average family in New Orleans.
Since the city had very little in the form of rail transit, it's possible if they invested in a commuter rail line, tens of thousands might have been saved since the high cost of car ownership prevented thousands from leaving the disaster.
>Since the city had very little in the form of rail transit,
>it's possible if they invested in a commuter rail line,
>tens of thousands might have been saved since the
>high cost of car ownership prevented thousands from
>leaving the disaster.
Anything is possible. But since Amtrak offered to take 800 people out of the city before the hurricane hit, and the city refused the offer, as well as failed to mobilize more than a few, if any buses, it isn't likely that commuter rail would have helped.
Although the city had "very little" in the way of rail transit, that didn't mean it was cheap. It spent nearly $150 million on a 3.6-mile streetcar line, money that should have been spent on any of a number of more productive and responsible things.
Post a Comment
>it's possible if they invested in a commuter rail line,
>tens of thousands might have been saved since the
>high cost of car ownership prevented thousands from
>leaving the disaster.
Anything is possible. But since Amtrak offered to take 800 people out of the city before the hurricane hit, and the city refused the offer, as well as failed to mobilize more than a few, if any buses, it isn't likely that commuter rail would have helped.
Although the city had "very little" in the way of rail transit, that didn't mean it was cheap. It spent nearly $150 million on a 3.6-mile streetcar line, money that should have been spent on any of a number of more productive and responsible things.
