1. Giacomo Vecia and Raj Vashi

2. What is hyperautomobility?
How might infrastructure
development help move away
from this?
Real world examples?

4. Age of Class
Distinction
Age of Mass
Individuality
Era of
Subcultural
Difference
Bourdieu and
Craft
Production
Fordism and
the Frankfurt
School
Postmodernism
and Postfordism
Freedom, leisure,
status, and
wealth.
Mass
consumption,
prosperity, and
illusion of choice.
Lifestyle choice
and neoliberal
icon.

5. Age of Class
Distinction
Age of Mass
Individuality
Era of
Subcultural
Difference
Bourdieu and
Craft
Production
Fordism and
the Frankfurt
School
Postmodernism
and Postfordism
Freedom, leisure,
status, and
wealth.
Mass
consumption,
prosperity, and
illusion of choice.
Lifestyle choice
and neoliberal
icon.

6. Age of Class
Distinction
Age of Mass
Individuality
Era of
Subcultural
Difference
Bourdieu and
Craft
Production
Fordism and
the Frankfurt
School
Postmodernism
and Postfordism
Freedom, leisure,
status, and
wealth.
Mass
consumption,
prosperity, and
illusion of choice.
Lifestyle choice
and neoliberal
icon.

10.  New level of individualized and
intensified daily transport.
 Increased solo driving in private
vehicles.
 Longer and more frequent travel.
 Hyperconsumption.
 Extensive and intensive across
spatial and physical scales.

12.  Creation of autosocial formations:
 Exurbs, edge cities, malls and big box
stores
 Public health:
 Road traffic casualties, obesity
 Congestion and economic effects.
 Social exclusion and fragmentation of social
networks:
 Severance, loss of community space
 Accessibility and age barriers.
 Environmental effects:
 Noise pollution, wildlife destruction

13. • Miles per vehicle
• # vehicles per household
• CO2et per person
• Hours spent in traffic
• Monomodalism
• Ground level ozone
• Annual Traffic Fatality Rate
• GDP spent on road investment
• Road network average speed
• Sprawl indicators
Automobility Level Modal Share Examples
Low <25% Tokyo, Hong Kong
Moderate 25-50% London, New York
High 50-75% Sydney, Toronto
Hyper >75% Dallas, Los Angeles

14. • Miles per vehicle
• # vehicles per household
• CO2et per person
• Hours spent in traffic
• Monomodalism
• Ground level ozone
• Annual Traffic Fatality Rate
• GDP spent on road investment
• Road network average speed
• Sprawl indicators
Automobility Level Modal Share Examples
Low <25% Tokyo, Hong Kong
Moderate 25-50% London, New York
High 50-75% Sydney, Toronto
Hyper >75% Dallas, Los Angeles

15. - 587.1 529.6 575.4 413.7 217.3 38
- 18,155 8,645 11,387 6,202 3,724 785
m/pers 0.156 0.122 0.129 0.082 0.022 0.004
- 98.7 105.8 73.1 181.9 118.1 169.3
km/h 49.3 44.5 44.2 32.9 31.3 20.5
- 555 390 505 261 121 55
% 88.50% 80.50% 79.10% 49.70% 38.60% 21.60%
- 12.7 6.5 8.6 7.1 5.9 10.4
Kg/person 264.6 178.9 188.9 98.3 31.3 69.1

16. - 587.1 529.6 575.4 413.7 217.3 38
- 18,155 8,645 11,387 6,202 3,724 785
m/pers 0.156 0.122 0.129 0.082 0.022 0.004
- 98.7 105.8 73.1 181.9 118.1 169.3
km/h 49.3 44.5 44.2 32.9 31.3 20.5
- 555 390 505 261 121 55
% 88.50% 80.50% 79.10% 49.70% 38.60% 21.60%
- 12.7 6.5 8.6 7.1 5.9 10.4
Kg/person 264.6 178.9 188.9 98.3 31.3 69.1

17.  Definition of hyperautomobility arbitrary and contextual.
 Significant focus in literature on environmental effects of
hyperautomobility, often neglecting social, institutional, and
public health factors.
 Who’s to blame? Individuals or governments? Disagreement
in literature.
 Technological fixes should be subordinated to societal fixes.
 Difficult to apply practically. Congestion as a vector to policy
action?

18.  Transport infrastructure:
 Sidewalks, bikeways,
elevators, escalators, roads
highways, gas stations, fuel
pipelines
 Traffic signals, signs
 Public transit infrastructure:
 Railways, subways, busways
 Buses, railcars, stations
 Land use:
 Corporate campuses, malls,
big box stores, promenades

19.  Institutional infrastructure:
 Parking fee regimes, holistic
transport policy packages
 Informational Infrastructure:
 Personalized travel planning apps
 Social infrastructure:
 Workplace travel plans
 Choice architecture
 Communal Infrastructure:
 Carshares, rideshares, bikeshares

22. 1873
1890
1911
1933
1964
1993

23. 1873
1890
1911
1933
1964
1993

24. 1873
 Los Angeles est. later than “old
eastern cities”.
 1870: <5,000 residents
 1910: >320,000 residents
 Over 1164 miles of track along
Pacific Electric system in
Southern California.
 Small existing downtown and
rapid urban transit technological
advances especially in rail
infrastructure facilitate extensive
suburbanization across region.

25. 1873

26. 1911
 Automobiles filled a niche created by suburban sprawl.
 1910: <20,000
 1920: >100,000 (1/9 residents; highest ownership in US)
 1930: ~800,000
 Negative feedback loop of rail service<>car ownership.
 “The automobile and the motor bus were presented as
environmentally superior to rail proposals.”

27. 1993
 Over $180bn allocated for bus electrification, suburban
commuter rail projects (Metrolink), and freeway construction.
 “…the most vigorous transit capital investment program of
any metropolitain area in the country, perhaps in the
world.”
 Measure R – half cent sales tax for Los Angeles County:
 35% - new rail and BRT
 20% - bus operations
 20% - carpool lanes, highways & road improvements
 15% - local city sponsored improvements
 3% - Metrolink

28. 2014
 Suburban sprawl occurred
before the introduction of
automobiles due to PT!
 PT core to Los Angeles
development and adoption
of cars.
 Los Angeles transit often a
tragedy of fashion.
 Many misconceptions exist
re: transit and mode share
in Los Angeles…

30. Metric Figure
City Pop.
Metro Pop.
CSA Pop.
3,884,307
13,131,431
18,351,929
City Area 503 sq. mi.
County Comp. 88 incorp. Cities
# of registered
vehicles
7,609,517 in 2013
Daily VMT per capita ~22 mi.
Length of freeways ~527 mi.
Hyperautomobile? YES!

40.  90% of Metrolink riders shifted
from daily automobile use,
replacing 25,000 trips.
 Metrorail 2nd busiest LRT
system in U.S by ridership.
 Blue Line 2nd busiest LRT line in
U.S. by ridership (92,840
average weekday ridership).
 Metrorail HRT lines 4th busiest
system in U.S. per unit length
(9,348 per route mile).
 Metrobus largest CNG-
powered fleet in U.S.

41.  90% of Metrolink riders shifted
from daily automobile use,
replacing 25,000 trips.
 Metrorail 2nd busiest LRT
system in U.S by ridership.
 Blue Line 2nd busiest LRT line in
U.S. by ridership (92,840
average weekday ridership).
 Metrorail HRT lines 4th busiest
system in U.S. per unit length
(9,348 per route mile).
 Metrobus largest CNG-
powered fleet in U.S.

42.  90% of Metrolink riders shifted
from daily automobile use,
replacing 25,000 trips.
 Metrorail 2nd busiest LRT
system in U.S by ridership.
 Blue Line 2nd busiest LRT line in
U.S. by ridership (92,840
average weekday ridership).
 Metrorail HRT lines 4th busiest
system in U.S. per unit length
(9,348 per route mile).
 Metrobus largest CNG-
powered fleet in U.S.

43.  90% of Metrolink riders shifted
from daily automobile use,
replacing 25,000 trips.
 Metrorail 2nd busiest LRT
system in U.S by ridership.
 Blue Line 2nd busiest LRT line in
U.S. by ridership (92,840
average weekday ridership).
 Metrorail HRT lines 4th busiest
system in U.S. per unit length
(9,348 per route mile).
 Metrobus largest CNG-
powered fleet in U.S.

44.  90% of Metrolink riders shifted
from daily automobile use,
replacing 25,000 trips.
 Metrorail 2nd busiest LRT
system in U.S by ridership.
 Blue Line 2nd busiest LRT line in
U.S. by ridership (92,840
average weekday ridership).
 Metrorail HRT lines 4th busiest
system in U.S. per unit length
(9,348 per route mile).
 Metrobus largest CNG-
powered fleet in U.S.

46. 1901 1863
476 250
13 11
135 270
395,881 3,465,750
832 13,863
0.03 0.25

49.  CBD has <15% of all
employment in Los Angeles.
 32 distinct significant
employment centres,
historical polycentric
development tied to PT.
 If CBD parking was laid out
evenly across total area of
the district, would cover
roughly 80% of total surface
area.
 Parking as a
cause/effect and path
dependency.

50.  Early 20th century suburban
sprawl pre-dates
introduction of automobile
into society.
 Reinforcement of
sprawl rather than
“autosocial” formations.
 Hyperautomobility not
uniform across Los Angeles.
 Self-selection could
reduce impact of built
environment/PT.

51.  Hyperautomobility is not necessarily a linear process.
 Discourse analysis and context useful for
understanding/diagnosing patterns and trends.
 Social cost of automobiles not accounted for in
contemporary society, leads to auto bias.
 Mega Infrastructure delivery should be part of larger
development and policy package.
 Transport demand management, travel subsidies,
corporate incentives, cultural shift.