Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Earth Technology

Has the Industrialized World Reached Peak Travel? 314

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-blame-the-lack-of-flying-cars dept.
Harperdog sends this excerpt from Miller-McCune: "A study (abstract) of eight industrialized countries, including the United States, shows that seemingly inexorable trends — ever more people, more cars and more driving — came to a halt in the early years of the 21st century, well before the recent escalation in fuel prices. It could be a sign, researchers said, that the demand for travel and the demand for car ownership in those countries has reached a saturation point. 'With talk of "peak oil," why not the possibility of "peak travel" when a clear plateau has been reached?' asked co-author Lee Schipper ... Most of the eight countries in the study have experienced declines in miles traveled by car per capita in recent years. The US appears to have peaked at an annual 8,100 miles by car per capita, and Japan is holding steady at 2,500 miles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has the Industrialized World Reached Peak Travel?

Comments Filter:
  • Far from it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobertM1968 (951074) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:15PM (#34731552) Homepage Journal

    We simply either cant spend the money, wont spend the money or cant/wont approve new infrastructure projects that will ease the traffic burden. One prime example was ripping down the West Side Highway in NYC (instead of fixing or replacing it), and then "wondering" why congestion increased when "suddenly" the drivers who used to use the WSH are now on surface streets or migrating to the FDR drive.

    • Re:Far from it... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:23PM (#34731622) Journal
      Furthermore, the paradigm of "peak $thing" is not necessarily applicable to every fashionable $thing.
      Travel is constrained by the carrying capacity of roads and junctions. If investment in these does not keep pace with demand for capacity, then the demand is throttled by the negative effects of congestion. As population density increases in some region, it becomes harder (disproportionately more expensive) to increase the carrying capacity of roads in proportion - the number of choke points increases and congestion increases. The low density exurbs have no such problem, except when it comes to commuting to a high density downtown...
      • Re:Far from it... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:50PM (#34731864)

        As population density increases in some region, it becomes harder (disproportionately more expensive) to increase the carrying capacity of roads in proportion

        This is true. However, a conclusion that sprawl is cheaper to maintain would be wildly inaccurate.

        I spent some time reviewing alternatives for the Austin Comprehensive Plan [imagineaustin.net] -- discussing zoning, city layout, pollution levels, cost to build and maintain roads, man-hours and funds wasted by commuting, and the like for several different development scenarios. The high-density, compact city was not only environmentally preferable -- it was by far the most economically efficient way to manage our anticipated growth.

        Increasing capacity of existing roads (while still keeping them focused around single-occupancy vehicles) is inordinately expensive, yes. On the other hand, planning a compact, high-density city that puts people in walking or cycling distance of their work, schools and shopping avoids creation of those vehicle-miles altogether -- and creates a more livable, healthier city to boot.

        • Kind of goes against the current trend of people moving to suburbs though, don't it?
          • by cduffy (652)

            Kind of goes against the current trend of people moving to suburbs though, don't it?

            Running projections for "current trends", and then comparing them to the economic, environmental, &c. projections for where you could be if you took actions to modify those trends, and then using those projections to decide on and take concrete actions is, ya know, kind of what that whole long-term city planning thing is all about.

        • While you're (hopefully) still here, can you shed any light on the persistent urban legend we Austinites have regarding the city planners in the 90s intentionally keeping the major arteries of Mopac, 360, and I35 shitty in order to discourage people from moving to Austin and in hopes of keeping ATX small? (Obviously they failed miserably in everything except making commuting nearly unbearable).

      • by Shotgun (30919)

        The counter point is that as the density increases, I don't have to drive as far to get what I want. I now generally walk to the grocery store. It is literally "in my backyard" and it is easier to just walk over there than it is to drive, find a parking space, and then walk the rest of the way.

        • Going to the grocery store is one thing, but going to the job is something else. Its often not possible to live near your job, ask any New Yorker.
    • by icebike (68054)

      We simply either cant spend the money, wont spend the money or cant/wont approve new infrastructure projects that will ease the traffic burden.

      Well perhaps an alternative view of Peak Car (the article was focused almost solely on car and had very little to say about other means of travel), is that public infrastructure IS finally getting attention in many cities to the point where car ownership and driving is not necessary.

      Perhaps not in your example from NYC, but in many other places public transit has become responsive, cheap, and frequent enough that people are shifting their priorities. Seattle installed lite rail over the last several year,

  • One wonders... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:18PM (#34731586) Journal
    How(if at all) they are factoring in all the trucks delivering the stuff that I would historically have had to drive a car to the store to obtain...

    A shift in the US from suburban material culture, where car transport is essentially necessary, and that necessity is self-perpetuating through the cultural and infrastructure spending priorities it creates, would be big news.

    A shift from buying at bestbuy to buying at bestbuy.com might well drive down the number of car-hours/year; but would be fairly uninteresting. Ditto with things like Netflix and Amazon and pay-per-view cable movies and whatnot...
    • by hedwards (940851)
      That's not entirely apt. It used to be that groceries would be delivered by the grocer, you'd stop by select what you wanted and they'd deliver it for you. Back up until the affluence of the 60s or so, it was typical for families to only own one car.

      I suspect the bigger factor was that people didn't buy as much stuff and expected it to last longer. These days it's a challenge, as there's low end and high end stuff available. It can be a real challenge to find things which are midranged in terms of both p
      • Forget that - buy high end stuff (for durability, quality) and just buy slower; you'll spend less over time because you won't replace what you buy, and you'll find that you really don't need half of it in the first place.
    • by Sir_Sri (199544)

      Well there's also a point where you can only spend so much time in a day travelling before you move to reduce travelling. I think on an individual basis that may vary a lot, but there's probably a plateau'd statistical average (maybe 2 hours? not sure). Since speed limits haven't increased dramatically (and as congestion increases traffic speed overall goes down), the distance travelled will eventually peak, until you alleviate congestion or otherwise increase the speed of travel. That would be for sort

      • Japan has better transit, so you could, for instance, spend most of your travel time on a train, and it's possible that japanese people largely use cars for weekend trips (far out modders also push the average down - if you've added a 10 foot fiberglass rear bumper to your van (no lie!), you probably don't drive it much).

        I'd like to look at it as a holistic transport problem - how do you move people in volume with the minimum time per passenger? This is different from GM's thing, as cars are not required, a

        • In sufficiently dense areas, you basically face the choice between building "mass transit" for cars or mass transit for people. (Obviously, the cars don't literally get put onto trains or anything; but bridges, tunnels, overpasses, underpasses, specialized high-density parking garages, and the like are, in terms of capital expenditure, urban planning, use of eminent domain, and so forth, more similiar to 'mass transit' than they are to your ordinary suburban road system).

          In lower density areas, cars are
          • by dr2chase (653338)
            It's not much of a dilemma. Cars are needy and space-wasteful; you can put more people in a subway, track per day, than you can in a lane of traffic.
    • I think the home delivery thing is great. It is much more efficient ( using fewer resources, generating less pollution ) since the mail truck is coming by my house anyway.

      I had a friend get on my case about using Netflix instead of going to the locally owned ( and poorly ran ) video store. I just told her what I wrote here, that I was being green :)

  • Oh dear... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:22PM (#34731614)

    Is "peak" the new "-gate"?

  • A lot of work that used to require physical presence can now be done remotely. Not necessarily from home, but from computers at an office that doesn't have to be located at the site where the machine is. So offices move to where the people are rather than making people move to where the materials are. So you don't have to move groceries for those people as far either. Facetime, remote, telepresence will take over travel per capita as tech improves.

    • by arivanov (12034)

      That was the point of view about 5 years back.

      The latest managerial fad is to have everyone colocated so travel and commuting instead of telecommuting are firmly back on the menu.

    • by Roblimo (357)

      Here in Florida, the trend seems to be to move offices away from areas close to most office workers' modest homes, to office parks near areas with McMansions and golf courses for the richies at the top -- and no place affordable for the bulk of the workers to live. Then come demands to county officials to widen roads and put in new ones, add bus lines, etc.

      With a major job shortage right now, the richies aren't worried about workers leaving them. And never forget: lots of people in Mumbai will happily commu

      • And never forget: lots of people in Mumbai will happily commute an hour each way to earn $2/hour.

        You really think you can get a tech worker for $4k/year? Hell, for that price, I could hire a staff for myself to, um do something.

      • $2 in Mumbai might just go a bit further than $2 in, say, New York City.
    • A lot of work that used to require physical presence can now be done remotely. Not necessarily from home, but from computers at an office that doesn't have to be located at the site where the machine is. So offices move to where the people are rather than making people move to where the materials are. So you don't have to move groceries for those people as far either. Facetime, remote, telepresence will take over travel per capita as tech improves.

      Some of the stuff you're talking about can indeed be done remotely, but there's always a need for actual face-to-face meetings. People still go to conferences instead of just posting on a website, deals are still struck with a handshake (requiring a long flight) rather than just exchanging emails/videochat. There's certain things about doing business that are hard to turn into a stream of bits, chiefly the attainment of trust. People are reluctant to trust someone they haven't met, even if all the relevant

  • by AndGodSed (968378) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:25PM (#34731650) Homepage Journal

    "Industrialised World" - The world is changing so quickly that the definitions of what is first world, third world, emerging markets, industrialised and so on are not clearly defined.

    If that definition can be made accurately there can be concurrence as to if the peak travel levels have been reached or not.

    Also, there has not in recorded history been any similar trends, except maybe for the peak and decline of rail travel - maybe a parallel can be drawn from that?

    Given the above, the conclusion can only be "It looks like it, but we cannot be sure. Yet."

  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:26PM (#34731656) Homepage

    Few people spend more than 1 and 2 hours a day traveling, unless their work itself is moving themselves or stuff around. So as speeds max out, so does travel.

    Both car travel and air travel have slowed down. Even subsonic jets used to fly faster, but the fuel consumption goes up as Mach 1 is approached. Airport time is much longer than it used to be. Road capacity maxes out at 35MPH; faster, and the cars are spaced out more, so vehicles per minute drops. (California uses metering lights to try to keep freeways at 35MPH under heavy load. Japan just sets low speed limits on urban expressways.)

    And, of course, we have such good communications that going somewhere merely to talk to someone is rarely necessary.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hedwards (940851)
      There's that, but I think the bigger issue is that the transit options really haven't grown proportionally to the growth of the population.

      Here in Seattle, for example, we still don't have a real mass transit system. Metro insists on taking half of it's bus routes through the down town corridor for reasons which make sense to nobody outside of their planning committee. Meaning that if you're not going downtown you're almost certainly going to need to make a transfer. Good luck going east or west or aroun
    • by mapkinase (958129)

      "Road capacity maxes out at 35MPH" [citation needed]

      "faster, and the cars are spaced out more, so vehicles per minute drops."

      And the speed of each car is increased, so total number of cars passing a certain point remains the same. At least.

      Actually it increases, because the car length correction works in the bad direction at lower speeds. All assuming that at all speeds car follow N sec rule, where N=const.

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:27PM (#34731672)

    1. Improved communications, including the Internet has helped make some forms of travel less necessary.

    2. Optimized analysis of usage patterns have allowed businesses to minimize travel costs better.

    3. A general drastic shift in income towards the more wealthy at the cost of growth in other income levels has minimized the ability for most folks to have the opportunity for leisure travel (time as much as money).

    Those create a trend - but there's no inherent "peak travel" there. Start electing folks who will tax wealth in order to give meaningful freedom to everyone else again (see: 1940's to 1970's US), and you will see more frequent travel again as people have resources to start businesses, engage in leisure activities, and do more than just go to WalMart every long once in a while, rather than a few rich having exponential increases.

    Ryan Fenton

    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:52PM (#34731884) Journal

      Disagree.

      People have more leisure time then they've ever had. When they were farmers they worked 6 days a week (minus sundays) and often from sunup to sundown. Now they work just 5 days a week and 8-10 hours a day. Hence they have free time to watch TV in the evenings, or to travel to the beach on the weekend, something our pre-1930s ancestors never dreamed of.

      If driving has hit a plateau since 2000, maybe it's because people simply don't want to. I know I have no desire to hop in my car and drive to the store, when I can just click netflix.com to watch a video, or shop amazon.com and have it delivered to me. I don't even visit the bank now - I just do it all on the internet from the comfort of my chair.

      If I didn't have to buy food, I'd probably never leave the house.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        I strongly agree.

        I can afford to drive my 460 c.i. Ford truck most anywhere I care to, but that's mostly fucking WORK, not fun. Modern technology allows ME to command stuff be brought to ME at MY convenience, freeing time for ME to do what _I_ wish.

      • by drsquare (530038)

        Interesting how you go from the pre-30s straight to today, conveniently missing out the era when people had working hours similar to today yet before women were expected to work the same as men. I wonder what it'd look like if you plotted a graph of hours worked per year per household over the last century.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This rant (most definitely a rant) is USA-centric and brings up several points that people don't want to think about. If that distresses you, you may wish to skip it.

      Sorry, but a government that taxes the wealthy for the benefit of the majority is not going to happen. I'm afraid that sociologically, we may have hit a "tipping point" where the wealthy elite have taken control of the government/energy corporations (Illuminati for all you conspiracy theorists out there), and are driving the economy and public

  • by cliffiecee (136220) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:32PM (#34731710) Homepage Journal

    Ever since the time that gasoline hit $4 here in the US, I've been keeping an eye on the DOT's Traffic Volume Trends [dot.gov]. It seems to me that, once Americans realized how much gas could cost (and will permanently cost, eventually), they also realized how much auto travel is superfluous. In particular This chart of the 12-month average for all roads [dot.gov] shows a clear pullback in miles driven. Perhaps some of this could be attributable to people being more efficient in their travel; taking care of multiple errands at once, using public transportation much more, etc. Certainly the downturn in the economy has an impact, too.

    • by Burnhard (1031106)
      Superfluous? Maybe in the big city, but out in the sticks, or towns, it's necessary. I used to get the train to work, but as they were either (1) late, sometimes making me stand on the windy, cold platform for upwards of 2 hours, or (2) rammed full, so I couldn't get myself and my bicycle onto them, I ended up buying a car and now drive to and from work. I didn't drive before!
      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        "how much" not "all".

      • by Scott Wood (1415)

        You want to live in the sticks and still have an urban lifestyle (i.e. frequent access to the rest of civilization), you get to pay the costs of the dwindling resources that lifestyle consumes. As for small towns, the core of them is usually pretty walkable, but they've sprawled out with the automobile just as the larger cities have.

        I'm sorry to hear about the poor train service you have -- but that's a local issue that needs to be taken up with the transit agency (and/or the politicians who are probably s

        • by Burnhard (1031106)
          Yea, they've been kind-of taking it up for the last 50 years here in the UK. Still no solution in sight. Prices are sky-high, carriages are cramped, trains are often late. Services are cancelled at short notice, because the company gets fined if a train is late (!).
        • I live in a small town, and the "core" area has very little in the way of shops that you need to live; there's no grocery store in the old, walkable, part of town. Outside of about a 1-2 mile strip, there's no sidewalks. Most people never go into the old part of town except for official business; the court house, police station, tax people, etc. are all in one spot.
    • When gas gets too expensive, people consider it when they buy their home. If they must live far away, they focus on carpooling and jobs where working from home is allowed. I was able to work from home 7 months last year one day a week and it cut my mileage by 40 miles a week (about 16% per year).

  • by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki.gmail@com> on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:35PM (#34731726) Homepage

    In the US and Canada for example, driving will peak based on how far you need to go to get things done. Two things have changed on that front, first being that things are closer. An example, 10 years ago if I wanted to go to a store like walmart I would have had to drive 30mins, it's 3minutes now. Same with a Canadian tire, but the size of my city has only grown by 5k people. The thing that really throws a wrench into this of course is if live out in the middle of nowhere Canada or US. In which case driving 2-4hrs twice a month to buy your groceries is still the norm, that's providing it's not dropped off by plane. Even having things dropped off by plane is getting scarce however, it's cheaper to do 5 months of deliveries by truck in the dead of winter for remote cities.

    In most other places, notably japan unless you have the money to pay for private parking when you go to work you'll live the life of the 2hr rush, and be packed in, and leave your car at home. But everything you more than likely need is in walking or biking distance, and when it isn't you can get just about everything sent to your home. Sure that's happening in north america albeit at a slower pace. Japan can't dedicate space to roads, we can. Which leads japan to having more dedication to public transportation.

    Personally to me it comes down to the whole space vs no space issue. We're not short on room in north america not even close. The only upper limit you have to that here, is the amount of space you can dedicate to roadways to ease conjestion.

  • Apples-Oranges (Score:5, Interesting)

    by olsmeister (1488789) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:38PM (#34731744)
    They reference miles traveled by car per capita. The US population grows by 2.5M people every year, which would lead me to believe the total miles driven is still increasing.

    When I've seen peak oil discussed, usually they are talking about total oil output and not per capita consumption.
  • Travel has purpose. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by couchslug (175151) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:41PM (#34731780)

    We travel to see stuff. Modern media has made much of that superfluous.

    We travel to get stuff. Having stuff show up is less time wasted. Instead of going to buy tools, for example, I shop online and they show up. I can mix Ebay, Craigslist, and new vendors while I fap to pr0n and surf Slashdot.

    We travel to see people. It's now more convenient to chat with a world of friends without bothering to meet in person very often.

    We travel to learn stuff. Now information is at our fingertips.

    Travel was a hassle before the TSA fondle-fest. Fuck travel.

    • by genner (694963) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:56PM (#34731916)

      We travel to see stuff. Modern media has made much of that superfluous.

      We travel to get stuff. Having stuff show up is less time wasted. Instead of going to buy tools, for example, I shop online and they show up. I can mix Ebay, Craigslist, and new vendors while I fap to pr0n and surf Slashdot.

      We travel to see people. It's now more convenient to chat with a world of friends without bothering to meet in person very often.

      We travel to learn stuff. Now information is at our fingertips.

      Travel was a hassle before the TSA fondle-fest. Fuck travel.

      You definitely need to get out of the house more often.

    • by 0123456 (636235)

      We travel to see stuff. Modern media has made much of that superfluous.

      And globalisation means that even if you do travel, when you get there you find it's just like the place you left except they speak a different language in McDonald's.

  • by eagl (86459) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @03:45PM (#34731802) Journal

    Peak travel is an interesting concept but it applies only to a given technology level. My own situation is an example. I live in Texas and have family on both the East and West coast of the US. I would also like to vacation in Florida, Maine, and Northern California. But with 2 small children and the TSA increasingly repressive, I simply don't travel much beyond a one-day driving distance.

    That would change instantly if fast, harassment-free transportation were available. That used to be the airlines, and it could be fast rail if it weren't for the fact that excessive govt regulation and problems getting right-of-way means that it will never happen. But we're one transportation revolution away from me making coast to coast travel plans fairly often, because that is where I would want to go if there were reasonable transportation options.

    I can't be the only one who doesn't go anywhere beyond a 1-day drive anymore, either. If we're at a transportation peak, it is because of artificial suppression of travel due to airport harassment and because of other concerns that could be addressed by the availability of fast and easy transportation. Note that I don't mention cost - I'd be willing to pay quite a bit for quick and hassle free transportation around the country, but it simply can't be done right now.

    As a nation, we're quickly heading towards loserville when we can't even manage to use available technology to let people travel freely without harassment. Car, train, and aircraft technology are all available to allow for reasonably rapid transportation, but our car speed limits are where they were 30 years ago, there is still very limited train service in most central and western states, and the govt is doing its best to harass people out of flying commercial air. We suck, and we're doing it to ourselves.

    • by careysub (976506) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @08:28PM (#34733812)

      ... it could be fast rail if it weren't for the fact that excessive govt regulation [emphasis added] and problems getting right-of-way means that it will never happen...

      Come again? Since every high speed rail system in the world has been built by using large government subsidies (just like the original U.S. transcontinental rail system), and usually at least a government partnership if not as an outright government-run project, how is "excessive government regulation" to blame for the lack of high speed rail? Note also that those rights-of-way can only be obtained only through the government exercising its right of eminent domain.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        The US is in the pockets of corporations and the corporations don't want rail. Big Auto actually bought and shut down profitable, working rail lines, and kept operating only the freight lines; and indeed, they shut down some of those, although those which feed auto plants are all still operating. There is in fact substantial rail which can be compared to dark fiber; a deal of it needs little more than testing before it can be reused. Oh sure, you're not getting high-speed travel on the existing rails, but t

  • A study of eight horse-using countries, including the United States, shows that seemingly inexorable trends — ever more people, more horses, and more riding — came to a halt in the early years of the 20th century, well before the recent escalation in fodder prices. It could be a sign, researchers said, that the demand for travel and the demand for horse ownership in those countries has reached a saturation point. 'With talk of "peak manure," why not the possibility of "peak travel" when a clear plateau has been reached?' asked co-author Jebediah Schipper ... Most of the eight countries in the study have experienced declines in miles traveled by horse per capita in recent years. The US appears to have peaked at an annual 1620 miles by horse per capita, and Japan is holding steady at 500 miles."
    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      And what are you proposing replaced the car in the last few years?

      • by bball99 (232214)

        telecommuting?

        i love that i have telecommuted since 1997 by using the 'net; after retiring in 2005, the wife now telecommutes daily - walks to the home office in flip-flops, flips open the laptop, and goes to work in DC next to Union Station near Capitol Hill...

        life is good! and for my marketing, i take my Specialized Rockhopper and messenger bag to the local farmer's market...

        (and zillow has our casa as walk 'unfriendly'! ROFLMAO!)

  • Interesting that travel dropped right about the time we really geared up the subsidized food burning. [healthandenergy.com]
     
    Funny how historically high food prices and pitiful job and income growth can really dampen a decade. That's without mentioning gas prices. "Peak Travel" you say?? Whoever came up with this Peak Travel idea must live in vacuum.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @04:32PM (#34732164)
    "Peak Oil", is a worthless flawed concept to begin with. Gauging how much oil exists based on how much we CHOOSE to pump isn't even starting to take reality into consideration. If there were no huge multinational interests trying to control gas prices, "Peak Oil" would be flawed to the point of being worthless. The fact that there ARE huge multinational interests involved in oil price manipulation means that "Peak Oil" is just a stupid idea.

    "Peak travel" on the other hand could have some validity. Depending on what they are measuring for "Peak". If they are measuring it in time spent travelling. Obviously there is a hard limit on the number of hours that can be traveled. Just count the number of people on the planet, and multiply by 24 hours.
  • In China, though, travel is going way up. Their National Trunk Highway System, very similar in road design to the US Interstate system, is up to 74,000 km and adding about 10,000 km per year, all built since 1988. That may do for China what the Interstate system did for the US - pull the country much closer together. China has historically had weak inter-provincial links and restrictions on inter-provincial trade. There are still trade barriers between provinces. Most provinces have their own auto manuf

  • I know one of the perhaps 20 industrialized countries in the Worl has an obsession with cars; but less cars means less travel? I say non sequitur. Ever heard of trains and planes?
    Also, the 8k miles/car/capita in USA vs 2k in Japan is meaningless: in Japan you never need to travel very far because it is smaller and has a higher density.
  • by mapkinase (958129) on Saturday January 01, 2011 @05:03PM (#34732408) Homepage Journal

    For those who want to read the article before discussing it:

    http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/wctr12_lisboa/WCTR_General/documents/02455.pdf [ist.utl.pt]

    • by mapkinase (958129)

      Having briefly browsed through the figures, I would say that the terms "plato" and "peaking" used a little bit prematurely.

      I would say slowdown is in effect.

      Kudos for plotting it against GDP/capita instead of years.

      PS. TIL that Japan has sucky GDP/capita compared to US.

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...