Americans Drive Less, Creating a Problem

[Ryan Thunder]

Cars in essence is a luxury item.

Why can't individual human beings be allowed to possess the technological means to make their lives easier and more convenient?

Because they're monstrously innefficient compared to public transit, for one...

'course, if we're talking about people in the countryside, its just not feasible to have a bus/train for them as they're too sparse, but inside city limits, people shouldn't need cars to get around.

[Broomstick]

The circular farms are where irrigation is used - out in my area the farms are squares because natural rainfall is usually sufficient. The thing is, even with those massive areas of farmland we are NOT utilizing all potential cropland to the fullest (which is another reason why I question the need for "vertical farms" - the current food supply problems are usually more of transportation than production origin.)

I had understood that mentioning vertical farms was in direct response to your statement that efficient agriculture was incompatible with high population densities. As you pointed out, the main issue is transportation/distribution issues. Current low to mid density development does allow in principal for people to grow a decent proportion of their own food on their land (at least it would if the McMansions popular here over the last few years didn't waste most of the lot space), but in practice few people use it. My wife and I grow a number of veggies on a portion of our little 3600 square foot lot, but it represents only a tiny fraction of our overall food expenditure (though we have plans to expand). I suspect most here grow less.

The trend throughout human history has been for fewer and fewer people to grow their own food, why would extreme urbanization change that? I would expect the exact opposite (with a few continuing to garden as a hobby). Do you expect everyone in the future to have an "hydroponic pod" attached to their apartment and grow a significant portion of their own food? Nonsense - the "vertical farms" are factory farms, they're industrial agriculture.

If anything rural area populations have dropped due to mechanization of agriculture as far fewer people are needed even for "ground farms".

So most of the food is trucked into relatively centralized locations (major and minor grocery stores), and then redistributed back through the 80+ square miles of the city and 250-300 square miles of undeveloped land served by the city. Simply compacting the population of the nominally "urban" zoned areas (here defined as over 2 dwelling units per acre) into higher concentrations along the major circulation paths would significantly decrease the amount of driving needed to get food to all of those suburban homes. It would also reduce the population on the remaining portions of the city's land, increasing available arable land adjacent to the urban core.

You may reduce some of the travel involved, but raw farm products will still need to be shipped to central locations for processing then redistributed. People aren't going to start grinding their own flour.

Beyond simply increasing population density, the other zoning issue that needs to be addressed is the tendency towards extreme separation of uses. While I suppose it makes sense to cluster most of the industrial development along certain of the city's peripheries, away from homes, it also isn't convenient to have a square mile of nothing but suburban homes, with only a school or park allowed within, and a shopping center at the corner of the square mile. The current layout makes driving mandatory, since buses don't weave through enough of the shopping areas on a regular enough schedule to make it convenient for most residents. Walking isn't too appealing either, since there's not much to see but lawns and dull houses, with a guaranteed minimum mile walk between potential sites of interest, and most of those sites not developed enough to support any sort of social life.

A mile walk extreme? WTF?

People used to routinely walk multiple miles to work, to shop, and otherwise conduct the business of life. It is only the late 20th Century and later that has seen people whine that a mile is too far to walk. Removal of sidewalks and the building of streets with high-speed traffic and more than two lanes each way did more to kill walkability than distances of a mile, or even more.

[Sky Captain]

I agree, in a city car is not needed, but in sparsely populated rural areas car is a necessity because public transport is too infrequent or nonexistent. In my country large cities and towns are linked together with buses or railways so if you live in one of these its possible to live fine without car if it isn`t necessary for your job. Public transport also is cheaper than going by car especially in longer inter city distances. However in rural areas nearest bus stop or shopping place can be 10 - 20 km away.

My town is about 50 km from our capital Riga and I regularly take train to get to university and live fine without car. If I had to go by car it would cost me 3 times more than train ticket. I also hate driving in city traffic and circling endlessly just to find a free parking place.

[His Divine Shadow]

The situation is quite different in Finland. Going from Vasa - Helsinki here by bus is more expensive than with a car, 40 euros one way last time I checked, which comes to 80 euros for going both ways, the train is more expensive. For 80 euros I can get almost 65 liters of gasoline, thats more than a full tank. To drive the 842km back and forth I would require with my car which does .6 liters to the metric mile(10km), or about 55 liters of gasoline.

And we got some of the most expensive gasoline in europe. Anyway personally I wouldn't want to give up my car, I love cars, I got an extra just for driving for fun in the summers. Although I have to sell that one so I can buy a new even more economical car, like a Mazda 2. But I certainly plan to get another car when I can afford it, probably an old 60s behemoth that I can work on myself and restore, I really got the hankering for a '67 Impala. And if I ever have one of those for real, from my cold dead hands baby.

[Sky Captain]

It probably depends of government subsidies, our public transportation is partially subsidized so tickets are cheaper than it would be without subsidies. Anyway cars cause problems in cities not in a sparsely populated rural areas. In Riga we often have bad traffic jams, sometimes it takes more than hour to drive 10 km from Riga outskirts to the center, even crossing river Daugava by car in a rush hour can take up to 40 minutes vhile it takes 5 minutes to walk. And all this bad traffic in a city with just 720 000 people.

It makes sense to try to get rid of most cars in a cities where they cause most pollution and traffic jams and not bother about rural areas where there are too few cars to significantly affect air quality and cause traffic jam.

[Broomstick]

Arguably he will be paying much the same in taxes but instead of simply handing his money over to the government, he must go through another level of tax administration with required overhead that will increase costs versus direct government payment. The corporation will have to have an beauracratic infrastructure to deal with paying the required taxes from collected monies to the government.

No, taking that in for a moment makes me question why we are currently using it as a both system, which is the worst of both world either direct or indirect taxation as it requires additional inefficiences to function.

Were it to be a choice between indirect and direct taxation I would lean more towards direct taxation as no matter how much he wants to "buy less" the benefits for his direct payment are insurmountably more than say the direct payments I make into the welfare system.

Given the choice, I say fuck his sensibilities and would rather see gas taxes eliminated before funds from direct taxation being forbidden for road construction and infrastructure.

What, exactly, is the goal of taxation/fees for roads?

If the sole goal is to maintain a large system of roads then direct taxation may be the favored choices. If funds for a large infrastructure project are needed - comparable to the building of the US Interstate Highway System, for example - then direct taxation may be the only feasible method and the only fair one given the broad impact of such an initiative.

However, fees imposed on direct users, such as fuel taxes, may serve other purposes than merely fund raising. A locally higher fuel tax may be a means of discouraging driving in congested areas. A higher tax imposed on fuels used by vehicles such as a large trucks may compensate for the additional wear such vehicles impose on the system. If you have multiple goals then multiple levels of taxation may, in fact, be the best system overall even if it's not entirely neat and tidy.

[PainRack]

I'm not arguing that the typical suburban single family house with an expansive lawn is more efficient. In fact, as I said, it's incredibly expensive and unhealthy for society and am in favor of taking action to roll back the excessive sprawl that's become the norm. What I am arguing with Ray that building cities up to the level of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, or other super-dense cities is that it brings with it very significant problems of it's own which make them less than desirable.

You need to start defining what you mean by super dense cities and population problems. Singapore has a mere 6 thousand people per square kilometer and the territory of Hong Kong is only slightly larger, albeit, this is differentiated by the fact that Hong Kong Kowloon street probably would fall into your super-dense area.
However, considering the territories of Hong Kong and Singapore as super-dense cities and how concentration of population into such super dense cities would bring about undesirable, expensive and unhealthy behaviours is odd. Since a good number of major US city on the East Coast reaches or exceeds said population density, are you thus saying that US society already suffers from such afflictions?

Are you referring to perhaps Manhatten island with its 13 thousand population density?

[Hillary]

Are the people in Europe screaming because costs of shipping and mail is so high that none but the richest can afford?

They have gas taxes 20 TIMES the averages US gas tax. Yet they seem to get along fine.

Are you suggesting that European countries do NOT subsidise their transport and postal systems? In the UK, we have the Royal Mail which has a flat rate pay scale between any two domestic addresses, allowing for a pretty cheap service.

As for gas prices, European countries are generally far less dependant on the motor vehicle than the US.

You can't pick and choose which taxes you pay - that's not how the system works, and for good reason.

[PainRack]

Errr, crap, I missed a bit where it was US cities and counties..........

[Coyote]

It seems we're looking at an "either-or" proposition with regard to cars and public transit in the USA. The truth of the matter as I see it is that in many places in America cars are, in fact, necessary. I'd also say you'll find this in other places that have large areas of land with smaller towns and villages strung together-- Australia, Mexico, Canada, Russia, etc. But we've gone from seeing cars as a very useful tool to being an indisposable status symbol that is over-used for every little thing, even when public tranportation is available or would even make more sense. (I see this mindset affecting areas that should know better, such as Tel-Aviv, Israel, where there is a first-class bus system and a city that was never designed for mass personal car use, but it seems most families insist on having a car.)

A lot of what we're up against, as well, is the idea of "independence" that a car gives, and that public transit is funded by taxes, so expanding public transit means raising taxes. Most Americans have no goddamn clue how easy we have it on taxes, we are living virtually tax-free compared to the rest of the world but if you want to hear people howl like wolves at a full moon, just mention a couple pennies' worth of tax increases to pay for something that needs to be done.

So the conundrum we end up with is that people perceive public transit as not going where they want to go and when, so they stick with their cars, and since they have their cars, they don't see why they should pay more taxes to support public transit. It doesn't help that in many areas cars are indeed necessary, such as the aforementioned towns where there is insufficient tax base to build useful public transit, and where the population is small enough, and there's enough space available, that it isn't a problem yet anyway.

[Kanastrous]

Sorry if I missed anyone else pointing this out, but another purpose in the original development of the US interstate highway was the ability to move military materiel and personnel rapidly around the country. As a component of national defense, that serves the 'common good' in a way that still applies even to someone who never drives on, rides on, or receives goods delivered using that highway system.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The trend throughout human history has been for fewer and fewer people to grow their own food, why would extreme urbanization change that? I would expect the exact opposite (with a few continuing to garden as a hobby). Do you expect everyone in the future to have an "hydroponic pod" attached to their apartment and grow a significant portion of their own food? Nonsense - the "vertical farms" are factory farms, they're industrial agriculture.

If anything rural area populations have dropped due to mechanization of agriculture as far fewer people are needed even for "ground farms".

I'm agreeing with you. What I meant is that because of that trend, zones that maintain more separate land for each dwelling unit by restricting density do not contribute to agricultural use, and that allowing higher density would free up more land for the kind of agriculture that is actually done on a significant scale. I don't really think everyone will have their own little hydroponic pond attached to their condo or apartment, as much as I like the idea.

You may reduce some of the travel involved, but raw farm products will still need to be shipped to central locations for processing then redistributed. People aren't going to start grinding their own flour.

That's true. Perhaps the total travel involved in distribution would not decrease all that drastically. I was also tacitly assuming that cities would make more abundant use of immediately available agricultural land and resources, as well as emphasizing more local processing and distribution over long distance import/export, as part of the move towards greater sustainability. Those are of course, separate issues from mere density and zoning. Of course climate is a limiting factor, and here water is a more stringent limitation than land, so again, simply increasing the density may not be that much of a benefit to agriculture. I am also just reacting aesthetically to seeing the desert carved up so wantonly with paving for benefits that seem less than what we should be getting from the investment.

A mile walk extreme? WTF?

People used to routinely walk multiple miles to work, to shop, and otherwise conduct the business of life. It is only the late 20th Century and later that has seen people whine that a mile is too far to walk. Removal of sidewalks and the building of streets with high-speed traffic and more than two lanes each way did more to kill walkability than distances of a mile, or even more.

True. But they are not going to walk multiple miles if cars are a more convenient option, especially with the modern expectation of living on a tight time schedule with less time alotted to transit unless you are traveling commuter distances. A mile walk is nothing to me, but there are a lot of people who find it foreign and threatening, more from sheer force of habit and cultural inertia than anything else. Its a cultural artifact that will have to be changed, but it probably won't change until active design steps are taken to encourage walkability. There are plenty of sidewalks here, but nobody wants to be walking on eight feet of unshaded concrete along a hundred-foot-wide street in hundred-plus-degree weather with no little shop fronts or other pleasant things immediately within reach along the way. The extreme setbacks required by zoning laws here are mostly oriented towards automobile visibility rather than pedestrian walkability. Though Lancaster Boulevard itself is a lovely street with trees down both sides that are lit at night year round with little christmas lights spiraled around the trunks, and nobody walks along it. Most likely it's the sheer absence of any uses that cater to leisure and nightlife along it that make it unappealing, as well as it's reputation as a dangerous hangout for homeless and druggies. Once again, the city has taken steps to remedy that, but not until the real-estate crash slowed development to a crawl, so we have yet to see significant results.

As for the distances involved, higher densities would mean more people per unit area available to support a higher concentration of (hopefully) varied services, so that there would be a higher probability of any particular need being met within walking distance. Otherwise, with fewer uses located within each block, instead of one mile each way, you are looking at five miles one way to take care of things that people would be willing to make a one mile trip for, and they won't do it if they can use an automobile. It would make a more attractive situation for business owners to set up shop with expectations of more potential customers if there were more of them living adjacent to the site. Also, if expectations of automobile usage decreased, city regulations may reduce the parking requirements for many uses, freeing up more lot area to be used for a building or whatever the owner wants to put up on the site. Traffic analysis shows that parking lots here in downtown are rarely used at more than 40% capacity as is, so setting aside so much land for parking is just a waste of resources and a burden on small business owners. We could pare away some of that land and reallocate it to higher density housing without putting undue strain on the existing infrastructure.

I realize I've gone off on a bit of a tangent here, and what I've said is largely based on limited experience of southern California, but the basic point is that urban contraction to a density that is still far below most large cities would enable significantly more efficient resource utilization and facilitate socializing for citizens of many small cities without putting any severe strain on available technologies. It would only be a net gain for agriculture as conventionally practiced by freeing up resources. So this whole written effluent is merely in response to the statement that higher densities are incompatible with agriculture.

[The Yosemite Bear]

we really should have more commuter trains like Europe and Japan. That way the idiots that can't turn their cell phones off won't be driving....

[KrauserKrauser]

What, exactly, is the goal of taxation/fees for roads?

If the sole goal is to maintain a large system of roads then direct taxation may be the favored choices. If funds for a large infrastructure project are needed - comparable to the building of the US Interstate Highway System, for example - then direct taxation may be the only feasible method and the only fair one given the broad impact of such an initiative.

However, fees imposed on direct users, such as fuel taxes, may serve other purposes than merely fund raising. A locally higher fuel tax may be a means of discouraging driving in congested areas. A higher tax imposed on fuels used by vehicles such as a large trucks may compensate for the additional wear such vehicles impose on the system. If you have multiple goals then multiple levels of taxation may, in fact, be the best system overall even if it's not entirely neat and tidy.

Agreed. I was mainly approaching it on the first point but definitely see the merit of point #2. Increased flexibility in taxation might justify the increased expense.

[Saxtonite]

It's not sustainable either environmentally nor socially. I'm for that sort of change but you're going a lot further than is ever going to be readily accepted.

how are suburbs not sustainable socially? I know of the various environmental problems (depleting aquifers, too many lawns, etc) but how socially?

The same is not true of suburbs, which are ridiculously spread out.

What about Edge cities? They can be pretty built up and urbanized but still be suburbs.

Sure, some areas have restrictions, most notably around O'Hare (where it's a safety issue more than "social tyrants"), but as Wong pointed out you can achieve pretty high density with moderate rise buildings. You don't need "sky towers".

Aren't there a lot of edge cities in the suburbs close/in the general area to O'Hare? Not blatantly next to O'Hare yes but there are several edge cities in the nearby area and through the Northern and Western Chicago Suburbs

Of course, these are old suburbs, built up back in the twenties and thirties. Modern suburbs make it almost impossible to do anything in a reasonable amount of time without driving

Hmm. That's something I noticed, often the inner suburbs tend to be just like the city in their design and grid. Sometimes they end up like the city in crime rates, etc. Some suburbs can be just as bad as the central city.

[Alyeska]

Public transportation in my area is improving. Also, the city is trying to encourage more people to bicycle to work. I myself ride my bike more often then not. When you live a mile from work, there is really no excuse for driving. And if this is creating a problem for the oil and automotive industries, good. They need to refocus their efforts. Companies that don't adapt to a changing world die.