Smart growthers and other rail nuts love to talk about how rising fuel prices are leading people to ride mass transit. The truth is that, in March, 2008, driving experienced one of the greatest declines in history (from March of the previous year), but mass transit ridership also declined. So people are hardly taking transit as a substitute for driving.
Instead, says Nielsen, people are spending less on discretionary items, combining trips, and buying in-store brands instead of name-brand items. Riding transit? Not so much.
Here are some of the responses people have given to Nielsen surveys in June 2006, 2007, and 2008 (for more details, download thePDF of Nielsen’s press release):
How are you responding to higher fuel prices?
Survey 6/06 6/07 6/08
About 18% wanted to address buy viagra online djpaulkom.tv male and female vitality. A group was largely made up of men that are found with diabetes type 1 and those who try consumption of oral ED medications have been reporting that there is a bit of truth in this warning. levitra properien Some people remain sexually aroused throughout their djpaulkom.tv cheap levitra life, but others are not happy with their love life. Erectile dysfunction is one among some very common sexual problem amongst young men these days. tablet viagra Trip chaining 68 68 78
Eat out less 39 38 52
Shop more at supercenters 26 23 28
Buy less expensive brands 22 19 35
Use transit more 4 3 4
Carpool more - 5 7
First of all, hardly anyone is saying they are riding transit more. Second, the same number who said they were riding transit more in 2006 are saying it today. By comparison, 13-14 percent more people are saying the are eating out less, 10 percent more are saying they are trip chaining, and 13-16 percent more say they are buying less expensive brands.
A couple of weeks ago the House of Representatives approved the so-called Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, which doesn’t save energy but subsidizes transit agencies that are, in many cases, wasting energy. Nielsen’s surveys suggest the government could save more energy by subsidizing people who eat at home or shop at one-stop-shopping centers instead of multiple stores.
Dallas Morning News today reports that Record numbers hopping on DART
The front page report opens with this sentence:
“More weekday riders boarded DART’s light-rail and commuter trains in June than ever in the agency’s 25-year history.
Only on the inside page continuation do we learn that average weekday light rail ridership in June was a mere 70,000. As DART counts every unlinked trip as a single rider, we can confidently point out that no more than 35,000 round-trip passengers ride DART’s light rail train each day. That’s less than 2 percent of the over two million daily commuters in DART’s service area. But of course, Dallas Morning News never reports that over 1,965,000 commuters do not use light rail trains.
Dallas Morning News never reminds its readership that the 1983 campaign propaganda from DART promised that light rail would remove 150,000 cars from the roadways. Today, 25 years later after collecting $5 billion in dedicated sales taxes, DART light rail has achieved but 23% of the goal it promised when voters authorized the train tax. Predictably, DART and its media propagandist newspapers have launched an all out campaign for more rail funding as a solution to roadway congestion.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9732561
Ridership on Regional Transportation District buses and trains was up about 10 percent January through April compared with the same period a year ago.
The same trend is occurring nationally.
Light-rail ridership across the country jumped 10.3 percent in the first quarter while commuter rail use rose 5.7 percent, and heavy, subway-style train ridership was up 4.4 percent, according to the American Public Transportation Association.
Notice in the survey two items: people “eat out less” and “shop more at supercenters”. The AP rejoices that people are not moving over to transit, but does not remark on the deleterious effects of these two other phenomena, which both must be doing wonders for American businesses. I’ve noticed at a lot of restaurants that even on Friday night, you can walk right in today where a year ago it would have been hopping. The economy is going to go down the tubes if trends like this continue.
My big question, as always: just how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their cars? Now we have people making everyday sacrifices just so that they don’t have to drive, sacrifices that negatively impact their lives and the lives of businesses. When are we going to realize as a collective whole that it’s our suburban form that is ruining us?
Of course, people can’t ride transit if it isn’t available. Considerably less than 50% have direct access to frequent bus transit, and considerably less than 10% have direct access to any form of rail transit. Of course direct access to transit isn’t evidence that any more capacity is available for significant numbers of additional riders. So the case that “people aren’t switching to transit” could actually be “the few people with direct access to transit are riding it in greater numbers where capacity is available.” But of course only a few data points, results from polls, etc., has never stopped The Antiplanner from inferring causation.
“people can’t ride transit if it isn’t available. Considerably less than 50% have direct access to frequent bus transit, and considerably less than 10% have direct access to any form of rail transit.”
Right. So all other cities shouold spend $5 billion to replicate the rail system here in Dallas so that 1.8 percent of commuters can get a cheap ride. But I’m sure the answer from the anti-automobile crowd will be “If we just spend more money …”
Right. So all other cities shouold spend $5 billion to replicate the rail system here in Dallas so that 1.8 percent of commuters can get a cheap ride.
Yes! And stop wasting money on urban freeway expansion, like some auto apologists want to do in many cities, despite recent declines in auto usage. Times are changing, gasoline prices are very likely to stay at relatively high levels, and liquid transportation fuel production has essentially peaked despite the transparent lies of the Saudis about how much more oil they claim they can produce.
Under such circumstances, massive investment in transit expansion is needed; to some extent “pluggable hybrids” will help, but it will take 20 years to turn over the current vehicle fleet, and it appears unlikely that such vehicles will be less expensive than current vehicles and all their negative externalities (most of which are NOT mitigated by changing power sources), even if they manage to get the cost of batteries down to, say, $500 per KwH of storage.
Now I don’t expect the facts cited above will make much headway with the auto apologists that regularly comment here, but then I usually comment here mainly for sport.
“Ridership on Regional Transportation District buses and trains was up about 10 percent January through April compared with the same period a year ago.
The Denver Regional Transit District reported that light rail ridership last September was setting records at 61,000 a day. That’s about 30,500 round trip passengers. So if train ridership increased 10 percent, that would mean 3,050 more Denver commuters are “jumping on those trains”. Why haven’t the other million or so Denver commuters who remain in their cars gotten the anti-automobile message yet?
Why haven’t the other million or so Denver commuters who remain in their cars gotten the anti-automobile message yet?
Can someone provide figures regarding transit accessibility for the million or so Denver commuters who remain in their cars?
“but then I usually comment here mainly for sport.”
Expect to be ignored, then.
Highway spending(a.k.a where Mr.O’Toole gets his funding from) must be drasticly cut if we want to have any semblance of a market based transport policy on this continent.
“Can someone provide figures regarding transit accessibility for the million or so Denver commuters who remain in their cars?
I’m sure the few billions invested so far by Denver Regional Transit District doesn’t provide light rail access to all 2.4 million Denver metro residents. But that’s a lot of bucks, and certainly it must provide access for a lot more than the 34,000 who are riding the trains.
At a current projected cost of $6 billion one can only hope that Denver’s FasTracks program will eventually attract many times the 34,000 now riding it. Given the Dallas experience with light rail, though, I wouldn’t bet on it.
hkelly1 asked:
“My big question, as always: just how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their cars?”
Where there is no realistic alternative – until they snap in half.
“Highway spending(a.k.a where Mr.O’Toole gets his funding from) must be drasticly cut if we want to have any semblance of a market based transport policy on this continent.’
Almost all highway spending in the U.S. is funded by gasoline taxes, tolls, and auto registrations. They pay for all the fuel they use. In other words, the highway users pay for the cost of their highway trips. By contrast, transit riders pay only a fraction of the cost of their commutes. Further, the transit riders benefit greatly from highway users such as food trucks, police cars, ambulances, garbage trucks, etc.
Yeah, let’s introduce some semblance of a market to commute options. Make the transit users pay just as the highway users pay.
Expect to be ignored, then.
By you? Good.
Perhaps 10% of the residents of greater Denver live have direct access to light rail. Even when the entire system currently contemplated is completed, most people will still have to rely on feeder buses or park and ride access.
Contrary to what some auto apologists might try to claim on this blog, I’ve never advocated “rail everywhere” but rather “rail everywhere it makes sense.” I am also a strong advocate for frequent bus service, preferably electric, in corridors where there is insufficient potential patronage to justify rail, which is most corridors in most U.S. urban areas. See http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/LRToversell.htm
for “Beware of LRT Oversell” and
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48
for “Beware of BRT Oversell.”
““My big question, as always: just how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their cars?â€Â
Americans will move closer to workplaces. Americans will buy more efficient vehicles. Some Americans will begin to car pool. Americans will telecommute and shift to four day workweeks. But Americans are not in any large numbers going to give up the freedom of personal transport.
“Americans will move closer to workplaces. Americans will buy more efficient vehicles. Some Americans will begin to car pool. Americans will telecommute and shift to four day workweeks. But Americans are not in any large numbers going to give up the freedom of personal transport.”
No one at all, not even Smart Growthers, is asking anyone to “give up” anything. Form-based codes willingly acknowledge the importance of the car as part of American life, and devote significant attention to street design, parking, driveways, etc. Why is it that so many people think accepting transit means giving up your car???
I read an article about the city of Berlin – there, most families own one car. They live in four- and five- story garden apartment type buildings with ready access to Berlin’s transit system. The transit is used for work, school, daily shopping needs, etc. The car is used on the weekends for trips into the country, a trip to Ikea or their version of Costco, etc., etc. Most transit advocates (or at least the sane ones) are advocating for this model – why is it that people seem to confuse this way of thinking with the idea that cars will be extricated from our society? This is an irrational interpretation of a move toward lesser dependence on the automobile.
“gasoline prices are very likely to stay at relatively high levels, and liquid transportation fuel production has essentially peaked despite the transparent lies of the Saudis about how much more oil they claim they can produce”
How long did you have to rub your crystals balls before that fantasy squirted out?
Not only do you assert knowing the best way for people to form communities, you now also have developed the ability to discern future commodity prices, and acquired intimate knowledge on Saudi state secrets?
Now wonder you comment here only for sport…you’re evidently very, very busy pulling stuff out of your ass. But, when you do drop by, expected to ridiculed like the midnight-radio wackjob you are. Ludicrous beliefs woven into an intricate tapestry of impending doom, unless we awaken to embrace sacrifices to your expanding power. Yeah, Setty, you are perfect for Coast-to-Coast AM.
“Why is it that so many people think accepting transit means giving up your car?”
Because all y’all communal transit buffoons fetishize the auto. What you want folks to give up is not “the carâ€Â, but the freedom of travel when and where they want to go, in a personalized environment insulated from people like Setty and Dan.
The technique is always scolding and legislation, rather than persuasion and cooperation. The evil car (and the luxurious lifestyle it is part of) is killing polar bears and making Al Gore obese. We must huddle together as hostages to transport unions and as terrorist targets because Berlin/London/Portland/Unicornville does so, and they’re soooo progressive.
Screw that. People don’t have access to communal transport because nobody wants to pay for it. When land and wealth is abundant, people want to get away from 5-story garden apartments. Except for some trivial percentage of hipsters and Europhiles.
People think y’all want to eliminate cars because: a) some of you loons actually do aim there, and, b) goons like Setty throw around the term “auto apologist”. As if cars are little pieces of dog crap stuck on society’s shoes. There’s nothing to apologize for. The freedom auto transport facilitates is a point of pride, not shame. Refuting garbage arguments is not making an apology, it is defending truth.
Shame should fall on governments, for funding both roads and communal transport. And on government’s minions, who pretend to be civic-minded while using their place at the public trough to drain ever more productive effort out of the economy.
hkelly1, July 16th at 4:37 AM: “The car has become our nation’s “crutch—
hkelly1, July 18th at 10:27 am: “how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their cars?”
hkelly1, July 18th at 12:28 pm: “No one at all, not even Smart Growthers, is asking anyone to “give up†anything. Form-based codes willingly acknowledge the importance of the car as part of American life”
Forgive me, but those statements have left me a bit confused about what point you were making earlier. I’m not saying the statements are inconsistent. I’m just a little confused when I take them all together.
Smart growth advocates may not be explicitly stating that they want Americans to give up their cars. But some have certainly tried to make automobile usage much more expensive. And they definitely have tried – in some cases succeeded – in preventing the rest of us from living where we want to live.
foxmarks,
Something inside me inhibits me from expressing myself as bluntly as you have. But I agree with everything you just wrote. Maybe sometimes we need to be so blunt to get our point across.
Foxmarks:
Because all y’all communal transit buffoons fetishize the auto.
No, it is the likes of you who fetishize the automobile and think “mobility” is so sacred. “Auto apologist” is an apt description of those who make excuses for the objects of their fetish, denying the documented negative impacts of mass automobility. If you think Dan and I are “goons” because I want the negative externalities of automobiles to be priced into the act of driving, including my own, I can’t help you in your deficiencies in political vocabulary.
Also, “auto apologists” is an accurate description of what you do. “Transit buffoons” is simply an insult. “Auto apologists” is a phrase similar to the claim recently made by Stan Staley that “transit is an inferior good” in the blinkered jargon of economics.
You obviously believe the fantasy that the current state of transportation affairs is all a result of the “free market” as opposed to the Stalinist-style approach of Robert Moses, and the still far too many transportation technocrats that still share his “Stalinist Road” attitudes. I’d give you a history lesson of how urban transportation developed in this country, but I have better things to do that arguing with a pig-headed, attitude-challenged auto apologist who’ll apparently never “get it” about geological reality.
As for “five story apartment blocks” such as in Berlin, I actually advocate U.S. and Canadian-style streetcar suburbs where a large percentage of people can still have single family houses, as well as railroad suburbs. For the record, in Australia–which has most of the same cultural attitudes towards automobiles, single family houses, and the like–transit had something like 80%-90% of the motorized urban travel market until the late 1950’s, despite the fact that about 90% of urban Australians lived in detached single family houses at that time. There is no strict conflict between high transit usage and a high percentage of single family housing in English-speaking countries.
A few years ago some auto apologists (I forgot who exactly) tried to make a cost-benefit case for the automobile, claiming that the “benefits” of personal automobility were worth something on the order of $4-$5 trillion annually in the U.S. alone. But their analysis begged the question, if automobility is so treasured, then aren’t people also willing to pay to mitigate the negative impacts, which has been identified by various sources as something around $1 trillion or so annually on to of costs paid directly by drivers? But of course, in the land of the suburban-based “American Dream” no one wants to admit that trade-offs exist.
Every fact I have quoted has been documented by highly credible sources. You obviously haven’t seen the latest Business Week article regarding Saudi oil production. If you want to learn something about the oil industry, I suggest a regular reading of The Oil Drum. Matthew Simmons, a long time investment banker to the oil industry, is being increasingly proven correct in his assertions about “peak oil,” in particular his points about Saudi Arabia’s oil production.
For an excellent, objective, and descriptive analysis of the intellectual contradictions faced by auto apologists, see papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999829, “Automobility and the Liberal Disposition” (“liberal” in the classically liberal, 19th century sense), particularly pages 118-119.
No, it is the likes of you who fetishize the automobile and think “mobility†is so sacred. “Auto apologist†is an apt description of those who make excuses for the objects of their fetish, denying the documented negative impacts of mass automobility.
On top of that, a recent Yurpean study using mobile phone tracking found that folks are creatures of habit (huh) and vary little from a set routine. Auto fraydum and mobil’ty for the good auto patriots is thus found again to be illusory. IOW: most reg’lur folk don’t need unlimited auto fraydum.
DS
Most people’s day to day habbits are at least somewhat uniform. We have the same jobs, attend the same schools, shop at the same stores etc from day to day. However, the question is, could mass transit take us where we want to go anywhere near as quickly or conveniently as an automobile, even taking into account automobile congestion. For most people, the answer is a resounding no. While any given individual may travel to similar destinations most days, different individuals, even in the same neighborhood, want to go a wide variety of places at a wide variety of times. This places mass transit at a huge disadvantage.
One more thing Dan. Your habbit of slurring those who don’t agree with you or are impertinent enough to desire the mobility of an automobile by misspelling your words as you discuss their opinions make you appear arrogant and ignorant. It is up to you, but I would stop it.
Here’s a person who says he’s a “free market” type indirectly supporting part of my position in a broadside against The Antiplanner:
marketurbanism.com/2008/06/06/free-market-impostors/,
“Cato senior fellow Randal O’Toole writes: “A mile of rail transit line typically costs more to build than a four- to eight-lane freeway and typically carries fewer than half as many people as a single freeway lane mile. Federal funding for rail transit comes out of gasoline taxes and other highway user fees, and in most cases those funds would be more cost effective if spent on other transportation facilities.â€Â
Does this sound particularly “free market†to you? He’s just saying one socialist system is better than the other. On top of that he consistently presents only half the facts. You don’t even have to dig into his sources of data to know he is pulling a trick on the reader. Can you detect the deceptions?
Yep, he discusses construction costs and completely neglects land costs, then focuses on cost/mile (as opposed to the more relevant cost/trip), while falsely inferring that the costs of automobile use is fully paid by fees and gas tax.
Out in the country, land may be cheap and costs can be neglected. But, in urban areas where transit becomes more competitive, land is significantly more expensive. If one neglects land costs, one could justify tearing down several 60 story, $1000/sf office buildings Midtown Manhattan to build a 10 lane highway instead of an underground subway.
Why is this free market think tank so eager to endorse highway socialism? And, if it’s not an endorsement, why not argue against roads too?
“Because all y’all communal transit buffoons fetishize the auto. What you want folks to give up is not “the carâ€Â, but the freedom of travel when and where they want to go, in a personalized environment insulated from people like Setty and Dan.”
This is just too easy…
I write a post in which I express a vision of a model where the car exists alongside other transit options. I try to lay it out in a non-incendiary way. I try to show respect for what the automobile has contributed while questioning the ubiquity it demands for itself in today’s USA.
You respond with name-calling and declaring that people with this opinion are trying to “take away the freedom” of transportation. You then go into a discussion of just how great the car is and how foolish it is for governments to fund any sort of transit… now wait a second… shouldn’t people ahve the freedom to choose between a car, a bus, a train, walking, etc.??? Oh wait… your vision of “freedom” only includes the car and nothing else… how ironic. There is NO freedom for the majority of people in suburbia… they are FORCED into cars.
hkelly1, July 18th at 12:28 pm: “No one at all, not even Smart Growthers, is asking anyone to “give up†anything. Form-based codes willingly acknowledge the importance of the car as part of American lifeâ€Â
John Dewey –> “Forgive me, but those statements have left me a bit confused about what point you were making earlier. I’m not saying the statements are inconsistent. I’m just a little confused when I take them all together.”
(forgive me – I don’t know how to use the italicized quoting system that others use on here)
My point is that our world is built around cars, it requires cars, it leaves no other alternative for all but a few to use cars. I would like to see us move toward a world where the car is a wonderful tool that we can use as we please, not because we are forced to use it by our development patterns. I just find it so damn ironic that people on here constantly fawn over the “freedom of mobility” a car offers, without acknowledging the fact that it IS the only option in suburbia. Now THAT sounds like communism to me… you are “free to choose” the only choice there is!
I would love to see a USA where everyone can actually choose how they want to live, whether that be in apartment buildings, townhomes, courtyard housing, single family, co-ops, whatever. I don’t love the USA where single-use zoning and car-oriented ordinances prevent everything except suburbia.
As for your comment that some moves by Smart Growthers have succeeded “in preventing the rest of us from living where we want to live”, I find that sincerely hard to believe… the US is covered in cul-de-sac neighborhoods and gated enclaves. The small portion of the US that Smart Growth has affected can’t possibly have struck down every available opportunity for you to find that.
Also: has anyone actually looked at a Smart Growth/TND transect? You’ll notice that T-3 is suburbia, single family homes, residential only… just like the “American Dream”… it’s coded in there! And when you look at their plans, a large amount of area is typically zoned for this use. I cannot understand why people think that “dream” that they have will be utterly eradicated by a form-based code.
“Can someone provide figures regarding transit accessibility for the million or so Denver commuters who remain in their cars? ” –D4P
Good question. I wish I knew. I don’t know how access is defined since, at least here, the LRT projects depend on cars and have large parking ramps at most stations. I’m having a bad time with google right now. I know I’ve seen projects on the number of jobs and residents that would be within 1/2 mile of a Fastracks stations. They’re out there. Sorry.
The “Saving energy through public transportation act”. That kind of silliness has Jim Oberstar’s name all over it.
A few months ago The Antiplanner quoted something like 28% of Denver region jobs would be within 0.5 mile of Fasttrak stations once the system is completed. I don’t know what percentage of residents are estimated to be within 0.5 mile, but I’m sure significantly less than 28%. The actual number is certainly buried somewhere on the Denver RTD/Fasttrak website.
Randal?
hkelly1 asked:
“My big question, as always: just how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their cars?â€Â
What makes you so sure it is the price of gasoline that is causing Americans to make these changes? Without seeing the actual questionnaire we can’t be certain that the respondents were entirely focused on the actual wording of the question. If this question had been preceded by questions on consumer confidence or other rising prices, especially household energy, then the responses would be influenced by those earlier questions. It’s impossible to completely remove this effect from any survey because of the way human thought works. The results seem consistent with Neilsen’s consumer confidence survey results.
http://www.nielsen.com/solutions/GlobalReportConsumerConfidence2ndHalf07.pdf
The responses are likely to have been to the wider percieved question “How are you responding to higher fuel prices and other household budget pressures?”
FHwA VMT stats show abrupt changes in the long term trends in Oct ’07 and March ’08. Bureau of Labour Statistics CPI stats show that gasoline prices abruptly increased a month after the vmt drop, but household energy prices surged in the month before the vmt drop.
Curiously the big drop in vmt in March also occurred in New Zealand along with an abrupt shift in supermarket purchase behaviour described as “like someone flicked a switch”.
Maybe you asked the wrong question. Try “Just how far are Americans going to bend over backwards for their homes?â€Â
hkelly1 wrote:
“No one at all, not even Smart Growthers, is asking anyone to “give up†anything.”
Alas, as the density of dwellings increases, the use of the car declines slower than the amount of road-space. The real issue about smart growth is whether or not we can decline car use faster than the amount of road space. If yes, then smart growth will work better than sprawl. If not, then the urban sprawlers have a real point.
hkell1 wrote:
“(forgive me – I don’t know how to use the italicized quoting system that others use on here)”
That makes two of us. It would be nice if Antiplanner could explain how this text system works.
foxmarks wrote:
“Except for some trivial percentage of hipsters and Europhiles.”
I’ll admit to the second one.
foxmarks wrote:
“As if cars are little pieces of dog crap stuck on society’s shoes. There’s nothing to apologize for. The freedom auto transport facilitates is a point of pride, not shame.”
That’s the problem with the debate, it’s so polarised. In a free market, if people want to buy cars, they should be able to, without apologising for anything. It’s perfectly legal. The government sets the rules, and if the rules are wrong then the rules are changed.
At the same time, I don’t see how cars provide ‘freedom’. Cars have many nice features, but they also have features that are not so nice. They are too big, so that not only is a lot of land set aside for parking, but also when one car in a lane gets stuck, the ones behind can’t get past – which is where traffic jams come from. Cars driving at speed through an urban area slice it up into little islands.
Cars required a competent driver (even though that isn’t how some people’s driving looks, admittedly). So young people don’t have independent freedom, nor do older people. It also requires a lot of money, so no freedom today for poor people. What ever happened to one nation before God? Is this now an advertising slogan? On my travels in the UK, I met one old lady living in a village. She moved in when there was a good bus service, but when the bus service was withdrawn (most people use cars) she ended up trapped in her own home. She couldn’t even make it to the local shops.
Cars provide the freedom to get places more easily. This is okay for a while, but then those places move away (because they can, since everyone has a car – obviously). The old corner shops of my youth are gone. I don’t feel that my freedom has improved. The lower costs of warehouse shopping (unmitigated by the increased costs of driving one or more cars) means that this won’t change anytime soon.
Cars enable the sprawling suburbs. These are attractive because they enable people to get away from each other. People want to get away from each other because of a basic lack of laws which dictate how people interract, which makes high density living unpleasant. How about writing some laws instead, controlling levels of noise, etc? The problem is that the freedom to make noise is as illusiory as the freedom to drive. You end up with a society that does not meet the potential of the citizens, and a society that can be greatly improved.
Francis King -> “Alas, as the density of dwellings increases, the use of the car declines slower than the amount of road-space. The real issue about smart growth is whether or not we can decline car use faster than the amount of road space. If yes, then smart growth will work better than sprawl. If not, then the urban sprawlers have a real point.”
It’s not even a question of “declining car use”. I’m living for a summer in a former “streetcar suburb” of New Haven, CT. The area is 1.3 miles from the Green. The house is a big ole wood Arts & Crafts house, that sits on about a 50 x 110 or 120 lot. Most houses here are either two family (duplex), or are like this one, single family with an apartment on the third floor. The houses mostly have narrow driveways, many leading to 1 or 2 car garages in back.
My point is that this form of suburbia confers the same benefits as sprawl. I have a car, my roommate has a car, and the landlord couple has 3 cars! Their cars are in the garage/driveway, and ours fit fine on a street that has almost 20 houses in one block but parking on one side only… I’ve never had trouble finding a space. So there is plenty of room for everyone, and they have a nice backyard for barbecues, and it’s just residential in the immediate vicinity.
But we get so so much more than sprawl just by living here. I walk to work and the dad walks to work. My roommate rides a bike to his job at Yale. If the weather is bad, or we’re late or don’t feel like it, there is a fairly well-used bus along the old streetcar route that takes us downtown. Yale also provides a free shuttle to its students and faculty that stops on this street.
We also have the amazing benefit of having a nearby “neighborhood street” within 1.5 blocks that has a few markets and restaurants, so that we rarely have to use a car during a given week.
I don’t think anyone in this neighborhood would claim that their car use is inhibited in any way… it’s just another, denser form of what has become sprawl. This system removes waste – the sharing of driveways, the much smaller lots, the logical grid, and the mix of uses, and no need for parking lots at the stores… since most people walk, the on-street parking serves them fine.
People on here act as though Smart Growth wants to take the car and remove it from our psyche and our lives… yet here in New Haven we have what is “T-3” on the transect and there are FIVE vehicles owned by this home and not one complaint about parking them or driving.
I am head over heels in love with the fact that I can walk to work or take a very convenient bus every single day… and maybe I’m wrong, but I think that if opportunities like this were actually available to more people in the US, they would embrace them as well.
People on blogs like this claim that suburbia is the far and away the favored choice for almost all Americans – they cite numbers that 90% of growth in the past years has occurred there. I find this fact disingenuous and ironic: sprawl is what is coded in most communities, so it’s the only thing that CAN be built; sprawl is so ubiquitous that it’s fast becoming the only thing most Americans know and understand, so like the car, it has become a “free choice” to choose suburbia out of a set of only one possible choice… nice system.
The latest edition of Access magazine is out, which addresses similar issues.
http://www.uctc.net/access/access32.pdf
hkelly1 said:
“It’s not even a question of “declining car useâ€Â. ”
Yes it is. Further down you say:
“We also have the amazing benefit of having a nearby “neighborhood street†within 1.5 blocks that has a few markets and restaurants, so that we rarely have to use a car during a given week.”
That is more typical of a city like Bath, UK than the most car-dependent cities in the USA. The point is, that if you squash sprawl, together with the car dependency, onto a smaller lot, then there will be just as many people and cars, fighting over narrower roads and smaller junctions. It won’t even work if part of the urban area is down-sized (e.g. a dense central business district), since the urban sprawl will dump a large number of cars onto the narrow roads. This then forces people out into more sprawl.
I hope that you fight to defend your neighbourhood. If the local shops are rationalised out then you will have much higher levels of car use. Bath, UK has two supermarkets trying to gain a foothold. I would appreciate more shopping choice, and lower prices, and it would be far more convenient for me – but do I really want more cars in what is supposed to be a heritage city? So far the council is defending the smaller neighbourhood shops, and on balance I support their position. If only I shopped there more often…
If your circumstance are typical in your neighbourhood, it might be worth someone setting up a car share scheme, where you share the use of a car, paying every time you use it. You would end up with lower costs, and a nicer car to drive.
hkelly1 said:
“The house is a big ole wood Arts & Crafts house, that sits on about a 50 x 110 or 120 lot. Most houses here are either two family (duplex), or are like this one, single family with an apartment on the third floor. The houses mostly have narrow driveways, many leading to 1 or 2 car garages in back.”
I guess it’s a matter of local culture and history – but 3-storey housing has more appeal for me. Terraced, with a decent cavity between the properties. Such housing can be dense, whilst giving everyone their own front door, gardens etc. With a basement, and a roof garden, it could be very special. There are some very nice examples of this kind of housing (sans roof garden) in Bath.
Pingback: American Dream News » Is Mass Transit Beating Up Auto Driving?
msetty said:
Yes! And stop wasting money on urban freeway expansion, like some auto apologists want to do in many cities, despite recent declines in auto usage. Times are changing, gasoline prices are very likely to stay at relatively high levels, and liquid transportation fuel production has essentially peaked despite the transparent lies of the Saudis about how much more oil they claim they can produce.
Where is urban freeway expansion taking place?
Your comment about declines in auto usage reminds me of what promoters of the Washington Metrorail system said in the 1970’s. Turns out they were wrong.
Why do you think that liquid transportation fuel production has essentially peaked?
Under such circumstances, massive investment in transit expansion is needed; to some extent “pluggable hybrids†will help, but it will take 20 years to turn over the current vehicle fleet, and it appears unlikely that such vehicles will be less expensive than current vehicles and all their negative externalities (most of which are NOT mitigated by changing power sources), even if they manage to get the cost of batteries down to, say, $500 per KwH of storage.
Where is the money for massive investment in transit expansion going to come from?
Now I don’t expect the facts cited above will make much headway with the auto apologists that regularly comment here, but then I usually comment here mainly for sport.
Why should you be taken seriously?
cars = freedom even at $4.00 a gallon
I just got back from the coast and it cost me $20.00 to get there and $20.00 to drive home at 11:00 pm last night.
I left when I wanted and came home when I needed to.
The auto is the greatest invention for freedom loving people.
I’d rather be a slave to the freedom that my car gives me, than to a transit schedule and routs that don’t go to where I’m going.
Get real, gas taxes only pay for a small part of road funding, the rest comes from income and property taxes.
Pretty much the only reason why we have income taxes today is because of the current highway welfare system.
The auto is the greatest invention for freedom loving people
Even greater than the gun…?
highwayman
I’m all for abolishing the income tax and only use, user fees for transportation.
Only transit users fees ( or fare box) can be used for transit and only auto and truck fees ( fuel ,weight and mile , registration, and tolls ect) can be used for roads.
I don’t think the transit community would go for giving up all the freebees they get from the rest of us that don’t use transit
But I got a feeling that transportation is a very small part of our income taxes.
C.P. Ziilicus:
Why should you be taken seriously?
As I said, I don’t care if you take me seriously or not.
But why should I take your philosophy seriously when it has so many conceptual errors and contradictions you can drive a bus through, as the “Automobility and the Liberal Disposition” paper by Sudhir Chella Rajan I referenced earlier points out in detail? If you want to understand the viewpoint of your opponents, you need to read them. I have read a lot of libertarian and “classical liberal” publications that support your viewpoint over the years, but that doesn’t mean I agree.
And as I said, there are plenty of contradictions. If we’re talking about the automobile/highway system, there’s the moral/ethical issue of individual freedom it allegedly provides, versus the heavily documented negatives also discussed by Rajan. if we’re talking about economics and ecology, there is the profound disconnect between the fantasies of people like Julian Simon and the actual state of the planet’s environment–things that can be measured empirically by scientific means but almost completely ignored by the religious devotees of Friedman, Haykek, Simon et al.
HKelly 1 at 33:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but “1.3 miles from the Green” is not and has never been a “form of suburbia” in the sense we use it today (BTW, a true A & C house in NH is very rare, congratulations). However, nabes of multi-family homes with driveway or alley entry for cars with public transit access are not at all untypical in northeastern, central atlantic, and midwestern US cities (Milford, right down the road from you, has similar). Most do not have the right types of people or sufficient level of bobo amenities to satisfy the Project for Public Spaces types and hence are generally ignored by the planning community unless they can be converted to transit villages or sold out to the likes of Forest City Ratner. The options have been and are still out there.
As you noted in part, New Haven has every public transit option and auto disincentive that can be conceived by the deterministic mind of the modern planner; excellent intra-and-inter city bus service plus commuter and high-speed rail, coupled with annual personal property taxes on car ownership, the highest gas prices in the nation even before the recent spike, and a highway policy based on the “adding capacity increases congestion” superstition. However attractive NH is for a summer student or a Doc doing his or her residency at Y-NH Hosp., population density and heavy public transit dependence equals high taxes and cost of living expenses with lengthy (time, not distance)and uncomfortable commutes. Check what your landlord is paying in real estate taxes, the condition of the local public schools, and crime rates compared to your neighbors on the east, west, and north. The result for New Haven (and soon CT as a whole) is net domestic migration; if you want home and hearth, Charlotte (and not San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle) starts to look mighty attractive (viz census).
Point for the thread is that Americans may drive less or buy more efficient cars (with the ironic effect of generating less money for public transit), as long as we have the option to change employment or residence and can trade off auto expense against improvement of quality of life, price punishment is not going to push us back on the bus in any numbers that matter.
the highwayman, What planet are you beaming in from?
Unowho–> “However attractive NH is for a summer student or a Doc doing his or her residency at Y-NH Hosp., population density and heavy public transit dependence equals high taxes and cost of living expenses with lengthy (time, not distance)and uncomfortable commutes. Check what your landlord is paying in real estate taxes, the condition of the local public schools, and crime rates compared to your neighbors on the east, west, and north.”
I have asked my landlord. The property taxes here are quite high, yes, but the property value of the house is also significantly higher because of its preserved quality and size. In fact, the ratio of taxes to value is actually the same as the sprawl where I used to live on Long Island, where subdivisions of single-family homes reign supreme. I think more of it is a matter of living in the Northeast than anything else.
As for your comment about an “uncomfortable” commute – that is certainly just an opinion. I don’t find a Metro-North train any less comfortable than a car – and I can read, sleep, or work, instead of having to worry about the manic Northeast driver in the lane next to me.
Apparently you’re greatly enjoying your stay. I liked New Haven too when I lived there a ways back. I have no idea what “ratio of taxes to value” means, except that New Haven’s RE tax mil rate is about the twice the average of cities and towns in Fairfield County with median housing prices at about 50% of same and falling faster. I do agree that perceived housing value and commuting “comfort” are matters of opinion, and it is the opinion of the city’s residents that life is better somewhere else. My statement above was incorrect; both New Haven and CT have negative outmigration, and NH has stagnant population growth with a definite lack of
prospects
The northeast is losing population and influence and the only answers proposed are more of the same, all based on the same misinformation about transit preferences criticized by AP above.
Unowho, It is highly likely that retiring baby boomers are the cause of the North-East’s population loss if (big if)those baby boomers originally migrated there from other regions for high paying jobs in whatever fields were concentrated in the Northeast in past decades.
My theory is based on agglomeration economics concentrating high paid jobs in certain indutries into favoured areas. People have to move from other regions to enjoy those high paying jobs. If that industry becomes less important over time or becomes top heavy with old-timers then eventually the reason people moved there disappears and people move back to their old home towns or to somewhere warmer and/or cheaper. The retirement effect.
If the old top careers (such as specialist medicine) are replaced with new ones in new regions (such as Silicon Valley) then these retirees aren’t replaced, median wages fall, dragging median house prices down with them.
A variation on this effect can be observed in demographic profiles of “head office” cities. Their populations tend to be heavily concentrated in the 20-60 age bracket. Often those climbing the corporate ladder only reach head office after the kids have left home and have no reason to stay after they retire. Provided agglomeration is still occurring this effect isn’t important enough to be noticed because retirees are replaced by new ladder-climbers.
Perhaps this is a bit cynical, but if fast growing, high income regions believe that people are flocking there because it is “such an attractive place to live” when in reality it is simply agglomeration at work then they are going to be completely flumoxed when the agglomeration reverses and people begin “fleeing” the area and it becomes poorer. More probably than not the original growth had nothing to do with anything provided by planners but the city just happened to be in the right place at the right time for the particular industry to cluster there. That means no amount of “planning” is going to stop the trend from reversing.
16 On July 18th, 2008, hkelly1 said:
No one at all, not even Smart Growthers, is asking anyone to “give up†anything.
Here in SF Bay area MTC Metropolitian Transportation Commission is proposing increasing the costs of driving five times by fees to get people out of cars. There is a war on the auto.