Lots to cover...

Ian Lewis--Thanks for the good words. I thought that I had pretty much voiced myself into the wilderness. Nice to have a fan. We may have to agree to disagree on Kunstler though.

Michael B and Kevin Carson--Not so fast!

I know a thing or two about transportation and highways because that's what I do for a living (please don't put me in the boat of "you advocate it because you do it"--I could and can do a lot of other things too). So here goes...

1) The Interstate Highways System has caused sprawl and suburbanization.

Wrong! It only seems that way if you live in a large to mid-size city. But the suburbanization phenomenon occurs everywhere, along many existing routes, be they county highways, state highways, US routes, etc., as well as the Interstate Highway System. Our country now has double the number of people it had in the 1950's. In addtition, families are smaller, and more people live alone due to old age, divorce, singledom, etc. The need for housing units has probably tripled, if not more. That's a hell of a lot of additional housing, don't you think? Where's it all supposed to go? In aging cites? In small towns? What the hell is Kunstler thinking?

2) Government subsidizes this development.

Yeah it does. So what? Of course new schools are built in the suburbs--that's where the kids are! Utilities are allowed to run their utilities rent free along highway right-of-way as long as they adjust them for free when the highway is widened or reconstructed. That's a good deal for the utilites, and helps to keep energy prices lower. Horrible! Zoning laws encourage "sprawl" (growth)--yes they do. I'm glad people can buy their own green acre and do with it as they like most often.

3) Our transportation system is inefficient.

Depends on how you look at it. Its inefficient in terms of energy usage, but very efficient in terms of allowing people to go where they want to go, when they want to go, and how they want to go--it is designed to give people the most FREEDOM as possible. And the fact that the vast majority has embraced it means that they have embraced that freedom over the increased costs and inefficiency. Its their money, time, and choice to make. And they keep on choosing it. To me that settles the issue. We as transportation engineers are constantly FOLLOWING the development, not steering it. We cant keep up either. This will all change soon with Peak Oil, but not for the better, I can assure you.

4) People's housing could be nicer designed, and developments could be better laid-out.

Sure they could. I could also be taller, stronger, younger, and have better hair, too. But the world is not a perfect place. Believe it or not, to most people, the architectural design of their house is not paramount--they jut want a nice house to live in, or any decent house to live in that they can afford. Housing for the general population now is actually better than it has ever been. Those nice victorian houses in Kuntsler's imaginary Lake Woebegone are the exception--most houses in the past were very basic, small, and not much to look at either. Most have been torn down for better housing. People buy new houses because they are new, are laid out how they want them to be laid out, have new wiring, heating and AC, etc. Ever try fixing up and old house? Most people who do only do so once--then they buy new! That should tell you a lot. Kunstler rents his house. I wonder why?

Also, you'd be surprised how even pedestrian houses look nicer with 40-50 foot tall trees and mature vegetation. Given time and plenty of plantings, a lot of the "ugly vinyl-sided monstrosities" would look a lot nicer.

5) There ain't no sidwalks in our suburbia, and there ain't no stores neither!

There's sidwalks EVERYWHERE in suburbia--and they are hardly ever used! People don't want to walk. People also don't want stores and store traffic running through their neighborhoods. When developers try to do that, they find out real quick what people really want. What people want is convenience--ergo the mall, and big box stores, with lots of merchandise available with a minimum of stops.

6) All this driving makes people fat, isolated, and unhappy. This lifestyle generates a lot of trash and waste too.

Yep, it does. Mostly what you eat is what makes you fat. People should eat a lot better. TV and the computer are also to blame for a lot of alienation. Unhappiness is a part of life. There are tons of alienated people in cites too, lots of fatness (although not in the younger, single set). I don't think this is a necessary part of suburban living though.

7) We would have been far better off if we had planned for this, and had invested in light rail, heavy transport rail, waterways, and assorted other transportation solutions.

To a point. You know, even as little as ten years ago, nobody at all saw this Peak Oil issue. Almost nobody I work with now says anything about it. I know about it because I am a curious contrarian-type guy. Ten years in the field of transportation engineering is not that much--two life cycles of a project (from planning to construction). Hardly anything. Our vast infrastructure has been built up over the last one hundred years on cheap energy. For all the know-it-alls who say that we could/should have been planning on this, and can convert quickly, you have NO IDEA how much work is involved--decades and trillions of dollars. When it goes down it'll be good for a guy like me--I'll be in very high demand, probably for the rest of my career. But it will be absolute hell on this country, and there realistically is little we could have done to avoid it. Sometimes life is just tragic. And this is one of those times.

I also find it highly ironic that the people who criticize the Interstate Highway System, and its supposed failure, now advocate vastly MORE centralized planning as the solution to all this! If you only knew how corrupt and inefficient transportation agencies are, larded with political and affirmative action hacks, under the direction of stupid politicians, you wouldn't be so quick to see them as the solution! I can't imagine how much money will be wasted by these clowns when the SHTF, but it will be massive. On the positive side, all the environmental radicals and NIMBY types will get their hats handed to them when it all goes down. A well-deserved hook off of the stage if there ever was one, in my opinion. They make the whole process aggravating and ridiculous, to the point where many times necessary projects can't even be done because of protests and lawsuits. Good riddance.

8) And last, not least, that suburban dwellers are "lumpenproles" in the words of Kunstler. You know what Jim, if I have any sympathies in this world, they will go to the people who make the country work, who pay lots of the taxes, and who raise families under a great deal of stress and difficulty. Not that making a living and raising a family was ever easy, but it seems to be getting harder and harder all the time. It won't go to elder, bachelor, vinegar-tongued critics who, with all of the dysfunctional, derelict groups in America today, choose to attack the one group that is the most responsible, is raising the next productive generation, and is doing the most good. Even if he has to be controversial to make a living and promote himself, he doesn't have to attack people as being stupid, superficial, and ugly. He does it because he is a leftist who believes in Government, and the middle class doesn't; he does it because he wants to appear morally and intellectually superior to them, and he is largely not; and he does it because he can get way with it because they are mostly white, and it is fashionable for leftists to insult white america, since they cannot insult minorities and get away wtih it. I think he's a jerk, and his acidic commentary adds nothing to his arguments about our coming energy (and social) problems and the end of the modern suburban lifestlyle.

I hope that anwers some questions.

Posted by: BIOH on May 5, 2007 7:21 PM

In 1991 there was a state referendum here in Maine that dealt with widening the turnpike south of Portland. The voters rejected the widening. For the next couple of years all the overpasses south of Portland had maintenance work done, which resulted in lane closures and attendant traffic congestion. The effect on tourism became a regular topic in the press. It appeared to many that there was a concerted effort to "prove" how much we needed to widen the turnpike by making that section doubly hard to navigate.

Six years later another vote took place that approved the widening, but with the proviso that it should be done as a part of a more comprehensive intermodal approach. Since then, the turnpike has been widened, but little has changed in the way of light rail, expanded bus service, building bike and walking paths, etc. The few places where there have been improvements have been small-scale (mostly local) efforts. They've proven very popular. Overall, the feeling among many has been that the clear desires of the people for better public transportation options has been all but totally ignored in favor of business as usual.

Anecdotal case in point; when we lived in a town adjacent to Portland with a bus system that connected to Portland's, I used it daily. One day I went to Boston entirely by bus. It took longer to travel the less than five miles from my home to the Portland bus terminal than it then took to get from there to Boston. The South Portland bus got me to downtown Portland where I had to walk a half dozen blocks to connect with a bus that would take me close to (but not TO) the interstate bus terminal. There was nearly a forty-five minute gap between arriving downtown and that bus to a stop three blocks away from the terminal. For my future trips I "chose" to drive to the bus terminal. There may now be a Metro bus to the terminal itself, but ...

Living, as I now do, about 12 miles from Portland's downtown, if I had a safe bike/pedestrian corridor I might use it at least for half the year. But there's no sidewalks, no bike corridors, and I'm still five miles from the nearest bus stop. In short, from bond issues votes to opinion surveys, there has been clear support for transportation alternatives to the status quo, but systemic inertia and the biases of the vested interests keep people "choosing" the private auto.

Posted by: Chris White on May 6, 2007 11:01 AM

BIOH,

Let's see....

First, I was referring to urban freeway systems, not to the Interstate. But I'd like to see both funded entirely with tolls.

Second, by subsidized utilities I meant passing costs of expansion onto existing users, instead of fully internalizing the cost through hookup fees.

Third, it seems rather dubious that laws coercively *restricting* mixed use development translate into "allowing" individuals to use their green acre as they see fit. And if people really do prefer "monoculture" bedroom communities without shopping and work within walking distance, then the free market ought to provide sufficient incentive for that kind of development without mandating it through zoning regulations. At any rate, the availability of subsidized transportation and artificially cheap fuel makes single-use development artificially affordable. If costs were fully internalized in a market price system, without sprawl subsidized on the taxpayer teat, people might feel differently.

Fifth, while many critics of subsidized Interstate system are liberal social engineer types, many of us are not. I would simply like to deregulate and subsidize that entire sphere of policy and allow people to do what they want--but on their own nickel. And BTW, there's an equal inconsistency among those who vociferously champion the virtues of "free markets" while advocating for suburban sprawl--and there are probably at least as many guilty of that particular form of inconsistency as are guilty of the form of inconsistency you point to.

Posted by: Kevin Carson on May 6, 2007 2:00 PM

Kevin,

1) Why? Gas taxes are user fees. Why put up expensive (and sometimes hazardous) toll collection systems when you can collect at the pump? Toll roads are quite a bit more expensive than non-toll roads because of this. They are better maintained because the politicians can't steal the toll money and use it for other spending. But they aren't cheaper. I don't think you understand that most toll roads are built to keep people OFF of them! Tolls are supposed to be high enough to reduce demand so that these highways serve as lower volume/higher speed expressways. Not exactly democratic and fair either! But if the tolls are high enough, it works.

2) Utility companies can fund their own expansion as they please. Regular businesses plow profits from their current customers into building more stores, so what's the difference?

3) Dude, people don't want to live next to office parks and shoppping malls! They want to live in nice houses near parks with little traffic running down their local streets. What did you look for when you bought a house and had to imagine your kids playing in the front yard, or riding their bikes down the street? People will often say they want conflicting things, but I guarantee you, if push comes to shove, that they will block non-centralized development of the type you are describing to keep their quiet suburban streets. Don't you think the developers know what kind of developments people want? They build on spec--they aren't going to go out on a limb and risk not selling. So they know what people want. The way it is is what people want. One of the reasons that you can't do the local development thing is that people change jobs so often. What do you think people are going to do if they take a job farther away from their local live/work development? Sell their house? What if they like their neighborhood? Or maybe just drive to the new job? What would you do?

4) ALL Public Transportation is subsidized! That $2 train or bus ride really costs about twice that, and that isn't even including the costs of maintaining or building the street or rail line. Most of these costs, when it comes time for reconstruction or rebuilding, are paid for through the acquisition of additional monies from the federal government. So add another $1 at least to that cheap ($4) public transportation ride!

5) Roads are natural monopolies. You don't go out and put three or four roads side by side, and then let people "choose" which one is cheaper that day. Also, there is a vested public interest in allowing streets running through different localities and states to be public and not private. If you think they should be turned over to private companies to be run with government oversight, that I would agree with. But they should, and will, remain public.

Besides, most of the sprawl is due to the vastly increased numbers of people and housing demand here--its not some evil plot by business or government.

Hell, the Interstate Highway System is what enabled americans to see the rest of America! How could that be bad?

The point that I'm trying to make (probably not clearly) is that we built a VAST infrastructure over a one hundred year period when energy was cheap, and it has served us very well! Its not perfect, but you have to admit, that if energy were to remain cheap, it does give us a maximum amount of freedom, which is what it was designed to do, and the public at large has taken advantage of it. They took the opportunity to escape the crime, bad schools, pollution, congestion, and high taxes in the cities to build a family life far from the problems, and engaged in a sort of cost-of-living arbitrage where the higher salaries paid in the cities
bought a higher standard of living in the suburbs and exurbs. This has happened all over america, not just in big cities, but in mid-size and even small cities.

But now we are going to enter a time of very expensive energy, which was not seen until recently, and this will turn our system topsy-turvy. This is not an easy, quick, or inexpensive fix at all. And it is going to cause a lot of PAIN for most people. This is not funny. This is a very big deal. Much, much bigger than tacky houses! Yeah, it would have been great if we all could have recognized the problem 30 years in advance (a realistic idea of how long a true transition would take). But we didn't and I don't think this could have been avoided. Sometimes life is just tragic.

FWIW, I live about 2-3 miles from where I work. I can take the bus or train, and do, in the morning, and many times walk home at night. I live close to a grocery store. Bicycles on streets are dangerous, and I know it, but I ride on bike paths sometimes. I am all for not wasting a lot of time commuting. But my choice is somewhat rare. I am not against trains or buses. I lived in a big city without a car for 6 years and took public transportation all the time. It is time-consuming and inflexible, not to mention kind of dirty, and bums were tolerated instead of bounced. Public transit is no panacea. Its really low-grade transit. You must understand that highways ARE a form of public transit. Just the most expensive one.

Posted by: BIOH on May 6, 2007 6:32 PM

Interestingly, or not, the Young Manhattanite link on florescent bulbs was written by me, last year, before the new ones came out. Thankfully, the technology has improved and now our house is almost solely lit be the squiggly things.

Posted by: the patriarch on May 7, 2007 3:22 PM

BIOH,

"Gas taxes are user fees.... Toll roads are quite a bit more expensive than non-toll roads.... They are better maintained because the politicians can't steal the toll money and use it for other spending. But they aren't cheaper. I don't think you understand that most toll roads are built to keep people OFF of them! Tolls are supposed to be high enough to reduce demand so that these highways serve as lower volume/higher speed expressways."

I do understand that. But I think you prove my point. Gas taxes, unlike tolls, are not targeted to the upkeep of a particular route. The fact that tolls are high enough to pay for the cost of providing them means that they're used less. That's the way externalities of all kinds work: you use a lot more of something when you're not paying the full price.

"Dude, people don't want to live next to office parks and shoppping malls! They want to live in nice houses near parks with little traffic running down their local streets.... Don't you think the developers know what kind of developments people want? They build on spec--they aren't going to go out on a limb and risk not selling."

Maybe, but the fact that building developments on any other pattern is ILLEGAL might also have something to do with it. I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that a majority of people might want to live in monoculture suburbs with golf course-sized front lawns. A majority of people may like vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry ice cream, but that doesn't mean there isn't a large market for other flavors--unless the government outlaws peach and pistachio. Zoning laws essentially outlaw the "long tail."

"One of the reasons that you can't do the local development thing is that people change jobs so often."

The causes of this state of affairs fall outside the realm of urban policy, but I would argue that geographical mobility and the uncertainty of the job market are themselves dependent variables influenced heavily by government intervention in the market. The government subsidizes R&D and technical education, as well as capital investment and corporate debt, so that the economy is skewed to more high-tech and capital-intensive forms of production than would otherwise be the case. Without subsidies to capital-intensiveness and centralization, we'd probably have a much more decentralized economy of smaller-scale production for local markets, as well as a lot more job security.

Posted by: Kevin Carson on May 9, 2007 11:50 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?