Tyler Cowen disputes the frequent assertion that Manhattanites have the smallest environmental footprints around. He says:
Praising Manhattan is a bit like looking only at the roof of a car and concluding it doesn't burn much gas. Manhattan supports its density only by being surrounded by a broader load of crud.
...
If you think the big problem is humans grabbing more and more space, you might prefer to tax suburbs and subsidize cities. If you think the big problem is humans using more and more energy, the opposite conclusion might follow. Suburbs are bad for burning gas, but they are an especially efficient place to work, buy things, and raise children.
That seems straightforwardly wrong to me.
No one would deny that a Manhattanite represents some quantity of externalized costs: land to grow food, factories to make goods, fuel to transport food and goods, coal plants to generate electricity, landfill space to bury refuse, etc. The point is that when those costs are balanced against the savings, the result is favorable to Manhattanites. They use lower net energy per capita than suburbanites -- that's the comparison that matters.
Imagine 1.8 million Manhattanites fanning out into the hinterlands (oh, the outcry). Give them each an acre for their house and yard. Run power lines and gas lines and sewer lines to them. Pave their roads. Stock their big box retail outlets. Do this for around 2,800 square miles of suburbia. Anybody think the net energy use would go down?
(The comment thread is worth reading.)
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 7:37 am
08 Feb 2007
By the way, the "comment thread" link is broken.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:52 am
08 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:44 am
08 Feb 2007
See for instance:
Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence by Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy, Opolis Journal, May 2006.
Protecting Water Resources with Higher Density Development by US EPA, 2005.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:00 am
08 Feb 2007
Compact geographical pattern of infrastructure and services
Proximity to mixed use
Safe, pleasant & plentiful walking routes
Development patterns that can grow up, not out
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:03 am
08 Feb 2007
I agree urban folk probably use less energy per capita, but I'm not sure it matters. Among the motivations for moving to rural areas, I doubt the illusion of self-sufficiency is near the top of the list.
I live in a rural area because I don't care to live close to people. I didn't enjoy the noisy apartment complex I previously lived in, especially the neighbor below me who insisted on pounding on the ceiling when it was the guy NEXT to him making all the noise. And there was that murder a few hundred feet beyond my window. Oh... and the guy who started his balcony on fire because he was collecting ashes from his grill in a cardboard pizza box! And the women who complained about the plants on our balcony. I will never live in a multi-family building again!
When I went in search of house, I found the houses far too close together. Looking out a window, you could see into your neighbor's house. And then there are communities with bizarre covenants that include things like... no vegetable garden allowed within view of the road... or if a tree dies you have to immediately replace it with one of five species that do not produce disagreeable litter, like seed and fruit that wildlife might enjoy. I decided to live elsewhere.
There are definitely advantages to urban life. There are the wonderful products of the creative class. There are the restaurants, theatre, being closer to friends. There is mass transit. Yes, mass transit. Would be useful, but they change the bus routes every few years here. One could buy a house on a bus route and then find the route disappears. I tried to be responible by taking a bus to a store on the edge of the "city" once... 30-minute bus ride instead of a 10-minute car ride. Running several errands is a nightmare using mass transit.
I have the best of both worlds by living in a rural area about 20 miles from the "city". I can enjoy urban amenities and then retreat to my home in "the country" where I can have a 30'x50' garden and plant whatever @#$% trees I want to, where I want to. I can also maintain my minimal lawn with a small mower... no fertilizer, no herbicide... and no one will complain about the dandelions or whether my grass is too long. I can have my fruit trees. I can have my compost bins for yard waste and food scraps... with no one complaining about attracting raccoons.
There is also the prairie remnant I often go on about... that is what I take care of in return for the privilege of living where I do.
Not everyone lives in a McMansion in rural America. Nor do they all insist on immaculate lawns kept up by intense use of fertilizer, herbicides, and riding lawn mowers. There is no need to run gas lines to every home. There is no need to run sewer lines to every home.
I don't believe encouraging people to live in cities is going to save the biosphere. Like the architects who designed the house David described earlier, we must find technology that allows us to maintain something close to the lifestyle we have now. Rather than urging everyone to move to urban areas, we should make sure that people who choose to live in rural areas: are doing it for the right reason (not just status), live in homes no larger than they need, accept natural landscapes rather than convert them to manicured lawns, install solar panels where possible (I can't afford this right now), encourage native plant and animal life, minimize their travel for shopping, buy fuel-efficient cars, et cetera.
I must apologize to David once more for my criticism of the eco-mansion. It easy for me to complain about someone who has something that I do not have, but when someone zeroes in on my lifestyle it gets uncomfortable. We are all on a spectrum and can all do better. I'm not ready to give of my home in exchange for condo in an urban setting, so I should stop asking others to give up what they value.
We HAVE to find a way to save what we have and save the biosphere.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:12 am
08 Feb 2007
The Thoreau school obviously survives. And it should. Solitude is a path to wisdom, as is intimacy with living things, in a world not dominated by human beings. As a city-dweller, and city-lover, I appreciate the ideal of Thoreau, and feel a real longing for it.
But GreenEngineer is clearly correct that there is unfortunately no necessary connexion between "living in the country," and the kind of self-sufficiency that Thoreau strove for.
What should engage the attention of environmentalists is therefore this subject: Granted that for ethical or aesthetic reasons, it is good for some human beings to live in wilderness, apart from human company, in forests, in deserts, on mountains, on promontories, etc.: is the presence of those human beings in those places a good thing?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:13 am
08 Feb 2007
Perhaps your point is that density alone is not enough, and that you can have a dense urban landscape that lacks these beneficial factors. That is certainly true, and such an environment would almost certainly have the worst of both worlds: your neighbor's elbow in your ear, and none of the compensations of urban life.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:22 am
08 Feb 2007
How in the world can you say that a Manhattenite "uses less energy". That's completely ridiculous.
The Manhattenite is surrounded by a gigantic energy consuming machine! Whether he uses it or not, Manhatten is running, lit, moving, consuming. It's an energy sinkhole. All of its food, energy, resources have to be ferried in by the truckloads, daily, over hundreds of miles, and squished through a few narrow arterties.
It's buildings must be heated and cooled whether empty or full.
Manhatten is the ultimate waster, the ultimate inefficiency.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:53 am
08 Feb 2007
Moving to the country: spiritually nourishing, yes. Better for the environment? Maybe not. The wilderness arguably does better without us, even if we do worse without it.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:29 am
08 Feb 2007
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:08 pm
08 Feb 2007
Actually it doesn't even have to be in our way, we'll go out of our way to be destructive of the wilderness, haul our snowmobiles halfway across the continent just to have the opportunity to make noise and spew pollution in a national park. The wilderness may be stupendously inspiring to us, but the most we do for it in return is to mitigate some of the worst of the ways in which we trash it.
Our suburbs used to be forest, mountain and prairie. We've consumed so much of it for nothing but a little temporary comfort. There's not enough wilderness for a billion Thoreaus: the more we stay together in our cities and towns, the better off the rest of nature is likely to be. Can we be content with that?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:08 pm
08 Feb 2007
There are a lot of options bracketed by the extremes of Manhattan and Walden Pond. I seriously doubt that you are the only Grister living on a five acre hobby farm. What environmentalist hasn't entertained the idea of a house on five acres with some goats, horses or an alpaca or two? However, I would be surprised to find one that has four kids, two SUVs, and a five acre hobby farm.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:10 pm
08 Feb 2007
"If you think the big problem is humans grabbing more and more space, you might prefer to tax suburbs and subsidize cities."
I doubt a fair system could be put in place to modify this particular human behavior. Let's suppose you decide to place a higher property tax on suburban and beyond development, the goal being to discourage sprawl.
First, you would have to exempt farmers. No problem. There is a clear distinction between a farmstead and a commuter's house.
Second, what if a farmer's child wants to carved out a piece of land for his own farm... maybe he or she wants to start a small organic farm. Okay... we can figure out a way to do this.
What if the above person stops farming... and starts commuting to an urban area? Does the property tax go up? Okay.
What is someone wants to start a farm? First they want to build a house. Do they pay the higher tax until the farm is operational or do they have a few years to get their business running? If their farm fails... their propery tax goes up... probably not good for them, but the population distribution planners don't care.
What is a farmer wants to retire, keep a small lot for himself, and sell the rest of the farm... someone builds a new house on the farmstead? Does the retired farmer's taxes go up? Do we care if he is forced to move to an urban area if he can't afford to pay the new tax?
What about fools like me... thought it was okay to move to a rural area and suddenly my property taxes goes up more than it does for other people? The house already exists, but I can't afford it... only the obscenely wealthy are allowed to live in rural areas? I have to sell my house to some smarmy paper pusher?
I guess we could have grandfather clause... existing homes -- as long as the same person owns it -- are taxed at the old rate... only new homes are taxed at the higher rate. If a child inherits a rural house and cannot afford the new rate, they can sell it to one of those obscenely wealthy people and leave the home they grew up in behind.
IT IS NOT GOING TO WORK.
New taxes imposed on only one group of people who live in a particular area and who manage to build a home under the old rules, though the building site is no longer approved of, are not a reasonable approach to reducing sprawl.
Please focus on making cities more attractive. There are reasons people run away. Some folks don't like being crowded into small areas. Some people do not appreciate urban amenities as much as others.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:17 pm
08 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:47 pm
08 Feb 2007
Permalink
bmengr Posted 6:17 pm
08 Feb 2007
This article is short, but it talks about some of the challenges of distinguishing real and 'fake' farms. It's too bad I couldn't find pictures - some of these 'farms' have gorgeous million-dollar houses.
http://starbulletin.com/2001/01/25/news/story7.html
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:03 pm
08 Feb 2007
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:37 pm
08 Feb 2007
wiscidea, please read the Toby Hemmenway essay that GreenEngineer linked to. Urban living isn't for everyone, for sure, but there are many options and lifestyles other than Manhattan high rises. Neighborhoods and towns can be a whole lot more pleasant and green than the unfriendly apartment you lived in.
In regards to taxes on suburbs, Cowan should recognize that suburban development has been government-subsidized and supported by preferential regulations for nearly a century.
Transportation investments were directed almost exclusively to the suburban fringe for most of the 20th century.
The Federal Housing Administration directed guaranteed housing mortgages to the suburbs, and enforced suburban design guidelines.
Changes to the tax laws in the 1950s suddenly made the development of enclosed suburban malls profitable.
Federal and state governments relocated public buildings to the suburban fringe as a matter of policy, rather than reinvesting in existing city centers.
Gasoline taxes only cover 35% of all local, state and federal highway expenditures, and cities usually pay more gas taxes than they receive in state transportation investments. That means people who drive less and mostly use city streets subsidize those who drive more and mostly use highways.
As bmengr points out, existing residents often subsidize new suburban construction, infrastructure, schools, social services, etc. through new taxes, or by suffering overcrowded facilities.
Giving the bill to developers was the idea behind Maryland's smart growth program. Counties designated smart growth areas where the state would fund new infrastructure; outside those areas developers had to pay the costs themselves. The program wasn't very successful because a) counties drew excessively generous boundaries, and b) Governor Erlich gutted the program. The new governor seems interested in reviving the program.
In order to charge developers the full costs of development, states must pass enabling legislation and the charges must survive a political environment where developers have a powerful influence on local politics. That's very often easier said than done.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:57 am
09 Feb 2007
I guess this shows one cannot generalize. I should not -- and do not, though you might get that impression -- condemn urban life. After toiling in the garden, I think... gee, could have just went to the farmers market... would be a lot easier and free up some time. I've also decided to not attend certain events because I didn't want to drive to them. But, likewise, Tobey Hemmenway cannot conclude much from his single experience of trying to live far beyond the urban core. Each place is different.
P.S., I read his Gaia's Garden book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm trying to find ways to implement his suggestions, though there are minor problems due to regional and philosophical differences... it would make for a great discussion.
Forward!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:50 am
09 Feb 2007
It is probably impossible to recreate these kinds of cities in North America (not that one should want to, necessarily). But surely there are elements of them that can be emulated.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:24 am
09 Feb 2007
And away from Europe, I think of Guanajuato and Taxco in Mexico.
Agreed with Ron, it would be absurd to try to recreate these places, but they can usefully be studied for ideas for how to make urban living work. These places must have got soemthig right -- they've been functioning for a long, long time.
It should also be noted that even megacities like Mexico DF, as insane as they are, have many quite functional areas.
Victual Reality
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:25 am
09 Feb 2007
I'm certainly not harboring any illusions about riding out the collapse of society. I've often commented to friends and family -- after that long day in the garden -- if I had to rely on subsistence farming I'd be dead. I can barely keep up with the weeds. My soil needs ammending -- trailer loads of municipal compost for just a small area. I would also have to find a way to maintain viable seed year after year. There would be no more propane deliveries and heating with wood is not option. Not enough trees and the few standing would be coveted by well-armed neighbors. And the labor for collecting and moving wood would be immense... no chain saw... no truck. Pumping water without electricity would be impossible to set up... and there would, under dire conditions, be no infrastructure for manufacturing or maintaining photovoltaics or wind turbines. And how does one can surplus food without access to heat, water, glass jars, et cetera. Finally, I'd probably be done in by lack of medical care... no way to replace my eye glasses, no allergy medication.
If society collapses... it will take everyone down, rural and urban.
Maybe I'll find work on my neighbor's farm... all those cows and no milking machines, no fuel for the generator, no tractor... nothing.
Forward!
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:29 am
09 Feb 2007
If people didn't drive (as in most cities), things would be (are) closer together.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 am
09 Feb 2007
But why make city dwellers pay less for this necessary energy revolution than anyone else?
Make us all pay through taxes. With direct tax credits for renewables, plugin transportation, and conservation.
We already pay taxes that are being drained away by corporate welfare for bush friendlies like exxonmob, halliburton, and bechtel.
Cut the exxonmob welfare, put the tax money into tax credits. That way we get it back for buying a solar panel or plugin hybrid.
Did anyone else see "The Daily Show" from yesterday. It's coming up in 6 minutes on Comedy Central. Watch GOP car salesman Rep Issa explain how the 320 tons of 100 dollar bills that dissappeared into Iraq on a C-130, "only seems like a lot of money". After all it was only 12 billion.
In a 1.2 trillion dollar war that's nothing, right?
Do you want Issa and his corpoRAT friends to keep disappearing these C-130s full of "chump change" or would you rather have it go to provide tax credits for renewable energy?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:55 am
09 Feb 2007
Nothing quite like them, even the blighted ones. People really get an energy going in cities. I would not want to live permanently in one, but I sure like to visit, even for a few months at a time.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:53 am
09 Feb 2007
Yes. These cultural-backwaters have subsidies done right.
google.com/search?q=Perugia+tourism
328,000 hits.
google.com/search?q=Bologna+tourism
1,190,000 hits.
google.com/search?q=Guanajuato+tourism
242,000 hits.
google.com/search?q=Taxco+tourism
56,800 hits.
Permalink
Peter Kobel Posted 7:06 am
09 Feb 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:38 pm
09 Feb 2007
Sienna is a car made by Toyota: the Italian city is Siena. Why Toyota's marketers added the extra "n" I have no idea but the moment I first saw it my heart sank just a little as I knew it would start to enter the vernacular.
Resist corporate takeover of our language!
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:16 am
10 Feb 2007
Ron does well to warn us that North American versions of cities and city-dwelling by no means exhaust the menu of options, especially seeing that Mediterranean peoples have been living contentedly in cities for millennia. And Tom adds the valuable observation that the traditional urbanism of Mesoamerica blended harmoniously with the Mediterranean/Iberian tradition brought by the Spanish, to produce some very pleasant cities in Mexico.
It is instructive, and sometimes painful, to see these places age, as they endure the terrific changes brought by the last century, especially regarding transportation and population growth. Mexico City is still a great and fascinating place, in spite of its huge population and its air pollution; but in the early 20th century, given its perfect climate, and even with the Mexican Revolution going on round about, it must have been one of the most pleasant capitals in the world.
Cuernavaca too was for a while a noteworthy resort. Lately it has got crowded and noisy, and is nearly unrecognizable as the setting for Malcolm Lowry's classic, "Under the Volcano." And yet, I still find it a lot of fun.
I would be interested to know something of the economies of the smaller places, in which tourism counts for a great deal, such as Montepulciano, Cortona and Taxco (the latter two of which we love). (By the way, I do not know Ron's Greek and French examples, but am sure all this applies to them as well.) E.g., is most food still produced locally? All of these places have open-air markets, and one is shown in the photo from Arles; do those markets supply most of the food eaten by most of the people in those cities?
Siena is larger, being a provincial capital, and the leading city in southeastern Tuscany for many centuries. Its "old city" is a treasure, and well-preserved. But there is significant suburban development as well.
Bologna, a city of a few hundred million, is the largest of these examples by far. Home of the oldest university in Europe, it has a wonderful system of arcade-lined streets. Otherwise, its vernacular architecture is not quite so picturesque as in other Italian cities; and it does not have much top-rank art (Giambologna's Neptune; a couple of early and small Michelangelos; some fine Medieval paintings; a notorious, but otherwise unremarkable fresco of the Last Judgment, which needs to be protected from Muslim extremists because it depicts Muhammad in hell). But it is no wonder that our Tom Philpott picked it, since it is perhaps the most celebrated center of fine Italian cuisine. Not for nothing is it fondly called "Bologna la Grassa," Bologna the Fat.
It should be noted that in the smaller cities, at least before modern development took place, it was always possible to walk outside the walls and find oneself in an environment without architecture or other people. In fact, the typical arrangement was that the townspeople did not live very far from the fields, gardens, orchards and vineyards which fed them; and the pastureland was just a bit further out. Actually, at a place such as Assisi, another magnificently charming small city, with the Appenines at its back and the Valley of Umbria at its feet, one could probably climb up to visit the shepherds rather quickly.
The larger Mediterranean cities deserve closer scrutiny. Athens is notorious for its air pollution. Naples, its gloriously beautiful location notwithstanding, had long been a mess; reports are that it is getting its act together at last. Istanbul, the former Constantinople, was for many centuries the greatest city of Europe by far, much admired by visitors from everywhere; according to Orhan Pamuk, in his memoir "Istanbul," it has fallen into a melancholia, unable to adjust to its more shabby, squalid and populous new form. By contrast, Barcelona is a delightful place, with elements of good urban living in admirable harmony.
Our favorite Mexican city is Oaxaca, and we were troubled to hear of the terrific civil strife there last year. Many residents rely on the continuous presence of tourists, as do many in the region round about, including the celebrated weavers. When the tourists stopped coming, for the space of a few months, all these people were very hard pressed. I continue to be puzzled by the problem of how international tourism is to be so regulated as to continue to support local economies on the one hand, and to reflect environmentalists' recommendations that airline travel be reduced, on the other.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:15 am
10 Feb 2007
we won't have to worry about regulating international tourism much longer.
"... commercial airplanes are either going to run on cheap liquid hydrocarbon fuels or we're not going to have commercial aviation as we have known it. No other energy source is concentrated enough by weight, affordable enough by volume, and abundant enough in supply to do the necessary work ......The most likely scenario in the years ahead is that aviation will become an increasingly expensive, elite activity as the oil age dribbles to a close, and then it will not exist at all."
Overland to Cancun for spring break? Honeymoon in Thailand by boat? Not so much. Not hardly enough to keep the MacLodgings full.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:20 am
10 Feb 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:13 am
10 Feb 2007
America has a big engineering problem, brought to us by cheap fuel and bad policy. The automobile really was the vehicle that drove us to our current blind excess.
Our cities need to be transformed, maybe by further compacting some areas and returning others to something like their natural state- ecologically productive, spritually satisfying. Give the developers something to do when no-one can afford a new house in the suburbs anymore. Imagine: bulldozers pushing down buildings and dump trucks bringing in good earth, trees, and connecting newly green corridors to existing habitat. Cities produce tons of what could be really good dirt. Mmmm.... dirt.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:06 pm
10 Feb 2007
My question is why do people tout Manhattan as the end-all? It's not even that densely packed with people that LIVE there. And what about the outer boroughs and the tri-state area? People love to drive everywhere but Manhattan: and plenty of people drive and work outside of it.
I'm sorry to all you city-lovers: NYC is grimy, and to love it is to love that (and obviously take it with a grain of salt). I know, I lived there.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:29 am
11 Feb 2007
Final remark regarding Toby Hemmenway Essay...
Toby wrote...
"Nature uses two principal tools to achieve this protection from catastrophe. The first is diversity in space: in size, shape, physical pattern, and composition. If all the pieces of a system are at the same physical scale--all the same size, or the same genetic makeup, for example--a disturbance occurring at that scale will wipe out the whole system. Diversity in scale brings protection."
Doesn't this apply to human civilization as well? There might be hazards -- largely unknown -- in focusing on encouraging people to stay in or return to urban areas as the means to preserve the biosphere. It is not necessarily our natural habitat. The Precautionary Principle should apply here. Human civiliztion has relied on a diversity of living conditions. There are concentrated urban areas, there are sparsely populated rural areas, and everything in between. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Each has contributed to our survival. And people living in one or the other extreme have been called on to save people living in the other extreme.
As Biodiversivist pointed out, there should be an effort to make cities more attractive. I agree. Encourage people who wish to live in cities to stay or move there. Promote the advantages. Correct the problems. This will take pressure off of rural areas. One might also point out the disadvantages of living in the burbs or beyond, especially the time and dollars spent commuting and what someone might do instead,
But at the same time, rather than punish people drawn to relatively natural areas, get information to them that will help them live in harmony with the natural world. Discourage the large houses and manicured lawns. Encourage landscaping appropriate for where they live.
I think efforts to use financial pressure to encourage people to live in urban areas are doomed to failure. The only result will be that the wealthy will live in and commute from rural areas, they will drive up the value of agriculture land and discourage farming. There will be numerous unintended consequences of efforts to change the natural human behavior of wanting space around their homes.
The Precautionary Principle calls on us to allow people to live where they wish to, as they have tried to do for thousands of years, and focus on making sure they know how to do so without further damaging the biosphere.
Forward!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 5:05 am
13 Feb 2007
NY is roughly 6.5% of the USA population, but consumes 15% of the all USA fuel oil. Fuel oil use in NY has nearly doubled between 2000 and 2005. Electrical generation from fuel oil in NY has nearly tripled in the same time.
NY is one of the few states where the commercial use of electricity is significantly larger than residential use (residential consumption is only 65.8% of commercial consumption). Given the thousands of megawatt hours consumed merely to provide decorative lighting on the exteriors of the 'up not out' buildings they brag about, I think an accurate overall energy accounting of all energy resources required to maintain that level of population density would look less environmentally beneficial.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:26 am
13 Feb 2007
I just knew something is amiss in all those praises for how green NYC really is.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:26 am
13 Feb 2007
Given the thousands of megawatt hours consumed merely to provide decorative lighting on the exteriors of the 'up not out' buildings they brag about, I think an accurate overall energy accounting of all energy resources required to maintain that level of population density would look less environmentally beneficial.
By the evidence you bring to bear, the culprit is not density but "decorative lighting," which is no more fundamental to dense cities than McMansions are to rural living.
Is there really a serious green argument against concentrating people in cities? I can't imagine what it would be.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:36 am
13 Feb 2007
A fair comparison would be NY state total per capita energy consumption vs. total U.S. energy consumption, and more specifically great NY City Metro per capita vs. U.S.
If no one else does, I'll look it up eventually. But I know this stuff is easily available on the State level, and with not much more digging on the metro level. So maybe one of you wants to look it up in the meantime.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:57 am
13 Feb 2007
"Is there really a serious green argument against concentrating people in cities? I can't imagine what it would be."
I'll be pondering this for the next few days. It is a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
For now, I offer this...
Fish are healthier in a large aquarium.. better yet, not in an aquarium. No point in striving for green on a global scale, if it means concentrating people in cities, where waste products -- even if they're reduced to material that can be recycled by natural processes -- build up to toxic levels. Intead of the the occasional failed spetic tank that can be repaired before it kills someone, cities are perched on the edge of catostophic system failures that can kill millions.
Furthermore...
If the goal of the human species is to reduce our ecological footprint, we can do it very rapidly by wearing dull hemp uniforms, sleeping 10' x 10' cubes close to our work stations, eating in community kitchens, and looking forward to riding our bicycles out to the perimeter for some fresh air on the weekend, perhaps to work on the community organic farms. At the end of our dreary 60-year lives, we can be converted to biofuel.
What is the goal here? To live as human beings? Or to just live?
Forward!
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:23 am
13 Feb 2007
However, if cities are the most ecological way to go, then it makes sense as a society to pursue policies that promote density. Instead, at least since the rise of the car, we've invested billions (trillions?) in policies that promote sprawl. Does anyone here seriously support these policies? I doubt it.
so even you hate Manhattan, don't playa-hate Manhattan. It might not be your idea of a good time to live in a tiny flat and walk to work or commute there on a subway; but greens should support those who do.
Victual Reality
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:52 am
13 Feb 2007
"However, if cities are the most ecological way to go, then it makes sense as a society to pursue policies that promote density."
I accept carrots that make cities more attractive. I do not accept sticks that force people to live in cities. Are you wielding carrots or are you wielding sticks?
If you want to place a tax on gasoline -- or other fuel -- to pay for the roads that might encourage sprawl, fine. It is a user fee shared by whoever chooses to use the roads. Commuters would pay it and so would farmers hauling produce into urban areas. Pull that subsidy out from under rural living.
But do you endorse government imposing a tax -- or other fee -- that affects someone not because of how far they drive or how large their house is, but simply because of where they choose to live? I have the impression that some environmentalists would like to do this. I understand taxes should cover services. If a city must extend water and sewer, go ahead and make me pay for it. I undertstand that. But don't impose a fee just to get me to move somewhere else.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:04 am
13 Feb 2007
"... people who drive less and mostly use city streets subsidize those who drive more and mostly use highways."
This reminds me of a person who stated that because she does not have an automobile, she should not have to pay any tax what-so-ever to maintain roads. She walks everywhere.
I don't believe the suggestion that people who live in cities and drive less -- or not at all -- "subsidize" those who drive more is necessarily a reasonable argument. You might be able to present the math that convinces me otherwise. But include the following in your calculations... even if you do not drive, even if you walk or bike everywhere, you rely on well-maintained roads for deliveries to the stores within walking distance, vehicles that service urban infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer), fire trucks for the one time in your life you might need them, police protection, ambulance service, transport between urban centers, emergency evacuations. Everyone needs roads. Everyone should pay for them.
Forward!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:36 am
13 Feb 2007
The claim was made that 'energy use' (specifically transportion fuels) was significantly lower...I just pointed out that while on an individual transportation basis it might be lower, but on an overall fermented dinosaur basis, it wasn't.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
birdboy Posted 9:58 am
13 Feb 2007
...wearing dull hemp uniforms, sleeping 10' x 10' cubes close to our work stations, eating in community kitchens, and looking forward to riding our bicycles out to the perimeter for some fresh air on the weekend, perhaps to work on the community organic farms. At the end of our dreary 60-year lives, we can be converted to biofuel.
Allow me to re-interpret:
Since the death of commercial advertising, people are less concerned with outward appearances, especially clothing. Natural materials colored with natural dyes, which can be re-applied when faded, are pleasing and comfortable, made locally, and help to erase the distinctions between wealthy and poor people. These days, people notice your face and your expression, instead of your clothes or your car. Everyone has a small, private space to live in when in the city, much like a hotel room, with little more than a comfy bed, a bath, and an entertainment system. Each apartment complex houses hundreds of people, and they become a small community, like a village, sharing exercise facilities, rooftop flower gardens, and a cafeteria with fresh organic foods grown in the nearby farms. On days off, people ride bikes out to one of the farms to trade some work in the dirt for some time in the shade, or a walk in the woods. The new lifestyle keeps the vast majority of us healthy, medical costs low, and when we feel tired and old, we take comfort in the knowledge that our stored energy will be used to fuel the next generation of Earthlings.
I can already hear the screaming- "COMMIE!!"
But the key to making this OK is proximity to green, open space- without it, I'd even take the sewer pipes to get out.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Engineer Posted 10:05 am
13 Feb 2007
"Is there really a serious green argument against concentrating people in cities? I can't imagine what it would be."
Then almost immediately follows up with:
"People who hate the noise, grime, etc, should have other options
Are you trying to say there are people who like the noise and grime? Add crime and you've started a pretty good list of reasons to avoid 'people piles'.
I'd have to look up the exact reference, but there have been studies with rats that show high population densities make them more agressive and likely to attack each other.
I don't perceive that as a particularly outstanding benefit either.
"By the evidence you bring to bear, the culprit is not density but "decorative lighting," which is no more fundamental to dense cities than McMansions are to rural living."
Except that out here in Sprawlsville, USA (BTW, my commute is less than 5 miles, there is employment outside of the big city) there is very little decorative exterior lighting. It may not be fundamental to large cities, but is almost exclusive to them. So without the density, there is no need for the decorative lighting.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 10:52 am
13 Feb 2007
First of all, you can find the basic numbers about how much of road costs are covered by road users in Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax.
Now, let's imagine a world where road users pay all the costs of using the roads. And let's say I live in that world, and I don't own a car.
Just as you say, I rely on vehicles to deliver goods to the stores where I shop. Those vehicles are paying 100 percent of the road costs they incur. Those costs are passed on to retailers. Then, I pay some of the road costs when I buy something from those retailers.
Same thing happens for service vehicles. Those who drive on the roads pay the costs. The costs get incorporated into the services I buy.
Emergency vehicle costs are paid by taxes. I pay taxes, so I pay some share of the road costs that way.
Now let's look at the real world as it is today. In the real world, let's say I don't have a car. But I still pay property taxes and sales taxes that pay for roads, and I pay income taxes that finance road construction bonds. PLUS I'm still paying extra for goods and services because the retailer passes along the cost of gas taxes into my purchases.
In the first example, I pay for what I use. In the second example -- the real world -- I pay for what I use, PLUS I pay for additional road costs that I don't use and don't benefit from. I'm paying for cars and trucks that drive a lot and pollute the air, wear out the roads, and use emergency services to deal with the 43,000 killed and 2.7 million injured annually in U.S. traffic crashes. And there are a lot more "external" costs of cars.
Any way you look at it, high-mileage drivers are getting a free ride.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:05 am
13 Feb 2007
Except that humans aren't rats, and the living conditions in the rat experiments in no way resemble U.S. cities.
Since suburban dwellers drive more, their risk of death or injury in traffic accidents is higher than in cities. Even when you throw in the risk of homicide committed by strangers, the suburbs are generally still more dangerous than central cities.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:22 pm
13 Feb 2007
gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/1/125742/0649/#17
These fatalities are mostly discretionary. Drivers can choose to operate safer vehicles, more safely, in safer states of consciousness, at safer times, and under safer conditions.
People are rarely injured or killed when driving to work or to shopping centers. What traffic injuries and fatalities do occur tend to afflict people who are not driving the very safest vehicles.
The safest vehicles are reported here:
iihs.org
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 10:43 pm
13 Feb 2007
Is that a fact? What percentage of traffic deaths and injuries happen to drivers who are at fault? What percentage happen to drivers and passengers who are not at fault and have no choice in whether they get hit?
"People are rarely injured or killed when driving to work or to shopping centers.
Is that a fact or just your personal opinion? If it's a fact, please provide citations and evidence to back it up.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:17 pm
13 Feb 2007
Your imaginary world and real world examples appear very similar; not exactly the same, but similar. I'm not suggesting gasoline taxe should not be raised. Your use of "plus" several times does not hide this similarity.
In your imaginary world, there is a gasoline tax paying ALMOST the entire cost of road. You point out that there is an additional tax or fee structure to cover vehicles that require roads, but not as frequently as commuters and businesses. Emergency vehicles might not drive as many miles, but need well-maintained roads clear of snow 24/7. This is covered the additional taxes you mention.
In the real world, there is a gasoline tax paying for, apparently, about 35% of the cost of roads. This is passed on to consumers as you describe in each example. Again, there is the need to consider emergency vehicles. This is covered by a single tax in your first example and an assortment of taxes and fees in the second example.
The real disagreement here is apparently how much of the road is used by commuters and business that can pass on fees to consumers and how much of the road exists for basic government functions (emergency vehicles, school buses, waste removal).
I agree that the gasoline tax could be higher and that those costs should be passed on to consumers, but perhaps not to the extent you do.
I think it might be helpful if there was a relatively simple tax or fee to cover the remaining costs. However, as long as roads are constructed and maintained by several different layers of government, each layer will have to find its own way of contributing to the cost. For example, I believe my state and federal income tax contribute to construction of most roads in this state, but not for maintainence of all the roads. Counties and towns are responsible for patching or clearing snow from certain roads, thus those costs are covered by other taxes and fees.
In the end your imaginary world is not so imaginary. We just need to tweek the real world a bit.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:53 pm
13 Feb 2007
Here is a very specific example and I'm interested in hearing what the very specific solution is...
Around my home is a network of county roads that connect dairy farms to processing and distribution facilties. If all of the commuters were removed from the picture, the heaviest vehicles on those roads would be the milk carriers. (Even with the commuters, the heaviest vehicles are the milk carriers.) The roads must be durable enough and kept in good repair to accomodate the trucks. They must be cleared of snow after every storm. The brush must be cut for safety.
If all the commuters were removed from the picture, who do you believe should pay for this? Should the total cost of the roads be passed on to the users, the farmers? Or to the milk carriers? They can then pass on that cost to consumers of their products.
I happen to think that the society as a whole should maintain these roads. It cannot be covered by the farmers paying additional taxes or the milk carries paying a fee for an extensive road network used only a few times each day, even though each is a private business.
Now add back the commuters... a few farmers try to stay in business by selling a few acres of land not suitable for agriculture.. the commuters pay a gasoline tax that apparently covers 35% of the cost of maintaining the roads. Has the wear an dtear on the roads gone up that much? How much damage do cars do compared to the heavier vehicles? One might ALMOST claim a low level of development in rural areas actually reduces the farmer's expenses.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:24 am
14 Feb 2007
What will replace commercial advertising? Will a government office tell us what every well-dressed comrade will be wearing? And what food we should consume for the good of the motherland?
"With Natural materials colored with natural dyes, which can be re-applied when faded, are pleasing and comfortable, made locally, and help to erase the distinctions between wealthy and poor people."
All clothing will be made from local fiber and dyed with local plants. There are going to be some enormous agricultural fields surrounding your urban island. You will be piping in a lot of water from the surrounding wildlands... quite an investment In concete and steel infrastructure, and the vehicles and roads for maintaining it. Yeah... definite improvement over the current system. But I do like the idea of getting rid of suits. I can't wear one. I prefer jeans, which is while I'll never find a high-paying job.
"These days, people notice your face and your expression, instead of your clothes or your car."
So there will be a boom for plastic surgeons?
"Everyone has a small, private space to live in when in the city, much like a hotel room, with little more than a comfy bed, a bath, and an entertainment system."
EEEEEEEEEK! You just turned your "utopia" into a definite "dystopia". There had better be substantial sound-proofing and very nice balconies. Right now, I enjoy reading in the summer... listening to the hawks outside, inhaling the aroma of the plants outside my window, noticing a hummmingbird fly past the window. You want to replace this with an entertainment system?
"Each apartment complex houses hundreds of people, and they become a small community, like a village, sharing exercise facilities, rooftop flower gardens, and a cafeteria with fresh organic foods grown in the nearby farms."
EEEEEEEEEK! Once again, you just turned your "utopia" into a definite "dystopia". I don't play that well with others. Who needs exercise equipment, when you are physically active out in the garden, taking care of your orchard, pulling invasive weed, just spending time outside. And the stale air that will fill your heavily used common areas. Who will decide what to plant on the roof? And these nearby farms... if we concentrate people in cities, the farms will not be so close. Oh... we will have green spaces containing farms in the city... a bit like... we could do right now!
"On days off, people ride bikes out to one of the farms to trade some work in the dirt for some time in the shade, or a walk in the woods."
I have to labor in the fields for the opportunity to sit under a tree or walk in the woods!!! What's next... take away my eye glasses? Or perhaps get rid of the crazy intellectuals who don't quite fit in?
"The new lifestyle keeps the vast majority of us healthy, medical costs low, and when we feel tired and old, we take comfort in the knowledge that our stored energy will be used to fuel the next generation of Earthlings."
Perhaps physically healthy... if the waste products concentrated in your urban dystopia don't kill us. But mentally healthy?
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:49 am
14 Feb 2007
Suppose also that I have a neighbor. My neighbor has an identical house, identical job and identical non-gasoline purchases. So my neighbor has identical property, sales and income tax payments as I do.
Now suppose I drive 2,000 miles per year and my neighbor drives 20,000 miles per year. We are paying the same property, sales and income taxes, but my neighbor is getting more of the benefit of road use, and incurring more of the cost of maintenance, congestion, pollution, etc. Why is that fair? Why shouldn't my neighbor pay the full cost of what he uses?
What if I don't even drink milk? Why should I support milk producers with a subsidy for their shipping costs? Why shouldn't milk consumers pay those costs?
Also, please note that the 35% figure that gas taxes cover is only for state, local and federal highways. Local streets are almost completely paid for by local taxes. So if I drive mainly on local streets, I pay for that through my local taxes. At the same time, I still have to pay gas taxes that go to support highways, even if I don't use highways directly.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:36 am
14 Feb 2007
You indicated, in your example, that you and your neighbor -- minus gasoline taxes -- pay exactly the same taxes. A portion of this is used to maintain roads. Therefore, you are each paying the same amount to ensure roads are available for emergency vehicles, mass transit, and other common interests. This is independent of whether you use the road for any other purpose. I hope our society has advanced beyond the suggestion that people pay for fire protection only if they need it! We all pay for it in advance because we don't know whether we will need it.
You then indicate you drive 2000 miles while your neighbor drives 20000 miles. Therefore, you pay less gasoline tax than your neighbor. He IS paying for his additional use of the road. You are not subsidizing him and he is not subsidizing you.
You have each paid the base rate -- because there are government functions that require roads -- and he pays a bit extra! Seems perfectly fair. The only quibble here is whether the base rate should be lower and the gasoline tax higher. This is a very difficult issue to resolve, in my opinion, because I'm fairly certain our civilization -- if people were concentrated in urban area -- would require a substantial road network even if we removed all commuters from them.
Feel free to express your opinion that food producers -- the farmers, not the corporations, should bear the entire cost of the infrastructure for producing and distributing food -- from the roads reaching into the rural landscape, to the outreach programs that help farmers learn about new methods or potential markets, to the public spaces that accomodates farmer's markets. I'm sure we will both learn much from the responses.
Just out of curiosity... my rural residential property is valued at about $20,000 per acre for property taxes, while the neighbors's farm is valued at $10 -- yes, ten dollars -- per acre for tax purposes. I think this is a GOOD IDEA... without food we would all die.
But I supposed, according to your philosophy, the farmer should be paying much more taxes -- 2000 fold per acre -- and passing the cost onto you, the consumer. Afterall, perhaps you don't even drink milk... or eat meat... or consume any soy products... or like apples... or enjoy potatoes... why should you care about any farm unless it feeds you directly? Is that your view?
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 2:55 am
14 Feb 2007
No, emergency vehicles and mass transit are a tiny portion of overall road traffic. A fraction of a percent.
For example, in 2003 buses, including school buses, traveled 6.8 billion miles; transit buses traveled 2.4 billion miles and trolley buses traveled 14 million miles. Meanwhile, cars and light trucks traveled about 2.7 trillion miles. That's about 400 times (or 40,000 percent) more miles than buses. This table spells it out.
why should you care about any farm unless it feeds you directly? Is that your view?
I'm very much in favor of shifting the regime of subsidies in the U.S. to get big agribusiness off the taxpayer gravy train and to give small family farms a better shot. I'm not in favor of subsidizing more highway and vehicle use, however.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:20 am
14 Feb 2007
"No, emergency vehicles and mass transit are a tiny portion of overall road traffic. A fraction of a percent."
It does not matter how often the road is used by a given emergency vehicle or bus! When the emergency vehicle is needed -- or the bus, or the police car, or bomb squad -- they need a fully operation road. It has to be durable enough to bear the weight of the vehicle and wide enough for the vehicle to go around corners. And in an urban setting, with taller building, the fire trucks are longer and require even more space!
By your logic, if we removed all personal vehicles from the roads, we would need only 1% of the current funding to maintain them. For that to be the case, the roads could be only 1% current width and 1% current length! Good luck getting the necessary emergency equipment close to one of those high-rise buildings we are supposed to house everyone in.
Please pardon the sarcasm, but there is a minimum structure required and everyone has to share the burden of building and maintaining that structure, even if it is used only for extinguishing a single fire or evacuating people during a single emergency.
Back to the farm issue...
So... you are saying that since my property is valued at $20,000 per acre for tax purposes -- and that is without the house included -- it is perfectly reasonable to value my neighbor's agricultural land at $20,000 per acre instead of the current TEN DOLLARS per acre for tax purposes? And he is supposed to pass this on to consumers? You want to remove this financial assistance from small family farms that have been run by the same family for generations?
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:37 am
14 Feb 2007
In fact, starting in around 300 C.E., and continuing even now, there has been a mostly successful social experiment, involving people living in small rooms, possessing little, sharing spaces and resources, traveling not far from where they sleep and eat, living daily with both great works of art and real involvement with the lives of plants and animals. It is called Christian monasticism.
Needless to say, not everyone is called to that life. And that is fine; Christianity is not like Islam, which gracelessly hardens and totalitarianizes all virtues, a one-size-fits-all religion, a Cliffs-Notes dumbing-down of religion. But what definitely does need to be said is, a few of us, not many but a few, are truly called to that simple life.
What I least understand about what you have written, in this excellent series of remarks on this thread, dear WiscIdea, is your reference to a "stick and carrot" governmental approach to encouraging residence in urban centers, and in particular your dread of the "stick."
Whatever could you be talking about?! Who in the world is requiring you to move into a city? Who is threatening to punish you? Do you not see that governmental social policies of the last hundred years in the US have positively favored ex-urban dispersal, the purchase of private vehicles, the regular need for private vehicular transportation to cover significant distances, residence in suburbs and, lately, "exurbs," and the fashionable fiction of living "amid nature," upon which one looks out from one's McMansion?
On crime: I do not remember who brought up this issue, perhaps the ever-bilious ATreyger, who needs to come to grips with his own personal history. It has always been easier to get away with criminal actions in rural districts than in cities. "There is safety in numbers" counts for people as well as zebras. Sure, cities are notorious for the ease of petty crime, e.g. purse-snatching. But in true urban environments, violent crimes are an excessively virulent disease that cannot survive. And they do not.
On muggings: There is nothing urban about them. They take place in circumstances which are much more rural than urban, especially regarding the isolation of the victims.
There is a real historical justification for the expression "highway robbers." The people who threaten you with death unless you hand over all your possessions are much more likely to be out in the country than in a city.
Compare also Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," a pleasant little tale of the happy life in the country.
Compare also the fate of Matthew Shepard. When he was in Laramie, he was safe. When he was driven outside of the city, along those lovely peaceful country roads, that was when he was crucified.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:11 am
14 Feb 2007
My current overreaction was triggered by the following combination of phrases...
"If you think the big problem is humans grabbing more and more space, you might prefer to tax suburbs and subsidize cities. If you think the big problem is humans using more and more energy, the opposite conclusion might follow. Suburbs are bad for burning gas, but they are an especially efficient place to work, buy things, and raise children."
And...
"That seems straightforwardly wrong to me."
The logical conclusion is that the original post/comment essentially SUGGESTS, does not necessarily advocate, that taxing suburbs and subsidizing cities MIGHT be one way to reduce energy consumption.
I was merely attempting to SUGGEST, rather strongly I suppose, that even if taxing suburbs does reduce energy consumption, it is not really a reasonable approach. The two options are essentially different products, each with advantages and disadvantages.
The carrot... improving cities, making them more attractive... endorsed by several Gristers.
The stick... "taxing suburbs"... specifically mentioned and implicitly supported by several Gristers.
I believe this is conlfict deserves discussion and have chosen to defend my chosen lifestyle -- a little house, on a very little prairie, surrounded by a welcoming farming community. I sense that I have once more violated one of "true environmentalist" rules.
Let the discussion continue...
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:25 am
14 Feb 2007
That's exactly the point. If roads only had to accommodate transit, emergency and service vehicles, all roads could have a 20 foot wide travel way. The rest could be sidewalks and planted landscaping. It could be quite pleasant. Many historic European and Mediterranean towns are built that way. Somehow they manage to accommodate fire trucks (hint: the trucks are smaller and more maneuverable than American-style big rigs). J.H. Crawford's proposal for a car-free city is designed that way.
I'm not saying cars should be banned everywhere, but why not allow some experimentation here and there?
there is a minimum structure required and everyone has to share the burden
Again, you've hit the nail on the head. Just what is that minimum structure? If I want to build a subdivision 30 miles outside of the city in the middle of some farms, is it everyone else's responsibility to pay for the roads, sewer & water service, schools, etc. that my customers are going to need? And then is it everyone else's responsibility to cope with the additional traffic, pollution, accidents, etc. that come from developing in such an far-flung location?
Under our current system, the answer is "yes."
Just how much does everyone have to share? Are some people "sharing" more than others? Under our current system, the answer is "yes."
Permalink
Engineer Posted 5:33 am
14 Feb 2007
Well, according to a 2006 FBI report:
By percent change in the number of violent crime offenses in 2005 compared with totals from 2004, cities with populations from 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw the greatest increase, 8.3 percent, and cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw the smallest increase, 0.5 percent.
In the Nation's metropolitan counties, violent crime was up 2.1 percent, and in nonmetropolitan counties, it increased 1.0 percent.
A further examination of violent crime data for the population groups showed that cities with populations from 100,000 to 249,999 had the greatest increase in the number of murders, up 12.5 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants experienced the greatest increases in both robbery, 9.9 percent, and aggravated assault, 8.5 percent.
Looks like violent crime is not only surviving in the urban environment, but flourishing...
Further research on the glories of urban access to mass transit in reducing per capita energy use is also enlightening.
From the USDOE and Bureau of Transportation statistics, the BTU/passenger mile of various forms of personal and public transit break down as follows:
NYC Subway - 3656
Transit bus - 3576 to 4415
Personal auto - 3702
So, an NYC resident saves 46 BTU/mile riding the subway vs. a rural resident in a car. If they commute 6 miles to work by subway instead of my 5 miles by car, I use almost 14 million BTU's less per year.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:34 am
14 Feb 2007
The highways that I drive on seem to be very well maintained, partially due to fewer vehicles per mile, so less deterioration, easier construction due to diversion, etc. NYC streets are constantly gridlocked and poorly maintained because of such a high density of vehicles per mile. NYC people drive less miles per year, but there are more of them and they all drive in gridlock. I would venture to say that gas consumption per vehicle is not different in NYC despite less miles driven. Similarly, emissions are higher per mile driven. And there's millions of cars packed into a much smaller area. That's one health argument for not living in a city.
I also seem to recall a study about mice placed in high density (mouse density) enclosures, and low density enclosures. High density mice tended to be much more aggressive, lost weight and male reproductive capability decreased. I would like to find out how they figured that one out! It reminds me of people in NYC, they don't call it the rat race for nothing. On top of it all, the more 'rural', talking about upstate towns by comparison, people are much more friendly: they will smile to you and will shoot the shit about the day, weather, etc. NEVER in the city.
I don't know about that miserable lifestyle, I'm with wiscidea.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:48 am
14 Feb 2007
Spoken like a true Upper West?-sider. The city is a happy place with big bunnies hopping around everywhere, people give each other hugs and kisses as they flock to stores that sell nothing but the newest fad in organic mocha lattes!
Ever been to Coney Island? I guess you can get by there during the day around the park area, but how about Bed-Stuy? Or South Bronx? Ever been robbed in Marborough projects? Or how about almost robbed and beat down by thirty kids by Caesars Bay Bazaar? Thank god for skates...
Crime is a rural thing. HA!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 5:51 am
14 Feb 2007
So all the cancer findings and other research based on studies conducted on rats are invalid?
Then how about a 1982 University of Toronto study that correlated increased population density with increased drug use?
Or a 1986 study linking increased rates of child abuse and neglect to increased density?
Or a 1990 British one...
Well, you get the idea.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:56 am
14 Feb 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:11 am
14 Feb 2007
"If I want to build a subdivision 30 miles outside of the city in the middle of some farms, is it everyone else's responsibility to pay for the roads, sewer & water service, schools, etc. that my customers are going to need? And then is it everyone else's responsibility to cope with the additional traffic, pollution, accidents, etc. that come from developing in such an far-flung location?"
The answer is no and no. As I pointed out, the rural homeowner pays more property tax per acre than the farmer. I support this. And what does he get in return?
First... let's consider the items NOT covered by the property taxes... The rural homeowner pays the electric company to install a wire from the nearest existing line to a transformer, which he also pays for, and then to his home. He pays a private company to install a septic system and pays for regular maintenence of the septic system. He also pays a private company to drill a well, extra if they discover they have to go deeper to get through soft rock. Then he pays for the electricity to pump the water from the ground. He also rents a propane tank and pays a private company to fill it. You need heat regardless of where you live.
The property taxes covers the schools, which would have to be built regardless of where one lives, unless you are suggesting rural folk have more children than they should. It also covers the local fire department, EMS, and snow removal, which, again, are required regardless of how many people live in a particular area. You have not subsidized this.
And who has to cope with the additional traffic? The people who moved to the rural area!!! You can put park and rides on the outskirts of cities if you don't want them driving on your roads. Are you worried about the farmers having to cope with the congestion? They sold the land to the new rural homeowners!!!
Sounds like rural homeowners are not creating additional expenses for you, only for themselves.
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:09 am
14 Feb 2007
My example was a large exurban subdivision; your example was a single rural homestead. Competely different conditions.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:29 am
14 Feb 2007
This is a delightful discussion.
Your example -- the one you believe you are subsidizing -- was placed 30 miles beyond a city. I live approximately 30 miles from a city. This seems to be the threshold for criticism, so I assumed I was a target.
Most of the development I see is well within 30 miles of the nearest city. I'm not sure where those people would live if they did not build houses in the sprouting subdivisions. Anyone building clusters of houses beyond 30 miles would have to provide lots sufficiently large enough to accomodate private wells and septic systems. I have to assume a tax intended to discourage urban sprawl would be directed toward curbing my behavior, not the folks living within 30 miles of the city.
Mr. Aurbach, we live in different worlds. I think my next comment will reinforce this.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:32 am
14 Feb 2007
The following is from http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/about/budget.htm.
Most state revenue comes from the gas tax:
About 55% of all transportation revenue comes from state sources. About 93% of this is generated from the state gas tax (30.9 cents per gallon) and vehicle registration fees (a flat $55 for automobiles).
[So 51% (.55 x .93) covered by state gas tax and registration fees.]
Federal dollars ... providing more than 25% of the transportation revenue. These funds are raised primarily through the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
[So 25% covered by federal gas tax.]
[TOTAL... 76% covered by direct users of the transportation system via gas tax. Not 35%.]
[Where does the money go? Helping developers push urban sprawl further and further into the countryside? No.]
State highway expenditures (45.4%)
Local aids and capital assistance (31.8%)
State operations, including motor vehicle services and State Patrol (7.6%)
Debt service/reserves (15.2%)
Most highway funds are used on existing roads and bridges:
The largest part of the state highway budget goes toward rehabilitating existing highways and bridges.
About 29% of WisDOT's total budget is used to resurface, recondition and reconstruct the state's aging highway infrastructure, including the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee. Another 6% of the budget goes toward the maintenance and operation of the current system.
Major highway construction is a small part of the total budget (less than 10%).
Almost one-third (31.8%) of total budget returned to local communities [ 31.8% RETURNED TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES!]:
General transportation aids (GTA), the largest category of local aid, is used to partially offset the cost of maintaining and improving the road system owned by local governments. [LOCAL ROADS!]
State transit aids fund more than 35% of the operating costs of public transit systems. [PUBLIC TRANSIT!]
GTA and transit represent about 95% of the local aids budget.
Local transit capital assistance includes support for rail, harbor and aeronautics programs, as well as funding for bike and pedestrian facilities. [BIKE PATHS!]
Forward!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:57 am
14 Feb 2007
TOTAL... 76% covered by direct users of the transportation system via gas tax. Not 35%.
I have a slightly different reading of the budget numbers... I see 1033 million in state gas tax revenues and 756 million in federal gas tax revenues. The total state transportation budget is 2719 million, so gas taxes contribute 66% to the total.*
That is very good -- almost twice the national rate. The U.S. would be much better off if it was run as well as Wisconsin.
State lawmakers made the decision to rely on gas taxes and registration fees intentionally to ensure that users of the transportation system pay for it.
-- How does Wisconsin fund transportation?
* Note that vehicle registration fees aren't counted in that calculation, because I pay the same vehicle registration fee whether I drive 1 mile per year or 100,000 miles per year.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:12 pm
14 Feb 2007
What percentage of traffic deaths and injuries happen to drivers who are at fault? What percentage happen to drivers and passengers who are not at fault and have no choice in whether they get hit?
I said "injuries and fatalities", not "collisions". A collision may be one factor in an injury or fatality. (Some drivers are injured or killed without having collided with another vehicle; e.g. they are involved in single-car accidents.) Drivers make decisions that not only affect their risks of being involved in traffic accidents, but that also affect their risks of being injured or killed when they are involved in traffic accidents. As I said, "Drivers can choose to operate safer vehicles, more safely, in safer states of consciousness, at safer times, and under safer conditions."
That first item -- safer vehicles -- constitutes a major factor mediating injury severity when collision do occur. I have gleaned this from studying the IIHS website. In my opinion, it is virtually impossible for an average physically-and-mentally-healthy intellectually-and-emotionally-mature middle-class American, following the advice of the IIHS, to die in a traffic accident. As I said before, "The safest vehicles are reported here: iihs.org." Drivers have discretion over whether or not they drive the crash-safest vehicles reported there.
Laurence Aurbach wrote: People are rarely injured or killed when driving to work or to shopping centers.
please provide citations and evidence
tesh.com/ittrium/visit?path=A1x97x1y1xa5x1x76y1x2437x1x9by1x243cx1y5x54c7x5x1
What's the Most Dangerous Time of Day on the Road?
2a.m. That's the finding from a major, new traffic analysis called Traffic STATS, conducted by Carnegie Mellon University researchers. Why is 2a.m. so dangerous? Because not only is it dark, it's also the time when most bars close and the drunks hit the road. Another reason 2a.m. is so dangerous - there's less traffic, which means drivers feel free to go faster and take more risks.
So what's the safest time of day to drive? 8a.m. Yup, right in the middle of morning rush hour. Why is it safer? Because it's daylight and cars are typically moving slowly enough to avoid collisions.
cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/winter/traffic-stats.shtml
The safest passenger is a 4-year-old strapped in a car seat during morning rush hour.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:19 pm
14 Feb 2007
So anyone who does manage to get themselves killed in a traffic accident is, by very definition apparently, not an APAMMHIAEMMCA. And if they are not a member of this happy band of people-who-look-a-lot-like-us, why on earth should we care about them?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:50 pm
14 Feb 2007
For my reply, I'll turn to Burt Lancaster in that bitter '50s Valentine to New York, "The Sweet Smell of Success": "I love this dirty town."
Baudelaire, too, was good on the pleasures of roaming city streets. In prose poem "Crowds," he writes of strolling through what must have been quite-grimy 19th-century Paris:
It is not given to every man to take a bath of multitude; enjoying a crowd is an art; and only he can relish a debauch of vitality at the expense of the human species, on whom, in his cradle, a fairy has bestowed the love of masks and masquerading, the hate of home, and the passion for roaming.
Multitude, solitude: identical terms, and interchangeable by the active and fertile poet. The man who is unable to people his solitude is equally unable to be alone in a bustling crowd.
The poet enjoys the incomparable privilege of being able to be himself of someone else, as he chooses. Like those wandering souls who go looking for a body, he enters as he likes into each man's personality. For him alone everything is vacant; and if certain places seem closed to him, it is only because in his eyes they are not worth visiting.
The solitary and thoughtful stroller finds a singular intoxication in this universal communion. The man who loves to lose himself in a crowd enjoys feverish delights that the egoist locked up in himself as in a box, and the slothful man like a mollusk in his shell, will be eternally deprived of. He adopts as his own all the occupations, all the joys and all the sorrows that chance offers.
What men call love is a very small, restricted, feeble thing compared with this ineffable orgy, this divine prostitution of the soul giving itself entire, all it poetry and all its charity, to the unexpected as it comes along, to the stranger as he passes.
It is a good thing sometimes to teach the fortunate of this world, if only to humble for an instant their foolish pride, that there are higher joys than theirs, finer and more uncircumscribed. The founders of colonies, shepherds of peoples, missionary priests exiled to the ends of the earth, doubtlessly know something of this mysterious drunkenness; and in the midst of the vast family created by their genius, they must often laugh at those who pity them because of their troubled fortunes and chaste lives.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 11:23 pm
14 Feb 2007
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:25 am
15 Feb 2007
I think that there are various aspects to that question, such as energetic, health-related, social, aesthetic, and one that I believe is important: appreciation of nature, specifically our biosphere.
I believe that there may be some energetic benefits to dense population centers, which quickly peter out once surrounding areas are considered and the whole footprint is calculated. There are two health-related aspects: proximity to hospitals and great health-care and greater rates of pollution and density-dependent stress-related health problems. Social aspects include things such as crime, environmental justice and ability to experience cultures outside of one's own. Aesthetics are dependent on a personal perspective, but I would like to add that our early childhood experiences have a direct effect on what we find pleasant: there have been studies that pointed out that children that have not left cities up to a certain age lose their ability to appreciate nature. I am not familiar with the methodology of the study, but as a person who loves the outdoors, this concept is very troubling.
My personal opinion is that despite the fact that there are great opportunities and great benefits to living in a city, much smaller, well-planned out towns in very close proximity to the natural and cultural are much more appealing to me as an environmentalist.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:19 am
15 Feb 2007
What's more to the point is how much longer can we keep doing what we're doing in any particular area, and of all the development patterns currently in vogue the monoculture residential exurbs on the fringes of our conurbations and the invasion of wilderness by vacation domiciles trouble me most. It is hard to see them as sustainable past the age of cheap energy and it's painful to see so much of our community treasure poured into what is likely to be such an ephemeral condition: the latter moreover would seem to be a prime example of Oscar Wilde's dictum that "each man kills the thing he loves".
Of the other development patterns considered in this thread, cities and towns of various sizes and specializations have shown remarkable adaptability over many centuries to changes in the human condition. True, some of them have grown to unprecedented dimension in the last half-century and only time will tell if they will live up to this challenge. Inner suburbs also seem to have some long-term potential one way or the other. The rural homestead has been with us since the dawn of history and I am happy to say seems unlikely to fade from the picture.
On a personal note, I am glad NYC exists, but I am glad to live on the edge of a mid-sized town, 4 miles from my downtown office. When I get old enough that the yard becomes too much for me to handle I would love to live in a smaller place in a denser community close enough to walk to everything I need in my daily life.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:04 am
15 Feb 2007
Thank you very much for your comment.
My primary concern throughout this thread is the suggestion that our society "punish" people -- via taxes and fees -- for where they choose to live. And I will oppose this suggestion whenever I see it, regardless of how serious the proposal is. I do not want to see it get traction.
I would strongly prefer that environmentalists -- if that term means anything -- focus on two other matters instead.
(1) Making cities more attractive. It seems reasonable that a properly managed city can be a healthy place to live and reduced the human specie' environmental footprint.
(2) Ensuring that each person has all the information they need to live an environmentally responsible life wherever they choose to live.
Our species is very diverse. I do not know whether it is nature or nurture, but some individuals prefer a rural setting, others prefer the city, and others prefer something in between. Fighting this particular behavior is a losing battle.
That's my closing statement... unless I ever come across the green argument AGAINST cities Tom Philpott challenged me to find... I must admit it is not an easy task.
Forward!
Permalink