Here's an interesting tidbit from the ever-geekalicious Todd Litman: a chart comparing average impervious surface per household in urban vs. suburban settings.
As you can see, large single-family lots -- the sort of homes that are surrounded by greenery -- actually require the most pavement overall. Apparently, it takes an awful lot of road space to get a homeowner to and from that exurban McMansion. (Take that, sprawl!)
At the same time, even though dense cities are typically plastered with concrete, in the final analysis urban high-rises seem to rest lightest on the landscape.
This chart was taken from a new "Pavement Busters Guide" (PDF) with some pretty detailed recommendations for ways to reduce impervious surface area in cities and suburbs. Todd's number one recommendation: educate decisionmakers. Sounds like a smart first step to me.
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 4:08 am
07 Sep 2007
And where would the resources come from (including the trains/buses to replace the cars)? According to the above cited study:
Land costs. Land devoted to roads and parking facilities has opportunity costs, that is, it could be used in other productive ways, including housing, farming and openspace (van Essan, et al, 2004). The value of land devoted to roads and parking is estimated to total $1,000 to $2,000 annually per motor vehicle (Litman, 2003). ...
Facility costs. Roads and parking facility construction and operating costs are also estimated to total about $1,000 to $2,000 annually per motor vehicle
So, that's about $2,000 to $4,000 per vehicle per year; at about 200 million vehicles, that's $00 billion to $800 billion per year. Alrighty then, let's get goin'!
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:31 am
07 Sep 2007
This is a hilarious little speech on the subject of such suburban tragedies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:59 am
07 Sep 2007
Permalink