A sustainable city

[Gotta Speakup]

No parent in America will let their child play outside while watching him/her from the window in even a 2 or 3 story setting. That ended decades ago, or at least by the time cable tv started.

Despite the added costs of elevators and pumping water up additional floors, highrises still use less energy than single family homes because of the insulating effects of having units on five of six sides and the economies of scale of a large heating system (my 160 unit building has cogeneration and heating units in series, allowing the heat output ot be carefully calibrated and run at maximum efficiency. There is no way single family homes or even row houses will ever be able to match the energy efficiencies of at least medium high rise buildings (at least up to 30 stories).

[PatrickMc]

No parent in America will let their child play outside while watching him/her from the window in even a 2 or 3 story setting. That ended decades ago, or at least by the time cable tv started.

Despite the added costs of elevators and pumping water up additional floors, highrises still use less energy than single family homes because of the insulating effects of having units on five of six sides and the economies of scale of a large heating system (my 160 unit building has cogeneration and heating units in series, allowing the heat output ot be carefully calibrated and run at maximum efficiency. There is no way single family homes or even row houses will ever be able to match the energy efficiencies of at least medium high rise buildings (at least up to 30 stories).

Well that was just one of the reasons cited, and was more of an example of how there is a connection to the street that is lost as you go higher. I actually see many families living in apartments who let their children play in the courtyard unsupervised all the time.

The question isn't single family homes or row houses vs. high rises. The question is mid-rises (4-8 story) vs. high rises. What I have read suggests that for the same number of dwelling units, a group of mid-rise buildings is more efficient than a single high-rise. However, this is an area of some debate.

[Gotta Speakup]

Let me rephrase what I said. No parent lets their child play outside anymore anywhere. Not in single family neighborhoods, not in midrise neighborhoods, not in highrise neighborhoods.

[DetroitPlanner]

They might even provide some of their own power by burning the waste products in the building itself.

This reminds me of another feature that a sustainable city might have that I neglected to mention: In Hammarby Sjostad, instead of having a conventional sewer system, waste is collected in a series of tubes and then burned in a power plant to provide energy. When it comes to renewable energy, every little bit helps, and this technology could provide a significant source of power for cities.

I suppose if it is absolutely necessary, you could have grade separated roads for trucks which would connect to the distribution center. These would be above or below ground and would connect to the main distribution center. The distribution center would have normal roads connecting to it, with freight trams and smaller trucks distributing the goods throughout the city. I see no reason why all freight can't eventually be moved to rail, but perhaps I am underestimating the problem.

The technology to replace oil has been greatly over-hyped in my opinion. At the very least, this technology is not available at the scale needed to maintain the one-car per person paradigm that has been the norm in this country for the past 60-70 years or so. This means that we need to find other ways of getting around, which is one of the primary goals of the sustainable city plan that I have designed.

The reason for this over-hyping? In my opinion there is a lot of money in research grants, and in marketing snake oil.

http://www.technocracy.ca/pdfs/Why-N...ls-indexed.pdf

I would love to see the EPA react to the first two comments. Sort of deer in the headlights... screaming about PM 2.5 and recycling clashing together.

Grade separation intersections are very expensive and take up a considerably larger footprint than a typical intersection. We have several that are both flyovers or unders. In some cases they do both! The major issue with these is the need for service drives.

Maybe I am much closer to this stuff because of my geography and my profession. In my region, we have one bus company that has converted their entire fleet to quick fuel CNG busses. This has allowed them to actually save money on fuel costs. We have another that is nearly as successful using biodiesel hybrid buses. I see lots of electric car mules on the road, so I know the technology is being made ready. The Chevy Volt has secured their production facility and will begin tooling soon. This car takes the hybrid technology up a notch. A five-seater will get 100 mpg. Over the last few years you have seen a reversal in transit. Ridership is going up! People are actually talking about how important it is, people are making plans on how to replace the gas tax because it is obvious that it is going to continue to shrink as more are shifting to public transport and gas milage is increasing. This leads to a huge hole in how buses and roads are funded.

I read the .pdf regarding alternative sources and there are broad statements without any back-up data or sources. I question any scientific paper that does not have a name on it, uses such scientific terms as $h!t, and I found this sentence: "I m sorry , folks, but we can t" making me question if it was even proofread before it was published. In fact much of what it says contradicts your own hypothesis.

[Journeymouse]

Please excuse the sf-nal interuption

All you need is UV light which can be produced with UV bulbs. UV bulbs have been around since the 1920s. Yields are many times higher and of much higher quality with indoor farms because you can completely control everything that is happening to the plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics

Don't forget aeroponics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics. As far as I'm aware, it's considered more materially (usage) efficient than the hydroponics version, but is still being worked out which is more efficient in the sense of yield. I could be wrong...

I don't like overly tall buildings for a few reasons. Buildings in excess of 8 stories violate the human scale. A person above 8 stories has almost no connection to the street, whereas at 6 stories a mother can easily identify her child if s/he is playing in the courtyard below.

And another sf-nal thought, based on the ideas behind the whatsit buildings in Sheffield (I've lost the link), how about building walkways higher up, as well? I'm not necessarily talking about walkways over eight stories in the air. Have you ever seen Chester in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester)? In the town centre they have a second storey of shop entrances that they call the rows. They have a serious lack of bridges or similar, however, between the rows, so you have to come down to come across. Obviously, first floor (second storey) bridges would be in the way of vehicles, but second floor (third storey) walkways would be... interesting.

[PatrickMc]

Let me rephrase what I said. No parent lets their child play outside anymore anywhere. Not in single family neighborhoods, not in midrise neighborhoods, not in highrise neighborhoods.

I hear what you say, but this is contrary to my experience. Maybe you live in a bad neighborhood? I'm aware that this is less likely than say, 50 years ago. But kids do still play outside, at least where I live.


DetroitPlanner:

I would love to see the EPA react to the first two comments. Sort of deer in the headlights... screaming about PM 2.5 and recycling clashing together.

Actually, the plant they have in the development I was talking about exceeds the government's regulations for emissions standards. How else could they build it in a "green" development?

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3096706

Grade separation intersections are very expensive and take up a considerably larger footprint than a typical intersection. We have several that are both flyovers or unders. In some cases they do both! The major issue with these is the need for service drives.

I recognize that grade separation is expensive, that's why I said that it would be a last resort. I think the thought that shipping of freight requires large trucks and highways is ridiculous. These things can be moved around by rail using less energy. Obviously shipping networks will have to be adjusted. The supply lines will have to be made shorter and more durable. Products will have to be manufactured closer to the point of their consumption, but this is a necessity anyway because of peak energy (coal and natural gas will soon peak; oil has already peaked).

I do not believe that a 100 mpg car will become available to the masses anytime soon. These will only be available to a select few. The technology is there, but it does not scale. Even if it did become available to the masses gasoline would only have to increase to $12/gallon to put us back where we are now (if you consider that 25 mpg is the average now, with gas around $3/gal). I think $12/gallon is likely to occur within the next decade if not sooner, and I don't think we will be able to replace every vehicle, truck, and airplane with hydrogen or ethanol powered vehicles in that time frame.

I read the .pdf regarding alternative sources and there are broad statements without any back-up data or sources. I question any scientific paper that does not have a name on it, uses such scientific terms as $h!t, and I found this sentence: "I m sorry , folks, but we can t" making me question if it was even proofread before it was published. In fact much of what it says contradicts your own hypothesis.

I'm not sure why you say that. The sources are cited within the document itself. You could go to them for more data. This obviously isn't intended to be a scientific paper, but you could find such supporting these claims if you go to the cited sources. I'm not sure why you say it contradicts my own hypothesis, since what I've hypothesized is that decreasing energy availability will compel us to restructure the built environment of our cities. That seems to me to be supported by the available data.


Journeymouse:

And another sf-nal thought, based on the ideas behind the whatsit buildings in Sheffield (I've lost the link), how about building walkways higher up, as well? I'm not necessarily talking about walkways over eight stories in the air. Have you ever seen Chester in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester)? In the town centre they have a second storey of shop entrances that they call the rows. They have a serious lack of bridges or similar, however, between the rows, so you have to come down to come across. Obviously, first floor (second storey) bridges would be in the way of vehicles, but second floor (third storey) walkways would be... interesting.

It sounds cool, but citizens will have to consider the additional cost of building and maintaining these walkways. If they decide that its worth it than I see no reason why they can't be built, especially in the neighborhood center connecting the various public and commercial buildings together. I have envisioned vertical "shopping centers" which would have all the typical stores you would find in an automobile-oriented strip mall, but stacked vertically in 5-6 story buildings arranged around a common green space. The grocery store would be located on the bottom level since this is the most frequently accessed business. They could have escalators designed to accommodate shopping carts. If parking must be built, it would be in a garage, preferably hidden underground or between buildings. A large shopping center would probably require fewer than 3 buildings if they were 6 stories each. These could be connected with the elevated walkways that you describe. Not only would this be a much more interesting place to be than a strip mall dominated by cars, it would also use less energy and space.

[CJC]

I don't like overly tall buildings for a few reasons. Buildings in excess of 8 stories violate the human scale. A person above 8 stories has almost no connection to the street, whereas at 6 stories a mother can easily identify her child if s/he is playing in the courtyard below.

This can be easily mitigated by podium + tower combos, as Vancouver has perfected. The podium has 4-6 stories, with either retail or townhouses on the first floor. This does a few things - it allows connection to the street via the lower level, it allows connection to the street with multiple lower entrance/exit points, and it minimizes the amount of shade caused from above (because the slender tower is perhaps only one quarter the size of the podium. You mentioned in your first post that cities will have more and more single and childless households - the tower can be designed primarily for these folks, mitigating your concern about parents needing to see children on the street. Simply put the larger apartments and townhomes in the podium.

Placing more singles and childless couples close to retail also has extreme advantages. These households spend more time outside the home, and the closer you put them to retail/restaurants/coffee shops generally means much higher use of those establishments.

Energy use and maintenance costs tend to rise the higher you build, so that the energy savings from increased density is somewhat negated. From what I've read, you only need 20 units/acre average within 1/2 mile radius to support a transit station with frequent service (10 minute maximum headways). It doesn't really matter what the range is so long as the average is 20/acre. So I'm not sure that placing these really tall buildings adjacent to the transit stations is necessary, and I feel that they would disrupt the character of neighborhoods. I think one of the reasons they did this in Curitiba is because they needed to increase density but didn't want to demolish the historic low-rise neighborhoods in the city. This isn't really a problem in America as most suburbs are so generic as to not be worth preserving. Many suburbs such as those built immediately after WWII are composed of temporary structures that were intended to be torn down all along. No one planned for them to still be standing 60 years later.

The primary reasons for the building methods in Curitiba were actually transit and greenspace related, though preserving the "old" town was a side project as well. Curitiba has more greenspace preserved than any American city.

I think you need to explore your transit types a little bit more. Are you talking grade-separated transit? If so, your plan of medium density over large areas probably works. Curitiba chose the the development pattern of taller buildings because the resources weren't available for a subway or an elevated system - the higher density centered on certain streets allowed them to simply close those streets to cars and develop a rapid bus system (which would become the famous BRT system that has been duplicated around the world).

Also, your comment of transit headways needs to be clarified - headways are not the only important aspect of transit. Think of it this way - if you can increase average speed from 10mph to 20mph on your transit system, you have doubled capacity - without an increase in the number of vehicles (which is obviously much, much more efficient and sustainable). A system that concentrates more riders along certain streets allows for fewer lines and stops, which increases speed and the number of vehicles needed.

High-rise construction could be used, but I feel it should be avoided if possible. Increased energy costs will make high-rises even more difficult to build and operate in the future, and the negative social effects of high-rises have been written about extensively.

The increased energy costs to construct up to about 30 stories are very, very minor compared to 6-8 story buildings, and the energy costs to operate are practically equivalent. If you could disregard things like ADA, then maybe 6-8 would be cheaper (because you could avoid elevators). If a highrise allows you to be able to build a couple fewer buses or LRV vehicles, the highrise becomes much, much more energy-efficient.

You'll have to expand on the "negative social aspects" of high rises. Certain types in certain areas, sure, but all? Not sure I'm buying that. We all know that some places have not had much luck with towers, but there are plenty of examples of the opposite.

[PatrickMc]

This can be easily mitigated by podium + tower combos, as Vancouver has perfected. The podium has 4-6 stories, with either retail or townhouses on the first floor. This does a few things - it allows connection to the street via the lower level, it allows connection to the street with multiple lower entrance/exit points, and it minimizes the amount of shade caused from above (because the slender tower is perhaps only one quarter the size of the podium. You mentioned in your first post that cities will have more and more single and childless households - the tower can be designed primarily for these folks, mitigating your concern about parents needing to see children on the street. Simply put the larger apartments and townhomes in the podium.

Placing more singles and childless couples close to retail also has extreme advantages. These households spend more time outside the home, and the closer you put them to retail/restaurants/coffee shops generally means much higher use of those establishments.

This kind of development could work in cities with densities higher than the minimum of 20 units/acre. Towers would be completely unnecessary at 20 units/acre.

The primary reasons for the building methods in Curitiba were actually transit and greenspace related, though preserving the "old" town was a side project as well. Curitiba has more greenspace preserved than any American city.

I think you need to explore your transit types a little bit more. Are you talking grade-separated transit? If so, your plan of medium density over large areas probably works. Curitiba chose the the development pattern of taller buildings because the resources weren't available for a subway or an elevated system - the higher density centered on certain streets allowed them to simply close those streets to cars and develop a rapid bus system (which would become the famous BRT system that has been duplicated around the world).

Any type of transit could be used in the sustainable city. The key is that service is rapid, efficient, and reliable. The sustainable city requires a minimum of 20 units/acre but can be built at much higher densities. At 20/acre you could have streetcars/trams, buses, and light rail. With higher densities cities might want to consider heavy rail because of the increased capacity.

Also, your comment of transit headways needs to be clarified - headways are not the only important aspect of transit. Think of it this way - if you can increase average speed from 10mph to 20mph on your transit system, you have doubled capacity - without an increase in the number of vehicles (which is obviously much, much more efficient and sustainable). A system that concentrates more riders along certain streets allows for fewer lines and stops, which increases speed and the number of vehicles needed.

Transit stops are spaced 1/2 - 1 mile apart. Speeds are higher than average - probably more than 20mph because car traffic would be greatly reduced from the start since everything is within walking distance. The reason there is no more than 10 minutes between transit vehicles is because then you can completely get rid of schedules which makes the system much easier to use. This would also increase ridership.

The increased energy costs to construct up to about 30 stories are very, very minor compared to 6-8 story buildings, and the energy costs to operate are practically equivalent. If you could disregard things like ADA, then maybe 6-8 would be cheaper (because you could avoid elevators). If a highrise allows you to be able to build a couple fewer buses or LRV vehicles, the highrise becomes much, much more energy-efficient.

You'll have to expand on the "negative social aspects" of high rises. Certain types in certain areas, sure, but all? Not sure I'm buying that. We all know that some places have not had much luck with towers, but there are plenty of examples of the opposite.

I'm not ready yet to retract my comment on high-rises. You're probably right that the difference in energy use is minimal. I should point out that I never explicitly said that high rises shouldn't be built, I just think they should be built in the appropriate context. If a city can reach a density of 20 units/acre without building high rises, than why does it need them? If a city already has a much higher density than 20/acre, and needs high rises due to lack of space, than of course the only solution is to build high rises.

It seems to me that buildings which acknowledge the human scale are inherently more attractive and livable than high rises. Low or mid-rise walkable neighborhoods seem preferable to overbearing high rises. High rises are especially bad if built "just because we can" like the housing projects of the 1960s. If they are necessary, like in Manhattan or Tokyo, than they are fine.

[CJC]

This kind of development could work in cities with densities higher than the minimum of 20 units/acre. Towers would be completely unnecessary at 20 units/acre.

The idea is to allow more greenspace and to allow more space for single family homes while still acheiving 20 units/acre. The allowance of more single family homes could make the whole city much more palatable to many Americans.

Any type of transit could be used in the sustainable city. The key is that service is rapid, efficient, and reliable. The sustainable city requires a minimum of 20 units/acre but can be built at much higher densities. At 20/acre you could have streetcars/trams, buses, and light rail. With higher densities cities might want to consider heavy rail because of the increased capacity.

Transit stops are spaced 1/2 - 1 mile apart. Speeds are higher than average - probably more than 20mph because car traffic would be greatly reduced from the start since everything is within walking distance. The reason there is no more than 10 minutes between transit vehicles is because then you can completely get rid of schedules which makes the system much easier to use. This would also increase ridership.

Why do you assume that car traffic or auto ownership would be lower because you can walk to everything? Ever been to Germany or Italy? With the narrow roads that you're suggesting congestion would be overwhelming to any surface transit option without major restrictions on parking and/or which roads could be used by cars. Auto ownership rates in the US are really only influenced in large part by prevalence of parking and income - in that order. Simply not forcing developers to build parking is likely not enough, until you have a large city built and critical mass exists. The question of where the jobs are comes up as well. If you build this city anywhere close to another city without massive transit infrastructure to all parts of that other city, auto ownership rates will start high and remain high out of necessity.

Again, Curitiba can be used as an example. Auto ownership rates and the corresponding congestion has spiraled upward over the last couple of decades as incomes rose, despite the fact that the entire city is walkable and connected by an excellent transit network. The transit network would have slowed considerably without dedicated lanes and streets. The one mistake that Curitiba made was to not restrict parking in many areas - they didn't require parking anywhere, but they also didn't restrict it. Auto ownership rates in Curitiba have now passed Brasilia - despite the fact that Brasilia is built entirely around the automobile. The reason? Parking is readily accessible in both cities (for the most part) and incomes are now considerably higher in Curitiba.

Oil costs are rising, but not nearly to the level to significantly affect auto ownership rates in the US for quite some time. Rising prices will change the cars that people buy, the amount of time that people keep cars, and the amount of miles driven, but that's it for awhile. In a compact city like the one that you're dreaming up (and similar to the one that I live in), an increase in the price of gas doesn't change much, since the distances driven are so small.

I'm not ready yet to retract my comment on high-rises. You're probably right that the difference in energy use is minimal. I should point out that I never explicitly said that high rises shouldn't be built, I just think they should be built in the appropriate context. If a city can reach a density of 20 units/acre without building high rises, than why does it need them? If a city already has a much higher density than 20/acre, and needs high rises due to lack of space, than of course the only solution is to build high rises.

It seems to me that buildings which acknowledge the human scale are inherently more attractive and livable than high rises. Low or mid-rise walkable neighborhoods seem preferable to overbearing high rises. High rises are especially bad if built "just because we can" like the housing projects of the 1960s. If they are necessary, like in Manhattan or Tokyo, than they are fine.

While I agree with you to some degree, I stick by my points that retail corridors and transit corridors are able to be built in a much more sustainable way with increased density close by.

[PatrickMc]

The idea is to allow more greenspace and to allow more space for single family homes while still acheiving 20 units/acre. The allowance of more single family homes could make the whole city much more palatable to many Americans.

Or they might reject overbearing towers looming over single family homes. Single family homes and towers do not exist happily side by side. Single family homes and mid-rise structures (5 stories or less) can look fine next to each other, with proper design.

In Austin, we have created a "vertical mixed use" zoning category that has been applied to most of all the transit corridors in the city. The height limit? 6 stories. This is so that NIMBYs will not reject the idea outright.

Why do you assume that car traffic or auto ownership would be lower because you can walk to everything? Ever been to Germany or Italy? With the narrow roads that you're suggesting congestion would be overwhelming to any surface transit option without major restrictions on parking and/or which roads could be used by cars. Auto ownership rates in the US are really only influenced in large part by prevalence of parking and income - in that order. Simply not forcing developers to build parking is likely not enough, until you have a large city built and critical mass exists. The question of where the jobs are comes up as well. If you build this city anywhere close to another city without massive transit infrastructure to all parts of that other city, auto ownership rates will start high and remain high out of necessity.

Well, per capita miles driven would decrease in a denser environment, as you say. So driving is less in that sense. Although those places appear to have worse traffic, they really aren't comparable at all to Houston or Atlanta. This point was brought up in reference to the functioning of the transit system. Simply having a dedicated lane or laying track on a raised median alleviates the problem of the system being slowed down by cars.

Again, Curitiba can be used as an example. Auto ownership rates and the corresponding congestion has spiraled upward over the last couple of decades as incomes rose, despite the fact that the entire city is walkable and connected by an excellent transit network. The transit network would have slowed considerably without dedicated lanes and streets. The one mistake that Curitiba made was to not restrict parking in many areas - they didn't require parking anywhere, but they also didn't restrict it. Auto ownership rates in Curitiba have now passed Brasilia - despite the fact that Brasilia is built entirely around the automobile. The reason? Parking is readily accessible in both cities (for the most part) and incomes are now considerably higher in Curitiba.

Oil costs are rising, but not nearly to the level to significantly affect auto ownership rates in the US for quite some time. Rising prices will change the cars that people buy, the amount of time that people keep cars, and the amount of miles driven, but that's it for awhile. In a compact city like the one that you're dreaming up (and similar to the one that I live in), an increase in the price of gas doesn't change much, since the distances driven are so small.

One option would be to ban the use of private cars altogether. Parking garages would be set up at the periphery of the city. There would be a carshare system. With a carshare system, a person could rent any kind of vehicle at any time and would not need to worry about fuel or maintenance costs. Traffic jams would be eliminated. This is what they are doing in Masdar. Maybe Americans are not ready for this idea, though.

If the streets are clogged with slow-moving cars, that is actually a benefit to pedestrians and also boosts transit ridership. High speeds are discouraged by the street design of the sustainable city. In general, speeds would not exceed 30mph.

While I agree with you to some degree, I stick by my points that retail corridors and transit corridors are able to be built in a much more sustainable way with increased density close by.

Well, that's basically the plan of the sustainable city that I've written. With every building within 1/2 mile or less of a transit station, every location in the city is within a transit corridor. The question is: how dense is dense enough? Do we just want increased density because we can, or should we find an optimum density that gives us as much space as possible while still allowing us to operate our transit system and service networks in a highly efficient way? It seems like there must be a point of diminishing returns where increasing density has a negligible effect on the efficiency of these systems.

[CJC]

Or they might reject overbearing towers looming over single family homes. Single family homes and towers do not exist happily side by side. Single family homes and mid-rise structures (5 stories or less) can look fine next to each other, with proper design.

In Austin, we have created a "vertical mixed use" zoning category that has been applied to most of all the transit corridors in the city. The height limit? 6 stories. This is so that NIMBYs will not reject the idea outright.

I was talking more about limited use of towers adjacent to transit stops. For example, a 20-30 story tower (residential or office or mixed) with a 4-6 story podium adjacent to a transit stop. In each direction away from these towers for a block or so would be 4-6 story buildings. Then perhaps a block or two of 2-3 story apartments or rowhouses, followed by several blocks of single family homes (attached would be best, but narrow spacing would also be acceptable) before beginning to scale back up towards the next transit stop.

Well, per capita miles driven would decrease in a denser environment, as you say. So driving is less in that sense. Although those places appear to have worse traffic, they really aren't comparable at all to Houston or Atlanta. This point was brought up in reference to the functioning of the transit system. Simply having a dedicated lane or laying track on a raised median alleviates the problem of the system being slowed down by cars.

Agreed on your first couple of sentences, of course. My original point was that with your 26' wide streets, there isn't room for a raised median + stop, so any street with surface transit would have to not allow cars or be a bit wider if you don't want mixed traffic.

One option would be to ban the use of private cars altogether. Parking garages would be set up at the periphery of the city. There would be a carshare system. With a carshare system, a person could rent any kind of vehicle at any time and would not need to worry about fuel or maintenance costs. Traffic jams would be eliminated. This is what they are doing in Masdar. Maybe Americans are not ready for this idea, though.

I'm a member of a car-sharing service, and they are great. (There are two companies and one non-profit carshare group in the Bay Area) I don't like the idea of massive parking garages outside the city though. Parking limitations in the city and decent transit service into the city accomplish the same thing. Giant parking garages on the periphery just encourage driving up to the border of the city and would overwhelm the roads/highways right outside the city.

If the streets are clogged with slow-moving cars, that is actually a benefit to pedestrians and also boosts transit ridership. High speeds are discouraged by the street design of the sustainable city. In general, speeds would not exceed 30mph.

This only works if the transit is reliable and fast (dedicated right of way as we've discussed).

Well, that's basically the plan of the sustainable city that I've written. With every building within 1/2 mile or less of a transit station, every location in the city is within a transit corridor. The question is: how dense is dense enough? Do we just want increased density because we can, or should we find an optimum density that gives us as much space as possible while still allowing us to operate our transit system and service networks in a highly efficient way? It seems like there must be a point of diminishing returns where increasing density has a negligible effect on the efficiency of these systems.

Again, I'm not saying that your plan isn't good, just mentioning that being close to a transit station doesn't mean much if the transit isn't good. Every place in San Francisco is within a 1/2 mile of a transit line, but there are many areas where transit takes forever to get anywhere - even though a bus may come every 8 minutes, it takes 30 minutes to go two miles. You need density on transit corridors high enough to justify separate right of way, that's basically it.

[kupdike]

Your idea captures the imagination of many I note. For those of us on planning commissions, however, we can imagine the years of debate to implement even 1/10th of your terrific ideas. What would happen, however, if a City established criteria similar to yours and began evaluating every development that was submitted based upon its abilty to meet the performance standards imbedded in your ideally sustainable city. This would communicate the "ideal", begin training the development community, City staff/commissioners, and the public. More importantly as exceptions to zoning are requested, whether or not performance was being achieved in other areas might become a factor in deciding. We might even see the development community propose subdivisions/PUDs, etc that were far more sustainable than the minimal requirements embedded in the zoning codes.

Has anyone seen a performance "overlay" tool like this?

[PatrickMc]

I was talking more about limited use of towers adjacent to transit stops. For example, a 20-30 story tower (residential or office or mixed) with a 4-6 story podium adjacent to a transit stop. In each direction away from these towers for a block or so would be 4-6 story buildings. Then perhaps a block or two of 2-3 story apartments or rowhouses, followed by several blocks of single family homes (attached would be best, but narrow spacing would also be acceptable) before beginning to scale back up towards the next transit stop.

This would result in clusters of 20-30 story towers spaced apart in one mile intervals in every direction. With that kind of set up there would always be a tower visible no matter where you were. People in the backyards of their single family homes would see towers piercing the treeline. I'm not sure people would want that, but I guess if a community decides this is a better set up than they can go ahead with it.

In China they demolish sections of historic low rise neighborhoods to build towers. The change is regretted by almost everyone as the character of these historic places is forever lost. In Japan a similar pattern can be seen. I've read that in general the residents of the towers keep to themselves and do not participate in community activities. The low rise neighborhoods have small houses fronting communal alleys that facilitate social interaction, which is impossible to replicate in a group of towers. Many of the houses have small businesses that further enhance the community. The tower is insular and hermetic and does not allow for these possibilities. This is sort of the point of these towers - they were originally planned by the modernists to replace the alleys which were seen as unsanitary and chaotic.

Agreed on your first couple of sentences, of course. My original point was that with your 26' wide streets, there isn't room for a raised median + stop, so any street with surface transit would have to not allow cars or be a bit wider if you don't want mixed traffic.

Agreed. You would have to ban cars from the streets used by transit, or you could have two parallel roads no wider than 26 ft, separated by a median of no less than 10 ft. Didn't you say that in Curitiba the roads used by the bus system are closed to cars? This seems like an easy solution.

I'm a member of a car-sharing service, and they are great. (There are two companies and one non-profit carshare group in the Bay Area) I don't like the idea of massive parking garages outside the city though. Parking limitations in the city and decent transit service into the city accomplish the same thing. Giant parking garages on the periphery just encourage driving up to the border of the city and would overwhelm the roads/highways right outside the city.

Good point. I suppose just having decent rail connections to nearby cities would be better than having parking garages - but you would probably still want some parking, as not everyone is going to take transit into the city.

This only works if the transit is reliable and fast (dedicated right of way as we've discussed).



Again, I'm not saying that your plan isn't good, just mentioning that being close to a transit station doesn't mean much if the transit isn't good. Every place in San Francisco is within a 1/2 mile of a transit line, but there are many areas where transit takes forever to get anywhere - even though a bus may come every 8 minutes, it takes 30 minutes to go two miles. You need density on transit corridors high enough to justify separate right of way, that's basically it.

I'll have to do some more research on that, but I think with the way things are set up in the sustainable city that the maximum trip length between two points would be less than 30-40 minutes - a city of 1 million occupies an area just slightly larger than 8x8 miles. Achieving a maximum trip length of 30-40 minutes would require transit on dedicated right of way as you said. This might seem slow but remember there is a lot more going on mile by mile than in a sprawling city.

I think the density required for separate right of way is lower than you might think. The Institute of Transportation Engineers did a report saying that densities as low as 9 units/acre could support light rail service, provided pedestrian infrastructure was sufficient. This is the level required to support minimal light rail service, so this is not the optimum density, but it does show that transit can be supported without ultra-high density towers. Another thing comes to mind. The streetcar suburbs were composed almost entirely of low rise structures, with a density that was often lower than 20 units/acre - more like 8-10/acre. Transit service in these communities was usually frequent, arriving every 15 minutes or less. Granted there was less competition from the car in those days, but it is still worth thinking about.

Thanks for all the input, CJC.



kupdike:

Your idea captures the imagination of many I note. For those of us on planning commissions, however, we can imagine the years of debate to implement even 1/10th of your terrific ideas. What would happen, however, if a City established criteria similar to yours and began evaluating every development that was submitted based upon its abilty to meet the performance standards imbedded in your ideally sustainable city. This would communicate the "ideal", begin training the development community, City staff/commissioners, and the public. More importantly as exceptions to zoning are requested, whether or not performance was being achieved in other areas might become a factor in deciding. We might even see the development community propose subdivisions/PUDs, etc that were far more sustainable than the minimal requirements embedded in the zoning codes.

Has anyone seen a performance "overlay" tool like this?

I think that is a good idea - you don't have to start with a new city, you can use the sustainable city criteria as a way of evaluating new projects. If they fail to meet the criteria than the development cannot be built. Or you could go the incentive route and offer a tax break or something similar to a developer who was willing to follow the incentives. I prefer not allowing any development that fails to meet the criteria.

Here is something somewhat similar going on in Austin. It is incentive-based, which means that projects which fail to meet the criteria are still being built all over the city. Anything other than an incentive-based system (like making non-conforming projects illegal) would probably not fly in pro-business Texas.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...d%3A554292

[CJC]

This is a great discussion, thanks for starting the topic PatrickMc.

This would result in clusters of 20-30 story towers spaced apart in one mile intervals in every direction. With that kind of set up there would always be a tower visible no matter where you were. People in the backyards of their single family homes would see towers piercing the treeline. I'm not sure people would want that, but I guess if a community decides this is a better set up than they can go ahead with it.

I was thinking about it more in terms of what the overall plan would allow. I suppose that individual neighborhoods could make changes. OR you could possibly just make it so every second mile has towers or something like that.

In China they demolish sections of historic low rise neighborhoods to build towers. The change is regretted by almost everyone as the character of these historic places is forever lost. In Japan a similar pattern can be seen. I've read that in general the residents of the towers keep to themselves and do not participate in community activities. The low rise neighborhoods have small houses fronting communal alleys that facilitate social interaction, which is impossible to replicate in a group of towers. Many of the houses have small businesses that further enhance the community. The tower is insular and hermetic and does not allow for these possibilities. This is sort of the point of these towers - they were originally planned by the modernists to replace the alleys which were seen as unsanitary and chaotic.

Okay, what you're talking about here is not limited to towers, but is more a product of the time period in which they were built. A tower is no more insular than most six story buildings that you would see built under your proposal - I think you're equating height with building bulk, which is true, but bulk can come from other places as well.

Think of it this way - you're assuming that a six story height limit will build a city like Paris, Barcelona, or San Francisco, with a single block having 20-30 buildings and all sorts of alleys and entrances to buildings. Without something to force this outcome, it WILL NOT HAPPEN. The economies of scale of larger apartment buildings (and the decline of the small time landlord) will trend toward building full block buildings (or at least most of the block) with a massive underground parking garage, an exercise room, a leasing office, etc, etc - yes, it's six stories, but it's a very insular building with 300+ units that swallows up an entire block. You can see examples of this type of building in cities across the US that are experiencing a boom in new urban areas (Bellevue, Washington is a prime example). The only places where smaller buildings are being built are in older healthy urban areas with small bits of infill.

So again, height isn't the problem - bulk is.

Agreed. You would have to ban cars from the streets used by transit, or you could have two parallel roads no wider than 26 ft, separated by a median of no less than 10 ft. Didn't you say that in Curitiba the roads used by the bus system are closed to cars? This seems like an easy solution.

Yes, Curitiba has dedicated streets for their trunk lines, and dedicated lanes on some of the feeder lines. I'd tend towards trying to get LRV here, rather than BRT, but either would work.

Good point. I suppose just having decent rail connections to nearby cities would be better than having parking garages - but you would probably still want some parking, as not everyone is going to take transit into the city.

Absolutely. IMO, we just need to design for all types of user, with an emphasis on the pedestrian first. Some parking is definitely needed.

I think the density required for separate right of way is lower than you might think. The Institute of Transportation Engineers did a report saying that densities as low as 9 units/acre could support light rail service, provided pedestrian infrastructure was sufficient. This is the level required to support minimal light rail service, so this is not the optimum density, but it does show that transit can be supported without ultra-high density towers. Another thing comes to mind. The streetcar suburbs were composed almost entirely of low rise structures, with a density that was often lower than 20 units/acre - more like 8-10/acre. Transit service in these communities was usually frequent, arriving every 15 minutes or less. Granted there was less competition from the car in those days, but it is still worth thinking about.

Streetcar suburbs were built in a different time. Transit didn't have to deal with expensive union labor, spiraling health care costs, and newer safety standards.

The density needed to "support" transit can be anything. It all depends on your funding structure. Transit, even in cities like NYC and SF, is still massively underfunded compared to other countries.

[boiker]

Let me rephrase what I said. No parent lets their child play outside anymore anywhere. Not in single family neighborhoods, not in midrise neighborhoods, not in highrise neighborhoods. My parents (and my in-laws) were shocked and almost frightened when they found out we let our 6-yr old and 9-yr old play outside together without direct supervision in the park area at the end of our street. We gave them rules, gave them trust, and so far they've earned the right to have that independence. Yes, I'm a little uneasy about doing it too. But can a parent ever be truely comfortable with removing the protection offered to their children and letting them be accountable to themselves?

I think that this conceptual city makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that there will be a paradigm shift that will make these cities either mandatory or necessary through changes in economy, market preference, energy, or climate. If we assume those changes, we have to assume the loss of traditional behaviors and expecatations. Begrudgingly, at first, the population will accept these changes. But there is nothing that says behaviors won't change to positively accept the new living circumstances.

Ultimately, any proposal for "social engineering" or drastic changes to the Amercian planning and development system will face an uphill battle. It will be important for people to keep their independence and freedom to have choice and to not feel the government hand is forcing them to have this lifestyle and eliminating their liberty -- a value that is so highly cherished and far reaching. This, I feel, is the biggest obsticle to be faced in American planning.

It has been engrained that opportunity is maximized when lifestyle is not restricted. Wide open spaces, life on the frontier (exubs, rural, edge of cities), independent homesteads and living, and the automobile all feed into this value.

All true. I look at it this way - this isn't talk of a sustainable country, but rather a city. Most of the concepts discussed here have been used at least somewhere in the US in one way or another - and people self select whether they want to live there or not. If you combine a bunch of the ideas together and create a new city, the same is possible there too (self selection of people who want to live there), especially if a company or two can be convinced to locate there (through incentives).

It's hard to call a brand new city "social engineering", because no one lives there yet and no one is being forced to. It could be used more for "brand-building", a la Portland, Vancouver, or Curitiba. Most cities in the US will never look like any of those three cities, yet it's amazing how many of the ideals first used (either first used, or first "branded") in those cities have spread to places like Phoenix, Houston, or Las Vegas.

I saw a lot of the discussion focusing on the practicalities associated with making the community work and I felt compelled to introduce the social side of the argument. I used "social engineering" in its pejorative sense. The majority of the populace in USA really doesn't want to feel forced into a situation and if the existing comfortable lifestyle is changed. Whether by government or by economic/energy necessity it will reek of social engineering to many of the loudest and obstinate.

It may be an option of living, but I believe it may become in the future a primary option, much as suburbia has become since the 1950s. With all the evils associated with density, the city, and public transit there will be a nearly insurmountable barrier of traditional expectation to overcome. As generations pass, this will become easier. Any plan such as this will have to pass through the governing or advisory board of some type of government and the issues I illustrated will be contentious and near the top of the policymaker’s and advisor’s lists. How we overcome these is just as important as the plan that makes the community work.

[CJC]

My parents (and my in-laws) were shocked and almost frightened when they found out we let our 6-yr old and 9-yr old play outside together without direct supervision in the park area at the end of our street. We gave them rules, gave them trust, and so far they've earned the right to have that independence. Yes, I'm a little uneasy about doing it too. But can a parent ever be truely comfortable with removing the protection offered to their children and letting them be accountable to themselves?

I think that this conceptual city makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that there will be a paradigm shift that will make these cities either mandatory or necessary through changes in economy, market preference, energy, or climate. If we assume those changes, we have to assume the loss of traditional behaviors and expecatations. Begrudgingly, at first, the population will accept these changes. But there is nothing that says behaviors won't change to positively accept the new living circumstances.

Ultimately, any proposal for "social engineering" or drastic changes to the Amercian planning and development system will face an uphill battle. It will be important for people to keep their independence and freedom to have choice and to not feel the government hand is forcing them to have this lifestyle and eliminating their liberty -- a value that is so highly cherished and far reaching. This, I feel, is the biggest obsticle to be faced in American planning.

It has been engrained that opportunity is maximized when lifestyle is not restricted. Wide open spaces, life on the frontier (exubs, rural, edge of cities), independent homesteads and living, and the automobile all feed into this value.

All true. I look at it this way - this isn't talk of a sustainable country, but rather a city. Most of the concepts discussed here have been used at least somewhere in the US in one way or another - and people self select whether they want to live there or not. If you combine a bunch of the ideas together and create a new city, the same is possible there too (self selection of people who want to live there), especially if a company or two can be convinced to locate there (through incentives).

It's hard to call a brand new city "social engineering", because no one lives there yet and no one is being forced to. It could be used more for "brand-building", a la Portland, Vancouver, or Curitiba. Most cities in the US will never look like any of those three cities, yet it's amazing how many of the ideas first used (either first used, or first "branded") in those cities have spread to places like Phoenix, Houston, or Las Vegas.

[PatrickMc]

This is a great discussion, thanks for starting the topic PatrickMc.



I was thinking about it more in terms of what the overall plan would allow. I suppose that individual neighborhoods could make changes. OR you could possibly just make it so every second mile has towers or something like that.

I think this is something the entire city would have to vote on, since towers built in one neighborhood would be visible in other neighborhoods. The city as a whole would vote where to put the towers. I imagine the result would be one or two districts where towers were allowed - much like today's downtowns. I will concede the point - in a sustainable city, any type of architecture could be used - low, mid, or high rise. What matters is that neighborhoods hit their target density of 20 units/acre.

Okay, what you're talking about here is not limited to towers, but is more a product of the time period in which they were built. A tower is no more insular than most six story buildings that you would see built under your proposal - I think you're equating height with building bulk, which is true, but bulk can come from other places as well.

Think of it this way - you're assuming that a six story height limit will build a city like Paris, Barcelona, or San Francisco, with a single block having 20-30 buildings and all sorts of alleys and entrances to buildings. Without something to force this outcome, it WILL NOT HAPPEN. The economies of scale of larger apartment buildings (and the decline of the small time landlord) will trend toward building full block buildings (or at least most of the block) with a massive underground parking garage, an exercise room, a leasing office, etc, etc - yes, it's six stories, but it's a very insular building with 300+ units that swallows up an entire block. You can see examples of this type of building in cities across the US that are experiencing a boom in new urban areas (Bellevue, Washington is a prime example). The only places where smaller buildings are being built are in older healthy urban areas with small bits of infill.

So again, height isn't the problem - bulk is.

Paris has large buildings which occupy the entire block. Unless you are referring to the medieval Paris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Haussmann_Renovations

If this is undesirable, than you could simply create a maximum building size or something similar.

Yes, Curitiba has dedicated streets for their trunk lines, and dedicated lanes on some of the feeder lines. I'd tend towards trying to get LRV here, rather than BRT, but either would work.



Absolutely. IMO, we just need to design for all types of user, with an emphasis on the pedestrian first. Some parking is definitely needed.

I am also in favor of Light Rail, but it just depends on whether or not a city has the money to implement it.

Streetcar suburbs were built in a different time. Transit didn't have to deal with expensive union labor, spiraling health care costs, and newer safety standards.

The density needed to "support" transit can be anything. It all depends on your funding structure. Transit, even in cities like NYC and SF, is still massively underfunded compared to other countries.

True, but at low densities transit would have such low ridership that the per capita energy use per passenger would be higher than if they were to just drive cars. To get around this fares would have to be so high that driving a car would be a better option - from both a cost and time perspective. Agreed that transit funding in this country is woefully inadequate.


boiker:

I think that this conceptual city makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that there will be a paradigm shift that will make these cities either mandatory or necessary through changes in economy, market preference, energy, or climate. If we assume those changes, we have to assume the loss of traditional behaviors and expecatations. Begrudgingly, at first, the population will accept these changes. But there is nothing that says behaviors won't change to positively accept the new living circumstances.

I have assumed that energy prices will rise because this is the consensus view among experts who study this subject. I have also assumed that the technology to keep the cars running as we are now is not available at the scale required and never will be. So far no one has been able to come up with a plan to keep the cars running that will actually work. Even if you could keep the cars running, would you really want to? Americans head straight for car-free places when they go on vacation. It is obvious that these places are more livable. The reason why the buying and driving of cars has been encouraged in this country as much as it has is because the auto industry is the largest industry in the world, and oil is close. Our cities are a by-product of this capitalist system which encourages unlimited consumption of resources. After WWII when production started slowing they needed a way to stimulate demand to keep the economy going. Consumption had to be encouraged even though our production had already passed the threshold where we were capable of meeting everyone's needs and most of their wants (wants are infinite). Urban sprawl was the perfect way to create that demand and encourage consumption. For more than 50 years the bulk of our economy has been centered around urban sprawl. If people understood that their living environments were engineered to encourage consumption, and not engineered for livability, than they might be less inclined to defend these places.

Ultimately, any proposal for "social engineering" or drastic changes to the Amercian planning and development system will face an uphill battle. It will be important for people to keep their independence and freedom to have choice and to not feel the government hand is forcing them to have this lifestyle and eliminating their liberty -- a value that is so highly cherished and far reaching. This, I feel, is the biggest obsticle to be faced in American planning.

This is why neighborhoods are allowed to draft their own plans - the Robert Moses school of planning (slash and burn urban planning?) has been shown to not work. The neighborhoods are given a set of goals that the plan must achieve. No one is saying that you have to move to a sustainable city. Eventually gas will be $10/gallon. Every business in the suburbs will be abandoned and most of the houses will be, too. There will be no city services or maintenance of anything. My guess is that most people will get out of there as quickly as possible if they are given an alternative. Planners have to plan for the most likely future, not "what people want".

It has been engrained that opportunity is maximized when lifestyle is not restricted. Wide open spaces, life on the frontier (exubs, rural, edge of cities), independent homesteads and living, and the automobile all feed into this value.

This is true, but I think these values are already changing. These values are mainly held by white families with children, which is a shrinking demographic. You do not see this great desire among African Americans to flee the city for the country homestead, for example. I am speaking broadly about demographics, of course there will be individual exceptions. I think that the majority of people today want a more urban, walkable environment. People just have to be shown how much better life can be without cars.

[kupdike]

Eventually gas will be $10/gallon.

It should be noted that even at an IRS deduction rate of $.50/mile (which presumably is below the actual cost to drive), the cost of a 10 mile round trip to work is equivalent to a $36,700 addition to the cost/mortgage of your house. In most markets that should be enough to drive most families to live closer to work/school, etc....but it doesn't yet. Part of this is because of some of the fixed costs in car ownership (not all of the costs are variable - like public transit)...but we clearly see families that live further usually have more cars per household, so at some level the equation still holds


20 miles X .50/mile X 22 days = $220 >>> $36,700 mortgage equiv. 6%

Other costs: Parking, family, accidents, etc.

In some markets the cost of subsidy for affordable housing (at the fringe of the market) actually approximates the cost of the commute, as calculated above. Interesting!! (But we keep building affordable housing at the fringe because of NIMBY behavior in in-fill.)

I think that the economics will eventually drive smarter (and denser) growth, but the excitement of the mixed use, denser environment still is an puzzle to many families who grew up in suburbia.

[marksab]

i really can't imagine a better layout than the turn of the centuy streetcar neighbourhood, like the place where i live now (verdun, qc).

people live in 3 storey rows, and the street/balcony/corner store/park are genuine public areas in the immediate sense.

the main commercial thoroughfare is generally busy, with very few parking lots, and a metro station linking directly to downtown as its focal point.

streets are limited to 20-25 mph and are quite safe for pedestrians, a large riverfront park with natural trails and several sprots fields (as well as the arena/auditorium and hospital) make the spot ideal.

[PatrickMc]

i really can't imagine a better layout than the turn of the centuy streetcar neighbourhood, like the place where i live now (verdun, qc).

people live in 3 storey rows, and the street/balcony/corner store/park are genuine public areas in the immediate sense.

the main commercial thoroughfare is generally busy, with very few parking lots, and a metro station linking directly to downtown as its focal point.

streets are limited to 20-25 mph and are quite safe for pedestrians, a large riverfront park with natural trails and several sprots fields (as well as the arena/auditorium and hospital) make the spot ideal.

I agree. The turn of the century streetcar suburbs were more livable, more energy efficient, and used about half as much land for the same size population as today's automobile-oriented suburbs. Density was typically 8-10 units/acre compared with the typical 4-5 of auto suburbs. Most streetcar suburbs would meet some if not all of the Sustainable City criteria.

[Future Planning Diva]

Interesting thread.

I'd like to respond to just one part of the discussion: the reality that most Americans have a preference for detached, single family houses. I believe that most Americans have never encountered, let alone occupied, a nice apartment in a well-functioning urban neighborhood.

My neighborhood in Queens, NY has, I think, a slightly higher density than proposed in this plan. I live in a seven-story apartment building with a landscaped courtyard, and I find it extremely convenient. I am within one to three blocks of grocery stores, pharmacies, the dry cleaner and shoe guy, and great restaurants. I am five minutes from the subway station, and there are lots of busses for more local travel.

Moreover, not only does my building have a staff of maintenance guys who clean and maintain the grounds and common areas, I can call the building staff when I have a drain blockage ($15 charge), or if I need my air conditioner removed from the window ($20 charge), or if I need to dispose of a heavy piece of furniture ($25 charge). If a major repair to the building becomes necessary (such as replacing a roof or boiler), instead of paying the whole cost myself ($$$$) the cost is shared by the apartment owners collectively ($).

I wish there were more parks in my immediate area, and I would like a larger apartment, but given those things, I would pick my apartment and neighborhood over the suburbs any day of the week.

What it boils down to is that Americans are just used to living in a low-density context. Some people will always prefer a house, but I strongly believe that many Americans who state that preference could be very happy in a well-maintained, well-designed dense urban neighborhood.

The proposals above for an incremental implementation of this type of urban model are interesting. The problem is finding a way to make the transition work. For example, if density is gradually increased, how are services like transit provided before the efficiency thresholds are reached? Does the city simply use transit investment to generate the type of development it favors in certain areas?

Once local conditions (including political constraints) are figured in, doesn't this plan start to look an awful lot like TOD? Not that that's a bad thing, just less spectacularly innovative.

[PatrickMc]

The proposals above for an incremental implementation of this type of urban model are interesting. The problem is finding a way to make the transition work. For example, if density is gradually increased, how are services like transit provided before the efficiency thresholds are reached? Does the city simply use transit investment to generate the type of development it favors in certain areas?

Transit frequency can be gradually increased as density is increased. Around 5 units/acre can support one hour headways, while 20 units/acre can support 10 minute headways. In a sense you could see transit as generating development, since it is the area within 1/2 mile of a transit stop that is regulated by codes. However, all land in the city is within 1/2 mile of a transit stop, so all the land in the city is regulated by those codes. I would say that the codes are more important than transit because simply building transit doesn't ensure that the right kind of development will be built in a city.

Once local conditions (including political constraints) are figured in, doesn't this plan start to look an awful lot like TOD? Not that that's a bad thing, just less spectacularly innovative.

It is similar, but there are some differences. One of the things I've tried to do is pinpoint an ideal density, which TOD does not do.

[CJC]

Transit frequency can be gradually increased as density is increased. Around 5 units/acre can support one hour headways, while 20 units/acre can support 10 minute headways.

I still find these numbers highly suspect, unless we have a major change in federal transit funding over the next few years, OR you come up with some funding scheme that guarantees these frequencies. The funding simply isn't there.

[PatrickMc]

I still find these numbers highly suspect, unless we have a major change in federal transit funding over the next few years, OR you come up with some funding scheme that guarantees these frequencies. The funding simply isn't there.

CJC, you are thinking about it only in terms of money, and if you are only considering the financial part than you might be right. However, there is no technical reason why it can't be done. We have all the resources and manpower we need to complete a national rail system and to start building rail in our cities that lack it.

Look at the average mpg of someone in a single-occupant vehicle. Then compare that to the mpg of someone on a fully loaded train. Mpg is much lower for the person on the train because so many more people are being moved, despite the fact that the train uses more energy than the car. There is a minimum number of people which would need to be on a train/bus/etc for it to be more energy-efficient than a single-occupant vehicle. Once you know that number you can roughly figure out a minimum density which will get that kind of ridership. Frequency of service would also have to be figured in.

[TexanOkie]

CJC, you are thinking about it only in terms of money, and if you are only considering the financial part than you might be right. However, there is no technical reason why it can't be done. We have all the resources and manpower we need to complete a national rail system and to start building rail in our cities that lack it.

Look at the average mpg of someone in a single-occupant vehicle. Then compare that to the mpg of someone on a fully loaded train. Mpg is much lower for the person on the train because so many more people are being moved, despite the fact that the train uses more energy than the car. There is a minimum number of people which would need to be on a train/bus/etc for it to be more energy-efficient than a single-occupant vehicle. Once you know that number you can roughly figure out a minimum density which will get that kind of ridership. Frequency of service would also have to be figured in.

No one is arguing that rail transit is more efficient than auto transportation. However, the market has to be there for this kind of investment to be worth it, from a private investment (profit) or public funding (non-profit efficiency) perspective. Unless you [figuratively speaking] plan on curtailing our personal economic and consumer liberties in ways not seen since... well, ever in the United States. That's what people have been saying. Utopia is great. You just have to frame it in the context of realistic functions and expectations.

P.S. Do you ballroom dance, by any chance?