A sustainable city

[CJC]

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.

None of that matters unless all energy types are recognized at the same price per BTU or whatever unit you want to use.

I'm talking real world. In the real world, energy costs are relatively meaningless to transit operators compared to inflated salary and benefit costs, as well as capital costs. Energy costs could go up by 1000% and still not be the largest cost for most agencies.

At super-high densities, investment in capital-intensive driver-less transit lines can be justified, but certainly not at 20 units/acre.

[PatrickMc]

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?

from wikipedia:

"In Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (George Allen & Unwin 1926), Frederick Soddy turned his attention to the role of energy in economic systems. He criticized the focus on monetary flows in economics, arguing that “real” wealth was derived from the use of energy to transform materials into physical goods and services. Soddy’s economic writings were largely ignored in his time, but would later be applied to the development of bioeconomics and ecological economics in the late 20th century."

What I was trying to point out is that we have all the energy, resources, and manpower to make this plan work. If the financial system is getting in our way than it has to be changed. This plan and others like it are pretty far from Utopia, but given the alternative of unsustainable sprawl it is the best option by far. An unrealistic expectation would be that we will have all the fuel we need to keep the suburbs running in the future.

[MachWing]

I've read some of the posts in this thread in their entirety, and have scanned many of the others. I'm glad to see that this "A sustainable city" thread is generating a lot of discussion.

Has there been any discussion of local or regional energy generation, particularly local renewable energy generation? This could be similar in motive and in function to the local foods movement and to mixed-use, walkable layouts - another type of "local" organization. In particular, I've been wondering about how local energy generation and smart grid technology may be integrated - along with the other goals of sustainability - into model sustainable cities. (possibly post-carbon, zero-carbon cities, possibly hydrogen cities) Where might RDD&D projects be feasible?

[RPfresh]

PatrickMc, I respect that your plan is so well thought out, but I have to wonder a few things.

A Where is the money coming from?

B Where is the land coming from? Are you talking about a suburb or a brand new city?

C Are you depending on a situation in which people have to live there, or one in which they are moving there by choice?

In regards to A, I think that the money to build a new city from scratch would be hard to come by when similar investment in existing cities could make them somewhat like what you're talking about (in terms of extended transit at least), without having to start from nothing.

As for B, if you're talking about building in a preexisting metropolitan area, where you would have access ostensibly to a port or shipping routes, that's one thing. Especially considering that your city assumes that oil is on the decline, operating outside of an urban area certainly has its drawbacks as you would need to ship from major ports and shipping nodes over long distances.

And C, if you are thinking that people would be sort of forced to live in a city like yours, which isn't that unlikely of a situation, what would make them choose an uninhabited young city over an existing urban center?

That said I think that what you propose sounds very livable, and wish I could come up with something so detailed.

[PatrickMc]

CJC wrote:

At super-high densities, investment in capital-intensive driver-less transit lines can be justified, but certainly not at 20 units/acre.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, but London has an average population density of around 14,000/square mile, which is slightly lower than what I have called for - 20 units/acre or 15,000-16,000 people per square mile. London has one of the most extensive and efficient mass transit systems in the world.

[CJC]

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, but London has an average population density of around 14,000/square mile, which is slightly lower than what I have called for - 20 units/acre or 15,000-16,000 people per square mile. London has one of the most extensive and efficient mass transit systems in the world.

1. London built the vast majority of its underground lines when it was socially acceptable for dozens (if not hundreds) of workers to die during construction. Modern day safety requirements make construction of things like this several times more expensive, not to mention higher commodity costs in general (even when adjusted for inflation - there are simply more industrialized countries now fighting for the resources).

2. The vast majority of areas in London that have excellent transit have significantly higher density than 14k/sq mi OR are regional business or entertainment districts. The other areas have comprehensive transit, but it's not nearly as fast or pleasant.

3. London is a national capital and the "jewel" of the UK. Go to Manchester or Liverpool - the transit isn't nearly as good, though densities in those cities (at least in large areas) are in your 15-16k/sq mi range. The entire country subsidizes transit in the central areas of London (not saying this is wrong, but it's what happens - the same could be said of transit in NYC to some degree).

4. The UK has much higher average productivity and better, more flexible union contracts among its transit workforce in general than does the US. This could certainly be changed, but much of the reason is a deep-rooted expectation of government waste - a viscious cycle that is hard to break - most people here seem to view any government spending as wasteful, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy situation.

[PatrickMc]

1. London built the vast majority of its underground lines when it was socially acceptable for dozens (if not hundreds) of workers to die during construction. Modern day safety requirements make construction of things like this several times more expensive, not to mention higher commodity costs in general (even when adjusted for inflation - there are simply more industrialized countries now fighting for the resources).

2. The vast majority of areas in London that have excellent transit have significantly higher density than 14k/sq mi OR are regional business or entertainment districts. The other areas have comprehensive transit, but it's not nearly as fast or pleasant.

3. London is a national capital and the "jewel" of the UK. Go to Manchester or Liverpool - the transit isn't nearly as good, though densities in those cities (at least in large areas) are in your 15-16k/sq mi range. The entire country subsidizes transit in the central areas of London (not saying this is wrong, but it's what happens - the same could be said of transit in NYC to some degree).

4. The UK has much higher average productivity and better, more flexible union contracts among its transit workforce in general than does the US. This could certainly be changed, but much of the reason is a deep-rooted expectation of government waste - a viscious cycle that is hard to break - most people here seem to view any government spending as wasteful, setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy situation.

The density level I have called for is higher than many of the minimums cited here. Some sources have said that 9 du/acre is sufficient for light rail. However, you need more than that if you are going to support a grocery store every square mile, which is essential for walkable neighborhoods. This suggests that 18 units/acre are needed to support a grocery store: http://www.epa.gov/dced/density.htm

"http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cssd/opolis
"Considerable variations in urban design and development are found around the world. But there is a widespread desire to find ways of minimizing car use in urban centers to make them more viable. This article tries to show that achieving less automobile dependence will require a certain minimum of urban intensity (residents and jobs). The value of the 35-per-hectare minimum has been found to have some basis in the literature and the authors’ own data. It has been explained in theory through the traveltime budget and the levels of amenities required to ensure that people do not have to rely on a car.

"The redevelopment or new development of urban areas can facilitate the reduction of automobile dependence if Ped Sheds of 300 hectares (1 kilometer radius) are used around Local Centers/public transit nodes, and 3,000 hectares (3 kilometer radius) around Town Centers. These should have minimum development goals of 10,000 and 100,000 people plus jobs, respectively.

"An automobile-dependent city can be restructured around a series of transit cities of 20 to 30 kilometers in diameter, with a Town Center as its focus and Local Centers linked along the transit services feeding the Town Center. Although linked across the city for many functions, these transit cities with their centers can provide a level of self-sufficiency that can form the basis for a far less car-oriented city."

Ed note: 35 persons/hectare = 14 persons/acre = 7 - 12 or more households/residential acre, depending on houshold size and fraction of land in residential acres.]

Boris Pushkarev and Jeffrey Zupan (1982) recommend the following densities (dwelling units per residential acre):

Bus: minimum service, 1/2 mi between routes, 20 buses/day 4 du/res ac
Bus: intermed serv, 1/2 mi between routes, 40 buses/day 7 du/res ac
Bus: freq serv, 1/2 mi between routes, 120 buses/day 15 du/res ac
Light rail: 5 min peak headways, 9 du/res ac, 25 - 100 sq mi corridor
Rapid tr: 5 min peak headways, 12 du/res ac, 100 - 150 sq mi corridor
Commuter rail: 20 trains/day, 1 - 2 du/ res ac, on existing track

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (1989) recommends the following minimums:

1 bus/hour, 4 to 6 du/res. ac, 5 to 8 msf of commercial/office
1 bus/30 min, 7 to 8 du/res ac, 8 to 20 msf of commercial/office
Lt rail and feeder buses, 9 du/res ac, 35 to 50 msf of commercial/office

Marcia Lowe recommends at least 7 du/res ac for local bus service and 9 du/res ac for light rail (1992).

Sacramento Rapid Transit recommend at least 10 du/res ac within 1/4 mile and 5 du/res ac outside that for bus service, and 10 du/res ac for light rail service (1987).

Consultants determined that 43 du/res acre within 1/8 mile and 10 du/res acre in the next 1/8 mile would be necessary for rail transit (Barton-Ashman Associates, 1990).

Snohomish county planners similarly found 7 to 15 du/residential acre can support frequent local bus service. They found that a large, pedestrian accessible, area at these densities might also support light rail (Snohomish County Transportation Authority, 1989)."

source: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/art...cteristics.asp

Let's also not forget that the streetcar suburbs worked fine at densities lower than 20 units/acre. We have all the physical resources we need to make this project work, and its not as if we have a shortage of manpower. The creation of sustainable cities which I have outlined would create millions of jobs and could help turn around the economy. If the financial system is getting in the way its not as if we can't find ways around that. I leave this to the economists to figure out.


RPfresh wrote:

PatrickMc, I respect that your plan is so well thought out, but I have to wonder a few things.

A Where is the money coming from?

B Where is the land coming from? Are you talking about a suburb or a brand new city?

C Are you depending on a situation in which people have to live there, or one in which they are moving there by choice?

In regards to A, I think that the money to build a new city from scratch would be hard to come by when similar investment in existing cities could make them somewhat like what you're talking about (in terms of extended transit at least), without having to start from nothing.

As for B, if you're talking about building in a preexisting metropolitan area, where you would have access ostensibly to a port or shipping routes, that's one thing. Especially considering that your city assumes that oil is on the decline, operating outside of an urban area certainly has its drawbacks as you would need to ship from major ports and shipping nodes over long distances.

And C, if you are thinking that people would be sort of forced to live in a city like yours, which isn't that unlikely of a situation, what would make them choose an uninhabited young city over an existing urban center?

That said I think that what you propose sounds very livable, and wish I could come up with something so detailed.

A. I don't know, I'm not an economist. I do know that we have more than enough resources to eventually completely replace all of our cities with new sustainable cities. This would be done incrementally over several decades. You could also do as you suggest and re-develop an existing city using the same guidelines, which might be cheaper.

B. This could be built on new land or in an existing city. Ideal locations within a city would be abandoned industrial sites, dilapidated residential areas, etc. The sustainable city uses much less energy in construction and operation than a sprawling automobile city, so the energy cost of shipping materials for construction is not as big of a problem as it might seem. If anything you are incurring an energy cost in the beginning which will be paid off in several years through the energy savings of the sustainable city (vs. a sprawling city). This is similar to transit - you are making a big investment up front but the long term operating costs more than make up for it.

C. I think the quality of life would be much higher in the sustainable city, so I think a lot of people would move there by choice if given the option. However, I think we will eventually reach a point where we won't have a choice at all due to rising energy costs. Eventually we will be forced to abandon the suburban living arrangement and will be compelled to find other arrangements. An uninhabited young city would be a lot cleaner and you could master-plan the place in a way that is impossible with the slow incremental growth of an existing city. Of course such a place would lack the culture of an old city but this can develop over time. Again, there is always the option of building the sustainable city within an existing city using an incremental approach.

[OfficialPlanner]

The density level I have called for is higher than many of the minimums cited here. Some sources have said that 9 du/acre is sufficient for light rail. However, you need more than that if you are going to support a grocery store every square mile, which is essential for walkable neighborhoods. This suggests that 18 units/acre are needed to support a grocery store: http://www.epa.gov/dced/density.htm

"http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cssd/opolis

Great links! I've often wondered about the minimum density needed for a neighborhood to support a grocery store. Now I know!

I assume, all other things being equal, that higher densities will lead to a greater chance of success for the grocery store.

[RPfresh]

I remember being in Hong Kong, and the place was so dense that some intersections had three 7-Elevens! Density can support anything.