Sprawl and Density... (Albuquerque, Los Alamos, Alamo: flat fee, rental, buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how walkable means that everyone is required to only walk, I meant walkable as in people can get many places by walking.
Well here's a direct quote from your post.. (added emphasis is mine..)
"Walkable neighborhoods do work. They work when people are able to work close to home. To say that a neighborhood is walkable while it is far good jobs is simply wrong. It seems
that a neighborhood such as that is actually a suburb, and is sprawl itself."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanrice
The simple truth is that most employers don't care whether or not their employees travel far or not. They don't yet see how that harms their business. However, some do see the harm, and they use concepts such as tele-commuting to reduce the amount of work missed, reduce employee stress, and to raise production. Obviously, that will not work for everyone, but I do think that it is the start of employers' mid-sets changing for the better.
No one has ever disputed that. I have a good friend here who telecommutes from
(HORRORS!!) the Westside near Cottonwood to a job in Boston.
But examples like that will always be the exception rather than the rule and classic public
transportation will never meet the needs of more than a small percentage of the population.
No reason not to develop it where it makes sense and is reasonably cost effective,
but it's sheer fantasy to look at it as a solution.
I think it's funny how people talk about "peak oil" or whatever in their personal context. The problem isn't with you and yours adjusting your lifestyle or just buying a new car. We've seen the consequences of spikes in oil prices. Everything goes up. As a city, we're screwed as a great majority of us NEED a car. Imagine the amounts of families without the means to buy a new, fuel efficient car, that have to drive to the grocery store to pay the rapidly increasing costs of food that's been trucked in from South America. The problem is so great that we fail to comprehend the full extent of the consequences. We need to take some steps to mitigate these potential hazards and curbing the poor quality of our built environment aids in some of these issues. Our current direction (I'm mostly talking about everything west of the Rio Grande) is horrendous at best. Sure, telecommuting, and staggered work hours help but they effect such a tiny percentage that it requires a concerted effort from many and all fronts. That's are greatest fault as Americans, we have such a hard time thinking beyond our personal realms! *steps off soapbox*
homes ... suburbs ... 130K ... and an EV for 30, 40K ...
instead of 200K - 300K ...house located closer to the city ...
I don't know how an EV stacks up in operating costs, but I do
know that with gasoline anywhere less than $4/gallon, fuel
costs are less than half of my overal automobile expense.
When considering the value of my time, the cost of a long
commute more than doubles over the fuel + operating costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Imagine the amounts of families without the
means to buy a new, fuel efficient car ...
Why would I care? ( or imagine )
There are plenty of fuel efficient used automobiles available.
Buying a new vehicle just to save money on gasoline doesn't
actually result in a savings to the buyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
... rapidly increasing costs of food that's
been trucked in from South America ...
This statement implies that the "increasing costs" expand without
bound. At some point, it will become more economical to get the
food more locally.
I think it's funny how people talk about "peak oil" or whatever in their personal context. The problem isn't with you and yours adjusting your lifestyle or just buying a new car. We've seen the consequences of spikes in oil prices. Everything goes up. As a city, we're screwed as a great majority of us NEED a car.
Yep. it's not a pretty picture..
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Imagine the amounts of families without the means to buy a new, fuel efficient car, that have to drive to the grocery store to pay the rapidly increasing costs of food that's been trucked in from South America.
I saw that all through the south when I was a kid. Still true to a large extent..
people don't drive rusted out '74 Caprices by choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
The problem is so great that we fail to comprehend the full extent of the consequences. We need to take some steps to mitigate these potential hazards and curbing the poor quality of our built environment aids in some of these issues.
Absolutely. That's why I keep on sticking pins into fantasy balloons; it's time to
start looking for workable solutions. I just wish I had some readily to hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanabq
Our current direction (I'm mostly talking about everything west of the Rio Grande) is horrendous at best. Sure, telecommuting, and staggered work hours help but they effect such a tiny percentage that it requires a concerted effort from many and all fronts. That's are greatest fault as Americans, we have such a hard time thinking beyond our personal realms! *steps off soapbox*
Stay on it. You're making good points.
As someone who recently moved to the westside entirely by choice, I'm probably going
to shock some people by saying that I think covering the mesa with housing is a big
mistake. But unless the economy stays tanked, it's going to happen unless there are
better alternatives.
here's the key point;
No significant progress will be made toward stopping "sprawl" until more attractive
alternatives are on the table.
Maybe Mesa del Sol will start taking up some of the slack. Moderator cut: Please, no name calling or bashing.
Adding more buses isn't going to cut it.
Last edited by Poncho_NM; 07-27-2010 at 05:51 PM..
Oh, and before we forget, electric vehicles are NOT, repeat NOT "pollution free"..
They are best described as Remote Polluting Vehicles, RPVs, because somewhere, some
big ol' power plant is burning coal to generate the "clean" electricity that they're using
and the more RPVs we have, the more power plants we're going to need....
Ooops, inconvenient truths are everywhere, aren't they?? Darn...
Last edited by Mike Horrell; 07-27-2010 at 03:13 PM..
The problem is so great that we fail to comprehend the full extent of the consequences.
I agree with that, if things get bad they will get real bad. I think people can easily suck up more expensive gas as far as transportation goes, 2 even 3 times I think would be doable. The problem is the point at which people in Albuquerque would no longer be able to afford commuting from the west side is well beyond the point where we are all SOL. At that point our food and goods from China and everything else will be so expensive from transportation/material costs (plastic, fertilizer..) that it won't matter if you are on the West side of the river or in Portland.
The fact is if it gets that bad, it won't matter if you can get to your job/the grocery store with a car or not.
At a non catastrophic level we have way around it and feed back loops that will keep sprawl. The more people decide they want to live closer to their jobs/transportation centers, the more the prices in those area increase and the cheaper the areas further away get. Saving $2000/year on gas and living in both a more expensive and smaller quarters, quickly becomes much less attractive than getting a nice cheap house further away.
Buying a new vehicle just to save money on gasoline doesn't
actually result in a savings to the buyer.
LOL!!! I ran some analysis on that a few years ago and the pay-off point is WAY down
the road.
Assume 20mpg for 10,000 miles a year at $4 a gallon. That's 500 gallons a year
or $2,000 in direct fuel costs.
Most new vehicles today cost about $20,000 so let's assume I bought a 40mpg car
for that amount and got $10,000 trade-in (I'm being generous) for the old clunker.
That's $10,000 out-of-pocket for the new, fuel efficient car.
I'm saving $1,000 a year in direct operating costs by doubling my mileage at $4
a gallon so it will take me 10 years to break even on my fuel-efficient investment.
I admit, operating costs are not the only reason to buy a fuel-efficient car, we have
friends who drive hybrids because they want to and God bless 'em for that, but the
point is that even $5 a gallon fuel prices probably will not radically change the face
of American transportation, it'll just make it more expensive which will have economic
impacts elsewhere.
Joe Six-Pack is not stupid. He can (and does) run those comparisons himself. He'll cut
back his total driving and expenditures elsewhere to preserve his ability to drive and
save himself hours a day, time that he can make far better use of.
Additional reference added for emphasis..
Just saw a news article that the Chevy Volt will cost @ $41,000 before incentives..
I don't know how an EV stacks up in operating costs, but I do
know that with gasoline anywhere less than $4/gallon, fuel
costs are less than half of my overal automobile expense.
I might weigh in on that.
Daily operating costs are in the $0.80/gallon equivalent range for an EV (subject to electricity price, vehicle range, and time-of-use surcharges). Time of use surcharges are a big issue (despite what some others may say). I own an EV, and the time you charge it (when you get home from work) is the time electricity is at its most costly (and the time solar/wind are just about useless). There are about half a dozen reasons why you can't practically avoid doing your charging at peak times. Even with California-style 300% surcharges on electricity, it still beats California gas prices. I _love_ not ever going to the gas station (unless you count the charge paddle in my garage).
Monthly operating costs (oil changes, etc.) are significantly lower (no oil changes), though not zero. Auto dealers _hate_ that about EV's, since that's where they make their living.
Long-term operating costs (battery) are substantial. It remains to be settled, even among today's hybrids, whether onesie-twosie individual battery cell switchouts become the norm or whether entire packs need to be replaced after a sudden failure. Since most of us don't own a car (particularly a new car) more than say, 5 years, most of us won't notice this cost. Still, we may yet see some sort of "battery insurance" business spring up, to blunt the impact of your car needing a sudden $10k worth of work done.
On another note, let's add some fresh material to this forum. One aspect of sprawl that nobody's talked much about is zoning. I think whatever your definition of sprawl is, zoning plays a big role in what is sprawl and what is not. Locating residential zoning no less than 1 mile away from commercial or office zoning might be one aspect of sprawl. I may not want to live next door to where I work (chemical plant?) but giving any kind of homeowner a minimum 1 mile to travel to shop, work, or eat really adds to the amount of road infrastructure necessary. The icky overpriced cafe up the street is a viable alternative to driving to the north I-25 feedlot, and having a choice makes both alternatives better alternatives.
It's unfortunate many of the neighborhoods built since the 60's (and particularly since the 90's) don't have much provision for rezoning a house (or cluster of houses) into an eatery, market, or specialty shop. The road infrastructure only supports (in some cases barely) a single-family home, and there's no room (or will) to expand it.
What does everyone else think about the effect of zoning (and re-zoning) on sprawl?
Oh, and before we forget, electric vehicles are NOT, repeat NOT "pollution free"..
Perhaps with what's currently powering our electric grid, that might be partly true. "Pollution" means (to most) any gaseous or particulate emissions, and though they may shift the burden down the way, cities would be far cleaner places if their vehicle fleets were electric powered.
I suppose that's a bit like saying, before we forget, fast food is NOT, repeat NOT "healthy"..
Quote:
They are best described as Remote Polluting Vehicles, RPVs, because somewhere, some
big ol' power plant is burning coal to generate the "clean" electricity that they're using
and the more RPVs we have, the more power plants we're going to need....
Hydro plants don't pollute (by most people's definition of pollution, though they evaporate far more water than any other form of power generation), nor do solar or wind plants. Some parts of the world (and U.S.) get most of their power from these sources. There is not necessarily pollution anywhere as you described.
You can use the annoying "quotation" "gesture" all you want, but the fact of the matter is electricity is cleaner than little leaky petroleum burners, even when burning petroleum is used to make it.
Quote:
Ooops, inconvenient truths are everywhere, aren't they?? Darn...
Great thought-terminating cliche. I believe there are facts and there is opinion. "Truth" is a ruse to disguise the latter as the former.
Going back to how Albuquerque itself can reduce sprawl....
What if "impact fees" on developers were much higher? Maybe building actual sidewalks, parks, roads, water drainage, schools, etc. would at least help us with more sustainable suburbs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
