City Life vs. Suburban Life: Which is more sustainable? (Louisville, build, money)
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.
Sure, they might use the bus more if gas went to $10 a gallon from $3.50. On the other hand, while gas is subsidized by somewhere between $2.50 and $12.50 a gallon according to the Internet, buses are subsidized as well. NY MTA has a farebox recovery of ~35%. So the $2.25 fare actually costs $6.75. Sort of anyway, since fares don't actually reflect the cost of the line. There's a good chance the N73/74 lines are one of those "minimum levels of service" lines that really make no sense aside from driving up costs and wasting tax payer money.
You're numbers aren't quite right for N73/74 lines. It's really impossible to say the passenger-mpg with nothing but boardings. For simplicity if all 600 passengers ran the whole route, you'd have 40 PMPG. On the other hand, if all 600 passengers road the bus for one mile and then got off, you'd have 5 PMPG.
Yeah, that would pretty much describe the function of the N73/N74. It's just there to serve the few seniors and other folks who need transit, but doesn't get a whole lot of ridership.
As far as the farebox recovery ratio, the average fare paid (on an NYC bus) was $1.14 per passenger (because you can transfer for free between bus lines, and there are monthly discounts, senior discounts, student discounts, etc), and the average cost was $2.93 per passenger (when accounting for the total cost, including things like pension benefits, excecutive pay, etc), so yeah it's in the 40% range.
I guess in order to have something to compare it to, we need to find out what the actual cost of a gallon of gas is (with a reliable source): Whether it's only $6 per gallon or $15 per gallon, in order to figure out the recovery ratio for that (at $6 per gallon, it would be around 66%, whereas at $15 per gallon, it would be around 27%)
And I see your point about passenger MPG. Not knowing the ridership habits of the few people that do ride the N73/N74 (because those are on Long Island and I live on Staten Island), I can't say how far the average person is riding.
...Oh, Gawd! I was insinuating (sic) no such thing. Some of us do not wish to spend hours researching something. I work 4 1/2 miles from my home. Gas could go up a lot and not impact me *that* much. I don't live on a quarter acre lot, and the idea that all or even most suburbanites do has been debunked.
So, everyone could live in a suburban environment like you within a 4.5 mile drive of their work? Is that what you're saying?
Tell me why having a yard, car(s), space between houses, living outside the area where one works is MORE SUSTAINABLE than everyone living in a urban environment.
I believe everyone could live a lifestyle like I do.
Explain how everyone can enjoy all the benefits of suburban living without a drop in quality of life.
Once again, I would appreciate something other than a cop out.
So, everyone could live in a suburban environment like you within a 4.5 mile drive of their work? Is that what you're saying?
Tell me why having a yard, car(s), space between houses, living outside the area where one works is MORE SUSTAINABLE than everyone living in a urban environment.
I believe everyone could live a lifestyle like I do.
Explain how everyone can enjoy all the benefits of suburban living without a drop in quality of life.
Once again, I would appreciate something other than a cop out.
1. Not everybody can live a lifestyle like you do. That is just being arrogant to suggest that.
2. Not everyone can or wants to have all the benefits
of suburban living. There are people like you who wants to enjoy the benefits of the urban enviroment.
3. Living in the suburbs is not more sustainable than living in an urban enviroment, but it's a lot more sustainable than urban people will ever admit.
So, everyone could live in a suburban environment like you within a 4.5 mile drive of their work? Is that what you're saying?
Tell me why having a yard, car(s), space between houses, living outside the area where one works is MORE SUSTAINABLE than everyone living in a urban environment.
I believe everyone could live a lifestyle like I do.
Explain how everyone can enjoy all the benefits of suburban living without a drop in quality of life.
Once again, I would appreciate something other than a cop out.
Was going to answer until I came to the last sentence. As they say in NY, Fuggeddaboudit! I don't answer snark.
City Life vs. Suburban Life: Which is more sustainable?
I think Suburban Life is potentially more sustainable, but not without A LOT of work.
Sustainability is not just consuming less; it requires producing at least as much as one uses. With a suburban lot you have room to put up solar panels which can theoretically offset your power use and you could commute with one of the latest generation electric cars from all but the most distant exurbs.
Plus, many suburban homes are built on former farmland; the kind of dirt that is excellent for growing stuff. It wouldn't be enough space to "live off the land" necessarily, but intensive gardening of fertile suburban plots could go a long way towards reducing consumption.
Solar panels are no less practical in urban cores--and often, you get more direct economic benefit from putting a layer of insulation under your roof than solar on top of it. Or the solar installation doesn't need to be on the house itself--my electric utility gives the option of a small surcharge (about $6 a month) to purchase power from solar or other renewable energy sources (hopefully it's an idea that will spread as renewables see more widespread use.) Multi-family urban homes are generally more energy-efficient than single-family homes, both through shared walls and smaller square footage (less space to heat=less energy needed to keep things warm.) And if you live in a neighborhood close to where you work you can walk or bike, saving not just fuel but also the energy/resource cost of an automobile (it takes energy equal to many years' worth of fuel consumption to produce a new car.) In fact, proximity to work is more important than how "green" your car (or your house) is for purposes of carbon footprint:
But contrary to what you might think, upgrading your appliances and buying a Prius doesn't really solve the problem of inefficient energy use in the suburbs. You'd still consume more energy overall than an average urban family.
Many suburban homes are built on former farmland--but things like leveling and paving (plus generations of assorted pollutants) typically ruin most of that good topsoil. So no, just because it's former farmland doesn't mean it will grow great crops any more than a dead racehorse will run fast. It may have done so before it was ruined, afterward not so much. And in the case of a lot of Southwestern cities, no, the soil is cruddy and there probably isn't enough water for agriculture. That being said, gardening is fun and productive, which is why urban gardening is coming into big-time vogue in a lot of cities, on vacant lots or small backyard plots. So, at most, suburban gardening comes out to roughly equal value.
And while the logistics of food distribution are definitely out of whack, the efficiencies of large-scale farming are greater than hyperlocal food production in all but the most fertile areas, even if energy/transportation costs go up significantly. In fact, it makes more economic sense for people to live in places like the Southwest, where soil is poor, and leave arable farmland for food production, then ship the food to the people by rail. In many cultures where arable land is limited (such as Japan or Italy) flat, arable land is rare, so people build up the side of hills too steep for farming or other places where plants won't grow.
So, in a lot of ways, urban life is more sustainable--and typically it takes less work than a sustainable approach in the outer suburbs.
1. Not everybody can live a lifestyle like you do. That is just being arrogant to suggest that.
2. Not everyone can or wants to have all the benefits
of suburban living. There are people like you who wants to enjoy the benefits of the urban enviroment.
3. Living in the suburbs is not more sustainable than living in an urban enviroment, but it's a lot more sustainable than urban people will ever admit.
1. Why not? If we can put a man on the Moon, we should be able to figure out how to let everyone live the urban lifestyle that I now enjoy. And if we can put a man on the Moon we should be able to figure out how to let everyone live a suburban lifestyle that others enjoy.
It's only an arrogance that is directly related to what CAN BE DONE when Americans put their minds and backs into it. I'm sorry if you think we've run out of ideas on how to get things done.
I still believe in this country.
2. True. But that is not the scenario. The scenario is that everyone living in either/or, wakes up one day and realizes that the other way of living is the "Better Way", and everyone moves accordingly.
3. Truth for the first part, and I would remove the words "a lot" from the second part and call that truth as well. Until we find a renewable energy source to power our personal vehicles, saying "a lot more sustainable", for me, is a huge stretch.
Was going to answer until I came to the last sentence. As they say in NY, Fuggeddaboudit! I don't answer snark.
Okay, a cop out it is.
The truth of the matter is, and one you seem to not want to recognize (or at least put in writing), is that everyone couldn't live in a suburban utopia.
Because once more people move into the suburbs it stops becoming the "get away from it all" that is once was.
Because houses sit on 1/4 to full acre lots, new stores have to be built further away. And being father away means using more gas to get there.
And virtually every single person will use their personal vehicles when they want to go somewhere, so there will be less oil sooner than had people lived a lifestyle that allowed them to ditch their car WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT.
And on this note, if everyone moved into the city, and was able to walk to get places, the price of gas would drop. And because the cost of gas dropped, it would cost less to ship goods around the country. And because it costs less to ship things that means it will cost less to buy things.
So it seems like the "suburbs = sustainability" only if people are willing and financially able to continue to pay for the ever rising fuel costs of shipping their goods through the sticker price of said goods and services.
Would you like to explain to me how I'm wrong and how living a suburban lifestyle is more sustainable than me walking/riding public transit to all my destinations?
I would really like to hear from you personally, rather than me having to imagine what your thoughts are.
1. Why not? If we can put a man on the Moon, we should be able to figure out how to let everyone live the urban lifestyle that I now enjoy. And if we can put a man on the Moon we should be able to figure out how to let everyone live a suburban lifestyle that others enjoy.
It's only an arrogance that is directly related to what CAN BE DONE when Americans put their minds and backs into it. I'm sorry if you think we've run out of ideas on how to get things done.
I still believe in this country.
2. True. But that is not the scenario. The scenario is that everyone living in either/or, wakes up one day and realizes that the other way of living is the "Better Way", and everyone moves accordingly.
3. Truth for the first part, and I would remove the words "a lot" from the second part and call that truth as well. Until we find a renewable energy source to power our personal vehicles, saying "a lot more sustainable", for me, is a huge stretch.
1. How ever you live your doesn't mean other people are in the position to live the same. There could be family issues, job issues, schools or whatever. Not everybody is able to go the moon. Just because you can walk everywhere doesn't mean everybody else can. I'll stand by my arrogant statement. You are telling people how we should live. That is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
2. I agree.
3. You are right, probably shouldn't use "a lot". I still stand by my opinion its more sustainable than its been given credit for.
1. How ever you live your doesn't mean other people are in the position to live the same. There could be family issues, job issues, schools or whatever. Not everybody is able to go the moon. Just because you can walk everywhere doesn't mean everybody else can. I'll stand by my arrogant statement. You are telling people how we should live. That is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
2. I agree.
3. You are right, probably shouldn't use "a lot". I still stand by my opinion its more sustainable than its been given credit for.
1. People living in cities don't face the same issues that people in the suburbs do?
And when am I telling people what to do? If you could find a statement where I explicitly said that people should do or behave a certain way, I will admit that I was wrong for making such a bold statement. Until then I'm going to say that you are taking my opinion of what *CAN/COULD* be done, and treating it as an imperative.
CAN you live a car-free life? Yes.
SHOULD you live a car-free life? Maybe. That's a personal preference.
WILL you live a car-free life? That's totally up to you.
Two of those questions are just that; Questions.
One of the questions implies a specific action should be taken; An imperative.
2.
3. Fair enough.
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.
City Life vs. Suburban Life: Which is more sustainable?
?
