[Location] Urban/Suburban Transition

azreal60

They are called moderators, and we work for free. =). Which did you want deleted? You can always send PM's in the future to any mod on and we'll be happy to alter anything you ask of your own posts.

Oh and incidently, yes I agree, the suburbs will be Alot less able to be in existance in the future. A good deal of the suburbs I see are like that. I suppose I should clarify. I consider Suburbs to be anywhere in driving distance of a major city, because that's how people treat them now. Just plop one down and boom, there's a living space. Even though there's nothing but living space for miles. I actually live right next to a small town's highschool. It's really close to the city of Madison, but verona is a city in it's own right. Just alot smaller. That and for me, just about everything is biking distance as long as it's in a 20 mile radius.
_________________
Azreal60

peaker_2005 · Intermediate Crude Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 742

One of the great things about my area is that it's densifying - FAST.

I'm actually really surprised at how quickly this is happening. I'm beginning to notice a few things though - I'm in suburbs, but these aren't your ordinary suburbs. They all still have mainstreet areas, centred on the rail stations in the area. The nearest to me has pretty much everything you'd need - which isn't bad considering how small the strip is. There's a hairdresser, a barber, a fruit shop, a small supermarket, a butcher, two bakeries, and of course the obligatory charcoal chicken shop. You could be forgiven for thinking you're in a small country town - heck, the train station only has one platform currently (It'll be two in a few years though, thank heavens)!

There's a light industrial area nearby.

Meanwhile, it's well and truly part of suburbia, about 30km out of the Sydney CBD.

Corner stores seem to have survived around here, which is nice.

We do have a large format mall in the area, though it's wisely plonked a short walk from a train station. To be honest, it's more like a three level mainstreet.

MrPC

One of the most important first steps for a city to make in order to start to kick the oil addiction is to get the public transport (known to North Americans as Transit) fixed up to the point where trips from anywhere to anywhere can be made conveniently (i.e. without long waits at transfer points and without too much backtracking) on the bus, tram or train (or some combination therein). Fixing PT to that point would allow people to start seeing that the car is not the central component of everything they do, experiencing alternatives, and hopefully if the services are good not be turned off by the experience and head straight back into their cars.

In Melbourne, Australia, we have most of what's needed, except for government and bureaucratic will. There's a fairly homogenous urban form with a grid main road pattern. Areas that have decent street-based PT services (those that have had tram routes for the last century or so) are quite popular and a service every few minutes really brings a community together and on board. We have centralised control of all services (privately run, but still centrally funded and controlled). We have a substantial suburban heavy rail network with 15-20 minute services on most lines all day every day (more in peak hour, less from 6.30pm to 12am). We have a fair part of the city served by a tram network that is equally functional in high density areas (prahran, malvern) and dispersed suburban territory (camberwell, riversdale) alike so people are aware how the basics can work more so than in other cities.

Unfortunately, there's no plan to bring that useful service level (where you just walk to the tram/bus stop and wait a few minutes for the next service any time of the day) to suburbs built since World War 2.

The local PT lobby has since become fairly peak-oil aware lately and was aghast that despite the evidence that major changes were underway, the government put out this big long term public transport plan with lots of dollars advocated to be spent in 10-15 years time (i.e. long after they get voted out, and long after peak oil cripples the state like it will just about everywhere else that hasn't done a crash prep). The plan was very poorly sold even if what said bureaucrat says is true, but regardless most of the improvements are years or decades away. Selling the notion of hourly local buses until 9pm (no mention was made in the official press statments that they planned to do any better than hourly services) in the face of peak oil ought to be viewed as madness IMHO.

In order to try and mobilise some opposition to said PT lobby group, the Director of Public Transport for the state of Victoria (a senior government bureaucrat in charge of the other 400 bureaucrats who manage all the subcontracted train, tram and bus operators that are all funded by the state to run whatever service level the state decides to pay for) has made an appearance on a rail enthusiast web forum.

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11319438.htm

Methinks he's trying to diffuse a ticking time bomb before the November 25 state elections. The big government document released a month or two ago was supposed to do that but since they misunderstood the whole peak oil imperative they can't grasp why it was not welcomed warmly and are trying to do a bit of wedge politics.

I'd be keen to see a few peak oil awareness questions asked of him, if anyone here is willing. Preferably people from Melbourne, or at least somewhere in Australia. Who knows, it might do some good for the place too, and if we get PT working here it might serve as an example to other cities too.

For example: Assuming oil prices and thus petrol prices stay high, and most people keep driving for all of their incidental trips due to the PT system not being run to a useful standard citywide, wouldn't it be smarter to invest in getting turn-up-and-go bus service levels implemented citywide than persist with the status quo plus evening and weekend servcices? If turn-up-and-go service levels were offered in these uncertain times, surely the creation of a thousand or so bus drivers jobs plus the insulating effect that public transport provides the economy from fuel price rises would help protect the state's economy from the worst of peak oil and ensure that we came out on top once the dust settles.

You'd probably want to reword that or ask something different. Unfortunately after he was bombarded by myself in the last thread they are restricting posters to one question each, and I've already asked mine Sad

_________________
The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.

Peepers · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 01, 2005 Posts: 216

From the Chicago Tribune

Before we hammer another nail

John McCarron (who) writes, teaches and consults on urban affairs

Published June 30, 2006

Will gasoline at $3 a gallon change the shape of Chicago's metropolitan region?

There are good economic reasons why it should. If young families did the math, they might discover that buying a bargain-priced split-level on the suburban fringe isn't such a bargain after all, what with automotive expenses. Better to buy closer in, near a Metra line or a bus route, within walking distance of schools and stores.

Trouble is, that kind of math rarely gets done. Who's going to bring it up? Not the developers, who've got a sure thing buying farmland by the acre and selling it by the foot. Not the real estate agents and mortgage brokers, who want their fat commissions. They don't mention how many hours a week you'll be driving once you buy that dream four-bedroom in Minooka, Oswego or Pingree Grove.

The people who turn farms into front lawns have a vested interest in shielding people from the reality of what stuff really costs. They don't want the folks who already live in the Minookas and the Oswegos, or those about to move in, to total up the cost of all the roads, sewers and schools that soon will be needed.

It's all legal, of course, this good old American way of hiding the cost/benefit reality. It's a business in which the main economic benefits are realized upfront by a savvy few, while the bulk of the costs are distributed over time to the unaware many. Sure, you can technically become one of the few by buying the stock of a corporate home-builder. But that's the hard way. Better you should buy raw farmland and wait for the home-builders to come calling.

This is the technique apparently mastered by U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and a group of his fellow investor-politicos out in Kendall County. Records show the speaker and his family made nearly $2 million last year selling farmland in and around Plano, a hot market for subdivisions. One of his investment partners is Dallas Ingemunson, the longtime Kendall County GOP chairman. They held the property in secret land trusts. Wouldn't want to give people the wrong idea about why Hastert has been pushing for a new expressway out that way, or why he's secured more than $200 million in federal funds to get the concrete flowing.

What his dealing does illustrate is the depth and power of the region's farm-flipping industry. Some argue the builders only supply what the marketplace demands--spacious new homes on large lots at reduced prices. Still, there's a bit of a shell game going on when developers can offer "single-family villas" in Yorkville "from the $220s," or "town homes" in Wonder Lake "from the $170s." If everyone over age 18 needs a car to function in such places--not an unreasonable assumption--where in the household budget is the $4,000 average annual cost of owning and operating each vehicle in the family fleet?

Hardly anybody figures that in, yet in truly free markets both buyers and sellers must have accurate information about what they're buying and selling. So where does one obtain information about the future transportation costs of one location versus another?

Recently a coalition of not-for-profits, led in Chicago by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, has been working on what they call The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. It uses a complex formula that weighs, among other factors, rents and prices plus proximity to public transit and average vehicle miles traveled by residents in a given neighborhood. The index may not measure the exact cost of where we choose to live, but it's more accurate than what can be divined from most other sources.

"The index will allow us to rethink the issues of true housing affordability," said Scott Bernstein, CNT president. Besides helping people with their own choices, he said, the new tool might inspire politicians, government regulators, and maybe even developers, to put more emphasis on developments that are denser, closer in, walkable and close to public transit.

After a successful test-run in Minneapolis, Bernstein said, plans are afoot to measure housing affordability across 29 metropolitan areas, including Chicago. More details can be had at www.reconnectingamerica.org.

It may not earn you a quick $2 million, but with gas at $3 a gallon and climbing, some good cost/benefit data just might save your American Dream.

Revi · Fusion Joined: Apr 25, 2005 Posts: 3537 Location: Maine

People have started to buy in town lots here in Maine and build new houses in the town centers. I think it's because when they add up all the costs involved with keeping suburban places plowed out, and mowed, not to mention the fact that the kid doesn't even have to get picked up, and can walk home. They are easier places to live. Small town life is coming back, fast around here. Those McMansions are selling like the Chevy Tahoes that inhabit their driveways.

FourOfSwords

I think, as Pops started this thread, is what can be done if you are forced to live in a large/small urban area, on a practical level.
Well I live in an apt., and like anyone else am at the mercy of the landlord if things go bad quickly, or if I or my spouse is out of work for a long period of time.
So here is what we are doing/attempting to do survival wise in an urban setting:
Set up a veggie/herb garden on our balcony.
Got rid of our auto, and now walk/bike/public transit everywhere.
Got rid of our debt, and got rid of our credit cards('get thee back Satan' Smile

)
Teaching my younger daughter how to forage for edible/medicinal plants in our neighborhood.
1 years supply of water in 2 litre recycled pop bottles.
Rain catchment system on balcony(almost finished).
Stocking up on non-perishables, as money permits.
Learning how to dry/pickle/can foodstuffs.
Many of these things apply whether urban/rural, just common sense.
But the big hurdle is going to be access to reliable, clean water, as municiple systems start to fail.
Also, I'm experimenting with the idea of setting up a 'community' within the highrise we live in...this may be the most difficult thing to get off the ground.
'nuff said.
Alex.

Cornelian

What a great thread - I live in an urban area - as I don't drive I simply can't find my country acreage to ride it out, so I'm stuck in surburbia. It is good to find others who simply can't (or don't want to) relocate to the wilderness.

I live in a small city in Tasmania - an island I hope will be well able to supply the necessities should that neeed develop. My house is in the inner city ... but it is close to the river and it has half an acre of land - an absolute blessing. I have a food garden up and running and can virtually live from that - I have a local gardener who supplies me with eggs. Nothing is too far distant that I can't walk it if needed. My house is old - 125 years - and somewhat dafty, but the winters are not too cold and I have eight fireplaces and a great deal of storage area.

I could cope ... so long as there is an orderly transition.

FilmShack · Tar Sands Joined: Dec 22, 2006 Posts: 79

That is what my TV show is about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-882082844236943883&q=filmshack&hl=en

Thanks Patti

kestrel91316

I'm in suburban Los Angeles, and have lived in a house with yard for gardening in for seven years. Now the house been sold, to tear down and build a Persian Palace..................so in a few months I will have to move back into an apartment. Sadly, there are few two-bedroom apartments available at what I was paying for my 2-BR house!

So I may have to downsize into a 1-BR apartment (rents are obscene here).

I won't be able to grow my own veggies anymore, but what I plan to do is rely much more on our farmer's markets. I think this is something EVERYONE should be doing. We need to strengthen local small-scale (non-petroleum-dependent) agriculture well in advance of PO if we are to have any chance at all of making the transition without big bad stuff happening.

I am focusing on my adaptation of the Hundred-Mile Diet. I plan to only buy food produced within 100 miles. If I can't get what I need that way, then I'll go with food from CA south of San Francisco. Barring that (say for grains) I will buy organically produced from as close as I can (wheat from Eastern WA, for example). You get the idea.

This will have the effect (especially if we ALL did it) of strengthening family farms (which we will need) in our own bioregion/neighborhood AND reducing the need for fossil fuels. It will tend to make PO a slow slide rather than a hard fall, and will at the same time decrease contributions to global warming/climate change. It's a win-win situation, with only the big corporations losing out and I won't shed a tear for them.
_________________
Kestrel

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi

dinopello

Arlington has been transitioning from a close-in suburban form (originally streetcar-based to a more urban form for about 30 years. We are the smallest county in the country in geographic size with a population of about 200,000 so pretty dense.

This year, two of the county board members mentioned Peak-Oil in their New Year's day speeches. They are short speeches

Here is one...

and here is the other.

FilmShack · Tar Sands Joined: Dec 22, 2006 Posts: 79

Kestrel: Do you have enough room to do container gardening?

Patti

Revi · Fusion Joined: Apr 25, 2005 Posts: 3537 Location: Maine

topcat

Well I am still glad I left there ten years ago.

Old cubicle: ~120 sf
New cubicle: ~780,000 sf

Old pay: good
New pay: much less

Old miles/year: 25,000+
New miles/year: 6,000-

I still miss it every other Friday when I would check my credit union statement

DarkDawg

I am a big fan of renewable energy. I guess because of high capital costs and maybe a lot of nymbyism it just hasn't caught on much here. Yes, there is a high initial investment and many other limitations, but what choice do we have in our communities going forward?

Are there any existing infrastructure conversion projects which "convert" structures into sources of renewable energy?

For example, up here in the Northeast, there are small towns and villages which often have giant water towers hovering above the town on a hillside. Why not install PV panels AND wind turbines on these things to help provide power for whatever...?

And what about the crazy cell phone tower proliferation going on all around us? Why not throw a couple of wind turbines on those ugly things too? The sheeple could not possibly object to the aesthetic issues of such a project. Actually, some of the water towers around here have in fact been converted to hold some of those stupid cell-phone contraptions, so I don't see a problem adding on some PV arrays and turbines.

I don't know anything about the feasibility of such conversion projects. I do know a lot of companies are starting to take advantage of large flat rooftops on their buildings to install PV arrays.

I think municipalities also need to start thinking outside the box and find out if some of these existing towers or structures could be used for such a purpose. Maybe the wind isn't strong enough on top of some of these towers, I don't know. But shouldn't we at least look into it? It seems if we use existing infrastructure in new ways, it wouldn't cost so much to convert.

At least one small town up here has a main road with PV-powered street lamps (not sure I love that idea for energy usage, but you get my point). The other craze that is going on locally is converting intersections to roundabouts to eliminate traffic signals, thus saving energy. Again, not a huge fan, but it's better than what happens when the power goes out - traffic nightmares.

I could go on and on about the stupidity of local governments. You have the model of the L.A. landfill which captures and converts the methane gas created in the landfill into various uses such as powering the trucks which haul the garbage. So why don't all cities do the same? Seems like a no-brainer!

I don't know if I can envision a Manhattan skyline with spinning windmills on top of every skyscraper, the southern-facing windows all replaced with PV panels; just don't think politics will let that happen in the near future. But I do feel that smaller communities can take control of their own destiny to some extent.

Any other energy-related "conversion" projects going on in your neighborhood?

Please tell me if I am way off the mark. I picked this thread because it seems somewhat practical compared to others on this site. If you think these ideas are ludicrous, please provide better ones.

thuja