I really think you just need to research this subject more. It’s definitely not one town. I used one town as an example that you might know where you live. I can offer many others if you are familiar with other regions. The shift from sprawl to dense mixed-use is happening clear across the country. Investment in transit and ridership nationwide hasn’t been as high since the 1940s. This shift began in the mid-90s.</p>
<p>At least you admit that, because of demand for walkable communities, places that were once abandoned when people favored sprawl are now expensive. The market easily disproves your first claim. As for the affordable caveate you added, there are many small towns, neighborhoods, and cities nationwide that provide both walkability and affordability. They might not be in the epicenter of cool, but they do provide access to jobs and retail.</p>
No one’s saying that people who live in sprawling cities like Detroit or Miami can or should give up their cars. Most places in the US require a car, despite how expensive they are.</p>
<p>We’re talking about a demand shift in the market, even if the supply is not there. If you look at where people are choosing to live in cities like Boston, New York, DC, Chicago, you’ll see areas around transit have surged while demand for exurban lifestyles has faltered since their heyday a decade or two ago. Some of that is due to the economy, but my only point was that, even in cities like Houston or Detroit, the places where people can depend less on a car have become extremely popular.</p>
<p>No new public investment is possible in current condition with huge deficit created by buying votes using tax money (a.k.a Stimulus and other similar programs, new ones as well as old)
Economics 101 - no free lunch.</p>
<p>College towns are serving this purpose, interestingly enough. More and more non-students are moving to college towns because of their quality of life - arts, culture, good schools, high-tech employers, a prevalence of walkable neighborhoods and public transportation. There’s a fascinating book-length study on this called The American College Town.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t want to turn this thread political, but that’s a heaping pile of ********. Public investment is needed now more than ever. And it’s happening in places across the nation.</p>
That’s a whole different topic, but massive public investments in roads and highways continue to be made at the state and federal levels, so obviously the premise of your argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. </p>
<p>In fact, a conservative state legislature in Virginia wants to force cities to build sprawl / highways because so many cities are pushing to invest in density and transit instead to meet their demand. That doesn’t align with the lifestyle desired by the conservative constiuents who voted such people into power, so they are trying to force big government to quell the market demand. </p>
<p>Just look at why suburbs developed in the first place. There was obviously market demand, but it was supported by the biggest government project in our country’s history - the Interstate system. In its wake, massive regulations at all levels forced developers to create large parking lots and huge setbacks. Advocates of density are fighting for more open markets and less government interference so people have more freedom of choice in how they can live based on what the markets demand. You sound like someone who would support that effort.</p>
<p>Economics gets far more complex and less capable of being ideologically categorized after the 101 course.</p>
<p>We live in the suburbs, on a wooded lot next to a river. We don’t commute at all - we work for ourselves out of a home office - we see deer, wild turkeys, owls, etc from our office windows. I don’t want to go back to living in a city! When we want to go to a big city, we can catch a train down to Boston.</p>
<p>You draw far rosier conclusions from that article than I do.</p>
<p>
Really? How much of the $6 billion cost was paid for by the private sector?</p>
<p>According to that article, not all the developers are on board. Lawsuits are happening, they talk about how buildings are going to have to be torn down to create streets… who is going to sacrifice their buildings? Who is going to pay for them?</p>
<p>If they actually pull off something close to the dream, only the 1%'ers will be able to afford to live there.</p>
<p>
Gentrification creates as many problems as it solves.</p>
<p>Sorry, my “research” is the fact that I’ve lived all over Michigan for the last 20 years. I’ve lived in Traverse City, metro Detroit, the Lansing area, the Battle Creek/Kalamazoo area, the list goes on. I have couch surfed around Michigan the last few summers. There are very few places where people are willingly living without cars here. That’s the simple fact. Other places in America are different.</p>
<p>Yes, people want walkable cities. My home city is one with a nice downtown and we walk there all the time. Heck, we even have major festivals in my downtown. Our tiny downtown is very nice. But those in walkable cities are NOT giving up their cars. Even those in Royal Oak (and yes, I know plenty of people that live in Royal Oak… my sister grew up there and her little brothers still live there) are NOT giving up their cars.</p>
I didn’t say people in Michigan are giving up their cars. They can’t. Michigan bet on the 20th century horse and is now struggling to attract and retain young people in the 21st century. I said that the evidence shows, nationwide, many 21-34 year olds are using their cars less and, if the transit infrastructure were there, you would see many going carless or using carshare programs just as they do in Chicago next door.</p>
I didn’t draw any rosey conclusion from that article. I’m aware of the situation there and, obviously, no massive undertaking is going to get 100% support. There’s enough support and investment to go ahead with the project. The first phase of the Silver Line is well over halfway built.</p>
<p>You’re right though - I thought MWAA that oversees the Dulles toll road (which is using tolls to help fund it) was a quasi-private entity, but it is public. Nevertheless, the private sector has chipped in to build entire stations and support Metro extension (New York Ave. Metro station is one example where developers funded it in order to allow them to create a new commerical / residential area and build more buildings).</p>
<p>
That’s true also in the gentrificdation of small towns and farms that have forced many rural people out of their livelihoods and homes over the decades of sprawl. So it’s a wash. In the end, it’s better to put money where we already have infrastructure and people rather than abandoning those areas for the next new thing.</p>
<p>I’d, personally, prefer that people who want to live in a rural landscape with wildlife and such have the opportunity to do that without having a subdivision plopped down next door.</p>
Not at all. You said the only reason people aren’t driving is if they can’t afford a car. I pointed out that many people are choosing to drive as little as possible. Many of those people would give up their cars if they could. It’s an infrastructure issue, not a question of desire.</p>
<p>People used to want to drive everywhere. Now many younger people prefer not to as much as possible. I drive sometimes but do so as little as possible because it’s miserable to have to deal with all that mess where I live.</p>
<p>No, you misinterpreted what I said. I never said whether or not people WANTED to be dependent on cars. I said nothing of the sort one way or another. I said that the only reason you don’t have one is because you can’t afford it. </p>
<p>I don’t like being dependent on a car. But I know it’s a necessity where I live.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps in some places, but not in the vast majority of Michigan. Especially those of us raised in SE Michigan. We’re raised to be dependent on our cars for everything. It’s just our culture.</p>
<p>^
Well, it was the use of the word “driving” in your OP that suggested to me that you believe people would happily drive everywhere if they can afford to. My bad if I misread that.</p>
<p>And the only thing that makes that culture economically viable is cheap gasoline and a willful ignorance of the climate externalities of burning fossil fuel.</p>
<p>As the era of cheap gas ends and we address the climate crisis, that culture will inevitably shift or die out. Will people still own cars and drive? Sure. There’s a place for private cars in the spectrum of transportation. But their role and importance will be significantly reduced in the future.</p>
<p>With gas at $4 per gallon and rising fast, we’re already seeing it. The average miles traveled in a personal vehicle each year peaked in 2004 and has been dropping ever since.</p>
<p>Polarscribe, you’re right, the cost will change the culture with time. I’ve lived sans car, in Asian cities with good transport. Here, yes, it can be done. But paradoxically, if you love nature, the only way to access wild places here is with a car. I’ve lived in Juneau as well, biked to the hospital where I worked, drizzle or not. According to the adage of a friend, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing and equipment for biking. But the greatest glory in Juneau was associated with driving ‘out the road’ to various hiking spots that years ago were certainly not on the bus line. </p>
<p>Luckily, car sharing is developing in many areas, and that may be far more the wave of the future. Access to a van, a truck, a cheap running mini, for a weekend or a haul, for the weekend or a few hours, right in the neighborhood makes for cheaper personal transport than individual ownership. </p>
<p>As for the 7 month old baby, a rare taxi ride is still cheaper than car ownership. Personally, I’m a car addict, born and raised, though I bike for errands when able. I pine for the train our Wisconsin gov gave away. We were so looking forward to fast Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis access sans car.</p>
<p>Lack of oil or cost of oil is not going to be what drives this change, if it happens. We are nowhere close to peak oil. Price is not totally driven by supply and demand, there are geopolitical and market manipulation issues as well.</p>
<p>In the US, we have reduced our dependency on foreign oil from 60% to 45%.</p>
<p>My parents’ cars in the 70’s probably got 10-12 mpg, my cars today get 3-4x better. </p>
![http://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/vmtpercapita.jpg[/url]](http://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/vmtpercapita.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
