If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
The holidays are kicking up and so is the traffic.
For awhile we had this picture on our wall as a reminder of one of the broader issues we hope our eco-urban sensibilities will address. However, I realized last night that a massive influx of development in the urban core all at once would generate some of the same traffic issues. So, I guess I can’t point the finger at Sprawl completely now, can I? Sprawl is just one expression of bad planning; there can be equally bad expressions of bad planning in and around the urban core as well.
On the other hand, I was talking with someone last night who said (my paraphrase) that if the city began to approve more 60+unit/acre projects, we might just see some real solutions to traffic because it would get so bad in and around the urban core that there would be public outcry.
Then again, people might begin to change their lifestyles. If cars were no longer the convenient mode of getting around, we might see more people walking and riding and using public transit. I know, that’s some of my idealism coming out, but I also know that its more convenient for me to shop at the Co-op than Costco these days, so I’m spending more there.
Actually, there’s an interesting dynamic I’ve begun seeing between Costco and the Co-op. Shopping at the Co-op and locally means I do pay more than Costco prices, but I’m driving less which means I’m saving some money on gas and car maintenance. I’m also enjoying life more: shoppers/workers in the Co-op are friendly and nice and community focused and the lines are short; shoppers/workers in Costco are all in their own world or making mad dashes for the free samples and the lines emulate the freeways at rush hour. However, because Costco does have the cheapest gas prices, I save my Costco trips for when I need to fill up (about once a month now). And the money I save on gas and the few staple goods I get at Costco makes it just a little easier to pay more for the local/organic stuff. I haven’t laid this out on a spreadsheet or anything, but the psychology is at work regardless. Its a strange symbiosis, but that’s modern eco-urban living.
Writing this, I realize that what I’m trying to balance is some combination of saving $$, saving time, and living out my eco-values–a challenge I think most of us eco-urbanists face. None of us get excited about entertaining trade-offs, but until our whole society gets a lot healthier, we’ll be fighting that inner battle for awhile. Of course, the eco-purist in me feels like I should probably never step into a Costco and maybe someday I’ll get there, but I’m glad for the steps I’m taking.
OK, this is starting to stretch a bit far from my starting point on traffic. But I can say this: from here through Christmas, the traffic to Costco will only get worse.
Jason
4 responses so far ↓
1 E // Nov 15, 2006 at 3:55 pm
On the traffic congestion point — I’m glad someone else (a developer, even!) recognizes that there are actual benefits to increasing traffic congestion. People eventually will recognize that the solution is more than just just complaining about it and begging local and state gov’ts to widen roads and build more freeways. You look at the number of new residents in the central city now compared to 10 years ago, the disappearance of vacant lots, the sheer number of new businesses and restaurants — people get it — it pays to live near where you work. I just saw a study the other day that cited some interesting stats from 30 or so metro areas around the country — and the tradeoff between long commutes and housing affordability is shifting. It’s now more affordable in a majority of the areas studied to pay more for housing closer to the urban core and reduce your transport costs. It’s just a study, and not universally true, but if it’s an indicator then we’re headed in the oppositie direction of sprawl. At least until housing in the becomes too expensive, and then the cycle starts all over again…
2 LJUrban // Nov 15, 2006 at 4:08 pm
We’ve got a quote on our wall (I think from a Metropolis article) that says, “People just don’t get that if you build faster roads and more parking, there will be faster roads and more parking.”
I’m reading a ULI article, “The Next Thing: Miles per House?” that says “the cost of energy likely will play a more important role in home buying decisions, with “house miles” (the number of miles a home is from employment, retail, education and entertainment) becoming a deal breaker or maker.” The driving factors for this shift in thinking are: significant interest in green/sustainable development which will only grow when the eco-conscious Gen Y’ers enter the market full force (6-8 years).
I also read a few months back that there is a new “Affordability Index” under consideration that considerations “transportation costs” in the mix: the crux of the article was that homebuyers in urban-core setting might qualify for greater loans because of the inherent savings associated with decreased costs in transportation, etc. If I find this article, I’ll post it in another comment.
3 Dan // Nov 15, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Higher density does create worse congestion. It also results in shorter trips, even if they take the same amount of time. Shorter trips means better air quality, and more opportunities to use alternatives to autos.
Acording to SACOGs travel forecasts for the region, average trip length, commute time, and time in congestion per household will be less than today in 2035. There will be worse congestion, but the average person will spend less time in it because they’ll be making shorter trips.
An interesting example is Los Angeles. Everyone complains about the traffic and blames it on sprawl. (I used to do this too.) In reality, LA is the most dense metro area in the US. It has some of the shortest (distance) average commute times in the US. It also has one of the best freeway systems in the US. It doesn’t have the best public transit system or very much super high density mixed use (i.e. SF or Manhatan), but there are recent trends towards making that happen there.
I think somewhere on your blog you mentioned a need to create places where families can raise kids in the urban core. This is a big challenge, but very important.
Anyway, I guess all that was to say the focus is reducing trip length. (Congestion is part of that.)
4 Jason // Nov 16, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I found the article. Its from Bookings Institute for Metropolitan Studies.
Leave a Comment