HOME | WALKABLE

HISTORY |PROBLEMS  

URBANITY

Notes:

use patterns are accounted for.

So why is energy efficiency so important? For a start, most of the energy used for transportation comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which produces a variety of pollutants. In the case of cars, buses and diesel trains, these pollutants are produced by the vehicles themselves, significantly reducing the air quality in the vicinity. In the case of electric trains, most of the energy still comes from the burning of fossil fuels, but at power stations, which are generally located in unpopulated areas. Regardless of where fossil fuels are burnt, some of the gases produced, including Carbon Dioxide and Methane, contribute to global warming. There is a great deal of evidence to prove that human activity has already warmed up the earth’s atmosphere. Secondly, the most commonly used fossil fuel is oil, of which there is only a finite amount in the earth. Long before this oil runs out altogether, the price will start to rise as large, easy-to-drill oil fields are depleted. Nobody can know for certain when this will happen, maybe not for another 50 years, maybe it is already happening. What we do know is that the sooner we reduce our dependency on oil, the longer we can make existing reserves last and the smaller will be the economic and social impact of the inevitable price rise.

Of course, improving the energy efficiency of towns and cities through making them more walkable is only part of the solution to our energy-related problems. We need to improve the energy efficiency of all vehicles, from cars to airliners. We need to reduce the energy consumed by buildings for heating, lighting and air conditioning, and by industrial processes. We need to find more efficient ways of producing electricity, especially renewable sources such as wind, solar and wave power. We need to compensate for our production of carbon dioxide by planting forests which absorb this gas, a goal which ties in nicely with that of building higher-density towns and cities.

LAND EFFICIENCY: One of the chief attributes of automobile-oriented development is that it has a lower density than walkable development, in other words it uses land inefficiently. The primary reasons for this are:

1. Large amounts of space are taken up by roads and parking.

2. Zoning laws mandate large setbacks, buffer zones, minimum lot sizes and maximum lot coverages.

3. Because land uses are separated, commercial development rarely exceeds one story.

4. The continual expansion of highway systems ensures that land is cheap, and encourages "leapfrog" development, leaving large amounts of undeveloped land  inside metropolitan areas.

Land that is used for automobile-oriented development is almost exclusively "greenfield" sites: land that was previously either in agricultural use, or in a natural state. In the meantime, there is an increasing number of "brownfield"sites in towns and cities as residents and businesses move to suburban areas. Developing these sites as walkable communities would make more efficient use of land.

So why is land efficiency important? Many people argue that it is not, since the USA is such a huge country that there will always be a limitless supply of land. This may be true of states such as Montana, which have a tiny, stable population spread over a huge area, but it is certainly not true of the North East, Midwest, California or Florida. These regions are gaining population rapidly, and at the same time their metropolitan areas are becoming less dense. There is already a perception in these areas that there are few natural or agricultural areas left. Even metropolitan areas that are losing population, such as Pittsburgh, are spreading out into surrounding rural areas as they become more automobile-oriented..

When development displaces natural habitats, regardless of whether it is a desert in Nevada, a forest in Maine, or wetlands in Florida, plant and animal species are lost, the ability of the earth to absorb carbon dioxide is diminished, the ability of the land to absorb rainwater is reduced, and watercourses become polluted with runoff from roads and parking lots. When development displaces agricultural land, natural habitats are still destroyed because agricultural production moves elsewhere.

Urban decay takes many forms. Historic buildings suffer from neglect and eventually crumble, or are demolished to make way for parking lots. Downtowns that were once the focus of towns and cities become deserted, and neighborhoods that once were once pleasant places to live become dilapidated and crime-ridden, housing only those who can't afford to move out. These people, the inner-city poor, and probably the biggest victims of automobile dependency.

One car-related expense that I did not include in the $4000 is parking. For every person living in the United States, there are eight parking spaces. Even though the vast majority of these parking spaces are ostensibly free, there is really no such thing as free parking. Every time you shop at a suburban supermarket, part of your grocery bill goes to maintaining a large paved, lit parking lot. The wages I earn are a little smaller than they would be if the company I worked for didn't have to provide parking for it's employees and clients. Even the rent on an apartment or cost of a house includes the cost of providing parking for the people that live there. The ironic thing is that you pay for these parking spaces regardless of whether you use them or not: someone who walks to the supermarket or takes the bus to work is effectively subsidizing people who drive by paying for their parking!

The cost of building, maintaining and policing roads is also a great drain on our pockets. While some of these expenses are covered by user fees such as the gasoline tax, most are not. Property taxes pay for local road and utility networks, networks which cost much less to maintain in walkable areas because densities are higher and car use is lower. State and local taxes pay for the policing that is necessary to maintain a reasonable level of safety on roads (if 45,000 road deaths a year can be called reasonable). Federal taxes pay for a military presence in the Persian Gulf which serves no other purpose than to keep the supply of oil flowing.

Passengers waiting for buses in Raleigh, North Carolina. Transit services are so bad here that they are used only by people who are too poor, too old, or too disabled to drive a car.

1. The poor: Owning a car is very costly. People who are on a low income must spend a disproportionate amount of that income on owning a car, which is a necessity since most jobs are inaccessible without a car. Those lucky enough to have access to transit are severely limited in their mobility, and therefore have a much more limited range of employment options. In addition, automobile-oriented areas often offer very few housing options for people on low incomes. Many municipalities even "zone out" affordable housing. The result is that poorer sections of society become concentrated in trailer parks, public housing projects and areas of dilapidated housing.
2. The elderly: Most Americans retire twice. The first retirement, occurring between about 55 and 65, is something to look forward to: having unlimited free time on your hands seems like a blessing after years of hard work. The second retirement happens a few years later, often without warning, and with dire consequences: your license is taken away. All of a sudden, you can't visit relatives, you can't so grocery shopping, and you can't get to the golf course, church, library or wherever else you like to spend your free time. Your only choice is to spend the rest of your days in a "retirement community", where meals are cooked for you, and a limited range of leisure activities are provided.
3. Children: A 15-year old suburbanite has as much mobility as a 4-year old suburbanite. School is only accessible by excruciatingly slow buses. Football practice, parties, dates, and most of your friends are only accessible by asking parents for rides. As an eight year old boy in London, I was allowed to walk to the corner shop to buy sweets, comics, and whatever else my pocket money could afford. By age 11, I had gained enough proficiency to ride my bike on the road instead of the sidewalk, and I could access the park, the library, the swimming pool and a whole range of shops. At 14, my parents allowed me to take the train to central London on my own, to spend the money I earned delivering newspapers. By the time most American teenagers get their first glimpse of freedom at age 16, I was completely independent. The independence that American teenagers gain when they pass the driving test comes at a cost: accidents involving young drivers are commonplace, as is reflected in their sky-high insurance rates, and unless they have rich parents, teenagers have to work hard to support their cars, a pattern that stays with them for years to come.
4. Disabled people: The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that all new public buildings are accessible to disabled people. Go into any  recently built building, and you will notice ramps at any changes in level, restrooms with grab bars and lever-type faucets, signs in Braille, and strobe light fire alarms. The ADA has brought about a degree of equality for people who previously found many obstacles in buildings. Unfortunately, most new public buildings are accessible only by car, thereby creating a huge barrier for the large number of disabled people who cannot drive a car. ADA would be much more effective if it were to apply to towns and cities, not just to individual buildings. 

Although accident rates vary for different transit modes, they are all far lower than for driving. A fatal train accident is national, if not international news, whereas fatal car accidents rarely hit the local news. The most you are likely to hear about a fatal car accident is a traffic report warning drivers to take an alternate route until the wreckage is cleared.

Walkable communities, where the majority of trips are not made by car, and car trips are shorter in distance, are much safer places to live than automobile-dependent areas. For example, the per-capita road fatality rate in the UK is about 1/3 of that in the USA. This is primarily because most people in the UK live in walkable communities, and car use is much lower than in the USA.