s/o Those of you that think gas prices should equal Europe's

[poppy]

I mean how so many people on this thread claim that their lives would be completely disrupted and miserable if they didn't drive every single place they go. Again, people seem only to be looking at their short-term, self-centered situation and not thinking long-term, big-picture. Primary dependence on fossil fuels will come to an end, and it will happen sooner than we like to think. Life will change, and we will adapt, and people will have to learn to deal with not driving their cars everywhere they choose to go. 

 

100 years ago, almost no one had cars and our current neighborhoods and lifestyle were unimaginable. 

 

100 years from now, it's entirely possible the modern system of highways jam packed with 3000 lbs vehicles with one person in each will look completely ridiculous.

[Murphy101]

I mean how so many people on this thread claim that their lives would be completely disrupted and miserable if they didn't drive every single place they go. Again, people seem only to be looking at their short-term, self-centered situation and not thinking long-term, big-picture. Primary dependence on fossil fuels will come to an end, and it will happen sooner than we like to think. Life will change, and we will adapt, and people will have to learn to deal with not driving their cars everywhere they choose to go.

I think I'm reading a different thread.

 

They aren't making "claims" or being "self-centered". This implies they are somehow full of crap and just don't want to be inconvenienced. It's really rather insulting and doesn't further any dialog or solutions. It's just name-calling.

 

It's not true.

 

Fact, many people for various valid reasons live in places where, yes, they do have to drive most of the time. Most people even in those situations have said they would drive less if it was an option. I fail to see anything false or self-centered about that.

 

Fact, regardless of the price or scarcity of fuel tomorrow, next week, or whenever... Yes, of course people make the right now their bigger priority. Right now, they have to go to work to pay bills, they have to go buy groceries and so forth. And if the only means available is their personal vehicle, then yes, that's what they are going to drive. Thinking long-term is always based on first meeting the needs of the moment. Always. I might want to plant a garden for next spring or an orchard for a few years from now. I might think that everyone should have a garden and vote for things that make it easier for people to do that. But it's highly unlikely I'm going to stress over the price of apple trees today when I don't have the money to even buy an apple yet.

 

People being honest about the facts of their situation TODAY does not mean they are short-sighted, self-centered, or making some unreasonable claim. It means that tomorrow's solutions have to start with where we are today.

 

I wish we could get away from that attitude to actual dialog, but I guess that's not as fun as arguing.

 

I made quite a few suggestions and given how long this thread is, there was very little feedback or other suggestions made. THAT is the problem.

 

Group A proposes something that many, possibly most, people think won't work or help.

 

Response B is to shoot it down and have group A say they are just being ____ .

 

Response B goes absolutely no where.

 

Or there's the option of

 

Response C:

 

Other suggestions are made, dialog is had to find what will work for most parties, the result being a plan that most people can actually live with.

 

It is so frustrating that as a society we sit in response B until every better choice is no longer an option.

[Haiku]

Martha, a lot of people on this thread have made claims that they couldn't walk or ride a bus or take a train for reasons that are almost solely based on personal comfort: the people on the bus are scary, they'd get too hot if they walked, or they have too many little kids. I have tried repeatedly (and failed, apparently) to point out that many people around the world do these things every day and don't live miserable lives. Yet people continue to state that they don't want to live like Europeans, implying that Europeans somehow live terrible lives. It's the mental resistance to considering alternate perspectives that I am taking about. "I can't do that because I don't want to change" is a pervasive attitude in this thread.

[Haiku]

And I am not calling people names, btw. Looking at something from a self-centered perspective isn't always a matter of right vs. wrong.

[Haiku]

I was thinking about this more on my way home from my son's speech therapy, and there are two points I want to make.

 

The first is that there is definitely a difference of attitude between Europeans and Americans, in general. Having lived in both places, I can say that my impression of American is that they are much more me-focused. They want what they want and believe they have a right to it. This is good in many ways; it drives innovation and can prod people to work hard to make their dreams a desires a reality. It is bad in some ways; it can make people lose sight of the common good and the ideas that we are all in this together and that no one, not one single person, is self-made. We all depend upon and must cooperate with one another, and we must keep an eye on the greater good. My impression of Europeans is that they look at things more collectively; they are not as quick to complain about something infringing on their own personal convenience or preference because they have been raised with a more communal outlook. This can be good because it means that they can be more open to solutions to problems that may not completely meet their needs and desires. It can be bad because they may be inclined to become entrenched in a "this is the way we have always done it, and it's always worked" mentality or become passive (I have been all over Europe and experienced both western and eastern cultures). I see the American attitude as an impediment to pro-active change in the peak oil crisis, but it doesn't mean I don't like Americans or think they are bad.

 

The second point I would like to make is this: When I lived overseas, I stayed in a small, rural village in Sweden for a time. There was little in the village and people needed to go elsewhere to get their daily life needs met (jobs, doctors, groceries, etc.). There were trains and buses that ran through the little village, and people used them even if it meant walking or cycling to the station or the stop. People considered taking out their cars as the last resort, and even if it wasn't quickest or most convenient to cycle to the train station and ride the train into the bigger town, they did it. I believe that this was due to the high gas prices AND the attitude with which they were raised. And people did this in the middle of winter, with small kids, when they needed to get to work, etc. They overcame all the objections I have seen raised here and, indeed, didn't even seem to think of them as obstacles. If people had small kids, they bought a bike trailer or a good stroller. If it was cold, they bundled up. If it was hot, they brought fresh clothes and soap for a sponge bath.

 

Many of my comments on this thread have been based on the idea that what we in American consider obstacles to public transit aren't really obstacles. We just have to be willing to broaden our minds somewhat. I realize that the public transit infrastructure is not in place in much of America, but what I seem to be hearing is that people don't want it anyway. If all we do is make excuses as to why it wouldn't work for us, we will never have it. In order for it to happen, we need to be willing for it to happen. I believe that we can either have a smoother, more orderly transition to less car usage or a frantic, chaotic transition. Needless to say, a well-planned, pro-active approach will bring a better end result. 

[SKL]

Well Tara, we're talking about places that DO NOT have a train running through them.  They were not designed that way, and making them that way now will not be quick or free.  It may or may not be a good idea in the long term, but there is nothing that everyday individuals can do about it.

 

I love walking.  I have walked many miles throughout my life.  But I have to do other things such as work and parent and sleep.  And my kids have a lot of demands on them as well.

 

Gas price increases would not put *me* into bankruptcy.  I can afford it and, guess what, I don't even drive that much.  I am thinking about the majority of people who don't have as much as I have, and who, unlike me, cannot work in the comfort of their bedroom most days.  It's not being self-centered, it's being realistic.

 

Gas already isn't cheap if you use much of it.  People have already been working on reducing their usage.  Some things I have done, even though I can afford to waste gas:

 

• I drive between 55 and 60 mph on the freeway, because it's the most fuel-efficient speed.
• My grocery is a 30 minute drive, BUT I only go there once every 2-3 weeks.
• I make things last as long as possible and generally don't buy things we don't need.  This saves many resources including fuel.  The dowside is that it doesn't create jobs.  But I create jobs by paying people for services.
• I telecommute and am very much a home-body except for the things I do with my kids, which I consider important for them.  If I'm raising kids who are healthy, hard-working, and competent, you can say that's self-centered, but I would like to think it is also good for society.
• I plan for almost all my extra stops to be along the route I would drive anyway for my kids' stuff.
• I only visit my parents a few times per year - they live about 60 miles away.
• My car is 11 years old, but the next car I buy will be a more fuel-efficient car.  Currently I get about 28mpg.
• Probably other stuff.

But then there are people like my mom, who has a lot of health problems, including the inability to sit upright for more than a few minutes at a time.  She lives in the boonies, where my family bought a house in 1979.  There is zero public transportation anywhere near, and even if there were, she would not be able to sit in it, much less walk to it.  She needs to go to the doctor fairly frequently and a car is her only option.  My parents are on social security and just barely scraping by.  They are not in the market for a new, hybrid car.  Increasing gas prices would not be an "incentive" for my parents (and millions like them), it would be a disaster.

 

As for how Europe lives, that really isn't the point.  If Europeans had the land and resources that the US has, they'd probably live like us too.  And they have their own problems, possibly related to the cost incentive of taxed items like fuel.  In Germany, the birth rate is so low that there soon won't be enough workforce to take care of the elderly.  Having fewer kids probably correlates with lower fuel costs (less need for spacious residential property etc.), but at what costs?  It just isn't that simple.

 

[poppy]

They do not have a train there because gas is cheap so a train has been unnecessary.
As gas gets more expensive, either they'll need to get more public transportation options, consolidate services and shopping so biking/walking are more reasonable, or move to electric cars.
Since that's inevitable, it would be dumb to just ignore the problem and go on as we have until it's  a crisis.

But delaying unpleasant realities is not unusual, I guess.

[SKL]

I would like to know who said that we should ignore the problem or refuse to work toward solutions (such as efficient transit) as a community.

 

The question was whether our gas should be highly taxed like in Europe.  Not whether we should work toward fuel efficiency as a community.

 

Right now, at current gas prices, a lot of people would be thrilled to have access to more efficient transportation solutions.  If they aren't in the making (and some are), it's either because they didn't pass the cost-benefit test at the planning level, or the government can't be trusted to do the right thing.

[Jane in NC]

I would like to know who said that we should ignore the problem or refuse to work toward solutions (such as efficient transit) as a community.

 

The question was whether our gas should be highly taxed like in Europe.  Not whether we should work toward fuel efficiency as a community.

 

Right now, at current gas prices, a lot of people would be thrilled to have access to more efficient transportation solutions.  If they aren't in the making (and some are), it's either because they didn't pass the cost-benefit test at the planning level, or the government can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

This thread has gone on for fifteen pages.  I believe that we (as a community) evolved beyond the initial question of gas taxes.  And I am glad we did because people who live or have lived in other places have had much to contribute.  I enjoyed reading their responses. Apparently you had a compelling reason to remain a participant in the thread too because your discussion went beyond fuel taxes. 

 

Why should we limit the conversation?

 

[SKL]

This thread has gone on for fifteen pages.  I believe that we (as a community) evolved beyond the initial question of gas taxes.  And I am glad we did because people who live or have lived in other places have had much to contribute.  I enjoyed reading their responses. Apparently you had a compelling reason to remain a participant in the thread too because your discussion went beyond fuel taxes. 

 

Why should we limit the conversation?

 

 

My point is that people who are explaining why a fuel tax hike would be a bad idea do not necessarily believe fuel efficiency is a bad idea.  They are two different questions.  Tara does not seem to understand that most if not all people who are anti-tax hike are also pro-efficiency.  The gas price is not a humane way to bring it about in the USA, is what people are saying.

 

[Matryoshka]

They do not have a train there because gas is cheap so a train has been unnecessary.

 

Or there was a perfectly good train there once, and it was dismantled. 

 

100 years ago, I could have walked the 3/4 mile from my house to the center of town, and there was a trolley that would bring me to the nearest mid-sized city.  From there I could have taken a train to a large city, and from there many other places up and down the east coast, Chicago, and maybe even to the west coast.  Now there is nothing.  The tracks have been ripped up.  I can still walk to town in theory, but at risk to life and limb from cars that had just been newly invented back then and were much slower and fewer in number.

 

What happened to the Transcontinental Railroad we all learned about, that was put in place with such efficient speed with so much less technology at our disposal?  Is it still there?  Someone else posted about the subway system in LA that was bought and filled in by the car manufacturers.  It sounds like a story made up by someone wearing a tinfoil hat, but that's really what happened.

 

We chose to stop planning cities the way they were planned, yes, even here in America, before the invention of the car.  Sprawl happened because we worship the car.  It is new.  It appeared in the last 50 years, and it's due to our attitude and shortsightedness.  No, I don't think we should tear it all down tomorrow.  No, I don't think we should double gas prices tomorrow (I'd go broke too!)  But I think we need to change the way we plan new development, and we need to plan new public transportation and sidewalks and bike lanes so that I can walk or bike to the store without fearing for my life.  Gas prices probably will double anyway - heck, they've quadrupled already in my lifetime! - we need to start thinking about planning all new development thinking about pedestrian and biking traffic and then the car, not just the car, the car, and the car so that when the inevitable happens, we're not stuck. 

 

And side-rant...don't get me started on the sidewalks to nowhere.  Paths need to lead somewhere and connect things to be useable.  Most sidewalks here in the ruralish suburbs start in the middle of nowhere and end in the middle of nowhere (usually put in by a developer as part of being able to build some huge boondoggle so that it's got "benefit to the community").  They don't go anywhere, and then people argue we don't need sidewalks because people don't use them anyway - well, not that kind, unless you install teleports on either end.  We have one in town that ends one block before the elementary school.  So the kids only have to risk being hit for one block. :glare:   We have another one that leads from the strip mall to the highway underpass.  Um, why??  Beam me up!

[Jane in NC]

My point is that people who are explaining why a fuel tax hike would be a bad idea do not necessarily believe fuel efficiency is a bad idea.  They are two different questions.  Tara does not seem to understand that most if not all people who are anti-tax hike are also pro-efficiency.  The gas price is not a humane way to bring it about in the USA, is what people are saying.

 

Wow.  I am not sure we are reading the same posts!

 

I think Tara has done an excellent job in explaining how communities are planned  or can be planned differently so that alternate transportation to cars can be successfully implemented. 

 

Nothing more to be said here but happy holidays.

Jane

 

 

 

 

[SKL]

If it makes Tara and others feel better to tell us what we already know - that planning for efficiency is a good idea - then more power to her.  If you look at my posts, I have been saying the exact same thing - these changes need to be made at the planning end - not the punishment end.  And telling people they are lazy for not wanting to bike in a blizzard, or selfish for not moving to the inner city, is not likely to inspire kumbayas.

[SKL]

Or there was a perfectly good train there once, and it was dismantled. 

 

100 years ago, I could have walked the 3/4 mile from my house to the center of town, and there was a trolley that would bring me to the nearest mid-sized city.  From there I could have taken a train to a large city, and from there many other places up and down the east coast, Chicago, and maybe even to the west coast.  Now there is nothing.  The tracks have been ripped up.  I can still walk to town in theory, but at risk to life and limb from cars that had just been newly invented back then and were much slower and fewer in number.

 

What happened to the Transcontinental Railroad we all learned about, that was put in place with such efficient speed with so much less technology at our disposal?  Is it still there?  Someone else posted about the subway system in LA that was bought and filled in by the car manufacturers.  It sounds like a story made up by someone wearing a tinfoil hat, but that's really what happened.

 

We chose to stop planning cities the way they were planned, yes, even here in America, before the invention of the car.  Sprawl happened because we worship the car.  It is new.  It appeared in the last 50 years, and it's due to our attitude and shortsightedness.  No, I don't think we should tear it all down tomorrow.  No, I don't think we should double gas prices tomorrow (I'd go broke too!)  But I think we need to change the way we plan new development, and we need to plan new public transportation and sidewalks and bike lanes so that I can walk or bike to the store without fearing for my life.  Gas prices probably will double anyway - heck, they've quadrupled already in my lifetime! - we need to start thinking about planning all new development thinking about pedestrian and biking traffic and then the car, not just the car, the car, and the car so that when the inevitable happens, we're not stuck.

 

Well, did the geologists know 50 years ago how much oil there was and how long it would last?  Did they know how the population would trend?

 

And by the way, my parents' house is over 100 years old.  Yes, there used to be a train depot there back when people rode horses everywhere, but things do become obsolete.  The reason things were spread out in rural areas was because food used to be provided from a closer distance than it now is.  Farmers need to spread out, obviously, and when more of the goods started coming from faraway places, the houses in the small villages were still there.  And are still there.  And that is an important part of the fabric of America.  The villages are too small to justify a new train, but maybe it would be possible to somehow include them along a line.  I know this has been raised many times over the decades in my parents' area, but I do not know whether it has been seriously addressed by the government or not.

 

I see a lot of assumptions being made based on a bias that Americans are wasteful, lazy, and selfish.  In fact, most Americans are hardworking, down-to-earth, kind people.

[Rosie_0801]

I see a lot of assumptions being made based on a bias that Americans are wasteful, lazy, and selfish.  In fact, most Americans are hardworking, down-to-earth, kind people.

 

While we are on assumptions, people can be all six of those things.

[Haiku]

If it makes Tara and others feel better to tell us what we already know - that planning for efficiency is a good idea - then more power to her.  If you look at my posts, I have been saying the exact same thing - these changes need to be made at the planning end - not the punishment end.  And telling people they are lazy for not wanting to bike in a blizzard, or selfish for not moving to the inner city, is not likely to inspire kumbayas.

 

Nowhere have I advocated punishing people with high taxes. I have said that I don't think that the current fuel system is sustainable, and I have said that I don't agree with massive government subsidies to oil companies because they mask the problem of the looming oil crisis. I have also said that I think high gas prices would prompt a shift in our planning and public transit policies. Again, that is not advocating punishing people. Higher gas prices are coming. It's not a question of if, but when. You are trying to make me into the big, bad meanie who wants to force elderly grandmothers to cycle in the snow, and never, anywhere, have I advocated anything like that. You are reading into my comments ill intent where there is none.

 

We're talking past each other at this point. Happy holidays!

[Incognito]

The thing that gets me is that people seem to want new technology to solve the problem.  I would think we could use old technology.  We could modify trains to be more efficient, but the old designs worked.  Costs weren't prohibitive.  If we NEED to have a hovercraft train that floats silently and has anti-bacterial seats that adjust to my posture, sure, we will never see a way to make it work.

 

I'm not against new technology either, but I think people throw the baby out with the bathwater when they say - well, this was done before and disposed of, so it is crap now and we need a new idea.

 

[poppy]

If it makes Tara and others feel better to tell us what we already know - that planning for efficiency is a good idea - then more power to her.  If you look at my posts, I have been saying the exact same thing - these changes need to be made at the planning end - not the punishment end.  And telling people they are lazy for not wanting to bike in a blizzard, or selfish for not moving to the inner city, is not likely to inspire kumbayas.

 

And reading "it's possible to bike in a blizzard" as a personal attack against your lifestyle? Also not productive. Sheesh.

[Incognito]

And since it was my inflammatory comment that started it, I'll throw in that a part of the reason I said it is that everyone has an excuse and reason change won't work for them until they HAVE TO change.  Then people do it.  So in my very non-thought-out plan, taxes that reflect the true cost of fossil fuels (their extraction, purification, environmental cost, infrastructure upkeep costs, etc.) would be higher than what is paid now, and that would cause the pain needed to get people up advocating for changes they could live with.

 

People can talk and "care" but people REALLY CARE when it REALLY AFFECTS them personally. 

 

ETA: And I'm not pointing fingers on this one.  I am that way too. I don't want to be, but life gets in the way and I am.

[fraidycat]

So, Europe and large cities in Eastern US have large infrastructure for public transportation. Perhaps because those places were largely populated BEFORE there was such thing as personal vehicle outside of horses.

 

How much fuel and other resources would be wasted to re-design every suburban sprawl into urban hubs with the population density (tax base) to support public transport where none currently exist or are woefully inadequate.

 

I'm not asking to be snarky. I am enjoying reading and learning but I'm seeing a lot of "this is the answer" with no actual solution. How do we get from point A to point B? That's what I want to know.

 

Just like I tell DD in math - show your work! ;)

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

The thing that gets me is that people seem to want new technology to solve the problem.  I would think we could use old technology.  We could modify trains to be more efficient, but the old designs worked.  Costs weren't prohibitive.  If we NEED to have a hovercraft train that floats silently and has anti-bacterial seats that adjust to my posture, sure, we will never see a way to make it work.

 

I'm not against new technology either, but I think people throw the baby out with the bathwater when they say - well, this was done before and disposed of, so it is crap now and we need a new idea.

 

 

Which partially explains the re-emergence of an electric car niche, which last had a niche a century ago (e.g. the 1912 Detroit Electric).  Because of economics of scale, as for now it helps to be Jay Leno if you really want to be an early adopter, which is why manufacturers are initially targeting fleets, as with Via Motors, and various initiatives in commercial trucking, where it really does come down to profit margin.

 

Our auto history is deep, and inexorably intertwined with the way we govern.  Henry Ford himself was frustrated by the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations governing rail transport that, even 100 years ago, were draconian compared to the entrepreneurial strategies he pursued with such success (after completely bombing twice).

 

Business will do what business does, and if trucks ran on milk, BP would simply own a ton of cows.  If my child's first house has a charging station in the garage, it will most likely be the result of it being profitable for someone to sell them in quantities large enough to sustain the business.

[Jane in NC]

So, Europe and large cities in Eastern US have large infrastructure for public transportation. Perhaps because those places were largely populated BEFORE there was such thing as personal vehicle outside of horses.

 

How much fuel and other resources would be wasted to re-design every suburban sprawl into urban hubs with the population density (tax base) to support public transport where none currently exist or are woefully inadequate.

 

I'm not asking to be snarky. I am enjoying reading and learning but I'm seeing a lot of "this is the answer" with no actual solution. How do we get from point A to point B? That's what I want to know.

 

Just like I tell DD in math - show your work! ;)

 

And perhaps General Motors did not buy and remove their trolley lines!

[fraidycat]

And perhaps General Motors did not buy and remove their trolley lines!

Because their use was already deeply entrenched. ;) So, they weren't for sale. GM didn't unilaterally fill in the subway system. I haven't studied it at all, but something tells me those lines wouldn't have been obtainable by a private company if they were as much a part of the lifestyle as they actually are in Europe and NYC for example. KWIM?

[Rosie_0801]

How much fuel and other resources would be wasted to re-design every suburban sprawl into urban hubs with the population density (tax base) to support public transport where none currently exist or are woefully inadequate.

 

I'm not asking to be snarky. I am enjoying reading and learning but I'm seeing a lot of "this is the answer" with no actual solution. How do we get from point A to point B? That's what I want to know.

 

 

I don't know about that, but footpaths are a good start. How do you fund them? Here they are built and maintained by local government, out of property taxes.

[VeganCupcake]

Well Tara, we're talking about places that DO NOT have a train running through them.  They were not designed that way, and making them that way now will not be quick or free.  It may or may not be a good idea in the long term, but there is nothing that everyday individuals can do about it.

 

 

I disagree. The status quo is maintained or change occurs because the powers-that-be believe most people want it that way. Right now, most people like their suburban sprawl--or they don't, but they say little to advocate for change. There is little movement toward public transportation if no one speaks up and says they want it, or if no one is using it now. In my area, there are several citizen and professional groups that advocate for solutions to our terrible air pollution problem (some of the worst air quality in the U.S., especially in the winter, about 50% of which is due to transportation emissions).

[SKL]

I would also like to remind people that a big reason for urban sprawl is the forced school busing in the 1970s and thereafter. When they were required by a federal judge to bus young children miles away to schools in neighborhoods that were not safe for them. And the teachers had to spend more time on discipline than anything else. There was a mad dash to private schools, which then increased their tuition. Many families left the cities because there was no other viable choice. The quality of city public schools got worse and worse as more and more of the educated population left. They still have not recovered.

 

Isn't it ironic that part of the reason for the current dependence on cars is because the government made it impossible for kids to walk to school as they always had?

[LucyStoner]

I am a regular everyday person. So is my husband. We make choices that allow us to live close to our activities and employment. We chose to live in a small space that makes biking and walking a daily part of our lives. We make choices that mean we don't have a second car and can often choose not to use the one we do have. Personal responsibility for the choices we make as regular everyday individuals is key to these discussions. While not everyone can make the same choices, many more really could reduce their dependence on oil but simply will not until they have NO.OTHER.CHOICE.

 

I have lived most of my life in areas that many people, who all seem to NOT LIVE THERE, claim are wildly unsafe. Really what they mean is that they are not white or not wealthy. Seriously, I live in Seattle. We don't know from ghetto here. And I say this having experienced crime. There are about 5 city blocks, spread out, that I have ever felt unsafe in. Now I know that not all population centers are as safe but the risk of crime is way, way less than the hype. And the fear is often tied to other choices and belief systems than actual crime stats.

[Lolly]

I am a regular everyday person. So is my husband. We make choices that allow us to live close to our activities and employment. We chose to live in a small space that makes biking and walking a daily part of our lives. We make choices that mean we don't have a second car and can often choose not to use the one we do have. Personal responsibility for the choices we make as regular everyday individuals is key to these discussions. While not everyone can make the same choices, many more really could reduce their dependence on oil but simply will not until they have NO.OTHER.CHOICE.

 

I have lived most of my life in areas that many people, who all seem to NOT LIVE THERE, claim are wildly unsafe. Really what they mean is that they are not white or not wealthy. Seriously, I live in Seattle. We don't know from ghetto here. And I say this having experienced crime. There are about 5 city blocks, spread out, that I have ever felt unsafe in. Now I know that not all population centers are as safe but the risk of crime is way, way less than the hype. And the fear is often tied to other choices and belief systems than actual crime stats.

 

yes, it is about choices. I know a family who is a regular family...well, their son is on a full scholarship at Harvard...maybe that isn't so normal...Anyway, they chose to live outside the city. They live on a farm. The mother is/was a sah homeschooling mom. The father owns/teaches in a yoga school. They raise 98% of what they eat. They do not have electricity in their home. They do not have internet. They heat their home with a wood stove that they fuel mostly with wood from their acrage. (having to supplement that since the boy went to college! The wood cutter/splitter moved out.) They do drive, but I'll bet they use far less power than any other person on these boards. This is the wisest choice to make as far as sustainability goes. Other than this, they live a normal lifestyle. (This is an honest to goodness family. Only one son, now aged 22.)

 

I guess my point is that we all make the decisions we make about how much fuel we consume based on what we can do. As hard as it is to believe, people today do not just consume fuels at will. THe vast majority DO think about conservation. We do what we can without putting ourselves into what we consider too much hardship. As for my family, we are replacing our light bulbs with LED as we can. We drive the most fuel conscious vehicles that we can based on our needs. A "smart car" is not in our need base. However, we do not replace them until a replacement is needed. For example, at this point, I could drive a much smaller, fuel efficient car, but my van runs perfectly fine. Losing multiple kids from the house this fall doesn't mean I run out and buy a new car. My bedroom is very cold this winter. I just add covers and snuggle up to dh more. I get up and turn the heat up for dh to get up in the morning. I combine trips out as I can. These types of efforts seem to being just sighed at. They aren't enough. I am not comfortable living without electricity. Dh's job/family are not in a large city. Bottom line, you really cannot make the calls for other people. If everyone made the same decisions you make, you probably wouldn't be able to live where you do and have the job you have. Someone else would be there. 

 

As far as crime stats go, there is some truth behind them. I used to take the kids to a restaurant on the way home from the pool. I didn't think anything about it, but did wonder why there was a security guard there... Then, the fight between a couple of patrons occurred. Then, I connected the street the restaurant is on with many of the shootings on the news and in the paper. I stopped going there. No way you would get me to live there, even though I would be able to walk many places store-wise...Yes, some areas are more crime ridden than others. Even in my small town, I know which areas tend to have more crack houses. I stay away from those.

[LucyStoner]

Lolly, I never said that living in a city was the only way to reduce someone's oil consumption. I have many friends that live far out but have no need to commute (work from home or retired or small farmers). That said, most jobs are in the city. Most people must work there. My husband works at a hospital which serves a multistate area. 15 miles is about the max he can bike one way in a reasonable to our family commute time. So we live within that on the trail that serves his work. You can't even park walking distance from his work (you park and then wait for a shuttle), so you are better off on transit or bike. Also, we know many urban and suburban homesteaders who raise and grow food. These options are not limited to those who live rurally. We even grow a few things here and we are presently in an apartment and trade for much more.

[Joker]

I'm suddenly reminded of a thread I started a few years ago that became so nasty I asked to have it deleted.

 

I had a friend who left home at 5:30 every morning, biked to the bus stop, and took that to work every day. He took a shower at work and another at home at the end of the day (so two showers a day).

 

We live in a very humid part of the south and it was a small bus. A few people on the bus complained of his smell on the way to work due to the biking.

 

Many here said his pregnant wife who had four other children at home should get all the kids up and drive him to the bus stop and then pick him up.

 

He did stop biking because he was so self conscious. He had a second job to pay off a debt and kept it for longer than planned to buy an old piece of junk to get him there and back. So ridiculous.

[SKL]

I guess my mom was imagining the rapist who attacked her when she was 8 months pregnant in the city we used to live and work in.

 

I guess my friends who have been held up at gunpoint were imagining that too.

 

And the murder that occurred across the street from our office building in the past few weeks - pure fantasy.

 

The fact is that there are lots of rapes and murders in the city where I was born, which is the nearest city to my home.  I ain't moving my kids there.  Besides, not everyone is a homeschooler.  Moving to such a place, for most people, means putting their kids in the local public schools.  Whole lotta violence in those schools, and not a whole lotta learning taking place.  And would the kids be able to play outdoors without confronting sex, violence, and drugs?  Even the air is dirtier there because of the factories, the lack of trees, and the traffic coming from outlying areas.  That might decrease someday but it will never go away.  And no, my moving there is not going to make the world a better place.  Besides, I'd still drive because my kids don't qualify for the subsidized extracurriculars that are available there.

 

I think it would be great if they could design an area where it is both safe and walkable.  There would be a lot of takers, as long as people were convinced it was truly safe for families.

[LucyStoner]

SKL, people, including my very own self, have been raped and kidnapped (to be honest in my case it was a thawrted kidnap attempt) and mugged. It doesn't make us always at risk or unsafe. My mom was gang raped in a "safe" small town. I was once followed for over 30 minutes on foot by an intimidating man in the well off suburb that houses Microsoft's main campus. This was pre-cell phone days and I didn't shake the dude until I walked all the way to a store, went inside and made loud remarks about being followed. He then ran off and I waited there for a friend to meet me. I am still far more likely to be killed in a household accident or car crash. Far, far, far more likely. Crime survivors can choose to live in fear or not. But I find my life that much better and more meaningful because I choose not too. That said, I presently live in the one cheap block of a very near in suburb because it is more walkable and affordable than the affordable parts of our city that are a reasonable bike and transit commute from my husband's job. We could live in the city and be farther from his job. If I were buying a house right now though, a lot of supposedly dangerous places I used to live would be on the list. We are also considering moving to a different city once my husband is done with school. Not for safety (in fact one city we are considering is less safe overall) but for better real estate prices and just not Seattle. That said, only if my husband can work in those areas rather than commuting far or by car.

[ocelotmom]

Martha, a lot of people on this thread have made claims that they couldn't walk or ride a bus or take a train for reasons that are almost solely based on personal comfort: the people on the bus are scary, they'd get too hot if they walked, or they have too many little kids. I have tried repeatedly (and failed, apparently) to point out that many people around the world do these things every day and don't live miserable lives. Yet people continue to state that they don't want to live like Europeans, implying that Europeans somehow live terrible lives. It's the mental resistance to considering alternate perspectives that I am taking about. "I can't do that because I don't want to change" is a pervasive attitude in this thread.

 

There also seems to be a lot of black or white thinking. "Winters are harsh, and therefore I could never bike to work in the summer." "My child sees a specialist several hours away, therefore I have to drive to the grocery store." 

 

I guess my mom was imagining the rapist who attacked her when she was 8 months pregnant in the city we used to live and work in.

 

I guess my friends who have been held up at gunpoint were imagining that too.

 

And the murder that occurred across the street from our office building in the past few weeks - pure fantasy.

 

The fact is that there are lots of rapes and murders in the city where I was born, which is the nearest city to my home.  I ain't moving my kids there.  Besides, not everyone is a homeschooler.  Moving to such a place, for most people, means putting their kids in the local public schools.  Whole lotta violence in those schools, and not a whole lotta learning taking place.  And would the kids be able to play outdoors without confronting sex, violence, and drugs?  Even the air is dirtier there because of the factories, the lack of trees, and the traffic coming from outlying areas.  That might decrease someday but it will never go away.  And no, my moving there is not going to make the world a better place.  Besides, I'd still drive because my kids don't qualify for the subsidized extracurriculars that are available there.

 

I think it would be great if they could design an area where it is both safe and walkable.  There would be a lot of takers, as long as people were convinced it was truly safe for families.

 

It isn't about shoving everyone into overcrowded low-income urban centers (for that matter, urban centers, while walkable and public-transportable, don't tend to be ideal for biking - almost everyone talking about biking is talking about suburbs). There are plenty of suburbs here in the US where walking, biking, and public transportation are easy and safe. Most of the areas I've lived are that way (and they've all had very highly ranked public school systems, too). The rural town I live near is actually quite walkable for people who live within city limits - total area is 3.1 square miles. I don't think anyone within city limits is more than a mile (with good sidewalks and safe road crossings) from a grocery store, and most destinations are centrally located, so no more than about a mile and a half.

 

The problem is that there are also suburbs that are basically designed to be driving-centric. There are no sidewalks, let alone bike lanes. Schools, commercial centers, and other essentials are miles away from the housing. Schools *require* kids be picked up in cars. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dad-arrested-pick-kids-school-article-1.1523389. These are things that are fixable, and not necessarily at a huge expense, if there is enough demand within the community.

 

And, of course, the problem of being willing to put the physical effort into walking/biking, especially in weather that is less than temperate. 

 

In most of the areas where I have lived, outsiders who drive in have been the primary danger. Houses bordering the freeway were frequent targets for armed robberies. You don't break into a house and then walk several miles (or even several blocks) home with their big-screen TV, or take it on the bus after hanging out for a while at the bus stop. You have a getaway car. 

 

There's also the question of perception of danger vs. actual safety. I took a night class back in my early 20s that required a 2 hour bus ride home at 9PM, including a transfer with a 15 minute wait in a seriously sketchy part of town. But I never had anyone even look at me funny. I walked around alone at night in my teens and early 20s all the time with no problems.  Were these the brightest ideas ever? Probably not. I had a bit of a self-destructive streak. But I didn't suffer any harm, either. Nor have I ever had any sort of serious biking accident, though I don't deny it can happen. The most serious danger I've ever been in? A car accident, and a couple near-misses.

 

That's all anecdotal, of course, and not meant to contradict anyone else's experiences. But people do tend to avoid things out of fear when the danger is actually not that high, or no higher than with the perceived "safer" alternative.

[poppy]

I would also like to remind people that a big reason for urban sprawl is the forced school busing in the 1970s and thereafter. When they were required by a federal judge to bus young children miles away to schools in neighborhoods that were not safe for them. And the teachers had to spend more time on discipline than anything else. There was a mad dash to private schools, which then increased their tuition. Many families left the cities because there was no other viable choice. The quality of city public schools got worse and worse as more and more of the educated population left. They still have not recovered.

 

Isn't it ironic that part of the reason for the current dependence on cars is because the government made it impossible for kids to walk to school as they always had?

My goodness, it's confusing to read a description of desegregation that omits any mention of race. Were the 'they' who were at schools that were not safe for 'them' the ones causing the discipline issues? The vague pronouns made it a bit hard to follow.

[LucyStoner]

There have been a couple of recent deaths of bicycle riders in my area and a dead body found off a well traveled bike path. Rather than stop biking, we observe the "don't be an idiot" (ie wear a helmet, don't use headphones, light yourself and plan a good route) and "don't overthink it" (ie while something could happen, I could also drown in my bathtub by accident) rules. I apply the same thinking for navigating or living in less than chic areas.

[SKL]

My goodness, it's confusing to read a description of desegregation that omits any mention of race. Were the 'they' who were at schools that were not safe for 'them' the ones causing the discipline issues? The vague pronouns made it a bit hard to follow.

 

There have been many analyses of busing that address why it creates a lot of problems for all involved.  One view is that it takes away the sense of neighborhood that would normally deter a lot of senseless destructive behavior.

 

The reason why busing was done in the first place was because race relations were not stellar.  A lot of the violence (including assaults and rapes of teachers as well as students) was related to racial tensions.

 

I am sure all races were involved in the problematic behavior, but if a school in a [black, white, latino] neighborhood went from 100% [black, white, latino] to 80/20, that 20% is going to be vulnerable to attacks by the majority population.  And over time, as families with any means moved out, the discipline and academic levels naturally declined to the levels of whoever was left.

 

Besides the racial tensions and general differences in school discipline in different neighborhoods, there was the fact that kids had to wait in the dark for their school bus as early as 6am, and there were some teen girls getting snatched and raped at the dark bus stops.  The ridiculousness of having to sit on a school bus for several hours per day was also a concern.

 

Eventually they stopped busing because they had to admit it was only making everything worse.  However, at that point the cities were like bombed-out war zones.  Not surprisingly, there was not a rush to return to the city and enroll the next generation in public schools.  Cities have a lot of work to do if they hope for that result.

[ocelotmom]

There have been many analyses of busing that address why it creates a lot of problems for all involved.  One view is that it takes away the sense of neighborhood that would normally deter a lot of senseless destructive behavior.

 

The reason why busing was done in the first place was because race relations were not stellar.  A lot of the violence (including assaults and rapes of teachers as well as students) was related to racial tensions.

 

I am sure all races were involved in the problematic behavior, but if a school in a [black, white, latino] neighborhood went from 100% [black, white, latino] to 80/20, that 20% is going to be vulnerable to attacks by the majority population.  And over time, as families with any means moved out, the discipline and academic levels naturally declined to the levels of whoever was left.

 

Besides the racial tensions and general differences in school discipline in different neighborhoods, there was the fact that kids had to wait in the dark for their school bus as early as 6am, and there were some teen girls getting snatched and raped at the dark bus stops.  The ridiculousness of having to sit on a school bus for several hours per day was also a concern.

 

Eventually they stopped busing because they had to admit it was only making everything worse.  However, at that point the cities were like bombed-out war zones.  Not surprisingly, there was not a rush to return to the city and enroll the next generation in public schools.  Cities have a lot of work to do if they hope for that result.

 

The ONLY times I have ever felt unsafe on busses were on school busses. One of those times was racially motivated - on a multischool trip, somehow a handful of (white) people from my school ended up on a bus full of primarily hispanic students yelling "Muerte los gringos!". I feel awkward writing that, because I'm sure it sounds over the top and made up (plus, I'm sure my Spanish grammar is not correct, but that's the gist), but I'm sure it would have been equally awkward and scary for them if the situation had been reversed and they'd ended up on a bus full of white supremacists. It was an interesting lesson for us in being the minority. 

[poppy]

There have been many analyses of busing that address why it creates a lot of problems for all involved.  One view is that it takes away the sense of neighborhood that would normally deter a lot of senseless destructive behavior.

 

The reason why busing was done in the first place was because race relations were not stellar.  A lot of the violence (including assaults and rapes of teachers as well as students) was related to racial tensions.

 

I am sure all races were involved in the problematic behavior, but if a school in a [black, white, latino] neighborhood went from 100% [black, white, latino] to 80/20, that 20% is going to be vulnerable to attacks by the majority population.  And over time, as families with any means moved out, the discipline and academic levels naturally declined to the levels of whoever was left.

 

Besides the racial tensions and general differences in school discipline in different neighborhoods, there was the fact that kids had to wait in the dark for their school bus as early as 6am, and there were some teen girls getting snatched and raped at the dark bus stops.  The ridiculousness of having to sit on a school bus for several hours per day was also a concern.

 

Eventually they stopped busing because they had to admit it was only making everything worse.  However, at that point the cities were like bombed-out war zones.  Not surprisingly, there was not a rush to return to the city and enroll the next generation in public schools.  Cities have a lot of work to do if they hope for that result.

 

It wasn't because race relations were not stellar, it was because minority students were in horribly substandard schools due to public policies that concentrated poverty.  It wasn't bussing that turned schools into "burnt-out war zones".

 

I'm worried reading this.  Teachers raped, students snatched from bus stops and raped.... I am sorry you are preoccupied by this topic, truly.

[SKL]

It wasn't because race relations were not stellar, it was because minority students were in horribly substandard schools due to public policies that concentrated poverty.  It wasn't bussing that turned schools into "burnt-out war zones".

 

I'm worried reading this.  Teachers raped, students snatched from bus stops and raped.... I am sorry you are preoccupied by this topic, truly.

 

I'm not preoccupied, I'm just saying that was one of the reasons for the urban sprawl we see today.  People should realize it was government intervention without foresight that led to this situation in the first place.  You think my working-class parents would have moved 60 miles away from my dad's job, when mortgage rates were 12%, just for the fun of it?  Before that, we kids bundled up and walked to school in all weathers, and my mom bundled up and ran to the bus stop on the main road to get to her job downtown.  We had a decent house in a decent neighborhood and probably would never have moved but for safety reasons and school affordability / quality.  (We went to a Lutheran school at that point but could no longer afford the skyrocketing tuition.)  In our new home, we kids continued to walk everywhere - a mile to & from school etc., and we had paper routes after school, so we walked all over most of the village every day.  We have no problem with walking.  And we used wood to heat the house, hauled by guess who.  My mom took a job within walking distance.  But my dad had to drive to work, because the village only offered a few kinds of jobs.  Driving for hours in snow belt weather isn't exactly fun, but you do what you have to do to care for your family.

[TechWife]

 If you look at my posts, I have been saying the exact same thing - these changes need to be made at the planning end - not the punishment end.  

Planning isn't helpful unless the plans are carried through. Taxes will allow for many plans to be carried through. Taxes are not a punishment. They are payment for goods (infrastructure) and services (police, fire, garbage, maintenance) received. 

 

The reason things were spread out in rural areas was because food used to be provided from a closer distance than it now is. 

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

I would also like to remind people that a big reason for urban sprawl is the forced school busing in the 1970s and thereafter. 

Urban sprawl dates back to the post WWII era and is attributed to a combination of inexpensive home loans provided to veterans and the new interstate system. It was well underway decades before school busing took place.

 

 

The fact is that there are lots of rapes and murders in the city where I was born, which is the nearest city to my home.  I ain't moving my kids there.  Besides, not everyone is a homeschooler.  Moving to such a place, for most people, means putting their kids in the local public schools.  Whole lotta violence in those schools, and not a whole lotta learning taking place.  And would the kids be able to play outdoors without confronting sex, violence, and drugs?  Even the air is dirtier there because of the factories, the lack of trees, and the traffic coming from outlying areas.  That might decrease someday but it will never go away.  And no, my moving there is not going to make the world a better place.  Besides, I'd still drive because my kids don't qualify for the subsidized extracurriculars that are available there.

Crime is not limited to the city. In my suburban subdivision, there have been rapes, shootings, burglaries, vandalism,  and home invasions. Broaden the geographical area just a bit and you can include gangs, a shooting at a major big box store, a thwarted school bombing and many other crimes. 

 

No one has said you have to move to an area you feel is unsafe, but you need to recognize that violent crime occurs everywhere. You yourself admit that the air is dirtier in the city due to the car traffic. How do you think that will decrease if people don't change their habits and drive less? Maybe your kids don't need all of those extra-curricular activities. Have you ever heard of neighborhood pickup games? They used to happen all the time before we all started driving our kids everywhere to do the same thing they could have done at home in their own neighborhoods. 

 

 

I think it would be great if they could design an area where it is both safe and walkable.  There would be a lot of takers, as long as people were convinced it was truly safe for families.

 

Look around, it's beginning to happen. Maybe you could consider one of those areas if you are so concerned about the safety of your family. 

 

The reason why busing was done in the first place was because race relations were not stellar.  A lot of the violence (including assaults and rapes of teachers as well as students) was related to racial tensions.

 

I am sure all races were involved in the problematic behavior, but if a school in a [black, white, latino] neighborhood went from 100% [black, white, latino] to 80/20, that 20% is going to be vulnerable to attacks by the majority population.  And over time, as families with any means moved out, the discipline and academic levels naturally declined to the levels of whoever was left.

 

Besides the racial tensions and general differences in school discipline in different neighborhoods, there was the fact that kids had to wait in the dark for their school bus as early as 6am, and there were some teen girls getting snatched and raped at the dark bus stops.  The ridiculousness of having to sit on a school bus for several hours per day was also a concern.

 

Eventually they stopped busing because they had to admit it was only making everything worse.  However, at that point the cities were like bombed-out war zones.  Not surprisingly, there was not a rush to return to the city and enroll the next generation in public schools.  Cities have a lot of work to do if they hope for that result.

I respectfully recommend that you study the history of integration in the US. Busing was done because minorities did not have access to quality educational resources. The doctrine of "separate but equal" was not only ineffective, but unconstitutional. Rase based busing was stopped because it was deemed to be unconstitutional. Basically, it is unconstitutional to make a decision about providing services to anyone based upon their race. 

 

I know of very few areas in the entire country that I would consider to be "bombed out war-zones." Seriously? 

 

Are you at all familiar with urban renewal? It's not impossible to change a neighborhood, but it must be done conscientiously, with regard to the current residents as well as making sure the area is attractive to new residents. It's hard to improve things without money (obtained through taxes). Without taxes, developers must provide the infrastructure (sidewalks, retrofitting utility connections, bus shelters, playgrounds, etc.) and those costs must be passed along to the residents of the area. If you do this on a large scale, you end up pricing current residents out of their neighborhood. 

[SKL]

Well I wasn't trying to write a thesis on all the reasons and the comprehensive history of urban sprawl (or of busing, which, yes, was theoretically to improve integration which is an aspect of race relations, but did not work because it was poorly designed).  I was just pointing out a few facts.  It's likely I have a bit more knowledge in my skull than I post on WTM.  I lived through this phenomenon.  Among other things, I visited the very nice schools in the black neighborhoods in my city.  They were newer and nicer and had more resources than the schools on the white side of town.  (Soon after busing started, they shut down our neighborhood schools all together.)  All the magnet schools etc. were in the minority areas.  Much more money was spent per child in the minority areas BEFORE busing, in my city.  Not all cities had the same problems, just like not all currently have the same problems.

 

As far as me, I paid off my house years ago, long before I adopted my kids, and I plan to live in it until I die.  It is in a great location (15 minutes to 2 big cities and the international airport), and it has a very nice back yard.  It would be nice if we could walk to anything, but overall, the pros outweigh the cons.  What I won't do is feel guilty over the way someone planned this area decades ago.

 

Taxes are a fact of life, yes, obviously, but the way taxes are levied matters.  When you tax a specific product, you are making that group of people pay a disproportionate share for the common good.  It needs to be fair.  Many of the people who buy gasoline are on a very tight budget already and it isn't because of extravagance.  As I mentioned before, I could see taxing luxury vehicles, tour buses, or other products/services that are chiefly used by people who travel for the fun of it.  Or taking the money from a more general fund.  Or working harder to identify a cheaper way to improve efficiency.  Or some combination of these.

[Serenade]

 

 

I know of very few areas in the entire country that I would consider to be "bombed out war-zones." Seriously? 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, for one.  I went there on a couple of work trips, even years ago, now, and bombed-out war zone was my thought, too.   We went to dinner one night at a nice steak house, but it was in the middle of a desolate, broken down area -- there was nothing else functioning around it for blocks and blocks.  It was one of the eeriest things I ever saw.   It was like something out of a movie. 

[TechWife]

As far as me, I paid off my house years ago, long before I adopted my kids, and I plan to live in it until I die.  It is in a great location (15 minutes to 2 big cities and the international airport), and it has a very nice back yard.  It would be nice if we could walk to anything, but overall, the pros outweigh the cons.  What I won't do is feel guilty over the way someone planned this area decades ago.

 

Taxes are a fact of life, yes, obviously, but the way taxes are levied matters.  When you tax a specific product, you are making that group of people pay a disproportionate share for the common good.  It needs to be fair.  Many of the people who buy gasoline are on a very tight budget already and it isn't because of extravagance.  As I mentioned before, I could see taxing luxury vehicles, tour buses, or other products/services that are chiefly used by people who travel for the fun of it.  Or taking the money from a more general fund.  Or working harder to identify a cheaper way to improve efficiency.  Or some combination of these.

 

So what I am hearing is that you are satisfied with the status quo and don't want to change anything. In your mind, because someone planned your neighborhood decades ago, that plan can't change over time to include things that would make it more walkable, provide closer access to goods, services or public transportation. Whatever.

 

No one has asked you to feel guilty over anything. 

 

Many people have attempted to explain, in several different posts, how the changes can be gradual. If done correctly, an increased gas tax will not have as big of an impact because fewer people would be relying on gasoline. Those who don't rely on gasoline don't have to pay the tax. The additional taxes can be used to pay for a variety of transportation related expenses. Don't forget that improving infrastructure includes road maintenance. I'm not quite sure how you think increasing taxes on luxury goods is fair. It's a common belief, but it's one I've never understood as I'm a fair tax person, myself. 

 

Taxes are but one piece of the puzzle. First and foremost, however, the biggest piece of the puzzle will be changing things on a personal level - changing attitudes will lead to changing actions. That's perhaps the biggest hurdle we have as a nation. 

[TechWife]

Detroit, for one.  I went there on a couple of work trips, even years ago, now, and bombed-out war zone was my thought, too.   We went to dinner one night at a nice steak house, but it was in the middle of a desolate, broken down area -- there was nothing else functioning around it for blocks and blocks.  It was one of the eeriest things I ever saw.   It was like something out of a movie. 

 

Yes, that city is definitely on my "bombed out war zone" list. It's so sad. I hope with the bankruptcy action they will be able to begin to stage a turn around. I think it will be a different city than it was before, but different isn't necessarily bad, KWIM? 

[SKL]

So what I am hearing is that you are satisfied with the status quo and don't want to change anything. In your mind, because someone planned your neighborhood decades ago, that plan can't change over time to include things that would make it more walkable, provide closer access to goods, services or public transportation. Whatever.

 

No one has asked you to feel guilty over anything. 

 

Many people have attempted to explain, in several different posts, how the changes can be gradual. If done correctly, an increased gas tax will not have as big of an impact because fewer people would be relying on gasoline. Those who don't rely on gasoline don't have to pay the tax. The additional taxes can be used to pay for a variety of transportation related expenses. Don't forget that improving infrastructure includes road maintenance. I'm not quite sure how you think increasing taxes on luxury goods is fair. It's a common belief, but it's one I've never understood as I'm a fair tax person, myself. 

 

Taxes are but one piece of the puzzle. First and foremost, however, the biggest piece of the puzzle will be changing things on a personal level - changing attitudes will lead to changing actions. That's perhaps the biggest hurdle we have as a nation. 

 

If they figure out a way to change it, that is great.  I am not opposed to it.  But not to the point of tearing down houses or making people move or punishing them if they don't.

 

And if they do figure out a way to change it, like everything else, it will take a long time.  By then I will no longer have young kids to cart around.  I'll be a quiet old lady who ventures out rarely because she has internet and books and tea to enjoy.  And a nice backyard.

 

[SKL]

Renewing depressed areas of big cities is the focus of my business, by the way.  There are many plans afoot but it is very costly and takes a long time.  And also, not all new developments are really that great from a big picture perspective.  And special interests (unions, for example) can make things a lot harder than they need to be.  It's fine to say "everything would be better if we just did abc" but like all utopian plans, the final implementation either never happens or looks a lot different from the original vision.  Anyway, we keep plugging along, but being realistic.  This project is going to create some jobs and make this neighborhood look a little better, drawing a few better-grounded families to the area, who will lobby for a few improvements in the community.  Over a decade or so, it might even make a difference for the spaces in between the developments - if something else doesn't come along to mess it up.

[TechWife]

If they figure out a way to change it, that is great.  I am not opposed to it.  But not to the point of tearing down houses or making people move or punishing them if they don't.

 

And if they do figure out a way to change it, like everything else, it will take a long time.  By then I will no longer have young kids to cart around.  I'll be a quiet old lady who ventures out rarely because she has internet and books and tea to enjoy.  And a nice backyard.

 

 

Wow - no one has brought up any of those things. Usually things happen like this: 

 

1 - zoning is changed from "residential" to "mixed use residential" or "mixed use." This allows business to operate in the area. 

 

2- as homes come up for sale, businesses purchase them and open businesses. It is profitable for them because they are closer to their customer base than their competitors are. 

 

3- if the city decides to add infrastructure, then they may have to take some property through the eminent domain laws, but this is not new, it happens every day. 

 

4- People say, "Hey, I'm gonna walk down to the corner store and get the milk. They don't say "Hey, I'm gonna drive down to the corner store and get the milk." This is where the change in attitude must take place because, in reality, there's nothing preventing them from getting in the car and driving to the corner store. But, then again, if they don't mind paying taxes for the privilege of driving, then maybe that's okay - more bike lanes for me! 

[SKL]

Wow - no one has brought up any of those things. Usually things happen like this: 

 

1 - zoning is changed from "residential" to "mixed use residential" or "mixed use." This allows business to operate in the area. 

 

2- as homes come up for sale, businesses purchase them and open businesses. It is profitable for them because they are closer to their customer base than their competitors are. 

 

3- if the city decides to add infrastructure, then they may have to take some property through the eminent domain laws, but this is not new, it happens every day. 

 

4- People say, "Hey, I'm gonna walk down to the corner store and get the milk. They don't say "Hey, I'm gonna drive down to the corner store and get the milk." This is where the change in attitude must take place because, in reality, there's nothing preventing them from getting in the car and driving to the corner store. But, then again, if they don't mind paying taxes for the privilege of driving, then maybe that's okay - more bike lanes for me! 

 

This sounds mostly fine, except that it would have an impact even without the tax.

 

The tax would end up punishing people who can't easily walk down the street in all types of weather, which would be mostly elderly and handicapped people and moms alone with their babies.

 

As for eminent domain, I'd move if they took away my backyard.  To a place where I could have a nice view of nature - not necessarily on a bus line.

[Jane in NC]

Land Use Plans are purposefully vague in implementing vision.  A community determines how it wants to see itself and then establishes the basic ground rules. Plans may be called "utopian" but I believe that everyone needs a starting point and an agreed upon direction in which to move.

 

For example, the LUP for my town encourages bike lanes. When the previous LUP was written, did the committee foresee grant money to establish bike lanes?  After the economic downturn, it was hard to justify expenditures on a variety of things but that does not mean that we should chop huge sections of the plan because we cannot Do It All Today.  We have a direction--that is important. 

 

Being realistic does not mean being pessimistic.

[poppy]

Detroit, for one.  I went there on a couple of work trips, even years ago, now, and bombed-out war zone was my thought, too.   We went to dinner one night at a nice steak house, but it was in the middle of a desolate, broken down area -- there was nothing else functioning around it for blocks and blocks.  It was one of the eeriest things I ever saw.   It was like something out of a movie. 

 

Yes, Detroit is horrible and depressing and a bombed-out war zone. SKL said "By that time the cities were like bombed-out war zones", implying that bussing destroyed urban America.  I currently live in Boston, one of the ugliest scenes from the bussing era.  They're doing OK here, to put it mildly.