Nobody Wants to Live There, It's Too Expensive

This "American Dream Coalition" post highlights an oft-expressed but paradoxical thought:

Sorry, Professor, but we will get over the high prices of energy, or we will adapt to them. But suburbs will not die, for this is where middle income families go to pursue the American Dream - a home with a backyard and nearby ball fields, places of worship, and other amenities. There’s less crime in the suburbs, less congestion, less polution, less . . . er, disease. And suburbs are more affordable than central cities. Much more affordable.

Note the tension here between the grandiose talk of the American dream and the banal ending which notes that people live in suburbs because it's cheaper. Now obviously both price and preference play a role in these decisions. And some suburbs -- these days typically ones with walkable downtowns and transit access like Evanston or Bethesda -- are super-expensive and some cities (Detroit, e.g.) are really cheap and undesirable. But in general, central cities are substantially more expensive per square foot than are suburbs and especially far-flung exurbs. Which reveals, of course, that there's lots of demand for urban space.

And on top of that demand, there are lots of practices that (a) artificially reduce the supply of urban space, and (b) subsidize suburbs at the expense of cities. If we changed (a) and (b) then the relative price of cities and suburbs would shift, and you'd see a shift in the population balance. Now maybe you think that's a bad idea, which is fine. But you can't point to the lower prices of sprawl and count that as evidence that people don't want to live in cities. Urban areas are expensive because people like to live in them and given that high demand we ought to shift policies in such a way as to allow more of them to be built.

Comments

Gee, some people just love the suburbs, don't they? I live in a city, and somehow we have ballfields and places of worship aplenty within walking distance. We may have paid more for our house than we would have for an equivalent property in the 'burbs...but the problem with that idea is, the equivalent in the 'burbs does not exist: a well-built, century-old house in a diverse neighborhood, within walking distance of grocery stores, restaurants and shops (and ballfields! and places of worship!), not to mention a 5-minute drive, 15-minute bike ride or 20-minute transit trip to the downtown of a major city. Worth a few extra dollars in the monthly mortgage? I think so.

Posted by Zach | June 11, 2008 12:05 PM

I think your barking up the wrong tree here. What we really need to figure out how to do is create more cities with desirable urban areas. Sure, Detroit and Baltimore are pre-existing cities that could be 'fixed', but we need more than that. People need to live more densely, but just packing more and more rings around NYC doesn't seem to be a good solution. I think coherent policies to define new city 'centers' with desirable urban living arrangements is the way to go. This is also related to stupid zoning practices, of course. Many suburbs that should become city centers in their own right (many parts of the LA/OC area apply) resist the kind of business development that could turn a residential area with a bunch of long distance commuters into a much more self-contained community. But maybe we should also encourage the growth of small cities to get more middle-sized cities. I am thinking of places like Portland. What are other examples, do you think?

Posted by mpowell | June 11, 2008 12:11 PM

NYC is exceptional among American cities, a city that is perhaps as crowded as it makes sense for it to be.

The same is NOT true for D.C., as Matt has often pointed out. It's already quite desirable (except for certain areas, but that's true for all large American cities); the problem is that there are restrictions preventing fuller development around Metro stations and the like.

And I'd regard Portland as a medium-sized city already. It's too small for the NFL, but big enough to have been considered for a MLB team, and of course it has an NBA franchise.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2008 12:18 PM

Two small details:
- part of the reason for the demand for living in cities is the need for people to be physically close to each other for economic reasons. Which need is dropping at this point in time. It will never drop to the extent that the Internet enthusiasts claim, but it will drop enough to make cities' economic necessity drop a lot.
- part of the reason that cities are expensive is simple supply and demand . . . abetted by restricted supply. Some of the restrictions (zoning) may make sense; others (rent control) serve only to benefit those who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time (or have parents who were). Make it easier to create new housing in cities, and the cost of living there would drop significantly.

Posted by wj | June 11, 2008 12:26 PM

1) Demand for urban real estate is not limited to residences. Businesses bid up the cost of downtown real estate because, for various reasons, they value the central location. So you cannot attribute all of the price to demand for urban living.

2) Commute time is also a cost. It would be fair to say "look how badly everyone wants to live the suburban dream, they're willing to commute hours and hours every day just to avoid the city."

Look. People have to trade off space, commute, and cost. What I think most families want is a big detached, single family dwelling that has a short commute and that they can afford. Not everyone can have this, but politicians have tried to give people what they want by subsidizing highways and mortgages. Prices respond to preferences, but politicians are also responding to voter preferences. Most people, given the choice, would not live in an urban environment. If we change policy to make suburban living more expensive then more people will move to cities. But that doesn't mean they'll be happy about it.

Posted by DCreader | June 11, 2008 12:26 PM

1) Demand for urban real estate is not limited to residences. Businesses bid up the cost of downtown real estate because, for various reasons, they value the central location. So you cannot attribute all of the price to demand for urban living.

2) Commute time is also a cost. It would be fair to say "look how badly everyone wants to live the suburban dream, they're willing to commute hours and hours every day just to avoid the city."

Look. People have to trade off space, commute, and cost. What I think most families want is a big detached, single family dwelling that has a short commute and that they can afford. Not everyone can have this, but politicians have tried to give people what they want by subsidizing highways and mortgages. Prices respond to preferences, but politicians are also responding to voter preferences. Most people, given the choice, would not live in an urban environment. If we change policy to make suburban living more expensive then more people will move to cities. But that doesn't mean they'll be happy about it.

Posted by DCreader | June 11, 2008 12:29 PM

New York City is _packed_ with "places of worship" and there's a fair number of ball fields, too. (If you count basketball courts there's a lot more than in my home town of Boise, ID.) I suspect this person doesn't much know what he or she is talking about.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | June 11, 2008 12:29 PM

"a home with a backyard and nearby ball fields, places of worship, and other amenities."

I've lived in Chicago and Denver since becoming an adult. In both places, we lived in the city within 5 miles of downtown (heck, in both places I would run to work -- and usually take a detour so I could get enough mileage to make it worthwhile). In both places we owned a house that met the above criteria. And in both places, we paid about what we would have if we wanted to live in the burbs.

Some people -- a LOT of people -- will choose to live in the burbs even if comparably priced housing with a backyard, near schools, shopping, etc. is available. There's one reason for this. It rhymes with "stack meople."

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 12:31 PM

The question is, what exactly IS it about cities and suburbs that accounts for the appeal? Because there are appealing aspects to both, no question. And things about both that are big nuisances. The key for me is to get as many of the good things and as few of the bad things as possible, however you want to define those two categories.

Personally, the things I like about cities are short commutes to many places and having lots of theaters around. The things I dislike are looking out the window into somebody else's wall, inept (or corrupt) public services despite high taxes, lack of parking when I do have to drive someplace, and being underground (as in a subway) for any reason.

The things I like about suburbs are being able to look at lots of green space (including a bit around my residence), being able to drive to the stores when I need to buy heavy or bulky items, having places to walk, run, or bike (for fitness) that have very little traffic and therefore little need to stop at intersections, and much lower housing prices and tax rates. The things I dislike are bossy homeowner's associations, McMansions, and tiny women who drive gigantic SUVs while talking on cell phones.

Ball fields, restaurants, bars, churches etc. don't interest me one way or another.

I find that I do best in a close-in suburb within a major metropolitan area. I wouldn't move downtown because of the walls and parking thing, and because I don't want to walk out my front door into a shopping or entertainment district. Somebody else might see that as a selling point, but not me. Similarly, I wouldn't want to move to exurbia because of the long commutes and aforementioned McMansions. But people who want to have horses might tolerate the commutes in order to get enough land.

It does seem that good urban neighborhoods were undersupplied for a few decades, and I'm glad to see that more are being built. But that's not a moral thing. I have no problem with people liking different kinds of neighborhoods. Indeed, if everybody liked the same thing, most of us wouldn't be able to afford it. Spreading out is just a case of different strokes for different folks. Diversity of community type, in short.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 12:33 PM

The question is, what exactly IS it about cities and suburbs that accounts for the appeal? Because there are appealing aspects to both, no question. And things about both that are big nuisances. The key for me is to get as many of the good things and as few of the bad things as possible, however you want to define those two categories.

Personally, the things I like about cities are short commutes to many places and having lots of theaters around. The things I dislike are looking out the window into somebody else's wall, inept (or corrupt) public services despite high taxes, lack of parking when I do have to drive someplace, and being underground (as in a subway) for any reason.

The things I like about suburbs are being able to look at lots of green space (including a bit around my residence), being able to drive to the stores when I need to buy heavy or bulky items, having places to walk, run, or bike (for fitness) that have very little traffic and therefore little need to stop at intersections, and much lower housing prices and tax rates. The things I dislike are bossy homeowner's associations, McMansions, and tiny women who drive gigantic SUVs while talking on cell phones.

Ball fields, restaurants, bars, churches etc. don't interest me one way or another.

I find that I do best in a close-in suburb within a major metropolitan area. I wouldn't move downtown because of the walls and parking thing, and because I don't want to walk out my front door into a shopping or entertainment district. Somebody else might see that as a selling point, but not me. Similarly, I wouldn't want to move to exurbia because of the long commutes and aforementioned McMansions. But people who want to have horses might tolerate the commutes in order to get enough land.

It does seem that good urban neighborhoods were undersupplied for a few decades, and I'm glad to see that more are being built. But that's not a moral thing. I have no problem with people liking different kinds of neighborhoods. Indeed, if everybody liked the same thing, most of us wouldn't be able to afford it. Spreading out is just a case of different strokes for different folks. Diversity of community type, in short.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 12:35 PM

Sorry about duplicating the long post. I thought the first didn't go through.

For Joe -- how do you account for black suburbanites? Based on what I have observed, black people like detached houses with yards as much as anyone. So do Latinos and Asians, who are more likely to live in the suburbs than the inner city where I am.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 12:43 PM

There you go again, Matt, with all your fancy economic city talk. Some of us have lawns to mow.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 11, 2008 12:46 PM

Another important 'cost' of the suburb vs urban debate is education cost for children. The view is that the quality of education in the suburbs tends to be better than the available public education in urban areas. Private school alternatives in urban areas will typically be far most costly than the associated school taxes in the suburbs (especially if you have more than one child). So the 'benefit' of better value for your children's education is a current attraction of the suburbs. Living in a suburb of NYC it is quite common to see a young childless couple move to town from SoHo then see them with stroller in tow soon thereafter.

Certainly commute, costs and subsidies impact the urban vs. suburb decision. Why urban public schools are inferior - or perceived that way which results in the same effect - o their suburban bretheren is an entirely different issue and topic for another day. But it is currently an important factor in the urban vs suburban living situation for families with children. I tend to be sympathetic with Matt on positive externalities of increased population density, but education systems are another piece of the puzzle.

Posted by Scott | June 11, 2008 12:49 PM

I don't get the "places of worship" mention. As a member of a religion which does not have a lot of adherents in the USA, living in a suburb guarantees at least a 10-20 mile commute to the nearest church. Even a small city, however, will have at least a few representative churches of my faith in a 2 mile radius.

Even if I were something like a Baptist, living in a city would almost guarantee at least a few options within walking distance, while in an outer-ring suburb I'd have to drive to get to one.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 12:53 PM

As noted above, I've lived in Chicago and Denver (in houses within 5 miles of the city center).

"The things I dislike are looking out the window into somebody else's wall, inept (or corrupt) public services despite high taxes, lack of parking when I do have to drive someplace, and being underground (as in a subway) for any reason."

The first and last were "downsides" of Chicago, but not Denver. The second and third do not apply to our experience in either city. We park in our garage on our property, and there was usually parking where we shopped. If we wanted to go to a restaurant or show in the heart of downtown Chicago, we would have to pay for parking or a cab -- but really, is $20 or so too much premium to pay for going out in the heart of one of the biggest cities in the world? I only pay for parking in Denver the once a month of to that I drive to work (and then it's only $5). As for taxes, in both cities the property taxes are about a third of what they would be in an average burb (about 0.5% of the home value per year). Public services are uniformly excellent in both.

"having places to walk, run, or bike (for fitness) that have very little traffic and therefore little need to stop at intersections,"

Maybe it's just me, but running is MUCH easier in the city than the burbs. There are many more parks, trails, etc. -- heck, in both cities the majority my (running) commute to work was/is on an honest-to-gog dirt running trail. In Denver, I'm on city streets for all of about one mile out of six. When I run at my parents' house in the burbs, it's very difficult -- there are few sidewalks, and while there is no traffic on the side streets, those are usually pretty isolated from one another. If I want to do something more than run the same 0.5 mile loop over and over, I have to cross/run along a busy street with no sidewalks or lights.

"because I don't want to walk out my front door into a shopping or entertainment district."

In Chicago, I walked out of my house into a residential street filled with houses. The only difference between this and a suburban neighborhood was the restaurant at the end of the block, the school a block over, the baseball stadium within a half mile walk, and the great view of the Sears Tower from my room. In Denver, the only real change is a university replaces the baseball stadium, and the view is of the Rockies.

"Living in the city" does not mean "living in Manhattan" for most people. Probably even most people in New York City.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 12:55 PM

As many of the posters above in effect note, suburbs come in many varieties and many neighborhoods within cities don't consist of apt. towers. If you follow the link, the pictures that accompany the pro-suburb article seem to show new sprawl style suburban of an exceptionally bleak and spiritually oppressive sort (though at least there are sidewalks, which isn't always true). I suspect that the "nearby ball fields, places of worship, and other amenities" are, in places like those depicted, all too often nearby only in the sense of being a short drive away, not nearby in the sense that the kids could, say, walk or cycle to them. This means that--and I remember this as one of the horrors of suburban life for both parents and children--children between six and sixteen require a parent to ferry them everywhere. And after that point, each one will have to drive him or herself, imposing further demands on the family car(s).

Posted by J | June 11, 2008 12:57 PM

Education is perhaps the biggest driver for families. When we bought our house a decade ago, we explicitly rejected homes $100k cheaper (in the same general area) based on the quality of the schools there. We selected the county we live in, and the specific community, mostly on those grounds.

A walk through my neighborhood would reveal the same equation being used by most people. And the commenter above who assumes people live in the suburbs to avoid minorities hasn't visited a suburb. Mine is more diverse than Baltimore, by a lot.

You want to attract people to cities? Fix the schools there as a first step. Puzzling over transit systems and zoning are edge issues. Parents largely avoid cities for a reason, and that reason is schools.

Posted by James Robertson | June 11, 2008 12:59 PM

Well, James, it would be nice if the places with good schools had decent transit and walkable neighborhoods. Those sorts of places are extremely expensive (eg, Bethesda).

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 1:13 PM

Joe - you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that some cities have what I think of as inner-ring suburbs within the city limits. Where the political division occurs is not always the same as where the density/neighborhood character changes. Schools, quality of local government, and so on can change a lot when you change jurisdictions, but you can't always tell that just by looking at the buildings.

My remarks on living "in the city" were mostly about neighborhoods like Adams Morgan in Washington. Still not Manhattan, but people do live in apartment buildings right up against the sidewalk. Nice enough to visit, but my friends who insist on actually living there (to be near the nightlife, mostly, although most make surprisingly little use of that) pay for the convenience in many ways.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 1:23 PM

"Based on what I have observed, black people like detached houses with yards as much as anyone. So do Latinos and Asians, who are more likely to live in the suburbs than the inner city where I am."

Again, living in the city does not preclude living in a detached house, except maybe in Manhattan.

As for the racial component, I was perhaps oversimplifying. Many of my friends in Chicago moved to the burbs to avoid "the inner city," but that's not really an element of the city/burb decision in Denver.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 1:23 PM

Parents largely avoid cities for a reason, and that reason is schools.

A lot of the reason some city schools are in such lousy shape is that the tax base picked up and fled to the boonies. As people move back in to responsible communities a lot of the problems facing urban schools go away. Incidentally, a lot of suburban school districts that popped up in the 70s have a lot of aging infrastructure issues these days that are starting to impact the quality of education in those districts. Like most suburban construction, schools were pretty shoddily built. Keeping them propped up 30 years down the line gets more and more expensive each year.

Maintaining a national infrastructure where the majority value of our capital stock is in decentralized communities is becoming prohibitively expensive on many levels that have nothing to do with transit and gas prices. Updating aging telecom services, sewage systems, water systems, etc... in these places with their own little tin-pot governing bodies is expensive and highly inefficient. And the clock is ticking on these systems. The low, low taxes that drew people out of the cities back in the day are about to go up.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 11, 2008 1:23 PM

Which reveals, of course, that there's lots of demand for urban space.

No, not really. It tells us something about the relationship between the supply of urban space and the demand for it, at least relative to the suburbs, but it doesn't tell us anything about the absolute amount of demand. It could very well be that there is low demand but even lower supply.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2008 1:25 PM

And on top of that demand, there are lots of practices that (a) artificially reduce the supply of urban space, and (b) subsidize suburbs at the expense of cities. If we changed (a) and (b) then the relative price of cities and suburbs would shift, and you'd see a shift in the population balance.

The argument is always the same: "If we do X, Y and Z, people will start giving up suburbs for cities and giving up cars for transit/walking/biking." But we're not going to do X, Y and Z, because people don't want to do those things. Your preferences about how and where to live are not the preferences of Americans in general. In general, people greatly prefer bigger homes to smaller ones. In general, people greatly prefer the comfort, convenience and flexibility of getting around by car over the alternatives. Even if someone agrees with you about particular purported advantages of cities or denser neigborhoods ("You won't have to drive your kids everywhere!" "You can walk to neighborhood bistros!"), that doesn't mean they think those advantages of a more urban lifestyle outweigh the disadvantages. It's all ultimately driven by demand, and the balance of demand for the past many decades has favored car-oriented suburbs over transit/biking/walking-oriented urban communities.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 1:26 PM

"Living in the city" does not mean "living in Manhattan" for most people. Probably even most people in New York City

Brooklyn 2,465,326
Queens 2,229,379
Bronx 1,357,589
Staten Island 464,573

And

Manhattan 1,593,200

I don't think that's a "probably"

Posted by Greg | June 11, 2008 1:29 PM

Al, when demand exceeds supply, worrying about whether absolute demand is low is really a matter of academic nitpicking: the solution is still, "make that resource more easily available," regardless of whether fewer people want the rare item there isn't enough of rather than the ubiquitous alternative.

However, you're WAY ahead of Mixner, who hasn't even been able to figure THAT part out.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 1:36 PM

This is McArdles argument - that lots more people buy homes in the burbs, therefore, people like the burbs better.

Posted by mickslam | June 11, 2008 1:37 PM

"Joe - you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that some cities have what I think of as inner-ring suburbs within the city limits. Where the political division occurs is not always the same as where the density/neighborhood character changes. Schools, quality of local government, and so on can change a lot when you change jurisdictions, but you can't always tell that just by looking at the buildings."

In fairness, the quality of schools in the city of Chicago is miserable. You live there knowing that your kid will either get into a public magnet (very good but very competitive), you will fork over the $1500 a month for private, or it's time to move. In Denver, there are very good public schools through 8th grade, but high schools are a bit of a stretch -- we just gambled that with young families moving back, the high school will be adequate by the time our kid is there (12 years away). That is a legitimate cost of living in the city -- even the nicer, "inner ring suburb" part of the city.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 1:38 PM

First it was the country and the city, now its the city and suburb. The urbanists have been pushing their line since Ur. I like living the suburbs a great deal. My wife and I are just finishing raising three kids in them, relishing the many of the fields and parks--outdoor futbol, imagine that? We have enjoyed the six kinds of fruit trees in our small but useful yards/gardens. The urbanists (I think Matt qualifies) need a session or two with their libertarian friends; and should stop with the six thousand years of propaganda about how great cities are. Creative thought and action will greatly diminish the supposed downsides of the terrible suburbs and let their beatitudes flourish. Just don't keep up the meme that cities are the only way to go, be, only place to live. It just aint so. And what a boring place the world would truly be if there were only cities. Let's all get along.

Posted by Chris | June 11, 2008 1:52 PM

"american dream coalition"

If that does not smack of some astro-turf created by exurban track home sprawl peddlers! Oh yes "places of worship". Barf!

Posted by centrist | June 11, 2008 1:54 PM

Some people -- a LOT of people -- will choose to live in the burbs even if comparably priced housing with a backyard, near schools, shopping, etc. is available. There's one reason for this. It rhymes with "stack meople."

That is true, but it's not only that. There is a built in bias against cities among a lot of people in this country. I live in a Chicago suburb now and know LOTS of people who have NEVER been to the city (43 miles away). That's right, never. Or they went to a museum on a field trip when they were kids. This type of person sees the city as some varient of a mythical version of the Lower East Side - filth, crowds, noise, etc. They have prejudged that it's going to be disorienting and terrifying, so they just don't go. You can't touch anything in the city! Don't ride the bus! ewwwwwww.

Of course it's nothing like that in major American cities, except in really bad areas. My neighborhood in Chicago was actually quieter than some suburban ones I've lived in (no lawnmowers, not much traffic on side streets). And both biking, walking and running are MUCH better in the city than in the outlying burbs. Quality of life is rather higher in the city than the far-burbs if you're not poor (but not rich). Schools are an issue, but that's mitigated somewhat by the fact that schools vary widely in burbs too. Property taxes in the nice burbs are through the roof - more than rent in Chicago in many cases. Schools and the way we fund and manage them are a problem, period, and that's everywhere.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 11, 2008 1:54 PM

Tyro,

Well, someone can't figure it out, but it's not me. You and Matthew both seem confused about the difference between absolute and relative demand, or you're just ignoring that difference to muddy the discussion. In a nation of 300 million people, even a small share of total demand might reasonably be characterized as "lots of demand" in terms of the absolute number. That doesn't alter the fact that it's a small share of total demand. Nor is the fact that "central cities are substantially more expensive per square foot than are suburbs and especially far-flung exurbs" evidence that the market is out equilibrium and that there is unsatisfied demand for urban housing and excessive supply of suburban housing. The equilibrium market price of some commodities is simply higher than that of others.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 1:56 PM

"american dream coalition"

If that does not smack of some astro-turf created by exurban track home sprawl peddlers! Oh yes "places of worship". Barf!

Posted by centrist | June 11, 2008 1:56 PM

Chris, you're really going to have to help me out here, because for the life of me I can't understand it: why is it that encouraging society to make a scarce resource -- walkable, transit-oriented communities -- more easily accessible than the commonly available resource -- distant suburbs -- taken as such a personal affront to you and your ilk? Is it some kind of insecurity about your decision? I actually don't care what decision you made. What I would like is simply for development decisions to keep pace with the demand for the sort of communities I'd like, of which there is a shortage compared with the easily-affordable, over-built sort of communities you prefer.

six thousand years of propaganda about how great cities are

Actually, literature and pop culture have a genre in which cities are depicted as corrupted and evil, compared to the purity of the countryside. Most recently one saw this in Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto," but it turns up in Dostoyevsky, too, as well as any discussion with the number of people who will tell you what an awful place NYC is.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 2:04 PM

The standard European big city is a wealthy white center surrounded by festering immigrant suburbs. The standard American city is festering city center populated by blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants surrounded by white suburbs. (Not all. Not all.)

It'll be interesting to see how the cost of transportation and heating will change that distribution. Will 5 .. 6 .. 7 dollar/gallon gasoline change what a 2 hour commute didn't?

(infill-owner)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 2:10 PM

jonnybutter,

Well said. My mother fits that blind fear of the urban. I also live in chicago and we just bought a new house that shares a fenced in area with our neghbors. My mom looked at the basement window and said "you better but bars that"!

I said mom one neghbor is a partner at one of rachel classmates law firms and other is a player for the cubs...both of whom we know and have better things to do than "murder us" or steal our $500 laptop!

Posted by centrist | June 11, 2008 2:10 PM

When people like the American Dream Coalition paint their idyllic picture of suburban life they are not actually drawing on images of suburbia. They are drawing on images of that vanished paradise of yore--the small town.

The irony is that the small towns they so admire (at least those near any major cities) have largely been swallowed up by suburbia, with maybe a tiny, abandoned courthouse district still in existence. In fact, I'm a great lover of small towns. If suburbia actually was this idyllic land of children at play and nearby ball fields and Ma and Pa Kettle smiling over the picket fence while Barney drives by in the patrol car just to stay busy because lord knows there ain't no criminals round these parts, well then I'd actually kind of like it. But that's not what it's like.

The urban neighborhood I lived in in Atlanta (a former street-car suburb itself) was much more like the idyllic picture of small-town America than any contemporary suburb I've ever visited. Loads of mature trees and a huge park literally about 100 yards from my front door, ball fields galore, a public swimming pool, community centers, about 10 churches all in easy walking distance. And neighbors out on the street, walking, running, pushing strollers in huge numbers. Traffic was not a problem because there were tons of through streets, unlike in every ATL suburb I ever had to venture to. On the other hand, the police were actually pretty busy because there was still a crime problem.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 11, 2008 2:14 PM

"The standard American city is festering city center populated by blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants surrounded by white suburbs. (Not all. Not all.)"

Um, what city matches this description? Detroit and Cleveland for sure, I guess. Other than that? Off the top of my head, the following cities don't: Boston, NYC, Chicago, SF, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, Austin, Minneapolis. I don't know about Philadelphia, Phoenix, Kansas City, St. Louis, Atlanta, Milwaukee. You'd have some argument over Houston, Dallas, DC, LA -- there are huge pockets of disadvantaged minorities, but there are also huge pockets of reasonably affluent whites, and the distribution doesn't really involve the city center.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 2:22 PM

The view and experience that many of us have is NOT "not actually based on images of suburbia." It's based on living in real, actual suburbs, of different kinds and degrees of suburban-ness. We are not the unaware folks created in such sweeping statements. I have lived in small town, large town, city, suburb, in the US, outside the US. This meme of the pastoral is a virulent one that the post-modernist academics have bequeathed us. It is of limited value.

Posted by Chris | June 11, 2008 2:24 PM

As I noted elsewhere, thanks to things like charter schools, the parents moving back into urban and semi-urban neighborhoods are finding means by which to address the school issue. Incidentally, decent private schools in my area are not prohibitively expensive (I'll admit I was shocked to find out what they charge in places like DC).

By the way, as I also noted elsewhere, in my metro area the most recent estimates suggest that the city proper is gaining population even as the surrounding area is losing population, which is a reversal of the relative trends that have existed since around 1950. We'll have to see whether this holds up, of course, but it may be that, shockingly enough, it is actually possible for things in this complex world of ours to periodically change.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 2:28 PM

We can always count on Mixner to turn up and express his own opinions in constructions along the lines of "people greatly prefer..."

"In general, people greatly prefer bigger homes to smaller ones. In general, people greatly prefer the comfort, convenience and flexibility of getting around by car over the alternatives."

This is probably true, on average. You're describing luxuries that for a brief period of time were affordable and convenient to very large numbers of people, but are becoming less so. People like luxury. People also greatly prefer not spending most of their disposable income heating and air conditioning a big, detached house and buying gasoline for their big, comfortable cars. Not to mention that getting around by car has ceased to be convenient and luxurious in many suburbs, due to far too many people attempting to live the Mixner lifestyle.

But if you take a reasonably modest definition of a "big" home and take "getting around by car" to mean "when necessary" instead of "everywhere you go" then you're describing a lifestyle that is still possible within the borders of all but a handful of American cities, and in nearly all inner-ring suburbs.

"It's all ultimately driven by demand, and the balance of demand for the past many decades has favored car-oriented suburbs over transit/biking/walking-oriented urban communities."

It should really go without saying that rising energy costs and increased traffic congestion have already begun shifting the demand curve, and it would certainly shift further if our governments spent an equal amount of money subsidizing suburbs and cities, which would hardly constitute a heavy-handed effort to force people against their will to live in high-rises.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 2:29 PM

We can always count on Mixner to turn up and express his own opinions in constructions along the lines of "people greatly prefer..."

"In general, people greatly prefer bigger homes to smaller ones. In general, people greatly prefer the comfort, convenience and flexibility of getting around by car over the alternatives."

This is probably true, on average. You're describing luxuries that for a brief period of time were affordable and convenient to very large numbers of people, but are becoming less so. People like luxury. People also greatly prefer not spending most of their disposable income heating and air conditioning a big, detached house and buying gasoline for their big, comfortable cars. Not to mention that getting around by car has ceased to be convenient and luxurious in many suburbs, due to far too many people attempting to live the Mixner lifestyle.

But if you take a reasonably modest definition of a "big" home and take "getting around by car" to mean "when necessary" instead of "everywhere you go" then you're describing a lifestyle that is still possible within the borders of all but a handful of American cities, and in nearly all inner-ring suburbs.

"It's all ultimately driven by demand, and the balance of demand for the past many decades has favored car-oriented suburbs over transit/biking/walking-oriented urban communities."

It should really go without saying that rising energy costs and increased traffic congestion have already begun shifting the demand curve, and it would certainly shift further if our governments spent an equal amount of money subsidizing suburbs and cities, which would hardly constitute a heavy-handed effort to force people against their will to live in high-rises.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 2:32 PM

I live in a Chicago suburb now and know LOTS of people who have NEVER been to the city

To wit:

The standard American city is festering city center populated by blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants surrounded by white suburbs

Do you people really think that cities are dark and dangerous places full of criminal scum that wait to prey on de po' white womens and steal your SUVs and Minivans?

I live in a city. I'm not a hipster, an addict, a criminal, a bookie, a cab driver, a hobo, or a cigar-chomping mayor. I'm not black. I'm not Hispanic. I'm not an immigrant. I certainly don't fester.

Holy Crap! What am I doing here? How have i made it these 37 years in the midst of such despondent hellishness?

Posted by Roboticghost | June 11, 2008 2:34 PM

It's wrong to frame this debate as one of more cities, less suburbs. The real debate is about increasing population densities in our metropolitan areas in general, so that the American way of life decreases its dependence on travel by automobile.

Both cities and suburbs would benefit enormously in the long run if people living there drove their cars less, and used alternative methods of transportation that were more energy-efficient, such as buses, trains, bikes, or even (gasp!) walking. If suburban areas increase their population densities, then suburbans areas could make greater and better use of those alternative means of transportation.

Ending suburban sprawl is not synonymous with encouraging more people to live in cities. Instead, ending suburban sprawl means having the suburbs emulate the best aspects of good urban neighborhoods, and having urban areas emulate the best aspects of desirable suburbs (there are after all, many suburbs that are as just as deficient on a socioeconomic basis as the roughest city neighborhoods).

Posted by eltoro | June 11, 2008 2:39 PM

Follette,

This is probably true, on average. You're describing luxuries that for a brief period of time were affordable and convenient to very large numbers of people, but are becoming less so.

What nonsense. Cars and big suburban houses are obviously not "luxuries" in America, and show no sign of becoming luxuries in the foreseeable future. They're going to be available to even more Americans than they are now. Even American households classified by the government as poor usually have at least one car, and tend to have bigger houses than even middle-class Europeans.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 2:41 PM

"This meme of the pastoral is a virulent one that the post-modernist academics have bequeathed us. It is of limited value. "

Of even less "value" is the "meme" that is peddled on the evening news.... City, Crime, Filth minorities! Unlike "postmodern intellectuals" John and Jane q sixpack watch the oxymoron that is TEEVEE news.

Posted by centrist | June 11, 2008 2:44 PM

By the way, are there really a lot of people who would prefer to NOT have some good restaurants, shops, parks, libraries, theaters, and so on within a pleasant walk of their front door? I mean, I get that some people may not want to pay too much extra for such amenities, and some people may want other things which end up in practice being incompatible with such walkable amenities. But the idea that for most people there is nothing even theoretically desirable about walkable amenities (theoretical meaning before you get into various costs and tradeoffs) strikes me as sorta bizarre.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 2:51 PM

"american dream coalition"

If that does not smack of some astro-turf created by exurban track home sprawl peddlers! Oh yes "places of worship". Barf!

Barf indeed. I don't know who put this crap together -- the 'about' page sure smells like Astroturf -- but it's pretty poor even as propaganda.

"Sorry, professor..." Oh c'mon now! It reads like someone scanned in a Reader's Digest from 1977.

Posted by bh | June 11, 2008 2:51 PM

That's wrong. I veto that. Why build more desirable places just so people can be more content with their lives? That will discourage enlistment and reenlistment.

Posted by George Bush | June 11, 2008 2:56 PM

"american dream coalition"

If that does not smack of some astro-turf created by exurban track home sprawl peddlers! Oh yes "places of worship". Barf!

Barf indeed. I don't know who put this crap together -- the 'about' page on the site sure smells like Astroturf -- but this is piss-poor even as propaganda. "Sorry, professor..."? Are you serious? It reads like someone scanned in a Reader's Digest from 1977.

Posted by bh | June 11, 2008 2:59 PM

Even American households classified by the government as poor usually have at least one car, and tend to have bigger houses than even middle-class Europeans

Because gas was cheap and so was land. Its not anymore and never will be again. It was a really, really stupid decision to build an entire society around a non-renewable resource, no? Lots of people, who have generally been called crazy, have been saying just that since the 40s.

And those of us who made responsible choices to live in sustainable communities helped create and continue to subsidize all of these ridiculous suburbs with our tax dollars. We are at war right now so suburbanites can continue to go places alone while sitting down. Poor kids bleed for the suburbs while their own communities die.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 11, 2008 2:59 PM

"american dream coalition"

If that does not smack of some astro-turf created by exurban track home sprawl peddlers! Oh yes "places of worship". Barf!

Barf indeed. I don't know who put this crap together -- the 'about' page on the site sure smells like Astroturf -- but this is piss-poor even as propaganda. "Sorry, professor..."? Are you serious? It reads like someone scanned in a Reader's Digest from 1977.

Posted by bh | June 11, 2008 3:01 PM

Yikes! Sorry for the triple post. I kept getting server errors, and then I didn't see my post, so I thought it wasn't working. I guess it was...

Posted by bh | June 11, 2008 3:05 PM

When people like the American Dream Coalition paint their idyllic picture of suburban life they are not actually drawing on images of suburbia. They are drawing on images of that vanished paradise of yore--the small town.

Exactly right. Small towns = virtue; cities = corruption/sin - an expired dichotomy. When you are as nostalgic for something as many are for small town (AKA 'Main Street') life , that's a sure sign that that life is vanishingly hard to find. Paradoxically, when a nice small town becomes an exurb, the downtown dies, if it hadn't already.

Why, just to cite a couple of examples, is 'Applebee's' called 'Applebee's Neighborhood Bar and Grille'? Why are so many businesses and associations and buildings and everything else called 'Community'? Because there are no neighborhoods and there is no commuinty, but people long for both, in a vague way - a kind of low grade fetish, at this point. You don't bother calling things like that by those names if you have any of what the words mean.

No, there is no community and there are no neighborhoods, just everyone in their individual little worlds, in their individual cars, slaking their individual desires. Cato-like libertarians prefer this model not because it's more wholesome or any of that, but because they think atomization (the opposite of community) is good. I suspect that there's a certain reluctance on their part to argue that honestly due to the aforementioned low-grade fetish. So you get preposterous studies which prove that individual vehicles are more efficient than mass transit. I heard an interview with one of those Cato guys (who personally prefers a bicycle, BTW) the other day on my local NPR. It was laughably skewed.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 11, 2008 3:07 PM

"Pleasant walk" from home is one thing. "Right nearby, so that people stand under your window and holler when the bars close for the night" is quite another.

Look, it's possible to do good mixed-use development. It's possible to do good high-density development. It's possible for rural life to be delightful, at least for people who like that sort of thing. But, truly, a lot of people don't mind driving two miles to the library. Especially not if the library is near the supermarket, the dry cleaner, and a train station with ample commuter parking.

And even someone who moves to a mixed-use development, finds a job there, and resolves to commute on foot forever after might lose that job and have to take a new one 20 miles away. One fact of life in America is that the minute you get yourself set up in a little "pod" like that, something in life gets scrambled and all of a sudden you're doing something completely different. Whatever development pattern we adopt has to accomodate this level of change.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 3:08 PM

Even American households classified by the government as poor usually have at least one car, and tend to have bigger houses than even middle-class Europeans.

Would you rather be poor in Houston or Buffalo or middle class in Paris or Amsterdam?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 3:09 PM

Both cities and suburbs would benefit enormously in the long run if people living there drove their cars less, and used alternative methods of transportation that were more energy-efficient, such as buses, trains, bikes, or even (gasp!) walking. If suburban areas increase their population densities, then suburbans areas could make greater and better use of those alternative means of transportation.

Just because one means of transportation is more energy-efficient than another doesn't mean a shift in use towards it would produce a net benefit. If I take the subway instead of driving my car, I might reduce my energy use, but I might also incur costs in terms of, for example, lost time, lost convenience, lost comfort. Those costs may well exceed the energy benefit.

And according to Exhibit 3-13 of this report (the report to congress of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission) transit buses and light rail are actually less energy-efficient than autos. Even heavy rail (subways and elevated rapid transit) and commuter rail are only about 25% more energy-efficient than autos. As I said, the costs of switching from cars to those alternatives may well exceed that modest benefit of reduced energy consumption.

Another factor is advances in technology. We are at the start of a revolution in automobile technology that will greatly increase the fuel-efficiency of the nation's auto fleet, and greatly reduce its dependence on oil as an energy source. This and other advances will likely greatly reduce or even completely eliminate whatever energy advantage transit currently provides over autos.

Even more relevant is the fact that the share of total passenger miles provided by transit is already so low (about 1% of the total, compared to about 96% for autos), that even a doubling or tripling of transit's market share would produce only negligible benefits in reduced energy consumption and pollution, anyway (even if you ignore the effects of new auto technology).

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 3:26 PM

Mixner, if you believe that big houses and the ability to drive anywhere you need to go are not luxuries, then I suppose there's no point in trying to convince you that many of the people who live this way might be either unwilling or unable to pay a premium for this lifestyle as the costs keep rising. But you might want to take a peek at property values and mass transit ridership over the past 3 years.

I'll just note that when you say "...even American households classified by the government as poor usually have at least one car, and tend to have bigger houses than even middle-class Europeans," you might want to consider the possibility that Europeans have smaller homes and more mass transit because of relatively higher energy costs and scarcer land, and that the United States now has much higher energy costs and more densely populated areas than it used to.

One other thing -- you obviously don't understand that the chart from your link measures efficiency "per passenger mile". Increasing mass transit ridership has the effect of making our mass transit systems more efficient. Not to mention that this chart separates out "autos" and "light trucks". It's completely disingenuous to say that driving is more fuel efficient than light rail, when such a high percentage of vehicles on the road are vans, trucks, and SUVs.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 3:48 PM

The ability to drive anywhere you need to go is a luxury, but the requirement to drive anywhere you need to go is definitely a burden. In the past, it used to be a luxury, I'm sure, in the same way that foot-binding was considered a way of demonstrating that you were so wealthy that your daughters didn't need to work, or how being fat demonstrated that you were wealthy enough to eat as much as you wanted. Living in a community where you need to drive a long distance to get to Wal-Mart doesn't strike me as a sign of luxurious living. And property values probably reflect the undesireability of that environment.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 3:56 PM

the great irony of the suburbs is that it's precisely the idea that NYC is "ewwwww..." which allowed its gentrification in the first place. All through the 60's and 70's, the kids growing up in the sterile suburbs were told, You mustn't go to the city: "It's dirty, dangerous, industrial, and full of dope and graffiti." So when the kids were finally able to escape in the 70's and 80's and 90's, any neighborhood with graffiti and crime and dope in the city meant just "This must be the place! My awful relatives will *never* follow me here!" (This explains why ugly, industrial, inaccessible NYC neighborhoods like Bed-Sty and Red Hook get "hip" while nice neighborhoods in Queens are considered anathema.)

And now that we've all moved in, we've gentrified out all the people who made the place dirty and dangerous and kewl in the first place.
And not only do our relatives now come to visit... they insist on staying with us because the hotels are now too expensive.

I suppose this generation's rebels will all be homesteading the distant mcmansions eventually.

Posted by disappointed gentrifier | June 11, 2008 4:01 PM

The requirement to drive everywhere might be a burden, but that might be outweighed by the fact that you finally get the chance to start the organic farm you've wanted to own for the past 20 years. There's some new ruralism going on in the US, as well as new urbanism.

Posted by M.C. | June 11, 2008 4:02 PM

And according to Exhibit 3-13 of this report (the report to congress of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission) transit buses and light rail are actually less energy-efficient than autos.

I've seen similar stats. The problem is they lump very different transit systems into the same bucket. You end up with the Lexington Kentucky bus system and the NYC or NJ bus system averaging out to crappy numbers. That doesn't mean that busses are bad, it means that the Lexington Kentucky bus system isn't used enough to be fuel efficient.

I'm not sure what they mean by this though.

...but we will get over the high prices of energy, or we will adapt to them.

If oil drops back down to $40 a bbl that's great, but I'm not sure how suburbs are supposed to adapt to permanantly high gas prices. Will everyone start driving vehicles that get 40 mpg? Carpooling? Telecommuting? Are they expecting the urban areas that they surround to invest big bucks in heavy rail or bus service? It's not like they'll suddenly be getting 10% raises to help pay for things.

Posted by daveNYC | June 11, 2008 4:09 PM

I think a lot of people confuse luxury with status. It seems that plenty of people who grew up and exist in the suburban paradigm equate luxury with size for some reason. A big empty yard is no less luxurious than a small one. Ditto the house. It conveys an image of luxury without imparting anything actually luxurious. I live in a nice apartment and don't have a car. Yet, I can walk to many excellent restaurants, bars, theaters, etc... and do so on an almost nightly basis. I'd say that's a more luxurious experience than piling the rugrats into the Escalade and toodling off to Target and Applebys.

If your primary definition of luxury is impressing the doughy dolt that lives in the stately, cookie cutter house next door, then I suppose the suburbs are the place for you. Too bad its unsustainable and going the way of the dodo.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 11, 2008 4:16 PM

"I'd say that's a more luxurious experience than piling the rugrats into the Escalade and toodling off to Target and Applebys."

Yikes. Change Escalade to VW Passat Wagon and you've got the third Saturday of every month in our house. Of course, the Target is the only place in Denver where you can get groceries AND booze, and after an hour shopping with a two year-old, the Applebys is the only place that meets the mandatory criteria of: (1) within 3 minutes driving distance, (2) serves chicken fingers and french fries, and (3) serves alcohol so Mommy and Daddy can tolerate the hyperactive two year-old until said chicken fingers and fries arrive.

Posted by Joe | June 11, 2008 4:27 PM

You want to attract people to cities? Fix the schools there as a first step.

Cool. In that case, you'd be glad if your state government did away with property taxes tied to school districts and levied a statewide education tax that was distributed according to local needs? No?

And let's just leave the silly glibertarian boy to dream of a future where cars are powered by his own bullshit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 11, 2008 4:30 PM

I've seen similar stats. The problem is they lump very different transit systems into the same bucket.

The table breaks transit down by different categories: heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail and transit buses. It's true that within each of those categories different systems may have very different energy efficiencies, but that's obviously true for the category "autos," too. A Toyota Prius is much more energy-efficient than a Hummer. The point is that overall, light rail and transit buses come out as less energy-efficient than autos, and heavy/commuter rail as only moderately more energy-efficient than autos. So energy efficiency isn't a terribly convincing argument for switching from cars to transit. In fact, if bus and light rail passenger miles outnumber heavy/commuter rail passenger miles, transit overall may be less energy-efficient than autos overall even today.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 4:34 PM

pseudonymous in nc - If school quality was based on per pupil spending then Washington DC would have the best public schools in America.

Good school districts are good because they are full of people who value education.

Posted by jmo | June 11, 2008 4:35 PM

I want to get back to Yglesias's point with my blog post. He says: "Urban areas are expensive because people like to live in them and given that high demand we ought to shift policies in such a way as to allow more of them to be built."

Talk about paradoxical! "Since 1950 more than 90 percent of all the growth in the U.S. metropolitan areas has been in the suburbs." (Urban historian Joel Kotkin)

Sounds like most people WANT to live in the suburbs, not central cities. My view, and the view of the American Dream Coalition, is that people should live and work where and how they like, absent a materially threat to others.

The current trend in planning is to attack suburban living and the means of mobility (automobile) that make possible the American Dream for the vast majority of people. The American Dream Coalition stands in opposition to that movement.

I do appreciate your comments, Matt, as well as the opportunity to respond.

Posted by Ed | June 11, 2008 4:38 PM

I should probably clarify, based on some of the responses, that I described "big houses" and "the ability to drive anywhere you want to go" as luxuries not because I personally consider them desirable and opulent (I don't), but because these are lifestyle options that (many) people are willing to pay a premium for in order to increase their personal comfort and satisfaction.

I also described them as luxuries to contrast them with Mixner's depiction of these as fundamental elements of the American way of life that "people greatly prefer" to urban living. These aren't needs. These are extravagances that became extremely common for a brief period of time due to cheap petroleum, plentiful land within driving distance of big cities, and wide open roads... a set of circumstances that will never return.

And of course this lifestyle is already much less luxurious than it was 40 years ago. Sitting in a traffic jam because there's no other way to get where you need to go is not my idea of a rich and rewarding lifestyle.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 4:43 PM

Matt,

You should write about Hanna Rosin's 12-page article in the July/August Atlantic "American Murder Mystery" on how the much lauded program of tearing down inner city federal housing projects and replacing them with yuppie utopias is just raising the murder rate in the suburbs where the ex-housing project residents end up using Section 8 rent subsidy vouchers. This came as a huge surprise to The Experts.

We're seeing the beginning of the Paris-ification of American cities, where the elites keep the cities for themselves and warehouse the criminal element in the suburbs.

The article isn't online yet, but I've written about it here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/06/hanna-rosin-in-atlantic-american-murder.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 11, 2008 4:46 PM

Ed, a lot of important points seem to have flown right over your head.

Also, you seem to be confused about whether certain living patterns you advocate make possible to American dream or are the American dream. It strikes me that automobile dependence and poorly-planned communities end up inhibiting properity.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 4:47 PM

Follette,

Mixner, if you believe that big houses and the ability to drive anywhere you need to go are not luxuries,

If you believe that products that are ubiquitous among the middle-class and very common even among the poor can seriously be called "luxuries," you have a very strange idea of what that word means.

then I suppose there's no point in trying to convince you that many of the people who live this way might be either unwilling or unable to pay a premium for this lifestyle as the costs keep rising. But you might want to take a peek at property values and mass transit ridership over the past 3 years.

Recent housing prices aren't a meaningful indicator of long-term trends because we're still coming out of a housing bubble (but in case you haven't noticed, housing prices have declined in recent years). The average size of a new single-family home in America has increased dramatically over the past 50 years. Although that increase may be slowing or stopping, there's no evidence of a return to the much smaller home sizes of even the 1970s, let alone the 1950s.

As for mass transit, I believe there has been a very small uptick in recent years in its total market share, apparently because of large increases in the immigrant populations of a few big transit-oriented cities, particularly New York. But the long-term trend is decline. And as I said, the market share of transit is already so low (1%, compared to 96% for cars), that even a dramatic expansion of the nation's transit system could yield only a tiny increase in market share.

One other thing -- you obviously don't understand that the chart from your link measures efficiency "per passenger mile".

I understand that perfectly well.

Increasing mass transit ridership has the effect of making our mass transit systems more efficient.

The impact of increased ridership on transit efficiency is complicated and depends on all sorts of factors. Overall transit efficiency could increase or decrease. Of course, increasing auto ridership could (and, in fact, is likely to) increase efficiency as newer, more fuel-efficient autos displace older, less fuel-efficient ones.

And as I said, new technology will revolutionize auto fuel-efficiency. A Toyota Prius is twice as fuel-efficient as a conventional car of comparable size and power. A plug-in Toyota Prius will be four times as fuel-efficient. $4/gallon gas effectively becomes $1/gallon gas. And this is just the beginning of the revolution in auto efficiency that new technology will provide over the next few decades.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 5:06 PM

What I would like is simply for development decisions to keep pace with the demand for the sort of communities I'd like

Note the "I'd like" in this statement. Guess what, a lot of other people don't like what you like, but essentially you want government to coerce them into what you want.

As for prejudice, more than a few of the posters above reveal a belief that they are oh so much cooler, more discerning and more moral than those boring middle age white people with kids who live in suburbs and do grotty stuff like go to church instead of hip clubs. How many of you have actually lived in suburbs in a home that mommy and daddy didn't own?

I really don't have a dog in this fight -- I grew up in a NYC suburb, and have lived in several cities and one suburb since then, and I now live in the country -- but if the above represents a reasonable smaple of who ives in the city vs. whop lives in the suburbs, I much rather have the latter for my neighbors.

Posted by Gene | June 11, 2008 5:24 PM

Mixner, did you ever see the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
amazing movie - but it illustrates that there are a lot of obstacles to new technology that have nothing to do with auto fuel-efficiency.

Posted by Diana | June 11, 2008 5:28 PM

Gene, you're forgetting the passage where the supply is not keeping pace with the demand, while the supply for more poorly-planned communities is, as one can see from any number of real estate disasters in the greater DC area, excessive. The question is why those communities weren't better designed in the first place, and why we aren't encouraging more development in the much more expensive areas where their is excessive demand for.

Your problem, Gene, is that you're taking MattY's basic observations a little too personally, I think giving lie to your claim that you "don't really have a dog in this fight." You're acting like your ego is being assaulted.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 5:35 PM

As for mass transit, I believe there has been a very small uptick in recent years in its total market share, apparently because of large increases in the immigrant populations of a few big transit-oriented cities, particularly New York. But the long-term trend is decline

Trends change. As you noted, a rapid shift in automobile technology might keep the party going a bit longer. But there are other factors as well. People will continue to make little people who grow up and need to get around. That means even more traffic than there is now. And that $4 to $1 comparison is misleading because it implies that gas won't get any more expensive than it is right now. I promise you it will. A lot.

Poor planning (or in most cases total lack of planning) created this monster problem in the first place. Factoring in some flexibility, while not profitable, serves better than adopting a long term outlook based on short term returns. There is more to this than just the price of gas, today. Sprawl is a relatively new phenomenon and the full impact of its injury is just beginning to unfold. Water is a big concern in Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Eastern Colorado, Charlotte and Columbus to some extent, and just about every other "city" that was built to accommodate all those cars.

On a related note: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3969

Wait until the water-starved, car-addicted West has to compete for its remaining water with its primary dope dealer.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 11, 2008 5:40 PM

Diane,

Mass-market fully-electric cars are dead for the time being because the technology isn't ready for prime time yet. For the near-term future, the mass-market new auto technologies will be hybrid, plug-in hybrid and biofuels. Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next ten years to "advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure" and "accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids," among other things.

Several mass-market, production model plug-in hybrids from Toyota, Ford and GM are expected to be on the market within five years.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 5:43 PM

Actually Tyro, Matt's observations dfidn't bother me at all. But yes I did think that the subarbanite bashing here by commenters was pretty stupid and trite, indicative of some pretty smug self-satisfied people who presume prejudice and bias in others when merely rervealing their own.

Posted by Gene | June 11, 2008 5:46 PM

As you noted, a rapid shift in automobile technology might keep the party going a bit longer.

No, new technology is likely to keep the party going indefinitely.

But there are other factors as well. People will continue to make little people who grow up and need to get around. That means even more traffic than there is now.

I'm not sure why "more traffic" should be considered a problem. Perhaps you mean more congestion. Congestion depends on all sorts of things, including, obviously, population density (as opposed to simple population number) and the number of roads and highways.

And that $4 to $1 comparison is misleading because it implies that gas won't get any more expensive than it is right now. I promise you it will. A lot.

I'm not sure why your "promises" should be regarded as reliable predictors of future trends. Even at $4/gallon, the real (inflation-adjusted) price of gas is only moderately higher than the long-term average. Fuel cost also comprises a smaller share of the total cost of running a car today than it has in the past, meaning that driving behavior is less sensitive to gas price increases. And new technology not only dramatically increases the fuel-efficiency of cars that run on gasoline, but also allows us to switch to other fuels. The electrical energy that a plug-in hybrid gets from being plugged in may come from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear or renewables.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 6:03 PM

Gene, "centrist" and "disappointed gentrifier", who had togrow up surrounded by people expressing irrational and prejudicial "fear of the urban" from their suburban neighbors explains some of the resentment for those who demand that expansion of a more walkable, transit-oriented lifestyle be impeded, despite the pent-up demand for it. The disdain is understandable.

My advice Gene, is this: suck it up and don't act like such a whiney crybaby because someone might have hurt your pweshus wittle feelings. Life isn't fair and generations of idiotic development being marketed as "the american dream" and everything else being "unamerican" might attract a bit of backlash. Learn to take it like an adult.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 6:11 PM

The silly glibertarian boy hasn't yet got to predicting when the fart-powered eighteen-wheeler is going to come along, because in his fantasy world, America's rolling warehouse is powered by magic ponies.

He really is engaged in seeking a superior moral justification for his own idiosyncratic selfishness.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 11, 2008 6:16 PM

Mixner, this is laughably disingenuous:

"The impact of increased ridership on transit efficiency is complicated and depends on all sorts of factors. Overall transit efficiency could increase or decrease. Of course, increasing auto ridership could (and, in fact, is likely to) increase efficiency..."

Same number of miles + more passengers = less energy used per passenger mile. Really not very complicated if you've passed third grade. Same road capacity + more cars = more congestion and delays = more energy used per passenger mile. Also not very complicated.

Now, transit systems can and should respond to increased ridership by adding more frequent service, longer trains, etc., but that's an indirect effect. Improving the fuel efficiency of cars makes them more efficient, and is a very good thing, but this has precisely nothing to do with increasing auto ridership. Demand for fuel-efficient cars is rising because of high gas prices, but those same high prices are finally leading to a decline in the number of miles traveled by car, which is a very good trend.

The basic calculus is simple -- full trains are more energy efficient than empty ones, whereas full roads are less energy efficient than roads with fewer cars on them. You can twist logic and data beyond all recognition to claim that the opposite is true, but I can't see why anyone would want to do that unless their intent is dishonest.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 6:30 PM

Mixner:

Have a look see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p1.html

Translated: The total capacity added in 2006 over 2005 was 8195 megawatts. Other renewables, mostly wind I'm guessing, add about 2900MW more to the grid. In other words, that's paltry. Barely adequate. Now, building a bunch more new coal plants is a no no. Europe and Canada might just have something to say about that. Natural gas is iffy. Its hard to say exactly which direction that's going in right now. Wind could, if I remember right, probably add 25GW to that in 10 years, which is very good news, but we need to start yesterday. Nuclear plants take forever to build, especially when you are competing with China for the builders; its a specialized field you see. And then there's the crappy ENRONesque electrical grid infrastructure. 30 years of Government-Is-Bad has done wonders for that old goldfish. Not to mention the vast expense and challenge of laying and maintaining lines from power plants to every corner of far-flung suburbia.

And you want everybody to plug their cars into that? Really?

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 11, 2008 6:32 PM

(but in case you haven't noticed, housing prices have declined in recent years)

And they've declined the most in outer suburbs while increasing in some urban centers, in case you haven't noticed.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 11, 2008 6:38 PM

Follette,

Same number of miles + more passengers = less energy used per passenger mile. Really not very complicated if you've passed third grade. Same road capacity + more cars = more congestion and delays = more energy used per passenger mile. Also not very complicated.

You apparently never even completed the third grade. Your claim "same number of miles + more passengers = less energy used per passenger mile" is laughably stupid. If you need to add an additional bus or train to accommodate the "more passengers," you're obviously not reducing the energy per passenger mile. In fact, you're probably increasing it, because your load factor is likely to be lower.

And if your increased transit ridership consists of former car drivers switching to buses or light rail, you're reducing energy efficiency, because autos are more energy-efficient than transit buses and light rail.

Improving the fuel efficiency of cars makes them more efficient, and is a very good thing, but this has precisely nothing to do with increasing auto ridership. Demand for fuel-efficient cars is rising because of high gas prices, but those same high prices are finally leading to a decline in the number of miles traveled by car, which is a very good trend.

You do realize you're arguing against yourself, don't you? Improving the fuel efficiency of cars, which you say you believe to be "a very good thing" obviously reduces the incentive to switch from cars to mass transit, which you say you want. In fact, unless fuel price increases outstrip fuel-efficiency increases, improving fuel efficiency is a disincentive to switching from cars to transit. It will tend to encourage transit riders to switch to cars, not the other way round.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 6:54 PM

Robotic,

I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously, "everybody" is not going to be plugging their cars into the electrical grid any time in the near future. The growth of PHEV and other technologies that power cars using residential electricity will be gradual. The grid will be expanded gradually to meet that demand. But even now, there is substantial unused night-time capacity in the nation's electrical power system, and plug-in hybrids will take advantage of that. In fact, they may even have the effect of reducing the unit cost of residential electricity by increasing the return on capital for electrical system infrastructure.

You keep going on about the price of oil, but you're ignoring the fact that new auto technologies not only allow us to use that oil much more efficiently, and thus greatly reduce its effective price, but also to shift to other fuels to power our cars.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 7:16 PM

Follette,

... those same high prices are finally leading to a decline in the number of miles traveled by car, which is a very good trend.

A small decline over a short period of time in response to a sharp rise in gas prices. That's a blip, not a trend. Look at that graph you linked to again. Notice how the line has been going up more-or-less constantly from the first year. What do you think is going to happen as more and more people replace their gas-guzzling SUVs with more fuel-efficent smaller vehicles, and their conventional cars with new-technology hybrids and plug-in hybrids that get many more miles per gallon of gas?

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 7:33 PM

Follette,

The basic calculus is simple -- full trains are more energy efficient than empty ones, whereas full roads are less energy efficient than roads with fewer cars on them.

Another utterly confused statement. To the extent that roads can be said to have an energy efficiency, that efficiency would be measured by the amount of energy used for road construction and maintenance per passenger-mile of transportation they support. And, other things being equal, more cars on the road means more passenger miles and hence a higher energy efficiency, not a lower one.

The comparable component of a rail system is not "trains" but track.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 7:52 PM

Changes in gas prices aren't going to force Americans to give up suburban living. Switching from an SUV to a Prius is much easier than trying to cram the family into a tiny, unsafe apartment in a slum. In the future, we will have more efficient suburbs, many of which will have transit options such as light rail, but the suburbs are not going anywhere and the "new urbanists" like Matt are all smoking crack. Note that virtually none of the people touting the virtues of urban life have families or children. There's a reason for that.

Posted by Josh G. | June 11, 2008 7:52 PM

Josh G,

My fiancé was murdered three years ago in the suburbs by a suburbanite, and most of my friends have families right here in the city. So no, I don't have a family, but I am happy to report that it is possible to procreate and not go on welfare, even in the scary, scary city. I think you have ideas about cities informed more by CSI than actual experience. Most of us are OK you know. Our neighborhoods aren't more dangerous than yours.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 11, 2008 9:55 PM

the suburbs are not going anywhere and the "new urbanists" like Matt are all smoking crack

Actually, "new urbanists" are all about efficient suburbs with transit options. Did you not know that?

Switching from an SUV to a Prius is much easier than trying to cram the family into a tiny, unsafe apartment in a slum

How much of an ignorant moron do you have to be to think that this is what living in a city is like? I think this is why the "new urbanists" have the upper hands... people like you and the autor of the "American Dream Coalition" blog have no idea what they're talking about.

Posted by Tyro | June 11, 2008 9:58 PM

Tyro
You are clever with the insults and the air of sophistication and superior knowledge. Do you actually have anything substantive to say?

Posted by Gene | June 11, 2008 10:07 PM

"Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded." -- Yogi Berra

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | June 11, 2008 10:07 PM

I think this is why the "new urbanists" have the upper hands...people like you and the autor of the "American Dream Coalition" blog have no idea what they're talking about.

If "new urbanists" are people who claim that shifting our transportation usage from cars to transit would yield significant benefits in energy efficiency and reduced pollution, they're the ones who don't know what they're talking about.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 10:14 PM

Cities were actually quite a bit cheaper than the suburbs for a long time - probably from 1929 into the 1980s. My last previous job was working as a peon for a developer who built a condo tower on a plot of land in San Francisco which had been previously been occupied by a rotting warehouse which last got high rents in the 1910s.

The drivers behind the decline of urban property values were:
1. the migration north of the Southern African-American population from the 1920s to the 1950s and the attendant white flight.
2. a declining housing stock in urban areas which was usually built for massively different living patterns (i.e., before WWI: urban residences were often either gigantic houses or low-end scuzzy rental apartments - especially after nearly two decades of deferred maintenance during the Depression). There wasn't enough built between 1919 and 1929 to switch over the built stock to modern living (notably, Art Deco and 1920s apartment buildings in good urban areas generally have remained extremely popular consistently). And there was effectively no construction between 1930 and 1947/1948 or so.

The maintenance costs on either one of these two types of buildings (urban mansions or urban slum tenements) was very high by the time WWII ended - as well as both being entirely unsuitable for the middle class nuclear families of the 1950s (i.e., they wanted a well-appointed three-bedroom residence and got the choice of a rundown ten-bedroom mansion or a rundown small apartment). And zoning effectively fixed the type of building in an area - essentially, you can only build the same type of building on a site similar to those that were already there in the area when zoning began (usually precisely the time frame of the 1920s-1950s). Thus, mansions or slum tenements until the neighborhood declines so badly the city finally allows a zoning change.

Plus, condos didn't, in many states, yet have a legal basis. (It wasn't that they were illegal, it's that the laws structuring how condos were to be understood hadn't yet been passed. Thus, you couldn't get a loan to buy one.)

Posted by burritoboy | June 11, 2008 11:00 PM

Actually, the vehicle miles line also flattened the last time we saw a spike in real gas prices. But that prior spike was quickly reversed and gas went back to trending down in real terms. I don't think anyone, including Mixner, can really predict what will happen if this time the spike isn't reversed, or indeed continues to trend higher.

Incidentally, changing over the entire U.S. automobile fleet to more energy-efficient models isn't going to be costless. Just thought I would note that.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 11:19 PM

Actually, the vehicle miles line also flattened the last time we saw a spike in real gas prices. But that prior spike was quickly reversed and gas went back to trending down in real terms. I don't think anyone, including Mixner, can really predict what will happen if this time the spike isn't reversed, or indeed continues to trend higher.

There are no certainties. A major war, natural disaster or long-term economic depression could radically change our transportation and housing behavior over a short period of time.

But absent that kind of thing, there's no rational basis for predicting a large-scale shift from cars to transit or from sprawling suburbs to more urban lifestyles. The transportation and housing trends of the past half-century or more are against it. The plausible effects of new automobile technology are against it. The fact that transit's market share is already so tiny is against it.

Incidentally, changing over the entire U.S. automobile fleet to more energy-efficient models isn't going to be costless. Just thought I would note that.

It won't be costless initially, but over the long run it will save money. The payback time for the sticker-price premium of a Toyota Prius is already down to about 2 years. After that, the owner will save money on every mile he drives.

Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 11:41 PM

Mixner,

Here again is a chart of real gasoline prices:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Your "transportation and housing trends of the past half-century or more" coincide with a period of decreasing real gasoline prices. Again, if this current dramatic increase in real gasoline prices isn't just a temporary spike, or indeed gets substantially worse, you don't know what will happen to those trends.

Incidentally, one of the chief reasons the payback time on hybrids has gotten shorter is higher petroleum fuel prices. Obviously, that does in fact make hybrids more competitive with petroleum-only cars, but at the same time it is also making modes of transport that require even less petroleum per passenger-mile than hybrids even more competitive.

Posted by DTM | June 11, 2008 11:58 PM

DTM,

Your "transportation and housing trends of the past half-century or more" coincide with a period of decreasing real gasoline prices.

We've been over this. Here are some of the fundamental facts you're missing:

- The real price of gas roughly doubled between the early 70s and early 80s. It's also been rising since about 1999. This has not induced large-scale shifts from cars to transit or from sprawling suburbs to dense housing. In fact, transit's market share has declined and average house size has increased across both falling and rising real gas prices.

- Fuel cost is a substantially smaller share of the total cost of running a car now than it was in the past. This makes driving behavior much less sensitive to gas price increases than it used to be.

- Game-changing new auto technologies allow us to radically increase auto fuel efficiency and shift to fuel sources other than oil.

- The evidence indicates that even current autos (let alone future ones) have about the same energy efficiency as transit, and may even be more energy efficient. Cars are definitely more energy efficient than, for instance, transit buses. Rising oil prices will make oil-fuelled transit (most buses, some trains) more expensive to operate, which is likely to produce higher ticket prices and/or cutbacks in services.

- Transit has such a tiny market share of total passenger miles (about 1%, compared to about 96% for cars) that even a major expansion of transit would yield only a small shift in overall transportation usage patterns. The NSTPRSC report I linked to earlier estimated that it would take almost 20 years of sustained "high-level" funding to increase transit's market share by just 0.5%.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 12:33 AM

Mixner, why is it ok for you to say this:

"No, new technology is likely to keep the party going indefinitely."

But someone else (Gene? LaFollette?) is not allowed to say this:

"I'm not sure why your "promises" should be regarded as reliable predictors of future trends."

Why is your 'prediction' that technology will swoop in just in time to save happy motorin' USA as is is totally valid while someone else's 'prediction' that carbon energy will skyrocket in price in real terms is an 'unreliable predictor'?

Posted by mike | June 12, 2008 1:32 AM

mike,

You do understand there's a difference between a prediction and a promise, right? And that there's a difference between a prediction that follows logically from evidence and a prediction that amounts to a guess, right?

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 1:50 AM

That's true, there is a difference between a prediction and a promise, however, I reject the notion that your prediction "follows logically from evidence."

Sure, you're predicting way more efficient cars, good evidence there. You're also though predicting this increased efficiency will suffice w/o dramatic infrastructure and lifestyle changes. Why?

Posted by mike | June 12, 2008 2:06 AM

mike,

Read my post of 12:33am. If it's still not clear to you, never mind.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 2:10 AM

Sure, you're predicting way more efficient cars, good evidence there. You're also though predicting this increased efficiency will suffice w/o dramatic infrastructure and lifestyle changes. Why?

Because of the market, fool. Market forces are like a magical dragon that swoops in whenever we need to be saved from our own dumb asses, blowing away all negative externalities in a giant ball of fire and making sure we never have to do anything more challenging than choosing the right cola.

Hooray for the free market! Like Jesus, for rich people!

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 2:12 AM

"This makes driving behavior much less sensitive to gas price increases than it used to be."

That's insane. There already have been shifts in driving behavior, gas is only $4/gallon. You don't have to believe it'll rise to 5,6 or 8 bucks, doesn't make you right.

"Game-changing new auto technologies allow us to radically increase auto fuel efficiency and shift to fuel sources other than oil."

Again, this assertion doesn't cover the sufficiency question. You like to talk about the plug-ins, I guess you think the plug-in grid will be driven by???? biofuels? nuclear? coal?

Posted by mike | June 12, 2008 2:18 AM

"The evidence indicates that even current autos (let alone future ones) have about the same energy efficiency as transit, and may even be more energy efficient. Cars are definitely more energy efficient than, for instance, transit buses. Rising oil prices will make oil-fuelled transit (most buses, some trains) more expensive to operate, which is likely to produce higher ticket prices and/or cutbacks in services."

Mixner,

The same study you cite also points out that intercity buses use 1/6 of the energy per passenger mile than autos use, BECAUSE OF THEIR FREQUENTLY HIGH PASSENGER LOADS. This means that if transit buses and light rail were utilized to their full capacity to the degree that intercity buses are, their energy efficiency would greatly exceed that of autos. (This makes sense, since a bus has 10-20 times the passenger capacity of an auto.). So your notion that increased usage of buses and light rail relative to autos would be less energy efficient isn't supported by the facts.

Moreover, just as rising oil prices will increase the usage of hybrid autos, rising oil prices will also force transit systems to invest in hybrid and/or fully electric technology for buses and trains, and retire the aging & gas-guzzling parts of their bus and rail fleets. Remember, any fuel efficiency improvements in auto technology can be carried over to buses and trains as well.

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 4:14 AM

This type of person sees the city as some varient of a mythical version of the Lower East Side - filth, crowds, noise, etc. They have prejudged that it's going to be disorienting and terrifying, so they just don't go. You can't touch anything in the city! Don't ride the bus! ewwwwwww.

But it's true!

Posted by novakant | June 12, 2008 6:01 AM

Mixner,

LaFollette's graph shows there WAS a change in the trend as a result of the prior gas price spike, and there HAS BEEN a change in the trend as a result of this gas price spike. So the idea that these trends are entirely unaffected by gas prices is pretty implausible.

Now, what happened last time is that gas prices quickly went back down, and indeed returned to an overall trend of lower real gas prices. As we have discussed before, that did in fact mean relatively little switching to public transit, because it takes time for large scale switching to occur, and the prior gas spike was transient. But again, if the current gas prices are not similarly transient, meaning if instead gas prices don't go back down (or indeed go higher), it will be an unprecedented event in the history of real gas prices in the United States. You are pretending you know what will happen if this unprecedented event occurs, but of course you don't.

As for technology, a bus running at a sufficient capacity is always going to be more energy efficient than a fleet of cars carrying the same number of people one or two per car, assuming the bus and the cars are using the same technology. And there are basic reasons for this that technology can never overcome: the fleet of cars needs a bunch of redundant systems, structures, and so on, all to make it possible for these cars to safely operate independent from each other. So, the fleet of cars is basically carrying a lot more non-passenger mass around than the bus, and also has a higher total friction load. Moving that extra non-passenger mass around with higher total friction takes more energy. That is basic physics, and technology will never be able to change the laws of physics.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 7:23 AM

By the way, I just want to note how hilarious Mixner's use of the graph from the Commission report turns out to be. It is true transit buses scored poorly in relation to automobiles, but if anyone bothers to fact-check Mixner, they will see that intercity buses and "other" buses (which include charters, tour buses, and school buses--the latter not being known for using the latest technology) scored extremely well in relation to automobiles. In fact, you could cut the energy use of automobiles in half and these other buses would still be way ahead--which is a ridiculous hypothetical anyway, since basically any technology that can make cars more efficient can also make buses more efficient, so the goal posts will keep moving and current-technology buses will always be ahead of current-technology cars.

And yet Mixner hilariously implies this graph with respect to transit buses versus automobiles shows something about the fundamental efficiency of the VEHICLES in question, even though the same class of vehicles are also dramatically outscoring automobiles in the very same graph.

Priceless.

But I will say one thing about the graph: it shows we are not using buses for transit in a particularly efficient way. That I agree with, and I think one of the other implications of higher fuel prices is that we likely will end up reconfiguring our bus systems to make them a lot more energy efficient, despite the political pressures that in the past have led to bus systems being designed in inefficient ways. Of course that is largely consistent with the notion that total ridership throughout the system will increase at the same time. Indeed, in addition to the direct effect of tailoring the bus system to better serve higher volume, and thus higher-efficiency, routes, improving the overall efficiency of the bus system should lower operating costs per rider, which could mean relatively lower prices for consumers.

Anyway, again using Mixner's graph in a less hilarious but more sensible fashion, one can hypothesize that a bus system well-designed for commuters should be able to operate at least at the efficiency levels of, say, school buses, and probably better with better technology, more expressway miles, and so on. So, the efficiency of the "other bus" category should provide a reasonable goal for commuter buses, and maybe better. Meanwhile, separating out the part of the bus system which is designed to provide subsidized non-commuter transit services to the aged, handicapped, poor, or so on, should be doable at about the "vanpool" category level of efficiency, and again less with better technology.

To sum up, those two categories ("other bus" and "vanpool") roughly define the efficiency range where a well-designed transit bus system could operate, even while at the same time increasing ridership. And again, that is with the understanding that better technology will be steadily improving that range over what is currently reflected in Mixner's chart.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 8:18 AM

Remember, any fuel efficiency improvements in auto technology can be carried over to buses and trains as well.

Yeah, Mixner always carefully elides that. Arguments like his are what you get when you make up your mind first (private cars are aesthetically/ethically better than anything 'collective') and then look for data to support it. You have to admire his prodigious efforts to do that, though.

You can't touch anything in the city! Don't ride the bus! ewwwwwww.
But it's true!

Hillarious. They used to call NYC 'Fun City' in those Neil Simon heydays.

disappointedGentrifier brings up the opposite to the Small Town Longing: urban fetishism, which caused kids to move out of the suburbs back to the 'gritty', 'real', city to take over industrial buildings and create SoHo, et. al. In addition to calling suburban things 'neighborhood' and 'community' (small town longing), there is a mania for urban-ish stuff. There is a genre of music called 'urban' (a euphemism for black music, whatever that is), there are graphic design templates/cliches by the thousands with some variation of that theme, gansta rap fetishizes the City (or some of its suburban fans do), and you can go on and on with examples. It's not that most of these people, unlike the gentrifiers, actually want to LIVE in the city, but they just like the idea because the city is somehow 'real'.

I have both longings, too. I love a real small town or the country. That sort of life really does have a lot going for it. And I love (even more) living in a large American city. The newer outer suburbs are neither country nor city, and have many of the negative aspects of both.

if we could stipulate, just for the sake of argument, that effeciency gains in the next, say, 10 years, of developing mass transit vs favoring private vehicles was a wash, we could get to the real meat of Mixner's and other's argument, which is that having an individually wrapped life in the burbs is inherently superior to either urban living or country/small town living. Hard sell.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 12, 2008 10:59 AM

It's not that most of these people, unlike the gentrifiers, actually want to LIVE in the city, but they just like the idea because the city is somehow 'real'.

Here's something I don't often say: I think TV helped the urban cause a bit. A lot of the folks who are coming to see (most of) the suburbs for the blight that they are grew up watching Seinfeld, Friends, etc... Shows like these help combat the "city=slum" myth you see floating around here and elsewhere.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 12, 2008 11:09 AM

"Even American households classified by the government as poor usually have at least one car, and tend to have bigger houses than even middle-class Europeans."

Citations?

Posted by freddiemac | June 12, 2008 12:18 PM

And if your increased transit ridership consists of former car drivers switching to buses or light rail, you're reducing energy efficiency, because autos are more energy-efficient than transit buses and light rail.
Posted by Mixner | June 11, 2008 6:54 PM

This makes no sense to me. There must be a lot of empty buses traveling long distances in America. Ahhh. DTM digs deeper and explains. Got it.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 12, 2008 12:48 PM

DTM,

LaFollette's graph shows there WAS a change in the trend as a result of the prior gas price spike, and there HAS BEEN a change in the trend as a result of this gas price spike. So the idea that these trends are entirely unaffected by gas prices is pretty implausible.

Another strawman. I didn't say the trend was "entirely unaffected." I said the trend of falling transit use and increased driving continued even during periods of rising gas prices. LaFollette's graph is perfectly consistent with this. It shows that between 1971 and 1981, when gas prices almost doubled, vehicle miles increased by about 40%.

Now, what happened last time is that gas prices quickly went back down, and indeed returned to an overall trend of lower real gas prices. As we have discussed before, that did in fact mean relatively little switching to public transit, because it takes time for large scale switching to occur, and the prior gas spike was transient.

How many times do we have to go over this? Gas prices increased for a decade during the 1970s. Mass transit lost market share during that time. Cars gained market share. And gas prices have also been increasing for almost a decade now. Again, mass transit has lost market share and cars have gained market share. I'm not sure what part of this isn't clear to you.

But again, if the current gas prices are not similarly transient, meaning if instead gas prices don't go back down (or indeed go higher), it will be an unprecedented event in the history of real gas prices in the United States.

New technologies that double or quadruple auto fuel efficiency, and that allow the use of fuels other than oil, are also unprecedented in United States history. These technologies are a real unprecedented event, as opposed to your hypothetical unprecedented event of constantly rising gas prices. Fuel costs will decline even in the face of rising gas prices if efficiency improvements and shifts to alternate fuels outstrip the effect of rising prices.

You're also ignoring all the other problems with your speculations I described: the fact that fuel costs are a much smaller share of total costs than they were in the past, the fact that rising oil prices increase the costs of transit, and the tiny market share of transit.

As for technology, a bus running at a sufficient capacity is always going to be more energy efficient than a fleet of cars carrying the same number of people one or two per car, assuming the bus and the cars are using the same technology.

This assertion is highly dubious, but more to the point, it's irrelevant. As a factual matter, buses do not run at sufficient capacity to make them more energy-efficient than cars. What matters is how a transportation system works in the real world, not how it is theoretically capable of working. And in the real world transit buses are less energy-efficient than cars. If you're trying to improve energy efficiency, you should be encouraging people to shift from buses to cars, not the other way round. Bus load factors may be increased by reducing the frequency of service, but that makes the service less attractive and tends to reduce demand. And even if buses could be made more energy-efficient than cars, that obviously wouldn't eliminate the massive advantages of comfort, convenience and flexibility that cars have over buses.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 1:07 PM

DTM,

By the way, I just want to note how hilarious Mixner's use of the graph from the Commission report turns out to be. It is true transit buses scored poorly in relation to automobiles, but if anyone bothers to fact-check Mixner, they will see that intercity buses and "other" buses (which include charters, tour buses, and school buses--the latter not being known for using the latest technology) scored extremely well in relation to automobiles. In fact, you could cut the energy use of automobiles in half and these other buses would still be way ahead--which is a ridiculous hypothetical anyway, since basically any technology that can make cars more efficient can also make buses more efficient, so the goal posts will keep moving and current-technology buses will always be ahead of current-technology cars.

Er, you seem to have forgotten the teeny detail that intercity buses, school buses and tour buses are not transit. That's why the chart explicitly distinguishes transit buses from other types of bus. Intercity buses have high energy efficiency because they are capable of high load factors. They don't compete with cars for commuters and short-distance trips within metropolitan areas. They compete for intercity passengers with cars, planes and intercity rail. You're confusing two different markets.

Anyway, again using Mixner's graph in a less hilarious but more sensible fashion, one can hypothesize that a bus system well-designed for commuters should be able to operate at least at the efficiency levels of, say, school buses, and probably better with better technology, more expressway miles, and so on.

Do please explain how you propose to redesign the transit bus system so that it operates with the energy efficiency of school buses.

Also, please explain more clearly your basic goals for reform of the nation's short-distance surface transportation system. You apparently want a larger share for transit. How much larger? As I have said, transit's current market share is 1%, and it has been in long-term decline for decades. You want to reverse this and increase transit's share, right? What do you want to increase it to, roughly? 10%? 30%? 70%? Or what?

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 1:29 PM

DTM,

I should also note that you, like LaFollete, are arguing against yourself. You want people to shift from using cars to using transit, but at the same time you support incentives to keep people driving. New auto technologies have the effect of insulating drivers from the effect of rising gas prices, and rising energy costs in general. If you're serious about substantially increasing transit's market share, you need to support measures that massively increase the costs of driving relative to transit, because that's the only way you're going to get large numbers of people to leave their cars at home and take buses or trains instead.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 1:42 PM

New auto technologies have the effect of insulating drivers from the effect of rising gas prices,

Doubtful. The low-hanging fruit of improving gas mileage has been plucked. Prices are rising far faster than technology has been "insulating".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 12, 2008 1:46 PM

Remember, any fuel efficiency improvements in auto technology can be carried over to buses and trains as well.

False for trains, and only partly true for buses. It's true that, in general, new auto technologies can be applied to transit buses, but even hybrid transit buses will be less energy efficient than hybrid cars unless their load factors are high enough. And the problem with achieving high load factors on a transit bus system is the huge variation in demand between different times of the day and between different routes in the system. Transit operators can try to accommodate these variations in demand by varying the frequency of service and running buses of different capacities at different times and on different routes, but both of those strategies have their own costs. Reducing the frequency of service makes the service less attractive to potential users and tends to reduce demand. And maintaining bus fleets of different sizes requires more buses and reduces flexibility in response to growth.

With respect to trains, new auto technology offers almost no potential for increasing efficiency. Most transit trains already run on electrical power supplied by the grid. Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, biofuels and fuel-cells, which have the potential of massively increasing auto fuel efficiency, have almost no potential for application to trains.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 2:11 PM

The low-hanging fruit of improving gas mileage has been plucked.

Huh? Biofuels, hybrid and plug-in hybrid are barely getting started. These technologies have huge potential for improving gasoline mileage, and shifting from gasoline to other fuels. In the longer term, fuel-cell vehicles have even greater potential. And increased vehicle and highway automation will also significantly improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 2:23 PM

"Bus load factors may be increased by reducing the frequency of service, but that makes the service less attractive and tends to reduce demand. And even if buses could be made more energy-efficient than cars, that obviously wouldn't eliminate the massive advantages of comfort, convenience and flexibility that cars have over buses."

Mixner,

Bus load factos may also be increased by improving the service the bus provides, such as creating more express routes during rush hour times. In Chicago, the CTA operates several express bus routes during rush hours that travel from Chicago's neighborhoods to downtown, and these buses are always packed.

That's because the travel times for buses on these routes is comparable to travel times by car over the same streets (a distance traveled by car in 30 minutes can be traveled by an express bus in 35-40 minutes), and because a bus commuter doesn't lose 5-10 minutes due to parking.

As a result, the total time spent commuting by express bus equals the total time spent commuting by car, and the cost is considerably less. $4.00 spent on the round trip fare on a express bus is far less than the $10-$20 per day that one could spend on parking alone, let alone the cost of the gasoline that is burnt up by one's car.

Therefore, while travel by car is often more convenient, comfortable, and flexible than travel by bus in many cases, in many other cases it is not. It all depends on how well bus routes are laid out.

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 2:37 PM

This makes no sense to me. There must be a lot of empty buses traveling long distances in America. Ahhh. DTM digs deeper and explains

As someone who has dueled with Mixner before on other topics, and who wants to be sympathetic to the mass transit cause, I have to say...

He's cleaning your clocks.

Seriously, his points are good and not that hard to understand.

E.g.: The reasons transit buses can't aspire to become as efficient as school buses or intercity buses are fairly obvious, even at first glance. The continued stop/start, the need to run on a reliable schedule regardless of ridership, etc.

As long as the methodology on the study he linked is sound, his points are pretty damn compelling.

Posted by Brad L | June 12, 2008 2:43 PM

"Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, biofuels and fuel-cells, which have the potential of massively increasing auto fuel efficiency, have almost no potential for application to trains."

Not even with trains that run on diesel or gasoline?

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 2:46 PM

eltoro,

I don't know if there are any trains at all that run on gasoline. As I said, most transit trains already run on electrical power from the grid. The few diesel-train transit routes could certainly be made more energy-efficient by being replaced with electric trains, but these are only a small share of the total.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 3:13 PM

"And the problem with achieving high load factors on a transit bus system is the huge variation in demand between different times of the day and between different routes in the system. Transit operators can try to accommodate these variations in demand by varying the frequency of service and running buses of different capacities at different times and on different routes, but both of those strategies have their own costs. Reducing the frequency of service makes the service less attractive to potential users and tends to reduce demand."

Reducing the frequency of service makes bus service less attractive when it is done during rush hours and other times of day when there is a need for frequent service. It does not make bus service less attractive when it's done to meet the actual demand for bus service.

What matters to me as a potential customer is whether the bus will be there on time when I actually need to use it, and whether it can transport me to my destination in the same amount of time that an auto can. If it can actually beat the time it takes to commute by car (especially when you factor in the time it takes to park your car), that's even better. It doesn't matter to me if the bus comes every half-hour between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm; what I care about is if it comes every 5-10 minutes during the morning, afternoon, and evening rush hours.

"And maintaining bus fleets of different sizes requires more buses and reduces flexibility in response to growth."

A transit system wil maintain bus fleets of different sizes in response to the ridership demands of the system. Large buses will be maintained in sufficient capacity to serve high demand routes, and regular-sized buses will be used on routes with lower ridership demands. When a route changes from low ridership to high ridership, the transit system will buy more large buses to meet the increased demand. Therefore, there is no connection between having fleets of different sizes and lacking flexibility. Flexibility in meeting changes in capacity is more directly correlated with sufficient levels of funding for capital needs and with astute & far-sighted goverance of the transit system's existing resources.

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 3:25 PM

"Seriously, his points are good and not that hard to understand.

E.g.: The reasons transit buses can't aspire to become as efficient as school buses or intercity buses are fairly obvious, even at first glance. The continued stop/start, the need to run on a reliable schedule regardless of ridership, etc.

As long as the methodology on the study he linked is sound, his points are pretty damn compelling."

Brad L,

Mixner's points aren't very good at all. He treats automobile usage as an ever dynamic phenomenon, but treats transit bus usage as an always static phenomenon. The shortcomings of travel of auto are always temporary and will always be fixed, while the shortcomings of travel by bus are always permanent and will never be fixed.

When did God decree that buses might always run in constant stop/start manner on fixed, uniform intervals throughout the day? I've never seen that mentioned anywhere in the Bible. No, the last time I looked, bus systems were a human invention, and human inventions can always be altered to meet current and future needs and demands. Therefore, buses can be made to run express during rush hours and other peak times at 5 to minute intervals, while being made to run every 15-30 minutes during non-peak times with stops at every corner. It simply requires a matching of demand and supply.

(Hate to break it to you, Brad L, but Mixner's sort of argumentation is the epitome of arguing in bad faith.)

BTW, Brad, reliable schedules are not an impediment for transit buses. It is fixed & uniform schedules regardless of actual demand that are a problem. Reliable schedules are an integral part of getting, maintaining, or even increasing ridership on bus transit systems. If people know that the bus will arrive on time every day at frequent enough intervals and take them to work or school in the same amount of time it takes to travel by car and park it, people will take the bus, especially since it costs them less than driving. They will use their car for other purposes, such as travelling to the grocery store.

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 3:54 PM

"I don't know if there are any trains at all that run on gasoline. As I said, most transit trains already run on electrical power from the grid. The few diesel-train transit routes could certainly be made more energy-efficient by being replaced with electric trains, but these are only a small share of the total."

Mixner,

The Metra transit rail system in the Chicago metropolitan area relies mostly on diesel-powered trains, with the exception of the trains on the Illinois Central line, which run on electrical power. So in Metra's case, switching to hybrid technologies would greatly increase its energy efficiency.

Posted by eltoro | June 12, 2008 4:13 PM

He's cleaning your clocks.

Not really. The study he cites refutes a lot of his own arguments in the end. And its worth noting that gasoline is only part of the equation here. Asphalt, a petroleum product, is also getting more expensive. Its a critical part of happy motoring that most folks don't think about because they do not pay for it directly. Keeping all the burbclaves paved for Bimboboxes is getting very pricey. Bio-pavement anyone?

He also references a bunch of technologies that are either unproven or largely debunked. Biofuels, plug in hybrids, fuel cells et al are, when not total hokum, not commercially ready products and nobody can say for sure when they will be, or what sort of vehicles they'll be able to run. Or how one can charge up while on vacation. Or at work. The logistics are daunting, but doable. Once the question about 'what' is answered, there is the question of 'when' to address.

He also tends to put a lot of faith in the electrical grid magically fixing itself to accommodate 200 million cars by the time plug in vehicles are ready for prime time. Like everything else in America, the electrical grid was built when gas was cheap. It was never designed to handle that capacity. The growth rate of the grids capacity today is really pretty small, not to mention in a horrible state of repair. To update it dramatically and to every last mile of sprawl is going to be very, very expensive. And then you have to build the power plants.

As for the charts comparing energy efficiencies, I followed the data trail back a bit and found they were using recent data, but not really recent data, and averaging efficiencies from many systems. Not that that's a bad way to do it, but there are serious caveats. First, ridership is up. Second, some systems are better than others and the data is skewed quite a bit by small, token systems in places where transit use carries a stigma. BTU per passenger mile in Portland and Pittsburgh is much higher than it is New Orleans or Charlotte. And if you look at a few sample systems, the inefficiencies are mostly due to service in the suburbs. As eltroto points out, the system counts. While nifty whizbang vaporware is exciting and all, transit systems are getting more sophisticated in the real world.

And then there's the whole taking-individual-cars-off-the-road-will-increase-congestion theme he's got going. The solution to him, it seems, is to lower living density. More far-flung suburbs and office parks. Which means more asphalt, electrical grid maintenance, increased costs for utilities infrastructure, more sewers to maintain, more water to use, more places to ship stuff, and generally more specious consumption of everything. And of course, more waste.

Posted by Roboticghost | June 12, 2008 4:19 PM

Mixner's points aren't very good at all. He treats automobile usage as an ever dynamic phenomenon, but treats transit bus usage as an always static phenomenon. The shortcomings of travel of auto are always temporary and will always be fixed, while the shortcomings of travel by bus are always permanent and will never be fixed.

The study he links provides an apples-to-apples comparison of energy use in today's technology. I think that it is fair to presume that future automotive technological advances will apply relatively equally to cars and buses. Is there is a reason to think that buses would benefit more greatly?

When did God decree that buses might always run in constant stop/start manner on fixed, uniform intervals throughout the day? I've never seen that mentioned anywhere in the Bible. No, the last time I looked, bus systems were a human invention, and human inventions can always be altered to meet current and future needs and demands.

I'd happily grant that improvements in efficiency are manageable. I'd also note that they'd be needed to put buses on an equal playing field with cars.

However:
A) You shouldn't assume that buses only serve the purpose of commuter transit. They also (rightly) serve a function of social equity: they provide transport to those with few other options. Any cuts in the "lighter" schedule that are too drastic run the risk of leaving the carless stranded.

B) In my limited experience, what you describe as a solution is already a fairly common practice. I live in Virginia, so I looked up the bus route for my closest line (which is, conveniently, the first link on the page). You'll note that this line runs 4 (or more) buses per hour during the peak commute hours, and 2 per hour during the mid-day hours. Dissappointingly, they stop running at 7pm.

Could it be tweaked? Sure. But this is an adjustment on the margins, not a radical new approach that is likely to cut the energy costs so much as to blow past cars.

Further, I kind of agree with Mixner that it's a bit of a leap to assume that, with continued gas price increases, there would be a massive shift to bus transit.

I'd expect both bus and hybrid cars (along with bikes and scooters) to gain ground on guzzlers, but the cultural/personal shift from an SUV to a hybrid is a lot smaller than from a personal vehicle to mass transit. Consequently, I think there will be more of a move to hybrids than buses, and I think this hurdle can't really just be wished away. It would take some awfully steep and persistent gas hikes to move the needle substantially.

(I disagree with him in that I think energy prices are likely to remain high. New technology comes on line slowly, and old gas-burning technology is only going to increase in growing Asian economies. Still, the increase it would take to get people to switch over -- that's a large number).

(Hate to break it to you, Brad L, but Mixner's sort of argumentation is the epitome of arguing in bad faith.)

Ok. But then, you should be able to explain to me where he is wrong pretty easily.

Posted by Brad L | June 12, 2008 4:34 PM

eltoro,

It doesn't matter to me if the bus comes every half-hour between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm; what I care about is if it comes every 5-10 minutes during the morning, afternoon, and evening rush hours.

What matters to you personally isn't terribly relevant. A bus service is obviously more attractive to potential riders at any time of the day if it runs every 5 minutes than if it runs every half hour. The benefit of more-frequent service may be larger at rush hour than at other times, but there's always a benefit. Even if a potential rider is just running an errand in the middle of the day, the bus service is much more attractive if he knows he'll only have to wait a few minutes at the bus stop than if he knows he might have to wait half an hour.

A transit system wil maintain bus fleets of different sizes in response to the ridership demands of the system. Large buses will be maintained in sufficient capacity to serve high demand routes, and regular-sized buses will be used on routes with lower ridership demands.

The part you're missing is that demand varies at different times of the day on the same route. If the bus authority tries to maximize the load factor for the route by running big buses at rush hour when demand is high and small buses at other times, when demand is low, it must buy more buses. The big buses are idle outside rush hour, and the small buses are idle during rush hour.

When a route changes from low ridership to high ridership, the transit system will buy more large buses to meet the increased demand.

Which is an additional capital cost. It may well be cheaper for the bus authority to buy bigger buses in the first place in anticipation of potential growth in demand than to have to buy multiple sets of buses: smaller ones when demand is low and bigger ones as demand rises. But if it does that, there will also be a penalty from lower load factors unless and until the anticipated higher demand materializes.

Don't you think cash-strapped local governments have already studied this kind of tradeoff and are already trying to provide the best mix of frequency and capacity they can within their transit budget to meet demand? Of course they are. Load factor will always be a problem for large-vehicle transit systems, because demand doesn't come in nice, predictable vehicle-sized increments but instead varies by arbitrarily large or small amounts across different times and places.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 4:57 PM

He also references a bunch of technologies that are either unproven or largely debunked. Biofuels, plug in hybrids, fuel cells et al are, when not total hokum, not commercially ready products and nobody can say for sure when they will be, or what sort of vehicles they'll be able to run.

Okay, but as long as buses and cars are running on the same basic technology, this is a wash. I could see that buses might have an advantage to moving to something like a plug-in hybrid technology before cars do (after all, their nightly storage is centralized, and their use is consistent and predictable). But this would have to actually happen before assuming buses can leapfrog cars.

Asphalt, a petroleum product, is also getting more expensive.

Ok, so lets think this through: if we could persuade people to move from medium to higher density areas based on, say, road taxes/tolls, this would be important. But unless we are willing to try to make those structural changes, you are right in noting that these costs are unfelt, and not likely to get people to move from cars to buses.

As for the charts comparing energy efficiencies, I followed the data trail back a bit and found they were using recent data, but not really recent data, and averaging efficiencies from many systems.

The caveat from my first post was that I don't know the methodology of the study. If it's poor, then that's an avenue to try and pull apart this argument.

Second, some systems are better than others and the data is skewed quite a bit by small, token systems in places where transit use carries a stigma.

I'll buy that gains can be made in some systems far more easily than others. But that moves the goalposts a bit, doesn't it? I mean, what you end up lobbying for is an increase in funding in some cities to try and see the rewards that they would yield. Heck, I'm certainly not opposed to that. But it's hardly far-reaching.

And if you look at a few sample systems, the inefficiencies are mostly due to service in the suburbs.

So, is the argument then to remove bus lines from the suburbs? Not to be dense, but I didn't get the impression that reducing bus services was what you guys were after (but this was a really, really long thread, and I apologize if I lost the plot.)

So, that would leave improving the bus services from the burbs into the city. Which, I suspect, would actually (though somewhat marginally) increase the appeal (and might be an example of the "suburb subsidies" MattY was originally noting.

Posted by Brad L | June 12, 2008 4:59 PM

eltoro,

The Metra transit rail system in the Chicago metropolitan area relies mostly on diesel-powered trains, with the exception of the trains on the Illinois Central line, which run on electrical power. So in Metra's case, switching to hybrid technologies would greatly increase its energy efficiency.

That seems very unlikely. You do understand that hybrid technologies are not the same thing as electrical power from the grid, don't you? In any case, to say it for the third time, most transit trains are already electrically-powered. There would be little or no benefit at all to switching them to hybrid technology, assuming that it can even be effectively scaled up to train-sized vehicles. Yes, diesel-to-electric conversion would increase energy efficiency. But most transit trains are not diesel. No subway system is diesel, no elevated rapid rail is diesel, no urban light-rail is diesel, and as far as I know only a minority of commuter rail is diesel.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 5:18 PM

So, just to recap, I think the argument is something like this:

Assertion: We should probably be spending more money on public transit, because it is more efficient and, with high prices, demand will increase.

The counter-arguments are:
1. High feul prices might not continue -- (I disagree, but it is not really important b/c...)
2. Even with higher prices, a mass move from cars to buses seems unlikely. Even if it were...
3. Buses are not nearly as much more efficient than cars as we all seem to think, so trying to engineer a habit shift doesn't gain us much anyway.

I think Mixner is off on point one but really nails point two. For point three, the argument got backed down all the way to buses being more efficient than cars in certain cities, discounting the suburbs. So... yeah, arguing in favor of moderate, rational investment in bus transit in somewhat narrowly defined places makes sense, but I'm not sure that part was ever really in dispute.

That's just a far cry from where this all started, isn't it?

Posted by Brad L | June 12, 2008 5:29 PM

There are lots of reasons transit buses today are not being used to maximize their energy efficiency. One of the biggest is simply that until recently, petroleum was cheap, so this wasn't a major concern. Another is the purpose to which buses have been turned: again, if you treat them as a source of subsidized transit for the poor, aged, handicapped, and so on, you aren't necessarily using them in the most efficient.

And again, the problem with Mixner (and I guess Brad L) is that he treats this result as indicating something about about the VEHICLES in question, as opposed to how they are currently being used. In fact, putting "transit" in front of "bus" does not change it into a different vehicle, and that should have clued Mixner (and Brad L) into the fact that it is how they are being used, not the vehicles themselves, that are the problem.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 5:51 PM

robotic,

Asphalt, a petroleum product, is also getting more expensive. Its a critical part of happy motoring that most folks don't think about because they do not pay for it directly.

Since buses also run on asphalt any increase in asphalt prices will obviously affect the cost of bus transit also. And how big is this is the impact, anyway? Do you have any data?

He also references a bunch of technologies that are either unproven or largely debunked. Biofuels, plug in hybrids, fuel cells et al are, when not total hokum, not commercially ready products and nobody can say for sure when they will be, or what sort of vehicles they'll be able to run.

Do please provide a link to this alleged "debunking." Regular hybrid is available now and provides substantial increases in fuel economy over conventional vehicles. Plug-in hybrid (PHEV) will be available in mass-market vehicles within a few years. The PHEV Toyota Prius, PHEV Saturn Vue, and PHEV Chevrolet Volt are scheduled to go on the market in 2010. The PHEV Ford Escape SUV is also expected within 5 years. No one here has claimed that fuel-cell technology is ready for the market now, so that's a strawman.

He also tends to put a lot of faith in the electrical grid magically fixing itself to accommodate 200 million cars by the time plug in vehicles are ready for prime time.

More nonsense. I've already addressed this spurious claim. There is already large unused night-time capacity in the electrical system that the initial wave of PHEVs will take advantage of. There is absolutely no basis for claiming that the system cannot be expanded gradually to meet future demand as PHEVs displace more and more conventional vehicles.

As for the charts comparing energy efficiencies, I followed the data trail back a bit and found they were using recent data, but not really recent data, and averaging efficiencies from many systems.

"Recent" but not "really recent." You're really scraping the barrel looking for things to quibble about, aren't you?

Not that that's a bad way to do it, but there are serious caveats. First, ridership is up. Second, some systems are better than others and the data is skewed quite a bit by small, token systems in places where transit use carries a stigma. BTU per passenger mile in Portland and Pittsburgh is much higher than it is New Orleans or Charlotte.

I've been over this, too. You're repeating "arguments" I have already addressed. Yes, some transit systems are more energy-efficient than others. That's irrelevant. Some cars are also more energy-efficient than others. Under any serious apples-to-apples comparison between cars and transit, transit offers at best only small benefits in terms of energy efficiency, and may offer no benefits at all. Upcoming advances in auto technology will almost certainly make cars significantly more energy-efficient than transit.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 5:54 PM

There are lots of reasons transit buses today are not being used to maximize their energy efficiency. One of the biggest is simply that until recently, petroleum was cheap, so this wasn't a major concern. Another is the purpose to which buses have been turned: again, if you treat them as a source of subsidized transit for the poor, aged, handicapped, and so on, you aren't necessarily using them in the most efficient.

But, but, but...

The conclusions that you get ultimately get to actually involve excising inefficient usage, not increasing bus services.

So: sure, we can make buses more efficient by not serving the poor and elderly. And we can make them more efficient by not reaching out to the suburbs. That creates efficiency by reducing services, which I don't think was the point that you really wanted to drive at. I also think that if your plan is to make buses "better" by failing to serve the poor and elderly, you will rightly find some opposition there. I mean, if the case you are trying to make is "to hell with the poor," at least be explicit about it!

And again, the problem with Mixner (and I guess Brad L) is that he treats this result as indicating something about about the VEHICLES in question, as opposed to how they are currently being used.

This is a bit of a distinction without a difference (and I'll point out that I was the one that brought up the social value of buses as one of the reasons. It's not like I am pretending it's not there).

I'm not making some moral judgment about the inherent value of buses vs cars. It's that buses, in the way that we use them, don't provide the big environmental advantage.

But here's the big takeaway: we can't really get there, either, by investing more. We can only get there by reducing a number of our services! That doesn't provide a sound argument for additional funding or any kind of expansion.

Posted by Brad L | June 12, 2008 6:13 PM

DTM,

There are lots of reasons transit buses today are not being used to maximize their energy efficiency. One of the biggest is simply that until recently, petroleum was cheap, so this wasn't a major concern.

Do please produce your evidence that the energy-efficiency of the nation's transit bus system could be significantly increased through improved management. Not unsupported assertions. Not anecdotes. Evidence of large-scale inefficiency resulting from poor management.

And again, the problem with Mixner (and I guess Brad L) is that he treats this result as indicating something about about the VEHICLES in question, as opposed to how they are currently being used. In fact, putting "transit" in front of "bus" does not change it into a different vehicle, and that should have clued Mixner (and Brad L) into the fact that it is how they are being used, not the vehicles themselves, that are the problem.

You're still missing the point, DTM. What matters is not the theoretical maximum efficiency of the vehicle type, but its actual efficiency in the real world. If transit buses could be operated in the same way as intercity buses (high load factors, few stops and starts) then their energy efficiency would be much higher. But transit buses cannot be operated in that way, because transit bus frequencies are much higher than intercity bus frequencies, transit buses serve many more bus stops than intercity buses, and transit buses are subject to many more traffic flow interruptions (stop lights, yield signs, congestion, etc.) than intercity buses. What part of this don't you understand?

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 6:14 PM

DTM,

By the way, you haven't addressed the problem of the fundamentally self-contradictory nature of your basic position that I described earlier. By supporting investment in and adoption of new auto technologies, you are discouraging people from switching to mass transit. If you want to substantially increase transit's market share, you need to support measures that massively increase the costs of driving relative to transit, because that's the only way you're going to get large numbers of people to leave their cars at home and take buses or trains instead.

I'm also still waiting for you to explain your basic transportation goals more clearly. You want a larger share for transit. But how much larger? As I have said, transit's current market share is 1%, and it has been in long-term decline for decades. You want to reverse this and increase transit's share, right? What do you want to increase it to, roughly? 10%? 30%? 70%? Or what?

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 6:24 PM

This is a useful link for evaluating the costs & benefits of transit:
http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf

Posted by Frederick | June 12, 2008 6:44 PM

A bit up stream, Mixner counters my point about efficiency by muddying the waters. He inserts a comment about new fuels to hide his fatuity regarding efficiency. Palming a card, eh? The amount of efficiency available in burning carbon fuels to move large chunks of metal and rubber around is not great. They've been at it for over 100 years and the biggest efficiency is still to move less weight. Maybe the engineers should learn to use Magic Capitalism Pixie Dust.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 12, 2008 9:19 PM

I don't think you really even know what your point is, Jeffrey. Your posts are so poorly-written and confused it's hard to know what you're trying to say. You do realize that buses and trains are "large chunks of metal and rubber" that we burn carbon fuels to move around, right?

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 10:43 PM

Brad L,

As I implied above, and have stated in this forum before, I think the commuter bus system and subsidized transit system for the aged, poor, handicapped, and so on should be treated as separate systems. And by doing so, both could be more energy efficient, while at the same time total ridership was also increasing. Again, there is really no reason commuter buses can't be as energy efficient as school buses (despite Mixner's wild claims to the contrary, it turns out commuters provide a pretty predictable transportation demand, just like school children do), and no reason a subsidized transit system for other people can't be as energy efficient as vanpools. As Mixner's own chart shows, put together two systems like that, and you should get something much more efficient than the transit bus systems of the recent past.

By the way, maybe when energy was cheap, there was enough savings in equipment costs that it made sense to use the big commuter buses to do the subsidized transport runs as well, despite that meaning running those buses at low capacities (I am skeptical, actually, and suspect that was the result of a public choice problem, but it is possible it did in fact make sense). However, that again has nothing to do with the fundamental energy efficiency of the vehicles, and therefore the practice of using commuter buses for such double-duty can (and likely will) change in response to higher energy prices.

Mixner,

First, if you actually understood your own chart, you would realize it provides the evidence you are asking me for.

Second, there is no contradiction in my views, and the only reason you think so is that you are falsely attributing to me the same desire to pick a single winning transportation technology that you have. But my only concern is efficiency. Moreover, I have always noted that I believe cars will remain an important mode of transportation for the conceivable future, precisely because cars are the most efficient mode of transport for certain transportation needs--just as buses are most efficient in other cases, and trains are most efficient in still other cases, and airplanes in still others, and sometimes even boats, and so on.

And as a result of my understanding that all the various modes of transportation have their place, I am perfectly fine with the fact that more efficient cars means less switching to public transit. In particular, assuming that is because cars as a result are the most efficient choice in more cases than they would have been otherwise (not always a valiud assumption today, unfortunately), that is a net gain for overall efficiency. Of course, I also recognize that more efficient buses means relatively more switching to public transit. Again, though, I am not in favor of that outcome because I love buses and hate cars. I am in favor of that outcome only because that means a net gain for overall efficiency.

And if you actually understood all this, you would already realize that I have no particular goal in mind for public transit's share of passenger miles. Rather, I would just like to see public transit offered where it makes economic sense to do so. Also, I would like to see the right sort of public transit offered, since I am no more interested in picking a single winning public transit technology than I am in picking a single winning overall transportation technology. And as long as those conditions are met, what that means in terms of share for various modes of transportation isn't a concern of mine.

Posted by DTM | June 12, 2008 11:16 PM

DTM,

As I implied above, and have stated in this forum before, I think the commuter bus system and subsidized transit system for the aged, poor, handicapped, and so on should be treated as separate systems. And by doing so, both could be more energy efficient, while at the same time total ridership was also increasing. Again, there is really no reason commuter buses can't be as energy efficient as school buses (despite Mixner's wild claims to the contrary, it turns out commuters provide a pretty predictable transportation demand, just like school children do), and no reason a subsidized transit system for other people can't be as energy efficient as vanpools. As Mixner's own chart shows, put together two systems like that, and you should get something much more efficient than the transit bus systems of the recent past.

Like so much of what you write, this makes absolutely no sense. What is the justification for providing a separate transit system for the "aged, poor and handicapped" who currently ride regular transit buses? How would that improve efficiency? And treating "commuter buses" as a separate system isn't going to improve the efficiency of your total transit system, either. To improve efficiency, you need to increase load factors (or replace your buses with more fuel-efficient ones), and you can't do that simply by changing the accounting.

You still don't seem to understand the fundamental differences between transit bus services and other kinds of bus service. The reason transit buses have lower efficiency than intercity buses or school buses or tour buses is because they have lower load factors and because they make many more stops and starts. They have lower load factors because they need to run much more frequently. They have many more stops and starts because they serve many more bus stops and because they are subject to much greater traffic flow interruptions. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Posted by Mixner | June 12, 2008 11:52 PM

DTM,

And as a result of my understanding that all the various modes of transportation have their place, I am perfectly fine with the fact that more efficient cars means less switching to public transit.

How can you be "perfectly fine" with that when you want to reduce the market share of cars and increase the market share of transit? How can you be "perfectly fine" with it when you want to reduce the share of the population that lives in car-oriented sprawling suburbs, and increase the share of the population that lives in transit-oriented, denser developments and "walkable communities?"

Reducing the costs of driving relative to taking mass transit is completely inconsistent with the anti-sprawl, pro-transit, higher-density changes in land-use policies that you have consistently advocated in this blog. In order to bring about those changes, driving will have to become more costly relative to transit, to encourage transit expansion and denser housing. Otherwise, people have no incentive to give up cars and driving for buses and trains. You just seem hopelessly confused.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 12:15 AM

Mixner,

If you actually thought about it carefully, you would realize you are answering your own questions.

A bus system serving commuters doesn't need as many stops per route, it doesn't have to run frequently outside of peak commuting hours, and with BRT approaches (up to and including dedicated busways), it can bypass a lot of congestion. And seriously, you should think about school buses a bit more. They are basically commuter buses, just for children commuting to school instead of adults commuting to work.

In contrast, a bus system serving as subsidized transit for the aged, handicapped, poor, and so on does have to make a lot of stops, does have to run more evenly throughout the day, and the volumes per route are usually not going to be high enough to justify BRT (although if the infrastructure is there anyway, they can use it).

Accordingly, it isn't hard to schedule commuter bus routes to run at relatively high loads. But if you then take those same vehicles and use them for subsidized transit, then they will be oversized for that purpose and end up running at low loads. And once again, you should really think about vanpools a bit more. They serve the same function, but with smaller vehicles, and voila--as per your chart they achieve much higher efficiencies, although not as high as school buses (which again really are a good proxy for commuter buses). But of course if you tried to use school buses for vanpools, you would end up dropping the efficiency way down.

Which, again, is what we are often doing today by using large commuter buses where the ridership only merits smaller vehicles. And as I noted above, you probably do save some equipment costs that way, but the result is the much lower energy efficiency you see in your chart.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 12:31 AM

"How can you be 'perfectly fine' with that when you want to reduce the market share of cars and increase the market share of transit?"

Again, the premise of this question is inaccurate. I want more efficient transportation. I don't care about market shares for different modes of transportation per se.

"How can you be 'perfectly fine' with it when you want to reduce the share of the population that lives in car-oriented sprawling suburbs, and increase the share of the population that lives in transit-oriented, denser developments and 'walkable communities?'"

The premise of this question is also inaccurate. I don't want there to be artificial constraints on the supply of various forms of housing. Again, I don't care about the market shares of different forms of housing per se.

"Reducing the costs of driving relative to taking mass transit is completely inconsistent with the anti-sprawl, pro-transit, higher-density changes in land-use policies that you have consistently advocated in this blog."

Once again, your premises are inaccurate. I am not "anti-sprawl" (I have no problem with people who would prefer such neighborhoods, assuming they are willing to pay the costs of doing so), I am not "pro-transit" (except to the extent I favor public spending on transit projects where the externalities justify such spending), and I would only ask of land-use policy that it be neutral with respect to densities.

"In order to bring about those changes, driving will have to become more costly relative to transit, to encourage transit expansion and denser housing. Otherwise, people have no incentive to give up cars and driving for buses and trains."

I desire no more incentive for people to use public transit than would result from economically justifiable public transit projects being funded. Similarly, I desire no additional incentives for people to live in denser housing other than whatever benefits that naturally brings.

"You just seem hopelessly confused."

No, you are confused because you are attributing to me views I don't hold. Again, in your childlike world there are only two options: I must either be anti-density and anti-public-transit like you, or anti-sprawl and anti-car. And since I am not anti-density and anti-public-transit, you are assuming I must be anti-sprawl and anti-car.

But again, in the adult world, one can recognize that we live in a diverse country with diverse preferences and diverse needs. So, I don't have to be childishly "anti" anything--that is your game, not mine.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 12:56 AM

DTM,

A bus system serving commuters doesn't need as many stops per route, it doesn't have to run frequently outside of peak commuting hours, and with BRT approaches (up to and including dedicated busways), it can bypass a lot of congestion.

More irrelevance. "Transit buses" obviously do not only serve commuters (probably not even mainly commuters). The term encompasses bus transit in general, not simply routes specifically geared towards commuters or express services. The typical city or suburban transit bus route serves a broad ridership, makes many stops along its route, runs far more frequently than specialized commuter buses (let alone intercity buses), and is subject to frequent stops or delays at intersections. That is why transit buses are less energy-efficient than intercity buses and specialized bus services. It is a consequence of the way transit buses need to operate. The fact that transit bus vehicles could theoretically operate at efficiencies similar to those of intercity buses is completely irrelevant.

Obviously, among "transit buses" as a whole, some routes, such as express commuter routes with lower frequency and fewer stops than average, will be more efficient than others. But you cannot increase the efficiency of the overall bus transit system simply by treating high-efficiency routes as a different system. The average efficiency remains the same regardless of the way you do the accounting.

In contrast, a bus system serving as subsidized transit for the aged, handicapped, poor, and so on does have to make a lot of stops, does have to run more evenly throughout the day, and the volumes per route are usually not going to be high enough to justify BRT (although if the infrastructure is there anyway, they can use it).

You still haven't explained why a "separate system" is justified for "the aged, handicapped and poor." Why can't they just use the regular bus transit system like everyone else? What's the advantage of providing a "separate system" for those groups?

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 3:25 AM

DTM,

I am not "anti-sprawl" (I have no problem with people who would prefer such neighborhoods, assuming they are willing to pay the costs of doing so), I am not "pro-transit" (except to the extent I favor public spending on transit projects where the externalities justify such spending), and I would only ask of land-use policy that it be neutral with respect to densities...

I desire no more incentive for people to use public transit than would result from economically justifiable public transit projects being funded.

Then you should be opposed to the vast majority of even existing transit projects, let alone new ones, because the vast majority of them are not "economically justifiable" without huge taxpayer subsidies, and huge subsidies for transit are most definitely not "neutral" with respect to densities.

If you truly believe that basic decisions regarding thge nation's transportation systems should be left to the market to decide, free of interference from governments trying to promote one kind of system over another, then you should favor the elimination of most or all current transportation subsidies. Since trains and buses are subsidized to a vastly larger extent than roads, this would probably mean the end of most transit systems. They simply couldn't survive if their users were required to pay the full costs of building and operating them. If the government is to remain responsible for funding and building transport system infrastructure, that funding should come from taxes and fees levied on the systems' users (e.g., gas taxes, vehicle registration taxes, etc.).

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 3:45 AM

[A]I don't think you really even know what your point is, Jeffrey. [a] Your posts are so poorly-written and confused it's hard to know what you're trying to say. [B] You do realize that buses and trains are "large chunks of metal and rubber" that we burn carbon fuels to move around, right?

[A] It was hard to understand that I'd called you dishonest?
[a] It is ever thus.
[B] You're countering someone else's point. You had made a preposterous assertion about technology riding to the rescue. I pointed out that technology wouldn't be. Technology has been riding so long the horses are lathered and spavined. Maybe Jules Verne was the last person to believe that technology would cure all ills. Or [the light goes on] Ayn Rand.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 13, 2008 8:15 AM

Mixner,

First, again, if you thought about it more carefully you would understand you are answering your own question about why it makes sense to separate out the two sorts of services being provided by transit buses (incidentally, I have no idea why you keep calling that "accounting": I have been talking about different vehicles running different routes on different schedules). Of course, this was obvious from your chart, as I noted long ago.

Second, apparently you don't understand the economic concept of an externality. Which in turn explains a lot.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 8:56 AM

DTM,

You might find this paper helpful.

Posted by Frederick | June 13, 2008 9:48 AM

Frederick,

Thank you ... that was very interesting.

Incidentally, it confirms something I haven't emphasized, which is that I don't think higher energy prices are the only reason to expect some changes going forward from the transportation trends that existed in the 20th Century. I just think higher energy prices are likely to accelerate those trends, in part by providing additional incentives, but also by changing the political dynamics.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 10:23 AM

I have no idea why you keep calling that "accounting": I have been talking about different vehicles running different routes on different schedules

This is very important. I finally get that you are really, truly suggesting disentangling commuter bus services from other bus services completely.

So, here from the other post is the DTM method of higher efficiency:

"A bus system serving commuters doesn't need as many stops per route, it doesn't have to run frequently outside of peak commuting hours, and with BRT approaches (up to and including dedicated busways), it can bypass a lot of congestion."

So, lets take this first: eliminate stops.

In order for a bus route to be effective for commuting, the people in their houses and apartments need to be able to actually get to them. I'm leaning on my area (NOVA/DC) a bit as an example, but we have stops every, say .5-1 miles. My nearest stop is 3/4 of a mile from my house.

If we were to cut the number of stops in half that door-to-pickup distance would become up to two miles, which makes taking the bus to commute far less appealing. And the bus still will be stopping every 1-2 miles, which is a far less efficient manner of travel than the intercity travel efficiency that we are striving for.

Second: better bus routes.
To be a meaningful commuting alternative, the buses will still need travel our real-world city and suburb streets, with their very own traffic signals, congestion, etc. We can try to create more bus only lanes (a serious political challenge, with people that are used to having streets designed for car travel, frequently optimized for outdated population sizes), but they will still have to stop at lights and intersections to grant meaningful access into a city of any size, and they will still have to get commuters to a reasonable proximity to their final destination as well. And again, by reducing the number of available stops, we are making this less attractive to potential commuters.

Finally, we've moved away from the fact that the inefficiencies were also caused by reaching out to suburbs, where there is a lower population density, but where people will still want to be able to walk to their commuting bus within some reasonable distance.

These are real-world problems, and the fact that buses have an optimum efficiency higher than cars when used for intercity travel doesn't mean they can be achieve that efficiency when used for intracity travel.

I wish it were different, but you are just not convincing me that we can make such a meaningful difference in the environmental impact of running buses vis a vis cars.

Posted by Brad L | June 13, 2008 10:56 AM

This paper is also useful:

"A variety of strategies can encourage transit use, including increased service, more convenient and comfortable service, transit priority traffic management, lower fares, improved marketing, commuter incentives (such as employee transit benefits), improved pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, and Transit Oriented Development (TCRP, 2003). In most communities, 5-10% of automobile trips could shift to transit if these strategies are widely implemented.

Transit consumes less energy and produce less pollution per passenger-mile than automobile travel, and people who rely on transit tend to travel fewer passenger-miles than motorists, so increased transit tends to reduce per capita energy consumption and pollution emissions. A variety of factors affect the energy conservation and emission reduction impacts of transit improvements and incentives (Transit Evaluation). A full transit vehicle consumes less than 10% of the energy per passenger-mile as automobile travel, but in practice system-wide energy savings tend to be smaller due to relatively low load factors (transit vehicles often make trips with relatively few passengers).

Strategies that increase transit load factors (for example, fare discounts, more comfortable vehicles and better information, that increase ridership on routes that have excess capacity) can provide significant emission reductions. Transit improvements can provide a catalyst for broader travel and land use change. For example, people who commute by transit do not usually drive for errands during their breaks, and attractive transit service may allow some households to give up a second car, resulting in reduced per capita automobile travel. Transit Oriented Development helps create multi-modal communities where residents and employees drive less overall (Land Use Impacts on Transport). Some research indicates that each passenger-mile of rail travel represents 3 to 6 miles of reduced automobile travel if a transit system provides a catalyst for more accessible land use, suggesting that total energy saving and emission reduction benefits may be many times greater than what results directly from passenger-miles shifted from automobile to transit (Transit Evaluation).

Wright and Fulton (2005) find that a combination of Bus Rapid Transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements can provide substantial emission reductions at relatively low cost ($14-$66 per tonne of CO2 reduced, compared with $148-3,500 per tonne for introduction of alternative fueled vehicles). Davis and Hale (2007) estimate that at current levels of use public transit services avoid emissions of at least 6.9 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent by substituting for automobile travel and reducing traffic congestion, and possibly much more by creating more accessible land use patterns. They estimate that a typical household could reduce its total greenhouse emissions by 25-30% by shifting from two to one vehicles, as can occur if they shift from an automobile-dependent lifestyle to a multi-modal lifestyle. Bailey (2007) found that a typical household reduces its annual mileage by 45% by shifting from an automobile-dependent location, which provides minimal travel options and requires ownership of two cars, to a transit-oriented neighborhood, which offers quality transit service and requires ownership of just one car. This saves 512 gallons of fuel annually, worth $1,400 at $2.73 per gallon. ICF International (2008) found that high quality public transit service reduces energy consumption and pollution emissions directly, and also indirectly by creating more accessible and multi-modal land use patterns."

Posted by Frederick | June 13, 2008 11:28 AM

Brad L,

Again, think school buses. In the morning, each school bus makes just enough stops to more or less fill up, then heads straight to the relevant school for a concentrated drop off. In the afternoon, each school bus more or less fills up at the school, then makes just the stops necessary to drop those students off. The total number of stops per bus route is not particularly high, but the entire fleet of buses in total serves a large number of stops. All this works because you are doing many-to-one routes in the morning, and the reverse one-to-many routes in the afternoon, and you are doing this at times when the demand for the routes in question is high and fairly predictable. Commuter buses can, and should, work the same way--just substitute the local employment centers for the schools.

In contrast, subsidized transit routes are generally many-to-many in nature, and the demand is typically light, scattered throughout the day, and relatively unpredictable. That is why subsidized transit routes have to make a lot of stops in comparison to commuter buses, and don't reach anything close to full capacity for most of their routes if they are trying to use large commuter buses. Again, the obvious solution is just to use smaller vehicles for the subsidized transit routes. And that is exactly what vanpools do, and the resulting energy efficiencies are in the chart.

You also claim: "buses will still need travel our real-world city and suburb streets, with their very own traffic signals, congestion, etc."

So here is how you work it. A given commuter bus circles a particular residential neighborhood until it is more or less full. For this part of the route it uses surface streets, but these streets also are typically not overly congested. The bus then heads to the local employment center, but instead of using surface streets or an open-access expressway, it uses a dedicated expressway (or a limited-access lane, but obviously it really does have to be limited access in practice, not just theory). Once at the employment center, the bus hops off the expressway to make its limited number of dropoffs. In the evening, it reverses all this.

With this approach, the bus bypasses any congestion on the surface streets or open-access expressways as it approaches the employment center in the morning and leaves the employment center in the evening. And if you do this right, despite the bit of added time taken for circling the residential neighborhood and the employment center at either end, by avoiding the congestion you get a total transit time comparable to, or even better than, taking a car. Note, by the way, that you only have to provide this dedicated expressway (or limited-access lane) at the point where congestion typically becomes a problem--up to then your bus can still use surface streets and open-access expressways.

Finally, you write: "[W]e've moved away from the fact that the inefficiencies were also caused by reaching out to suburbs, where there is a lower population density, but where people will still want to be able to walk to their commuting bus within some reasonable distance."

That wasn't my claim. And, in fact, what I outlined above is designed to serve suburban commuters. However, it is true that densities closer to the "streetcar suburb" level make all this work more conveniently and efficiently, because each given commuter bus will have to circle a smaller area and make fewer stops to pick up a full load. As a result, at a certain point it may become economically unviable for the commuter bus system I outlined to serve certain distant and/or low-density suburbs and exurbs.

The good news for those communities, however, is that by taking passengers off congested surface streets and open-access highways, this commuter bus system will benefit them in the form of reduced congestion (and also less pollution, and so on). And here is more good news for them: you can also put some park-and-ride lots along the outer parts of the dedicated bus expressways. Therefore, people in these communities can also at least use these bus routes to bypass congestion, even though they will have to drive themselves to a park-and-ride first. And again, even if a given commuter still drives the whole way, those park-and-ride lots will further reduce congestion (and pollution, and so on).

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Frederick,

Transit consumes less energy and produce less pollution per passenger-mile than automobile travel...

We've already established that this isn't necessarily true even with current automobile technology, let alone future technology. Even in cases where it is true, the benefit is usually small. Many of the other assertions made in the text you quote are either dubious or largely irrelevant. The piece is full of statements to the effect that transit "can" or "could" have such-and-such a benefit. But the important questions have to do with whether transit does or would produce those benefits in real-world applications, not whether it "could" in some particular idealized or anomalous scenario.

Maybe you should try getting your information from a source other than the "Victoria Transport Policy Institute," whatever that is.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 1:00 PM

DTM,

In contrast, subsidized transit routes are generally many-to-many in nature, and the demand is typically light, scattered throughout the day, and relatively unpredictable. That is why subsidized transit routes have to make a lot of stops in comparison to commuter buses, and don't reach anything close to full capacity for most of their routes if they are trying to use large commuter buses. Again, the obvious solution is just to use smaller vehicles for the subsidized transit routes. And that is exactly what vanpools do, and the resulting energy efficiencies are in the chart.

Transit bus routes typically do not have uniform demand throughout the day. Demand is concentrated at morning and evening rush hour times. Demand may vary by a factor of 4 or 5 at different periods throughout the day. There are several ways of accommodating this variation in demand, but all of them have costs. You seem to think there is some magic bullet that the bus authorities have not thought of that can be used to dramatically increase the efficiency of a transit bus system simply by managing the buses differently. There is no magic bullet. Yes, where demand and infrastructure support it, dedicated commuter and express routes using specialized vehicles (BRT, or whatever you want to call it) may make sense, and these are already used in some locations. But transit bus systems in general will always suffer from inefficiencies compared to intercity buses and specialized bus services (school buses, tour buses) because of the nature of the service they provide.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2008 2:09 PM

Commuter buses can, and should, work the same way--just substitute the local employment centers for the schools.

But... home-to-employment really is a many-to-many commute, not a many-to-one and one-to-many commute, as schools are. The center of employment in my case, downtown DC, is a very wide region, and I don't think this is exceptional for a city. Similarly, when I think of my local tech corridor (Reston/Dulles), there is a considerable space between actual companies.

And that only reflects corporate commuting. Commuting for service and retail jobs is even more diffuse -- there are strip malls everywhere, and the people that come to work at them don't always live, conveniently, within just a couple mile radius, as happens with schools.

A given commuter bus circles a particular residential neighborhood until it is more or less full. For this part of the route it uses surface streets, but these streets also are typically not overly congested.

This makes me curious where you live :-)

My general understanding is that, the greater the population density (including near-burbs and suburbs), the more difficulty there has been getting street availability to keep up with population growth. This is certainly in keeping with my own observation.

A given commuter bus circles a particular residential neighborhood until it is more or less full.

Drawn in small enough neighborhoods (say, 4-5 square blocks), this is not an inaccurate description of most bus routes. But if you circumscribe the neighborhoods in a larger way, you start to create "gaps" where people are quite far away from their pickup points. The suburban neighborhood I grew up in, while not exactly Levittown, was actually several miles wide and deep, and consistently populated. Circumscribing that neighborhood would have left people in the center with few options.

The bus then heads to the local employment center, but instead of using surface streets or an open-access expressway, it uses a dedicated expressway

Here's the rub: to me (and correct me if I am wrong), it sounds like you are literally proposing developing whole new street systems in addition to the current street and highway systems. It's not like we have unused expressways just lying around forgotten.

Put simply, as a transit update, that would be a revolutionary shift, not an evolutionary one. Street widening projects are time-consuming and expensive -- throw in the costs of acquiring land (and, ugh, eminent domain concerns) and building from scratch, and this is a massive investment, not an incremental shift towards better bus management.

And that all is just to get back to the point where buses become more efficient than cars. Getting people to use them is an additional culture shift that I don't think will come easily, even with increased fuel costs.

On a personal level, there are just many more options to compete with, from low-friction options (bike/scooter), to medium friction options (trading in the SUV for a hybrid), to even very high-friction options (changing work or home locations). As noted before, people have both attachments to the detached-home+yard living environment and a stigma attached to riding public transit (although this latter one is the least of my worries - marketing and experience improvements could overcome this).

Maybe I am simply too hamstrung by my own experience, for which I think this model would not succeed. But I don't think there is anything particularly uncommon about the way my suburb and near-burb living experience has been, in relation to a central city component.

Posted by Brad L | June 13, 2008 2:26 PM

Having said all that, I am curious what the energy cost, per passenger mile, is for relatively full intracity buses.

If they are, contra the chart we saw earlier, much more energy efficient than cars, I can certainly see reasons to try and amp up the number of full transit buses.

But to do that, we don't need new roads, we don't need to remove stops, and we don't need to fudge any numbers.

It would be worth finding out whether we could get those buses to a fuller load by:

a) reducing ridership costs. Want to see a whole (forgive the pun) busload of people change a habit? Make the bus free. That's extreme of course, but you get the point.

b) improving ridership experience. This is pretty self-explanatory, but could take any number of forms, from cleaner buses to better waiting amenities.

Either of these things can be pilot-tested on a far cheaper scale than building new infrastructure, and we can literally do pretty basic comparisons between the budget cost and the expected emissions savings (or traffic congestion reduction, or anything else that might be a justification for the increased budget cost).

(Of course, these things might also bring completely new ridership, which would partially offset the gains. That is, some new riders will come from an automotive-user pool, and some will come from people that otherwise did neither).

Posted by Brad L | June 13, 2008 2:43 PM

We've already established that this isn't necessarily true even with current automobile technology, let alone future technology. Even in cases where it is true, the benefit is usually small.

Actually, they acknowledge that increasing energy efficiency depends on increasing transit load factors.

Posted by Frederick | June 13, 2008 3:27 PM

Brad L,

I think it is important to note that I'm not claiming buses can efficiently serve the needs of every commuter in the United States, nor for that matter any particular share of commuters. Rather, I am explaining how commuter buses can be used efficiently where certain conditions are met. So, the fact that some or even most commuter needs don't meet these conditions really isn't particularly relevant.

As for dedicated bus expressways, yes they do indeed require considerable infrastructure costs. That is a separate issue from energy efficiency, however, and a complex topic. Incidentally, I do think people tend to overemphasize large East Coast cities such as DC when discussing these topics. For example, there are many post-industrial interior cities and towns where the necessary rights of way close to the relevant employment centers would not be nearly as expensive to acquire--and in fact they already exist some places (see, for example, Pittsburgh's Busway system). I would also note that extra transit capacity provided in this way actually uses less land per passenger mile (because these dedicated expressways can be narrower, have fewer ramps, and buses can move a higher volume than cars in general). But again, this is a complex topic.

Finally, in response to your subsequent post, one of the biggest single barriers to greater bus adoption is convenience: if the bus takes a lot longer than driving, people are going to prefer driving even if the bus is otherwise free (and pleasant). That is why serving a significant number of commuters will often require making the infrastructure investments necessary to bypass congestion, because that is the only way for commuter buses to compete with (or beat) driving for convenience.

Posted by DTM | June 13, 2008 3:33 PM

It would be worth finding out whether we could get those buses to a fuller load by: a) reducing ridership costs. Want to see a whole (forgive the pun) busload of people change a habit? Make the bus free. That's extreme of course, but you get the point. b) improving ridership experience. This is pretty self-explanatory, but could take any number of forms, from cleaner buses to better waiting amenities.

Those changes would likely increase total demand, but there's no basis for predicting their effect on load factor without additional information.

To illustrate: Let's suppose your current average load factor is 80%. If demand increases by 15% of your current capacity, your average load factor will increase to 95%. You'll be able to satisfy the additional demand with unused capacity in your existing bus fleet.

But suppose demand increases by 30% of your current capacity. Your total demand will then be 110% of your current capacity, and you'll have use either more buses or larger buses to satisfy the new demand. If you decide to use additional buses with the same capacity as your current ones (maybe spares you have in reserve, or that you can obtain cheaply from another bus authority), your average load factor will fall to 55%.

Of course, you might decide instead to add smaller buses to your fleet to handle the extra demand, to reduce the dropoff in your average load factor. But it might still fall anyway, depending on just how much smaller the new buses are. Or you might decide to replace your existing buses with bigger buses. That could also either increase or decrease your average load factor, depending on how much bigger the replacement buses are than the old buses.

The point is that the effect of an increase in total passenger volume on average load factor depends how that extra volume is handled. It's not a matter of "more passengers implies higher load factors." The two variables are independent.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2008 9:46 PM