Unlocking the Gordian Knot of Automobiles and Urban Spaces
The best way to improve automobiles is to improve cities, according to this article from Business Week.
"The answer to the problem of the American car is not under its hood."
"Today's cars are costly, dangerous, and an ecological nightmare. Transportation generates more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. A portion of that comes from moving freight around but more than 20% is personal transportation. Our vehicle emissions are a major climate change contributor, but what comes out of the tailpipe is only a fraction of the total climate impact of driving a car, and the climate impact is in turn only a part of the environmental and social damage cars cause. Improving mileage will not fix these problems."
"The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car but to eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go. In the U.S,, we need to stop sprawl and build well-designed compact communities. The land-use patterns in our communities dictate not only how much we drive, but how sustainable we can be on all sorts of fronts. And sprawled-out land uses generate enormous amounts of automotive greenhouse gases. A recent major study, Growing Cooler, published by Smart Growth America, a coalition of national, state, and local organizations that addresses urban planning, makes the point clearly: If 60% of new developments were even modestly more compact, we'd emit 85 million fewer metric tons of tailpipe [car emissions] CO2 each year by 2030—as much as would be saved by raising the national mileage standards to 32 mpg."
"So we know that density reduces driving. We know we're capable of building really dense new neighborhoods with plenty of open space, welcoming public places, thriving neighborhood retail, and a tangible sense of place. Just look at Vancouver, which has redeveloped its downtown core into a dense mix of retail, jobs, and housing. Not only is the result one of the most liveable cities in North America, but 40% of all downtown Vancouver households are car-free."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Putting the 'Urban' in 'Suburban' - Jul 20, 2009
- Kunstler Says "Too Late" For High-Speed Rail - Jun 23, 2009
- PBS Doc Examines Development In Denver, Portland, and NYC - May 26, 2009
- DOT and HUD, Together Again - May 02, 2009
- Redesigning City Design - Mar 18, 2009

















"Modestly more compact"
I would like to hear from any other posters as to what "modestly more compact" means in terms of actual density increases.
There is a big disconnect in my mind here. The more extreme global warming mitigation advocates say we need massive CO2 reduction soon or it will be "too late". If 20% of greenhouse gases come from personal auto travel, you could even cut them in half and still have at least 90% of the same emissions as we have now, all other things equal. If that is sufficient, why the fearmongering? If that is woefully insufficient, why not put all efforts in alternative energy sources since reductions from less driving will be trivial?
On top of that and to the point of the article, I don't believe modest density increases (even with better design) will cut auto emissions in half. Let's take an example of a smart growth development and extrapolate. If we a had bunch of Kentlands or Seaside, FL, some trips would be reduced or eliminated, but people still drive a lot at those densities. It doesn't eliminate the need for a car. That would require NYC, DC, or SF densities. And yes, the author is correct in saying you would save money on transportation, but you would pay for it that much more in housing price (basic urban economics).
In summary, I think, quite honestly, it's a bit of a scam. You sell people on modest density, but describe the benefits of high density. It doesn't compute to me. Modest density increases don't seem to translate into stopping global warming disaster (unless the disaster has been grossly overstated). But, I'm open to anyone's thoughts on this if you think I'm not seeing this correctly.
Modestly More Compact Is A Rhetorical Device
Smart Growth America wants more compact neighborhoods. They say that "even modestly more compact" neighborhoods will reduce energy use significantly, implying that higher densities will reduce energy use even more. It is a common rhetorical device.
Charles Siegel
Moderate Changes (Will Not be Enough)
Yeah.
Tweaking the current system will not be enough to mitigate the looming problems associated with peak oil and climate change.
What do we want our communities to be like 100 years from now? Don't we need to start moving towards that vision?