New Geography

shorter workweeks, while perfectly possible according to a classic https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ are generally used to force people in cities with hybrid works model instead of full remote.

So I claim arrogantly that such proposals and experiments are ultimately AGAINST the declaimed "green goals" IF such goals are green in the sense of spring grass, not in the sense of the dollars dominant color. Private jets since they are a little minority does not count except for PR/emotions (no, I do not have one).

BTW I observe always in "spring grass" green sense that living in dense cities is the most polluting way to live we have. Oh, yes, formally a new high rise building need less energy to heat/cool than an equivalent number of single family homes and being "near" demand less energy for personal daily trips BUT that's not the big picture. Single family homes can be rebuilt "frequently", for instance at a generational change (inheritance, and so on, let's say after 50 years) and the ability to to far shorter personal trips means the need of a much big infra to supply dense zones in food and water. The "TCO" is far higher for high density than for moderate-low density. A classic (well, not ideal but...) study http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability as a sample. Oh, and of course a single family home can have p.v. (it it's meaningful where it exists), charge a BEV at home and so on, I do have them now, I couldn't have…

The USA is not Japan.

Others have already pointed out that our geography is different. But that might not even be the real problem.

I am a fan of trains, but I live in Arlington, Massachusetts, which is not on Boston's rail-transit network, even though the Red Line subway terminates within half a mile of our town line, with a conspicuously available right-of-way leading straight from there to our town center. Isn't that odd?

I was sad to learn that Arlington used to have streetcars. They went through town and extended at least three towns further out. They were torn out in 1955.

I was even sadder to learn that a Red Line train station in Arlington was explicitly planned back in the 1980s, but...

That plan had been supported by the Town of Lexington, but was scuttled by fierce anti-urban sentiment in parts of Arlington.

This quote from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(MBTA) ) matches what I've heard from local residents, though it's a bit more diplomatically phrased.

So I've got a hypothesis: The USA's once-excellent rail network was deliberately taken apart in response to (ahem) "fierce anti-urban sentiment", a political force that remains strong. Consider this article from last week:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004788-voting-with-your-feet-aaron-renn-s-new-donut

The most recent “solution” was for the city of Lancaster to propose shutting down its MetroLink rail station in order to prevent lower income people from traveling in from other…

That's a fairly bold claim to say that I oppose making any change for the better lol... anyway..

Having grown up in both rural and urban areas, and having seen many articles like this one, they tend to (more often then not) read like this: "I know what's best for everyone, and if only these rural hicks would just let us do what's best for them everything would be perfect". That's mostly where my frustration lies - not with weather or not some town has a sidewalk or not.

> Look around you at your cities. Is this the best it could possibly get?

As someone who has spent significant time in parts of Minnesota very near to Northfield... yes. I genuinely think these places are as close to the "best it could possibly get" as is realistic to achieve. This is based on my experiences and my preferences having lived in these places. Your opinion seems to differ from that, which is why you seem to think that these places are in need of being changed - but do you even live in a place like the one in question?

> Why, then, do you (and others) feel so ideologically opposed to making some amount of change?

Because it is not at all obvious that these are actually improvements for the people who actually live there. As I tried (and maybe failed) to convey, places like Northfield, MN were designed for cars - nearly everyone (~98%) who lives in Minneapolis has a car [1] and would use their car to get to the Allina clinic in question. Even if this was an excessively pedestrian friendly…

There ARE some great suggestions in the article, namely underground parking, roundabouts instead of stop lights, and banning street parking. Now, to YOUR points:

"Mass transit": Shared and claustrophobic space with other travelers.
"Biking lanes": Requires exposure to the elements. Depending on where you live this is already a non-starter if you don't want to arrive at your destination drenched in sweat.
"electro-scooters": I've been on one of these in Vietnam. Doesn't carry 2 adults well and has the same weather problems as the peddle-powered version.
"Elevated footpaths": I live in an urban conglomerate in Asia with ~1.1 million people. A typical day of running errands can easily rack up ~50+km of driving because of the distances between either people I know or businesses carrying niche products. There's no way in Hell I'm covering that ground on foot, in 34deg C weather with 90% humidity.

The city in the article is (1) miniscule at ~85,000 people and 15-20km across at its widest and (2) possesses a pretty mild climate. All of the transportation assets you propose as "solutions" are fine....if you live in California or a similar "Mediterranean climate". Most humans don't.

"But privately owned gasoline-guzzlers are an archaic solution to the transportation problem, and they are not effective in today's society."

Why so quick to jump to sweeping, society-altering prognostications based on conclusions which you yourself recognize as applicable to a small-scale and…

I don't think it's wild Silicon Valley chatter to say that public transportation along fixed routes WILL decline as a result of new technology, and this is a great thing.

Fixed-route 19th-20th century public transportation networks are inefficient because most of the vehicles are pretty empty most of the time. This makes these systems expensive on a passenger-per-seat-mile basis. Not to mention the colossal waste of people's time spent trying to accommodate their journeys to those fixed routes (and schedules).

Example: LA's Metro system is subsidized to the tune of about 50 cents per passenger seat/mile, or was as of 2009 (http://www.newgeography.com/content/002361-los-angeles-metro-bus-system-compares-favorably-with-its-peer-group)

In 10-15 years, transport companies like Lyft/Uber/Didi will be able to offer municipalities a much better deal than that. An electric car or van without a driver in it, with an operating lifetime of a million miles, will cost on the order of 20-40 cents a mile to run. Get 3-8 paying customers into the vehicle, and there is absolutely no need for a 50 cent per passenger seat mile subsidy.

Yes, I was only stating facts, and I really want to point out that if we want to understand what the world will be like in the near future, we have to understand what rapid urbanization and "mega cities" will entail - massive urban populations living in slums (chabolas or favelas, there are several terms).

Usually in these areas I just cite United Nations estimates - here are the facts from the UN:

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm

If you want more info regarding "mega cities" and "mega slums", look here: http://www.itt.com/waterbook/page80.pdf

For people who want to know the other "downside" of this massive urbanization, then here's a GREAT link to an article. This website also a ton of forward-thinking articles about economic trends with larger implications:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002170-the-problem-with-megacities