Cars, The bane of subrbia.

[Buck]

This is a good article folks. I think the best part was the comment made by Professor Bill McKibben when he states, "Distance is now an enemy". This is going to be very true for the motor dependant in the very near future. Any activity that requires an extensive amount of travel will require a major financial commitment. Without inexpensive oil, the world is about to become a large planet again. Quite profound.

"It is known as the Inland Empire: a vast stretch of land tucked in the high desert valleys east of Los Angeles. Once home to fruit trees and Indians, it is now a concrete sprawl of jammed freeways, endless suburbs and shopping malls.

But here, in the heartland of the four-wheel drive, a revolution is under way. What was once unthinkable is becoming a shocking reality: America's all-consuming love affair with the car is fading.

Surging petrol prices have worked where environmental arguments have failed. Many Americans have long been told to cut back on car use. Now, facing $4-a-gallon fuel, they have no choice.

Take Adam Garcia, a security guard who works near the railway station in Riverside. Like many Inland Empire residents, he commutes a huge distance: 160km a day. He used to think nothing of it. But now, faced with petrol costs that have tripled, he is taking action. He has even altered the engine of his car to boost its mileage. "I have to. Everyone does. I can't afford to drive as much as I did," he said.

Recent figures showed the steepest monthly drop in kilometres driven by Americans since 1942. At the same time car sales are collapsing, led by huge SUVs.

General Motors, once the very image of American industrial might, is in deep trouble. Cities are now investing in mass transit, hoping to tempt people back into town centres from far-flung commuter belts where they are now stranded by high petrol prices."

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-07-06-the-car-becomes-burden-of-suburbia

[12vman]

"Cities are now investing in mass transit, hoping to tempt people back into town centres from far-flung commuter belts where they are now stranded by high petrol prices."

Yup.. Round the sheeple up for easy slaughter.. ::)

The city is the last place I'd wanna be!
-Don

[Buck]

"Cities are now investing in mass transit, hoping to tempt people back into town centres from far-flung commuter belts where they are now stranded by high petrol prices."

Yup.. Round the sheeple up for easy slaughter.. * ::)

The city is the last place I'd wanna be!
-Don

Really? Doesn't it make more sense to centralize business ,as it used to be,
instead of having far flung strip malls and such a the edges of a city that
demand the use of cars?

Hollowed out towns & cities are the result of cheap fuel, easy credit, &
shop till ya drop mall mentality. It became passe to shop where free
parking wasn't freely available such as city cores. Pay to park? Never!

It was to much of a stretch to think ..leave the car home and shop via
mass transit. America used to know how to "live right" but the car spoiled
that big time.......in more ways than one!

[madmac]

The American people are not prepared to deal with high oil cost or giving up personal transportation. Not everyone has alternative transportation. We sold our home due to the 1 1/2 hour drive. Hardest thing I ever done. They got us were it hurts most and the got the auto industry as well.

[mistyriver]

I lived (once upon a time) in downtown Boston. While the city drove me somewhat crazy, it beats the plastic suburbs. I loathe the 'burbs.
Of course, I plan on staying in the woods and mountains of north Idaho so as long as I avoid visiting the suburbs, I'm good. I love visiting cities and then coming home.

[jott]

Urban sprawl is probably one of the biggest problems we face today. We destroy countless acres of farm land every year just so more people can say they are getting out of the cities and living in the country, then they build shopping malls and multi lane roads and then need parking lots everywhere. So they move out farther and destroy more land.

There is going to be a day when living in the country dose not mean, getting in your big SUV and driving an hour for every little thing. It mite go back to meaning you walk or ride a bike for an hour to get to a train or bus station then ride into the city to get your supplies.

It seems today there are a lot of people yelling how everyone else has to cut back, but then they say they need everything they use.

[chloe3388]

Yeah, move'em back to the cities.. LOL We live far from cities and suburbs and want to keep it that way..

If they started building their McMansions around here we would be selling and moving further into the woods..

[bookwormom]

so, are the cities empty that all the burbers have room there? Not that I know anvthing about it, I have only drove through and also visited husband's sister who lives in one. so, maybe they will have to start up some mom and pop stores in the garage so the folks can walk to do their shopping. while at it, maybe start some two room schools, so much nicer and kids get more of an education. And every community could have a shuttle to take folks to "town". Once in the morning, once in the afternoon. It would be nice if employers would organize their employees schedules so they can car pool. But that would be asking too much I guess. I like public transportation. when I lived in Europe I drove my little car five miles to the trainstation, parked it and went by train to town. Of course my rucksack could be heavy on the way home, depending on my shopping.

[kawalekm]

Amazing what an empty wallet will do to someone's attitude! There are not any surprises here. It is so typical for Americans to have a live for today, everything will be OK attitude. They have been making these warnings for a generation now, and look who's prepared for this. The car companies are amongst the worst offenders. For years American car executives fought tooth and nail every attempt to raise mileage standards. Now look at them. They can't even give away a SUV and they're laying off truck plant workers by the thousands. What could have been a relatively painless transition has morphed into massive layoffs and the worst bottom line in a generation. I say "let their heads roll"!

Don't say that any of this couldn't have been predicted! More than a year ago I myself predicted that gas would be more than 4$/gallon in 2008, and it's not a reach to predict that gas will be 8$/gallon by 2012! Couldn't gave forseen this! Jimmy Carter talked about this in the 70's.

We bought our land back in 2004 and are in the process of getting ready for the inevitable. We'll have wood heat, alternative energy, a garden, orchard, and animals, and alternative sources of water. What will you have?
Michael

[walls0stone]

it was .82 ten years ago. why? uh the presedent dupmped the resurve into the markeet so that life would be good.

They don't need to roll the heads of auto Companies...we bought the cars.. that's like blaming the bar tender for the drunks trouble. No one put the bottle to his lips but him.

Or saying the bank is the trouble for the housing slum...uh? who took the loan? everyone wants to put it off on some other person..NOT MY FAULT.

and Jails are filled with men who didn't do it.

[DavidOH]

I could tell that Buck posted this just by reading the title. ::)

Keep up the good work Buck. Let's get all those useless people and country wanna bees back in the city cespool as soon as possible. ;D

[Buck]

We bought our land back in 2004 and are in the process of getting ready for the inevitable. *We'll have wood heat, alternative energy, a garden, orchard, and animals, and alternative sources of water. *What will you have?


Like it or not......NO ONE will ever "own" land in America.

Why?

"Eminent Domain" is why so don't get to comfortable no matter where
you live. The best one can hope for is to become self sufficient in food
stuffs, learn to live without electricity/heat, and be able to pay your real
estate taxes (read rent on your land) every year.

Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself..............

[kawalekm]

In a sense, you are right Buck, but what difference does it make anyway? Is the alternative to sit there and do nothing because you believe nothing can be owned?

We selected our homestead in a remote enough area that I think we can avoid the initial chaos following a meltdown. By the time the tax man finally catches up with us we can cough up some silver. For anyone else we'll cough up lead. What's preparedness supposed to mean anyway?

[WileyCoyote]

Back when I was a planner, we made developers build 35% internal commercial into every single development. We also required greenspace, land for schools and public buildings (police and fire) so that each community was self-contained - and had bike and walk paths throughout so that people did not have to use vehicles. The developers screamed bloody murder - but now are learning to appreciate the advantages of nesting everything together, rather than stacks of houses on the inside and strip malls on the outside. One developer, faced with way too much wetlands, made every piece of property, residential and commercial, in his development accessible by boat.

My son is a supervisor of public transit in a large city; he says since a year ago ridership has increased by 60%.

People are starting to realize that commuting takes up valuable time and causes too much emotional, financial, and physical drain on the family. Who knows what else they may realize too late?

I think that instead of herding everyone back into the non-productive, dangerous, and claustrophobic cities, people should build and demand nests where they are - that provide all of their needs without traveling any length of time or distance. The World Trade Center and other huge conglomerations of businesses stacked one on top of the other should be relegated to tourist curiosities. Instead of being proud and fighting for a New York or San Diego downtown address, businesses should be proud of building and being a part of more rural and yet fully-functioning communities. I am seeing that sort of trend in the Northwest especially... Now if we could just get them to understand that local food production and dependence should be a part of that as well... but I think that understanding will come too late.

[walls0stone]

that's what the wireless town concept is all about.
Granted the articals I read would be a year old now. But as people are able to retire, they don't realy want to. So the employeer keeps them on...why? who knows..they have skills, knowlage, experence and drive..or they just want to keep working. these people find a place to hide, and work from home. In many cases, they live were they want to, reporting to work on the lap top, but living in a lower cost of living area. Some take a small pay cut or work less than 40 aweek, but not going into the office more than twice a month is great.

Now imagine the other services that come from people with disposable income in a lower income area.... maybe a few more waiters can work..the grocery store stays open a few more hours... the movie theater may have more showings.

[kawalekm]

The developers screamed bloody murder - but now are learning to appreciate the advantages of nesting everything together, rather than stacks of houses on the inside and strip malls on the outside. One developer, faced with way too much wetlands, made every piece of property, residential and commercial, in his development accessible by boat.
.
This is a good example as to how enlightened regulation can help guide a community in the right direction, and why I am so mad at the car companies for oposing CAFE standards. *Sure, it might have cost a bit more up front to build it, but people are now reaping the benefits of the plans they started.

Look at it this way. *Maybe automaker profits, and autoworker salaries might have been a little lower in the 90's by switching to smaller cars. *But, just go up to any layed-off worker now and ask if they would have been willing to trade off a few dollars of salary for a secure job now. *Or ask a stockholder what their Ford shares would be worth if no plants had been shut down, or an exec if they'd to look in the eyes of the wives and children of all their layed off workers.

But, the truth is that all Americans are to blame for this, because as Walls0Stone said, nobody forced us to buy SUV's (not me of course because I still drive a 4 banger)!

[Buck]

Back when I was a planner, we made developers build 35% internal commercial into every single development. We also required greenspace, land for schools and public buildings (police and fire) so that each community was self-contained - and had bike and walk paths throughout so that people did not have to use vehicles. The developers screamed bloody murder - but now are learning to appreciate the advantages of nesting everything together, rather than stacks of houses on the inside and strip malls on the outside. One developer, faced with way too much wetlands, made every piece of property, residential and commercial, in his development accessible by boat.

My son is a supervisor of public transit in a large city; he says since a year ago ridership has increased by 60%.

People are starting to realize that commuting takes up valuable time and causes too much emotional, financial, and physical drain on the family. Who knows what else they may realize too late?

I think that instead of herding everyone back into the non-productive, dangerous, and claustrophobic cities, people should build and demand nests where they are - that provide all of their needs without traveling any length of time or distance. The World Trade Center and other huge conglomerations of businesses stacked one on top of the other should be relegated to tourist curiosities. Instead of being proud and fighting for a New York or San Diego downtown address, businesses should be proud of building and being a part of more rural and yet fully-functioning communities. I am seeing that sort of trend in the Northwest especially... Now if we could just get them to understand that local food production and dependence should be a part of that as well... but I think that understanding will come too late.

Isn't this the same idea as "small town America" of the early 1900's?
It was a good idea then and is a great idea now!

[WileyCoyote]

Yes, Buck- also the same idea on which cities used to be based. REmember Chinatown, Germantown, etc.? Each had their own distinct personality, everyone knew everyone in the neighborhood, walked to work and school and entertainment.

It worked well right up until the time we all had to socialize ourselves and all look and act and live the same. Rght up until the time we all had to "save" everyone else from poverty, restrict everyone else from doing unacceptable things like growing our own vegies, or having chickens, or being different.

[HockeyFan]

At 19 cents a mile, I can afford to drive from the country to town every day. The real problem is groceries and other goods that we all buy. They have to be shipped from place to place to their eventual market where we buy them. The fuel costs just get passed on to us.

So I think that distance isn't as big an issue for individual driving as it is for goods being shipped. I do believe an evolution needs to take place. My feeling is that long distance trucking should be a thing of the past and the rail systems need to be enhanced and used more.
Trucking should still be done, of course, but not from coast to coast. That would definitely be rail. Trucking should be done from distribution areas regionally, picking up loads from warehouses that are stocked via rail. Trucking regionally makes a little more sense, and would save fuel. The trains are much more efficient.
You can't have rail everywhere, so that's where the trucks come in.
This evolution will be resisted. The trucking industry will feel this will cost them jobs. However, the reality is that those jobs will just be absorbed into rail and warehouse jobs. Those jobs aren't going to go away; they'll just be moved. The pay will likely be the same, but without all the travelling involved.

I also believe that markets need to evolve into more locally based products and goods whenever possible. Why does so much of what we buy have to be made elsewhere and shipped in? I've seen bricks and other building materials shipped all over the place, and I have a tough time believing that it wouldn't be good for jobs to have a few more factories to build this stuff locally wouldn't be viable as well as a welcomed change. If things don't have to be shipped so far to market, is this a bad thing?
And what's wrong with locally grown food? Apart from out of season items, what's wrong with getting food from farms that are closer to market?

This is my opinion on how things should be (and hopefully will be), but I could be wrong. Maybe I'm missing something.

[WileyCoyote]

You're not missing a thing, HockeyFan.

The reason some areas of the country are hurting and some are not (YET) is because 1) Some people still have their heads buried in the sand and 2) the baby boomer wave is heading South. They do not care (YET) if their house doesn't sell right away; they are retiring to where it is warm and have tne money to do so. Because they are the people with disposable income, they are being followed by the service workers - everything from attorneys to waitresses. The middle to lower classes are having a problem unloading their property to move. Eventually it will all slow the rest of the country down - but for now, the rural South and southwest are going to continue to experience little change. The Californians are leaving their state like lemmings; between taxes and ridiculous prices, they are spreading East and South like a plague. The problem with them all moving "to where it is cheaper!" - is that they want the same amenities they had back up Nawth or in CA. So they demand changes and bigger and better stores, and ruin everything that they moved there FOR - which makes it more expensive for the LMI classes following them for jobs.

Add intot he mix the high population of illegals. While we understand the hidden costs - medical, insurance, education, etc - that the illegals are making us pay, these are not out in the open. What the FedGov sees are that these people are spending their income on housing (paying $1200 a month for a 2 BR apt) and spending hundreds every week at the grocery store and restaurants, etc. This makes it APPEAR that our economy is strong, when in fact what illegals spend is nothing compared to the costs the taxpayers must shoulder. Still, it is an artificially-raised "gain" in some areas, that looks good on the books... as long as you don't look too closely. Some areas that appear to be doing well would collapse overnight if the gubbermint set the illegals back across the border. This is in part why they are not doing it...

As for the rail. don't think for one minute that wll happen - at least not immediately. 15 years ago, the rails yanked up all of their Midwest rural rail lines that supplied everyone with beef and grain and locally grown food. (they kept the title to the land though). They got billions from the Feds to turn the paths into "walking or bike trails" - which of course no one uses. Local farmers use them as shortcuts in between properties or towns (even tho it is illegal - who's gonna rat?). The working rails are now at between 80% and 120% capacity - hauling freight from the ports (i.e., China) inland. They have gotten lucrative support from the FedGov for providing such transit. One rail pro assured me that they would not lft a finger to lay one inch of track anywhere unless the FedGov paid for it. Since they won't, until they do, there will be no more rail added into the transportation mix - not people transport, and not goods transport. The rail companies will use this high fuel cost scam as a way to pressure the FedGov for more income. What SHOULD happen is not what WILL happen, as the treasury is bled almost dry and taxes will have to go up exponentially to fix the problem, as well as allowing the FedGov more control over foodstuff costs and transportation.

[walls0stone]

ah yea, rails to trails.. little did those people who did the service work know they were building new rail road beds for whatever new track came along. It's rather smart..free labor to clear brush.

Localy they are building a massive ware house that will employ a few 100 people. The building is set up so that trains come in, are unloaded 5 cars at a time. The stuff then is placed on trucks for transport.
local hoiday lines have been taken over by major rail companies. rather than seanic trips..they will be used to run stuff from NYC to the dispatch yards.

Illeagals? we don't have any... heck, I bet this county is 95% white.

Guess I'm lucky. The biggest demagraphic moving to my area is my own age group..25-30. people that grew up here, moved away, got married and had kids...most have decided that it's not a great income here...but we don't have to many problems.

You want the gov to control food?... O.M.G! who will get the best chow after they finnish messing that up?? Not us. You'll live live on salt pork and hard bread.

[ASG]

Like it or not......NO ONE will ever "own" land in America.

Why?

"Eminent Domain" is why so don't get to comfortable no matter where
you live. The best one can hope for is to become self sufficient in food
stuffs, learn to live without electricity/heat, and be able to pay your real
estate taxes (read rent on your land) every year.

Otherwise, you're just kidding yourself..............



That's certainly true. While I have no property taxes on my land, eminent domain could be used by the state. I picked an area pretty unattractive to any sort of development so it's unlikely but still a threat. Regardless of these facts, I'd much rather rent (that is, buy, sort of, as close as we have to owning land in the U.S.) land in the country and have the ability to be self-sufficient than in the city (where it would be difficult if not downright impossible to be self-sufficient).