[sustran] Re: Slow transport? (edited slightly -sorry)

[Lee Schipper]

Thanks Todd. I think the catcher is "quality of life".   I remember going to Disneyland on invitation opening day in 1955 and seeing the Monsanto/GE House of the future, the Richfield (later Arco, later  BP) "autopia" and other "visions" of quality of life Disney was subtly putting forward. We fell for it. 
I won't write down here  how much income I deducted legally last year for mortgage interest, but it was a huge amount and to me one of the driving factors in defining lots of space and cars as  "quality of life".  With or without such tax benefits, I think most of  well to do and middle classes in Asia are falling for it, as Latin America tried to and l learned last month (and so did Eric), "it" is now in full swing in Dubai. And in Bali during and after the Climate meeting I experienced mostly endless strip development, whether in shacks, concrete store fronts, or real malls.
 
I remember Seoul in 1980, barely a sixth of its present population, and then 13 years later, a nightmare.   They fell for it too, so when parts of the city reform, its heartening when most of the world is running towards a greater mess.  
 
Lee Schipper
EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
www.embarq.wri.org
>From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar, 
UC Transportation Center
UC Berkeley, CA 
www.uctc.net
510 642 6889
202 262 7476

________________________________

From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
Sent: Tue 1/1/2008 10:23 AM
To: Lee Schipper; Simon Baddeley; Carfree Cities; NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: Re: Slow transport? (edited slightly -sorry)



Lee, I think you raise an important point: that our ultimate goal is to maximize human happiness (or more technically "social welfare") which requires consideration of factors such as the urban quality of life and cultural preservation. Understanding how to make dense megacities livable will be a major challenge. It may be that there is a city size and density that is overall optimal, beyond which incremental economic and social costs exceed the benefits. I suspect that many countries would benefit by encouraging more development in secondary cities, to avoid excessive city size. However, megacities exist so we shouldn't dismiss them. I've been impressed with the quality of development in some large cities, such as Seoul, where thoughtful planning is responsive to residents quality of life, for example, by creating urban villages (residential neighborhoods with public services and opportunities for social interactions) and preserving public greenspace.


Best New Years Wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 04:37 PM 12/31/2007, Lee Schipper wrote:


	And I cycled to work for six years in DC and 6 years in Paris just to
	see what the city looked like on the surface. But I also paid through
	the nose to live in homes close to cycling opportunities/Metro (in a
	pinch) etc. Those that choose larger homes over proximity to the most
	densely built up areas must need more room from their 100 cm (40 inch)
	plasma LED Dvs and their large motorized lawn mowers!
	
	The question for megacities I think one has to be concerned about is
	where do millions of people live, under what kinds of real estate
	prices, with how much area to live in, as they get wealthier. There are
	huge apartment buildings going up in Shanghai in Puxi, the densest
	oldest part. Sadly, these are displacing the older traditional walkup
	houses, making room for more commercial space, probably leaving the day
	+ night time population density higher. The result is much more built
	space/capita. The nice thing about these skyscrapers is that an elevator
	takes inhabitants part of the way to the metro or bus line. The bummer
	is that they are totally overwhelming. Even after 18 trips to Shanghai
	in nearly 10 years I feel dwarfed, and more so than in NY City.  (And if
	you like Shanghai, just watch Dubai!)
	
	If the Chinese continue with a mostly walking/two wheeler (motorized and
	non motorized) urban structure, how many jobs and other opportunities
	are available within the 30 minute radius of each person's home. The
	answer is plenty if a large share of people and jobs live in these
	towers, thanks to Mr. Otis and his elevators. If they beyond metro and
	to some extent bus based, how long can they hold the line (and their
	pocketbooks) before jumping to cars at the fringes in order to (perhaps
	falsely) "enjoy" more space.
	
	What is a key element in all of this is land -- values, prices,
	regulation, housing prices and above all housing space available in a
	city of 1 to 10 million or more. My guess is that per capita space in
	Shanghai is 10-15 sq m/capita of home, up from 5 sq m in say 1985.
	That's quite an achievement, but it only came by pushing out hundreds of
	thousands of traditional dwellings in low rise buildings in order to
	make room for the skyscrapers.  
	
	But in the US that number is closer to sixty square meters, reinforced
	by housing tax policies. What will keep Chinese bundled up in small
	homes, for how long? In New York the number for per capita area is
	smaller, to be sure, but in Manhattan expensive. That seems to be the
	reality - proximity in dense cities is cramped and expensive.
	
	There is also the issue of proximity to good transit and land prices.
	Land and housing near Transmilenio in Bogota is more expensive than
	elsewhere. (I commend you to Benoit Lefevre's new Phd (in French) that
	dealt with this issue extensively). In places like Bogota (soon),
	NYCity,  Shanghai (soon), Hong Kong, Stockholm certainly Barcelona (80%
	of population within 500 m of a metro or fast bus line) it's hard to
	argue that there is a big bias towards places near fast transport, since
	most of the city is relatively close. In places like San Francisco
	region, Los Angeles, certainly Atlanta, relatively few live by rapid
	transit, transit that came at an enormous price, too. But housing space
	is higher.
	
	So there is a key element here-- living space and its cost has to be fit
	into speed/travel time, urban structure, etc.  Discussion about what
	kinds of urban forms, densities, etc that focus solely on transport and
	speed and ignore how much space (of what quality) there is inside
	buildings for living, shopping, having fun, etc may be missing the
	forest through the trees, or rather the buildings for the streets.
	


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org <http://www.vtpi.org/> )
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"