Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

[Jae Onasi]

How typically American.

I'm not trying to be insulting with you, just expressing why I disagree with New Urbanism. I have no issue with you. I'd appreciate it if you'd remember that and try to understand that my need to raise a family living in housing I can actually afford, in a town with low crime and an excellent education system, is just as important to me as New Urbanism is to you. I will not sacrifice quality of life, quality of education, and time with my family for a concept that isn't even adhered to by its founders. If they can build that kind of urban environment and people want to live there, that's great for them, and I hope they enjoy it. It's just not for me or my family.

 

Well I intensely dislike urban environments, for your information. Does it not seem strange why I'm advocating for something I hate?

Well, yes, actually it does seem strange. Why are you advocating for it?

 

This entire thread has been to prove that high population density creates a more efficient system than sprawl. No one has brought an effective counter that can disprove this.

That's because everyone has hooked on to your point that you're saying we _must_ live this way because it's more efficient, or else you'll make disparaging comments at us like 'how typically American' as you look down your intellectual nose at the rest of us rubes. You're not quite getting our point on why we don't like the New Urbanism concept--it has nothing to do with efficiency in transportation.

 

Efficiency isn't the only aspect of urban living, however, and we don't care solely about efficient transportation. Small housing, no yard, no green space, high crime, high cost of living, poor education systems in all of the biggest cities--these are all aspects of urban living that cannot be ignored, and that the advocates of New Urbanism seem to be ignoring. It's simple--safety trumps ideology. All you have to do is look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs and you'll see that physiological needs, safety, and the need for love far outweigh ideological and self-actualization needs. My safety need to live in a neighborhood where I don't hear gunshots outside my door at night time far outweighs my intellectual desire to support a greener planet.

 

My goal has always been to inform people that sprawl has at least been harnessed in the last two decades, but existing sprawl development isn't sustainable environmentally or economically. Anyone who lives this 'American dream'... realize that there are 6 billion other people all struggling for the same thing. Do you really think they won't be competing with you for what you have?

First of all, there aren't 6 billion living in the US or Europe, so let's please be realistic about this issue. Secondly, if it wasn't sustainable environmentally or economically, we'd all be living in humongous cities by now. The New Urbanists have no way to prove how much they'd save vs. how much it would cost to build and maintain their particular type of neighborhood.

 

Furthermore, it's economically disadvantageous for my family to live in an urban setting compared to where we live now. It's economically disadvantageous for my mother and grandmother to live in a big city--the same small apartments in a big city would cost more than their social security checks each month. My mother-in-law would not have survived economically or emotionally in a big city. She couldn't afford the high cost of living and she was terrified of crowds. This is more than just an ideology, Darth_Yuthura. It's real life, and the reality isn't like the rosy picture painted by the New Urbanism authors.

 

Maybe instead of starting a war to steal someone else's oil reserves, the US could reduce their demand for foreign oil altogether by building a more efficient transportation system... more people using fewer vehicles for shorter commutes... No solution that won't change your lifestyle, so don't bother to say you reject it.

I have rejected the urban lifestyle--I moved out of Chicago, thank God. That doesn't mean I don't care about the oil crisis, however. I do my part in my home by trying to walk to the store instead of driving, using fuel efficient bulbs and taking steps to minimize heat loss from the house in the winter to lower fuel usage. I grow my own raspberries and vegetables in the summer time.

The US could do a lot of things to reduce demand for oil that doesn't involve such a drastic change in lifestyle for people who don't want to live that way. We could work more on wind, solar, and tidal power. We could increase fuel-efficient housing and cars and such. We can make suburban communities more pedestrian-friendly--God knows we all could use the exercise anyway. We could work on flex hours in big cities to reduce rush-hour traffic commute times. We could improve suburban public transportation options. There are lots of things to reduce oil demand that don't involve living the way you're advocating.

[jrrtoken]

The US could do a lot of things to reduce demand for oil that doesn't involve such a drastic change in lifestyle for people who don't want to live that way. We could work more on wind, solar, and tidal power. We could increase fuel-efficient housing and cars and such. We can make suburban communities more pedestrian-friendly--God knows we all could use the exercise anyway. We could work on flex hours in big cities to reduce rush-hour traffic commute times. We could improve suburban public transportation options. There are lots of things to reduce oil demand that don't involve living the way you're advocating.

Not exactly. Government-run incentive programs would still force people to live a certain way, even though it is a friendlier way of doing it. By encouraging an alternative lifestyle, (And yes, I'm talking about that alternative lifestyle ) and at the same time, quietly discontinuing the zeitgeist, it essentially is forcing people to change their lives, whether they like it or not. Sure, it's much more open and cordial than totalitarianism, but actively forcing someone to live one way, or to simply encourage one to go one way while eliminating remaining options, is the same thing.

 

Either way, I'm not really going to somehow wake up and live more "environmentally conscious", not really because I'm a lazy selfish bastard, but mainly due to the fact that it's really pathetic that ordinary people can make greater strides environmentally by their own volition alone, than what any government legislation or action has done previously.

[Jae Onasi]

Not exactly. Government-run incentive programs would still force people to live a certain way, even though it is a friendlier way of doing it. By encouraging an alternative lifestyle, (And yes, I'm talking about that alternative lifestyle ) and at the same time, quietly discontinuing the zeitgeist, it essentially is forcing people to change their lives, whether they like it or not. Sure, it's much more open and cordial than totalitarianism, but actively forcing someone to live one way, or to simply encourage one to go one way while eliminating remaining options, is the same thing.

Well, I can see that with seatbelt laws. Which somehow sounds vaguely dirty juxtaposed with 'alternative lifestyle'.

 

Either way, I'm not really going to somehow wake up and live more "environmentally conscious", not really because I'm a lazy selfish bastard, but mainly due to the fact that it's really pathetic that ordinary people can make greater strides environmentally by their own volition alone, than what any government legislation or action has done previously.

True--I think more has happened in improving fuel efficiency in furnaces, windows, etc. because people want to lower their fuel bills and companies want to satisfy their needs and gain their business.

[Darth Avlectus]

Ok. I think I have lost track where this thread has gone, exactly. I'll try to contribute as best I can.

 

I am wondering so far as economy is concerned, do highly suburban areas have more mom and pop businesses currently surviving, or less, than that of rural areas?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Ok. I think I have lost track where this thread has gone, exactly. I'll try to contribute as best I can.

 

I am wondering so far as economy is concerned, do highly suburban areas have more mom and pop businesses currently surviving, or less, than that of rural areas?

 

A professor once taught me about the 'agglomeration of commerce.' This means that a larger collection of businesses create mutually beneficial system when they are closer together (in an urban landscape for instance) than a suburb or rural area. This does not apply all the time, but the reason that Chicago and New York build so densely is because all the resources of all the corporate headquarters are more conveniently located next to one another. When you place more office towers next to one another, it opens more opportunities for already existing development as well.

 

As for commerce, this is why you have mixed-use zoning. By placing customers and workers within walking distance of fast-food and convenience stores, you have many more potential customers than if you have a Mcdonald's in a small town. Although there is also a lot of competition among fast food as well, there could be a greater number of pedestrians that would pass by than cars that would pass by a location next to a rural road.

 

There are other benefits to retail, but as for 'mom and pop' locations... that really depends on the kind of establishment you're talking about. There are many independent business in major cities, but there are not that many if they are overtaken by a single wal-mart or burger king.

 

I don't have stats, but a successful 'mom and pop' in a major city will be more resilient to economic change, but they are more difficult to establish with high-rent for high value locations.

 

True--I think more has happened in improving fuel efficiency in furnaces, windows, etc. because people want to lower their fuel bills and companies want to satisfy their needs and gain their business.

 

No disrespect intended, I'm for smaller cars and better-built homes; but improving efficiency is not as significant an improvement as people think.

 

I advocated for more use of mass transit, but that isn't me wanting new rail lines as it is improving what already exists. In Chicago, New York, Boston, and other major US cities; I have seen many images where one side of a road is packed beyond the original capacity while the opposite road tends to be much less congested. In the evening, the same thing happens in the opposite direction.

 

What I look at as a means to improve transportation is to reduce the peak traffic congestion on one side by using the opposite direction more during off-peak conditions. Trains ALWAYS are on the move, so adding passengers on the return trips would reduce congestion from one direction and put them on trains that are already used in the opposite direction.

 

I advocated about Prairie Crossing being an error in development between Milwaukee and Chicago commuter rails lines converging at one station. With only 1,500 residents and no retail, this was a wasted opportunity to create intense development in a single location. People could get more job opportunities by, instead of going 40 miles towards either city, going less than 10 miles towards this juncture point at Prairie Crossing. And the commuter trains already travel on those lines anyway, so it would make sense to build high-density office towers for thousands to find jobs.

[Q]

How typically American.

Don't worry, D_Y. If the people in power nowadays have their way, the great evils of free enterprise and private ownership will soon be a thing of the past in this country. You and all of the other people who have been successfully conditioned to think like you by our wonderful education system will have your socialist utopia, and anyone like me who objects to it will either be slaving away in the gulag or dead.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Don't worry, D_Y. If the people in power nowadays have their way, the great evils of free enterprise and private ownership will soon be a thing of the past in this country. You and all of the other people who have been successfully conditioned to think like you by our wonderful education system will have your socialist utopia, and anyone like me who objects to it will either be slaving away in the gulag or dead.

 

I wouldn't take it THAT far.

 

The strongest survive and the weak perish. That isn't referring to people; I mean societies. Right now the US is the strongest military and economic power in the world, but that is because we have outsourced many of our manufacturing demands to China, as has Japan. That had given us an advantage to buy cheap across the world and transport it to the US, but as fuel prices go up, that becomes a liability.

 

China represents the greatest threat to the US, not militarily, but economically. They may be in a bad position now, but they are poised to overtake the US within the next few decades.

 

No, I'm not going to point to my solutions as the answer. It is impossibly more complex than any one solution could provide, but a part of any solution to improve the US economy is finding and reducing the inefficiencies that this state needs to operate. By improving the transportation infrastructure, many other benefits come from not having to overcome distance as much for every kind of upkeep cost.(police coverage, utility upkeep, fuel demand, transportation upkeep costs, and other items I listed before) It costs a lot to upkeep any kind of system network, but spreading it out costs much more. The idea of placing the same demand on fewer networks of greater capacity is sound.

 

From this allows the US economy to grow because a billion dollars saved is a billion dollars earned. Much more can be done here and now from reducing infrastructure costs than can ever be achieved through innovation. Once innovation catches up, then I would gladly like to have privacy in a suburb again.

[EnderWiggin]

Right now the US is the strongest military and economic power in the world, but that is because we have outsourced many of our manufacturing demands to China, as has Japan.

 

I disagree. China is a stronger economic power.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

I disagree. China is a stronger economic power.

 

_EW_

 

Technically no, but they are poised to overtake us. We don't manufacture, but the US provides tertiary goods which is value added to the US GDP and something demanded by other states that we have provided mostly after the communications age started.

 

The US could improve in other areas, such as growing crops for human consumption much more than for feeding to cattle and pigs. That would allow for more food to be exported as well, but that is a very small part of the GDP.

[Jae Onasi]

We could grow more grain for export--we certainly have plenty of untilled or fallow farmland right now.

[Darth_Yuthura]

We could grow more grain for export--we certainly have plenty of untilled or fallow farmland right now.

 

That opens up another front that I'm not inclined to deal with.

 

There must be a fallow period taken during crop production. At any one time, there are at least 25% of fields not in use to allow the soil to recover after each planting. Crop rotation helps this, but fallow periods have to be taken on a regular basis.

 

Of all the beef you can produce, you end up feeding the cow twenty times as many calories as you get back from its growth. Instead of growing crops for cattle, you could get twenty times as much nutritional value for human consumption.

[Jae Onasi]

That opens up another front that I'm not inclined to deal with.

 

There must be a fallow period taken during crop production. At any one time, there are at least 25% of fields not in use to allow the soil to recover after each planting. Crop rotation helps this, but fallow periods have to be taken on a regular basis.

 

Of all the beef you can produce, you end up feeding the cow twenty times as many calories as you get back from its growth. Instead of growing crops for cattle, you could get twenty times as much nutritional value for human consumption.

I wasn't clear--I was talking about land left fallow because the gov't pays the farmers not to grow crops on them. With modern agriculture techniques, there's no need to leave ground fallow 25% of the time or even rotate crops, though it helps to grow soybeans every few years to fix nitrogen back into the soil. I'm not familiar with the amount of of calories required to grow cattle, but I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.

 

We also have a lot of farmland in the Plains that just isn't in use at all--there aren't any farmers to till the land in some areas.

[EnderWiggin]

I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.

 

For sure:

 

If we're the primary consumer, we can use about 10% of the grain's energy for our own body's processes.

 

If we're a secondary consumer (ie cow eats grain, we eat cow) then we only get 10% of the cow's energy. That's only 1% of the grain's energy potential.

 

So yes, it's 10x more efficient to feed people grain.

 

_EW_

[Web Rider]

For sure:

 

If we're the primary consumer, we can use about 10% of the grain's energy for our own body's processes.

 

If we're a secondary consumer (ie cow eats grain, we eat cow) then we only get 10% of the cow's energy. That's only 1% of the grain's energy potential.

 

So yes, it's 10x more efficient to feed people grain.

 

_EW_

 

Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.

[Darth Avlectus]

Ok. So I see how it is. Mom and pop biz, it's harder to survive in urban areas, but if they can, they are the better for it. Needless to say niche' firms high in demand will do quite well. Especially do better in suburban and rural areas.

 

I wasn't clear--I was talking about land left fallow because the gov't pays the farmers not to grow crops on them.

 

Such a folly, and yet we wonder what more could be done to help feed the starving? Hmm. Or how about making able bodied and minded people receiving paychecks and not working do something else for that $$$? It might just save some expenses. Just an idea.

 

With modern agriculture techniques, there's no need to leave ground fallow 25% of the time or even rotate crops, though it helps to grow soybeans every few years to fix nitrogen back into the soil. I'm not familiar with the amount of of calories required to grow cattle, but I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.

Well, while I will agree there...on the fact of the matter for cattle...what I cannot figure out is why we're using euro based cattle, instead of indigenous bison: they're heartier plus less destructive given they are in their native environment. Just something to consider. I know I'd be using american bison if I were farming.

We also have a lot of farmland in the Plains that just isn't in use at all--there aren't any farmers to till the land in some areas.

Well, if it ain't being used for farming and has no plans to ever be used as such again for a number of reasons and factors (location, people, etc.), then maybe we can either

1) Allow native plants and ecosystem to reclaim it (and shut the enviros up a bit)

2) Construct these "clean/new age" power sources for generating economic revenue and jobs in those areas (and sierra club would you *PLEASE* stop deceptively wording your ballot analyses so that your sheeple vote it down)

3) Give something back to the red man for a change. Love it or give it back. Ok, so I'm kind of getting personal there. Still a suggestion.

 

Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.

 

This is true. We need veggies and fruit. Protein one way or another. and a few other things.

[EnderWiggin]

Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.

 

I'm aware of that. However, people are quite capable of gaining much of their daily nutrients from eating direct producers. They would have to supplement it with some primary consumer in their diet, but not nearly to the extent that they do now.

 

 

This is true. We need veggies and fruit. Protein one way or another. and a few other things.

 

Wow.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

Answer: the potato.

 

With exception to a few nutrients, you can live off potatoes. They yield the greatest nutritional value per acre of land as well, but that's not really what I was going for. I would like to see more crops for food that humans will consume directly, whether it be grain, potatoes, or tomatoes.

[Jae Onasi]

You cannot live off of the potato alone. It does not have protein, much less any complete proteins.

[Darth_Yuthura]

That's what the 'exception of a few nutrients' essentially covered. The Irish depended upon the potato so greatly that the potato famine caused mass starvation when it struck.

 

Obviously you shouldn't depend on any one food, as a restricted diversity in your diet is very unhealthy. The Irish supplemented it with goat's milk to provide the last piece of their diet that the potato didn't provide. Aside from that, it yielded most of the calories, vitamins, and minerals that they needed.

[Jae Onasi]

"Exception of a few nutrients"? Protein is absolutely essential in the diet. It's also not a great choice for people who have diabetes--potatoes have too many starches and not enough complex carbohydrates. Whole grains are a better choice because they have more soluble and insoluble fiber and less simple carbs.

[Q]

Sprouted grains are one of the best non-meat sources of protein that I know of.

 

This discussion is reminding me more and more of Asimov's The Caves of Steel. They ate mostly different strains of yeast in that book.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Read.

 

The Potato: How the Humble Spud Rescued the Western World

by Larry Zuckerman, 1999 North Point Press

 

You might actually find that potatoes have a noticeable quantity of protein. Don't proclaim something that doesn't hold water unless you really know what you're talking about. Thanks to Qliveur for seconding that fact.

 

 

The point of this was that the US isn't hurting for agricultural land, which was why sprawl was able to rampage out of control while Europe has had to be more careful with the way they developed their cities. There is enough Agricultural land in Europe to support 10% of the world's population on only 2% of the world's land area. How could they do so well under those conditions?

 

They use their agricultural land more for human consumption/not raising animals. And they condense their cities to have a smaller footprint, conserving precious land for growing crops.

[Jae Onasi]

Read

Old article, but read

Read.

 

You need to take a college level class in nutrition like I did for nursing and then doctor school. Go read about protein needs. I erred in saying potatoes didn't have protein--I view it, as the nutritionists who taught me and wrote books and journal articles on it, as a starch rather than a protein source, and I'm more concerned about foods that affect the eyes in any case. I should have said they have inadequate protein. I was correct about the incomplete protein. The USRDA says the average baking potato contains 6% of the daily allowance of protein. Are you planning on eating 17 potatoes a day? I'm not.

 

Furthermore, the potato has insufficient amounts of essential amino acids (the ones that the body can't make itself), and thus is an incomplete protein.

An adult needs 1400 mg of the amino acid isoleucine. The baked potato with skin provides 101 mg.

Leucine: adult needs 2730mg, potato provides 150mg

Lysine: adult needs 2100 mg, potato provides 152mg

Methionine+Cysteine: 1050mg, potato provides 70mg

Phenylalanine+Tyrosine: 1750mg, potato provides 202mg

Threonine: 1050mg, potato provides 91mg

Tryptophan: 280mg, potato provides 39mg

Valine: 1820mg, potato provides 140mg.

 

Furthermore, most of the protein is located right below the skin. If you remove the skin before cooking the potato, you lose a lot of the protein, and then the potato's protein contribution drops dramatically.

 

You also need to learn what sprouted grains are. Potatoes are not germinated seeds, they are tubers. There is a difference. Before you lecture me again on getting my facts straight, you'd better make sure you have yours straight, too. There's a reason why potatoes aren't mentioned nearly very often in vegan/vegetarian diet books. It's because the protein content is not nearly as good as soy, eggs, milk/cheese (all of which are complete proteins) and grains and legumes, which, while incomplete, have enough of some essential proteins in a reasonable serving that when combined provide the equivalent of a complete protein (e.g. refried beans on a corn or whole-wheat tortilla). Potatoes are calorically dense, but not as nutrient or protein dense, as grains and legumes.

 

I've been to France. I lived with two different families while I was there. Both families served meat every day. They also grew their own vegetable patches since groceries are more expensive there with the higher taxes. My husband spent several weeks in Germany. They had meat every day, too. Meat is a large part of the European diet, as it is here, so I'd like to see your data on their diet and land use for animals vs. grains/other foods. I would also be interested in seeing how much is imported.

 

So Europe has to be more careful with their land usage. Fine for them. What's that have to do with the US? It's a different continent. Our needs are different, our wants are different. It's not that big of a deal to have suburban areas here. You're getting your panties in knots over something that isn't a problem here, other than fuel usage, which our gov't is addressing. We could expand all the suburban areas ten-fold and still not make much of a dent in the amount of land going completely unused in the rural parts of this country. I'd also like to point out that those of us who live in single family dwellings wouldn't be able to have our fruit and veggie patches in our backyards if we lived in dinky urban condos, so we wouldn't be able to contribute to our families nutritionally or to increasing greenspace.

[Bimmerman]

Forgive me for not chiming in on the potato discussion. Jae's right on that.

 

I've been living and working in Munich for the last six months. I have tons of experience using the excellent public transportation here. I live in an apartment building that is 15 minutes away from where I work. It houses people very efficiently. The grocery store is anywhere between 5 and 15 min away by foot. I have no bicycle. I have no car (here). Everything I need to live and function as a member of society is within 15 minutes by foot.

 

What do I think?

 

I cannot wait to go back home to my suburban town and live freely and away from everyone else.

 

I strongly disagree with and absolutely reject the "New Urbanism" (sidebar, that's a really stupid name) concept. I've lived in the European model that it is trying to emulate, and I've been going crazy. There is no space to live. No green areas without going to a public park. No scenery. No ability to BBQ. Nowhere to park a car, so people do without. I am kept up late by people smoking in their apartment. I am woken up early (or late) by people playing music. I cannot sit outside, as there isn't an outside to sit on. There are no trees. There is no wildlife. Everything costs roughly double what I would deem prudent. There is simply buildings and efficiency and I cannot stand it.

 

My German friends find nothing wrong with the city. In truth, it is a very beautiful, clean, safe city. I enjoyed visiting and touristing around here in years and trips past. Living here, I feel choked and stifled. Whereas Europeans view the urban model as liberating, I find it cramped and very uncomfortable. I cannot function in a European-model city, and do not ever intend to again. What works for Europe does not necessarily work for America, do not kid yourself otherwise.

 

Back in the states, I live 30 minutes away from Denver at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Anywhere I want to go takes at least 5 minutes by car. I worked 15 minutes by car, 30 min by bike. The grocery store is a good 5-8 mins. I have nearly an acre of land to do my own thing on. I have trees. I have herds of deer in my front driveway in the morning. I see bears and mountain lions occasionally. My nearest neighbor is 100 yards away. The nearest bus stop is a one mile walk away. My town has one of the best bus systems anywhere, and is part of the RTD, itself consistently ranked in the top 3 nationwide. There is no subway, no mass transit train system where I live. There is one of the best universities in in my town. The education system here is regarded as one of the best. I love it. I cannot wait to get back home. I have decided to veer away from my desired career field to live in the town I love.

 

Call me a stereotypical American if you want. I don't care. I will NEVER live in a big city again, nor will I ever subscribe to this horrid "new urban" idea. Jae's post on p2 hit the nail on the head perfectly.

 

D_Y, your posts sound like you have researched and written essays about said New Urbanism, but reek of someone who is spouting what your professor told you to think. The concept is all high and minded, but inherently flawed. Americans like their space. They will never consciously decide to live where they are miserable unless their jobs are worth it. I do not want to live in an apartment building just so I don't need to own a car. Long before I was ever a car addict, I have hated living in big cities (born and moved away from San Francisco) and loved going biking in the mountains above Boulder. I know I'm not the only one.

 

Please lose the attitude where those of us who cannot stand living in a big city (and who have done so) are somehow inferior and lesser people. It's supremely condescending. I get it, you advocate this concept. Try to live it, as I'm actually doing now, and then tell me if it's all great and wonderful.

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's not a matter of want, but sustainability.

 

Americans want their open spaces? How much would they be willing to pay to have their open spaces? Well I'll tell you that when you create a system that spreads itself horizontally, the issue is not any one person, but millions all wanting the same thing. The US has become auto-dependent, which means that when the price of fuel rises, it directly impacts how the state functions.

 

With mass transit, you will also be dependent on energy; but those that use electricity are not bound to any single source to operate. I'm for clean energy, which is why I'm not in favor of coal; but I also recognize that the US has an abundant supply of it. That makes electricity a more favorable source of power for transportation than oil (gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel)

 

The best solution, however, is to try and promote pedestrian travel. That means having as many destinations within walking distance as possible, which means higher density. That can also be augmented by providing light rail to allow even more destinations to more people. That doesn't mean the automobile has to go, but it should not continue to be the dominant means of transportation.

 

An issue was brought about public transportation flourishing as energy got more expensive... When the energy crisis of last year hit, public transportation actually suffered badly because they saw a rise in demand while they had to pay even more for their fuel. Public busing couldn't expand in times when demand was at its highest because they didn't have the funding it needed for that to happen. When they didn't have the funding to expand, they became overtaxed and could barely afford to break even with their own high fuel prices. Light rail overcomes this more easily, but demands a set population density for it to work. Portland is the best example of an auto-dependent city that successfully integrated light rail for an effective alternate means of transportation. Even removing 10% of cars improves fuel economy due to reduced traffic congestion. That's why it works so well.

 

And in regards to the 'open space' issues... the whole point of higher densities is to provide fewer, larger open spaces so that it would make people feel more comfortable than on that 40 X 20 plot of land that is in front of every house for miles on end. It would be better to acknowledge that there are millions of others wanting the same things, so it is best to focus on creating a system by which everyone benefits instead of everyone vying for their own interests.