The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, of all places, has a story about a recent report by the Urban Land Institute who says: "We drive too much." (Surprise!)
Since 1980, the number of vehicle miles traveled in the United States has increased at three times the rate of the population, the report says, primarily because of the vehicle-oriented way communities and commercial areas are designed and built.
The report projects that even with expected increases in miles per gallon produced by more efficient engines, vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide in 2030 will be 41 percent higher than they are today, far from the goal of reducing vehicle emissions to 1990 levels by that date.
And we all know the story of the Philadelphia region, most effectively told in this 2001 report by the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia, The Reinvestment Fund, and 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania. Check out the maps on pages 56-59 to get a picture of it. Development in the region spreads out over the decades while within the region's core - the city - vacancy rates rise. To put it simply, folks aren't moving relocating from other regions to the outer suburbs of Philadelphia, they're coming from the center, and no one is replacing them. What we end up with is the exact situation references in the Post-Gazette article - more vehicle miles traveled, more air pollution, more congestion.
Why? That's why the report is over 100 pages. Philadelphia's taxes, poor schools, poor delivery of basic services and old housing stock has been outweighing the effects of the draw of urban living for empty-nesters and young professionals. Basically, for every one of me that's moved in Philly since 1990, a family of 4 has moved into my old, suburban neighborhood.
According to the Post-Gazette, anti-sprawl advocates have a solution - change Americans:
The report estimates that a compact development strategy would reduce vehicle miles traveled by 12 percent to 18 percent by 2050, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources 7 percent to 10 percent.
Compact development also could save billions of dollars annually in fuel costs.
"Living in a compact development is as good as driving a hybrid," Mr. [Steve] Winkelman [director of the transportation program at the Center for Clean Air Policy] said. "A walk to the coffee shop or to soccer practice can make you as proud as a bright shiny new Prius."
Although such a change would be a major shift from the sprawl that has dominated most urban and suburban development in the last half century, there are indications that a sizable segment of the public is ready to go in that direction, said Keith Bartholomew, an assistant professor of urban planning at the University of Utah and an author of the report.
In this region, the challenge goes even further to (1) convincing young people with families to stay in the city and (2) get folks to look inward, instead of outward, when they want a change of scenery from their inner-ring suburban homes. All of this depends on changing the perception of the city as a enclave for the very rich and a warehouse of the very poor.
It also depends on the rest of the region, and it's 353 municipalities, from depending on development and construction as a quick fix to get more tax revenue while ignoring the long-term expenses of that development (traffic, more schools, pollution, storm water management, etc.)
Sounds like a job for the next mayor.
Any suburbanites out there? What would it take for you to consider moving in to the city? Assuming you found yourself in a position to move, are you more likely to move into the city or out to the "ex-urbs?"