Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

So Long, Suburbia?

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

If you think Ed Risse and I are pessimistic about the long-term future of scattered, disconnected, low-density development patterns in a era of $100-per-barrel oil, listen to James Kunstler, the author of “The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape.” BusinessWeek provides some insight into his near-apocalyptic views in a brief Q&A headlined, “Good-bye Cheap Oil, So Long, Suburbia?”

Kunstler sees the “suburbs” as the product of the industrial era and cheap energy. He expects oil production to tumble and he doesn’t think there are any easy technological fixes. The institutions we’ve developed since World War II are living on borrowed time.

The jig is up, for instance, for Wal*Mart, dependent as it is upon an autocentric society. “It is part and parcel of the suburban predicament,” says Kunstler. “How long can they maintain their warehouse-on-wheels as the price of motor fuels goes up?” Our energy-intensive system of agricultural production is heading for trouble, too. Kunstler’s money quote:

Virtually anything organized on a grand scale is liable to fall into trouble — government, finance, corporate enterprise, agribusiness, schools. Our gigantic Metroplex cities will prove to be inconsistent with the energy diet of our future. I think our smaller cities and towns will be reactivated. We are going to be a far less affluent society.

My outlook isn’t as dour as Kunstler’s. I believe that high prices will stimulate energy producers to extract oil from geological formations that were never economical before. Prices will rise for sure, but I don’t foresee a precipitous fall-off in production.

But my differences with Kunstler are only a matter of degree. Energy prices will rise. Eventually, it will become clear to everyone that contemporary American suburbs are no more economically sustainable in an era of high energy prices than the Western mining towns were sustainable when the ore ran out. Electric cars and fuel cells may delay the inevitable reckoning for a time, but shifting from petroleum to electricity consumption will simply create a new set of constraints, as we are discovering here in Virginia. The sooner we re-think our transportation systems and land use patterns, the less traumatic we’ll find the changes to be.

(Hat tip: Michael Cecire.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: WalMart and it’s rolling warehouse…

    people people.. get your bearings..

    that business model is MORE efficient than alternatives and it evolved as a result of lowering shipping costs…

    I think there is a big misunderstanding that Walmart is a creation of cheap energy.

    I think WalMart is the opposite.

    and it will further adapt…

    Instead of 100 truckloads, 80 truckloads.

    Double and Triple trailers.

    More bulk shipping via rail.

    Instead of products packaged in glass.. products packaged in lighter materials.

    Instead of a case of 8oz olives, a case of 16oz olives (less containers)..8oz still available but much more expensive…

    We cannot fathom all the different ways that the system will squeeze out further efficiencies. In fact, some of the competitors themselves will choose to raise prices while their brighter competitors (like WalMart) will find cheaper/better/more efficient ways to offer the same products for less.

    Want proof?

    In countries where Gasoline has been $6 a gallon – for years – guess what? they still have WalMarts and they still offer a full range of products and they still do it with “rolling warehouses”.

    China? It’s where WalMart expects to do major expansions… right?

    So.. if countries where Gasoline is already twice what it is in this country.. manage to still have “rolling warehouse” supply chains… then I doubt seriously that $4 a gallon gas will cause their demise in this country.

    But I agree.. the price of gas is a major assault on Suburbia though any individual can’t cut their gasoline costs in HALF by merely sharing driving with one other person.

    This year, California used 2% less gasoline than last year.

    Next year, California will be joined by other states.

    a nice side benefit: less gasoline tax collected… and less congestion.. as more people cut back on solo driving…

  2. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The sociologist hat trick:

    First, it was the death of the farm.

    Then, it was the death of the cities.

    Now, it’s the death of the suburbs.

    Remember, you can’t write sociologist without including socialist. OK – that’s not true but neither is the proclamation of the death of everything.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Our gigantic Metroplex cities will prove to be inconsistent with the energy diet of our future. I think our smaller cities and towns will be reactivated.”

    I believe cities are more energy intensive than smaller areas. On the other hand, larry has a point, concerning the efficiency of Wal Mart.

    Does it take more energy to supply a bunch of smaller, more specialized shops? And then, does it take more, or less, energy to go to several shops than one?

    I suspect the answer is more, but I don’t know how to reconcile that with my suspicions about city energy usage.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, California gas use is down.

    So is manufacturing, each quarter for the last three. Also other goods produced down three quarters in a row, down 6.1% in the last quarter.

    Single and multifamily building permits down 30% or more. Home price index down, non-business bankruptcies, up.

    Banking total assets down, three quraters in a row. PAast due loans up, three quarters, Captital earnings on assets down, thre quarters ina row.

    You think there might be a reason California gas use is down?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The death of everything???

    When we discuss the direction we need to grow to maintain quality of life we don’t kill anything. Think not about the death of the present. Think instead about the growth to the future.

    Just as the plant that is on fertile ground, gets plenty of warm light, and the right amount of water grows, a community that is spending on education, health care, and nutrition grows while one that is placing all its resources in supporting sprawl has high taxes with little to recommend it.

    Are you spending your money on school busses or are you spending it on teachers?
    How long does it take to answer a fire call in your area? How many miles do the police put on their vehicles. These are all costs of unhealthy development.

    Jim W.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim W:

    Wouldn’t all of these be worse in a rural county than in a suburban county?

    “Are you spending your money on school busses or are you spending it on teachers?
    How long does it take to answer a fire call in your area? How many miles do the police put on their vehicles. These are all costs of unhealthy development.”.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When they answer a fire call in your area, how long does it take them to navigate the cogested streets with a ladder truck? How long to erect a multistory ladder?

    Miles aren’t the only cost, or even the most expensive.

    “a community that is spending on education, health care, and nutrition grows….”

    And where do they get the resources?

    When plants grow they get taller, but they also spread out.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    You know.. just for the sake of discussion…

    you can have a nice grid-streeted town with very good local services and a strong sense of community…

    but then every morning a lot of those folks get on a train or in an auto and travel 50 miles to their job.

    Many pre-existing towns – towns that are 100, 200 years old became “suburbia” when an interstate-type road replaced the previous connecting road between the smaller town and the bigger urban brother.

    If you look around most of our urban areas you will find dozens of pre-existing dense settlement patterns.

    In fact, MOST of the new “suburbia” is arrayed around an existing town type settlement pattern.

    Many of these towns still have their urban cores but the shops no longer consist of Leggetts and Newberry’s but boutiques.

    I’m obviously thinking of Fredericksburg which was settled in 1622 – long before NoVa or Wash Metro.

    It had it’s own local “suburbia” before Route 1 came along to connect it to DC.. but even then..commuters were fairly scarce because Route 1 had a gazillion other towns with stoplights on it.

    Only when I-95 “came” to Fredericksburg in the 1960’s did the Fredericksburg area become a “suburb” of Wash Metro/NoVa.

    and this is relevant because – we still have folks who say that the solution to suburbia is to build MORE new urban type settlement patterns in places like Fredericksburg.

    Building new “mixed-use” new urban “villages” along interstates that radiate out from a large urban area like Wash Metro.. won’t change the reasons why folks commute from NoVa to places like Fredericksburg.

    And gasoline can be $8 a gallon and that won’t change.

    What will change is how folks get from suburbia to their jobs…

    and it will evolve to a model like Connecticut where folks live in older towns and every morning get on a commuter rail to get to their jobs in NYC.

    the same model in many industrialized cities in the world where gasoline has already been at $5 a gallon for …decades…

    I think we lose perspective sometimes… when we look at things like this…

    Now if oil drops to 50% of supply overnight.. then yes.. great upheavals … worldwide… and our “suburbia” issues will become gnats on dogs rumps in terms of importance.

    But that is not going to happen.

    so.. where does that really leave suburbia?

    Can we say it is “threatened” ..you know like an “endangered” species and that most of us will be forced to abandon that suburban SFH and d move to a ghetto apartment “in the city” (because that’s all we can afford?).

    thoughts?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Some argue that the US economy is on the brink of disaster because of house foreclosures. What would happen if we saw everyone living at least 20 miles from a major job center had to abandon their homes to move to a cramped apartment in a poorly managed center city?

    Moreover, wouldn’t it be less expensive to push more employment to outlying locations than it would be to try to get everyone to move to the center cities? In our area, this process could get a jump start in the event that the Department of Homeland Security and or Department of Defense were to conclude that too many contractors were located too close to Washington, D.C. and were, therefore, subject to shutdown in the event of a terror or military attack.

    TMT

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Moreover, wouldn’t it be less expensive to push more employment to outlying locations”

    We’ve heard this repeated in this blog… usually under the heading of “more places”.

    questions:

    what specifically is such a policy trying to achieve in a place like Fairfax/NoVa?

    Is the idea to stop/inhibit/slow down folks who take NoVa jobs and then commute to outer jurisdictions?

    Is it the NoVa commuting traffic that is what needs to be changed?

    Who would have to do this and how would they do it?

    For instance, would Fairfax basically say: no more businesses unless your employees are not commuters?

    Bonus Question: Do businesses with commuting employee’s ALSO have property rights?

    Is it any more or less fair to restrict business activities than residential development?

    If the response to restricting residential development is… (the lack of) adequate infrastructure…

    .. can that same reason be why a business that wants to locate in Fairfax/NoVa is denied so..??? i.e. inadequate infrastructure (for commuting employees?)

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bottom line to your question Larry

    Policy in Fairfax is more businesses and no residents. This is solely motivated by the tax issues. Infrasturcture and quality of life issues be damned.

    Loudoun is currently grappling with this situation. I think it is finally safe to say that residents are more expensive. Its only a matter of time before Loudoun catches up with Farifax and says no to residential growth and yes only to business growth. Loudoun taxpayers will only put up with double digit tax rate increase for so long.

    Then of course you always have Fauqiuer who says no to any growth.

    However, there ARE more people coming to this region every day. They have to go somewhere which leads to the more places argument.

    I see I-66 I-395 I-95 toll road with the majority of traffic going in one direction. Why don’t we build up Gainsville, Springfield, Fredricksburg and Laurel, MD and Ashburn VA. The road capacity is already there.

    But then wouldn’t those areas sprawl out as well?

    NMM

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Spotsylvania (Fredericksburg) has not approved a SFD residential in years – yes , years.

    Residential is fiscal poison.

    Each new house does this:

    1. – it brings a NoVa commuter whose lifestyle is auto-centric and introduces NoVa-like rush hour conditions on major roads that connect to I-95.

    2. – each new home that is less than 400K imposes increased education costs – that results in increased property taxes.

    Spotsylvania (and Stafford) have grown 30% since 2000 and virtually doubled their population since 1990.

    The only reason that they did not grow as fast as Loudoun is that the residents caught on to the fact that there were developers and pro-development folks on the BOS and threw them out… quicker than Loudoun did.

    But the Fredericksburg Area would give major Hugs and Kisses to Homeland Security or a Pentagon South idea… in a heartbeat… because they feel that it allow more I-95 commuters to live and work locally.

    but I did ask the NoVa businesses question.. because to be honest.. I’m not sure exactly what NoVa citizens actually want with respect to business and residential growth.

    Some folks in NoVa think they already have too much residential growth.. people who actually live closer to work that the Fredericksburg/Loudoun residents who commute daily to NoVa jobs.

    so.. what exactly needs to change?

    it would seem that the only way to cap NoVa residential growth .. AND discourage outer jurisdiction rush hour commutes to NoVa jobs.. is to get rid of the NoVa jobs…

    .. move them somewhere else.. “more places”…

    and so I was asking.. basically twofold:

    – how would this be accomplished policy-wise?

    – is there strong/unified citizen/political support to enact such a policy?

    I know of virtually no locality that has erected a “We’re are NOT OPEN for new business” signs…so I’d be shocked to see Fairfax/NoVa do so but then again.. it appears that there is mucho dissatisfaction with WHERE Fairfax seems headed…business/residential/commuting-wise

    “more places” = “pave the Piedmont” = the ball to accomplish this is in Fairfax’s court – not Fredericksburg or Loudouns…

    right?

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fairfax County is open to virtually any building that can be proposed and then upon sweetheart terms. MetroWest — Tysons Corner. Both are big residential developments.

    I suspect that the nearby presence of the federal government has more to do with job growth than and BoS policy.

    TMT

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and so I was asking.. basically twofold:

    – how would this be accomplished policy-wise?

    – is there strong/unified citizen/political support to enact such a policy?

    You would have to Outfairfax Fairfax :-p

    Prove that you have a high knowledge worker base (doable in many areas)

    Provide incentives (harder but doable)

    The third one is the kicker as they say in real estate location location location

    Until business culture fully embraces the concept of teledealing Fairfax/Aleandria/Arlington will have an unconquerable advantage because your client base is literally next door.

    Different wrinkle on the location theme. A little known fact is that many people who work in inner NoVa actually live in Maryland. For example, distance wise most of MoCo is closer to Tysons than Prince William County even.

    ___________________________________

    As far as citizen support for such a policy. You have to ask the citizens outside NoVa. My thought is many locations (say Galax for example) would love to have the economic development we have even with the associated “problems”. As Ray says do most people want to live in Loudoun or Fauquier. The majority want Loudoun.

    So to me the ball actually is in Fredricksburg and Loudoun in terms of actual policy you can control (education support and business development).

    The location piece unfortunatly is complelty out of a localities control and is extremely important for many businesses.

    ___________________________________

    The majority in Fairfax want more government and are willing to pay for it. A majority wants the Toll Road. A majority wants higher taxes for Metro and a smaller majority wants higher taxes for roads. (Yes Fairfax is becoming more like Arlington every day)

    NMM

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    slight edit

    At the bottom I meant to say Rail to Dulles instead of toll road

    NMM

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    not sure exactly what Fredericksburg could actually do ..to “help” Fairfax!

    Major subdivision rezones are rare these days.. Virtually all of the growth isthe stereotypical large-lot SFD… that cannot be prevented because it is “by right”.

    Rodger Provo – an occasional “feast or famine” contributor here – says that neither locality can make this work – that is will have to be a State function… errr. more Dillion Rule fun…

    Maybe the developers will succeed in having that also put into the Proffer Reform… legislation!

    It’ll surely become known by it’s informal name – the “Pave the Piedmont” rule.

    🙂

  17. John Athayde Avatar
    John Athayde

    Kunster has some good points, but he’s taken them to the [il]logical extreme. Could the things he discusses, which were initially laid out in the book The Long Emergency, actually come to pass? Possibly. But I think that the rising prices of transportation will push prices higher and, as larry gross said above, eek more efficencies out of the systems that exist.

    Oil will see the same thing that happened recently in Gold. Previous claims that were too expensive to mine suddenly became profitable operations and claim owners began to pursue them. Depending on how long gold remains above $850 will determine if these claims stay operational. Same will be true with old oil fields all around the world. When it becomes cost effective to squeeze that remaining 30 – 50% out of the ground, they’ll do it.

    I think this will also encourage more local commerce, particularly in the food chain side of things.

    But look at some of the neighborhoods where they are basically ghost towns right now (post foreclosure sweep). You really could end up with suburbia as blighted areas, much like Kunster suggests.

    It really depends on when the downward slope hits a plateau… or a sheer cliff.

  18. Richard Thornton Avatar
    Richard Thornton

    Folks … its their chemical laden diets and lack of exercise that are killing Americans. A Choctaw friend mine, who just got her doctorate in nutrional science from Cornell, lost over 60 pounds by no longer eating fast foods, processed foods, most restaurant foods and walking 20 minutes a day. She repeatedly stressed to me that there were all sorts of destructive chemicals in fast foods, and pre-prepared foods that were killing Americans. I finally took her advice because despite a lifestyle that involved mountain hiking every day of the year, I had a problem with water retention. I cut out Burger King, etc, and only cooked unprocessed foods. I quickly lost 18 pounds of water.

    It is ironic that Americans on limited incomes are the most likely to eat junk and fast foods that are loaded with preservatives, artificial flavors and who knows what? But that’s the way it is.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There is no incentive for Fairfax to turn away development for businesses.

    But, when it gets to the point that Fairfax can no longer “deliver” the people to run those business, the Fairfax location won’t be so attractive.

    EPA won’t allow new roads, except under certain circumstances. HOT lanes will also make the place less attractive.

    There was recently a Map in the post that showed the locations that were most cost effective consider housing costs and travel distance. The data was outmoded by the housing slump and fuel prices, but that just shows how volatile the idea of what is “functional” can be.

    The map clearly showed regions that were more cost effective either because the job density was high, housing costs wer low, or travel amenities were good. no one thing is the driver in this situation.

    But, when we see FBI moving to Manassas along with dozens of other companies, well, there has to be SOME reason, and it isn’t the Manassas Park Opera. So, where do you go when your client base moves?

    All I’m saying is that there are two ways to cut travel, and travel costs: move homes closer to jobs, or move jobs closer to home. Each of these options has costs of their own, and as long as those costs are higher than the cost of travel we won’t see many businesses OR homes moving.

    My gut feeling guess is that it is a LOT cheaper to move the jobs, than the homes. And a LOT cheaper to move the jobs than build new HOT lanes.

    And we have this other problem. Orange line is jammed. The proposed fix is to buy cars with fewer seats so people can stand up for what Bacon called 14 butt-numbing stops. Well can fix the butt-numbing part – take away the chairs!

    Shirley highway is jammed. Even if we get HOT lanes, they will be jammed. Every year we get more like New York, with the longest commuting time in the nation – despite good transit.

    Sooner or later the Move Jobs option starts looking better and better: New York jobs are moving to Connecticut for a reason.

    When plants grow, they get taller, but they also spread out.

    ——————————-

    BTW I never said that people prefer to live in Loudoun. What I objected to was the idea that development was costing Loudoun Citizens money, just because their taxes are going up. My point was that all the stuff developers built, now belongs to Loudoun citizens, and Loudoun Citizens are wealthy as a result – at least as compared to Fauquier which has had less growth.

    But, there are two ways to look at this. Fauquier has some bucolic luxuries that are absent or disappearing in Loudoun (or parts of Loudoun). You could say that the cost of those bucolic luxuries is the price of not having the wealth now owned by Loudoun residents.

    In other words, conservation isn’t free. That does not mean it isn’t worthwhile, just that we need to know what it costs so that we can decide when it is worthwhile and when it isn’t.

    ———————————

    “But then wouldn’t those areas sprawl out as well?”

    It’s the petri dish problem. We know we will starve and die off when we hit the edge of the plate and run out of Agar. Some people think we should conserve Agar by staying in the middle of the plate, put up a clear edge they call it.

    OK, but the edge of the petri dish is already clear, and we know what happens when we hit that edge: we die off and starve. Putting up an artificial clear edge closer in just means you die off sooner. It’s the dirty little conservation secret no one wants to talk about.

    Sure, we will learn new things and have new efficiencies, but you cannot get something for nothing forever. Doing with less eventually means someone is going to do without. We need to face that and not paint a rosy picture that isn’t.

    “But then wouldn’t those areas sprawl out as well?”

    We had better hope so. Let’s make it as little as possible, but let’s not think we are going to live (sustainably, of course) on concrete platforms suspended over the train station, either.

    RH

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “HOT lanes will also make the place less attractive.”

    HOT lanes will IMPROVE and enhance working and living local in NoVa.

    Why?

    Because for a small amount of money, a local NoVa can zip back and forth to work.. just a few bucks a day – probably…

    whereas a long-distance commuter cannot get the same deal.. because they will be charged by the mile and this is fair – because it IS truly proportional to the use.

    If you use more -you pay more.

    If you use less – you pay less.

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: paying for “conservation”

    the preservation of vacant land is not conservation.

    “paying” to keep vacant land of no particular natural, historic or cultural significance is dumb.

    The concept that a landowner is “owed” money for not developing vacant land is dumb.

    some call this green-scamming…

    Put HOT lanes on ALL commuting roads and let folks decide how far they want to drive.

    Us the money to improve the infrastructure, fix the bridges we cannot afford to fix. Fix the bottlenecks… improve the ramps and time the lights… invest in transportation/mobility..

    .. and let folks who “choose” to drive 100 miles a day – pay their proportional share…

    .. and we’ll see the whole idea of paying to “preserve” vacant land – go away…

    ..and then land speculators will have to find a new line of business or at least work for a living.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How do youfigure it will make the place more ttractive?

    The studies say it will increase local traffic, decrease the number of car pools, cause some busineeses to relocate.

    As for the locals Nova commuter, he now gets to pay for what he used to get free. The time savings for a short trip is minimal, so what has he gained?

    This is how you make things more attractive?

    I think we will need to do bttr than that. A lot better.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray,

    Come down and commute from Springfield to Tysons some morning.

    I would pay $5 to save half an hour, save wasted gas, and reduce wear and tear on my car.

    Even better I could take a bus

    Best yet I would carpool

    My hunch is there are at least several thousand of us that fit my description

    NMM

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “This is how you make things more attractive?”

    You, as a NoVa resident, have been living and working in the same place for years… and every year your commute gets worse…

    .. and someone says: “how would you like to get the commute you originally had for $5 bucks?

    you.. know.. you can leave a a reasonable time in the morning.. get home at a reasonable hour in the evening.. actually schedule a Dr Appointment or catch a flight or be on time to a “must” meeting…

    for… $5 bucks… hello ????

    Now to the 50 mile NoVa commuter…

    how would you like to pay $30 a day to get the deal that the NoVa guy got?

    unfair! unfair!

    I rest my case.

    🙂

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    NMM – You “ain’t seen nothing yet.” Wait until Tysons gets rail and the automobile traffic explodes. The Task Forces’ data show (actually, the material is being hidden) that full development of an urban Tysons with rail would generate 1,000,000 additional car trips each day.

    Meanwhile, your real estate taxes will explode to pay for the rail and all the infrastructure necessary to urbanize Tysons Corner.

    TMT

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The concept that a landowner is “owed” money for not developing vacant land is dumb.”

    This isn’t a question of developing it, it is a question of not using it for the only use allowed – agriculture. It is about not plowing land right down to the streambed.

    The concept that other landowners can get anything they want for nothing, is also dumb.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Do businesses with commuting employee’s ALSO have property rights?

    Is it any more or less fair to restrict business activities than residential development?”

    Nope, it is neither more or less fair, and yet we don’t do it. Why is that, especially if we can show it reduces pollution, congestion, and waste?

    The deck is stacked against residential development because of the perception that it doesn’t pay, and commercial development does. Yet (excess) commercial development is just as responsible for the externalities of congestion and pollution as the drivers are. Why not share the (disincentives)?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Is the idea to stop/inhibit/slow down folks who take NoVa jobs and then commute to outer jurisdictions?”

    Overheard an interesting conversation at lunch today. Two young men were discussing the relative costs of where they live and how far they are willing to commute.

    It turned out both of them live in the District, and work at Dulles. They were discussing whether they could live in Falls Curch for less, and have a shorter commute.

    RH

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The point is that you pay for conservation one way or another. Loudoun is worth more money than Fauquier. The difference is what conservation costs, especially since these two counties were pretty eqal in value 30 years ago.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Vacant land does not translate to a “right” to be paid to not develop it.

    No property-owner has the “right” to get “anything they want” either as many will tell you when they try to add a simple fence or garage or granny flat….

    It’s dumb for the public to pay for vacant land that has no natural, historic or cultural significance and it’s doubly dumb to use TDRs/PDRs to “set aside” such land that basically denies public access and serves as a viewscape amenity for those who live adjacent to it.

    The National Park Service has it “right”.

    First.. willing seller…willing buyer…

    then.. the land not only must have significance but then it must also have enough such that it rises to the top when compared to other properties.

    PDRs/TDRs need to function similarly IMHO.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Springfield to Tysons commute is grim. When I started doing it around 1981, it wasn’t so bad, but by the time I moved west in 1990 it had already deteriorated. If TMT is right, it will continue to get worse.

    For some people and some routes the scenario you lay out might make sense. There ARE transit routes that do make sense. I remain sceptical, though. New York has the most extensive transit and the most transit riders – and they have the longest duration commutes anywhere.

    If it ever comes to pass that you can pay $5 and save a half hour, let me know. But your are right, and right in line with TMT – if it is a good deal, it will get snapped up. The carpools will go bye-bye. The tolls will get higher, the service will decline, and then you will be paying $5 for what you have now.

    Then what? Time to choose a destinaton other than Tyson’s?

    As for Larry’s $30 example, that’s $600 a month. Which will buy you about $100,000 worth of home (plus your time, of course). A 3BR 2BA TH in Fairfax can easily run $450,000: In Dale City or Manassas it might be $300,000, or less. If very many people try to avoid the $600 toll then the differential will widen – Homes in Fairfax will cost more and those in Dale City will be less. I think you wind up not changing the underlying dynamic, but only moving the center of economic effort a little.

    So, lets use tolls to make Fairfax homes more expensive, and see if that makes the place more attractive.

    And that assumes it is your only choice. At $600 a month, you might decide you have other choices, like earning $600 a month less, and working in F’burg, or commuting to Richmond.

    (TMT, is that a million more trips, really? or is it 100,000?)

    (Larry, there was an article in Sunday’s paper claiming we could reduce pollution by developing more densely. The claim was we would reduce average commute distance from 30 to 24. No mention of that little phenomenon called “Highwy MPG 30, City 24”. Also no mention of how much it would increase the vehicles per square mile.)

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No property-owner has the “right” to get “anything they want”

    I agree. But I insist that this includes the neighboring property owner who wants to get something for nothing by restrictin his neighbor. He, too, does not have hte right to get anything he wants, especially at his neighbors expense.

    It is an externality just like any other, and it is as unjust as any other.

    Property oners do not have the right to anything they want, but they do have the rights that they paid for. When those are reduced, they have a right to be compensated for them: this has already been demonstrated in court.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Park Service has specifically bought land because of its viewscape amenity. They have done it so that hikers on the Applalachian trail won’t have to see development off in the distance.

    If the viewscape is valuable, why should’t it be paid for?

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Vacant land does not translate into a right to develop it.

    In some places it doesn’t even translate into the right to use it, or even keep it. In King County landowners are required to keep 65% of the property in its wild and natural state. Can’t mow it, can’t farm it, can’t even walk on it too much for violating the natural state.

    I’ll sure be glad when we get rid of all of the rights and restrictions of ownership.

    Then no one will be able to claim someone is costing them money through some farcical externality; after all, they won’t have any right to do anything they want with their money: it won’t really be theirs to complain about.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – Materials presented to the Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force have displayed as many as one million vehicle trips per day with Prototype B. See, slide 58 at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/tysonscorner/presentation_02192008.pdf

    While Prototype B is not before the Task Force today, a number of Task Force members are seeking even higher ultimate densities.

    Your problem, Ray, is that you are a rational human being, as is everyone else on the blog. You are expecting results that lie within one standard deviation of reasonableness. The planning for Tysons Corner has long since gone well past anything that Rod Serling presented on the Twilight Zone. If this were television it would be in the realm of science fiction. But it’s local government in Virginia, which borders on the criminally negligent.

    TMT

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That’s hard to believe. There’s only something like 3,250,000 trips in the whole Metro area.

    (Metro claims they carry 20% of traffic at 650,000 trips.)

    RH

  37. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: the “AT” as an “amenity”…

    major parts of the AT have had to be re-routed when existing property owners refused to sell and/or allow access.

    Ditto with the Blue Ridge Parkway.

    In any event both of them are freely accessible to the public and they provide substantial benefits to the public and unless you have evidence to the contrary – very, very few parcels have been bough purely for viewscape.

    I’m betting Ray that you’ve probably not darkened the AT for any significant period of time (like a multi-day hike)

    or you’d know the utter futility of trying to buy the “viewshed”.

    The AT is what it is.. good, bad, and ugly… in terms of viewsheds.. that include.. interstates, towns, cities, communication towers, powerlines, strip-mines, and clear-cuts…

    In rare.. isolated circumstances, the Park Service might try to work a deal… but more often.. no dice.

Leave a Reply

Read More