Stranded in Suburbia

[Lunican]

Stranded in Suburbia

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 19, 2008

I have seen the future, and it works.

O.K., I know that these days you’re supposed to see the future in China or India, not in the heart of “old Europe.”

But we’re living in a world in which oil prices keep setting records, in which the idea that global oil production will soon peak is rapidly moving from fringe belief to mainstream assumption. And Europeans who have achieved a high standard of living in spite of very high energy prices â€" gas in Germany costs more than $8 a gallon â€" have a lot to teach us about how to deal with that world.

If Europe’s example is any guide, here are the two secrets of coping with expensive oil: own fuel-efficient cars, and don’t drive them too much.

Notice that I said that cars should be fuel-efficient â€" not that people should do without cars altogether. In Germany, as in the United States, the vast majority of families own cars (although German households are less likely than their U.S. counterparts to be multiple-car owners).

But the average German car uses about a quarter less gas per mile than the average American car. By and large, the Germans don’t drive itsy-bitsy toy cars, but they do drive modest-sized passenger vehicles rather than S.U.V.’s and pickup trucks.

In the near future I expect we’ll see Americans moving down the same path. We’ve already done it once: over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, the average mileage of U.S. passenger vehicles rose about 50 percent, as Americans switched to smaller, lighter cars.

This improvement stalled with the rise of S.U.V.’s during the cheap-gas 1990s. But now that gas costs more than ever before, even after adjusting for inflation, we can expect to see mileage rise again.

Admittedly, the next few years will be rough for families who bought big vehicles when gas was cheap, and now find themselves the owners of white elephants with little trade-in value. But raising fuel efficiency is something we can and will do.

Can we also drive less? Yes â€" but getting there will be a lot harder.

There have been many news stories in recent weeks about Americans who are changing their behavior in response to expensive gasoline â€" they’re trying to shop locally, they’re canceling vacations that involve a lot of driving, and they’re switching to public transit.

But none of it amounts to much. For example, some major public transit systems are excited about ridership gains of 5 or 10 percent. But fewer than 5 percent of Americans take public transit to work, so this surge of riders takes only a relative handful of drivers off the road.

Any serious reduction in American driving will require more than this â€" it will mean changing how and where many of us live.

To see what I’m talking about, consider where I am at the moment: in a pleasant, middle-class neighborhood consisting mainly of four- or five-story apartment buildings, with easy access to public transit and plenty of local shopping.

It’s the kind of neighborhood in which people don’t have to drive a lot, but it’s also a kind of neighborhood that barely exists in America, even in big metropolitan areas. Greater Atlanta has roughly the same population as Greater Berlin â€" but Berlin is a city of trains, buses and bikes, while Atlanta is a city of cars, cars and cars.

And in the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia â€" utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas â€" it’s starting to look as if Berlin had the better idea.

Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard. For one thing, houses last a lot longer than cars. Long after today’s S.U.V.’s have become antique collectors’ items, millions of people will still be living in subdivisions built when gas was $1.50 or less a gallon.

Infrastructure is another problem. Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access.

And there are, as always in America, the issues of race and class. Despite the gentrification that has taken place in some inner cities, and the plunge in national crime rates to levels not seen in decades, it will be hard to shake the longstanding American association of higher-density living with poverty and personal danger.

Still, if we’re heading for a prolonged era of scarce, expensive oil, Americans will face increasingly strong incentives to start living like Europeans â€" maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html

[Jason]

I agree Stephen, not a bad article though.

[David]

I remember arguing the faults of suburban living long before gas broke 2 dollars a gallon. After spending a year of my life, that'll i'll never get back living in Suton Lakes off Kernan & Atlantic, I swore off suburbia for good. I went from living in pedestrian friendly places like Downtown, San Marco & the beaches to having to wait 5 minutes for a turn signal, then driving another 2 miles into an isolated neighborhood after I had already driven 30 minutes in traffic. It was rough, but I had fallen upon rough times so I didn't have a choice.

Since then my very local living habits have been restored, I purposely applied at jobs only within a few miles of downtown's zipcode 32202 and sought out housing once again in the area just so I dont have to deal with the headaches of suburban driving.

The problem is though, people live in the suburbs for a reason. My two brothers, who have two kids live in neighboring st johns & clay counties have a solid argument which is ...."well, it's cheap!" They can get twice as much house for the same money as living in town....and until this city gets built out, it only seems our citizens gas-dependent lifestyle will only get worse.

Downtown & our intown neighborhoods are fine for single guys like me who would rather rent in riverside than own in the suburbs, and it's great for young professionals and other affluent types, but how do you get the middle class masses to say "no, i dont need space or yard , but i do want to pay at least 250k to live in town?" You don''t really. Most of the suburbs simply don't care about the historic value and charm of old jacksonville, they just look at price and square footage.... Gas prices aren't that high yet, It'd take alot more to stop the sprawl, and even if gas were to somehow make in-town living more desirable, that would make the cost of living skyrocket even more so....

man, i dont see a solution for most people. I'll just stick with my 2.4 mile bikeable commute to work and hope all of this is overblown! I dont think it should be one way or another. Let the burbies have their stripmalls, traffic and slightly more affordable housing. I'll take quality of life over square footage anyday

[Driven1]

Its not just 'europeans' , its really more the natural order of how cities work.

no, actually it is more european -  in that they are more developed.  go to port au prince.  or beijing or san jose, CR or managua, Nicaragua or sao paulo ...or toronto for that matter.  paris, rome, london all have the characteristics that the article speaks of but the aforementioned cities do not.  defitely more of a european thing. 

[Driven1]

granada is the oldest colonial city in central america.  it has european architecture.  and is very old.  but still -the sprawl.  city birth relative to advent of the auto has NOTHING to do with it.

[Driven1]

try rereading.  the major development.

try leaving.  the library.