[angdis]

I think the question is wrong. It assumes that the problem is to find a "replacement" for oil, in other words, that all we need to do is replace the oil and everything else will work "the same."

For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park).

It doesn't have to be that way, although I can understand why a country that burns up 20% of global output of petroleum commuting to work everyday might feel that we need to "replace" oil and that will "solve" the looming crisis.

There are OTHER ways of thinking about a solution that does not involve simply replacing oil. These would include:

* Go back to human-scale cities by increasing density and diversity of housing, businesses and facilities.

* Invest in public transit infrastructure, alternative transportation modes. Mandate walkable metro-centers.

Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever.

[hapless]

Americans don't want "human scale" cities or public transit, or else we would already have them.

I realize this is not politically correct, but I like the isolation of the suburbs. I don't want to hear my neighbors or have a grocery within walking distance. I'm happy to need to drive to reach anything, because it means that the hustle and bustle of commerce stays far the hell away from my home.

I hate using public transit. I spent a lot of time and money to purchase and maintain my car, and for good reason. I enjoy the convenience of private, personal transport that departs and arrives on my schedule. I don't have to see, hear, or smell any fellow travelers.

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy to subsidize public transit with my tax dollars. The hard truth is that it is primarily for the benefit of the poor. I don't intend to use it. You couldn't pay me enough to spend two hours on a bus in lieu of my 30 minute commute.

We won't see an end to car culture until it is forced upon us. You will have to tear middle-class Americans kicking and screaming from their suburbs. We have chosen to live this way. The escape from the cities was hard-won, and most people won't give it up just because gas gets expensive.

[Vivtek]

You've clearly never been to Europe - where quiet residential neighborhoods coexist perfectly well with a public transit system that works.

The only reason we don't have a public transit system that works any more is that GM was smart enough to realize there was even more money in it for them if they bought, and scrapped, all the public transit systems in America's smaller towns and cities. And it worked. Don't wallow in it; it's embarrassing.

[hapless]

I have been to some European countries, and that's patently untrue. Residential neighborhoods tend to contain lots of shared housing -- apartments/rowhouses with shared walls between units -- and all attendant noise and unpleasantness.

The only residential neighborhood I ever enjoyed was when I stayed with a family who lived as I do: four vehicles for four people, in a freestanding home, driving to the grocery daily. The major difference in our lifestyles is that, ignoring exchange rates, they paid easily five times as much to achieve my standard of living. I don't think they would willingly trade places with their middle class employees, living in the crowded row housing.

To put it another way, I reject your underlying argument. Yes, hundreds millions of Europeans have become accustomed to a lower standard of living than mine. No, that does not mean I will happily acclimate myself to the same standard.

[angdis]

"Standard of living" means different things to different people. One could say that you've acclimated yourself to a lower standard of living by burning up lots of time and money commuting and taking care of a car and large house.

I'll take a 900 sq ft walk-up with marble flooring and 12 foot ceilings in the middle of Paris IN A SECOND over any sopranos-style 4000 sq ft mcMansion made of plywood and tyvek and located 40 minutes from the nearest depressing strip mall.

[Vivtek]

I've been to some American cities where it's patently untrue as well. There are other places in Europe, where I repeat that you have obviously never been, and I'm talking about suburban Germany here, where it is not patently untrue - where, in fact, it is patently true.

So feel free to reject my underlying argument if you like. Just don't think that makes you right.

[jeza]

Closer to the US, Toronto and Vancouver manage to run effective public transport systems in American style cities. It's essentially a myth that you need high densities to support rail/bus services.

[dkersten]

Having been to Vancouver and living in Europe[1], I have to agree that public transport can work very very well. My uncle, for example, lives in a small country town in Germany and it is serviced by a very regular train with which you can pretty much go anywhere (obviously the distant destinations require you to go to the closest city and transfer from there, but any local towns and villages are quickly and easily reached).

[1] Sadly, in Ireland, public transport is not so great. I have family in mainland Europe though and public transport is (generally) quite good there.

[jinushaun]

Any proper discussion on the topic of energy dependence, car and city planning must acknowledge that many Americans have this point of view. Americans like driving around everywhere and not living in dense cities. It's an inconvenient truth for policy makers trying to push for green and pro-urban policies in America.

[pyre]

I don't know if "Americans don't like living in dense cities" can be called a truism though. Wouldn't that assume that in America, there are no dense cities? Wouldn't the existence of dense cities along side suburbs indicate that there is a wide range of preference?

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Of course there is a range of preference -- it's not an absolute statement. Hell, I used to live in NYC and now I live in a rural area surrounded by horses and cornfields.

But the fact that so many people choose to live in the suburbs (and now an increasing number of those are moving out to the country!) indicates that city life is unsuitable for many. Honestly, the only thing that keeps me tied to a certain distance from the city is the availability of DSL.

[hapless]

American urban centers are primarily inhabited by the poor -- people who have no other choices. Urban gentrification is the froth on a sea of poverty.

[pyre]

So all of those massively expensive condos that are built in the middle of dense cities are for poor people? People complaining about how expensive real estate is 'downtown' are just extremely poor people because they can't even afford what regular poor people can?

In any case, living in suburbs doesn't account for the preference of wanting to drive everywhere. It's perfectly possible to build suburbs that are walking distance from most local stores that you would need (i.e. grocery, hardware, etc).

[Typhon]

Human scale cities imply human scale commerce.

I assume that by "hustles and bustle of commerce" you mean those monstrous gigantic malls. It doesn't have to be that way.

[hapless]

"Human scale" commerce failed. Supermarkets obliterated tiny, expensive grocers everywhere that real estate prices afforded their existence. Inner cities are now "food deserts" because running a limited-selection, high-price grocery isn't practical.

It didn't have to be that way, but that's how it turned out. Low prices and wide selection are more important to the average consumer than "human scale."

[Typhon]

That's how it turned out in America, where people had individual cars starting in the 1910s and where oil is still cheaper than in Europe.

[angdis]

It wasn't until the 1960's through 1970's, the car-ownership prompted massive shifts from cities to suburbs.

Many baby boomers and those who preceded them (the "Ward Cleever" generation), can still remember the concept of having a main street. Even suburbs back then had central business districts and these are now known as "streetcar suburbs" or "inner-ring suburbs".

This way-of-life where everything so spread out so much that it necessitates driving for every little trip is a relatively new phenomena.

[danssig]

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars

I think it's the abundance of ground. The last time I was in the states I realized that the entire shopping street in my city could fit in an american mall parking lot. What a tremendous waste of space, but it's cheaper than going up like is done in Europe.

>Invest in public transit infrastructure

Personally I think public transit is a stepping stone. It's not a workable final solution. It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets.

A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go. We wouldn't need parking places because the cars never stop. We'd have the convenience of not having to drive.

[jeza]

> It doesn't go anywhere anyone wants to go, it goes close to where a lot of people want to go. It doesn't know when we want to go so it just picks times and forces us into buckets.

That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes, I think most people can tolerate that. If it doesn't go where you're going then you transfer, again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either.

> A proper solution would be that "public transport" consisted of a network of self-driving cars that you can schedule on the internet to come pick you up and drop you where you need to go.

Would still create congestion on busy routes and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.

[danssig]

>That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes

Except that isn't realistic for everywhere. Even in a pretty densely populated country there will be areas that just can't justify that high frequency.

>again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either.

I'm living in a country that has, imo, the best public transport in the world. Even in remote areas a bus or train will be there once an hour. Normally it's 30 minutes in smaller towns and 10-15 or less as you go up. The issue is the connections. 5 minutes here, 15 minutes there. You don't have to travel very far before public transit is taking double the time it takes to go by car. I really hate driving, I feel like it's throwing my time in the trash. The issue is, as a programmer, I'm more productive in 2 solid hours than I am in four 1 hour periods.

>Would still create congestion on busy routes

Congestion shouldn't be any issue at all if everything is computer controlled. When you try to schedule at a certain time the computer can already say that you'll be picked up 10 minutes later and arrive 10 minutes later. Most congestion is caused by stupid things human drivers are doing. Get rid of human drivers and driving suddenly becomes vastly safer.

>and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day.

This could be but that would mean that, say, 80% of all public pool cars would be sitting in a central parking lot most of the day. How is that worse than now with 100% of cars sitting idle most of the day? Plus in many places every family will have 2 or more cars.

[roc]

That's pretty much it. Our infrastructure and assumptions are built on the existence of oil. Its ease of transport, its energy density, its relatively low costs. And there is no alternative with all those features.

So you need to address those assumptions before you can see where it's going.

Which is why we should probably stop spending 10x as much subsidizing commuting over transit. Because most of those suburbs are probably not going to recover from this housing crash. Growth economics allowed us to waste money building, zoning and living that way. But it's not going to work anymore. Not for nearly as many people.

[neworbit]

It's attractive to propose "let's build a new kind of city" or if you prefer, a new sort of living style, but this is one of the classic boil-the-ocean sort of problems that any ground-up engineering solution faces. How do we migrate people from a solution they know, like, inhabit, and own today to one that they don't know, will likely have to be educated to like, don't currently inhabit, and don't currently own? It's a tall order.

[solid]

>For whatever reason, Americans are locked in to thinking that cities should be designed for cars and that every errand should involve driving somewhere (with the expectation that your destination should furnish your car with a free place to park).

A major reason is the massive amount of explosive growth directed through central planning by government. This has literally made most cities designed around travel by car.

>Of course, people won't change unless there's a reason to do so. What I am saying is that "market forces" will push us towards those kinds of solutions INSTEAD of towards an oil replacement. People will be better off if they can adapt to this reality rather than hang on until the bitter end to the idea that the future will involve "happy motoring" forever.

Getting rid of government subsidy to oil through lobby, tax breaks, and the military-industrial complex would go a long way toward this goal. We are bearing the full brunt of the "moral hazard" experiment.