Paul Krugman, Economist and New York Times columnist, has been writing a number of blog posts about rising fuel prices and what they mean to the average American. The opinion piece is great, and has nice tidbits like this:
Any serious reduction in American driving will require more than this — 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 — 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 — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas — 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.
As they say, read the whole thing. This picture is from a post on his blog (via the Sydney Morning Herald).
It’s the percentage of income residents of Sydney spend on gas. As you can tell, those in the city’s center spend far less on gas than those in the city do. In Sydney, the lack of public transport has left families in the Western suburbs struggling to pay for their commutes.
Pretty scary, I imagine a map for our region would look similar, though the numbers would likely be a lot higher (6% is probably pretty typical here). Metro has a calculator that can help show whether you’d save on your commute by taking transit. If you’re not taking transit, at $4 a gallon I bet it’s worth taking a second look.
Nice post. The map says it all.
Of course, Seattle’s car-loving Republikan old guard, teamed up with “liberal” old tmers (see: Crosscut & The Weakly) would celebrate the red zone. Why should they be bothered over small town kids fighting “strategic interest” wars to protect the flow of oil which protects their exurban lifestyles?
And I wonder when the Ron Sims + Discovery Institute Cult fiigures out you’ve got to burn an awful lot of diesel to bus people in from the red zone.
Tell me something I don’t know!
Another interpretation of the map is that the folks who live closer in to the city are richer, and therefore spend a smaller % of income on gas (but they might consume just as much, or more, in absolute terms).
The point remains, though — the outlying areas are going to feel the pinch the most.
I thought Atlanta was the city of MARTA, which Seattle residents love to hold up as what could have been. Are we now considering MARTA a transit failure?
Frank, I’d be interested in seeing an income-adjusted version, yes.
On the other hand, I suspect it would look just the same. Median income doesn’t change that much from center to edge here in Seattle – the median income in the city might actually be lower than the median income out in Redmond or Sammamish. There are a lot more students in the city, and as there are older buildings, rents can be a lot lower.
My gas consumption is a little over 13% of my income. The only reason I’m financially okay is the fact I don’t have to pay rent or food. I can’t wait to move to Seattle.