12 ms·
> First, people have been leaving large, dense, expensive urban cores for smaller, less-dense cities and suburbs. This trend is going to make reducing CO2 emis
by Tiktaalik 5y ago
> First, people have been leaving large, dense, expensive urban cores for smaller, less-dense cities and suburbs.
This trend is going to make reducing CO2 emissions even harder.
- sanderjd 5y agoMaybe maybe not. A lot depends on what happens next. The assumption here is that people are moving out of urban areas and then not commuting back in. If that really is the case, unlike in the commuting form of suburbanization, then service businesses will follow those people, if they are allowed to. This would be a great outcome, but it depends on a lot of assumptions.
- zozbot234 5y ago> If that really is the case, unlike in the commuting form of suburbanization, then service businesses will follow those people, if they are allowed to. That would require these areas to be zoned for mixed business/residential, which very few suburbs are.
- sanderjd 5y agoYes, I didn't say explicitly, but this is what I meant by "depends on a lot of assumptions". It will require different regulatory thinking for this to work out positively.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ravitation 5y agoWhile I agree we don't really know, I think it is quite likely to have a negative effect. Take, for example, these comments, which are full of people who have left NYC, a place where you can function entirely without a car, and moved to places like Texas and Florida, where you, for the most part, cannot. Sure they might not be commuting anymore (which was likely by public transit anyway), but they are now driving several times a day, likely relatively far distances, when they were not before.
- sanderjd 5y agoThis seems like a sample bias. Even if lots of people here who have moved used to commute by public transit, the reality is that most people commute by car. Reducing commuting is generally a very good thing.
- ravitation 5y agoEliminating the commute, when it is replaced by living in a suburb with essentially no access to services without driving (especially when there was access before), can still be a net negative... That's the point of the anecdote...
- sanderjd 5y agoYes I know. My point is that I think it's unlikely that anything comes out behind eliminating commutes. Even "essentially no access to services" is closer access to services than the common exurban commuting distance.
- ravitation 5y agoI mean you responded as if you think I was using HN comments as a representative sample and not as an illustrative anecdote... > Even "essentially no access to services" is closer access to services than the common exurban commuting distance. Okay... But it's not a one-to-one replacement... A single two-way commute might be replaced by significant drives to the grocery store, restaurants, schools, after-school activities, etc... Honestly, despite all of this discussion, I think the idea that commutes will be broadly eliminated long-term is the bigger assumption than general suburban driving being a net positive compared to commuting or vice versa.
- sanderjd 5y agoI think it's very likely that commuting to white collar jobs is in the process of undergoing a very significant and lasting change. The magnitude of it remains to be seen, but even significant changes on the margin can drive structural shifts.