The average commuting trip length by vehicle was 12.11 miles and has been steadily rising since at least 1983. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/nhts1323.cfm

“Smart growth” development is one of the big changes in recent years. It has been pushed by both developers and by suburban communities seeking real central places with 24 hour populations. It has happened all over the U.S. It’s been the biggest change in land use thinking in 50 years.

Just go the Urban Land Use Institute website and look around.

Neglected to mention that most if not all of these are likely proven building blocks for new transportation systems.

A starting point for determining the proven method(s) for using these building blocks may be found in the industrial design primer “Product Design and Development” by Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger, standard text for introductory courses in industrial design at MIT and elsewhere.

It may be of interest; it seems that MIT gets major funding from special interest groups such as the oil and automotive industries likely to suppress serious development along the proposed lines.

Einstein once remarked that some of the most difficult classical equations were those describing turbulence. It seems that mechanical engineer and MIT Professor Emeritus David Gordon Wilson comes with demonstrated mastery to include his award-winning startup company building heat regenerator systems. He considers his record-breaking recumbent bicycles and human-powered flying machines a hobby, probably out frustration not being able to seriously advance this important technology. (He is the author of Bicycle Science.)

re: “Gecko generally does not insult anyone and has made an effort to be a part of the Streetsblog community. He is not a troll. And he clearly likes unproven technology.”

Just curious about the unproven technology part?

Does this include bicycles, tricycles, recumbent bicycles and tricycles also with electric motors, monorails, magnetic levitation, attractive (opposites attract) nonpowered magnetic levitation (a commercial product), public bicycle systems, Verizon’s VZ Navigator Global Positioning System with associated services also adapted for bicycle travel, Verizon’s suite of business applications based on VZ Navigator GPS functionality some of which may be suitable for bicycles, public and or private bicycle systems . . .

Shweeb which is a modern proof-of-concept prototype on an advanced bicycle system in an used in an adventure park. Cycle rail systems were done in the 1880s. Inventor Geoff Barnett has done a really nice job with this modern system.

Halbach Arrays which is repulsive (same magnetic poles repel) nonpowered magnetic levitation (developed by the US Department of Energy) may be considered proven; just not sure.

And, thanks for helping maintain the spirit of this forum for positive change.

Writer BRETT ARENDS ROI DECEMBER 22, 2008, 8:45 P.M. ET

A Real Auto Bailout: Escape Your Car Whether you drive a hybrid or an SUV, your car is a cash-guzzler. Families trying to save real money should consider going without

. . .

In 2007, the most recent year that numbers are available, the American Automobile Association figured its members paid about $7,800 a year on average to own and maintain their cars. That figure dropped to about $6,200 for small-car owners.

If there were a large-scale unmet demand for “walkable communities” that was being thwarted by zoning laws and government policy, then those laws and policies would be changed by the democratic process. Zoning laws and government policies don’t come out of nowhere; they are the result of the political process.

Democracy is a wonderful thing, but the political process can be slow and clunky, especially when it’s dealing with a technical issue, like zoning, that makes most people’s eyes glaze over. City Council and Mayoral elections usually do not get decided by passionate battles over the zoning code; usually, technical staff and business interests call the shots.

But change is coming, perhaps slowly. In Madison, the existing zoning law is based on conventional wisdom from the Fifties; it favors suburban-type development, even in urban neighborhoods. My neighborhood, for example, is mostly “non-conforming;” if my house suffered more than 50% damage in a fire, I’d need special permission to rebuild it, since the lot is too small and the building is too close to the sidewalk.

But the zoning code is being rewritten right now, and the new code is more urban-friendly. If the final code looks like the current draft, my neighborhood will finally be legal again and developers will be able to create denser neighborhoods without jumping through special hoops.

Even under existing rules, new urbanist developers have generally done fairly well; if the market is less distorted by outmoded rules, they should probably do even better.

If there were a large-scale unmet demand for “walkable communities” that was being thwarted by zoning laws and government policy, then those laws and policies would be changed by the democratic process.

Funny, Gary, I don’t recall ever seeing a mini-mall or cul-de-sac development plan on my election ballot.

We’ve been sprawling and suburbanizing for 50 years or more, all across the country, because that is the kind of land-use and transportation pattern that most people, on balance, prefer…those advantages are not enough to offset disadvantages like more expensive housing, longer travel times, more congestion, more noise, less privacy and so on.

As you seem to acknowledge, Gary, Americans haven’t been given much choice these last 50 years. Housing in walkable communities is more expensive, in part, because the demand for such walkable communities is far greater than the current supply.

If there were a large-scale unmet demand for “walkable communities” that was being thwarted by zoning laws and government policy, then those laws and policies would be changed by the democratic process. Zoning laws and government policies don’t come out of nowhere; they are the result of the political process. If you can’t muster enough public support to change laws and policies in the way you would like, that means your views simply aren’t shared by enough people for you to get your way.

We’ve been sprawling and suburbanizing for 50 years or more, all across the country, because that is the kind of land-use and transportation pattern that most people, on balance, prefer. “Walkable communities” are few and far between. I’m sure many people who live in sprawling suburbs would agree that there are certain advantages to denser land-use patterns, but those advantages are not enough to offset disadvantages like more expensive housing, longer travel times, more congestion, more noise, less privacy and so on.

Talk about trolls, Morlocks were those troll-like creatures in HG Wells “Time Machine” that worked underground. Kind of ugly looking critters in the movie.

Please be nice!

The last time I took the subway was Bike-to-Work day and it’s difficult for me to bring myself down there again since you called me a bike fanatic and I realized how much time I wasted walking to and from subways and how much time I spent in it underground; dealing with the crowds, in the heat, watching the rats on the dirty tracks, bored looking at the walls and ceilings, and often waiting way too long especially, way off-peak. (Even though the subway system is the best it has ever been; and, I have been using the subway a lot longer than you have.)

Spending some time at a bike store recently the word is that a lot of the people looking at bikes feel the same way. Some of the comments by pedestrians on the streets also lead to this conclusion. The biggest concern is safety. As more people realize it is not that bad cycling the streets things will keep getting a lot better.

Of course, the Taxi industry is the special interest group most threatened and have a vested interest in the status quo with people locked into the current transit system. And, a suitably large public bike system is a real mass transit system (so, please understand this) and the first major step to a much better transit system for the entire city.

It is too bad you can’t ride a bicycle also. If the streets were safe from cars you could since, there are easier and safer vehicles to get around on than standard upright bicycles. The people who require these vehicles are much more vulnerable to cars and New York City’s often imperfect streets.

This is really an accessibility legal issue and should be dealt with as such to uphold the rights of the disabled; and, hopefull will happen sooner than later.

“…the subway system which can be expensive…” At $2.25 a ride? With further discounts for buying in bulk? And the option of unlimited-use cards?!

“…unreliable…” Funny thing, in my neighborhood it’s very reliable.

“Existing transit systems are really primitive legacy systems…” Yeah, the subway has been serving New Yorkers for more than a century. That sticks in your craw, doesn’t it? If it were brand-new, you’d probably take a different tack and call it unproven technology.

“…and do not respond to the current transportation, economic, and environmental crisis we are in.” How odd. 99 percent of the people who participate in this blog believe cars are at the root of those problems and that transit is in fact a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

But don’t let me get in the way of your fantasies. Free asphalt for everyone! Troll away, Gecko!

If the streets were perceived as safe and the other inconveniences removed such as parking and dealing with weather (which may not be bad as it seems) people would be switching in droves at the same time saving a lot of money except maybe for food since they will likely be eating more.

Existing transit systems are really primitive legacy systems and do not respond to the current transportation, economic, and environmental crisis we are in.

No, we should be, and are, and will continue to, build the kind of communities people want to live in. Since land-use policies and patterns are ultimately determined by the collective voting behavior and purchasing decisions of individuals, you’ll only get “walkable communities” to the extent that there is a demand for them.

Actually, people look at the available alternatives and take the best deal they can get. People who want a reasonably dense, walkable community may also want an affordable mortgage, safe streets, good schools, and nearby families with kids. If the only available housing in the city comes with scary streets, lousy schools, etc., they’ll settle for a house with a cul-de-sac in a sprawlburg and put up with a long commute, because it’s the best they can do; maybe they’ll move into a condo in the city when the kids are grown. But the suburban house is not what they really wanted, and it’s not where they would have moved if zoning, and government fiscal policy had given them different alternatives.

Currently, the government still puts a thumb on the scales of “free enterprise” to favor suburban sprawl. Even so, Traditional Neighborhood Developments tend to do well, because there is a lot of pent-up demand for moderately dense, walkable communities. The recent housing bust hit the exurban developments (i.e., the big houses on big lots that everyone is supposed to want) a lot harder than older houses close to town. I know that in my neighborhood (a classic streetcar suburb in Madison, WI), houses are selling, without a major drop in property values. Other neighborhoods, less walkable and further from town, are not doing so well.

Sprawl began even before the mass adoption of cars. It started with public streetcars and buses that allowed workers to live in suburbs and commute to work in the city center.

This sort of sprawl produced “streetcar suburbs” with sidewalks, grid-based street plans, and porches — instead of three-car garages — in front. These suburbs are walkable, neighborly, transit-friendly and bikeable. New Urbanist developers have used these suburbs for new “traditional” developments.

Compared to neighborhoods in central cities, I guess they are “sprawl,” but a much more sustainable and liveable kind of sprawl that the automobile-dependent cul-de-sac suburbs we started seeing after Wold War II.

I haven’t said anything about funding of the Second Avenue Subway. I think it’s probably a colossal waste of money.

Oh. I thought you supported energy-efficient transportation.

I’m not trying to pretend that the less efficient systems don’t exist. I’m trying to give them appropriate weight.

No, you’re not. You’re pretending that the New York subway is representative of rail transit. It isn’t. The New York subway is an unusually efficient rail transit system, because it serves such a dense urban area. Most rail transit is not like that. It serves much less dense areas than the New York subway, and is much less efficient. Future rail transit will also serve much less dense areas. Virtually all the new rail transit that has been built over the past 30 years serves areas with much lower density than New York City. It’s light rail, not heavy rail.

I’m glad you and I agree that the NY subway is far more efficient than automobiles, and that federal transit dollars should be channeled into the Second Avenue Subway.

Whoa. I haven’t said anything about funding of the Second Avenue Subway. I think it’s probably a colossal waste of money.

I don’t have such data.

Then how do you know that “transit trips tend to be shorter” than car trips? If you don’t have any evidence to back up this claim, you’re just presenting wishful thinking on your part as if it were fact.

More fuel-efficient cars, or more appropriately, more energy-efficient cars, would only decrease the costs of travel. This would therefore encourage development to sprawl outward at even greater distances, overwhelming the gains made by fuel-efficiency.

So you oppose the efforts of congress, the Obama administration, the automakers, environmental organizations, etc., to promote more energy-efficient cars, do you?

You offer no evidence for your assertion above, and it is contradicted by historical experience. Sprawl long predates the reduction in oil prices that began around 1980. Sprawl has increased across periods of both rising and falling gasoline prices. Sprawl began even before the mass adoption of cars. It started with public streetcars and buses that allowed workers to live in suburbs and commute to work in the city center. Commuter rail, express bus routes, and BRT also promote sprawl. On your account, faster and cheaper motorized transportation of any mode will promote sprawl, whether it’s private cars or mass transit. The more you extend a mass transit system, the more it will encourage people to take longer trips and use more energy.