Cars in America

Cars in America edited by Andrea C. Nakaya

The essay collection is available at the library in "Gale in Context", which has one of the most horrible UIs for reading. That is probably for the best, because the content is fairly worthless. The essays I read felt like they were written by middle-schoolers. There were discussions of cars making you fat, fuel cells, teen drinking and various other topics. Nothing I read was very enlightening or well done, so I just skimmed over the other titles.

A Brief History of Motion

A Brief History of Motion: From the Wheel, to the Car, to What Comes Next by Tom Standage

People have had different ways of moving around on land. For most of history, humans have moved by foot. Even early people that had the wheel did not use it extensively. Animals, such as horses, provided a means of faster movement. Rails were an improvement that allowed for greater mobility, but were still pulled by horses. Then engines came about. The age of rail was started. Later engines were mounted on bicycles and carriages to launch cars. (The good roads movement made this possible.) Henry Ford's assembly line helped make cars cheap and accessible to all. People saw cars as a great improvement as they eliminated the manure problem. However, they have produced their own pollution. First the particulate matter was observed. The emissions were made cleaner, but then global warming and CO2 was seen as a big problem. Now electric cars are making in roads. Will this cause issues? the author posits that the data collected by electric cars may be a problem. Maybe. But more likely it is some issue that we have not yet brought to the forefront. The rare-earth metals needed for batteries. good be an issue. Electricity production could also be problematic. (Is anything really "full sustainable"? Wind, solar and hydro all need to be built with materials and have a lifespan.) There is also transmission cost. And this doesn't include all the infrastructure devoted to roads. We have rebuilt our cities based on how we choose to get around. We often find short term improvements, but what is the long term cost?

The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse

A passage from Conundrum was on an SAT practice test. After reading that brief passage, I knew this would be a great book. The book touts some of my preferred arguments about the environment, namely that we need to look at the big picture and not pieces in isolation.
Many "green" actions can have significant negative implications for the environment because they encourage us to continue much larger scale environmentally destructive behaviors. More fuel-efficient cars may eliminate a small amount of tailpipe emissions. This will save some money and make a slight dip in local pollution. However, the money saved will likely be cycled into other purchases that impacted the environment. Furthermore, the new car had to be purchased. The environmental impact of car production is often more significant than the impact of fuel to power it. However, the negative impacts of production are spread across many locations and not as readily noticed. Lower costs also encourage more driving. This encourages more development that is optimized for driving, including spread out areas with large roads and parking lots. More trips now require a car, leading to more pollution.
Similarly, efforts to relieve automobile congestion are often couched in environmental terms. If cars are not stuck in traffic, they wont pollute as much, right? Wrong. Adding new traffic lanes almost always increases demand. While there may be a short term reduction in congestion, in the long term, cars come to fill up the area, resulting in more congestion and much more pollution, along with more car-centric development. Even public transit can be damaging. While public transportation systems in dense urban areas may be helpful, most systems built today are sold as ways to "reduce traffic congestion". These far-flung transit systems often require park and ride lots and encourage more car-centric development in the netherworlds of metropolitan areas. Cars get a short term boost in faster travel times. If we truly wanted to help the environment and reduce traffic, we should also remove car lanes when we build transit system - however that is rarely done.
Residents of Manhattan are some of the greenest in the country. The emissions produced per person are much lower than any other major city in the US. Residents of supposedly "green" Vermont are among the most damaging to the environment. They use more resources, drive more and have a much more negative impact on the environment. They get to "enjoy" the nature that they are simultaneously destroying.
Many so-called sustainable and environmentally friendly practices are not scalable. A local farmers market lets residents access fresh fruits and vegetables. However, there is often a great deal of driving to get there. It cannot scale up to feed an entire population. Eating locally can also result in more negative environmental impact than eating "globally". Even "organic" farming practices can require inputs that are deleterious to the environment. Even our cleaner air and water come at a cost. We are often "exporting" pollution to other places (like China.)
What is one to do? The easiest is to consume less. Money spent does correspond fairly closely to environmental impact. Look at the big picture. Car emissions are something we see locally. However, the emissions from a single car are almost a rounding error in the total impact of automobiles. The production of vehicles and infrastucutre that supports this mobility is where the bulk of the impact is. Ditching the car will do much more for the environment than buying a fuel-cell electric hybrid. However, the significant benefit will not occur until enough of us drop the car and change the way our land is built up. Similarly, many other "small actions" may help us feel good about ourselves, but do very little for the environment. "Green energy" may help a little, but it still has significant costs. Consuming less is really the only solution.

If I Stay

A teenage girl lives with her family in Oregon. One day they go on a car trip in snowy conditions. Her parents die immediately. Her brother dies in the hospital. She is alive, but barely. If I Stay is narrated from the girls perspective. She "sees" what is going on. She can wander around in the hospital to see the people that are working there and those that come to visit. She gradually unfolds her history. She comes from an artistic family. Her dad was a punk drummer before becoming a school teacher. She, however, "rebelled" against punk and became an accomplished cellist. She managed to fall for a punk boyfriend. They seemed nothing alike. However, they shared a common love of music. The boyfriend went through great effort to be able to see her in the hospital. (He even involved a famous musician to try to district people.) Eventually, a friendly nurse showed up and let him in. He finally convinced her that it was worth it to keep on living. The book does a good job of providing the traditional coming of age love story from a very different angle.

Auto Biography

Auto Biography interweaves the history of the 57 Chevy with the life of Tommy Arney. Among other things, Arney had a car yard with plenty of "project cars." One car was a 57 Chevy that had the complete lineage available. The author goes through the lives of each of the owners and their experience with the car, combining that with the history of the car. Tommy's biography is much more complex. He was an elementary school dropout who grew up very rough with a strong temper. He lived a very vulgar, violent youth. He was regularly getting in fights, and would try to seek out vengeance for any perceived wrongs. He later discovered cars and eventually built up a "redneck empire" including a car lot, gogo bar, restaurant and various properties. However, he did that by taking loans from a bank. The bank was perhaps a little too liberal with the money, and he eventually plead guilty to defrauding the public (by taking loans to pay off loans) and had to serve time in jail. he also had regular run ins with the local authorities who wanted his property to have proper "bushes" and other landscaping features.
The restoration of the 57 Chevy takes a long time, and thus gets interleaved with many events in the book. Part of the length is simply the need to take time to work on it. Other projects come in and out in the process. However, finding the parts and doing the work also take a singificant amount of time. Parts need to be found from various other parts. Missing chunks of metal need to be replaced. Everything needed to be smoothed and sanded. The frame and body needed to be worked on independently. The total restoration cost much more than the value of the car. However, it did make for a nice car. The author then attempted to invite all possible previous owners to view the restored masterpiece. Many of the later owners did not recognize it. (The portion with the VIN is still the same, but much of the rest had been replaced.)

How to fix parking problems in Seattle

Currently, permit street parking can be had for $65 for two years. This should be raised to $1000 for one year. This would still be much cheaper than garage parking (which typically runs a few hundred dollars per month.) People that absolutely need long term street parking could still obtain it. However, many would seek other areas for parking. This may be other areas with abundant street parking. Or, they may decide the car is just not worth it. This will free up additional short term parking in areas where it is really needed. In conjunction with the higher permits, parking meters should be required in all areas with the permits. This would further encourage higher-value parking use. Having pay parking everywhere can reduce the need for circling and save people time (and money!)

In addition to parking, we need to better manage the traffic passing through areas. One simple solution is to add tolls to bridges. The 520 bridge already has a toll. The I-5, Aurora and West Seattle bridges should also get tolls. This provides a nice equitable solution. All toll bridges have a parallel non-toll bridge. People can easily avoid the toll by using the free bridge. The tolls on the bridges can vary based on congestion. Since there will likely be some spillover from the toll bridges to the nearby "free" bridges, the toll money will also be used to improve transit and pedestrian and bike experience. This will help limit excess traffic as well as improve the flow for everyone.
A toll should also be added to enter the downtown region. Initially it will be charged at Stewart and Mercer. The toll will eventually expand to other entry points. The rate will vary based on downtown congestion. (Will be free for lowest congestion periods.)


Downtown, cars should be completely banned from 3rd Ave during AM and PM peaks. Currently it is primarily a bus road. However, cars can legally go a block before turning. Restricting all car traffic can improve the flow of transit. Furthermore, crossings of 3rd should be significantly limited. Vehicle crossings would only be allowed on certain streets. Traffic control officers can be stationed on these streets to prevent blocking the intersection. This will improve the flow of buses (no longer will one car block a series of buses). It will also help make traffic more predictable.
Car use should also be limited generally downtown. Cars should be prohibited altogether from areas that impact bus service. If a new building Prohibit use in areas that impact bus service. If a new building is going up on a major bus route, it may not have a parking entrance on that street.


Parking construction must also be addressed. There should be no parking requirements for any new construction. If parking is added, an impact fee will be charged for each parking space. This fee will be much higher in congested zones. The current structure has been fairly backward, with the fees being charged for new units, while not being charged for new parking. Without parking, there would not be demand for so much car travel and thus not so much congestion. (People that want to live without a car should not have to pay for the parking space and pay for the privilege of living in a walkable area.)


An additional parking tax should be charged on a per-space basis. The charge will vary based on the area. This tax will be paid regardless of the utilization of the parking space. Thus any owners of parking space will have an incentive to make the space usable or convert it to something else. Wide open parking areas will be a very expensive option. Well priced, usable and accessible parking will be ideal. This tax will be in addition to the current parking tax paid by parkers.

Green Metropolis

Green Metropolis touts New York as a great environmental success story. In spite of many large structures, New Yorkers use far less energy per capita than residents of any other American city. In environmental discussions, much time and effort is spend on small programs, like LEED building standards and improving gas mileage. However, a far larger bang for the buck can be achieved simply by increasing density. The irony is that many people would love to live in these more dense cities, yet policies actively counteract these desires. Zoning regulations and car requirements make walk-ability difficult to achieve. Even attempts at "new urbanism" still keep car availability as primary focus.

This is a must read for any environmentalist. While "going back to nature" may make a person feel good, they are not doing much to help out the overall environment. Going back to the city is the true way to sustainability. Then those suburban tracts could be used for good viable farmland.

Reading this again in 2018 reminds me that things have not improved. Seattle has one of the few growing bus systems in the US. However, they have spent countless dollars to move cars a little faster on Mercer - at the expense of pedestrians. Getting "upzones" is a huge challenge. People love their single family homes. They would like to have the benefits of a city with everything close. But, they would also like easy access to cars and a large lawn. Cities are beneficial almost entirely because of the challenges. They are not easy, but it does make things better for everyone.

A Garage Full of Bikes

Our garage is full of bikes. Is the expense worth it?

We went many years without a car, and now have only one minivan, so for car-obsessed California, the answer would probably be yes. (In spite of having all sorts of "fancy" bikes we still haven't come close to spending as much on them as on the car.)

But are bikes the most economical way to travel?

At Stanford, biking easily beat out driving. (Even with the added expense of replacing a stolen bike.)

Cost of commuting to Stanford:
"A" parking permit: $747/year
or "C" parking permit: $291/year
Gas: ~ $4/day ~ $800/year

Thus, if there were a "freely available" car with no additional expenses (oil, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, etc.) the yearly cost to drive would be somewhere between one and two thousand dollars.

Bikes can park next to the building, while "C" permits are a 15 minute walk, and A permits can be a couple minutes walk away. A high-speed bike ride during rush hour can easily be faster than "C" parking, and even competitive with "A" parking. During off-peak times, however, driving can be faster. However, biking leaves you a bike on campus which allows for fast trips to other areas of campus (as well as journeys in to Palo Alto.)

Overall, the convenience of biking is similar (or perhaps better) than driving, with a significantly lower cost. It also provides exercise.

However, it is not the cheapest means to get to work. It requires purchasing a bike, along with maintaining it. Stanford also provides free bus and train passes. If timed right, a walk to the bus stop + bus + train + bus can be somewhat competitive with driving or biking. However, there is typically only one "fast" timing per day, with a few other "somewhat acceptable" timings. However, every few months a schedule change can change this timing (and sometimes, there is no good timing. A late bus can also throw everything off.

Thus transit is low cost, and can be comparable timewise - if you are lucky. But also provides limited options.

Now I'm working closer to home with free parking. Cost to drive to work would be around $1 per day in gas. Driving is a little faster, but not by much. (Stop signs and lights are more of the limiting factor. A fast bike ride during AM rush hour could easily be faster than driving.)

Biking's main advantage is in physical activity. In addition to biking to work, it makes it easier to go to the nearby gym (there is plenty of bike parking, but car parking can be hard to find.)

Transit would cost $4 per day and still require between 1.5-2 miles walking per day. (Or for $6/day you could get it down to less than a mile walking, but at the expense of a transfer and a much longer trip.

Walking the entire distance (without a bus) is also fairly reasonable, and only takes about as long as the drive/bike to Stanford. (But why walk if you can go faster?)

Walking would lead to shoes getting worn out faster. Biking would wear out pants faster. This would offset some of the cost savings. Add in a couple slices of bread to account for the extra calories consumed, and the cost advantage from not driving is almost totally eliminated. (The other costs from driving would probably not significantly impact costs. The extra 1000 miles driven would probably not impact insurance rates, registration costs, depreciation or maintenance.)

If I already had a car, but didn't have a bike, driving would win out in the strict monetary calculation. A decent low-cost bike well equipped for commuting (lights, fenders, rack, etc.) could cost a few hundred dollars. Add in rain gear and you are looking at years to earn back the investment.

Reverse the equation, however, and a bike really wins out. Adding a car would cost thousands of dollars in purchase cost, insurance, etc. If a bike can eliminate the need for a car, the savings pour in.

But do the bikes eliminate the need for a second car?

It would seem to be yes. However, looking at the past year, most of the trips could have been accomplished with one car and no bikes. It would, however, have required a great deal of shuttling people around and dropping then off at different places. The shuttling would result in increased gas and parking cost, and would probably be sufficiently large to have a small impact on the other costs of car ownership.

As for the few times that couldn't be solved by excessive shuttling, a rental car could probably be used. (Though this would require some advanced planning and expense.)

If we span these extra costs over a few years, we probably come close to the money we have spent on bicycles. However, bicycles are much more convenient than overloading car use.

Thus, the garage full of bikes is either a break-even proposition for a similar level of convenience, or a money saving alternative to a second car. Physical activity, exercise, easy communication and stress reduction? Well, that's the free bonus.

Traffic

Traffic provides an interesting synthesis of a wide variety of research on "traffic". There are a number of great insights in the book. The key takeaway, however, is that "traffic" is a "social activity", though it is often treated as an engineering problem. If automobiles are made more safe, people will probably just use the safety to kill others instead of themselves. If traffic is made to move faster, people will often use the speed premium to drive further. (People could never have commuted 200 miles a day on foot. However, with cars, some people now do it.)

Traffic problems also date back to ancient times, with Rome suffering from traffic chariot congestion a few millennia ago. (They eventually outlawed daytime traffic, making it difficult for Romans to sleep at night - due to all the nighttime traffic.) One of the issues with traffic today, especially in America, is that it focuses almost exclusively on automobile traffic (with pedestrians viewed as "impediments"). This focus leads to most trips being taken in automobile, which ends up leading to congestion and slower travel times. Even in places like Manhattan where the overwhelming majority of trips are on foot, the majority of the traffic space and resources are devoted to automobiles - with even the signals timed to benefit cars instead of pedestrians.

There is also an interesting comparison of traffic fatalities across nations. Wealthier, more established nations tend to have lower fatality rates. However, this tends to be more a result of the nations being less corrupt. A more corrupt wealthy nation will tend to have a much higher rate than a less corrupt one. Perhaps it is the decrease in corruption associated with wealth that really leads to the lower fatality rate.

The traffic culture also causes some interesting behavior. Drivers in the US will often speed down a road, but stop at a red light - even if no cars are anywhere in sight. Both activities are illegal, but when is considered acceptable, while the other is not. Perception also plays in to the peculiar sentiments and activities. People perceive SUVs as being safer. Yet, SUVs are statistically more dangerous. Is it the personal control that causes this? And while people are willing to take away personal liberties to fight the minor threat of terrorism, they are not willing to do so to fight the much larger threat of automobile crashes.

The author also does a good job of picking apart statistics and our view of them. There are plenty of well sighted studies that come to conclusions after aggregating accident data. However, looking at the data from a different perspective can produce the opposite results. For example, safety data seems to say that a wide road with large buffer zone between the road and buildings is safer. Yet analysis of individual roads shows the narrower sections with buildings nearer to the road have fewer crashes - even though both carry similar traffic volumes. It seems that people often consume the added safety. Perhaps the Dutch idea of integrating roads with human space and stripping away signs really is the way to go.

This book is one of the most objective views of the "traffic" issue. It picks apart at much of the "received" wisdom, yet doesn't attempt to force a specific solution on it. After all, most people would love for everyone else to take transit. They want their street to be a quiet tree-lined road, while the free-flowing super expressway sits just out of earshot.

Super Freakonomics

Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner continue right where they left off in Freakonomics. This book is a very quick read that tackles a number of unconventional economics topics. It does quite well when it focuses on the data. However, at times it ventures off in to the realm of pet projects that don't really have the data.
It presents a great chapter on car seats. The data shows that a child above the age of two is no more likely to die in a car crash when wearing a seatbelt than when in a car seat. Yet we have increasing mandates for carseats. Why is this? Car seat manufacturers have a vested interest in selling more car seats. They often support this interest by showing car seats make children much more safer than leaving them unrestrained. There is also a possibility that they may be less likely to suffer a serious injury. However, the safety would be much greater if we just had child-sized seat-belts. This would also be a much cheaper alternative. (Since the majority of the people riding in the back are children, why not optimize for them? Adjustable seat belts would also be beneficial for smaller sized people. Unfortunately, there is little lobbying effort for this, while there is plenty for car seats. Even adjustable seatbelt makers can be ambivalent. (They could sell the belts with or without a carseat mandate.)

Parents can also be irrational when it comes to safety measures. They would be adamant that they do the "safe thing" for their kid and keep them in the car seat, even if that $50 could help the child's safety in many other ways. (Flame retardant regulations also come to mind. Children's pajamas and furniture are required to be filled with carcinogens to help provide a small delay in the remote chance that they catch on fire. A significant amount of "sure harm" is exchange for a remote possibility of reduced harm. Eliminating cigarettes in the house has proven much more effective. However, flame retardent chemicals let both the chemical industry and the tobacco industry increase sales - while providing a further revenue stream for the health care industry down the road.)

Other sections, however, are much less convincing. A discussion on global warming is especially poor. At the start of the chapter the authors discuss the "dangers of global cooling" that had worried scientists 40 years ago. Today, of course, the worry has turned to global warming. They present a little data to say that "its happening, but its not the end of the world." Then they proceed to speak in favor of piping chemicals to the stratosphere to induce global cooling.

From that discussion, it would seem to follow that we'd want a couple of pipes, one to spew out greenhouse gases and the other cooling gases. Then we could regulate the earth's temperatures. Only, we don't even have models that can accurately predict the weather for one location a week in advance. How do we expect to predict and manage the world for years? The "solution", unfortunately, could become a big part of the problem. (And could lead to many geopolitical issues, depending on who controls it.)

Agriculture discussions are also somewhat week. Ammonium Nitrate is praised as allowing great population booms. However, the externalities are not mentioned. The localvore movement is criticized because the small scale. However, no data is given to back this up or discuss other differences. (You could easily critique inappropriate local food as being wasteful [corn in the desert]. However, moving beyond commodities, local produce will likely be differet, and could even be grown on a greater scale than the industrial produce.)

The pitty of these shortcomings is that the book acknowledges the same shortcomings in other sections. The problems of "unintended consequences", externalities and detailed data analysis are all given ample discussion in the book. Unfortunately, many of the cases fail to take these in to account. This leaves the book bouncing around from rigourous pieces to fluff, and even investigative journalism. It's all entertaining, just not entirely convincing.

Residential parking?

Biking home in Sunnyvale down Astoria, past Wright, I noticed a number of signs stating "resident parking only". This is in an area where most houses have two and three car garages (with space for at least 2 or 3 more cars on the driveway.) The city requires houses to have 4 parking spots, and many of the houses exceed this.

If the city is willing to spend the money to post signs giving these residents semi-private use of previous public parking, why is it also requiring them to have devote much of their lot to providing additional parking for cars? And furthermore, if street parking is so important, why does it let developers rip out street parking to add multiple private driveways (often leading to private roads with no street parking.)

It probably just comes down to a hidden method of discrimination. Require excessive space devoted to non-living areas, thus keeping property values high. Then donate those 'public' resources in the area to the local residents. In order to not appear too callous, funds can be allocated to subsidized housing. However, these are often kept away from the monolithic single family areas (often in isolated new developments disconnected from most public amenities.) The city also gets to serve as a gatekeeper, allowing it to enforce some restriction of access.

Removing parking requirements and regulations would be the free market solution to obtaining the proper allocation of parking space. However, that would hurt some of the 'sinister' motives in parking policy. Thus we are left with pockets of parking shortages, even while having a huge glut of parking spaces in the city.

More stupid car tricks

In Palo Alto yesterday, I was in the right turn lane from Quarry to El Camino. There was a green right turn arrow, but the cars ahead of me were not turning. Hmmm... I looked up and saw at least three cars making a U-turn on El Camino. "Why do they have a green right turn arrow for us, while cars could also U-turn in to the same path?" When I looked back at the intersection, I found why - it is very clearly signed "No U turn".

In Cupertino, I was waiting at a red light at Bollinger and De Anza. A car came next to me, slowed down, then plowed through the red light to cross 8 lanes of traffic. Luckily she didn't hit anyone else. Had she simply waited 5-10 seconds more, she could have gone through a green light.

On another section of De Anza, I saw a car come to the red light at Lazaneo and De Anza, stop for a bit, then make a left turn across the 8 lane street on De Anza. (Here it would have been about 30 seconds more waiting for a green.)

In Sunnyvale, at the The Dalles and Lewiston, the crosswalk is painted bright yellow, the word "STOP" has been been freshly painted on the ground, and the stop sign is plainly visible. All this didn't stop a car from zooming right through at speed that looked to be faster than the 25 mph speed limit.

These are just some of the really bad 'car tricks'. There are plenty more of the garden variety "going through a stop sign at 15 mph". (It's ok because they slowed down from 35 mph, right? Uh, even though it was a 25 mph zone.) And of course the 'left turn on stale green arrow'. (Though perhaps they just have lights timed badly to give opposing traffic a green light for 5 seconds before the arrow turns red.)

Stupid Car Tricks

I saw a police car zooming down Olive Ave. in Sunnyvale with its sirens blaring. It reached Mathilda. Sirens still blaring. The commuters on Mathilda could care less. They kept going. One set of cars. Then another. Then another. Finally after multiple sets of cars went through, the police car was able to get by. (Did he have to wait for a red light?) Looks like busy streets are a serious public safety hazard.

The law of unintended consequences

When cars first came in to being they seemed great. They allowed people freedom of transportation at greater ease and distance than walking. They were much cheaper than horse carriages, and didn't produce the 'nasty' pollution of horse manure. In California, especially, they allowed people to rid themselves dependency from the ugly train monopoly. The rail barons seemed to exercise way to much control, and this was a great opportunity to get rid of the railroads influence. Building more roads was the solution to the problem. The early adopters had great mobility advantages.

However, as more people owned cars, some problems started to appear. Congestion slowed traffic. The simple solution was 'limited access roads'. However, this ability to drive greater distances on freeways was no use unless there was a place to park. So, minimum parking requirements were put in place. Things were still somewhat manageable. Kids would walk to school, and come home at play. Most households had just one worker, so one car was enough.

However, these old neighborhoods were still a little too dense for optimal car use; and nobody wanted to live on a busy street. So, new neighborhoods were built with more space for cars, and often with 'fences' facing the busy streets. These 'fence streets' were miserable to walk on, but most everybody was expected to stay in their neighborhood. Some parents started driving their children to school. It seemed to be faster. As more households had both parents working, a daycare "drop off" on the way to work became more of a norm. Dropping off at school just seemed to be a natural extension. Since houses were further apart (and family sizes smaller), neighborhood schools began shutting down. Initially some bus service could be provided. But this was much slower than driving kids, so most parents opted to drive. Soon, driving to school became the norm. School districts then begin to offer special magnet programs at various schools. The parents are expected to drive. This all goes to create more traffic, and make it even more difficult for children to walk to school. The benefit some parents initial gained from driving kids to school, eventually became a loss to kids that actually wanted to safely walk to their neighborhood school.

These loses extended to other areas. The initial benefit of low-cost super-stores resulted in the loss of neighborhood stores. Sure, the Wal*Mart had things much cheaper than the neighborhood store. But, it required an up-front purchase of a car, and additional ongoing costs of owning and operating the vehicle, as well as taxes for the roads. (If Walmart opened with a $20000 initiation fee, and $2000 in annual dues, nobody would go there. However, by externalizing that cost in to a 'necessity', it became more palatable.) The price of low-cost also destroyed some local community institutions. Would Wal*Mart support the little league team? Would Home Depot provide the nuances of how to fix the obscure electrical outlets in your neighborhood? Probably not. But they would sell you the wrong receptacle for 20% less.

The gradual elimination of transit and scattered development seemed good at first. There was no need to funnel all traffic on trains to a central location. In theory, homes and workplaces could form a fine mesh, where nobody has to travel too far and no road is too congested. Problem is, things don't work this way. People don't want to live near retail or industrial. Businesses like to be near other similar businesses. The big-box phenomenon was affecting companies as well, through consolidation, and formation of large offices. Zoning comes in to the picture to make things even worse. So today we have a model where there are many residential, industrial, commercial and retail clusters. The clusters are large enough to cause huge traffic jams. However, they are too spread out to really enable an effective transit solution. Even the few that provide adequate clusters for transit often provide just a drop in the bucket of the overall travel demand.

And finally pollution. We have replaced horse manure with carbon monoxide, ozone, and a host of other air pollutants. Noise pollution has also become a serious problem. And, as another unintended consequence, water pollution has become a serious problems as farmers use excess chemical fertilizers on their farms. Perhaps horse manure wasn't so bad after all.