Alternative ways to build US cities and suburbs for the future

[mhays]

I should have said they only solve part of the problem. I'm sure you're right that centralized generation is better on average, even with energy transport loss.

Transit will be far more efficient in general, regardless.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I've read that internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient, and that electricity generation at power plants can be more efficient. So, it could, at least in theory help reduce carbon emissions.

So, they have potential to solve some problems.

I have to disagree you are talking about a machine that can move people and cargo in a comfortable climate controlled environment 20 miles in 20 minutes on a single gallon of gas. ( for $2-$4)

Modern vehicles are absolutely incredible machines, we don't think about them but they are.

Large engines are only "more efficient" because of scale.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I have to disagree you are talking about a machine that can move people and cargo in a comfortable climate controlled environment 20 miles in 20 minutes on a single gallon of gas. ( for $2-$4)

Modern vehicles are absolutely incredible machines, we don't think about them but they are.

Large engines are only "more efficient" because of scale.

By efficient, he means that there is a significant amount of energy loss in order to propel internal combustion engines. Other forms of power (hydrogen, electric, nuclear) are much more efficient. This has been known for many decades.

[Steely Dan]

also, "20 miles in 20 minutes" is a laughable absurdity most of the time where I live.

and i'm not some knee-jerk anti-car crusader. we own a car and we do use it sometimes, but i'm also not blind to their shortcomings and negative impacts.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

also, "20 miles in 20 minutes" is a laughable absurdity most of the time where I live.

And trains are just as fast or faster, lol. Trains were able to move that fast before cars were able to do it.

[Obadno]

A train requires a massive steam, coal or gas engine car and predetermined track.

A car can be owned by an individual and go anywhere with a reasonably flat surface to drive on and on a flat road easily moves faster than a train.

Its not even comparable I dont know why you would? Are we now going to pretend like automobiles were not and are not world changing machines?

Windmills could churn flower for centuries so turbines aren't that impressive?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

A train requires a massive steam, coal or gas engine car and predetermined track.

A car can be owned by an individual and go anywhere with a reasonably flat surface to drive on and on a flat road easily moves faster than a train.

Its not even comparable I dont know why you would? Are we now going to pretend like automobiles were not and are not world changing machines?

Windmills could churn flower for centuries so turbines aren't that impressive?

lol, you're right that it's not comparable: High speed rail. But even before high speed rail, trains could easily reach 100 mph.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I have to disagree you are talking about a machine that can move people and cargo in a comfortable climate controlled environment 20 miles in 20 minutes on a single gallon of gas. ( for $2-$4)

Modern vehicles are absolutely incredible machines, we don't think about them but they are.

Large engines are only "more efficient" because of scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

[jd3189]

One question I have been thinking about is whether or not it could ever be possible within this century for parts of major metro areas in the US or Canada to be re-zoned as something very close to a streetcar suburb at the very least? It wouldn’t be exactly like the late 19th- early 20th centuries era ( infrastructure for disabled folks would still have to be built) but I think it would solve some of the problems.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by jd3189

One question I have been thinking about is whether or not it could ever be possible within this century for parts of major metro areas in the US or Canada to be re-zoned as something very close to a streetcar suburb at the very least? It wouldn’t be exactly like the late 19th- early 20th centuries era ( infrastructure for disabled folks would still have to be built) but I think it would solve some of the problems.

There would have to be community buy in. Most of the previous streetcar suburbs are now just suburbs and people with money prefer to keep it that way. Even in a relatively high density city like SF, there’s already tons of opposition to high density housing being built on a pre-existing commercial corridor that is one block away from an existing streetcar line in one of the outer neighborhoods.

https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/new-rend...francisco.html

[edale]

Originally Posted by jd3189

One question I have been thinking about is whether or not it could ever be possible within this century for parts of major metro areas in the US or Canada to be re-zoned as something very close to a streetcar suburb at the very least? It wouldn’t be exactly like the late 19th- early 20th centuries era ( infrastructure for disabled folks would still have to be built) but I think it would solve some of the problems.

Can you give some examples of what you mean? I can think of many suburban areas that have embraced higher density development in their cores, or around transit (if it exisits), while preserving SFH neighborhoods. That's basically the streetcar suburbia model, no? Moderate density in the core, around transit, and along major arterials, with SFH or low density multifamily in the rest of the neighborhood. Or are you referring to something else?

[jd3189]

^^^ That’s close to what I was thinking, similar to the Riversale, Toronto example in one of the videos of the OP. But I think existing SFH dominated neighborhoods should be rezoned to also include some low-density multi-family and mixed use development, similar to a lot of the small towns in the NE and even the Sunset District in SF. Neighborhoods like that would still offer the chance of homeownership but also be more walkable and compact, reducing the need to drive almost all the time to get anywhere important.

[mhays]

Tacoma is joining the parade of cities that will allow multiple units on every SFR lot, and encouraging more density overall. https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/...g-changes.html

A lot of cities are doing this in various forms.