As some people in Metro Vancouver continue to applaud funding gigantic bridges, and in some powerful quarters to lust after building tract-home subdivisions on the Agricultural Land Reserve, Smart Growth continues to attract other people.
Todd Litman has published a concise and detailed (how does he do that?) guide to countering criticism of Smart Growth by the proponents and defenders of 1950’s-style sprawl.
Writes Litman:
Smart Growth: refers to development principles and planning practices that create more efficient land use and transport patterns. It includes numerous strategies that result in more accessible land use patterns and multi-modal transport systems. It is an alternative to sprawl. Smart Growth is supported by diverse interest groups and professional organizations. Smart Growth has been criticized by various individuals and organizations. This paper evaluates that criticism.
Critics tend to assume that consumers prefer large single-family homes in automobile-dependent communities, and that current transport and land use policies are overall efficient and fair. As a result, they criticize Smart Growth as being harmful to consumers and the economy. This ignores evidence that many people will choose other housing and transport options if given suitable options and incentives, and that current markets are distorted in ways that increase sprawl and automobile dependency. Many Smart Growth strategies are market reforms that correct existing market distortions, increasing consumer options, economic efficiency and equity. Critics endorse some Smart Growth strategies in recognition that they increase market efficiency.
Critics often misrepresent Smart Growth and make various analytical errors which can lead to false conclusions. They often evaluate Smart Growth based simply on gross regional population density, ignoring other Smart Growth factors, geographic scales, and confounding factors. As a result, some evidence presented by critics misrepresents key issues. Specific Smart Growth criticisms are summarized below and evaluated in detail in the body of this report. . . .
. . . Critics tend to assume that consumers are inflexible, helpless and lazy, and so would be unable to accept living in more Smart Growth communities and reducing their automobile travel. However, experience indicates that people are actually quite adaptable and creative, enjoy walking and cycling, and can flourish in a wide range of land use conditions and transportation patterns.
Mr. Litman is a respected researcher and analyst who runs the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Victoria, BC). He is unafraid to wade into the issues with critics, no matter who they are and at what level they discuss the issues.
The bridge is more about what goes under it, than what goes over it.
If drivers had to pay or even understood the true cost of driving, I think Smart Growth would be better accepted. Most people don’t understand the subsidies for driving and get upset about transit subsidies. Also, people also need to factor in transportation costs when they make decisions on where to live. According to CAA, a motor vehicle costs $10,000 per year to own and operate. That means working one day a week to support your vehicle.
I know many people who live without owning a car, even some with children and have one or more memberships in car-share programs.
I think the most dedicated car-free people I know have young children who ride from Kitsilano up the big Point Grey hill every morning to get to school. That takes serious dedication and fitness. I tried it the other day and even though I geared way down and took it slowly I had to stop twice because my legs were burning. When they need a car they rent an Evo.
All our utilities, from water pipes to roads, are built on the assumption that future growth will be sufficient to pay for maintenance and eventual replacement. The big flaw in that plan is that the sale of land usually pays for the initial installation, but once sold that revenue source is gone when it’s time for replacement. It’s the reason why any organization that breaks even by selling assets isn’t sustainable. Eventually there will be no more surplus assets to sell.
The hidden subsidies for driving are numerous and most people don’t or won’t see them. When exposed many will argue for their continued existence, regardless of their overall impact. People can justify almost anything that benefits them personally and will defend a current benefit even against a potentially larger benefit in the future.
Our car costs maybe $1,500./yr to operate – all in. Bought it for cash almost 24 years ago – drive it less than 2,000 kms/yr., and keep it garaged, so repairs are nil – do my own oil changes with synthetic, so that’s $40.00 every few years. We’re heavy bike users. The big expense is insurance – feel totally ripped off.
CAA’s estimate of $10K/yr seems a little rich, though I’ve seen the US AAA peg it at $6K.
A more interesting number is that banksters translate that $6K annual cost into an increased mortgage of $60K if you don’t own. If you’re using the CAA number, that’s a hundred grand. Instead of pissing money away on a vehicle, if someone used that cash for a downstroke ten years ago, that would be a million to the good.
Add the subsidy motorists receive to drive – 5K+ per year – more cash in the toilet.
Eat to live, or live to eat. Drive to work, or work to drive.
If you depend on a car for an average commute plus all the driving around for everything that suburbanites do you won’t own a 24 year old car. You’ll replace it every 3 to 10 years. That drives up the annual cost. You’ll also add some luxury because you spend so much time in it. That adds more annual cost. Most likely, for the “safety of the kids” you’ll have bought into the big SUV safety myth. You’ll be paying way way way more for gas. There will be more repairs and maintenance – most people do not do their own. You’re more likely to get in a collision at some point.
$10,000 sounds likely to me.
Too bad there are many more people supporting bridges and super malls than there are in favour of Smart Growth. The thing that experts and planning wonks like us Price Taggers forget is that without an effective communications strategy the “Smart” characteristics of any policy idea will be lost on the public.
Call it the Perception Gap. Doing the research and interpreting data seems like it should be enough to sway politicians and voters, but sadly, it isn’t. In this day in age, it’s the policy with the most succinct and loud message that wins the day–regardless of its factual merits. Just look back at the Translink referendum and see how it was doomed from day 1. Most people didn’t understand the issues, didn’t know facts from myths and had already been primed to hate Translink. Selling the case for ‘yes’ was a steep climb from the start and sure enough, it failed.
Essays and little town halls are great for those who participate, but what strategies are being employed to bridge the Perception Gap with the voting public at large that Smart Growth policies are better than Motordom policies: for commuters, for the poor, for taxpayers, for the environment? If Smart Growthers can’t frame the issue effectively the public will continue to ignore it. To paraphrase the Zen koan, if a Smart policy paper is written and the public doesn’t read it, does it still exist? I think many experts are stuck thinking that if they just crunch the numbers a bit more then everyone will see the light. The results are great for feeling smug but do nothing to actually solve our problems.
I agree. Despite all the evidence to the facts that are out there, all it takes is an editorial or some articles by the corporate media to make it worth nothing in the perceptions of many. It’s tough for people because for someone who has unquestionably believed those messages, to have to think that they’ve been lied to for years is tough. They’d rather not think about it because they’ve made so many decisions based on those messages. It’s easier to just dismiss it and go back to their typical lives and try to make them work a bit longer.
I don’t have an answer.
Residents of the Vancouver region are well known for their general love of nature. Across Canada it is understood that on a Friday afternoon most Vancouverites have left work and off hiking or kayaking or tree hugging. This is MEC-land.
So, it’s understandable that if you offer these outdoorsie folks a reasonably priced townhouse with some greenery around it and maybe even a real tree outside, they will jump for it. Throw in a garage where they can store their kayak and their bikes and their tens and all those other neat outdoorsie accoutrements and, guess what, they’ll chose it over an expensive box in the sky, particularly once they start a little brood of their own.
Brainwashing with catchy buzz words will only rope in a few.
Studies have been done. It’s been proved. Google Earth shows us.