interesting post but why do you want to continue growth? Most evidence seems to indicate to me that we should begin the process of contraction in an orderly manner before the failure of major ecosystems does it on our behalf (or oil depletion, which looks like it will get the job done sooner).
Do you think growth should continue? And why is this conversation so difficult to dislodge?
Indeed. I'm not really concerned, however, with whether I want to continue growth. I'm not even sure that I have a position on that. I'm interested in new ways of measuring growth. And, I think Calif has a chance to capture more of world GDP, if it makes the right moves. However, I am skeptical that the populace can make those moves.
I'm more interested in the way in which present society's attempt to continue growth is now in fact quite undermining, of that growth.
The growth paradigm will be almost impossible to dislodge from society. The reasons are not complicated. It's the paradigm the West has been engaged with for 200 years. Also, the present situation totally follows the mainstream contours of psychology.
Moreover, alot of the people who will raise the issue of low or no growth will do so in a way as to alienate those taking a different view, thus making the problem more intractable. Some of the best and the brightest will be among those who will be most hostile to a low-growth thesis, to boot. They will be vocal, and persuasive.
I'm quite interested now in the sociology of the situation.
G
rossgreenspan
· 7 months ago
Growth/no-growth is a semantics dilemma. Surely we can't support continued "growth" of suburban and exurban areas reliant on automobiles, or growth of coal burning power generation. But we can support growth of localization and decentralization initiatives, the slow-food movement, and growth of energy efficiency technologies.
Its all about framing the debate around the transitions we need to undertake.
aangel
· 7 months ago
Ok, let's create a definition for growth in this conversation: expanded human footprint as defined by a group like the Global Footprint Network (http://www.footprintnetwork.org). This is a function of the number of humans multiplied by their individual impact. GFN and others demonstrate that we are deep into overshoot, as does the U.N. Millennium Assessment and recent updates to the Limits to Growth model. Overshoot, by definition, means that we are in a period in which it is possible to fish more than the oceans can regrow, cut more trees than can regenerate, deplete soil nutrients faster than can be replenished, etc. This can't continue forever and many ecosystem services are starting to fail (c.f. ocean acidification for just one example). So I would assert that growth has now become the problem. And efficiency without an absolute reduction in resources usage does not help and may make things worse because it simply frees up more resources for someone else to use (because it lowers the cost by reducing demand).
Freude Bud
· 7 months ago
The growth model is a little older than the last 200 years. The family has been, and remains in large swathes of the world, a quite successful ponzi scheme. Productivity or other efficiency gains, as opposed to gains by virtue of population growth, are, historically speaking, a relatively new model to be accepted--and in most classical societies were actively resisted.
I think you're right to advocate light rail for California (and general all over the country) though ... even if it burned diesel the energy efficiencies from the economies of scale would be substantial. But I wouldn't pooh pooh the new CAFE standards, they will have a tremendous effect. (What would happen if they forced a specifications rationalization across the country, for example?)
I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.
Avent's objection--that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it--seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars--and to light rail and the rest of it--would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy--
his answer--cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.
Cheers, -- FB
BrianSJ
· 7 months ago
The Robert Allen piece is fascinating; the ingredients for political revolution in continental Europe are also pretty clear.
adamclyde
· 7 months ago
Excellent post...
Aside from the inherent cultural issue at play, which you outline, in Southern California, the biggest enemies to widespread commuter rail adoption are the dual problems of commercial sprawl and residential sprawl. No one I know actually works in downtown LA. So until there is a spider-web system of light rail, most people will continue as they do now because, as you suggest, there isn't any choice (driving to catch a train, then catching a bus, then walking or catching a taxi to the office isn't a choice for most people).
But until that spider system of light rail is built, I wonder how much of a change could be brought about by providing some significant incentives to businesses to put their offices in walking proximity to rail lines? Perhaps this system exists already, but it would seem to help counter the tendency to move farther and farther from the few centers of business that are currently served by rail.
That only solves for the commercial sprawl part of the equation - not the residential side, which is also a major problem. (ahh... the wonderful half century of suburban planning at work).
This also reminds me of the great prototypes at the MIT Media Lab on the Smart Cities work. I love the model they put forth. (look here: http://cities.media.mit.edu/ and click mobility and CityCar). Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they've got the full presentation up there that shows what a system like that would look like in suburbia, but it's really provocative. Frankly, it's probably further out than building rail in terms of likely adoption by municipal government, but it's really forward thinking.
Anyhow, great post laying out the current and historical issues...
gregor.us
· 7 months ago
Thanks Adam. The irony to me is that a Madrid-Barcelona type Siemens light rail running the length of Pico Blvd, for example, could actually be tied in with a green belt, bike lanes, etc. The irony is that Californians--because they are like everyone else--crave and are starved for public space. It's all about the mental hurdle. But everytime I have seen new public space created in LA--the crowds are huge.
Light surface rail needs to be built with green grass, in LA. The State needs a governor who can sell it with attractive photos. Having lived in Los Angelels, and having driven much of the 5 main counties in the South, it remains a strange notion that anyone would really want to keep everything safe for traffic. But, change is always more scary than the status quo.
G
microzen
· 7 months ago
Where do you propose to get the water for the surface rail grass?
gregor.us
· 7 months ago
I think one could use succulents, or some other low-fire-fuel ground cover. IN Europe, the frequency of the trams tends to keep the organic material in place, though maintainence is required. It's worth it however, as it acts as a sound dampener.
AMSTERDAM . . . if anybody wants to see how light rail can be employed in a complicated urban setting, this is one example. People, bikes, rail and even cars co-exist on the same streets.
One more point . . . why don't we hire some of those newly unemployed auto workers to build light rail equipment in the US? There are actually quite a few light rail projects being built, or expanded, throughout the US but none of the cars are made in America. Count me as one Republican who sides with the rail advocates.
gregor.us
· 7 months ago
Crazy, isn't it? I know a Ford engineer in Ontario who has been saying for years all the productive capacity could be changed over to build rolling stock--er--trains. For all the capital dumped in the hole, we could have given many auto workers new jobs with a new pension--heck, even moved them to a train making factory if necessary.
We should be making every square inch of a light rail system right here, in the US. From the steel rails, to the electronics, to the trains. We can mine all the copper and iron ore too.
Ridiculous.
G
Belasarius
· 7 months ago
Hmmmm. Maybe if they offered to build them in California people would catch on?
BryanLong
· 7 months ago
Great post, Gregor. But in TRAIN TIME, John Stilgoe gives light rail a lot of criticism, arguing that light rail takes over right of ways that would be better used for heavy rail supporting longer distance passenger and freight service. Higher speed heavy passenger rail could build population and industrial "networks" that improve upon the existing overcrowded metropolitan areas. Maybe. That's just a thought. But if we build lots of new light rail, will we regret it when we realize that we don't have any right-of-way left for heavy rail?
Anon
· 7 months ago
We can put heavy rail in the former highway alignments, surely?
gregor.us
· 7 months ago
I want to see Light Rail put down the large streets or boulevards. I think that one should be able to go from Santa Monica to the Melrose district, for example.
FWIW: I did a quick perusal of public opposition to light rail in LA. As usual, activist groups primarily on the Westside continue to make expansion difficult. Whether its Hancock Park, Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills etc--getting Light Rail to the coast remains difficult.
BTW, I agree with Stilgoe--both as you cite and as far as I have got into Train Time--that commuter rail is as important as Light Rail. However, in Western cities my view is that the distinction is more blurred. For example, the Gold Line to Pasadena is Light Rail. But, it's on a commuter line, and works for commuting. You see this somewhat in Denver now also.
G
David "Buster" Fitzpatrick
· 7 months ago
As an aging baby boomer I find that many people like me can no longer drive for various legal,political, and/or economic reasons. Because of this my career as a string bass player is sadly at a standstill due to the auto-centricy that prevails especially here in the O.C.. Trying to visit freinds in L.A. county is nearly immpossible due to the sketchy (bus-centric) public transit infrastucture we have around here. It angers me that our state under the claim that they have to cancel the transit funds to pay off debts to the agencies that are in dire need for them. We need those transit facilities more than ever. I also hope that the high speed rail projects once they start up will hopfully have the effect of shifting the emphasis away from highway-oriented projects to passenger train and rail transit ones.
All Comments
G
interesting post but why do you want to continue growth? Most evidence seems to indicate to me that we should begin the process of contraction in an orderly manner before the failure of major ecosystems does it on our behalf (or oil depletion, which looks like it will get the job done sooner).
Do you think growth should continue? And why is this conversation so difficult to dislodge?
-André
I'm more interested in the way in which present society's attempt to continue growth is now in fact quite undermining, of that growth.
Sidebar: it appears the reason CIBC's Rubin left, was that his employer was not happy with his no-growth book: http://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/...
The growth paradigm will be almost impossible to dislodge from society. The reasons are not complicated. It's the paradigm the West has been engaged with for 200 years. Also, the present situation totally follows the mainstream contours of psychology.
Moreover, alot of the people who will raise the issue of low or no growth will do so in a way as to alienate those taking a different view, thus making the problem more intractable. Some of the best and the brightest will be among those who will be most hostile to a low-growth thesis, to boot. They will be vocal, and persuasive.
I'm quite interested now in the sociology of the situation.
G
Its all about framing the debate around the transitions we need to undertake.
Overshoot, by definition, means that we are in a period in which it is possible to fish more than the oceans can regrow, cut more trees than can regenerate, deplete soil nutrients faster than can be replenished, etc.
This can't continue forever and many ecosystem services are starting to fail (c.f. ocean acidification for just one example).
So I would assert that growth has now become the problem. And efficiency without an absolute reduction in resources usage does not help and may make things worse because it simply frees up more resources for someone else to use (because it lowers the cost by reducing demand).
I think you're right to advocate light rail for California (and general all over the country) though ... even if it burned diesel the energy efficiencies from the economies of scale would be substantial. But I wouldn't pooh pooh the new CAFE standards, they will have a tremendous effect. (What would happen if they forced a specifications rationalization across the country, for example?)
Tell me what you think of Ryan Avent's take, on a new CAFE: http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2058
Good point about the family. Still, don't you think the 200 Year timeframe works as pretty good shorthand for this? : http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/...
G
I think the 200 year framework represents the time in which population growth has increased its productivity on the basis of medical advances. But the economic thinking behind it remains much the same, just it is less exposed to the vagaries of fate.
Avent's objection--that people will drive more given that the price of gasoline will be mitigated by the fact that they will need less of it--seems a bit of a pique. If you think, and I think you do, that the price of oil is going to rise inevitably over the next ten years due to peak oil, then the tax would be unnecessary. The damage that would do the economy if it has not translated over to much more efficient cars--and to light rail and the rest of it--would be brutal. Check out James Hamilton's paper on the effect of the 2006-8 oil shock on the global economy--
http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/Hamilton_oil_shoc...
Also recent work by Robert C. Allenn on why the Industrial Revolution took place in England:
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3570
his answer--cheap energy (coal) and expensive labor (the advances which increased population so much during the last 200 years are not helping in that arena.) His argument seems very sound to me.
Cheers,
-- FB
Aside from the inherent cultural issue at play, which you outline, in Southern California, the biggest enemies to widespread commuter rail adoption are the dual problems of commercial sprawl and residential sprawl. No one I know actually works in downtown LA. So until there is a spider-web system of light rail, most people will continue as they do now because, as you suggest, there isn't any choice (driving to catch a train, then catching a bus, then walking or catching a taxi to the office isn't a choice for most people).
But until that spider system of light rail is built, I wonder how much of a change could be brought about by providing some significant incentives to businesses to put their offices in walking proximity to rail lines? Perhaps this system exists already, but it would seem to help counter the tendency to move farther and farther from the few centers of business that are currently served by rail.
That only solves for the commercial sprawl part of the equation - not the residential side, which is also a major problem. (ahh... the wonderful half century of suburban planning at work).
This also reminds me of the great prototypes at the MIT Media Lab on the Smart Cities work. I love the model they put forth. (look here: http://cities.media.mit.edu/ and click mobility and CityCar). Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they've got the full presentation up there that shows what a system like that would look like in suburbia, but it's really provocative. Frankly, it's probably further out than building rail in terms of likely adoption by municipal government, but it's really forward thinking.
Anyhow, great post laying out the current and historical issues...
Light surface rail needs to be built with green grass, in LA. The State needs a governor who can sell it with attractive photos. Having lived in Los Angelels, and having driven much of the 5 main counties in the South, it remains a strange notion that anyone would really want to keep everything safe for traffic. But, change is always more scary than the status quo.
G
Lyon: http://www.sunloft.co.jp/gallery/lrt/photo/phot...
One more point . . . why don't we hire some of those newly unemployed auto workers to build light rail equipment in the US? There are actually quite a few light rail projects being built, or expanded, throughout the US but none of the cars are made in America. Count me as one Republican who sides with the rail advocates.
We should be making every square inch of a light rail system right here, in the US. From the steel rails, to the electronics, to the trains. We can mine all the copper and iron ore too.
Ridiculous.
G
FWIW: I did a quick perusal of public opposition to light rail in LA. As usual, activist groups primarily on the Westside continue to make expansion difficult. Whether its Hancock Park, Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills etc--getting Light Rail to the coast remains difficult.
BTW, I agree with Stilgoe--both as you cite and as far as I have got into Train Time--that commuter rail is as important as Light Rail. However, in Western cities my view is that the distinction is more blurred. For example, the Gold Line to Pasadena is Light Rail. But, it's on a commuter line, and works for commuting. You see this somewhat in Denver now also.
G