# Population growth: how to handle that?



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Some regions experience significant population growth. those are mostly located in the United States and southwestern Europe.

The big question is, how to handle that kind of population growth infrastructural?

The approaches to adress this problem are different over the world;

from doing nothing: New York, Netherlands, Belgium, Los Angeles

To mass investments: Houston, Atlanta, Madrid, Lisbon

In my opinion, the solution should not only be found on the infrastructural side, but maybe even more in the spatial planning side. We also see differences there; from multi-center agglomeration like Atlanta with what seems like no spatial restrictions at all to developments within tight restriction like the Netherlands. 

In the long term, neither public transportation nor highways seems to be able to solve transportation problems in the long term. Look at Los Angeles or Randstad for freeways that are extremely congested, to the excessively expensive public transit of New York and Tokyo. 

The eye also wants something, concrete rivers like Houston or rusty elevated subway lines are ruining neighborhoods, causing decay and flight to other areas. 

The best solution, in my opinion, is light restrictive zoning, so no Atlanta/Philadelphia-model suburbs nor unaffordable housing like in London or the Netherlands, combined with 5 or 6 job centers that are connected by both moderatly wide freeways (preferrably 8 lanes max) and subway/lightrail connections. That way, traffic flows are better spread out and transit becomes more cost-effective due to higher ridership outside rushhours and in both directions.


----------



## ren0312 (Oct 30, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Some regions experience significant population growth. those are mostly located in the United States and southwestern Europe.
> 
> The big question is, how to handle that kind of population growth infrastructural?
> 
> ...


To be frank I think the US needs to stop growing, it may have a low population density but half of it is either semidesert, desert, or Alaska, so its current population sounds about right, there is no need for it approach Western European population density levels, the same goes for Australia, which considering its climate is more suitable for a population of 10 million, rather than 20+ million.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/rain_percent.cgi


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

If we look at the U.S. state of Georgia for instance.

Population:

1950: 3.4 million
1960: 3.9 million
1970: 4.6 million
1980: 5.5 million
1990: 6.5 million
2000: 8.2 million
2008: 9.7 million

Texas ain't much better:

1950: 7.7 million
1960: 9.6 million
1970: 11.2 million
1980: 14.2 million
1990: 17.0 million
2000: 20.6 million
2008: 24.3 million

Where does it end?


----------



## ren0312 (Oct 30, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> If we look at the U.S. state of Georgia for instance.
> 
> Population:
> 
> ...


Texas and much of the SouthWest (the most arid region in the US, therefore the region that is the least capable of supporting further popualtion growth) are actually growing at levels at are close to that of poorer countries, mostly due to legal and illegal immigration, as well as high Latino birth rates.


----------



## DJZG (Aug 2, 2007)

hmm... USA already has some kind of infrastructure so even if it isn't enough it still is something... 
what about India population growth or Pakistan?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Houston grows with 100,000 people every YEAR. I mean, you can keep widening roads, but it's gonna end sometime...


----------



## DJZG (Aug 2, 2007)

accordingly... Delhi area in India gained 500 000 people in 2001. 
it is easier to build infrastructure in countries that have normal or high income... but undeveloped countries will face much more serious problems in traffic as they don't follow that growth with constructing road network... 
seems that traffic problem is a worldwide problem and only difference is amount of money they spend on their networks... 

maybe someday there will be flying cars... that would solve a lot of congestions...


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

In southern Ontario, massive population growth is threatening to blanket the entire region in one giant swath of urban sprawl 150 km long and 100 km wide. This area is also home to some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. Once it's gone, we can't replace it. 

The solution here has been a drastic change in our development plans. The Greater Golden Horeshoe, of which Toronto is the epicentre, currently has a population over 8 million people and an area half the size of the Netherlands. This metropolitan region attracts 100,000 new immigrants each and every year. A huge green belt has been established to protect what farmland and greenery remains. All new growth is now to be concentrated on already developed areas which will result in increasing density, and more efficient and economical use of land.

The developers obviously hated it, but Toronto is already seeing the benefits of this new growth plan. About 20 nodes have been flagged that represent areas which will act as regional mini downtowns. Toronto, Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York, Mississauga, Oshawa, Brampton, Pickering, Vaughn, Richmond Hill, Markham, Hamilton, Milton, Barrie, were some of the major ones mentioned.

The Golden Horseshoe will develop into an area with about 20 downtowns, and one major one centred in Toronto. Employment and density will be clustered in these nodes, while virgin land will be protected.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

the problem with tight restrictions is that normal family-sized houses become increasingly unaffordable. Though I would welcome somewhat more restrictions in North America, it shouldn't be like the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. But even in Europe, there are huge differences. For the price of a rowhouse in the Netherlands, you can build yourself a nice detached home just across the border in Germany. Many Dutch people do that, some communities have a Dutch majority along the Dutch-German border.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.

Like everything, there is a trade off. If Canadians crave that idyllic house with with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, a triple garage, and a pool out back, that's still very affordable. It will just be unaffordable in a few spots here and there: Toronto and Vancouver.


----------



## ren0312 (Oct 30, 2006)

isaidso said:


> ^^ It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.


Most people seem to like the open spaces that suburbs offer over a Hong Kong like layout for a cuty, hence the popularity of suburbs in the first place, densely packed cities may be the most efficient layout, but they may not be the most pleasant.


----------



## ren0312 (Oct 30, 2006)

isaidso said:


> ^^ It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.
> 
> Like everything, there is a trade off. If Canadians crave that idyllic house with with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, a triple garage, and a pool out back, that's still very affordable. It will just be unaffordable in a few spots here and there: Toronto and Vancouver.


Or you could limit your population (that means cutting immigration to replacement rate levels) in order so that every Canadian who can afford to own that idylic house can own one without sacrificing vital agricultural land.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Canada, like most western nations, is facing a demographic time bomb in the not too distant future. A low birth rate has meant that almost all population growth in Canada today comes from immigration. As the birth rate continues to fall, Canada needs the level of immigration in has now to ensure de-population doesn't occur and that enough people of working age exist to support an aging population which is quickly reaching an age where they will no longer work.

Canada is also one of the few nations where a significantly larger population would be beneficial to the country. We have the largest coastline in the world and occupy the 2nd largest land mass. It's a tremendous financial strain on a population of only 33 million to maintain roads, rail, the power grid, shipping, and defense. 

Most nations have too many people, Canada would be more efficient and better able to reach its potential with a substantially larger population. There is no population explosion problem in Canada, but an issue of managing the growth we have. New comers should be encouraged to move to areas beyond the big 3: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

We're starting to see this happen as immigrants start to discover and settle in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the even our north. People will still gravitate to southern Ontario, but it will no longer be at the expense of farm land. If they can't afford that dream home here, it will always be possible in most of the rest of the country. Besides, there's been a huge resurgence of interest in living downtown. Many people are craving the convenience and excitement of downtown living. 

No large city can remain cheap forever. Toronto is still a bargain compared to Los Angeles.


----------



## ren0312 (Oct 30, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Canada, like most western nations, is facing a demographic time bomb in the not too distant future. A low birth rate has meant that almost all population growth in Canada today comes from immigration. As the birth rate continues to fall, Canada needs the level of immigration in has now to ensure de-population doesn't occur and that enough people of working age exist to support an aging population which is quickly reaching an age where they will no longer work.
> 
> Canada is also one of the few nations where a larger population would be beneficial to the country. We have the largest coastline in the world and occupy the 2nd largest land mass. It's a tremendous financial strain on a population of only 33 million to maintain roads, rail, the power grid, shipping, and defense.
> 
> ...


Convincing Quebec to take in more immigrants will be hard since the Francophones are worried that more non French speaking immigrants coming in will mean that French will lose its status as the dominant language in Quebec, and the language issue has also been a matter of contention between Anglophone and Francophone Canada.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

LoL we in germany would like to have problems like that. Population is shrinking at 100,000 persons a year, although we have a positive migration balance of 50,000 in 2007. Severe is the situation in rural areas in eastern germany. Take Eisenhüttenstadt, Brandenburg for example. It's one of the fastest shrinking cities in Germany and has halved since 1990. Birth rate is just at 1.37 children per woman compared to USA with 2.1 or Israel with 2.8. Very soon, when the population will shrink faster the Autobahn-network will be to big for us. Big migration waves are impossible to us as we don't have the melting pot tradition like the USA. There is no experience how large-scale migration will have effects on ethnically homogenic countries like Germany.

We also hadn't had a migration wave in this decade, like Spain, Italy or the UK. The positive thing although is tht we don't have an eploding unemployment rate like Spain.

Germany could feed over 100 million people so we have space for 18 million people here, but they aren't born. What does the US and Israel right, and what do we wrong?


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

A question: 

What are the major foreign nationalities in Canada and where do the migrants come from now?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Actually I think some parts of the Autobahn network is still not constructed for the current population and transportation of Germany. But even in the 10 million people metropolis of the Ruhr area, congestion is far less of a problem than in western Netherlands.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

The problem with the US when it comes to population growth is that it's very uneven. Yes, the booming states of the South (and West) are important, but at the same time, a large part of the nation in the Northeast and Midwest faces stagnant or declining population growth, from rural areas to entire metros. Places like Texas and Georgia are far from the norm. 

The problems with infrastructure is the total opposite around here. While cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are ticking time bombs because the services can't keep up with population growth, there's plenty of it here...a lot of the cities here were once bigger at one point and have the infrastructure of their peak populations.

I'm currently in Buffalo, NY which has grown only around 10% (or less) since 1950. I'd say that the highway network is more than adequate.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Actually I think some parts of the Autobahn network is still not constructed for the current population and transportation of Germany. But even in the 10 million people metropolis of the Ruhr area, congestion is far less of a problem than in western Netherlands.


I think that this is mainly because the Ruhr-metropolis has a stagnant population. It has more or less the same population as 30 years ago. Randstad still grows with 0.4% a year.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Xusein said:


> The problem with the US when it comes to population growth is that it's very uneven. Yes, the booming states of the South (and West) are important, but at the same time, a large part of the nation in the Northeast and Midwest faces stagnant or declining population growth, from rural areas to entire metros. Places like Texas and Georgia are far from the norm.
> 
> The problems with infrastructure is the total opposite around here. While cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are ticking time bombs because the services can't keep up with population growth, there's plenty of it here...a lot of the cities here were once bigger at one point and have the infrastructure of their peak populations.
> 
> I'm currently in Buffalo, NY which has grown only around 10% (or less) since 1950. I'd say that the highway network is more than adequate.


The north east of the US needs a good family policy to raise birth rates. birt rate is the lowest there in the USA:


Total fertility rate 2005 statewise:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Xusein said:


> The problems with infrastructure is the total opposite around here. While cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are ticking time bombs because the services can't keep up with population growth, there's plenty of it here...a lot of the cities here were once bigger at one point and have the infrastructure of their peak populations.
> 
> I'm currently in Buffalo, NY which has grown only around 10% (or less) since 1950. I'd say that the highway network is more than adequate.


I noticed that... places like Harrisburg, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville etc. seem to have an oversized road network. On the other hand, in Detroit, everybody moved to the suburbs, resulting in an empty central city, but massive rushhour loads to downtown.


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Cincinnati has got quite some problems with congestion. The I-75, going to Dayton, is jammed every rush hour. The freeway network inside the city might be sufficient, but once you leave the city, horror begins (own experience )


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Chrissib said:


> LoL we in germany would like to have problems like that. Population is shrinking at 100,000 persons a year, although we have a positive migration balance of 50,000 in 2007. Severe is the situation in rural areas in eastern germany. Take Eisenhüttenstadt, Brandenburg for example. It's one of the fastest shrinking cities in Germany and has halved since 1990. Birth rate is just at 1.37 children per woman compared to USA with 2.1 or Israel with 2.8. Very soon, when the population will shrink faster the Autobahn-network will be to big for us. Big migration waves are impossible to us as we don't have the melting pot tradition like the USA. There is no experience how large-scale migration will have effects on ethnically homogenic countries like Germany.
> 
> We also hadn't had a migration wave in this decade, like Spain, Italy or the UK. The positive thing although is tht we don't have an eploding unemployment rate like Spain.
> 
> Germany could feed over 100 million people so we have space for 18 million people here, but they aren't born. What does the US and Israel right, and what do we wrong?


For America, I think its due to strong Latin immigration(mostly from Mexico) and high birth from latinos and blacks plus religious conservatives. Take away those factors, and I think the birth rate would be comparable to some European countries.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> The north east of the US needs a good family policy to raise birth rates. birt rate is the lowest there in the USA:


For the time being (may change in the future as aging starts), stopping the migration southward should be more of a problem to tackle than raising the birth rate.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Xusein said:


> For the time being (may change in the future as aging starts), stopping the migration southward should be more of a problem to tackle than raising the birth rate.


But isn't the north east also the richest region in the USA by GDP/inh.?


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

LtBk said:


> For America, I think its due to strong Latin immigration(mostly from Mexico) and high birth from latinos and blacks plus religious conservatives. Take away those factors, and I think the birth rate would be comparable to some European countries.


Exactly. Most European countries aren't seeing a decrease either due to high immigration.

Anyway, the focus has to clearly be on public transportation -- subways, tram systems, commuter trains, regional high speed trains, etc. Roads are necessary and I like them certainly, but getting a situation like Los Angeles where roads are everywhere you go, you can't get far without a car, horrible air quality, etc. is unsustainable and unwise.


----------



## girlicious_likeme (Jun 12, 2008)

isaidso said:


> Canada, like most western nations, is facing a demographic time bomb in the not too distant future. A low birth rate has meant that almost all population growth in Canada today comes from immigration. As the birth rate continues to fall, Canada needs the level of immigration in has now to ensure de-population doesn't occur and that enough people of working age exist to support an aging population which is quickly reaching an age where they will no longer work.


That's why several provinces (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland / Labrador, Yukon, etc.) and a territory are promoting their jurisdictions to enter Canada quickly by their nominee programs. The Northwest Territories, on the other hand, is also planning to have a nominne program to boost population.
Saskatchewan is in a "demographic" crisis. The crisis was so chronic that they need 11,000 people to move in every year *with no one leaving the province*, despite having a history (2 decades) of population decline. Thanks to the "Saskaboom", Saskatchewan is starting to get its population back from Alberta. Before the oil fields were discovered, Saskatchewan was the 3rd most populous province in Canada, just after Ontario and Quebec, and well ahead of Alberta. That's why Saskatchewan needs to have at least 2,000,000 people in 10 years.
Same to Newfoundland, which is in a demographic decline. But thanks to the discovered offshore oil platforms, Newfoundland is starting to go back up, getting over the critical line of 500,000.



isaidso said:


> Canada is also one of the few nations where a significantly larger population would be beneficial to the country. We have the largest coastline in the world and occupy the 2nd largest land mass. It's a tremendous financial strain on a population of only 33 million to maintain roads, rail, the power grid, shipping, and defense.


The Northwest Passage, which splits Nunavut into two parts, is a critical flashpoint of Canadian Arctic Sovereignty. Nunavut, which composes of over 2/3 of the passage, only has a population of 31,000, and majority of them are far from the passage itself. The largest communities on the passage are Cambridge Bay, and Pond Inlet; both with only 1,500 people each. To properly manage the passage, Nunavut and the NWT need larger population of communities. Several Arctic ports (Tuktoyaktuk, NWT; Bathurst Inlet, NU; Iqaluit, NU) and small craft harbours (7?+ Nunavut communities) are being proposed, yet haven't heard a single word about those. 
Majority of people in Canada are hugging the US border. The only large Canadian jurisdiction that is able to spread well is Alberta. It has 2 cities over 50,000 (Grande Prairie and Fort Mac) that lie north of the centre (54deg30minN) of the province.
All territories north of 60 need a lot more people. Nunavut's effort to boom is still lacking, since its "boom" is so small scale when compared to international level.
Even north of 60, Yukon and NWT population centres are hugging BC ang Alberta's borders, respectively.



isaidso said:


> Most nations have too many people, Canada would be more efficient and better able to reach its potential with a substantially larger population. There is no population explosion problem in Canada, but an issue of managing the growth we have. New comers should be encouraged to move to areas beyond the big 3: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.


MTV for short. lawl!

Edit: Consider Alaska. It has population of 600,000. While its neigbours: Yukon (31,000); Northwest Territories (43,000); and Nunavut (31,000). are too small to be compared. Canada needs to step up to spread out of MTV, as these three metro areas are seeing congestion, while there are no high-speed rails under construction (at least they're talking about it - hoping for a maglev... :lol .



isaidso said:


> We're starting to see this happen as immigrants start to discover and settle in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the even our north. People will still gravitate to southern Ontario, but it will no longer be at the expense of farm land. If they can't afford that dream home here, it will always be possible in most of the rest of the country. Besides, there's been a huge resurgence of interest in living downtown. Many people are craving the convenience and excitement of downtown living.


Not mentioning the future large cities of Saskatoon and Regina. The west is booming all over. Manitoba is waiting to boom in a very large scale like her 3 neighbours to the west. 

Edit: Saskatoon needs at least 500,000 people in order for its population to become stable. Regina is also catching up with around 400,000 to 450,000 people needed.



isaidso said:


> No large city can remain cheap forever. Toronto is still a bargain compared to Los Angeles.


True.


----------



## Whiteeclipse (Mar 31, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> Germany could feed over 100 million people so we have space for 18 million people here, but they aren't born. What does the US and Israel right, and what do we wrong?


In the US, most of the population growth is coming from Latino and black families.

In Israel most of the population growth is coming from the Palestinian families. 

Same thing goes for UK and France, the mean reason they have a stable population growth is due to minority population just like US and Israel.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> But isn't the north east also the richest region in the USA by GDP/inh.?


It is. But it also is the most expensive area as well, with low job growth. And a large portion of the Northeast has depressing weather for half the year.

For some, the idea of moving south where the jobs are more plentiful (well, not really anymore) and the weather is nicer is worth it. Not to me, but to others. Population growth is overrated anyway, and it's already too crowded in the BosWash corridor already, almost 50 million people. Let's see how much the Sunbelt trumpets it in a few years when they have to spend prodigious amounts of money on updating the services for their booming populations. The governments here will get to pay less to update our infrastructure. :yes:


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

LtBk said:


> *For America, I think its due to strong Latin immigration(mostly from Mexico) and high birth from latinos and blacks plus religious conservatives. *Take away those factors, and I think the birth rate would be comparable to some European countries.


I suppose that is why a large portion of the Northeast (like Northern New England) has birth rates so low. None of those are around there...almost no racial minorities (VT, NH, and ME are among the Whitest states in the nation), and religious conservatives are low as well.

Vermont is below 1.70 children per woman, and the population there grew by only 500 people last year.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I personally wish birth rate in this country will go do down too. Too many annoying kids and parents to deal with.


----------



## Robosteve (Nov 6, 2008)

Chrissib said:


> LoL we in germany would like to have problems like that. Population is shrinking at 100,000 persons a year, although we have a positive migration balance of 50,000 in 2007. Severe is the situation in rural areas in eastern germany. Take Eisenhüttenstadt, Brandenburg for example. It's one of the fastest shrinking cities in Germany and has halved since 1990. Birth rate is just at 1.37 children per woman compared to USA with 2.1 or Israel with 2.8. Very soon, when the population will shrink faster the Autobahn-network will be to big for us. Big migration waves are impossible to us as we don't have the melting pot tradition like the USA. There is no experience how large-scale migration will have effects on ethnically homogenic countries like Germany.
> 
> We also hadn't had a migration wave in this decade, like Spain, Italy or the UK. The positive thing although is tht we don't have an eploding unemployment rate like Spain.
> 
> Germany could feed over 100 million people so we have space for 18 million people here, but they aren't born. What does the US and Israel right, and what do we wrong?


I'd sooner move to Germany than to the US.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Xusein said:


> I suppose that is why a large portion of the Northeast (like Northern New England) has birth rates so low. None of those are around there...almost no racial minorities (VT, NH, and ME are among the Whitest states in the nation), and religious conservatives are low as well.
> 
> Vermont is below 1.70 children per woman, and the population there grew by only 500 people last year.


All but one county in Germany is below 1.7. 1.7 is the number tackeled by our Government, we try to reach it until 2020. Maybe this will move some countys in the growth zone above 2.1 children per woman. 

The situation is only worse in eastern Europe and eastern Asia.


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

I suppose the big question about how to handle is to look at the carrying capacity of any given region with scarce energy supply. After all many areas in the world we inhabit now are only sustainable with a steady supply of cheap energy. If you take cheap energy supply out of the equation then areas like the US and Canadian prairies, cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas become unsustainable and will have to shrink (or in some cases virtually vanish) to reach a situation where they can continue to support any kind of population. Denver, Salt Lake, Calgary, etc,etc can not function at their present sizes without an abundant energy supply. 

Generally suburban sprawl is a living arrangement with no future. It's a living arrangement designed on the premise of abundant and cheap energy. If energy becomes expensive and scarce then the whole commute, suburban mall, Wal-Mart, supermarket become unsustainable rendering suburbs economic badlands.

Which ever course things take it is clear that the American dream will become negotiable in the coming decades.

This counts for all countries with high levels of suburban sprawl like Australia for instance.

When cheap energy becomes scarce we will find ourselves having to re-evaluate the carrying capacity of our cities and regions. In most cases that will mean far less people.



My future urban mix. High and middle density mixes. Street car suburbs and high frequency metro/ urban rail. Intensive horticulture in and immediately around population centres. 

As for cars. I'm not sure as to how big a role they can play in the future. Electric cars are far inferior for performance and are expensive, hydrogen requires very expensive components and depending how it's generated could require a whole new national distribution infrastructure. Plug ins? How much power can the grid supply? 

It will be interesting to see.

More importantly, how can we produce food and goods and transport them in an expensive energy economy? It would seem that in any case we are headed for a more compact world in the way we live, work and trade.


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009304.html



> *Choosing What Our Cities Will Look Like in a World Without Oil*​
> As we draw nearer to reaching the point of Peak Oil, it benefits us to imagine what our cities will look like in a world without oil. Does this conjure up images of cities turned into urban farms just to produce enough food for us all? Do we devote all our energy to growing, bartering and trading the food we grow? Or will the city become divided, with the wealthy moving to the center while higher costs of living force lower-income families to the outer-ring suburbs, where access to goods, services and transport will be limited?
> 
> *End Agglomeration Diseconomies*
> ...


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Whose gonna pay for all those hot rail connections when the tax on car fuel diminishes? 

This looks like some anti-freeway club. Like I have said before, the car will always be the most efficient way of travel for most connections, even with traffic jams. So Freeways do not become obsolete at all, unless we all start flying. It's just a matter of time before we can actually drive cars that do not run on fossil fuels anymore. Mankind could split the atom, you don't think they can find a solution for personal transportation? Cars like the Toyota Prius are just a transformation into a full-electric carstock. Seriously, this looks like some doomsday talk we've seen from the late 1960's like the Sierra Club, Club of Rome etc. Remember acid rain? Who talks about that now?


----------



## KIWIKAAS (May 13, 2003)

It will be interesting how things develop in the coming few years. Whether we will still be driving around en masse depends on many factors and not just fossil fuel free propulsion for cars. Considering we may already have reached peak oil production or that this will occur within a few years, the recent electric car developments aren't very encouraging.
If an affordible, high performance, long range alternative is developed we still have to have a population with desposable wealth to buy the things. Whether we are driving around in electric cars and still getting stuck in traffic will be dependant on whether we can convert the economy in general over to fossil fuel free propulsion (think agriculture, construction/ maintainance, trucks, ships, plains etc). This too has to be done swiftly because if the fossil fuel based world economy founders then the chances of conversion become ever lower.
I'm not saying it won't happen (a mass transition) but the indicators aren't pointing up at the moment.
The Club of Rome's ''Limits to Growth'' has come back to the fore. A recent CSIRO study of the last 30 years confirmed that the trends stated in the book back in 1970 were pretty much on track and that the ''business as usual'' growth model was heading for a train wreck sometime this century (most likely within a few decades) should we not take monumental steps to curb pollution, industrial agriculture, deforestation and population growth.

I agree with you that car travel is the most efficient trvel mode for most trips. I use my car regularly and my favourite spots can only be reached by car (or a very, very long bike ride or even longer walk). I'm not sitting waiting rubbing my hands for the glory days of the middle ages to return . Things are just fine the way they are but unfortunately for myself and the rest of us we may not be able to replicate our oil driven lifestyles with clean energy alternatives.


----------



## 54°26′S 3°24′E (Oct 26, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Whose gonna pay for all those hot rail connections when the tax on car fuel diminishes?
> 
> This looks like some anti-freeway club. Like I have said before, the car will always be the most efficient way of travel for most connections, even with traffic jams. So Freeways do not become obsolete at all, unless we all start flying. It's just a matter of time before we can actually drive cars that do not run on fossil fuels anymore. Mankind could split the atom, you don't think they can find a solution for personal transportation? Cars like the Toyota Prius are just a transformation into a full-electric carstock. Seriously, this looks like some doomsday talk we've seen from the late 1960's like the Sierra Club, Club of Rome etc. Remember acid rain? Who talks about that now?


I think you are missing the point. The point is not to abolish the car, but to increase the density of the cities rather than building more far-way suburbs. This has the benefit of reducing area waste, and to reduce both the time and energy used on commuting. Densification rathern than suburban sprawl also has social benefits. Of course, this is only possible through strict planning, but this is the direction we are already going in many places of the world.

BTW, regarding population growth, it's not exactly a huge problem anywhere in Europe, it has after all lower growth than all other continents. However, the largest growth is actually in Northern Europe (Iceland and Norway in particular) as well as some coastal countries like Ireland and Malta. Southern Europe has much lower birth rates and hence lower population growth, although Spain/Portugal is somewhat better than Italy, for instance.


EDIT: OK, I checked the Eurostat pop projections, and this is the projected growth between 2010 and 2060:
Bulgaria -27 %
Latvia -25 %
Lithuania -24 %
Romania -21 %
Poland -18 %
Slovakia -16 %
Estonia -15 %
Germany -14 %
Hungary -13 %
Slovenia -13 %
Czech Republic -8 %
Malta -2 %
Greece -2 %
Italy -1 %
Netherlands 1 %
Finland 1 %
EU (27 countries) 1 %
Portugal 5 %
Denmark 7 %
Austria 8 %
Spain 11 %
Belgium 14 %
France 15 %
Sweden 17 %
Switzerland 19 %
United Kingdom 24 %
Norway 25 %
Ireland 46 %
Luxembourg 48 %
Cyprus 61 %


Spain will actually have a decent growth according to these projections, and the growth will be much higher in the capital area I guess. However, the trend is clear, except the Cyprus anamoly, Western/Northern Europe has the highest growth, Eastern Europe is in trouble, Southern Europe is mostly rather stagnant. Iceland was not included in the statistics, but I believe they are in the top 3 somewhere. Actually, the population growth of Norway in 2007 was a whopping 1.2 %, and if that is to continue, Norway will have 8.9 M in 2060, an increase of 86 %! Iceland had even higher population growth, but may experience emigration to US and other Nordic countries in the short run now due to their financial problems,


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Modern life without a car is an utopia, drawn mainly by übber-city well-off or upscale dwellers who can afford:

1. Plenty of free time to do groceries every other day.
2. Are single and leave alone most of the time.
3. Have huge external social life that keeps them out of house.

Otherwhise, the idea of everyone packing into condos and walking everywhere is just not feasible. Transit advocates would rather focus on improving transportation patterns for home-office-home commute and not focusing on "banning the car" like campaigns.

This kind of "community life" where you'd meet same people all around (in the grocery, in the community garden, in the neighbor's dog park, in the bus, in the local bank and in the local farmer's market) annoys me a lot. I like to be able to pick people I interact with and diversify my environments. It would suck a hundred percent if I had to meet guys from my workplace (and mostly them) when I'm in on a supermarket or just walking around. It's a very communist-utopic project in the sense of depriving individuals of hard-earn rights to choose where to live, where to work etc. for a comunal living.

If those über-city dwellers are feeling alone, they should get a boyfriend or gilrfriend, and not try to social engineer our citys according to their creed. I now live bymyself, alone etc., but I'd never find appealing the ideia of raising my future children in, say, East Village, Manhattan, in a small apartment from where they would have to go out to to everything they want (play, meet friends, pet the dog etc.).


----------



## pijanec (Mar 28, 2007)

The only long term solution is to lower the population. They should take initiative in those way overpopulated countries, like Netherlands and Belgium.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

andrelot said:


> Modern life without a car is an utopia, drawn mainly by übber-city well-off or upscale dwellers who can afford:
> 
> 1. Plenty of free time to do groceries every other day.
> 2. Are single and leave alone most of the time.
> ...


Nobody here is talking about forcing people to live in condos or ban cars. Besides, living in a urban environment doesn't mean you have to interact with the same people everyday. What's wrong with walking to get things? And if urban dwellers shouldn't social engineer our cities, than pro-car people, automobile manufacturers and oil companies shouldn't push or influence (through politicians) urban development policies that cater around the car, auto centric sprawl, destroy our cities, and force everybody to drive to do anything like the US did. Rather ignorant comment IMO. Kind in mind that I don't hate cars and freeways. In fact, I like them. I just hate it that you forced to use it to do pretty much anything or else you fucked, and I'm sure many more people feel the same. There is reason why people in cities like LA and Denver voted to extend mass transit.


----------



## stevensp (May 7, 2010)

Interesting topic...
Im making a sort of project that is related with this population problem...

For my final year I'm analyzing a bit the border between of privacy-public space...
maybe by reducing the private space we can solve things about it

anyway, Im still researching it... so soon Ill post the process of my work


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

I think new urbanism suburbs are the future, we will see denser more walkable suburbs but built for the car as well. Motorways are here to stay and we will see smarter and more efficient ones built over time. Cars are here to stay as well, when oil will start becoming too expensive and not turn a good profit you bet we'll see another way to fuel cars turn up. All future developments and planning will accommodate the car such as townhouses/condos having garages and ample parking in newer developments. 

Rail will still be very important in the future and I can see the US expanding rail systems as time goes on. The current suburban model is a failure and will be the future slums of the US, newer suburbs are built cheap and will not last long and as the poor get pushed out further outside the cities then people with money will return into the cities. It will be an interesting time to watch a complete change in how the US grows.

I can't say much for the rest of the world because each region will grow a lot different and I've only been to Europe. Honestly I see sprawl growing a bit in Europe(varies by country) and increased motorway networks along with expected growth in mass transit.


----------



## zlobna raca (Oct 7, 2010)

American and now Chinese cities are perfect example why wider roads don't stop congestion, if you build more lanes, more cars will drive on them. We need to stop expanding current streets/roads/city motorways and invest money in public transportation. We need more bus lanes and more metro lines. European cities are dense and they will get denser and it's nothing wrong with that but we need to stop thinking that everyone can dive their car wherever they want. Streets should be closed for traffic and not the other way around. Instead of adding few lanes you should take them away and reserve space for public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. City centers should be closed for traffic because it creates traffic jams, pollution and noise. Of course alternatives should be offered first. More parking garages, more metro lines, more different public transportation completing each other (trams, metro, train, bus, boats, public bicycles...). So far we were able to enjoy the use of the car but this can't continue like this. I think we should stop investing in road infrastructure and spend money on public transport because that's the future for us.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ I'm glad you're not in charge. 24/7 congestion and huge budget problems guaranteed...


----------



## zlobna raca (Oct 7, 2010)

So you propose 6x6 highways through downtown so everyone can park their car next to the building?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

No, did I say that? Public transport fanatics always go into extremes when it goes to highway construction. You say you want to close down a city center to all traffic, and they reply that I want to build 12 lane freeways through downtown? 

Please, don't be ridiculous.


----------



## zlobna raca (Oct 7, 2010)

So explain yourself. I think if you reply to my post saying it's stupid you should also explain why you think that and present your own opinion.

You think I don't like to ride the highway? You can't just expand road infrastructure indefinitely because it's doesn't work and all you get it more congestion and more pollution. It doesn't work in New York City, it doesn't work in London, it doesn't work in Moscow, Tokyo, Shanghai...it doesn't work anywhere. Now you can try and build parallel multilane and multilevel motorways all around the city but it just won't work.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

ChrisZwolle said:


> You say you want to close down a city center to all traffic [...]


When the centre of my city was closed because of the Tour de Suisse cycling race it was really pleasant to walk. I would like it was like that all year long, but this is not really easy to do.


----------



## hofburg (Jun 27, 2009)

well, if they want people to use public transport, they should make it as confortable as travelling by car. and not like in Paris where public transport is 24/24 congested, without air conditioning, dirty subway mostly without electric stairs...  people will choose public transport when it will be better as car. for long distances for example TGV already is.


----------



## Fargo Wolf (Oct 23, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> A question:
> 
> What are the major foreign nationalities in Canada and where do the migrants come from now?


They flood in from China and India. :bleep: :no:  :mad2: Their sole purposes are to turn Canada into their countries and steal jobs from Canadians. Vermin...


----------



## Slagathor (Jul 29, 2007)

ChrisZwolle said:


> The best solution, in my opinion, is light restrictive zoning, so no Atlanta/Philadelphia-model suburbs nor unaffordable housing like in London or the Netherlands, combined with 5 or 6 job centers that are connected by both moderatly wide freeways (preferrably 8 lanes max) and subway/lightrail connections. That way, traffic flows are better spread out and transit becomes more cost-effective due to higher ridership outside rushhours and in both directions.


The biggest mistake we've made is separating our different environments as we've done. 

Right now we have residential areas and we have industrial areas/business parks. We've separated those. Why? Well because having polluting factories in the middle of a residential neighborhood was getting a bit tedious. Fair enough.

But these days, Western nations such as the Netherlands and Belgium have very few heavy factories. Most business parks contain companies with almost no polluting or dangerous activities. We need to bring those back to residential areas and spread them out.

Politicians are urging people to live close to their work, but you can't actually do that, because there are no houses in the business parks. So even if you move to the same commune as where your office is: you still have to travel. And so does everybody else. And everybody's going in the same direction at the same time of day. Since travel to industrial areas is limited, public transport can't survive there. So everybody brings their car.

Take my uncle: he has his own company. He designs and sells cleaning equipment for the food industry - specialized vacuum cleaners, robot cleaners and more (he doesn't produce it, he's outsourced that to a factory). To run his company, he needs: office space to house a showroom and administration desks and a garage or 2 for stock. He initially wanted to buy a plot of land in a residential area so he could build a facility and add housing quarters as well, which would eliminate his daily commute. Nothing too conspicuous, you'd barely notice it was a business and not a house if he wouldn't put a sign up.
He couldn't do that. The city wouldn't let him.
So instead his company is now located in some ghastly industrial area with zero public transport and he has to drive to work in his van every single day.

This make no sense. We _must_ get rid of the strict divide between work and housing.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

zlobna raca said:


> American and now Chinese cities are perfect example why wider roads don't stop congestion, if you build more lanes, more cars will drive on them. We need to stop expanding current streets/roads/city motorways and invest money in public transportation. We need more bus lanes and more metro lines. European cities are dense and they will get denser and it's nothing wrong with that but we need to stop thinking that everyone can dive their car wherever they want. Streets should be closed for traffic and not the other way around. Instead of adding few lanes you should take them away and reserve space for public transport, bicycles and pedestrians. City centers should be closed for traffic because it creates traffic jams, pollution and noise. Of course alternatives should be offered first. More parking garages, more metro lines, more different public transportation completing each other (trams, metro, train, bus, boats, public bicycles...). So far we were able to enjoy the use of the car but this can't continue like this. I think we should stop investing in road infrastructure and spend money on public transport because that's the future for us.


Sorry but you are wrong.. The reason why in the USA and China the wide roads don't work because they don't have enough roads connecting if that makes sense. For example the idiots who planned the suburban area north of where I live built only 3 and later on 2 main North/South routes meaning those routes are congested because everybody packs onto one road. If you go to heavy grid areas you won't find this kind of congestion.

Cities like Dallas have an excellent motorway system where you have enough routes to serve the metro area, I rarely got stuck in traffic when I lived there, they had plenty of connections with both motorways and surface roads. In a good road network you need a little bit of everything meaning connecting side streets, small roads, avenues/dual carriageways, and motorways. The poor planning comes from all streets and small roads don't connect to each other directly but only through major roads.


----------



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

Even when oil runs out, we'll still be driving cars. They'll just be using a different fuel source.

Ignoring road investments simply because you say more roads and lanes = more congestion and pollution is without foundation. If communities are growing you're going to need wide roads to support that increase, thus leading to an increase in traffic.

Same goes for transit. If you build a new rail line, it's eventually going to fill up with passengers just like a new highway will with traffic. Add more lanes/lines, they're going to fill up too. An increase in population = an increase in commuters. Doing nothing will just increase congestion more than if you widened a road.

Via car, you can get right to your destination. Via transit, you can get close to it but you might have to transfer and whatnot. That isn't as efficient as a direct connection. You should invest in the most efficient and system and reduce it's congestion.


----------



## zlobna raca (Oct 7, 2010)

I-275westcoastfl said:


> Sorry but you are wrong.. The reason why in the USA and China the wide roads don't work because they don't have enough roads connecting if that makes sense. For example the idiots who planned the suburban area north of where I live built only 3 and later on 2 main North/South routes meaning those routes are congested because everybody packs onto one road. If you go to heavy grid areas you won't find this kind of congestion.
> 
> Cities like Dallas have an excellent motorway system where you have enough routes to serve the metro area, I rarely got stuck in traffic when I lived there, they had plenty of connections with both motorways and surface roads. In a good road network you need a little bit of everything meaning connecting side streets, small roads, avenues/dual carriageways, and motorways. The poor planning comes from all streets and small roads don't connect to each other directly but only through major roads.


You can't be serious. United States are the father and mother of mega road infrastructure, the culture of the automobile. You already have highways everywhere, do want more of them? hno: Next thing you know there'll be parallel freeways every few miles. That's not the way to solve congestion, by building more freeways and expanding the current ones. Why don't you cover the whole country in concrete and drive everywhere. The problem with US cities is that they are made of two parts, downtown for work and suburbs for living and when cities grow and more people come in, roads become congested because 1mil people from the west suburbs use the same multilane freeway to get to downtown and everybody owns a car. As you grow, more people use the freeway, so should you build more freeways? Does Houston need more freeways? No, it needs better public transportation because a metro car can hold 30 people and a car can hold 4 and yet still everybody drives to work by themselves hence the non-congested HOV lanes. You're an American, take NYC as an example. Aprox. 25mil people live in the great metro area, if we follow the rule of more people = more roads than NYC would be half freeways and half residential buildings. Cars are not a right like they use to be, they are a privilege. If every New Yorker demanded the right to drive to work they would never move outside their neighborhood of all the cars everywhere.



Haljackey said:


> Even when oil runs out, we'll still be driving cars. They'll just be using a different fuel source.
> 
> *Ignoring road investments simply because you say more roads and lanes = more congestion and pollution is without foundation.* If communities are growing you're going to need wide roads to support that increase, thus leading to an increase in traffic.
> 
> ...


It's not without foundation, it's a *proven fact*. In big cities with congestion problems, adding more lanes resulted in more cars and the same congestion. So the problem was not solved. If you have a 2x2 road with congestion, adding a third doesn't solve problem, but taking one lane and giving it to buses exclusively solves a lot of problems because people can get to work on time. That's why they invented the P+R (Park and Ride) system where people from the suburbs come near the city borders, park their cars and take the bus to work. It's more effective.

You're right, undergrounds, metros and buses don't take you directly to your office but the problem is in lazy people not the public transport network. Would you rather walk 500m from the metro station to work or wait an hour in a traffic jam just so you can park in the building?

If what you (everyone, not you personally) say is true than why do cities invest in metros, trams and high speed trains? Shouldn't they build more roads? Why doesn't Tokyo have more roads? I'm sure all of those 35mil people would like to drive to work. It just doesn't work that way. Road infrastructure should be built of course but in terms of connecting cities with one another and suburbs with cities, not so everyone from Brooklyn can drive to Manhattan to work.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Stop building freeways in a growing region is like saying stop building hospitals to reduce the number of sick people.

Again, you take things into the extreme, by saying investing in roads equals making the United States a concrete plain. 



> It's not without foundation, it's a proven fact. In big cities with congestion problems, adding more lanes resulted in more cars and the same congestion. So the problem was not solved.


Because it is people like you arguing you don't need wider freeways, and after decades of delay, finally widening it, underestimating the actual traffic demand. People who think like you are the sole reason for the excessive traffic congestion some areas experience. Not the people paying their taxes and get nothing in return.



> If you have a 2x2 road with congestion, adding a third doesn't solve problem, but taking one lane and giving it to buses exclusively solves a lot of problems because people can get to work on time.


I'm sorry, but this is pure B.S and the perfect recipe for congestion. Mass transit NEVER solved traffic congestion. Please give me some examples of your great mass transit cities where nobody even wants to drive a car... Oh well, there aren't any. That's bad luck.


----------



## zlobna raca (Oct 7, 2010)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Stop building freeways in a growing region is like saying stop building hospitals to reduce the number of sick people.


Lost comparison. If people don't get treated they die, if people don't drive cars they die...or take a bus instead?



> Because it is people like you arguing you don't need wider freeways, and after decades of delay, finally widening it, underestimating the actual traffic demand. *People who think like you are the sole reason for the excessive traffic congestion some areas experience.* Not the people paying their taxes and get nothing in return.


People who takes buses are the reason for congestion? You lost me on that one.



> I'm sorry, but this is pure B.S and the perfect recipe for congestion. Mass transit NEVER solved traffic congestion. Please give me some examples of your great mass transit cities where nobody even wants to drive a car... Oh well, there aren't any. That's bad luck.


You might be an expert on highways but the concept of public transportation is lost on you. Tokyo itself is a living proof how wrong you are, also London is a very good example. But perhaps you are right, London should abandon its Underground and build 20 6x6 freeways around it's ring-road, connecting them to the city center. That would be great.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

zlobna raca said:


> You can't be serious. United States are the father and mother of mega road infrastructure, the culture of the automobile. You already have highways everywhere, do want more of them? hno: Next thing you know there'll be parallel freeways every few miles. That's not the way to solve congestion, by building more freeways and expanding the current ones. Why don't you cover the whole country in concrete and drive everywhere. The problem with US cities is that they are made of two parts, downtown for work and suburbs for living and when cities grow and more people come in, roads become congested because 1mil people from the west suburbs use the same multilane freeway to get to downtown and everybody owns a car. As you grow, more people use the freeway, so should you build more freeways? Does Houston need more freeways? No, it needs better public transportation because a metro car can hold 30 people and a car can hold 4 and yet still everybody drives to work by themselves hence the non-congested HOV lanes. You're an American, take NYC as an example. Aprox. 25mil people live in the great metro area, if we follow the rule of more people = more roads than NYC would be half freeways and half residential buildings. Cars are not a right like they use to be, they are a privilege. If every New Yorker demanded the right to drive to work they would never move outside their neighborhood of all the cars everywhere.


Yes we still need more motorways, my city is very sprawled and suffers because of a lack of motorways. In New York City people use mass transit because it can be quicker and cheaper, people have the choice whether to use a car or do whatever they want. I've driven to Manhattan and only got stuck in traffic in Times Square and trying to get on the Queensborough Bridge the rest was a pretty smooth ride. I also took the train which during rush hour is quicker but other times it can be the same amount and even cheaper depending on your car and where you park. Houston does need more freeways because they are not a dense centralized city and they are smart because they keep building freeways.

Mass transit and and driving a car can work together. One day I want to move to a city where I can take rail to go party, to work, etc. At the same time I want to have a car for other uses or when I feel lazy. Some places it's not always comfortable to walk like Florida, during the summer months I don't want to go outside just go straight to my car and turn on the A/C, this time of the year through winter I love the weather so I don't mind walking or if we had decent mass transit I wouldn't mind taking it. Same goes for places that are very cold in the winter, it's much nicer to be in a heated car then waiting outside in the cold for a bus or train. There is no one solution you need a mix of transport options.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

zlobna raca said:


> Lost comparison. If people don't get treated they die, if people don't drive cars they die...or take a bus instead?


You are missing his point..




zlobna raca said:


> People who takes buses are the reason for congestion? You lost me on that one.


No motorways are designed for cars and not really mass transit, building a bus lane that will sit empty most of the time since buses are most efficient on surface roads is foolish and doesn't solve congestion.




zlobna raca said:


> You might be an expert on highways but the concept of public transportation is lost on you. Tokyo itself is a living proof how wrong you are, also London is a very good example. But perhaps you are right, London should abandon its Underground and build 20 6x6 freeways around it's ring-road, connecting them to the city center. That would be great.


London is a perfect example of what not to do in planning. There are few continuous roads in the city center which makes getting around painfully slow. Even better the UK much like my city has had a lot of motorways canceled and this hasn't helped the situation at all. London could use a few more motorways to connect different parts.


----------



## AlexisMD (Mar 13, 2010)

at one point no highways will be needed, cars will fly 
and then we need to colonize other planets 
It sounds sci fi but it's inevitable . There no other way 
But for now we need good highways


----------

