Bye car

A recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times referenced a study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, which has done a lot of neat GIS work around metro areas, about greenhouse gas emissions and how people that live in cities have a much smaller carbon footprint than those that do not.   This is, of course, if one measures not how much CO2 is emitted per acre, but rather how much per household.  Of course if the measurement is per acre than cities are always going to be viewed as the big sinner since the density of people would multiple the emissions exponetially.   However, when examined on a per household basis, the more sprawly, the more emissions per household, the less “green” all those miles of turf actually seem.

And just to circle back, this is actually the argument that is made often by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser who often waxes poetically about how his beloved Manhattan skyscrapers are truly good for the environment.

A quote from the Sun-Times article:

“Cities are more location-efficient, meaning key destinations are closer to where people live and work,” said CNT President Scott Bernstein. “They require less time, money, fuel and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel needs. People can walk, bike, car-share, take public transit.”

What I found fascinating on the larger regional map of the Bay Area comparing the two types of greenhouse gas emissions between emissions per acre or emissions per household, the per acre one looks like Alameda is just pumping out those emissions without a care in the world, but in actuality, because of the density of large parts of the orginial island, the impact of each individual household is so much lower than say, Orinda.   The Alameda exceptions are Alameda Point, which has janky numbers and the parts of Bay Farm Island.   On the emission per acre map, Orinda looks like a pristine piece of heaven, but on the emission per household side, it isn’t so benign.  Click to enlarge.

Another interesting map is comparing household density against autos per household.  According to the maps, and of course disregard Alameda Point because the numbers are janky for it, the vast majority of Alameda has 1.6 – 1.7 cars or less with the exception of parts of Bay Farm Island which is in the 1.8 + cars per household.

To play with the maps, click here.

On another thread someone asked why I moved to my neighborhood.  My answer was new construction and proximity.   Proximity to what? was the response.   To San Francisco, I replied.  Then someone asked what was so wrong with downtown Oakland that I didn’t go there.

My response: nothing is wrong with downtown Oakland. 

But I wanted a place where my kids could walk or bike to school.

Even as crappy as the bus service is to the West End, at least that was an option for me to get to work in San Francisco, and I took the bus every day to work before I had my first kid.   When my husband changed jobs to San Francisco we decided to get rid of our second car because it was just sitting there, undriven, and we were paying for insurance on a car that was never driven.   Sometimes it’s tricky to manage a household of four without the convenience of one car per adult, but it’s forced us to be a lot more thoughtful about how we plan our trips.   And even that crappy bus service comes in handy when one of us is stuck in San Francisco when the other needs the car.   And there’s always the ferry even though it is godawful expensive, but not as expensive as paying car insurance, registration, and maintanence on a car we used infrequently.  

I figure if Eve Pearlman can go car free for 11 months (and counting), our impatient and convenience loving family can make do with one vehicle.