From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:39:24 GMT


This seems a little more reasonable, now that we've got some
perspective!

Mike Vandeman (mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM) wrote:
Me: 
: >top priority.  A lot goes into a choice of "where to live", including:
: >	1)  ability to afford a home;
: >	2)  size of the home for a family;
: >	3)  proximity to quality education;
: >	4)  proximity to quality health care;
: >	5)  safety (includes fire protection, police, crime rate);
: >and 	6)  convenience (shopping, groceries, recreational activities, etc.).
:  
Vandeman: You didn't mention the environment....

Me:  This should be a consideration, and with increased transit costs,
will probably become one.



: >Vandeman:
: >: Who cares? They made their bed (so as to destroy the environment). Why
: >: shouldn't they lie in it (or remake it)???
: >
Me: >	Here's where you are slightly wrong.  The people living in the
: >suburbs aren't to blame for urban planning that went awry.  The
: >government which allowed urban sprawl and the developers which exploited it
: >are to blame.  But now we have families with (maybe) one person living
: 
Vandeman: Here's where you are slightly wrong. We all have a choice.
Those who care about the environment don't choose to live in the suburbs.

Me:  Rather than react vehemently (my first thought was BULLSH*T!!!), I will
just point out to you that wealth goes both ways.  I am an active contributor
to three separate environmental groups.  I recycle everything possible.  I
won't make broad sweeping statements like yours, except to say I would guess,
due to the "generally" higher level of education per capita in suburban areas,
that suburbanites tend to have a better environmental awareness than city
dwellers.
	As I've said before, the "suburban sprawl" phenomenon described in
"Edge City" (an insightful book) is the product of a LOT of factors.
Nobody thought about environmental degradation when they founded Evanston,
IL (an early suburb of Chicago).

: >Me:	This really is a good idea.  Take away more cash from the middle
: >class so they are closer to the level of those living in the inner
: >cities.
:  
Vandeman: No, just to fix the environment.

Me:  Your original statement (the letter) talked about social equity.

Vand: >: They made their bed. Choose to live near work & transit, as I did, &
: >: you have no problem.
: >
Me: >	It's clear that you have an admirable lifestyle.  Mind answering
: >a few questions for our files?
: >	1)  What is the frequency of rainfall in your region?
: 
V: Lately (due to the automobile etc.) rarely, but umbrellas still work.

Me:  On bikes??  (I know you can wear rainsuits.  It's also been my
experience that bikes become more hazardous on roads, especially those
shared with cars.)

Me: >	2)  Snowfall frequency?
: 
V: Never, but there are clothes for that.

Me:  Ever try riding your bike on ice, or into the teeth of a 20-mph
headwind at -5 degrees C?  Try it in Minneapolis.

Me: >	3)  What are your job requirements?  Does it require formal business
: >attire (suit, tie, polished leather shoes), in general?  Do you
: >have a large amount of paperwork, as in the legal profession?
: 
V: Informal. Allergic to suits.

Me:  A lot of people have to have a certain attire/dress for work.  An article
on alternative forms of commuting in D.C. pointed out that just having a
shower at the workplace would help.  Plus, have you ever seen how much
paper a legal secretary takes home?  Try carrying that briefcase eight blocks.

Me: >	4)  Do you have flex-time?
: 
V: Yes.

Me:  This helps (so do I, to an extent).  A huge percentage of workers don't
have it, which restricts their options.  (Check the amount of time you
devote to transit below).

Me: >	5)  Are you single or partnered?  (Married or non-marital partner
: >affiliation)
: 
V: Partnered.
: 
Me: >	6)  If you are not single, what is your partner's occupation?
: >Are they close to work & transit as well?
: 
V: Walk to work.

Me:  That's really good (and unusual, I must point out).  I envy you.

Me: >	7)  Are there children in your household?  Do they have any
: >non-school related or school-based activities?
: 
V: No. No time for that.

Me:  Having children is a lifestyle choice that heavily weights
the location of a home.  See previous posts for more insight.

Me: >	8)  Do you have any leisure activities or social groups?
: >(Church, Lions Club, racquetball, etc.).  Are these facilities located
: >close to work & transit as well?
: 
V: Hiking. 10 min walk from home. Environmental activities at various locations
I once spent 7 hrs. going to a highway hearing.

Me:  Very good.  Due to the proximity of meeting places and recreational
facilities, I devote very little transit time or gasoline to getting to
my leisure activities.  That helps balance the slate (I know others who
go a long way for those things, especially hockey players).

Me: >	9)  How close are you located to medical facilities, especially
: >pre-natal and pediatric care for children?
: 
V:  On bus or BART or bike...

Me:  Didn't answer the whole question, but that's O.K.  I'm healthy
and I rarely see a doctor, so it doesn't affect me much.  For parents
with children, it's a MASSIVE consideration, one in which lack of
proximity can devour huge chunks of time.  Kids get sick a lot.

Me: >	10)  What percentage of your income goes for transit?  (Mine: 6.5%
: >of gross yearly income).
: 
V: About 1%.

Me:  You lucky dog!

Me: >	11)  What is the percentage of your daily awake time (nominally
: >16 hours) that you spend in transit to and from work?  (Mine:  4.7%).

V: 15% (but I use it to read -- LOTS)

Me:  That's a big difference.  And the time vs. $$ vs. environment question
is still one of the main reasons so many people drive cars.  I'd be willing
to double my percentage, but not much more than that.  (If I could read
while doubling, that'd be better.  Can't read on a bike.)


Me: >	I'm still not trying to say you're idea is bad, since I'm in favor
: >of it.  But all of the above criteria are relevant to considerations of
: >where someone chooses to live and work.  Are we reaching a level of
: >understanding here yet?
:  
V: Yes. It can be done, but must be thought out. Most of us haven't done that
: yet, hence react with HORROR.
: 
: >Me:   Getting the money is a noble goal, and so is improving mass
: >transit.  I hope this dialogue, on some level, will indicate two
: >things:  one, why the Clinton/Gore administration is likely considering
: >a gas tax, and 2)  why it's going to inconvenience a lot more of the
: >middle class.  Something will get sacrificed -- families will give up
: >getting their children in the best public schools, there will be less
: >personal time at home, leisure and social activities will be
: >reduced.  It'll hurt.
:  
V: Does recycling hurt? Saving water? Minimizing consumption? I doubt it.
: We adjust almost instantly.

Me:  Your examples don't affect "lifestyle" nearly the same way as loss
of time or loss of money.  But I'm backing you, and I'm backing a gas tax
too.   With empathy for a lot of suburban commuters, like myself, who are
going to pay for it.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

P.S.  E-mail a reply, if you wish to.  My system will eat anything posted on
Dec. 24 or 25 before I get back on Monday.  Otherwise, save this and
reply on Monday.  Thanks!