Salvemos Las Lomas: Los Impactos Economicos de la Auto Dependencia

En defensa del patrimonio urbano de la ciudad

Las Lomas de Chapultepec es un fraccionamiento residencial diseñado y desarrollado en los años 20's, sobre las colinas ubicadas al poniente de la ciudad, bajo el concepto urbanistico suburbano americano de la epoca, respetando la orografia y los collados que permiten el drenaje natural y areas de absorcion del agua de lluvia; se le doto con parques, calles amplias y avenidas jardinadas, que siguen las curvas de nivel del terreno, lotes grandes y reglamentaciones para mantener la densidad de construccion baja con mucho jardin, casas abiertas con setos perimetrales bajos en lugar de bardas; se le dotó de varios centros de barrio para alojar comercios y servicios necesarios para los vecinos, a distancias caminables.
Al paso del tiempo, por sus cualidades humanas y urbanisticas intrinsecas, se convirtio en la mejor y mas prestigiada colonia residencial de la ciudad.
A partir de la regencia del Sr. Hank, y como consecuencia del cambio al uso del suelo en las 7 manzanas entre la Fuente de Petroleos y Prado Sur/Prado Norte, autorizado sin consultar a los vecinos y aprovechado por el mismo, inicia el deterioro y la destruccion de la colonia; se construyen edificios de oficinas, que trajeron poblacion flotante, muchos autos y con estos comercio informal y ambulante, los cuidacoches, invasion de las calles con autos estacionados durante todo el dia, y la saturacion del transporte publico.
Simultaneamente, en Bosques de las Lomas, cambian el uso de suelo a los lotes del circuito Ciruelos y Duraznos, autorizando edificios de oficina, con identicas consecuencias. La apertura del puente de Monte Libano a Tecamachalco primero, el de Cofre de Perote después y el llamado Puente Viejo, permitieron la invasion de la colonia por miles de autos de residentes en Tecamachalco, La Herradura, y mas recientemente Interlomas y los desarrollos inmobiliarios en esa zona del estado de Mexico, colonias desarrolladas sin planeacion urbana integral, sin dotarlas con vias de acceso independientes y perimetrales a Lomas de Chapultepec y Cuajimalpa. En el colmo de falta de planeacion, se desarrolla Santa Fe/Bosque de Lilas sin las vias de acceso necesarias, ni servicio de trasporte publico adecuado, y las calles de acceso, existentes desde hace años, no se arreglan para que opere un transporte publico de calidad y asi absorber parte del aforo vehicular que transita entre el sur poniente y Santa Fe/Lilas, sin ingresar a las Lomas, por tal motivo todos los automoviles atraidos a estos desarrollos son obligados a transitar por Paseo de la Reforma, Palmas y Virreyes, Constituyentes/Observatorio desde y hacia el Periferico, unica via para llevarlos al norte hacia Ciudad Satelite o al sur hacia San Jeronimo y Viaducto al oriente.
El problema tiene solución, pero ésta no es ampliar vialidades ni hacer obras que incentiven y faciliten la movilidad en automovil con 1 ocupante, sino en ofrecer transporte publico de calidad que transporta 200 personas por autobus y hacer que quien causa el congestionamiento, el automovilista, pague por ello, en beneficio de los mas.

domingo, 14 de agosto de 2011

Los Impactos Economicos de la Auto Dependencia « Auckland Transport Blog

I’m reading a really interesting book at the moment, The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream by Christopher B. Leinberger. It’s a good book because it takes a historical look at the shift in the mid 20th century away from what’s termed “Walkable Urbanism” and towards a “Drivable Suburbanism” as the main form of building cities and transportation systems and then starts considering more recent urban trends – suggesting a shift back towards walkable urbanism as the economics and environmental effects of drivable suburbanism start to no longer make sense. Changing demographics, particularly the shift away from “two parents with kids” households is also seen as a major cause of the trends back towards the type of urban form (and transport system to support it) that was more common before the Second World War.

There are potentially a few future blog posts to come out of the book, but one thing that I found particularly worth outlining are some of the economic effects of the extreme extent that urban development has gone down the drivable suburbanism path.

Transportation costs were eighteen percent of household income in 2005, second to the amount US families spent on housing (twenty-four percent). This compares with fourteen percent spent on transportation by the average family in Europe, where public transit is much more developed and there is more walkable urbanism. The geometric increase in VMT also indicates the increasing share that automobile transportation plays in US family finances. AAA calculated that the average cost of car ownership and maintenance for a typical car in 2006 was $7,800 per year. This covers loan payments, fuel, parking, maintenance, insurance and incidental costs…

…The result is that owning an average car is the equivalent of having an additional $135,000 mortgage (mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and this calculation assumes six percent mortgage interest). In essence, drivable suburbanism has probably been shifting family spending away from investing in a long-term appreciating asset (e.g. a house) or savings to a short-term depreciating asset (e.g. a car).

This is one of the hidden issues of auto-dependency. If people don’t perceive that public transport is good enough to meet their requirements then they will feel they have to buy that extra car in order to properly participate in society. And buying that extra car can end up being a huge financial burden. Thinking of Auckland, and the particularly crap public transport serving “blue collar” working areas like East Tamaki, Penrose, Mt Wellington, Auckland Airport, Wiri and so forth, the impact on lower income workers is likely to be particularly severe. This seem to be the case in the USA, as the book continues:

The above calculations were for a typical car-owning family, but the findings become even more grim for a working-class family. A 2006 study of eighteen metropolitan areas throughout the country found that working families spend even more on transportation than on housing, a reflection of the ‘drive until you qualify’ affordable housing strategy. “In their search for low-cost housing, working families often locate far from their place of work, dramatically increasing their transportation costs and commute times.” The unintended consequences do not stop there; this mean less time with the family, increased traffic congestion for the region, and greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Traditionally US cities had their poorest residents in the centre, with richer people shifting outwards as they acquired more money. This seems to now be changing, perhaps to reflect more how things are in a city like Auckland – where definitely the cheaper real estate is further out – creating that tricky trade-off of transportation against housing costs.

I think that it would be fascinating to look at the personal costs to families of Auckland being so auto-dependent. Many poorer parts of the city (Mangere & Massey immediately come to mind) suffer some of the worst public transport provision – probably forcing a large number of families to own more cars than they would ideally want to, pushing a big financial burden onto them and making it even more difficult for them to get ahead in life. I’m not sure how you would necessarily go about focusing transport investment in such a way so that it could help lower the extent to which these families need to have more cars than they’d ideally want – but car ownership rates in certain parts of the city could be quite a good measurement tool to work out whether transportation policies were working or not.

via transportblog.co.nz

Los Impactos Economicos de la Dependencia en el Coche han hecho que año con año, las familias tengan que destinar una porcion mayor de su ingreso para los gastos de transporte en auto. Una decision erronea que hace invertir en un bien perecedero y de rapida depreciacion como el auto, en lugar de invertir en una casa que tendra una apreciacion financiera y es una inversion de larga duracion.