There were lots of keen cyclists out in the parks and nearby mountains at weekends, but the bikes stayed in the garage during the week. The locals would drive everywhere if they could. Whereas in London if it is at all possible not to drive your car, you don’t (congestion, parking fees etc). Certainly walking any meaningful distance in Littleton was unpredictable, you could never be sure whether there would be sidewalks all the way. As I said, just a difference in culture (and climate?).

I think an 11% reduction in the use of the car would be an under-estimate for high density development in the UK. Good cycle routes and provision for cyclists in the workplace generally results in a very high take-up. I work in an office in the centre of London. We have bike racks, showers and lockers for about 30 out of a workforce of 300. These are overused and so many people are using nearby public car parks to store their bikes and using local gyms to shower and change. Several people cycle around 10 miles to work from the ‘burbs. The office has just 15 parking spaces so everybody else has to come in either on foot, bike or by public transport. A ticket in a nearby car park costs £20 ($30) a day plus the £8 ($12) central London ‘congestion charge’. That makes it over $200 a week to drive to work, on top of the cost of running the car!

High density development, both commercial and residential, drives up the price of driving and parking a car – so I think you might be surprised at how much it reduces car use. Provided their are suitable mass transport alternatives then this is not always a bad thing.

When used by demographers, “urban” includes both urban and suburban; “urban area” includes all land in central cities and all developed land surrounding those cities down to densities of about 1,000 people per square mile (about 1 house every two acres). The reports advocating or evaluating the effects of smart growth generally assume that X percent (ranging from 25 to 90) of all new development and redevelopment in urban areas will be at higher than previous densities.

“Nevertheless, the study committee (which included both advocates and skeptics of smart growth) optimistically projected that doubling the density and making other changes in design for 75 percent of all new urban development would lead urban Americans to drive about 11 percent less in 2050 than if these changes had not not made. Since urban driving currently produces about 12 percent of U.S. human-caused greenhouse gases, this means about a 1.3 percent reduction in emissions.”

What is meant by urban in this context? Are we talking about things within the urban growth boundary? Or is it just old, core cities?

If the Federals try, I expect that we will see a resurgence of anti-government movements, even Texas secessionists. That will not be a pretty sight.

Minimum-density zoning has become common in cities that are using “smart growth,” and has been applied in towns as small as Missoula, MT and as large as San Diego. You are right: it does discourage growth in areas that cannot economically support higher densities. That’s why cities use tax-increment financing and other subsidies to promote such development. Even with such subsidies, you can still find large patches of vacant land near light-rail stations in Portland and other cities, usually because the zoning codes also limit parking and without parking even a development next to a light-rail station cannot work.

We have one car. I take the train to work, and my children walk to school. My wife drives to work 4 miles (2 each way), but she needs the car for her work. She is a doctor and makes local house-calls – 1 mile (ish) a day.

To contrast, I have a friend who moved out of London and now lives in what we call a ‘dormitory’ village outside a rural town. He drives 10 miles to/from work (5 each way). His wife uses a second car and drives the children to and from school 2 miles (1 mile each way) and then on to her (part time) work, 6 miles (3 each way). So their car does 18 miles a day to our 5 miles. What is more we have a large parade of shops 3 minutes walk away and we only need to use the car once a week for shopping.

Our planning system has for about 30 years specified minimum development densities for housing. We are a very crowded island and this kind of regulation is necessary to stop the countryside being swallowed up by suburban sprawl.

I have a friend who inherited a dilapidated house on a 1 acre plot of land. He asked for permission to build two houses, one to sell off and the other to live in. He was told that this was not possible as the minimum density for that plot of land was 10 houses!

My sister lived in Littleton CO for a couple of years. When she first arrived she asked a neighbour where the nearest food shop was. He gave her directions, and as it was only 1/4 mile away she set off on foot. The sidewalk ran out at the end of their road and she found herself walking in the road or on the grass verge the rest of the way! She quickly found out that in Littleton you only walk (or cycle) for recreation – not to actually go places.

I guess it is a difference in culture.

To accommodate growth with minimal expansion of urban areas, planners rezoned dozens of neighborhoods of single-family homes for apartments. The zoning is so strict that, if your neighbors have a vacant lot, they can build only multi-family housing on that lot. In some cases, the zoning is so strict that, if your house burns down, you will be allowed to replace it only with an apartment.

Am I reading this right, that land owners are not allowed to build less dense than code? I’ve never heard of this type of zoning. Could you point me to resources on this type of zoning? Doesn’t it lead to more lots remaining undeveloped if they can’t handle the density, economically?