So people move further away and commute in cars. If the cost of travel remains modest the calculation works to their benefit - time (of travel) vs space (of living quarters). Now when fuel goes up the equation shifts and fringe communities become less desirable. This has not happened yet in the US even with the run up in fuel prices.
If autos become more efficient it will just allow people to continue to move to fringe areas or even create newer, more distant ones. The net result will be that total fuel use will not decline.
There are two things that might work, a new tax structure which discourages driving (either via incentives for, say, taking mass transit, or inefficiency taxes), or an industrial/land use policy which makes the development of fringe communities disfavored.
There is little chance of this happening in the US, both the car and the home are "a man's castle". Anyone proposing restrictions will not be in government for long.
Perhaps someone from Europe would like to evaluate the impact there since commuting seems to be more rational and to cover shorter distances. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
If you're going to discourage development in the 'exurbs' you also have to allow development in the inner suburbs and cities - i.e. support higher density housing. You live in Long Island I believe - how much willingness is there to support changing zoning from single unit to multi-unit housing? I live in Brooklyn in a neighbourhood which is supposed to get a band of high rise housing towers built next to a major transit hub, along a major thoroughfare and replacing a mix of non-descript low rise housing, old industrial buildings, car repair shops and empty lots. Most of my very liberal neighbours hate the idea because it will 'change the character' of the neighbourhood. I've read of similar responses around the country in both urban and inner suburban areas, liberal and moderate alike - think the DC suburbs or the Bay area. (we're talking almost exclusively about blue America here - not too many thoroughly conservative areas). Until such kneejerk hostility to higher density residential development is overcome all the handwringing over sprawl is pointless, people have to live someplace and if the choice is between the urban neighbourhood from hell, ridiculously expensive urban or inner suburban areas, or the exurbs, guess what they'll choose.
The population has actually fallen since 1990 (down about 64,000), but it is still 1.3 million. This makes it a fairly high density region, comparable to the single family areas of Queens and Brooklyn in NYC. In addition the high cost of living has meant that young people are leaving making the population grow older. The local government is aware of these trends and is studying options (including high density housing), but so far without much progress. Mass transit is quite good for a suburb with the Long Island Railroad reaching all major villages. It is designed, however to funnel people in and out of Manhattan and thus almost all other travel is via private cars (buses are under utilized).
So, Nassau county was also the site of the first commuter highways (the Northern State Parkway and the infamous Long Island Expressway). This has been the model for the arms race between more cars and more highways. The LIE was just expanded to four lanes from three each way and traffic still overwhelms it for most of the day. So as a laboratory to see what urban planning can do it will be a useful place to watch.
The fringe communities are a newer phenomena, occurring mostly in the West. Since these are the areas experiencing the most growth they are the ones that need the most careful design if they aren't going to be complete disasters in 50 years. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
