On Dec 24, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Derrick Brashear wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Schneider Fred
> <fwschneider@comcast.net> wrote:
>> About a year ago, perhaps more Dennis, and the rest of you, I
>> suggested to a friend of mine that the future held the wealthy moving
>> back into the cities and evicting the poor.   The poor would then
>> move to the suburbs.   My friend (I would prefer to keep him nameless
>> other than to state that he has earned his living as a transportation
>> consultant in about six nations over the last 40 years) added the
>> punch line:   "And the poor will be breaking up the furniture to feed
>> the fireplaces in the suburbs to keep warm."
>>
>> This is a rather dim outlook but my personal prediction holds that
>> the price of motor fuels will go back up to $4.00 or more a gallon
>> when this global recession is over.   That might be enough to trigger
>> the next recession.   Perhaps after two or three of them in a row, we
>> will finally understand that it is us driving the price of oil
>> because we are running out.   Maybe then we will do something about
>> alternatives.
>>
>> But if we are looking at five year cycles ... twenty years from now
>> many of us on this list will not be here to see if Fred's prediction
>> was correct or not.
>
> Moving close to the jobs can, but doesn't necessarily, mean moving
> back into the cities.
>
> Downtown Pittsburgh still has companies but not like it did.
> Cranberry's office parks are lower density but there are potentially
> jobs there you could live close to.
>
> The question becomes whether low density makes e.g. bus service
> sufficiently slow or annoying if you get to the point where you *must*
> provide it because there's no fuel that *then* the jobs move again.
>
>