Think back (if you are old enough) to 1970 and imagine you were then asked to write a plan for America for 2010. In 1970, you wouldn’t have known about personal computers, and so you probably wouldn’t expect that the number of people working at home in 2010 would be growing faster than the number of people riding transit to work.
In 1970 you wouldn’t have known about the Internet and FedEx (which began in 1973), and so you probably wouldn’t have predicted that many people in 2010 would shop from home and have their goods delivered to them by truck. (In 1970, for those who don’t remember, UPS home deliveries were rare.)
In 1970, the private railroads still operated passenger trains and the airlines hadn’t been deregulated yet so airfares were mainly at wealthy and business travelers. So you probably wouldn’t have predicted the doubling in per capita air travel or that air travel would be one-fourth the cost, per passenger mile, of passenger trains.
In 1970, there were no WalMarts outside of Arkansas, there were no club wholesale stores, and the organic food movement was in its infancy. So you couldn’t have predicted the revolutions in consumer product production and distribution that would transform the retail industry by 2010.
In 1970, the big urban problem was air pollution, and most planners believed the solution was to get people out of their cars and onto transit. So you probably wouldn’t have predicted that the air pollution problem would be largely solved by improved auto technologies, nor that hundreds of billions of dollars in public subsidies to transit would do anything but slow the decline in per capita transit ridership from about 50 trips per urban resident in 1970 to 44 today.
They viagra online ordering can easily do it with just the click of a button. In 1999 http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/sombrero/ viagra on line after a third name change, it became IPC, the Association Connecting Electronics Industries. One generic viagra cipla of the most problematic situation arises in the field of medication as well as pharmacy which makes it possible for the person to have a cure for it. This Sildenafil citrate is the medicine that was formed using the same formula of generic cialis mastercard but any pharmacy could be contacted to ask about the treatment with Kamagra.
Given these and many other examples of our inability to predict the future, the Antiplanner has to wonder why anyone would think that it makes sense to try to write a 2050 plan for America. But, given that we have planners, naturally we have people who want to plan no matter how insane the idea.
The 2050 plan will be heavily oriented around megaregion, of which there are supposedly ten (a suspiciously round number). Jane Jacobs once defined a “region†as “an area safely larger than the last one to whose problems we found no solution.” And a megaregion is safely larger than the regions for whose problems we found no solution.
The 2050 plan will also be based on high-speed rail, even though high-speed trains will never carry more than 1 or 2 percent of passenger travel and virtually no freight. So basically the plan is to build infrastructure that few people will use to serve megaregions that don’t really exist and ignore things that really count, not to mention the things we can’t predict.
According to page 19 of the prospectus, America 2050 is a project of the Regional Plan Association, which formed many decades ago to write a regional plan for New York City. I guess they consider that a success because now they want to write a plan for the rest of us. It fits, because after all the goal of smart growth is to turn the rest of America into New York — cramped housing in multifamily dwellings or on small lots, congested highways, and financially strapped transit systems.
Page 18 notes that America 2050 also has the usual supporting cast, including representatives of Smart Growth America, Portland’s Metro, Parsons Brinckerhoff, university planning professors, and various other planning advocates. With there help, our future will be one of unaffordable housing, reduced personal mobility, high taxes (or inflation) to pay for all the rail lines, slow economic growth, and increased poverty. I think we can just say no.
Simple reasons for plans:
Politicians be credited for creating jobs, which took money from the private sector. Payback to unions. (Both are net negative on jobs.)
Buy more votes. (Soon, there won’t won’t be enough prosperity generators to even transfer wealth.)
Have projects in their name.
Pretend to solve things, but create more problems, which will then be attempted to be solved by more government.
“Control” behavior.
I like the 1905 40 year plan that planned for Tojo getting us out the depression, the first freeways before the model T, jet aircraft, cruse missiles and breaking the Nazi military codes before there was a Nazi party.
Or did they miss a few things?
PS: Randal you misfiled this post. It belongs in a new category: Regional planners are deluded idiots.
Thanks
JK
The probable error for urban/suburban population projections that go out 20 years is ±50%. In 1950, the population of Detroit was 2 million; Boston’s was over 800,000; California was empty.
Planners are delusional.
In 1970, construction of the Washington (D.C.) Metrorail system was just getting under way (a groundbreaking was held in 1969).
Predictions made then:
(1) The resident population of the District of Columbia would increase (it didn’t – instead it fell off a cliff, declining from 756,668 in 1970 to just under 600,000 in 2009). Employment in D.C.
also fell during this period, even as federal and state and local taxpayers were spending billions of dollars on a rail transit system designed to serve the downtown area of D.C.
(2) There would be no more highway traffic congestion because most commuters in the region would be riding the Metrorail system by the early 1980’s (example, see this page and click the “Bond referendum poster, 1968” thumbnail).
(3) In 1970, most people had not heard of a place called Tysons Corner in Fairfax County, Virginia. Now it’s one of the largest employment centers in the East.
CP, with @200,000 jobs and 100,000 residents, Tysons Corner has more going on than most any other downtown anywhere in the US.
“I think we can just say no.”
The question is whether or not anybody will listen to you.
So no plans are better than making plans? Yeah, that’s worked well for Iraq (no exit strategy).
That is a very interesting question, ws. Assume for a moment that long-term planning is fraught with problems in foreseeing the future, but doing no planning results in poor results, then what is the role of planning?
I ask this very seriously, and I doubt the answer is all or nothing. Disaster planning might be one model, where the planners don’t know at all what will happen, but they do simulations which yield a lot of helpful results, even though the actual disaster will be much different than what was planned for. Planning in this context has some real usefulness, but also has real limitations.
It belongs in a new category: Regional planners are deluded idiots.
That sounds a bit harsh. Might I suggest the category “Megaplanning”? It captures nicely the grandiose and pretentious aims of its proponents, without being insulting.
In 1970, most people had not heard of a place called Tysons Corner in Fairfax County, Virginia. Now it’s one of the largest employment centers in the East.
This is always one of my favorite examples. On the inside cover of Joel Garreau’s book Edge Cities there are pictures of Tyson’s Corner in 1945, when not much of anything existed there, and in 1988 when it had emerged as a major regional employment center. Who could have known?
Well, the first thing about plans is they ultimately do not come out as envisioned, and that’s expected. If one can simply accept the fact that urban systems are vastly more complex than any prediction or forecast can determine; then plans can certainly help guide and shape the future for positive means, even if they do not come to complete fruition.
There’s good and bad planning, there’s good and bad suburbs, there’s good and bad politicians, there’s good and bad density, yada, yada, yada.
I think if we cast everything into an “either/or” category, then we are all missing something. Are all plans necessarily bad? No, but that doesn’t mean all plans are inevitably good, either.
*Ready to be admonished by either side of the spectrum for making a fairly moderate (gasp) post about this issue*
Disaster planning simulations are fascinating, and show a lot of strengths of planning. You should participate in one if you get the chance.
One huge gain is that people make connections that are near impossible outside of a disaster. The city police, trying to recover evidence underwater, learn that the state highway department has divers. The state highway department, trying to clear roadways, learns the federal Soil Conservation Service has experts on avalanches and landslides.
Another gain in disaster planning is learning about choke points. Suddenly the one highway out of New Orleans is a huge problem. Or the one gasoline pipeline into a city results in huge effects.
But one lesson is that as obvious as disasters are in retrospect, they are very hard to predict so that to be planned for. The Twin Towers were an obvious terrorist target, but no one foresaw a hijacked aircraft. New Orleans was an obvious flood disaster for a century, but it took so long that no one took it seriously any more. Everyone has been waiting for California to have the big earthquake and fall into the ocean, but the effects of the 2010 Chile earthquake changed all those predictions.
So what is the value of planning, when it shows, roughly, a lot of value in some terms, but a terrible record of predictive ability?
And, it is likely that foreseen disasters are overblown. The Asian Flu and H1N1 Flu viruses were way overblown. The cold war preparation for nuclear war was not irrational, but it might have been futile. If you take the extreme Global Warming predictions seriously, there is not much point in even trying to reduce CO2 levels.
ws said, “So no plans are better than making plans? :
Why do people think in extremes? It’s not a question of excessive big gov or anarchy.
Many plans try to change behavior, rather than work with people’s wants & patterns.
Buying votes via wealth transfer does not work. Detroit was very prosperous. Now look what leftism & unions have done.
Thank you ws (#11). Your point about the dichotomies set up around here strike a chord with me. Scott may ask “Why do people think in extremes?” but he is not asking to change the planning process to better reflect his concerns, he’s asking to not plan in this circumstance. Mr. O’Toole is straight-up saying “no” to planning. That’s one “extreme” end of the spectrum.
bennett said: “Mr. O’Toole is straight-up saying ‘no’ to planning.”
No. Read the subtitle again: “Dedicated to the sunset of government planning.”
Regarding the binary choice of no plan or excessive planning,
& about the “plan in this circumstance” which is not for a circumstance (although the focus is on HSR), but for the period 4 decades out.
The main angle of looking at 2050 is that it’s too far out, many things change.
The plans can easily become obsolete (mas rail transit has been obsolete for almost a century) & have better solutions, at a later time.
Also, gov plans are done by taking money people, for items that many don’t want or use, & often for people who hardly pay the taxes. In other words, for the benefit of a very few, but at the expense of many.
This does not mean that all gov plans are bad, but they should be for a majority, & user-financed is just. Although “user pays” is difficult for many gov projects.
C. P. Zilliacus said: (2) There would be no more highway traffic congestion because most commuters in the region would be riding the Metrorail system by the early 1980’s (example, see this page and click the “Bond referendum poster, 1968? thumbnail).
THWM: That post doesn’t even claim no more highway traffic congestion. What it’s promoting is a better option to just sitting in traffic congestion.
Rail could be “a better option to just sitting in traffic congestion”?
Could be true for people living near (~1/3 mi.) a station and also working near a station.
Probably 95%+ of people don’t fit those conditions.
Yeah!, massive spending, from the many, for the very few.
The claim was not for “no” more congestion, but “greatly reduced”.
BTW, population increases have been usually been neglected in road increases.
Also, VMT naturally increases because of more income & more needs, among others.
There have also been reasons for trip efficiency increasing (reducing # of trips for same purposes),
for example, going to a big box store, once, vs many other stores.
MJ wrote:
> This is always one of my favorite examples.
Mine as well.
> On the inside cover of Joel Garreau’s book Edge Cities there
> are pictures of Tyson’s Corner in 1945, when not much of
> anything existed there, and in 1988 when it had emerged as
> a major regional employment center. Who could have known?
Actually, for those that did a little strategic thinking, it was pretty obvious with the coming of the Capital Beltway (completed 1964), the highways in the Dulles corridor (the Dulles Airport Access Road (completed at the same time as the airport in 1962) and Va. 267 (the Dulles Toll Road) (completed 1982)) and I-66 (between the T. Roosevelt Bridge and I-495 and the Dulles Connector road (completed 1982).
And even though the Dulles Metrorail extension through Tysons Corner is now under construction, it’s important to note that the area grew up and became a success story without any rail transit.
Borealis wrote:
> Disaster planning simulations are fascinating, and show a lot
> of strengths of planning. You should participate in one if
> you get the chance.
I suggest this posting on the BBC Web site:
Waiting for the earthquake in Los Angeles
Frank,
re: #15. I speaking in context of this post, where Mr. O’Toole has overtly said “no” to planning. I for one know that he is not an actual antiplanner. I’ve said this many times, he is anti government planning that results in outcomes he doesn’t like. When top down government planning results in large lots and highway expansion, he’s all for it.
I’m not going to call his subtitle a “lie,” but it is at least hyperbole.
Well said Bennet, thus I along with others call Mr.O’Toole, The Autoplanner.
Planning:
As a student at SJSU, San Jose, 50 years ago our Political Science professor would look out the window and see cars driving by with one passenger and say “there should be a law against driving a car with only one passenger. We have 10 years of oil left and we are using one tenth each year and so using a car will be over in 10 years”. Now after 50 years, we may have a 40 years supply of oil left.
Last year we had a 30 year supply of Natural Gas left and the price was $8 a unit and during this last year our new finds now provide a 100 year supply and the cost has dropped to $4.
Oil today is $82 a barrow and will probably be $120 in two years increasing the interest in finding other energy sources which will be coming economical. We will still be able to drive our 50 MPG autos and still have a choice of where and how to live unless the choice has been taken by Planning.
lgrattan said: Still have a choice of where and how to live unless the choice has been taken by Planning.
THWM: Then why do you think it’s ok for Koch Oil paying O’Toole to galavant around bashing trains & transit?
the highwayman
Give us some facts and read O’Toole’s books.
the highwayman:
You know what they call wildly unsubstantiated claims uttered with the intention of damaging someone’s reputation?
Libel.
Do you have evidence for your assertion? If not, I suggest you STFU.
And even if you do, I still suggest you drop the ad hominem attacks. It’s weak. It’s lame. It shows, in the words of Dan, that you got no play.
Please review ad hominem again if you still haven’t figured it out.
And BTW, the Koch family supports PBS’s Nova, the Smithsonian, the Met, and donated $100 million to cancer-fighting institutes. Oh, the humanity! The evil oil money!
As if you care about other people! lol
What does care mean? Nanny state?
People don’t really need to care about others. The key is to not harm others.
What does gov coercion have to do with care? If there was real care, then behavior modification & limits would not be there.
What does Koch Industries have to do with driving?
People drive in high density & most trains & buses use oil.
Koch products are used by millions of people, regardless of density, so there is not a certain style of lifestyle for customers.
Highman, why do you even post these brief narrow-minded statements?
You are easily rebutted every time; Dan is too. Both of you don’t realize.
#3: You said:
The probable error for urban/suburban population projections that go out 20 years is ±50%. In 1950, the population of Detroit was 2 million; Boston’s was over 800,000; California was empty.
……the picture you paint of Detroit being huge compared to Boston, and California empty in 1950 is not very accurate.
…in 1950 – California was the 2nd biggest state in the country. in 1920 it was the 8th biggest. that’s not empty.
Detroit’s physical size is 143 sq miles of land, whereas Boston is only 48 sq miles of land. If you include the adjacent cities to Boston like Cambridge, Everett, Somerville, Lovell, and Quincy all of which combined are smaller than Detroit’s city limits, you get a 1950 population of about 1.25 million in 86 square miles of greater Boston, compared to 1.8 million in 143 sq miles in Detroit.
Add in all of the heavily populated areas near Boston at that time, and the metro area populations are about the same.
(I got most of this data from wikipedia, who got it from the census.)
…so, while you may have a point that population predictions aren’t reliable, the numbers you use to back it up range from wrong (California) to misleading (Detroit vs Boston).
Can you provide us with a study from 1950 that made population predictions that were accepted and used to make some policy decision and then proved to be incorrect?
Scott, what you post is narrow minded.
High-speed rail has always been a solution in search of a problem. Now, with the introduction of “megaregions” into the lexicon, HSR planners can convince people that these megaregions really do need their own special policies. And what better policy to promote than HSR? These two ideas are perfect complements — the ultimate triumph of style over substance.
the highwayman said:
Scott, what you post is narrow minded.
Highman, Please elaborate.
I have explained numerous times.
In fact, for most every every little sentence, that you posed, I expanded.
For this, “narrowness”, what am I missing?
You have rarely (never) answered any counters/questions to your supposed counter-points.
You don’t seem to realize that you “gloss” over many facts, ramifications, irrelevances & unintended consequences, often.
MJ, & others,
Agglomerations make HSR?
The purpose is basically travel to “another” urban area.
How many & often do persons travel between?
What’s the cost trade-off?
Can you believe that the HSR proponents are in favor of mass suburbanization.
They promote people commuting from the central valley to the Bay Area.
Nuts?
Seems to be missing from many “reducing ‘whatever'” crowd: Live close to work.
Scott, you’re a sociopath!
Why?