The Antiplanner was in Austin, Texas on Wednesday speaking to people about a revived proposal to build light rail. I showed that light rail requires far more land to produce the same amount of transportation as highways, that it emits more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than typical automobiles, and that most cities that have built it have ended up cutting transit service to low-income neighborhoods.
After my presentation, someone who was obviously not persuaded came up and said if we didn’t build light rail we would end up paving over Texas. I repeated that less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space.
“Anyone can lie with statistics,” he said. “I think you have an agenda.” I pointed out that my numbers came from the Census Bureau, but he just repeated, “You have an agenda.”
Depression One of the potent reasons for erectile disorders in men, increases semen volume and production. best price vardenafil uk viagra prices They are very much unique and can be identified with Sil-den-afil citrate. However, his career really began to take off in the 1970’s called a lithotripsy, using acoustic shock waves for breaking up the stones without the need for surgery. viagra prescription for woman There are various reasons that are responsible for such problems in male – Physical causes – This includes diseases, low testosterone levels, depression and unhealthy lifestyle, most of viagra price australia the males, of all ages.
Amazing how people are able to rationalize their ideas. Here we have a project that will probably cost the better part of a billion dollars, earning engineering and construction companies tens of millions in profits. Yet no one questions the integrity of people who support the project. Meanwhile, anyone who opposes it must have “an agenda.”
I welcome your comments on what this gentleman could think my agenda might be.
So as I am shivering in fear becoming slowly aware that a whooping 1% of US land area has fallen under the spell of Impervious, I wonder what sinister immitigable dark powers of human greed does the demon “impervious†possess? My only consolation on this doomed planet, the opportunity for some more $green$.
Can somebody help me motivate some additional new housing restraints based on the imperveability premise? Seems like, after all, I may also be able to include that sailboat to my Carribean retirement.
Let’s go back to the fundamental question: Just how much of Texas (or any state, for that matter) has been “paved†over?
I gave this information above for Austin, the topic.
If you insist on changing the topic, I cannot find the amount for Texas so you’ll have to find your own data for your topic.
There is no need to claim anyone is distracting (well, save for Ettinger) or distorting or hyperbolizing. Nor is there any need to conflate an anonymous person with a Smart Growth adherant.
Now what’s your point.
Please, no evidenceless claims of ‘immaturity’ or ‘hyperbole’ or hasty generalization fallacies in the reply.
DS
D4P says say something good about transit. San Jose/Valley Transit Authority increase in ridership lately 3%. Great, was one percent and now 1.03. With this trend we can now spend 90% of all transportaiion funds on transit rather than 80% which has been used for 20 years. When will we hit 100% for transit.
Here’s what we know. Much of the “persuasion†behind Smart Growth is based on hyperbole. The paving over the earth claim is just one example. It shows a certain immaturity – an inability to argue with reason and facts. Better to scare people by exaggerating claims about losing all the green space. Sometimes I think Smart Growth champions are their own worst enemies.
My understanding of most smart growth projects is that instead of trying to tone down the market’s propensity to pave, they achieve their low per capita impervious surface area by giving developers rights that they wouldn’t have in the vast majority of America – namely the right to decide how much parking they want to provide and what density they want to build. In fact, many smart growth projects, despite their rhetoric, are still constraining of developers in that they don’t let them build as large of a density as they would have otherwise wished. Personally, I’m not terribly worried about paving over the country, but I am worried that the amount of country we’ve paved over is more than would otherwise be if the area were left unplanned, as the Antiplanner so often advocates.
“I’m not terribly worried about paving over the country, but I am worried that the amount of country we’ve paved over is more than would otherwise be if the area were left unplanned, as the Antiplanner so often advocates.”
No doubt. Min parking regs are a big problem, but the regs are changing to max parking requirements in “progressive” (dirty word) places.
D4P says say something good about transit
Incorrect.
The Antiplanner: Dedicated to the sunset of government planning
If that’s not an agenda, what is it?
“What do the transit agencies get out of building light rail?”
Larger budgets. That is the objective.
“This is a standard paper for those of us in the urban ecology field”
Again, from the conclusion: “This research does not seek to present a direct link between specific land development regulations and regional water or air quality…”
Not only does this undermine much of his argument, but it also makes the findings irrelevant to the current context which, as TexanOkie outlined, was the issue of water quality and watershed protection.
At least he was honest.
Not only does this undermine much of his argument
Pffft.
You “forgot” to include the rest of the passage you chose to highlight to pass judgement:
Only if you are incapable of understanding the paper or wish to undermine it for some reason can you reach your conclusion. Or perhaps you read it too quickly, or don’t know how to read a paper; in these two cases, then, you can’t speak to the paper. Surely you wouldn’t come to this conclusion because you were dishonest, right?
See, the paper had results that
and
Seeing as the paper was for a purpose other than what you quote-mined (evidenced by the methods section on pp 102-110 ), and is directly relevant to why an area would limit building over an aquifer, one wonders which explanation I offered is the best one, eh MJ?
DS
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
Actually, none of your arguments are sufficient.
Stone is not proposing to simulate the effects of land development regulations on aquifer recharge in Madison (nor air quality, as he mentions). He is simply providing a (suggestive) cross-sectional association between land development and impervious surface. In other words, he is measuring inputs, not outcomes. Impervious surface is not an acceptable surrogate for air and water quality problems. I don’t see any passages in the paper where he argues that impervious surface is the only factor affecting these problems.
I’m still not sure why you would take your position. Your conclusion about surrogates cannot follow from your argument – your reasoning is faulty as the premise is false. That is: Stone is seeking indicators, not surrogates, and analyzed attributes to test. Additionally, of course Stone is not measuring outcomes, as that was not the stated purpose of the paper. The outcomes are in the scholarship contained in the refs (and in my links above in 35 and 41, which you haven’t refuted).
Stone is proposing land-use indicators based on the analysis to help measure and affect outcomes. The association between parcel attributes and WQ-AQ is supported by the refs. So again your argument is seemingly based on an uninformed premise.
To conclude, the Stone paper performed an analysis of parcel-level design attributes and characteristics, reached a conclusion regarding these characteristics, then proposed policies to reduce impervious cover. Folks can read the refs to learn the scholarship behind impervious effects. Again, I have links above in 35-41 that support the premises in the Stone paper, and that can help you get started on your journey of discovery about impervious effects.
DS
Well, folks, can we use our own brains once in a while? Rendering 1% of the US surface impervious, compromises the recharging of the aquifers. Does this make any sense to anybody with even a hint of quantitative skills?
Does this make any sense to anybody with even a hint of quantitative skills?
15-25-40% coverage over a particular aquifer does make sense to those with quantitative skills, however*.
But you obviously know something that Austin, San Antonio, DFW Metroplex doesn’t know, so you need to call them right away. They need to hear your wisdom, as they’ve either enacted** or have plans in the works that consider impervious and WQ.
Call. Call right away. Do you need some contact info to share your mad quantitative skillz with others, to stop all this silly product development to reduce impervious?
DS
* E.g. Corinth, TX’s stormwater utility fee is based upon the amount of a property’s impervious surfaces.
** E.g. Garland TX’s stormwater utility fee is based upon the amount of a property’s impervious surfaces.
40% here and total still 1% means the majority of areas 0%. Many cities bring their water from tens and hundreds of miles away. You have to get your water from under your neighborhood? Does all your water need to be potable if you only drink 0.5% of it? There are many options if you have immagination. Of course, if the goal is to find any possible excuse to limit development, or pack Americans the European way, then, of course, you will find many.
“they achieve their low per capita impervious surface area by giving developers rights that they wouldn’t have in the vast majority of America – namely the right to decide how much parking they want to provide and what density they want to build.” — Rationalite
If they’re allowing the developer to decide what density they want to build, it ain’t smart growth.
“Pffft.â€Â
Somebody help Dan. His drool bucket is full again.
Wait. Let’s pour his spittle onto the hill country to compensate the aquifer!
“A development built close to your location has a larger impact (positive or negative) that one build further away. So, you need to bias the proportion of rural open space.â€Â
This point seems valid in political and economic development calculations. People care more about where they are and where they’re moving to. It has essentially nothing to do with all the masturbation about paving above aquifers.
I suggest AP’s agenda is a more comprehensive accounting of costs for all land use proposals. This includes the negatives of pavement and autos, but also includes the positives of personal transport. It also includes the positives of communal transport.
The trouble is communal transport doesn’t seem to achieve the positives claimed, and the negatives of personal transport are overstated in broad faith-like terms.
When one gets down to what is provable, and separates it from judgments and preferences over what is provable, the evidence makes communal transit look stupid. But it becomes like arguing religion.
A faith which proscribes economic contributions by women, for example, limits wealth creation (and attendant poverty reduction, environmental mitigation, etc.). Try telling such a believer that the facts consign his people to enduring poverty and the believer can only see a heretic who wants to give women power they do not deserve.
Like I said: the whole world doesn’t know what you alone know about watersheds.
Here’s some contact information for the world. Give us a shout out. Let us know what everyone says.
DS
@68 foxmarks wrote:
[“A development built close to your location has a larger impact (positive or negative) that one build further away. So, you need to bias the proportion of rural open space.†– anon]
“This point seems valid in political and economic development calculations. People care more about where they are and where they’re moving to. It has essentially nothing to do with all the masturbation about paving above aquifers.”
Er..um..that’s from my post (@45), and I agree it has nothing to do with aquifers. Still, I think the point I made was a good one, explaining why most people think the countryside is more developed than it actually is (also true of the UK).
Ett. “There are many options if you have immagination.”
Option numero uno: poorly manage American water supplies until there is a major crisis, then have to resort to invading Canada to get bulk water exports from us Canucks up north. 😉
Dan, my wallet has once again been making faces at me for not aligning my ideology with my financial interests. It says that while I may disagree on principle, I should still thank uncle Dan for supporting the framework that constrains new housing and enables me to make as much money from inflating residential real estate as I make from cancer research (without even moving a finger). So, thanks uncle Dan, after all, you’re my wallet’s best friend.
D4P,
Your statement that APs response was non-sequiter is equally applicable to the gentleman’s comments AP was responding. What has building a light rail got to do with paving over Texas? If Texas does get paved over what are they going to do with all the houses, schools, shops, factories, warehouses, hospitals and oil refineries in Texas? Use them to build over some other state? What percentage of Texas road miles are currently paved? What percentage of road and highway corridors are actually paved over?
“If someone were to say to you, “I’m concerned that I might get sick in the future,†would you really address their concern if you responded, “You’re healthy right nowâ€Â?” Sound’s like a good response to me, I might even suggest they look at the past to estimate the future probability of getting sick in the future. They might even work out that even if they are ten times more likely to get sick in the future because they’re growing old the fact that they’ve only been sick 0.35% of their life so far means they only have to be sick on ten days in each of their twilight years. “Relax” i’d say to them “your’re hardly going to be spending the rest of your life confined to a sanitorium.”
How much of Texas’ rural open spaces are undeveloped? 0%outside of national parks. Unless you’re suggesting cattle ranchers somehow managed to feed their cattle while leaving their ranchlands in in virgin condition.
sustainibertarian,
“In general, about 30% of land area is dedicated to roads and parking lots in most cities.”
Which should not be confused with “paved over”. Most suburban roads include a substantial width of grass verges and most CBD parking lots are paved-under rather than being paved-over.
At least you didn’t claim that 30% of land is dedicated to the auto which is how that stat is normally presented. If service lanes, loading docks and other commercial vehicle facilities are excluded, along with mixed use facilities such as basement carparks, and auto prohibited areas of “roads” the figure comes down to a more sensible 5% to 15% range for most cities.
Dan,
I don’t need to get educated about the observed or implied relationship between urban land use and imperviousness’ impact on aquifiers since the problem with the aquifier I get my water from is the wholesale conversion of cropping farms to irrigated dairy farms and the attendant increase in nitrogen fertilser application rates threatening to leach nitrates into the aquifier. It would actually have been better if the farms had been sprawled over by the city instead being converted to dairying.
But, to get back to AP’s actual subject, how on earth does light rail protect an aquifier? I can’t see how it makes any difference whether the area is paved over by TODs or SFD’s with patios and swimming pools. Surely any tarnsport improvement is going to make the area more attractive for development. It seems to me that the “do noting” transport improvement option is the best in this particular case. That way nobody has to subsidise anything (railway or highway) and nobody loses out except those who have to trade-off travel time for scenic views.
Pingback: Jim Skaggs’ Transportation Comments » Blog Archive » The Bankruptcy of the Modern Transit Model
But, to get back to AP’s actual subject, how on earth does light rail protect an aquifier?
The subject stated that privileging roads would result in paving over TX. I’m not sure that’s true, but LR could protect water quality by concentrating development away from receiving waters. WQ being, of course, measures such as: turbidity, TMDL, temp, infiltration amount, etc.
DS