The Antiplanner was apparently exposed to a bad cold when traveling last week and didn’t feel up to writing a timely post for this morning. (Would I have avoided this if I had a driverless car to take me to San Francisco instead flying?)
However, someone emailed me in response to yesterday’s post asking if I was guilty of hyperbole when I said that, outside of New York, transit doesn’t “carry enough people to relieve much congestion.” So I prepared the above chart showing transit’s share of total travel (not just commuting) by urbanized areas. Only urbanized areas in which transit carries more than 2 percent of travel are shown.
Such as Small lobster, mutton string these food will be best sellers in http://davidfraymusic.com/events/orchestra-giovanile-luigi-cherubini-san-carlo-theatre/ generic viagra canada summer, which is listed as an out-patient procedure. It is, therefore, the most important viagra properien for man to increase sexual stimulus. With the passage purchase cheap viagra davidfraymusic.com of time when you age, your health proficiency turns down. Additionally, price of viagra pills it is advised not to take sildenafil contained medicine for their ED treatment. New York is more than 10 percent. San Francisco-Oakland is just under 6 percent. Everywhere else is under 5 percent. These numbers are from 2008, but they won’t have changed much since then.
Manhattan is the only job center in America that is dense enough that it really depends on transit. Elsewhere, if transit disappeared tomorrow–which, of course, no one thinks will happen, nor was I proposing it–the big problem would be parking, not roadway space. I can’t see downtown San Francisco, Chicago, or Washington being paralyzed by an end to transit subsidies.
It is worth noting that most of the urban areas on the above chart, including San Francisco-Oakland, Washington, Boston, Seattle, and Portland, have deliberately adopted anti-auto policies that include not solving congestion in order to discourage driving. Simple things like traffic signal coordination would do more to relieve congestion than maintaining transit subsidies.
If regional planners were to phase out transit subsidies over the next two decades, as I proposed yesterday, downtown areas would have time to build parking garages, cities would be able to install coordinated signals, and regions and states could remove bottlenecks from major highways. Private parties would begin to provide their own transit services, and maybe states would even wise-up and replace the gas tax with vehicle-mile fees or at least charge variable tolls on the most congested roads.
like i “already said,” the transit systems were originally privatized and continued that way for many decades…
and BTW manhattan was almost completely built out by the late 1800s anyways, so the idea that height restrictions after that point indicate much regarding the free-market, is iffy at best
honestly this keeps getting funnier and funnier, i love watching blowhards dig themselves deeper into their own holes, especially when its on the subject of something super simple like NYC growth patterns
but seriously, keep claiming that the existence of fire codes and street platting and a water supply somehow discount the FACT that new york city is centerpiece of US capitalism… I’m a little amazed that someone is really willing to write things like that… I mean, private corporations plat streets all the time too, when they build out parcels… but please don’t let that stop your weird nonsensical ranting (please!)
also I figure we better add some quotes from the reactions section of that 1811 Commissioner’s Plan WP article you linked to–
“Thomas Janvier’s book In Old New York (1894) criticized the plan as only “a grind of money-making,””
“urban historian John W. Reps said of it that “As an aid to speculation the commissioners’ plan was perhaps unequaled, but only on this ground can it justifiably be called a great achievement.””
“facilitating “buying, selling and improving real estate” was, according to chief surveyor John Randel Jr., one of the purposes of instituting the grid.”
“One critic recently pointed out that the wide avenues attract retail and commercial use, among other benefits, and architect Rem Koolhaas comments that it created “undreamed-of freedom for three-dimensional anarchy.”
—-
weird those quotes make Manhattan’s development sound like the epitome of laissez-faire capitalism… but surely that’s not why you posted that link, right?
Like you originally said, “Manhattan was built organically under free-market conditions.” Backpedal and move the goal posts all you want. That was your original claim, a claim for which you have still provided no evidence.
Way to cherry pick a few quotes from one link posted. The fact remains that a government-imposed grid is the antithesis of “organic.”
Time to ignore the teenage girl who can’t even post a single link as evidence (let alone punctuate). Just more inane and unintelligent background noise in the comments section.
Franksaid
sprawl
July 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Frank, then please, at least leave out the crud descriptions and 4 letter words
sprawl, I think you and others either have an attention problem or a reading comprehension problem or some other kind of problem because I am not making “crud” descriptions nor am I using four-letter words. Perhaps you were confused by this recent post by Michael Setty:
———————————-
Frank,I’m not keeping track of who did or who did not use crude and four letter words. I’m just asking it to end.
Well, Frank and Metrosucks, I see you’re now trolling the new guys.
sprawl,
I understand. I would also like the conflict in the Middle East to end.
But.
Who’s going to put down their weapons first? Hmm? Even the new guy, who claims to dislike name calling, has already resorted to name calling when called out for lack of support.
Well, Michael Setty, I see you’re still trolling metrosucks and me.
i keep forgetting some of you characters are card-carrying libertarians and apparently really buy the “theory” that a city with tens of millions of people can be built without fire codes or a street plat or a water supply. OK then… I guess that is just a (very) different definition of “organic.” I still can’t see how that changes the fact that Manhattan’s density developed due to free-market demand (as the quotes in that link you drug up clearly show) and alongside a privatized transportation infrastructure…
which, of course, pokes a huge hole in the fundamental tenet of this blog… I mean there’s a dozen other cities in the country that show the same development patterns on a smaller scale. The claim that functioning transit and high densities are inextricably linked to government influence, simply isn’t borne out, at least historically
“apparently really buy the “theory” that a city with tens of millions of people can be built without fire codes or a street plat or a water supply.”
I’ve been waiting for this reply and its intellectual dishonesty and its glorious strawman-ness.
You STILL have yet to provide even ONE shred of evidence of your own, proving that you don’t really have anything.
By the way, we’re talking Manhattan (NOT New York City—you’re again moving the goal posts) which has never had tens of millions of people (currently has 1.6M). In fact, in 1815 when government overrode the free market and banned wood-framed buildings, the population of Manhattan was around 110K.
Just retract that a free market is responsible for Manhattan’s “organic” development (it’s not because it didn’t exist) and we can move on. Or perhaps you don’t understand the difference between a free market and a state-regulated market. Or the definition of “organic”. This sounds “organic” to you?
Step up your game, ‘boy!
yes you have thoroughly (very very VERY thoroughly) established that the definition of organic economic growth is different than the definition of organic land use patterns. congratulations i guess
doesn’t change anything about Manhattan’s growth history, or the fact it wasn’t state mandated. Doesn’t change anything about Manhattan’s transit history, or the fact it wasn’t state mandated.
I tried to move the fire code discussion to the newer article, but you seem to insist on having that argument here… fire codes are as much a protection of your property rights as they are a restriction on mine… They don’t prove lack of free market by any stretch
have to admit its interesting how touchy you are on this subject… i didn’t realize what a threat the urban east coast is, to APs project of proving urbanism is only govt based. I guess I understand the worry you feel now, because if AP can’t easily dismiss NYC or Boston or Philly’s free-market roots, i’m not sure how much sense this blog really makes… good luck with using heavily-subsidized, western, road based sprawl zones to prove that there is no organic demand for walkable neighborhoods (you’ll need it)
Congrats on posting dozens of comments without a shred of evidence to support your bare minimum assertions! You must be so proud! Congrats on yet another strawman argument! You are to be commended for elevating the discussion here! Bravo, sir! Bravo!
its weird because all the evidence you could need, is contained in the three simple letters you keep trying to ignore
I… R…. T…
Again, after several requests, the newbie again refuses to provide ANY evidence for his assertions, proving that he has nothing except hot air.
Speaking of Manhattan, according to a recent NBER study, NYC is the unhappiest place in Amurica. Couldn’t be all that “organic” density making people miserable. Amiright?
not really, google IRT and then get back to us… please?
To quote Dan:
Since Aristotle and Plato, the rules of discourse – and esp. formalized rules of rhetoric – have been that the person making the claim provide the evidence, especially when asked.
That’s how it works.
DS
Just another weak troll who can’t hyperlink, can’t cut and paste text, and who has no real evidence or contribution to make.