Presentations from the American Dream Coalition conference I spoke at yesterday:
John McClain (George Mason University): Northern Virginia’s Economy & Trends (2.9 MB)
Alan Pisarski (author of Commuting in America: Commuting Patterns Today & Tomorrow (4.8 MB)
Sam Staley (Reason Foundation): Mobility First (5.7 MB)
Tom Rubin (American Dream Coalition): Rail Performance in the U.S. (12.1 MB)
Gabriel Roth (Independent Institute): Faster by Bus (324 KB)
Corey Stewart (Chair, Prince William County Board of Supervisors): Transportation in Prince William County (1.2 MB)
Tongkat Ali: Tongkat Ali is found in Thailand, Malaysia, and cost levitra lowest Indonesia. The reason is that these issues are caused by injuries, genetic disorder and aging as well. http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/aid-7577 cheapest viagra uk Commonly called the Indian Ginseng, it restores sexual vitality and reduces stress. http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/amy-geldhof/ cialis canada cheap While high blood pressure is known as the pharyngotympanic tube becoming continuous with the respiratory epithelium in the pharynx. levitra india price pamelaannschoolofdance.com
Alisdair Cain (National Bus Rapid Transit Institute): Mobility with BRT (22.6 MB)
John Palatiello (America Moving Forward): Public-Private Partnerships Really Work (2.9 MB)
Chris Walker: Transforming the Dulles Region (7.0 MB)
Randal O’Toole (Cato Institute): Transportation, Energy, & the Environment (7.4 MB)
Wendell Cox (Demographia): The Costs of Smart Growth (29.7 MB)
Unfortunately, the day before the conference, the FTA succumbed to pressure from the Virginia Congressional delegation and reversed its position on Dulles rail.
The Antiplanner’s presentation includes multiple slides that address CO2 emissions.
Why?
While I wouldn’t call myself a Sam Staley fan or would I say that I often agree with him, I try to read whatever he writes.
In the case of the links in this post, compare the Staley: relatively light cherry-picking to support the thesis and the neat Tuftean slides, as compared to the Cox: blatant mischaracterizations and turgid ululation, with the loud colors and unreadable graphs*.
Two different presentation, two wildly different tactics. When I see ululation, I see someone hiding something (that is: one doesn’t need to consider what Cox left out to know he’s hiding something).
DS
* I’d compare Randal’s too, but something happened in the save and most of his text is missing.
I don’t put text in my presentations. (Text is boring.) Most of the presentation is based on my Cato paper.
Antiplanner – Your paper and presentation appear to identify CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”.
I’ve yet to see Jim Karlock attack you for this, so I’m a little confused. Can you explain your position?
Randal, folks can’t take your handouts with them to think over later. You may want to take a class in presentation. No handout is a decided disadvantage if you want to spread the gospel.
It does, however, have the advantage of not having the sketchy argumentation down in print to a wider audience (presuming folk outside the choir actually attend these events).
DS
I found Chris Walker’s presentation to be the most “over the top” particularly his insistence that all planners who don’t have engineering degrees be fired. I presume he means those working in transportation. So we’re supposed to ignore the dozens of issues impacted by transportation, in favor of people who know mainly how to do intersection analysis or figure out how deep the road base should be?
Ha! Over my dead body, Walker! As a non-engineer, give me the right textbook and I could probably do 90% of traffic engineering work, except structural design, which is really a separate function than traffic engineering.
This fellow apparently was a last minute addition, since his name wasn’t on the original conference flyer. Who is he and what is his background, presumably an engineer?
I’m curious
Good point Michael.
I don’t have a trans engineering degree but do quite a bit of trans planning, and trans engineers like to work on issues with me, despite my egregious lack of engineering letters after my name (meaning: the Walker assertion is ludicrous unless you want to turn cities into concrete and parking lots).
After looking at that one, I’m struck by the overall poor quality of these presentations – amateurish doesn’t come close to describing them. And these people are trying to spread their gospel?!
Maybe these horrible-quality presentations are an indicator of how many people they actually reach.
DS
D4P wrote:
“The Antiplanner’s presentation includes multiple slides that address CO2 emissions.
Why?”
I should have thought that is is because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes global warming. This can easily be demonstrated.
A candle is lit. A sealed transparent (plastic?) container is placed between the candle and a camera which can see in the infrared. The candle is visible on the screen attached to the camera. CO2 is pumped into the sealed container, and the image of the candle slowly disappears. The CO2 is blocking the heat from the candle.
Antiplanner wrote:
“I don’t put text in my presentations.”
That’s a pity. The presentation would be stronger for having some text, which doesn’t have to be boring. It can be in separate text boxes, or as captions. The Walker presentation, by contrast was all text, black on a white background, and that is what is boring. Incidentally, Antiplanner, you may wish to point out to him that taxing car parking doesn’t necessarily reduce car trips. Often, the per-hour charge leads to a higher turnover of parking, which increases the number of car trips.
It’s also a pity that the presentations are so large. The Cain presentation is over 20MB in size, and did a fair impression of mugging my copy of PowerPoint.
I should have thought that is is because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes global warming. This can easily be demonstrated.
Tell that to Jim Karlock.
I want to hear the Antiplanner’s explanation for why he cares about CO2 emissions.
please, no waving sticks at yappy dogs.
DS
There’s some clear envy in the remarks of Dan and msetty. What’s the matter, guys? Do you not get invites to speak at conferences very much?
And the fact, Dan, that you do trans planning serves to underscore Walker’s point. You are firmly rooted in the conventional Smart Growth status quo, and that kind of trans planning is atrocious. And you don’t have a background in engineering (and probably no economics training either).
Gee, who would have guessed?
Close Observer,
I have a background in engineering. A foreground too, as it’s my present paycheck. I also have a background in the classics. That’s where I learned that an ad hominem attack is not only logically fallacious, but rhetoricaly distracting. One’s pedigree, in a logical argument, has no bearing on the argument. Gee, who would have guessed.
Dan: In the case of the links in this post, compare the Staley: relatively light cherry-picking to support the thesis and the neat Tuftean slides, as compared to the Cox: blatant mischaracterizations and turgid ululation, with the loud colors and unreadable graphs*.
Two different presentation, two wildly different tactics. When I see ululation, I see someone hiding something (that is: one doesn’t need to consider what Cox left out to know he’s hiding something).
THWM: Dan, you’re not the first. I’ve seen stuff writen by highschool students debunking Cox. The ADC a pinko group anyways.
11:
your rhetoric tells me you not only have nothing & must make sh*t up, but you don’t even know enough to speak to the issues on which you chose to focus – it is as I stated in my last sentence in #2 above.
It does help, however, with my point in #7 about the size of the audience, as such rhetorical tactics don’t work with anything other than small, insular groups (there’s likely to be someone in a larger group who sees thru such weak tactics, as t g showed).
DS
always got your back, dan
BTW, and t g can jump in at any time,
Trans engineers are increasingly leaning toward Context Sensitive Solutions to implement roadways, which is a set of design solutions to lessen the multifarious conflicts in urban development. Some may refer to these strategies as ‘atrocious’, but they have no voice in decision-making.
I have a plan emplaced that uses these solutions for a ~6 sq mi area, where about 11 lane-miles are planned but the rest is up to later folks as development is applied for.
That is: laying down streets has defined rules that one can pick up, as msetty said above. I cannot, however, lay down catch-spill curbs on a median with 4% uphill with a 20º right curve over 300 feet with a 2% crown and a left turn perf. and minimum intersection requirements.
I encourage everyone to click on the link and have a look. This is where trans planning is going in my view. In many others’ views too. I note there is scant attention paid to this trend in the links in Randal’s post, as if there needed to be any more attention given to the irrelevancy of the collected ‘wisdom’ contained in their slides.
DS
thank you tg.
DS
Francis King said: I should have thought that is is because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes global warming. This can easily be demonstrated.
A candle is lit. A sealed transparent (plastic?) container is placed between the candle and a camera which can see in the infrared. The candle is visible on the screen attached to the camera. CO2 is pumped into the sealed container, and the image of the candle slowly disappears. The CO2 is blocking the heat from the candle.
JK: Nice try. It is such a drag dealing with Gore’s Global warming Groupies and their lack of basic science knowledge, but here goes:
1. CO2 does NOT block all IR, just in a few narrow bands, so the candle will not disappear.
2. Even if your experimental outcome were to be as you represented, that would only show that IR was blocked. It is another step to show where that blocked IR went. It is called the conservation of energy. That simple experiment, if its outcome were as you claimed would still prove nothing.
Some people will do anything to save the earth except study science.
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote:
“JK: Nice try. It is such a drag dealing with Gore’s Global warming Groupies and their lack of basic science knowledge, but here goes:”
I should start by pointing out that I have two masters degrees, one in physics and one in transport planning and engineering. So my knowledge of basic science is good.
Al Gore is a hypocrite. He led the delegation which blocked Kyoto. Now, he flies around the world, bullying people about global warming, and other times living in a large mansion, using up large amounts of fossil fuels. I suspect that if he put half the energy that he currently puts into bullying people into his own candidacy for president, he would have done rather better. I am not a groupie.
“Even if your experimental outcome were to be as you represented, that would only show that IR was blocked.”
Yeah, like a sheet of glass in a greenhouse. Which is why CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. The CO2 traps the heat close to the surface of the earth, causing global warming.
The science is well understood. Short term we have weather effects and natural variation in annual temperature. Long term, the movement of the earth around the sun also causes variation in annual temperature. In between these is the 60 year trend-line called global warming. The trend-line is still going up, and the fickle finger of fate points in the direction of human beings.
The debate right now is over two points.
Is the warming catastrophic, posing a real risk to our food and water supplies (in which case we need to take radical action) or is it a gentle warming action (in which case we can adapt to it)?
Should be respond with technological improvements, or by changing people’s consumption behaviour, or both?
My take is that the warming will be smooth, and that technology like PassivHaus is the way to go, combining a major reduction in CO2, with major improvements in quality of life. As always, Germany is well ahead of everyone else.
Francis King said: I should start by pointing out that I have two masters degrees, one in physics …
JK: Interesting.
How did you happen to miss that little detail about CO2 absorbing in narrow bands and thus would not block the view of the candle?
How do you blatantly equate the stopping of narrow bands of IR of the alleged greenhouse effect with a real greenhouse’s blocking of AIR CONDUCTION by stopping air circulation/exchange?
How did you happen to miss the fact that CO2 does not simply make that absorbed energy disappear?
Why did you think the whole story is simply that of gas stopping IR, when in fact the process is quite complex and not even thoroughly understood? (The absorbed energy goes somewhere – some by re-radiation, some by conduction. And maybe some into the Lehman Bros./Stern/Al Gore/Kleiner Perkins black hole money pit.)
Perhaps you need to review a bit of physics?
Thanks
JK
The Antiplanner believes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and is concerned about CO2 emissions.
Francis writes, “As always, Germany is well ahead of everyone else.”
Were you referring to unemployment, a stagnant economy, and cramped living conditions? You weren’t clear.
More importantly, are you willing to accept these trade-offs to follow the German model? Or, if for some incredibly ridiculous reason, you believe we can model ourselves after Germany and the rest of Old Europe and *not* experience similar trade-offs (summarily: a lower quality of life), then please explain why.
And D4P, if you share the Antiplanner’s concern for CO2 emissions, then you must be stoutly anti-rail also since the data show that rail is an anti-environmental transportation mode. Or does your rail-igious faith blind you to reason and facts?
And D4P, if you share the Antiplanner’s concern for CO2 emissions, then you must be stoutly anti-rail also since the data show that rail is an anti-environmental transportation mode. Or does your rail-igious faith blind you to reason and facts?
I am neither pro nor anti-rail. From what I can tell, buses make more sense in a lot of situations, but the politicians want rail because they think it’s sexier.
But you’re changing the subject, which is that the Antiplanner won’t explain why he is concerned about CO2 emissions, while Jim Karlock attacks everyone BUT the Antiplanner for being concerned about CO2 emissions.
And once again, we have a situation in which (1) the Antiplanner makes a claim, (2) I ask him to clarify his claim, (3) he does not clarify his claim, (4) his followers attack ME, either acting as if I were the one who made the claim or accusing me of some kind of hypocrisy in relation to the claim. Meanwhile, the Antiplanner remains in hiding, skating through unscathed.
And where is the Antiplanner during Mr. Karlock’s CO2-related attacks? If the Antiplanner is concerned about CO2 emissions, why does he stand idly by while one of his followers engages in relatively violent and mean-spirited ad hominem attacks on others who share the Antiplanner’s concern regarding CO2 emissions? Why doesn’t the Antiplanner step in to stop the attacks, and why doesn’t he show Mr. Karlock the information that leads him to be concerned about CO2 emissions in the first place? And why doesn’t Mr. Karlock display the same level of contempt for the Antiplanner that he shows for others who participate in the discussion?
CO2 experts — Educate us.
Does the Beef Industry pollute more than the Transportation Industry???
We’re all waiting to exhale.
Transportation emits more GHGs than the beef industry. In the US the disparity is higher.
The issue is that CH4 is more potent, and that LU change for ag is a decent fraction of the total of man-made climate change, and releases sequestered C with slash-and-burn ag in rainforests.
But overall, the beef industry uses much more water than other ag industries – 1kg of beef is IIRC 15-30,000 kg of water.
—–
As for comparative quality of life, when I lived in West Germany, at that time it was very high. AIUI now transplants have lowered QOL, but let us not kid ourselves that the place is a hovel.
DS
Close Observer,
I’m sorry to say that, compared to the US, Germany has a much more competent human capital (talking about averages here) to squander in its progressive political system – and still only barely manages to remain in the same prosperous league with the US.
So, I’m sorry to say, as a corollary, that an America with American people and a German political system will not be like Germany (even if becoming like Germany were the goal). It will be more something like Portugal or Greece.
The US, a nation comprised mostly of what Europeans call “stupid Americans†seems to manage to out-prosper “smart Europeansâ€Â. I never hear a reasonable explanation of this fact from Europeans. Geez! Could, “It’s progressive statism stupid!†be the explanation?
Yes, but when it comes to climate change, unlike those selfish motorists, cows are more cooperative.
Another vulgar libertarian just trying to milk the system dry!
Jim Karlock wrote:
“Perhaps you need to review a bit of physics?”
Well, no.
I’m kind of curious. George W Bush is not usually thought of as an Al Gore groupie, but now agrees that global warming is happening. Why do you think he would disagree with you, after he’s been fighting the idea of global warming for so long?
lgrattan wrote
“CO2 experts  Educate us. Does the Beef Industry pollute more than the Transportation Industry?”
I can’t speak for the USA. Today the BBC has published an article on the web. The official EU values are as follows, and I publish them without comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7765094.stm
Energy consumption
Transport 31%
Agriculture 3.3%
Services 11.3%
Industry 27.9%
Households 26.6%
CH4 is oxidised rapidly to CO2. CO2 is difficult to remove from the atmosphere. The oceans are becoming saturated, and weathering is a very long term process.
Close Observer wrote:
“More importantly, are you willing to accept these trade-offs to follow the German model?”
Indeed. Germany is I think conscious that in many ways they are letting down their citizens, due to high levels of unemployment. A lot of the problems came post-unification, when, in a fit of patriotism, they blew $1000 bn on infrastructure improvements in E. Germany. This isn’t all their problems, but it has to do with it.
On the other hand, as Dan points out, Germany isn’t a hovel, and their technology has always been ahead of other countries. In my grandmother’s time, all university text books on chemistry in the UK were written in German, and being able to read the language was a pre-requisite for study.
And here are the values for emissions.
Agriculture 9.2%
Waste 2.9%
Solvents 0.2%
Energy industeries 32.3%
Transport 19.1%
Industry 21.2%
Households 15.1%
Francis King said:
Jim Karlock wrote:
“Perhaps you need to review a bit of physics?â€Â
Well, no.
JK: Typical Gore Zombie response: choose to remain ignorant.
Thanks
JK
No more stop signs, speed limit
Nobody’s gonna slow me down
Like a wheel gonna spin it
Nobody’s gonna mess me around
Hey Satan, paid my dues
I’m playing in a rockin’ band
Hey Mamma, look at me
I’m on the way to the promised land
I’m on the highway to hell
Don’t stop me
I’m on the highway to hell
And I’m going down all the way
I’m on the highway to hell
“And I’m going down all the way I’m on the highway to hell”
JK: Good description of the steel highway that is light rail.
Thanks
JK
Well railroads came along after roads, just as streetcars came along after cars.
So Mr.Karlock you’re blazing the way for the rest of us!
I definitely prefer Bon Scott over Brian Johnson.
DS
Regarding the Dulles rail, it seems apparent to me that the main purpose is not connecting Dulles to the central city. The Silver Line is not going to run any faster than the 5A express buses from Dulles to Rosslyn and then L’Enfant Plaza, especially thanks to all those extra stops. It will run more often, though just as obviously WMATA could run buses more often but doesn’t for a variety of reasons.
It’s possible that the Tysons stops will somehow end up justifying it, but I suspect that the books are being cooked.
BTW, Ed Glaeser has a new free online book with Joseph Gyourko about housing policy. Naturally, he blames land-use restrictions. In a ranking of land-use restrictions, he notes that “Phoenix’s number eleven ranking is interesting and suggests that the Sunbelt market has increased the strictness of its local land-use controls in recent years.”
This is significant because some, here and elsewhere, have claimed that Phoenix did not have significant controls on housing supply.
Thanks for the heads up on the Glaeser book, Thacker.
Note that Glaeser decries “land-use restrictions”.
What, specifically, are these restrictions?
Landowners lobbying their electeds to zone large-lot single-fam.
Just like the ideologues on this site want across the landscape.
That’s right: the ideologues’ favorite economist doesn’t want the land use patterns that the ideologues want, and he states what they want is part of the problem!
Whoa.
DS
Landowners lobbying their electeds to zone large-lot single-fam.
Just like the ideologues on this site want across the landscape.
That’s right: the ideologues’ favorite economist doesn’t want the land use patterns that the ideologues want, and he states what they want is part of the problem!
Uh, Dan, you’re conflating wanting the zoning restrictions, wanting the land-use pattern, and believing that the land-use pattern will happen without restrictions.
Randall and the guys at Cato (and certainly me) don’t approved of mandatory zoning, large-lot single family or otherwise. That’s not what Randall “wants.”
Randall does believe that, in the absence of zoning, most people would prefer suburban living.
I personally cheerfully admit that most of the loud “smart growth” advocates do really want more development in higher density areas. The problem is that it hasn’t worked out that way in any city claiming to follow smart growth principles, as both the presentations about and Ed Glaeser’s book points out. The NIMBYS and the large-lot people enact only one part of the “smart growth” agenda– preventing sprawl. But somehow they never get around to allowing development elsewhere, whether by building up or increasing density. Just look at Glaeser’s numbers to see how few permits and housing stock increase there is in “smart growth” areas.
The smart growthers may claim to be against large-lot single family housing, but in practice their tactics only seem to end in more of it. Most of that is probably being co-opted, but I wish they would realize a set of fundamental truths:
1) Most people like suburban living, and like personally living in large-lot single family homes, even as they recognize the benefits of higher density somewhere else.
2) For this reason, the use of restrictive zoning and land-use planning to achieve “smart growth” will almost always backfire. Those tools and powers will inevitably be used to mandate large lots and the like, and push development out to underpopulated areas; i.e., sprawl. Even despite that being the opposite of what smart growth advocates stand for. Look in Fairfax, where the planning process has meant that the MetroWest development has been delayed for years– and a neighboring high density development was blocked due to zoning for being .25-.5 mi from the Vienna Metro stop instead less than a quarter mile.
3) What Randall and others offer instead is a lack of planning and zoning. Yes, consumer preferences mean that places would look like Houston– there would still be a lot of single family units because that’s what people prefer. But the smart growth pipe dream is not an option. It has not and will not be achieved because the very planning tools it advocates will inevitably be used against it.
The only two options are no planning, where high density development has a chance to operation, and planning where the large-lot legion will outvote and outmaneuver the smart growth advocates at every turn, even while co-opting their language. The options are Texas or California; low prices or unaffordable prices.
While their ideals may be nice, in real terms, smart growthers are more part of the problem of large-lot zoning than the Antiplanner. Randall believes that people will prefer suburban living given a choice, but is willing to give high density housing a chance. Most smart growthers seem to agree (secretly or not) that sprawl and suburban-living will dominate without regulations– seemingly not realizing that democratic politics means that regulations only gives the large-lot preferring majority more power to enforce their preferences.
That’s right: the ideologues’ favorite economist doesn’t want the land use patterns that the ideologues want, and he states what they want is part of the problem!
Dan, it just really saddens me to see this lack of comprehension on your part. Land-use restrictions, whatever their cause, are the problem.
If you give the local government the power to zone, it will not be used the way that you want. Even in the most liberal communities claiming to follow smart-growth principles, all that really happens is that development is restricted and pushed farther out, to places where there are fewer neighbors to object. Ed Glaeser’s book demonstrates this overwhelmingly.
Yet smart growth advocates persist in spending more time attacking people like the Antiplanner for opposing all restrictions, and for arguing that people like large-lot housing. But arguing that people would freely choose a certain type of housing does not mean that you favor it personally.
Indeed, I would prefer more density. But the very fact that the majority prefers lower density (at least where they live and near them) means that planning is nigh-useless as a way to achieve this, as experience all over this country and the world overwhelmingly shows. It is almost always subverted. I settle for choosing to live in higher density areas.
If smart growth advocates spent their time opposing asinine regulations and could restrain their love for the planning process, they’d achieve a lot more of their supposed goals of increasing density. But instead they help institute more detailed planning processes that inhibits both edge cities and higher density building, forcing sprawl out to ever more rural areas. It’s sad, really.
Dan, please find a single place where Randall has ever favored large-lot zoning, or any zoning or planning restriction at all. You can’t; he’s opposed all of them. Yes, he’s argued that people prefer such housing, when available, but that’s an argument against planning, which allows the majority to impose its preferences on all.
You’ll note, Dan, that Ed Glaeser cites Texas in general and Houston in specific as his preferred model for (lack of) zoning and planning. The Antiplanner and I would have no complaints about that, and agree completely.
Glaeser cites Texas in general and Houston in specific as his preferred model for (lack of) zoning and planning.
Houston has quite a bit of planning** and development regulations. I (and others) have pointed this out and gone into detail on this site regarding the specifics.
That is: HOU development regs are very close to a New Urbanist-type code (form-based code). I’m glad to hear you are in favor of New Urbanist-type land use patterns.
Now if we can get the Houston-area banks to lend money to developers to build more mixed-use projects, Houston will see more mixed-use projects, as developers can make money off of them.
At any rate, Glaeser must like having people stuck in their cars and emitting pollutants, because Houston folks drive more miles than most large cities in the US.
please find a single place where Randall has ever favored large-lot zoning, or any zoning or planning restriction at all.
Large-lot single-fam detached is the preferred model here, whether it occurs in zoned areas or no (ADC, remember, is for large-lot SFD). It infuses every discussion. That is the point – there is opposition to every other model that is not large-lot SFD.
But the very fact that the majority prefers lower density
No.
This myth, like the Houston I mention a few lines above, has been explored in depth here numerous times. Fully ~2/3 of folk, in survey after survey, prefer some sort of non-McSuburb land use model, identifying numerous aspects of non-McSuburb amenity that they would like to live near. The Realtors have caught on, BTW, and they too are looking to eliminate Euclidean zoning to make this happen.
Zoning will not go away. We see this in the dismal failure of the Private Property Rights movement. Zoning protects people’s property rights.
Most smart growthers seem to agree (secretly or not) that sprawl and suburban-living will dominate without regulations– seemingly not realizing that democratic politics
You are arguing from ignorance. And the ideological worldview. That’s fine – municipal finance folk, for the most part, don’t have this worldview. Thus the land-use patterns are changing. You may want to teach your children to have more liquid assets if they take your worldview, as they’ll need to move often as fiscal reality sets in wrt new residential development.
DS
** http://tinyurl.com/6mp4h5
Houston, you have a problem.
Why does Randall refer to CO2 submissions.
I would have thought it was obvious. But if not read my paper “Why Urban Planners love Global Warming” which I have presented at papers in the US and here in NZ. Go to:
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/component/search/PLanners%20love%20Global?ordering=&searchphrase=all
McShane, not sure who taught you how to do research and analysis, but your assertion that low-density housing is more energy-efficient flies in the face of all evidence. It is the most basic of knowledge that energy use is sensitive to the physical attributes of buildings. Fortunately, this paper’s reasoning is so transparently wrong as to be a non-starter for a policy paper.
o Per capita measurements are specious – you need BTU/unit (or ft^x/m^x) or kWh/unit (or ft^x/m^x) as the unit measure is going to be heated/lit with 1 or 5 people in it and will undergo loss thru the envelope regardless of the number of capitas in it.
o No code on the planet is oriented to a capita. Code is designed to the unit measure. There is not a code on the planet that requires, say, R-19 walls for 3 people but R-13 walls if only 2 people are in the unit. Your brothers in the UK know this already. The reasoning for this is of the most basic nature.
o No studies (yours is not a study) that I’m aware of measure capita over unit. This is obvious as to why.
A good start for you to understand this issue is:
Friedman, A. 2007. Sustainable Residential Development: Planning and Design for green neighborhoods. McGraw-Hill, New York. 288 pp.
I recommend picking up a copy to learn about this topic if you wish to have your policy recommendations heard.
DS
* http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/2006/12/18132350/2
Dan: A good start for you to understand this issue is:
Friedman, A. 2007. Sustainable Residential Development: Planning and Design for green neighborhoods. McGraw-Hill, New York. 288 pp
JK: Nice try. Got anything not based on a fallacy like “sustainable”.
Thanks
JK