Several responses to some of my posts have asked for sources of the data I cite. While it is perfectly appropriate to ask this, the data usually aren’t critical to my main point, which is that planning does more harm than good.
Rather than provide links to every number (which is especially difficult for census data), I would like to list some of my most important sources of data here. I’ll also clarify my use of terms such as “city,” “urbanized area,” etc.
Data Sources
For future reference, many of my data sources are listed in the right column under data:
- References to 1990 or 2000 populations, densities, commuting modes, auto and homeownership rates, and more come from the Census Bureau. Also median incomes and home values for the year before the census (1989, 1999, etc.).
- References to miles of driving come from US DOT‘s annual Highway Statistics.
- References to transit ridership and passenger miles usually come from US DOT’s National Transit Database, though data for the most recent year may come from APTA‘s Ridership Reports and some cumulative data may come from APTA’s Public Transit Fact Book.
- References to transit’s share of commuter travel come from census data; references to transit’s share of total travel are based on the Highway Statistics and National Transit Data Base.
- More transportation data, such as the mount of travel by train or air, can be found in US DOT’s National Transportation Statistics.
- References to the share of land that is rural, urban, or developed by state are either from census data or USDA‘s Natural Resources Inventory. I discuss the relative accuracy of these data in articles here and here.
- The Federal Office of Housing Enterprise Oversight provides accurate data about changes in home prices by metropolitan area.
- In contrast, Coldwell Banker provides interesting information about homes prices in various urban areas relative to each other.
It is as beneficial for impotence as long as it is present in the system . pill viagra for sale learningworksca.org is known for being effective up to 36 exciting hours, thus it has been correctly christened ‘The Weekend Pill’. Any soldier should be capable to employ all of the principles of effective striking if they are to emerge as being the survivor in the battle to the death. a. commander levitra This could be due to the leakage viagra pills from india of duct. Regular lowest price viagra check-ups can also be useful as the medical expert and discuss the situation with him.
Terminology
As much as possible, I rely on Census Bureau definitions of things like “urban area.” The Census Bureau uses a variety of geographic terms, such as:
- Place means an incorporated city or a Census Bureau-defined concentration of people.
- City means an incorporated city.
- Urban cluster means an incorporated city and the surrounding contiguous suburbs with a total population of 2,500 to 50,000 people. The contiguous development should have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.
- Urbanized area is the same as an urban cluster but with a total population of 50,000 or more. There are more than 400 urbanized areas in the U.S.
- Metropolitan statistical areas are mostly defined using county lines, so may include much rural land. The greater Los Angeles metropolitan statistical area, for example, extends to the Nevada border because the counties are very large.
I try to use urbanized area or urban cluster for most of my data because it is the only sensible comparison of densities, travel modes, etc. Using city would not make sense because some cities (such as Houston and Indianapolis) have annexed most of their suburbs while others (such as Portland and Denver) have not. Using metropolitan statistical area would not make sense because so much of the land in many (but not all) of these areas is rural.
So when I write that Los Angeles is the densest urbanized area in America, don’t send me a comment saying, “How can that be when New York has a population density of 24,000 people per square mile?” The city of New York is denser than the city of Los Angeles, but the New York urbanized area (which includes northeastern New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut) is not as dense as the Los Angeles urbanized area (which includes Pasadena and much of Orange County).
While it is perfectly appropriate to ask this, the data usually aren’t critical to my main point, which is that planning does more harm than good.
AS it is a standard practice, Randal, in Western societies to plan public infrastructure and land use, the practice on the ground flies in the face of the opinion of the small minority that you express here.
But you are correct, it is perfectly appropriate to ask you to back your unsupported claims.
Only uncritical readers accept these wild assertions at face value.
DS
So, DS, what supported claims have you been making? All you’ve been doing whining and complaining.
Dan said:
AS it is a standard practice, Randal, in Western societies to plan public infrastructure and land use, the practice on the ground flies in the face of the opinion of the small minority that you express here.
JK: Wrong. It is the planners that are a tiny minority. Just one example is that Portland’s Metro had a vote on limiting density increases. The people voted over 70% (probably over 80% – there were two competing measures, so the overlap is unknown) to stop increasing density in the Portland area.
Dan said:
But you are correct, it is perfectly appropriate to ask you to back your unsupported claims.
JK: Why not ask the planners to back their unsupported claims. Here are a few that are provably false:
* High Density will reduce traffic congestion.
* High Density will reduce pollution.
* High Density will reduce cost.
* High Density will reduce your commute time.
* High Density will give us affordable housing.
* Mass transit saves energy
* Mass transit reduces pollution
* Mass transit saves time
* Mass transit saves money
* Light rail serves a useful, cost effective, transportation function
* Light rail attracts investment along the line.
Dan, why don’t you try to prove any of the above with REAL data, not just the feel good stories that are the staple of the planning profession.
Dan said:
Only uncritical readers accept these wild assertions at face value.
JK:
Does that mean that you do not believe any of the wild assertions of the planning profession?
Thanks
JK
I apologize pdxf, I was primarily referring to Dan’s posts that seem to gravitate to Randall’s private planning practice that is “booming”. However, I included you because you seem to doubt anything you don’t agree with by first asking (demanding) the writer (usually Randall) to cite the source for even the smallest impertinent detail. Implicit in this type of response is that he is making stuff up.
Randall obviously does not mind as he has been quick to give the sources and even posted an entry with the most widely used sources. Given this, do you think you might give the benefit of the doubt for the minor stuff?
Also, I wonder why, when a good point is made from the pro-planning left, there seems to be an effort from the anti-planning side to concede the point whereas you planner guys seem to:
a. drop the issue
b. attack the source
c. change the subject
Maybe it is just a skewed perception on my part but it seems like arguing with people about creationism or abortion.  It seems to me that one side looks at smart-growth, government planning and other socialistic theories in a scientific-like manner and the other wants to look at them in a religious-like manner.
Thanks for posting a list of sources. I would however still like to see items cited within each entry, just to make it easier for everyone to find. I would also love to have links to the specific information if possible. While I hope to read some of the longer documents you reference, weeding through a 70 page document to see where you got a number can be a little daunting.
“While it is perfectly appropriate to ask this, the data usually aren’t critical to my main point”
Why include it if it isn’t critical?
Jim,
since this thread is about citing sources, where can I find the information that you cited about the voting? A second, deeper question is whether you think the majority of people are always right and well informed. To put it simply, can a democracy work with a theoretically ignorant society?
pdxf,
I’ll try to do better at citing actual sources. But as I said in my above entry, sometimes this is difficult. You can use the Census Bureau web site to look up data, but within a few hours after you do so, the URL for the data is no good. But where I can do so, I will.
“I apologize pdxfâ€Â
Apology accepted.
However, I included you because you seem to doubt anything you don’t agree with by first asking (demanding) the writer (usually Randall) to cite the source for even the smallest impertinent detail.
I generally doubt everything, whether I agree with it or not. You’re right, I am skeptical of the claims given here, and point out any small inconsistency. If there are small errors and inconsistencies, it seems to me that there could there be larger errors and inconsistencies. A simple solution is to leave out claims that can’t be proven, or where the claim is just wrong. This would make the argument stronger.
Randall obviously does not mind as he has been quick to give the sources and even posted an entry with the most widely used sources. Given this, do you think you might give the benefit of the doubt for the minor stuff?
No, I’m not one to take things on faith. I’m also not sure what is minor, and what is major. When Randall claims that the population is leveling off, and then I find sources that show that it is not, I would consider that a large error, but other people, perhaps not (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5#comments). When noting that officials “blamed†an individual for getting hit by a light rail train, Randall failed to note that the 87-year-old driver crossed a protective barrier and drove into the path of the train. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20. This may be a small issue, but I would question the motives for leaving this information out, yet include information that a smart growth advocate has been accused of rape.
“Also, I wonder why, when a good point is made from the pro-planning left, there seems to be an effort from the anti-planning side to concede the point “
Where have they conceded a point? I have noted areas where I have made errors in my arguments. I don’t believe I have changed the subject on any issue. If you want, you can interpret dropped issues as a concession, but most I just haven’t had time to reply to (if it’s a response that includes a source, I don’t feel it warrants a reply unless it’s not a good source). I’ll always “attack†(aka ask) for a source. If it comes back to be a good source and reliable information, I’ll let it go.
Speaking of dropped issues, I have a few that I would still love to have addressed:
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11#comments
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=7#comments
“Maybe it is just a skewed perception on my part but it seems like arguing with people about creationism or abortion.â€Â
I would definitely agree. Since I’m skeptical and continually asking for data and good science to back up the claims and not taking things on faith, I’m sure you can figure out where I stand on creationism. Where do you stand on creationism?
Jim,
since this thread is about citing sources, where can I find the information that you cited about the voting? A second, deeper question is whether you think the majority of people are always right and well informed. To put it simply, can a democracy work with a theoretically ignorant society?
Since you asked, I’ll try to sort itout and add it to debunkingportland.com. In the meantime, you could slog through past elections at multnomah county’s election site and look for a Metro density limit measure on the sme ballot as a citizen’s measure.
Thanks
JK
I forgot about stopmetro.com. It is about that election, but you will still have to look up the elction results at http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/elect/
Thanks
JK
pdxf,
“A second, deeper question is whether you think the majority of people are always right and well informed. To put it simply, can a democracy work with a theoretically ignorant society?”
You mean like Iraq? Like the minimum wage? Like universal health care? Like a spending limit in Oregon? Like mayor Potter and the city council boys?
Jim,
Wrong. It is the planners that are a tiny minority. Just one example is that Portland’s Metro had a vote on limiting density increases.
I stated that planmaking is universal in Western societies. I’m referring to the barely 2-digit minority ideology population that is anti-gummint and anti-planning, not the population of planners.
Dan, why don’t you try to prove any of the above with REAL data
Thank you. Your bullet points should be contextualized with the issues of the live-work gap, locational choice, commute origin/destination, household decisions, etc.
It is certainly shown that nonwork trip origin/destinations within relatively dense areas are more likely to be non-motorized, so maybe you are confusing commute trips with all trips.
So, I suggest starting here or maybe here – both papers have excellent reference lists.
Lastly, there are entire journals (*) dedicated to transportation issues and the knowledge you seek, available at PDX state if you care to travel there. There’s a light-rail stop nearby if you don’t care to pay for parking.
Does that mean that you do not believe any of the wild assertions of the planning profession?
You haven’t shown your ‘wild’/provably false premise to be true.
Good luck in your reading,
DS
“You mean like Iraq? Like the minimum wage? Like universal health care? Like a spending limit in Oregon? Like mayor Potter and the city council boys?”
I don’t understand, I’ll let you elaborate on what you mean with the included examples.
Johngalt:
I’ll try posting this in pieces, maybe this will work:
“I apologize pdxfâ€Â
Apology accepted.
However, I included you because you seem to doubt anything you don’t agree with by first asking (demanding) the writer (usually Randall) to cite the source for even the smallest impertinent detail.
I generally doubt everything, whether I agree with it or not. You’re right, I am skeptical of the claims given here, and point out any small inconsistency. If there are small errors and inconsistencies, it seems to me that there could there be larger errors and inconsistencies. A simple solution is to leave out claims that can’t be proven, or where the claim is just wrong. This would make the argument stronger.
Randall obviously does not mind as he has been quick to give the sources and even posted an entry with the most widely used sources. Given this, do you think you might give the benefit of the doubt for the minor stuff?
No, I’m not one to take things on faith. I’m also not sure what is minor, and what is major. When Randall claims that the population is leveling off, and then I find sources that show that it is not, I would consider that a large error, but other people, perhaps not (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=5#comments). When noting that officials “blamed†an individual for getting hit by a light rail train, Randall failed to note that the 87-year-old driver crossed a protective barrier and drove into the path of the train. http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=20. This may be a small issue, but I would question the motives for leaving this information out, yet include information that a smart growth advocate has been accused of rape.
Randall obviously does not mind as he has been quick to give the sources and even posted an entry with the most widely used sources. Given this, do you think you might give the benefit of the doubt for the minor stuff?
No, I’m not one to take things on faith. I’m also not sure what is minor, and what is major. When Randall claims that the population is leveling off, and then I find sources that show that it is not, I would consider that a large error, but other people, perhaps not. When noting that officials “blamed†an individual for getting hit by a light rail train, Randall failed to note that the 87-year-old driver crossed a protective barrier and drove into the path of the train. This may be a small issue, but I would question the motives for leaving this information out, yet include information that a smart growth advocate has been accused of rape.
“Also, I wonder why, when a good point is made from the pro-planning left, there seems to be an effort from the anti-planning side to concede the point “
Where have they conceded a point? I have noted areas where I have made errors in my arguments. I don’t believe I have changed the subject on any issue. If you want, you can interpret dropped issues as a concession, but most I just haven’t had time to reply to (if it’s a response that includes a source, I don’t feel it warrants a reply unless it’s not a good source). I’ll always “attack†(aka ask) for a source. If it comes back to be a good source and reliable information, I’ll let it go.
Speaking of dropped issues, I have a few that I would still love to have addressed:
ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11#comments
ti.org/antiplanner/?p=7#comments
“Maybe it is just a skewed perception on my part but it seems like arguing with people about creationism or abortion.â€Â
I would definitely agree. Since I’m skeptical and continually asking for data and good science to back up the claims and not taking things on faith, I’m sure you can figure out where I stand on creationism. Where do you stand on creationism?
I believe creationism is good science and I am pro-abortion.
“I believe creationism is good science and I am pro-abortion.”
Interesting. That would be a fun discussion. If you don’t mind me asking, are you religious as well?
I don’t mind, I am not religious.