The Oregonian reports that residents of Orenco — a transit-oriented development built on prime farm land miles from Portland — mostly drive to work rather than use the light-rail line that is located close to their homes. In fact, according to a survey by Lewis & Clark University sociologist Bruce Podobnik, a higher percentage of commuters in a typical low-density suburb take transit to work than commuters from Orenco.
Podobnik did find that more Orencons walk to work and shopping than residents of other Portland-area neighborhoods. A higher percentage of Orencons also found that there was “more community” in Orenco than residents of other neighborhoods — though anyone living in a community that was widely touted as a national model would come to feel a sense of community.
Orenco is “a great neighborhood,” says Podobnik, but “it’s not an environmental utopia.” Maybe he hasn’t seen the Antiplanner’s study showing that transit is not environmentally better than driving.
For instance- older males are always keen having tasteful and easy-to-swallow, so Kamagra jellies make ideal choice for them. generic tadalafil uk But let’s be honest many customers just proceed to buy acquisition de viagra the normal ones as they don’t understand exactly how to access these offers. I went to the doctor sildenafil 100mg tablets look at more info again and he said, that I have to deal with it and that I don t need to worry about it. order cialis no prescription What results can be expected from a trauma hospital? The success of the treatment largely depends on the person who takes them.
Speaking of which, the Federal Transit Administration has published a flyer claiming that public transit “can be one part of the solution” to climate change. The paper compares carbon emissions from transit vehicles on a per-passenger mile basis with carbon emissions from cars on a per-vehicle mile basis. In other words, it falsely assumes that the average car has only one occupant.
Moreover, like so many other transit-advocacy reports, the paper assumes that auto technologies are fixed. In fact, if the auto industry meets Obama’s fuel-economy standards, the average car on the road will by 2025 be more energy efficient and emit less greenhouses gases, per passenger mile, than any transit system in the country.
Riding a transit vehicle that is already going somewhere is a good way to save energy, because the incremental energy used by adding one passenger is tiny. But expanding transit service is a lousy way to save energy because most transit is not very energy efficient. Even the most efficient rail transit lines are supported by feeder buses than are extremely inefficient.
First, the study Randal likes finds an increase in non-motorized trips in the TOD. And it disagrees with Randal’s implication throughout the post by finding that Residents of Orenco Station are about 84% more likely than residents of the Beaverton suburb to report using mass transit more since moving into the new urbanist community [pg 16].
Second, the study Randal likes finds most commute by SOV, despite Randal’s assertion otherwise (and basic survey data findings note same) [tbl 2, pg 13]; as work trips are only 25% of all trips, and Orenco was found to be attractive and supportive in the study Randal likes, so it should not be surprising that agents have chosen to sort there despite having a job elsewhere (that may not be transit-accessible).
Third, a revealing tidbit is the study Randal likes found that 68% of the residents of the typical suburb of Beaverton report that they never walk to a store [pg 12], whereas 50% of Orenco folk walk to a store 5+ x/week [tbl 2, pg 13]. Surely this has implications for the health of the Beaverton residents and the viability of retailers in Orenco.
Before we rely on someone to pre-chew a study for us, we should ensure that analysis isn’t done unfettered by facts.
DS
Hey Dan,
You forgot to mention that Orenco is racist. From the survey. It’s 95% white and has an average income of $6750/mo. Of course that is probably peanuts to the typical overpaid, elitist city planner.
And you forgot to report that 64% of Orencoites commuted in SOV compared to 62% in “urban grid”
And 15%commuted on wasteful transit vs. 26% in “urban grid”.
Please explain the social good to spending millions of tax money subsidizing this crap, over an ordinary, old fashioned neighborhood?
Thanks
JK
Are there enough TODs that have been around long enough to differentiate between how they may cause non-auto trips versus merely appeal to people who are already more likely to take non-auto trips?
Jim, I don’t know where you’re getting these assumptions, but planners don’t get paid $#*^, both in comparison to similar career fields (architecture, engineering, law/policy analysis) and in comparison to fields that require similar educational credentials (master’s degree). Most places good planners help create these days we can’t live in because they’re too expensive…
…Which brings up a good point about Orenco. Something it seems many planners, especially of the New Urbanist persuasion, tend to forget that public transit is most often used when either (1) there are no viable alternatives or (2) it saves people money. We seem to grasp the controlling aspects that Randal and others constantly blast (trying to make it the only viable alternative) and we don’t focus as much attention on making it economically attractive. If you make transit economically attractive, especially towards those who need economic assistance or who are solidly middle class (i.e. not people who make $6750/month – create good places where people can afford), odds are transit would much more successful, as would these communities.
Something it seems many planners, especially of the New Urbanist persuasion, tend to forget that public transit is most often used when either (1) there are no viable alternatives or (2) it saves people money. We seem to grasp the controlling aspects that Randal and others constantly blast (trying to make it the only viable alternative) and we don’t focus as much attention on making it economically attractive. If you make transit economically attractive, especially towards those who need economic assistance or who are solidly middle class (i.e. not people who make $6750/month – create good places where people can afford), odds are transit would much more successful, as would these communities.
Yes.
Larry Frank has done work in Seattle where he found, recalling his statement from memory, that the shortest way out of poverty is a car. This is not an endorsement of POVs, but a condemnation of our typical built environment.
And I’ll assert that the TOD-NU-TND axis has high rents due to unmet demand and as market saturation nears, intro prices will fall.
Are there enough TODs that have been around long enough to differentiate between how they may cause non-auto trips versus merely appeal to people who are already more likely to take non-auto trips?
Ah. Excellent question, and key. I have something very new around here that I can’t find at the moment (new JAPA? SGN?? SLD?) that teases out the degree of self-sorting in such developments…where is that…Anyway, there is some self-sorting going on, which we see by the high bid rents for such development (folk bid up rents to obtain).
DS
That is hilarious, Dan.
You think the Government Planners so outsmarted the market that they had to subsidize expensive housing for rich people. Now you attribute the need for subsidies to the fantasy that the idea was so smart, that there is so much unmet demand, that it drove up the price!
All you have shown is that, like Cash for Clunkers, a big enough subsidy will draw a few people to do anything.
Since you and other planners are so smart, why don’t you invest some of your own money into these smart growth urban developments that are so much in demand that premium prices can be charged? Or is government planning all about playing with other people’s money and property?
Andy,
instead of weakly and obviously mischaracterizing what I wrote, or making up sh*t to have play, can you instead address reality on the ground? Can you do that? Try, maybe, as puerile rhetoric from purported adults is kinda disturbing?
Thank you so much in advance.
DS
If you make transit economically attractive, especially towards those who need economic assistance or who are solidly middle class (i.e. not people who make $6750/month – create good places where people can afford), odds are transit would much more successful, as would these communities.
JK: Can someone explain the social good of trying to switch people from cars to mass transit?
Mass transit costs more than driving:
* Average big city bus: $0.85 per passenger per mile ($1.01 with capital)
* Average big city light rail line: $0.52 ($1.38 with capital)
average USA car: $0.20-$0.25 (all inclusive)
Mass transit uses more energy than a car to transport each person each mile:
* Average big city bus: 3876 BTU (equal to 20-24 MPG car)
* Average light rail line: 3371 BTU (equal to 23-28 MPG car)
Mass transit commuters have 91% longer commute times:
* Average auto commute time: 25.2 minutes
* Average transit commute time: 48.1 minutes
* Overall the commute time for those who DIDN’T live in the principle city was a bit shorter
Again, why the push to waste time, money and energy by getting people onto mass transit?
Thanks
JK
Commute times based on American Community Survey for 2005-2007. See http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html for details and spreadsheet.
Energy & cost data from Federal sources. For details, see portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html and http://www.portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit(2005)b.htm
Dan,
You take pride in your “snarky” remarks, and now you try to criticize someone for responding to your comments in a snarky manner?
If you (and highwayman) want to engage on substance without the dripping sarcasm, I would love to do the same. I am glad to see opposing views, but my (and probably many others) interest in reading interesting opposing views does not extend to non-substantive snarky statements.
How about we all engage in intelligent debate? Sure, Antiplanner takes some cheap shots from time to time. So how about you take just one cheap shot back on the days when he takes a cheap shot, and then let’s all go back to intelligent discussion the rest of the time?
Andy
Thank you for offering to cease mischaracterizing me and what I write, Andy. AFAICT it is clear I mirror-match the comments of folk here; your offer to cease mischaracterizing me and what I write will go a logn way toward non-snarkosity.
————
prk:
The latest JAPA has a piece by Kahn and one of his PhD students that teases out some of your question above:
Walking the Walk: The Association Between Community Environmentalism and Green Travel Behavior Matthew E. Kahn; Eric A. Morris DOI: 10.1080/01944360903082290
In addition, there is this in JAPA
Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety
Eric Dumbaugh Robert Rae
DOI: 10.1080/01944360902950349
HTH.
DS
Couple of observations about the survey – footnote 9 on page 12: Why didn’t the researchers gather walking data from the two lower income, low density suburbs. They claim the Beaverton suburb is “typical” and cite the low walking rate (5%) compared to the TOD (50%). Socio-economic status is a very important indicator of travel mode. Many people who are low income don’t own automobiles and whereas they may take the bus to work (note both suburbs have HIGHER transit use than Orenco) they will walk to the store for groceries, etc. The absence of this data, therefore, skews the findings to favor TOD when complete data might not support this conclusion. I would not be surprised if the lower income, low density suburbs had walk rates comparable to the TOD.
Second point is that there is an implicit assumption that it is a positive good for people to walk to the store multiple times per week. Is this because people want to do this or because they cannot carry back home a week’s worth of food (thus, eliminating the need for multiple trips) when they shop by foot? For many people, shopping is a mundane task … something that has to be done but that no more creates a sense of community than smiling kindly at someone pumping gas next to you at the nearby convenience store. Is it possible that those who shop by car and, therefore, have fewer visits to the store per week actually enjoy greater satisfaction with their choice of travel than those who must shop three, four, or five times per week?
The data is silent on that, so we’re left with the planner’s presumption that more trips to the store by walking is intrinsically superior to fewer trips to the store by driving. Pretty arrogant assumption, huh?
ROT:“In fact, according to a survey by Lewis & Clark University sociologist Bruce Podobnik, a higher percentage of commuters in a typical low-density suburb take transit to work than commuters from Orenco.”
ws: The Beaverton low-density suburb that was sampled shows a transit ridership of 20% (vs. Orenco’s 15%) is actually in similar proximity to the same LR line (page 14). They just don’t have good sidewalks, less connectivity, and less density.
1) Many residents of Orenco work at Intel. That means they can walk or bike there — no need to take transit in the first place.
2) 68% of the sample neighborhood in Beaverton have *never* have walked to the store, vs. 7% for Orenco.
3) You constantly point out the Portland MSA has a transit ridership of about 6-7% for work commute, yet you admit that a low-dense suburb is actually using its transit service at a 20% rate (in the survey). So when a person in low-dense suburbs doesn’t ride transit, it means that transit agencies are bad and a waste, but when a low-dense suburb actually uses an effective transit body, they are praised because in this case it was a higher percentage than the NU Orenco. I am slightly confused.
4) Orenco station residents bike, walk, carpool or both 36% of their modal split for work commute. That’s well above national levels and way higher than the low dense suburb that is close to the LR line.
5) Only 33% of Orenco residents never use transit. That is the lowest percentage of all neighborhoods surveyed.
6) 50% of residents of Orenco walk to the store 5 or more times in a week. Remember, 68% of low-dense Beaverton neighborhood never use their legs to walk to a store.
7) Orenco Station, by far, had the highest income levels of any neighborhood. They walked, biked, and took transit (carpooled and other) for work commute at pretty much the same rate as the lowest income neighborhood (36% vs. 38% of NE Portland).
ROT:“Orenco is “a great neighborhood,†says Podobnik, but “it’s not an environmental utopia.†Maybe he hasn’t seen the Antiplanner’s study showing that transit is not environmentally better than driving.”
ws: Awesome, did you know that walking and biking is environmentally better than driving your car, to which Orenco excels as compared to your low dense utopia?
Close Observer: “Second point is that there is an implicit assumption that it is a positive good for people to walk to the store multiple times per week. Is this because people want to do this or because they cannot carry back home a week’s worth of food (thus, eliminating the need for multiple trips) when they shop by foot? For many people, shopping is a mundane task … something that has to be done but that no more creates a sense of community than smiling kindly at someone pumping gas next to you at the nearby convenience store. Is it possible that those who shop by car and, therefore, have fewer visits to the store per week actually enjoy greater satisfaction with their choice of travel than those who must shop three, four, or five times per week?”
ws: It is because they want to. The residents of Orenco have the option of driving to the store or making as many trips as they feel like. There’s a huge parking lot in front of the local grocery store and they could very well hop in their car if they choose to. The point is, they do not. This proves, without a doubt, that people will walk places if it is convenient and won’t rely on their car.
Making more trips to the store results in fresher, often healthier, foods being purchased. If the people being surveyed in Orenco did not want to walk to the store 5 times or more (50% of people surveyed do this), then they’d drive. The survey results clearly show this.
Authors: Matthew E. Kahn a; Eric A. Morris :
Affiliations:
a Institute of the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles
b Department of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles
c Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Los Angeles
Journal of the American Planning Association. Planners doing studies on the merits of planning.
No bias here.Strike that. Attack the argument, not the bias.Green, green, greens, greens. Use the word two dozen times and it’s not ideology? “Green ideology” actually appears several times. Yet some throw around the “ideologue” moniker like candy at a parade.
Oh UCLA propaganda… Oops, strike that, too.Greenhouse gas emissions. I’m so worried. Especially when a recent study shows a cooling trend:
Oh, please call me puerile! *Stomping feet* Oh, please, woncha puhleeze call me puerile? It’s not AP if my adulthood isn’t questioned.
Dan:“And I’ll assert that the TOD-NU-TND axis has high rents due to unmet demand and as market saturation nears, intro prices will fall.”
ws:Exactly. People pay an arm and a leg to live in the Georgetowns, Alexandrias, or any traditional neighborhood in every city in the US. These homes often have terrible house amenities, bad lighting, poor electrical outlets, bad plumbing, etc., etc. than contemporary amenity rich McMansions. But why do these homes sell for more and cost more than their contemporaries:
They’re offering community and location. It’s simply supply and demand. Limited supply and a very high demand. The market shows that people enjoy these types of living arrangements.
JK:“Please explain the social good to spending millions of tax money subsidizing this crap, over an ordinary, old fashioned neighborhood?”
ws:What specifically was “subsidized” of Orenco besides the LR line and some street improvements? Local streets get public subsidies (non user fees) all of the time in Washington County. In fact, Washington County has Major Streets Improvement Program (MSTIP) for local roads that come from property taxes. Murray Blvd used increased electric utility rates for burying its lines (presumably to allow for widening of the road through MSTIP).
Address the entire issue, not just cherry picking things. Define subsidy and explain how other “traditional” developments are not getting subsidies too. Growth = externalized subsidy.
Greenhouse gas emissions. I’m so worried. Especially when a recent study shows a cooling trend:
There’s no cooling trend.
That is: unless you call the 00’s being the hottest decade on record as a cooling trend. Unless you call the long-term (climate) positive trend as cooling. Unless you want to wish noise in the system is a trend. Then yes, using endpoint bias in your stats as acceptable, then your wish can come true!
And, wow: you destroyed that Kahn paper. Yup. Wow. Impressive scholarship.
DS
Oh, the Loehle is in Energy & Environment as well. That settles it, being in such an impressive scholarly journal and all.
Does E&E even have an impact factor? Listing in a research db anywhere?
snork
DS
ws: People pay an arm and a leg to live in the Georgetowns, Alexandrias, or any traditional neighborhood in every city in the US.
Andy: Gee “ws”, why doesn’t your theory work for NE, SE and SW areas of Washington DC? All you did was point to rich areas of cities and say that lifestyle should be subsidized. Meanwhile, all the suburbs grow without the subsidy.
Andy said: All you have shown is that, like Cash for Clunkers, a big enough subsidy will draw a few people to do anything.
THWM: The last thing you guys should be complaining about is CARS. You only want transport policy loaded towards roads, so then don’t complain about the out come!
Andy:Gee “wsâ€, why doesn’t your theory work for NE, SE and SW areas of Washington DC? All you did was point to rich areas of cities and say that lifestyle should be subsidized. Meanwhile, all the suburbs grow without the subsidy.
ws:I never said their lifestyle should be subsidized. Where did I say that!? My point regarding high market values in these areas was that they are in demand. They are extremely old homes but are expensive because people enjoy the community in which these individual homes make up.
Suburbs grow without subsidies…really? Care to prove that gem?
WS, every type of development is subsidized by some means.
Christopher Columbus opening up European colonization of North America was paid for by Spanish taxpayers.
To highwayman: You are so funny. You obviously don’t even know the difference between a subsidy and an investment. Are you using your 401(k) to subsidize corporations? Are you investing while when you pay 80% of other people’s transit costs?
To ws: I didn’t know that urban planners were around in 1781 to plan the Georgetown community. And despite your assertion that people pay premium prices to “live in any traditional neighborhood in every city in the US”, all you did was point to say that people pay premium prices to live in rich neighborhoods. All sorts of traditional neighborhoods in NE, SW, and SE Washington DC do not command premium prices, so your whole theory is bunk.
Speaking of Randal-like fact-free analysis and conclusions from false premise:
The data is silent on that, so we’re left with the planner’s presumption that more trips to the store by walking is intrinsically superior to fewer trips to the store by driving. Pretty arrogant assumption, huh?
Danger: strawman highly flammable. Stay a minimum of 15 ft (5m) away.
Why didn’t the researchers gather walking data from the two lower income, low density suburbs. The absence of this data, therefore, skews the findings to favor TOD when complete data might not support this conclusion. I would not be surprised if the lower income, low density suburbs had walk rates comparable to the TOD. [emphasis added]
The study design reason is on pg 2. I emphasised your conclusion indicator to show your premise is false (hence conclusion is false). The case in which you’d be surprised about low-income ‘burbs is if there is something to walk TO (incorrect assumption).
Is it possible that those who shop by car and, therefore, have fewer visits to the store per week actually enjoy greater satisfaction with their choice of travel than those who must shop three, four, or five times per week?
Another false premise. You…erm…must show that they are forced to walk to the store, rather than choosing to walk that often, to show the horrible TOD forces mundanity and forces people to mundanely walk.
—————-
It appears as if the conclusions in the OP and in the highlighted comment were the result of a wish or predisposition, rather than from experience, analysis, scholarship, etc. This is a common occurrence when ideology is wished to be maintained at all costs, IME. That is: it is OK to have other forms of development – they don’t threaten self-identity or worldviews. Really. They don’t. They reinforce it (agents having free choice).
DS
Jim, when I mentioned that the communities would be more successful, I was talking about success in relation to meeting the goals the planners and designers had in promoting such a development to begin with, not the philosophical arguments behind whether or not to adopt such strategies.
Andy:“I didn’t know that urban planners were around in 1781 to plan the Georgetown community. And despite your assertion that people pay premium prices to “live in any traditional neighborhood in every city in the USâ€, all you did was point to say that people pay premium prices to live in rich neighborhoods. All sorts of traditional neighborhoods in NE, SW, and SE Washington DC do not command premium prices, so your whole theory is bunk.”
ws:Certainly there are underlying issues beyond a nice neighborhood that make “those” neighborhoods command less dollar on the market. It’s called crime. I’m not familiar with DC, but I’d bet they’re getting gentrified too. Though, I’ve never heard of some far-off suburb being gentrified. My assertions and theory holds true.
ws,
The highest average prices, by far, for homes in the Phoenix area are in Paradise Valley, which is pretty much the opposite of a New Urbanist model. PV features sprawling ranch estates, mostly single-story, tucked into a relatively inaccessible mountain enclave. Low-density. Near-zero transit access. Near-zero walkability. Plenty of roads. Yet people are willing to pay an arm and a leg to live there, to use your words. The median home price at present is over $1m. It’s as different from Georgetown as possible, and yet the same market effect is evident in both.
Accordingly, I would suspect that your Georgetown example has more to do with location and demographics than with it being urban-modeled or having “community” (how very subjective) specifically. I think Andy adequately addressed this, but since you and Dan are evading his arguments, I figured I’d present a counterexample that’s irrefutable, and let you chew on that. Correlation is not causation.
Meanwhile, the Phoenix area’s flagship New Urbanist community, Verrado, is mired in the foreclosure wasteland like the rest of the city of Buckeye in which it is located, and the homes can be had for a dance and a tune. One would think, if it was New Urbanism and “community” itself that constituted the critical asset in your Georgetown market example, that Verrado would be full to capacity despite the economic slowdown.
Andy:
Yeah, there were urban planners in 1781, though not of the cubicle dwelling modern day variety. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with Pierre L’Enfant, you know that architect and urban planner (commissioned by none other than George Washington, our first president) who designed and laid out our nation’s great Capital.
There’s much to criticize about urban planning, but I get the slightest inkling that those against it couldn’t identify the duties of private planners vs. public sector planners, nor could they illustrate historical uses of urban planners in our US history and world civilization’s history.
Speaking of George Washington, he was appointed as the surveyor of a county to create the city of Alexandria, VA. It is unknown his influence in the final design, but George’s survey and plan (platting) of Alexandria have his name on them while he was the county public surveyor and mapmaker:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trr010.html
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc004342.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc109.2.jpg
So let’s move away from the issue that all planning is bad and that somehow US cities were completely organic creatures that had no planning or no political influence behind them. That is not true at all. Planning is in our history and this entire “sunset to urban planning” is a complete waste of time. I agree, lots of top-down planning measures have created many messes, but let’s not forget the areas in which urban planning has helped cities.
Mike:
I never said that typical McMansion homes don’t command high value. But you’re missing the point. In order for those homes to sell at high prices they have to have lots of amenities: basketball hoops, three-four car garages, hot tubs, fancy dishwashers, etc.
The homes in neighborhoods I gave as examples are often very small, have shaky foundations and need serious upgrades. But as a cost per SF, they are often nominally higher than some McMansion suburbia lot in mundaneville.
One last time: The reason these homes sell for a good amount w/o being individually amenity rich is that they are close to walkable amenities and provide a true, neighborhood context with something other than just houses. People are buying into charming homes and a neighborhood/community. When you buy a home in McMansion-ville, you’re really just buying the house and lot and nothing more. I can’t say that people aren’t buying into something else besides a home in suburbia, but how often is the surrounding neighborhood (other than local schools) used as a selling point to potential buyers? You can bet the major selling point of a home in Georgetown is selling the entire city/community to potential buyers contrasted to the major selling point of a McMansion home which would probably be square footage or a very large backyard.
There’s a different value system between these areas, that was all I was pointing towards.
And regarding Andy’s retort that there are poorer traditional neighborhoods around DC that aren’t expensive as compared Georgetown (or wherever); my response to that is there are probably other market reasons why they are not such as crime, not to mention I’m sure many of the neighborhoods are and will go through some level of gentrification. I don’t think that will happen (gentrification) when some cul-de-sac suburb of today turns 80 years old.
Meanwhile, the Phoenix area’s flagship New Urbanist community, Verrado, is mired in the foreclosure wasteland like the rest of the city of Buckeye in which it is located, and the homes can be had for a dance and a tune. One would think, if it was New Urbanism and “community†itself that constituted the critical asset in your Georgetown market example, that Verrado would be full to capacity despite the economic slowdown.
Not only is the overarching implication a hasty generalization fallacy, but the premise wished for in the last sentence is false.
NU-TND communities across the country have survived the bubble better than fetishized McSuburbs. Sorry to break it to you (if such info can indeed break through).
DS
Andy said: You obviously don’t even know the difference between a subsidy and an investment.
THWM: Building a light rail system is a civic investment in a city, you don’t want to see that, but it is.
Dan:“NU-TND communities across the country have survived the bubble better than fetishized McSuburbs. Sorry to break it to you (if such info can indeed break through).”
ws:Not to mention some NU communities are smack dab in the middle of “drive until you qualify” suburbs. I think that fact is a reasonable critique of some NU developments Unfortunately, NU is often the victim of trying to put together positive land-uses and street patterns in a sea of leap-frog developments.
To ws:
NE, SE and SW Washington DC are not getting gentrified, even though the land was laid out by the planners you worship. Please drive around there when you get the chance. I won’t even ask you to drive there at night.
My point is that Georgetown and Alexandria didn’t get to be rich areas because of planning. They became expensive and desirable because of the unpredictable market forces. A huge amount of public money has been spent trying to emulate them elsewhere, and all the money has gone down the sewer. Thank you planners.
Georgetown and Alexandria deliberately avoided having the DC Metro (subway) come into their neighborhoods. Think about it: Why is it that those neighborhoods who rejected heavily subsidized transit are the ones with increasing value?
To highwayman: You might think an “investment” is something that can’t cover its operating costs. Most other people expect an investment to provide increased value, not be a cash sink. I can find you many “investments” to put your 401(k) into that cost money year after year. Do you want to “invest” in them?
To Dan: Thank you for confirming you are just a troll. I look forward to ignoring your Nazi and Stalin comments in the future.
Dan said: That is: unless you call the 00’s being the hottest decade on record as a cooling trend.
JK: Wrong. Look at quality data such as RSS * MSU.
Thanks
JK
I noticed that no one was able to come up with a public good of mass transit (#8 above), lets try again:
JK: Can someone explain the social good of trying to switch people from cars to mass transit?
Mass transit costs more than driving:
* Average big city bus: $0.85 per passenger per mile ($1.01 with capital)
* Average big city light rail line: $0.52 ($1.38 with capital)
average USA car: $0.20-$0.25 (all inclusive)
Mass transit uses more energy than a car to transport each person each mile:
* Average big city bus: 3876 BTU (equal to 20-24 MPG car)
* Average light rail line: 3371 BTU (equal to 23-28 MPG car)
Mass transit commuters have 91% longer commute times:
* Average auto commute time: 25.2 minutes
* Average transit commute time: 48.1 minutes
* Overall the commute time for those who DIDN’T live in the principle city was a bit shorter
Again, why the push to waste time, money and energy by getting people onto mass transit?
Thanks
JK
ws:Not to mention some NU communities are smack dab in the middle of “drive until you qualify†suburbs. I think that fact is a reasonable critique of some NU developments Unfortunately, NU is often the victim of trying to put together positive land-uses and street patterns in a sea of leap-frog developments.
Agreed. I’m not a CNU kinda guy, nor did I pay their usurious fees to attend here last year (not to mention they don’t understand my conference proposals [nor does JAPA, but that’s some other time]), but oftentimes I suspect they take what they can get and hope the surrounding area gets on board. It’s hard to aggregate parcels to get a good development, esp these days.
DS
Dan said: There’s no cooling trend.
JK: It is not about warming or cooling. It is about the cause.
There is NO evidence that CO2 can even cause dangerous warming. Its effect is in saturation.
CO2 only causes about 30% of any greenhouse effect.
Man only emits about 3% of the annual CO2 emission.
Antarctic ice cores (Al Gore’s cores) show temperature changing before, not after, CO2 changes.
The famous temperature chart used by AL Gore has been shown a fraud.
IPCC lead author, Briffa just got caught fudging the data that is at the foundation of the IPCC.
The CRU has been resisting the disclosure the the data underlaying the claims of recent warming. After a series of excuses, they finally claimed to have destroyed the data. (Nixon anyone?)
No one has even shown that CO2 is responsible for recent warming.
You are following fools, idiots, liars and fraud artists.
Thanks
JK
Andy: “NE, SE and SW Washington DC are not getting gentrified, even though the land was laid out by the planners you worship. Please drive around there when you get the chance. I won’t even ask you to drive there at night.
My point is that Georgetown and Alexandria didn’t get to be rich areas because of planning…A huge amount of public money has been spent trying to emulate them elsewhere, and all the money has gone down the sewer. Thank you planners.”
ws: Um, hello, when did I ever assert planners made neighborhoods rich (or poor)? No wonder I have no idea what points you’re trying to make, you’re off on some crazy tangent.
Yes, many DC area gems were laid out by planners. I know…those damn planners / founding fathers our country. Damn you!
Andy: “They became expensive and desirable because of the unpredictable market forces”
ws: Yep, if “unpredictable” you mean location and design consideration tailored to people then this might hold true. It’s not unpredictable why there’s successful and unsuccessful neighborhoods.
“Meanwhile, the Phoenix area’s flagship New Urbanist community, Verrado, is mired in the foreclosure wasteland like the rest of the city of Buckeye in which it is located, and the homes can be had for a dance and a tune. One would think, if it was New Urbanism and “community†itself that constituted the critical asset in your Georgetown market example, that Verrado would be full to capacity despite the economic slowdown.” – Mike
Seems a big much to point to a single development in BFE, otherwise known as the distant exurb of Buckeye, that is part of one of the metros that had a HUGE housing bubble AND claim that since it’s not at full capacity that is somehow disproves NU.
prk166,
Buckeye may once have been a “distant exurb,” but its growth rate this decade has been off the charts, and it has annexed as much land as Phoenix itself has within city limits. By 2050, Buckeye is projected to house a higher population than Mesa, Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert, or Peoria, each of which has over 200k residents. Mesa, at 450k population, is the largest suburb in the U.S. and has more residents than cities such as Miami, Pittsburgh, Newark, and St. Louis. And Buckeye is going to surpass that. So no, we’re not talking about the boondocks here.
Verrado was repeatedly hailed as a NU masterpiece when it was planned and built. I remember reading a gorgeous spread of the project in one of those SkyMagazines on a plane trip. It is absolutely, without question, the southwest’s flagship NU project. And it’s not a ghost town like Maricopa or Stanfield or anything… it’s just suffering the foreclosure meltdown the same as everywhere else. I posted the example to refute an argument above that NU communities were in such high demand that supply wasn’t coming anywhere close to satisfying the market. Clearly not the case. Supply is there and there ain’t no one buyin’.
I posted the example to refute an argument above that NU communities were in such high demand that supply wasn’t coming anywhere close to satisfying the market. Clearly not the case.
Hence the noting of the ‘hasty generalization’ fallacy and a link to show the assertion was false.
There are many more links of course, but the spam queue looms large.
DS
Dan, when a sweeping generalization is presented as evidence, a single counterexample is dispositive of the original claim. I answered a sweeping generalization with a single counterexample. Sufficient, and nothing more sinister than that.
Mike, are you claiming that the Buckeye example you provided refutes the evidence I provided, or are you claiming I provided no evidence (e.g. I suspect your ‘sweeping generalization’ is incorrect)?
Thx,
DS
There was a time when some thought that Leadville, Colorado should not only be the state capital but would be a major city in the city. 40 years after those days, one would’ve laughed at those claims.
Today Buckeye is a fast growing exurb. It’s on the very edge of the metro. It’s current land size is a 1/4th of Phoenix’s. It may have plans for more While in 40 years it may indeed have 200k, 300k or even 500k, today it has all of 25k or 30k.
That aside, this at least makes more sense :
Verrado was repeatedly hailed as a NU masterpiece when it was planned and built. I remember reading a gorgeous spread of the project in one of those SkyMagazines on a plane trip. It is absolutely, without question, the southwest’s flagship NU project. And it’s not a ghost town like Maricopa or Stanfield or anything… it’s just suffering the foreclosure meltdown the same as everywhere else. I posted the example to refute an argument above that NU communities were in such high demand that supply wasn’t coming anywhere close to satisfying the market. Clearly not the case. Supply is there and there ain’t no one buyin’.
Then again, over building doesn’t disprove demand all together. Spec building on that scale was occurring in large part to deal with people migrating to the area from other places (Tuscon, Buffalo, Portland, Chicago, LA, et al.), not just growth from the the Phoenix area itself. When a recession hits, people stop moving. Demand as a time component.
So what if Verrado built today? Sure, it proves that demand isn’t infinite. And it proves NU was prone to the same overbuilding that other developments were. But how much does it really say about demand for NU over the next 5 or 10 years?
“Do TODs Increase Transit Usage?”
I already alluded to this point in my first post, but the answer is yes. The Beav suburb that was surveyed was actually in distance/location of the same light rail line. Naturally of course, this suburb had 20% transit use to work commute. Maybe it can be called a Transit Oriented Subdivision. Poor walking and biking access but good transit use.
Compare a Beaverton suburb that’s not close LR and you’ll see the transit usage drop.
Thank you, “ws” (in #38), for admitting that government planners have no effect on the value or desirability of an urban area. The location of Georgetown originally had to do with transportation by canal. Now its location has to do with NOT having a Metro station. SO WHICH OF THOSE LOCATION ADVANTAGES DO YOU WANT TO EMULATE?
Andy: Thank you, “ws†(in #38), for admitting that government planners have no effect on the value or desirability of an urban area.
ws:I never said anything about desirability or value. Those are subjective terms. I said rich and poor meaning that no matter how well designed some neighborhoods are, some are naturally going to be have crime and poverty. Just so people know what I said:
“Um, hello, when did I ever assert planners made neighborhoods rich (or poor)?”
So using the logic above, the argument then that planners making TODs, and Randal arguing they raise crime (thus lowering their desirability)…is false? Who knew?
DS
Hey ws, Dan!
We are stillwaiting for you to show that mass transit has some social value in view of the fact that it
DOES NOT save energy
DOES NOT save money
DOES waste people’s time.
Thanks
JK
But WS, how is that caused by a TOD versus a correlation? Could it just be that with the areas of Beaverton as a whole being older, it’s had more time to attract those who are likely to take transit or those who will take it? For example, does it have more people who work down downtown? After all, with Orenco being close to Intel is it the design of the community that attracts the walkers and bikers or it’s proximity to Intel? That is, how many chose to live there because it’s within walking / biking distance of work rather than for the community design with it’s proximity to work an after thought?