The Antiplanner was in Austin, Texas on Wednesday speaking to people about a revived proposal to build light rail. I showed that light rail requires far more land to produce the same amount of transportation as highways, that it emits more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than typical automobiles, and that most cities that have built it have ended up cutting transit service to low-income neighborhoods.
After my presentation, someone who was obviously not persuaded came up and said if we didn’t build light rail we would end up paving over Texas. I repeated that less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space.
“Anyone can lie with statistics,” he said. “I think you have an agenda.” I pointed out that my numbers came from the Census Bureau, but he just repeated, “You have an agenda.”
Depression One of the potent reasons for erectile disorders in men, increases semen volume and production. best price vardenafil uk viagra prices They are very much unique and can be identified with Sil-den-afil citrate. However, his career really began to take off in the 1970’s called a lithotripsy, using acoustic shock waves for breaking up the stones without the need for surgery. viagra prescription for woman There are various reasons that are responsible for such problems in male – Physical causes – This includes diseases, low testosterone levels, depression and unhealthy lifestyle, most of viagra price australia the males, of all ages.
Amazing how people are able to rationalize their ideas. Here we have a project that will probably cost the better part of a billion dollars, earning engineering and construction companies tens of millions in profits. Yet no one questions the integrity of people who support the project. Meanwhile, anyone who opposes it must have “an agenda.”
I welcome your comments on what this gentleman could think my agenda might be.
if we didn’t build light rail we would end up paving over Texas. I repeated that less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space
If I understand correctly, your response was essentially a non sequitur. He was talking about paving, while “urbanization” and “rural open space” relate to population densities. As a result, you told him nothing about how much of Texas is paved, as non-urbanized areas and rural open space areas can be paved or not.
earning engineering and construction companies tens of millions in profits. Yet no one questions the integrity of people who support the project
I don’t understand why you always make this point in reference to transit projects, but not to highway construction. Are we to believe that engineering and construction companies don’t make large profits when designing and building highways?
So does D4P believe that Texas will be literally paved over? Sounds like it.
And if you admit the agenda-seeker in the audience was – hmm, what’s the word? – EXAGGERATING, then how much of Texas do you believe actually is paved over? What’s a better tool of measurement? Since it’s commonly accepted that rural areas are … RURAL (as in “not paved over”), it sounds to me like the Antiplanner has a pretty reliable piece of info. I’d say the burden is on D4P to prove otherwise.
Also, I’d add that someone unwilling to debate the point but to quickly dismiss an argument because it doesn’t conveniently fit an established narrative (e.g., light rail = goodness) is the one who is not only demonstrating closed mindedness but is also the one carrying an agenda!
Here (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=158), the Antiplanner defines “rural open space” as “densities lower than about 1,000 people per square mile, which is roughly equal to two-acre minimum lot sizes)”.
As you can see, that says nothing about paving. Not only that, but a two-acre minimum lot size is very different from the picture the Antiplanner tries to paint with language such as “less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space”. We’re supposed to think that most of Texas is wild and undeveloped, when in fact two-acre minimum lot sizes are consistent with what is generally referred to as “sprawl”.
The Antiplanner doesn’t tell us what percentage of the 95% rural open space is paved, developed, or undeveloped. As a result, the figure is essentially meaningless and does not address the audience member’s concern about paving.
As an Austin resident, perhaps I can shed some more light on the subject. The Antiplanner is correct in noting that an almost-absurdly limited amount of Texas is urbanized (by any definition), especially for such a highly populated state. However, that is mainly because Texas covers some 268,000-odd square miles. Austin, however, lies on the cusp of the Texas Hill Country, a scenic area that is home to the Edwards Aquifer, which supplies water for Austin, San Antonio, a much of south and central Texas. Almost all of the Texas Hill Country is a protected recharge zone for the aquifer, but since it is considerably more scenic to most people, much more development has occurred in that portion of western Austin and Central Texas than the eastern portion, and there are much more restrictions on development in this area to protect the aquifer. The proposed light rail project serves this area. The eastern portion of Austin, which shifts rather quickly into blackland prairie, has over the last 10-15 years (since Austin has boomed in population and actually become a large city) built roads and tollways to try to accommodate more development, and there is no danger to the aquifer in this region. The person you spoke with I can almost guarantee is associated with an environmentalist group, several of which have basically controlled Austin politics since the late 70’s when development started occurring in the western sections of town. While this person probably does share the “light rail = good” sentiment shared by many liberals, his primary concern I can practically assure you was watershed protection.
We already know, of course, that large-lot development has a larger ecological footprint. We recently learned that this translates into a larger carbon footprint as well, as large-lot development requires much more driving.
Implying that having 95% rural open space means that it is pristine or not impacted by human activity or available for housing is transparently and patently ridiculous, as much of this land is not buildable for numerous reasons.
DS
The paving over the plant crowd seems to dismiss that we are not coming close to paving over any state, let alone the planet. A few roads most likely covering far less than 1% of any state, does not equal paving over the planet.
Now I have noticed that most of the Smart Growth projects that I have visited have very little green space in them compared to a very green sprawling neighborhood.
Especially around light rail stations
emits more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than typical automobiles
Which is a totally irrelevant figure if people end up traveling fewer miles on the light rail system to satisfy the same desires. Like I’ve said so many times before, there is no utility in traveling long distances – the utility comes in getting where you want to go. Similarly, the environment sees no benefit when you travel twenty miles and emit twice the amount of carbon as someone who travels five miles, even if you get better emissions per mile.
While the person who told you that anyone can lie with statistics could have phrased it a little better – statistics themselves don’t lie – they were right in that it’s very possible to use misleading/irrelevant statistics to prove a point. Like your “rural open space” figure, which includes sprawling suburbs, and your emissions per passenger mile figure, which ignores the fact that people who travel by road often end up traveling farther than someone would trying to achieve a similar goal in an area served by mass transit.
What do the transit agencies get out of building light rail?
Now I have noticed that most of the Smart Growth projects that I have visited have very little green space in them compared to a very green sprawling neighborhood.
Manicured grass lawns doused with chemicals might fit your aesthetic vision of green space, but the land isn’t “wild” and isn’t providing the earth with the filtering and cleansing benefit of natural growth. Furthermore, given that SG projects are almost always more dense than the average American development, each one of those people is someone who’s not living in a less dense area, which means more undeveloped land somewhere.
Now I have noticed that most of the Smart Growth projects that I have visited have very little green space in them compared to a very green sprawling neighborhood.
I doubt it.
Very likely you are confusing ‘developer dense’ with smart growth. Perhaps you have a link to a brochure/website that describes the project as SG?
DS
I too am an Austin Resident, and here is what I have observed.
1. Austin is a Small city with only about 650,000 people.
2. Austin has about 10 Highways that serve this population.
3. Austin has some of the worst traffic in the country. No city of its size is worse.
I the past couple of decades we have built two major highways and the traffic problems have grown exponentially. Maybe light rail is not the answer to Austin’s traffic problems. Lord knows if there is one. But the A.P’s solution to the worlds ills (i.e. build more highways and drive more) has been proven wrong, at least in Austin. Many of the people in Austin are will to fork over tax dollars for anything that might solve the congestion problem. But alas, light rail isn’t gonna get it done, although it will be a CHOICE that people can make other the sitting on a highway and going nowhere for an hour.
My suggestion for this city would be to improve its connectivity. I’ve never seen a city with less street connectivity. To get anywhere you have to get on a major arterial. Neighborhoods fight connecting streets because they don’t want people driving by their house. It’s a political dichotomy. People hate traffic. People hate the measures to mitigate traffic. It’s a NIMBY convention down here. I give props to anybody, even the A.P. that get involved with Austin planning and politics. It’s like a hamster on a wheel. The feet are moving but it evitabley goes nowhere.
“What do the transit agencies get out of building light rail?”
Transit!
DS said
I doubt it.
Very likely you are confusing ‘developer dense’ with smart growth. Perhaps you have a link to a brochure/website that describes the project as SG?
DS
=———————
The question was are we paving over the planet? So I will add if we are, how much of the Planet, Country, state or cities are paved over? What Percent?
I added that Smart Growth projects seem to do a lot more paving over per square foot than sprawl.
Antiplanner wrote :
“Anyone can lie with statistics,†he said. “I think you have an agenda.†I pointed out that my numbers came from the Census Bureau, but he just repeated, “You have an agenda.â€Â
Everyone has an agenda. Just today there was an article carried on Reuters about a school in London pulling Obesiety into the whole Global Warming thing. Since everyone has an agenda, who care about it. Let’s just sit down and talk about the actual numbers and start figuring things out. After all, Copernicus had an agenda and the church had an agenda. It didn’t make Copernicus wrong nor did it make the church wrong. What made Copernicus correct was that, well, his science – his numbers – were right.
I added that Smart Growth projects seem to do a lot more paving over per square foot than sprawl.
File this away under the same category as the Antiplanner’s emissions per passenger mile metric – irrelevant. If a SG project takes up 20 acres and all of them are paved, but a traditional development takes up 200 acres but only 25% of them are paved, which project has done the most paving?
Just today there was an article carried on Reuters about a school in London pulling Obesiety into the whole Global Warming thing.
To the extent that driving and the planning that it necessitates on the political level discourage walking, there is a connection between global warming and obesity.
Implying that having 95% rural open space means that it is pristine or not impacted by human activity or available for housing is transparently and patently ridiculous, as much of this land is not buildable for numerous reasons.
Not only that, but the very definition of “rural open space” doesn’t even preclude lands that have already been developed.
rationalitate said:
File this away under the same category as the Antiplanner’s emissions per passenger mile metric – irrelevant. If a SG project takes up 20 acres and all of them are paved, but a traditional development takes up 200 acres but only 25% of them are paved, which project has done the most paving?
———————–
Would it make more since to compare 200 acres of smart growth to to 200 acres of sprawl? And how did you get to the 25% figure?
My question still is
T”he question was are we paving over the planet? So I will add if we are, how much of the Planet, Country, state or cities are paved over? What Percent?
After my presentation, someone who was obviously not persuaded came up and said if we didn’t build light rail we would end up paving over Texas. I repeated that less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space.
The audience member expressed a concern about the future. The Antiplanner responded with a comment about present. I fail to see how the Antiplanner’s present-related response addressed the future-oriented concerns of the audience member.
Think about it this way. If someone were to say to you, “I’m concerned that I might get sick in the future,” would you really address their concern if you responded, “You’re healthy right now”?
I welcome your comments on what this gentleman could think my agenda might be.
I can’t speak on behalf of the gentleman, but it’s pretty clear that you have an agenda. In fact, I suspect that everyone has an agenda, and I reject the notion that “agenda” is a bad word.
Nearly every day, you post something that is intended to portray “planning” in a negative light. You post nothing positive about planning, nor do you generally (if ever) post anything that doesn’t support your position. You are not alone in calling attention only to things that support your position, as many/most/all people do this. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have an agenda.
For example: I’m seeing a number of stories in the news lately about how transit ridership is experiencing relatively large spikes in light of rising gas prices. I haven’t seen you comment on these stories, yet you have commented many times before on low transit ridership. The reader is thus given the impression that your agenda is to discourage investments in transit and to encourage investments in auto-oriented transportation systems.
I added that Smart Growth projects seem to do a lot more paving over per square foot than sprawl.
And I’m disagreeing.
The basis for the disagreement is a presumption that you misunderstand the term, which is why I wanted to see the basis for your judgement. IOW: what you describe as a SG development is SGINO (in name only) or SGIMPO (in mistaken perception only).
DS
Abstract
This paper examines the influence of residential zoning and subdivision regulations on the extent and distribution of impervious land cover in Madison, WI. Specifically, an analysis of approximately 40,000 single-family residential parcels in the Madison region is presented to assess the impact of land development regulations governing lot size, lot frontage, front yard setbacks, street width, and the neighborhood street network configuration on total parcel impervious cover. The results of this research suggest that lower density patterns of single-family development are associated with a larger area of impervious cover per unit of occupancy than higher density patterns. The paper argues that parcel-based analyses of environmental impact are needed to evaluate the role of specific land use planning policies on regional environmental quality. Based on the results of the analysis, we identify three specific strategies for reducing residential impervious area through municipal land development regulations. [emphasis added]
Conclusions
This work demonstrates that, in one rapidly growing metropolitan region of the U.S., lower density models of single-family residential development are associated with a greater use of impervious materials than higher density models. This relationship holds true when controlling for the residential capacity of the parcel. Given the direct mathematical relationship between parcel impervious area and the dimensions of the parcel frontage, front yard setback, and configuration of the street network, among other parcel design attributes, it is reasonable to conclude that the relationships found between parcel design and imperviousness in the Madison study region are largely transferable to any city characterized by North American development patterns. If true, metropolitan regions seeking to reduce the rate and extent of impervious land conversions should revise land development regulations to achieve the greater physical economies of scale associated with moderate-to-high-density residential development. In addition, tax-based incentives should be adopted to encourage a reduction in the area, runoff rate, and thermal capacity of existing impervious surfaces.
Stone, Brian 2004. Paving over paradise: How land use regulations promote residential imperviousness. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 101-113.
This is a standard paper for those of us in the urban ecology field.
DS
Would it make more since to compare 200 acres of smart growth to to 200 acres of sprawl?
No – what makes sense is to compare the amount of developed area it takes to house a given amount of people on each development. The smart growth development will obviously take up lass land, so it’s the least sprawling development.
And how did you get to the 25% figure?
Pulled it out of my ass. It was just to show you that that sort of comparison is silly and won’t really lead anywhere.
Austin light rail, watershed and similar arguments,
And this is why environmentalism is the main vehicle of 21st century totalitarianism. The watershed argument alone brings almost all human activities under central global control. The argument can be made that any human activity on any soil anywhere in the world has some effect or another on everything, including your back yard. Everything is viewed as having unacceptable externalities. The color of clothes I wear today, has many externalities including the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, which in term affects long term climate. If I spit in Yellowstone, two three molecules of my spit will eventually find their way into the Yellow river of China (they indeed do as a rough calculation might indicate).
It is the philosophical framework that justifies subordination of all human activities to central command.
“The watershed argument alone brings almost all human activities under central global control.”
Yeah… But… In the Austin context aquifer protection and water quality issues are particularly relevant. This train might be running away to some extent, but there is drinking water for San Antionio, endangered species, and one of Austin’s major recreational aminities at stake in this debate.
I do agree however that environmentalism has been misused in many contexts.
And this is why environmentalism is the main vehicle of 21st century totalitarianism…[i]It is the philosophical framework that justifies subordination of all human activities to central command.
Wow. That’s a whole lot of scared. Hint: try and hide your fear if you talk to decision-makers, as they’ll tune you out if they hear this and you’ll get nothing done.
But sure – go ahead and directly pollute your water source – that will be a whole lot of stupid*. Maybe some folks’ actions are to prevent stupid.
Please, no desperate, weak arguments that Dan wants totalitarian control.
DS
* one bonus: that will lower home prices for the antiplanners though! yay! Then we can build on Wellhead Protection Zones and futher raise housing supply! Whoo-hoo!
Austin/San Antonio/Central Texas has learned to manage their [lack of] water resources very well from the get-go. We could scale back on restrictions sure, but then we run the risk of having problems similar to the Atlanta area when we enter a long-term draught. Water quality is an issue, but the limited amount of water is more important, and the more impervious surfaces and fewer drainage regulations in the protected recharge zones could spell tremendous problems for flat-out availability of water of any quality.
In answer to the title of this article, yes I have an agenda: the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of my community, and there is nothing more fundamental to all three of the above (or just flat out to survival) than availability of water. Therefore I will protect it.
“but the limited amount of water is more important, and the more impervious surfaces and fewer drainage regulations in the protected recharge zones could spell tremendous problems for flat-out availability of water of any quality.”
Not that I disagree with limiting pervious cover in the recharge zone but this is not a great point in Austin re: water quatitiy(I know you said central Texas). I often have to remind people in Austin that their water does not come from an aquifer. Austin municipal water is surface water.
try and hide your fear if you talk to decision-makers, as they’ll tune you out if they hear this and you’ll get nothing done.
No, of course when I go to town hall meetings in a place where I hold real estate and have something more immediate at stake I do not use such arguments. In that case, I usually extol all the wonderful protections from development that decision-makers provide. Why would I want competition from new development to dilute the inflated value and accelerated appreciation of my investments? If I did that, I would have to revert to doing a lot more productive work in, say, cancer research rather than sit and wait for some newcomer to the area to finance my retirement in the Caribbean. I am, after all, rational.
Next time ask the pro-urban rail lemming to please attenuate the zealotry, and consider what our own Houston Mayor Bob said about urban rail (Houston Metropolitan Magazine, November 1990, page 49) about one year after he resigned as Chairman of the METRO Board:
“First they [rail’s supporters] say, `It’s cheaper.’ When you show it costs more, they say, ` It’s faster.’ When you show it’s slower, they say, `It serves more riders.’ When you show there are fewer riders, they say, `It brings economic development.’ When you show no economic development, they say, `It helps the image.’ When you say you don’t want to spend that much money on image, they say, `It will solve the pollution problem.’ When you show it won’t help pollution, they say, finally, `It will take time for rail to do some good.’
==============
Which, by the way, is exactly what the METREAUX bureaucrats are saying to skeptics.
Answer to prk166 who said:
“What do the transit agencies get out of building light rail?”
The new urban rail robber barons (unelected and seemingly unaccountable) appear addicted to the euphoria of spending Billions upon Billions of our precious tax dollars playing “Monopoly.”
In that case, I usually extol all the wonderful protections from development that decision-makers provide. Why would I want competition from new development to dilute the inflated value and accelerated appreciation of my investments?
In the case that is the sub-topic – water quality protection – the protections from development were enacted to prevent stupidity. Watershed protection is enacted to prevent stupidity. Health, safety and welfare restrictions are enacted to protect health, safety and welfare and to prevent stupidity.
Light rail is not in this topic of water quality protection and is not germane to the topic, as are the other restrictions implicit in your implication.
IOW: you are conflating separable issues.
Some restrictions are as Texan Okie said, and are not silly totalitarian fear-based arguments (and thus are ridiculous and should cause you embarrassment for conflating them).
DS
“And how did you get to the 25% figure?
Pulled it out of my ass. It was just to show you that that sort of comparison is silly and won’t really lead anywhere.”
The figure is not far off. In general, about 30% of land area is dedicated to roads and parking lots in most cities.
Which, by the way, is exactly what the METREAUX bureaucrats are saying to skeptics.
Wow – I didn’t realize the anti-francophone sentiment was so strong that just by adding a French ending you could turn something into a pejorative!
(By the way, the French love doing the opposite of what you did – turning the turning the eau ending into an o, like in Réso instead of Réseau.)
Try again, fewer hyperlinks:
The figure is not far off. In general, about 30% of land area is dedicated to roads and parking lots in most cities.
Depends on your land use+. Depending on your aereal coverage, total 30% impervious coverage means your surface water bodies are impaired*. My grad advisor studied this issue and one of her findings is a better understanding of the impervious-impaired relationship to land use and policy.
DS
+ graph depicting relationship here: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wswp/images/relation.gif
* Meaning capital expenditures are required to mitigate – a hidden cost.
Did anyone compare you to Hitler?
My question still is
If are we paving over the planet?
1) How much of the Planet is paved over?
2) How much of the United States is paved over?
3) Or how much of any state is paved over?
4) How much of our cities are paved over? I saw 2 answers 25% and 30% But the first answer had a questionable source, but may be commonly used by some of the posters to this thread.
Craig,
How much is too much?
Some restrictions are as Texan Okie said, and are not silly totalitarian fear-based arguments (and thus are ridiculous and should cause you embarrassment for conflating them).
Well, I’m not embarrassed to conflate them together because they represent the same wide regional NIMBYsm (“now that we’re in let’s close the door and seal in our California, Oregon etc. dreamâ€Â), but I do laugh as people regulate themselves in a corner and in the process reallocate their wealth to me and to those of us who, having lived in a regulated environment, have naturally grown familiar with taking advantage of such situations. I just cannot pass up on the Schadenfreude of this irony. I have traveled down the road to serfdom a few times before in other countries, and have now manned the toll booths as I wait for naive Americans to go through it for the first time.
# 38 On June 5th, 2008, bennett said:
Craig,
How much is too much?
——————
I would like my questions answered first befor I move on
Craig,
my question still is: what are these SG projects that you claim pave over more than other projects? You haven’t named any. Please include comparative % open space, parks, etc.
—–
And I hope Ettinger tells his electeds that drinking water protection is totalitarian or NIMBY.
That will be a valuable clue for the electeds to stop wasting any more time listening to E., and free them to walk away to do productive things.
—–
BTW, here is a quantification of impervious in Austin by land use classification. This was done by regression values and not by pixel value adjacencies, and differs from Stone’s analyses, linked above. It is still valuable for informing the “discussion” for those not boxed in by ideological constraints.
DS
NOAA’s new research estimates the extent of impervious surfaces, or land cover [using] land-cover measures from satellites, U.S. Census Bureau road vectors, and satellite images of nighttime lights …[t]he resulting map reveals for the first time the distribution and density of the impervious surfaces in the continental United States. The total covered area is 112,610 square kilometers, just less than the area of the state of Ohio (EOS 2004, 85, 233–240).
DS
DS
I’m not going to answer any questions untill I see an example of the planet being paved over.
I’m starting to think that there may not be a example of the paving.
Are impervious surfaces all paving or roads?
Antiplanner wrote:
“I repeated that less than 3 percent of Texas is urbanized and 95 percent is rural open space.”
That may not be so relevant.
Firstly, it depends on where you are standing. A development built close to your location has a larger impact (positive or negative) that one build further away. So, you need to bias the proportion of rural open space. Instead of adding up all of the urbanised bits, and all of the rural bits, you need to do something like add up all of the rural bits, divided by the distance squared, and compare to the urban bits, divided by the distance squared. The rural component will come to much much less that 95%, for most people.
Secondly, the impact depends on the desired nature of the locale. If the locale is rural, development will have a larger impact than if the locale is already urban. In the UK, this limits the opportunities for putting wind turbines in windy wildernesses.
“I’m not going to answer any questions untill I see an example of the planet being paved over.â€Â
What a trite response. Craig, you were the one that made the initial paving over the earth comment. Dan has done a relatively good job answering you three questions. I think a question about where to draw the line is a good one, and relevant to this discussion. My answer would be that we try to gage what the adverse effects of significant pervious coverage are, plan (dirty word) to mitigate them, and then limit it within reason. But if you are just interested in putting words in other peoples mouth and not substantively taking part in the discussion, that sucks. So I repeat,
How much is too much? Where would you draw the line?
Are impervious surfaces all paving or roads?
Please. No more delay. You have an Internet connection. And no one here claimed the planet was being paved over.
Please provide SG examples and how much is too much.
DS
“And no one here claimed the planet was being paved over.”
But some were labled “The paving over the plant crowd” whether they identify with that sentiment or not.
Impervious surfaces. What else am I going to hear? Disturbance of tectonic plates by asymmetric loading in earth crust pressure distribution from shifting building materials from quarries to highrises? Do I see a pro-sprawl paper advocating more uniform distribution of tectonic surface pressure from man made structures? Median house prices packing another 50K?
Here’s what we know. Much of the “persuasion” behind Smart Growth is based on hyperbole. The paving over the earth claim is just one example. It shows a certain immaturity – an inability to argue with reason and facts. Better to scare people by exaggerating claims about losing all the green space. Sometimes I think Smart Growth champions are their own worst enemies.
Let’s go back to the fundamental question: Just how much of Texas (or any state, for that matter) has been “paved” over?
Give us a real, concrete (asphalt?) answer to that D4P, Dan, et al, not the distractions and distortions. What are you afraid of?