Last week, the Antiplanner noted in passing a study that found that making people live in “walkable neighborhood” won’t make them any healthier. Since then the Antiplanner has encountered another research paper that found that “the effects of density and block size on total walking and physical activity are modest to non-existent, if not contrapositive.” It seems that anyone who looks at the relationship between urban design and health, other than committed smart-growth advocates, finds that there is no relationship.
So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that President Obama’s recently released National Prevention Strategy–which resulted from the so-called Obamacare legislation–focuses on redesigning the built environment. The Active Living portion of the strategy calls for “community design and development that supports physical activity. Sidewalks, adequate lighting, and traffic slowing devices (e.g., modern roundabouts) improve the walkability of communities and promote physical activity. Increasing access to public transportation helps people maintain active lifestyles. People are also more likely to use active modes of transportation (e.g., walking, biking) for their daily activities when homes, workplaces, stores, schools, health care facilities, and other community services are located within close proximity and neighborhoods are perceived as safe.”
Too much of alcohol, such as for example, pill viagra for sale 5 glasses of wine or 5 shots of whiskey). One has to experience the bitter truth of http://seanamic.com/news/ cialis properien health conditions at one time or the other irrespective of age. What is the reason levitra cost of behind erectile dysfunction? In order to achieve the desired effect. This FDA approved oral medication offers its user verity of choices to get its tadalafil cipla 20mg effects on you.
Although the Strategy includes footnotes for each of these claims, they only reference other publications recommending changes in the built environment–some of which were written by advocacy groups such as the Surface Transportation Policy Project–and not actual research showing that this is a worthwhile or cost-effective strategy. The Antiplanner is not an expert on health care, but if the rest of Obama’s health care package is as “scientific” as this, it appears we have turned our entire medical system to Lysenkoists. Next time you see a doctor, don’t be surprised if he or she gives you a prescription based on the latest fad (or campaign contribution) rather than the latest research.
OK, let’s see what Dan will say. Surely his (almost) Master’s Degree qualifies him to speak on a broad variety of completely unrelated subjects:
“Randal, thanks so much for conflating the last couple years with real healthcare, and either not reading or misunderstanding the empirical, testable evidence I provided and the direction in that evidence that points you to more empirical evidence.
OK, that’s not it. How about:
“Golly, ya know gee whiz, that’s really the only explanation that holds. Nothing else makes sense: You know more than scores of scientists, Obama’s doctors, their papers and their life work! Impressive, surely.
We’re getting closer, but still no flappable cigar. Maybe:
“These ideas are much older than Obamacare. They are the basics.”
Hmm, no flair. Oh, I know. Let’s try:
“Randal Randal Randal.
Sigh. Randal. Raaandallll.
It’s about the freedom.
Freedom, Randal, freedom. What this country was founded upon – freedom. Freedom, Randal.
You remember freedom?
The freedom to choose between the doctor, the HMO, the food desert, or the organic arugula salad with hand-flapped salad dressing.
Get with the program. Freedom to choose your doctor, doctor, doctor.”
Yes, I believe that one will do.
Who cares if it’s pseudoscience or real science?
If Stupid Growth block-size did force people to walk more, IT WOULD BE WRONG. It would violate their right to live their lives as they want.
Planners always ignore that. “Freedom” is the equivalent of a four letter word in government. I can imagine the looks of horror on the faces of government planners like Dan:
you mean we should just let people do what they want to do?????!!!!”
Though Metrosucks, you’re no better than the “planners” that you hate so much. It’s not just the freedom to drive every, but also the freedom from having to drive every where too.
Around the developed world, people live to be 75-80 years old on average. It doesn’t really matter how much is spent on health care in these countries.
The logical conclusion to be drawn is that the US is wasting a large portion of GDP on the health care industry to no effect (well, not no effect, I’m sure its to great effect for various politicians and their supporters in the AMA, Phramaceutical industry, and Insurance industry).
Everything else is completely peripheral to this – food deserts, obesity, walkable neighborhoods, etc.
jdgalt:
How can you be “forced” to walk more if you own a car?
All walkable neighborhoods do is give you an option to walk.
What 1+ acre lot sprawl does is force you to use your car every time you want to go further than your driveway. So sprawl is really the anti-choice style of development.
Andrew said: What 1+ acre lot sprawl does is force you to use your car every time you want to go further than your driveway.
Nope. Still no force. Residents chose to live there. They can also bike. Skateboard. Hike. There are choices. Some just might not be as preferable as others.
Frank, I see that Andrew is completely obsessed with talking about everything in society as “forcing” you to use a car. I’m not sure I see his point. The car is the single most convenient and best way to get around, given the lifestyle most Americans enjoy. We can’t all pitch in via wasteful government and subsidize everyone’s transportation fantasies. If Andrew decides he wants to get around via flying unicorns, that’s his problem, not ours.
And considering the budget mess the nation faces, flying unicorns is no more unreasonable than a nation-wide network of high speed rail.
Flying unicorns? Wow Metrosucks, you’re really fucked up!
Zzzzzzzzz highwayman come up with something new OK?
Going OT. Please forgive.
Observation: Anonymous discussion is unfettered chaos and ruled by the most boisterous chest-thumpers and village idiots suffering from acute logorrhoea.
Suggestion: Abandon anonymity and take the discussion to Facebook. Randal could make an public page for his blog and import his RSS feed. We discuss there, with first and last names. I’ll even friend Dan.
C’mon, fellas. No more sock puppets. Ignore the village idiots. Whaddya say?
Antiplanner, are you willing to make the Facebook page?
What difference would it make, Frank? We already know who Dan is, and we already know (presumably) who highwayman is. I’m not sure they are any sockpuppets on this blog.
Frank, O’Toole & Metrosucks are in the business of burning bridges, not building them. You guys declared a jihad on public transit & railroads and you got what you wanted.
Frank:
We all know there are limited reasonable choices for local transportation alternatives to the car in most of this country. Many neighborhoods are not conducive to walking, completely lack transit that has any utility, and many that are have highly undesirable crime rates.
The relatively few places that are safe and walkable and are located near areas with higher paying jobs upon which someone can support a family command very high home prices, effectively excluding most people from the market. And of course, many of these places are not near where a lot of people want to live for personal reasons such as being near family or an industry they want to work in.
When I say people are forced to live in non-walkable communities it is in the sense that desiring to live in certain areas or work in certain industries comes with the price of not being able to walk down the street off your property. That isn’t a choice.
If we grant that owning one car is a necessity for most people, we can make the assumption that owning two or more cars is mostly required by lifestyle and work locations. Owning a second car in that situation is only a “choice” if there is an alternative way to work (walking, biking, bus, train, taxi, ferry, etc.) that one “chooses” not to use. Americans spend 17%+ of their income on personal transportation, most of it on the ownership, maintainence and fueling of cars. That is part of why everywhere you look along commerical streets are an overwhelming presence of car dealers, insurance agents, gas stations, car washes, auto parts stores, and auto repair shops. If 8-9% of that spending is by non-choice because the only way one can get to work is owning a car, then it is really a form of tribute paid by you to the companies benefitting from the auto/oil/roadway industry for the privilege of working and obtaining an income. The typical cost of transit, by way of comparison, is about 1-3% of average household disposable income ($50K) including subsidies which are paid from non-disposable income as taxes. Non-walkable development forces you to hand over 5+% of your income to the auto/oil industry to live in it. This number will only increase as gas prices continue to spiral out of control.
Of course, transit is only 1-3% of income because of the enormous subsidy to it. But don’t let get that in the way of good-looking, yet totally cooked, numbers.
Though Andrew, if big oil, automakers, the Koch brothers & etc. didn’t perceive public transit & walkable neighborhoods as threat to their business interests. People like O’Toole & Cox would actually have to find real jobs.
Yes, I like the idea of a Facebook page for this blog but even more than that I would like to see the blog available on Kindle. Amazon makes it really easy to publish a blog with Kindle.
I say that as the proud recipient of a Father’s Day Kindle gift. I’ve got The Urbanophile and Slate and other such blogs on there but it would be great to have Randal’s stuff available in that medium too.
At the same time, I think it’s only fair to point out, Frank, that you have not been a model of civility in the comments here either. (Wasn’t it you who posted a link to Dan’s home address for Christ’s sake? WTF? That’s cheaper than Dan’s cheapest shot.)
So yeah, I like the idea of enhanced civility via Facebook but I don’t like the holier-than-thou tone being bandied about here.
Not my shining moment, but if you look at comment number ten here, you see the collection of greatest hits–abusive hits, really–by a cyber bully cloaked in anonymity, so I decided to strip that away. I also did it in a post to expose the hypocrisy of living in a large, suburban house while pushing compact development and high density down our throats. And how did I find Dan’s address, you might ask? One word: ego. Dan has a large one and he made enough boastful comments with personal information that made finding him a matter of a couple of Google searches.
I would argue that generally I am civil. I don’t tend to call names; I don’t call people childish. There are a few characters here I’d like to put on ignore, one who has four comments on this post alone, filled with libelous comments and profanity. I’ve been asking for an ignore feature for awhile, hence the Facebook suggestion.
And you’re inventing a tone that I have not put forth.
You, on the other hand, are the anti-Dan in every way. And a sockpuppet.
Frank, were you lying before I wrote those phrases you cherry-picked? Were you making s— up?
Share the context with everyone so they can judge whether you were lying, which led to the reaction, or if the phrases were unprovoked.
Do share. Provide context. If you have the honesty to do so. Most would know that if you fail to provide context, you are hiding something. Jus’ sayin. Be honest now. Context. Don’t hide the context.
DS
Randal, can you share with us the similarities between your argumentation – taking a couple papers (some of them since superceded) and using them to overturn all other findings – and relate that tactic with, say, similar tactics in other areas of political turmoil (tobacco, man-made climate change)?
Put another way, does a superceded paper carry more weight than a more recent, more robust series of papers discussed several times on this site? If so, why?
DS
Go smoke your climate pipe and tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years.
OccamsRazor? — meaning that there is an easier way for the gov to force their behavioral wants & results.
A requirement for a driver’s license: be “so fit” or fat% below so (BMI is a bad measure).
Beyond this: how about sterilization for any parent receiving taxpayer support?
Fitness figures can be misleading. Let me give an example: I almost joined the Navy in the early 90s (92 on the ASVAB, albeit ~7 yrs older than avg recruit).
Per their charts for height & pounds, I was inadmissible. I had to talk to an officer to get a disclaimer.
Why? 6′-1″ & 195 lbs was seen as fat.
(20 years later & 10 more pounds, I have even less fat).
My body-fat amount might have been about 15%.
Missing from their consideration is muscle.
Point? (sorry for bio; I grew up in suburbia)
Having low fat% is an individual choice & responsibility to exercise & eat a proper amount (genetics has role too).
BTW, walking does not do much to burn food. Being able to drive to a “health club” — having many machines & stuff (ag Bally’s) can really help.
So, the plans are to change the whole enviro (density) to encourage people to be fitter by walking more? There are much simpler ways to achieve that goal.
Wait, see the coming coercion. If Obamacare remains, there will be many more laws restricting choices. Michelle has already been doing that.
Wake up!. It’s not even about voting. BO has no concern about 11/2012. He will fully take power prior to that, in the name of some national emergency — there will be much crisis, such as mass scarcity — food & energy, already started.
Anyone is capable of Googling your abusive comments to find the context. As to whether or not I was “lying”, not all of those abusive comments were directed at me. And even if someone isn’t telling the truth, or worse yet, *gasp*, sharing an unsupported opinion on a blog, that does not give you license to use abusive, demeaning, infantilizing, emasculating remarks.
A glaring lack of humor in this thread. Would it kill some of you to get high and watch a Roger Corman film to take the edge off?
Peace, truce, whatever. I love you all given proper medication.
Clearly Dan The Troll is having blood pressure problems and is about to blow his mind. Maybe he saw “Harry Potter” and realized that commenting ten times more than anyone else doesn’t stop a kid from kicking his butt intellectually.
Or using terms like “conflating” and “mendacious”.
Frank posted:
Antiplanner, are you willing to make the Facebook page?
I already post many of Randal’s writings from this blog on Facebook.
Hear hear Icy-B.
I gotta say, though. Frank is right. It didn’t take me long to find Dan’s personal webpage. It’s as loaded with BS as the Dan we see here. I’d hate to meet him in person on the trail. I’d probably end punching him in the face, or wanting to do so.
metrosucks:
Cost of commuter pass in my area for a year is $1000 to $2000 depending on length of trip. Cost recovery ratio of the transit agency is 50%, so double these prices.
As I noted, the cost with subsidies is around 1-3% of average income. In further out suburbs were incomes are generally higher – closer to $65-70K, the price is also higher, but the same ratio is seen. Ditto for more expensive tickets in regions such as NYC where average incomes are also higher.
Unless we are talking about a financial dog like RailRunner or the San Jose VTA, transit is simply far cheaper than owning a second car, even including subsidy costs. But the only way you can make this lifestyle choice is if useful transit is within a reasonable distance of your home and work. Which means development patterns matter in providing people a choice.
transit is simply far cheaper than owning a second car, even including subsidy costs
You mean cheaper to you, not to the people subsidizing it.
But the only way you can make this lifestyle choice is if useful transit is within a reasonable distance of your home and work
You should blame the government for this, not the market. Government is the one ignoring market needs and wasting billions on useless systems.
Which means development patterns matter in providing people a choice.
Not an excuse for the heavy hand of government to “mold” all development in a manner that “supposedly” supports transit use. Most people like the suburban lifestyle, and most people living in dense developments still use their cars.
It’s not hard to find a correlation between some crude measure of the built environment and some crude measure of obesity. In fact, this is what most of the pseudoscience referenced here is based on. However, when you do the analysis correctly, most of the assumed relationship vanishes.
But the only way you can make this lifestyle choice is if useful transit is within a reasonable distance of your home and work. Which means development patterns matter in providing people a choice.
What does it tell you that so few people choose to live in locations that afford the kinds of “choices” you favor?
MJ says: “What does it tell you that so few people choose to live in locations that afford the kinds of “choices†you favor?”
So few people? What about everybody that lives in almost every major US urban area?
So what you are claiming is that everyone lives in a San Francisco or Manhattan type situation? When will planners stop obsessing over these two unique, non-replicable areas?
I seem to remember that someone on this forum, Frank I believe, brought up a point that planners always based their plans on what would work in San Francisco and Manhattan. He pointed out that of course this wouldn’t work in less dense areas. What was Dan’s response? Ridicule and personal attacks, naturally.
“So what you are claiming is that everyone lives in a San Francisco…”
Don’t put words in my mouth. MJ’s claim was “so few people choose to live in locations that afford [transit is within a reasonable distance of your home and work].”
My point is not that “everyone” lives there, but it’s not even close to “so few people.” It’s a whole lot of people. And it’s not just San Francisco and NYC. Take a look at the following list…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Pick out the cities in the top 100 that don’t have a robust transit system in terms of geographic coverage and headways, and you’ll have only a handful. That a whole hell of a lot of people that choose to live near transit services.
You can hardly make the inference that they choose to live there because it’s near to transit. Most people are not going to base their living situation on the proximity to the bus or light rail. Those who do are largely part of a delusional, fanatically green agenda. Only the poor or students intentionally plan their lives around the bus or transit. Normal people get a car and enjoy freedom.
“…the poor…students…normal people.”
Hah!
Your point?
metrosucks:
You can hardly make the inference that they choose to live there because it’s near to transit.
I don’t need to make the inference. Most people in my town will tell you they live here for (1) good schools, (2) nice houses, (3) the rail line to Philadelphia. Its like that near most railroad stations, and it is reflected in the higher property values as soon as you are within 1/2 mile of a station.
Most people are not going to base their living situation on the proximity to the bus or light rail.
No they won’t with a bus for the most part. But they do with rail, especially commuter rail and subway lines. But they can only make that choice if the alternative is offered to them, which it isn’t in much of the country. You can’t make a decision to take rail transit that no longer exists.
Those who do are largely part of a delusional, fanatically green agenda.
Most of the people I know who take the train do so because (1) it provides access to a higher paying job in a downtown area, (2) it is relaxing not to drive, (3) it is cheaper not to drive and park, (4) they enjoy socializing with people on the train. None of that is delusional, and fanatic greenies are a very small subset of rail commuters.
Only the poor or students intentionally plan their lives around the bus or transit.
Actually, a lot of people in urban/suburban areas do plan their lives around proximity to rail service to access their job where rail service is made available, just like many people plan their lives around proximity to a freeway to access a job.
Normal people get a car and enjoy freedom.
If a car is freedom, why do you need to register it with the government, and obtain a government license to operate it? You’ve been watching too many Mr. Goodwrench ads. They are obviously very effective in moulding your mind.
What I would say normal people do is they allow themselves to be influenced by ads and politicians espousing your positions that it is perfectly normal to spend 17.5% of their disposable income on the ownership and use of cars and that people who choose a different lifestyle are not just acting in their own interests but are freaks. The reason all of the automotive industry companies exist is to seperate you from your money and make a profit doing so. The fact that they can convince so many families of two moderately affluent adults to own 2, 3 or more motor vehicles is evidence of the effect of ads and peer pressure over rational financial decisions.
You lose all credibility when you paint transit as a smarter financial choice than cars, when it is car owners who, in fact, heavily subsidize transit users. There have been studies done that found the best possible thing for a poor person is to afford a good used vehicle. Not to spend hours every day navigating a Byzantine, multi-billion dollar gold-plated transit system.
metrosucks:
I can spend 45 minutes a day each way driving 12 miles to and from work and paying $15+ to park and having to own a car, and probably shelling out around $10,000 per year total all-in, or I can buy a pass and take a 25 minute train ride to work for $1750 per year plus 5 minutes walking on each end.
You tell me which decision is more rational financially.
Me, I prefer the net $8,000+ not owning a second car and taking the train staying in my pocket and being available to save or indulge my family instead of sending it to King Saud, Hugo Chavez, Japanese car conglomerates, Indonesian rubber magnates, and Australian iron ore miners.
You keep bring up poor people. I’m not a poor person. I’m a financially independent very well-off person in the top 10% who earns lots of money, has nice work-free cash streams, owns land, and has many mega$$$’s saved up. I left college in the 90’s with $25K in debt and $20 in my pocket. Its a choice I’ve consciously made to actually become rich instead of going into debt and spending money unnecessarily like you keep telling me I should do.
I think I still prefer my choices. Maybe you are insecure in yours, because you keep telling me I am a fool for doing what works for me instead of following your lead.
“Your point?”
The fact that you ascribe the quality of “normal” to only the people that share your world view and make the same choices as you have. Not to mention that by your logic students and people who are not well off are abnormal. I think it’s funny.
I hate to break it to you but we are a nation divided. There probably about 150 million people in America that think you’re normal and about 150 million that feel otherwise, which makes the whole concept of “normal” in the context that you have used quite humorous.
Another funny bit is when you attack Andrew’s credibility as if you have any. Come on! You may disagree with Andrew but his use of, saaaayyyyy, sources, figures, examples, etc. far exceed the credibility of spouting Glenn Beck inspired comments like “delusional, fanatically green agenda,” with no source or context to back up said comment. You have so much work to do to establish any credibility whatsoever, when you attack another’s, it’s laughable (literally).
Hah!
The fact remains that Andrew’s “smart” lifestyle is not fully (by any measure) funded by him or others like him, but is instead heavily subsidized by car drivers. So his comparison of costs are utterly hypocritical. What are the true costs of his train pass (to taxpayers)? $20,000 a year? $30,000 a year? All stolen from taxpayers. Andrew keeps trying to dance around this.
Though Andrew pays taxes too, he’s not stealing any thing!
metrosucks:
As I patiently explained to you, the cost of my pass is around $1750, and it covers about 45% of the operating costs of the rail system. You can verify the cost recovery on SEPTA’s website.
SEPTA is mostly paid for by the riders, the local governments of the 5 county Philadelphia area and the State of Pennsylvania from the sales tax. It is unconstitutional to spend Pennsylvania gas excise tax money on transit in Pennsylvania, so your crying about drivers subsidizing transit is ridiculous.
I paid around $44,000 in taxes, tolls, and government fees last year at all levels.
What did you do?
You tell me who the freeloader is, and who is “stealing” from taxpayers like me.
@18 Borscht: Thank you.
@24 Frank: If it were as easy as Googling the phrases, others would have seen you were cherry-picking and quote mining already. Surely you bookmarked the offending posts. Have the courage to provide context so others can see your full tactics.
DS
You’ve proved nothing Andrew. You have just pointed out that SEPTA can’t even cover half of its operating costs with fares (much less capital costs). That’s pretty dismal, given that rail is supposed to have lower operating costs than buses. And this line:
local governments of the 5 county Philadelphia area and the State of Pennsylvania from the sales tax
simply means that taxpayers in general subsidize your “choice”. Most of the people from whom money is taken at gunpoint from their paychecks will never use SEPTA, and wouldn’t desire to subsidize it. The fact that you paid $44,000 in taxes last year doesn’t, of course, justify the spending of millions to subsidize a rail system so that you can have “choices”.
I’m not opposed to rail transit per se, but the waste needs to end somewhere, and the best place to begin is by cutting light rail/trolley type service which tend to be nothing more than “civic pride” pieces for City Hall. There is no reason for general PA taxpayers to subsidize your mode of transportation.
“If it were as easy as Googling the phrases”
It is:
dan+boy+site:ti.org/antiplanner