Advocates of smart growth–density and transit–are either consummate liars or complete idiots. Those are the only explanations for many of the statements that come out of their mouths. The latest is the claim that Superstorm Sandy proves we need to spend more on transit.
What Superstorm Sandy proved was that concentrating a lot of people in one place and making them dependent on an easily floodable, centralized transportation system is a bad idea. Spending more money on New York’s subways prior to the storm just would have meant more money lost to storm damage.
We heard the same nonsense when Katrina hit New Orleans, which just happens to be the nation’s second-most transit-dependent city after New York. The people who had automobiles got out before the flooding; the people who depended on transit did not, either because the transit system was incompetently run or because the people didn’t trust the transit system to take them where they wanted to go. Yet some planners seriously argued that the problems resulting from Katrina–including more than 1,100 deaths–were because New Orleans was too “auto dependent.”
By having enough staff to guide the customer and answer questions they have good to unequaled repeat cialis buy usa business from women. Can ED cause one to experience complex issues? Although timely input of medicinal guidelines and usages can actively end the pressure of ED (Erectile Dysfunction) but the user is to note that no medical facility for a long period of time can cause permanent damage to the penile nerves, causing disruption in the entire process of erection. buy cialis in india news Keep in order viagra no prescription review mind following side effects for safety purpose:- it may result into allergic reactions like skin rashes, itching, etc. Some selected fruits and vegetables effective on the penis and heart muscles and helps wholesale sildenafil to cure the disease. We heard the same nonsense when terrorists attacked New York City, the nation’s densest population and job center. Some people understood the lesson: “Don’t bunch up,” said historian Stephen Ambrose; “The logic of decentralization has never been more clear,” agreed San Jose Mercury columnist Dan Gillmor (unfortunately, the sources are no longer available on line).
What did smart-growth advocates say? We needed even denser cities so that, when they were targeted by terrorists, people would be closer to emergency services.
In a world of uncertainty, low-density development minimizes the impacts of any particular natural or human-caused disaster. Automobiles, meanwhile, provide the most flexible way of escaping or avoiding such disasters, as they can go practically anywhere and are available at any time.
The Antiplanner doesn’t think we should base all of our land-use and transportation decisions on fear. However, it makes even less sense to deliberately make the situation worse by increasing densities and spending more on the very transportation systems that are most vulnerable to disasters. The real problem is that smart-growth advocates will say anything, no matter how illogical, to support their case.
Sandy proved that concentrating a lot of people in one place and making them dependent on an easily floodable, centralized transportation system is a bad idea. Automobiles provide the most flexible way of escaping or avoiding such disasters, as they can go practically anywhere and are available at any time.
Except that roads flood too and people in a hurry to escape disaster take the chances that cause accidents. But what about combining the driverless car (no accidents) with an elevated guideway. Cheap, economical, safe, reliable, fast, quick to build, and capable of moving more vehicles than any other method known to man. And it’s ready – now! http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/third%20generation.htm
I clicked your link. Nice pictures. I’m a builder. Anyone who thinks that any of the elevated guideways shown are going to be cheap, economical, safe, reliable or quick to build is bonkers.
I do not understand why so many dedicated internet users fail to understand the analogy between the private auto and a data packet, between the internet and the road net.
The lust for a gigantic, huge, centralized solutions like mainframe super computers instead of networks, subways, LRT lines, and elevated guideways instead of networks seems ingrained in us.
While the Antiplanner has definitely pegged smart growth advocates as liars (most aren’t stupid, though their liberal “useful idiot” cheerleaders may be), planners have a far darker view of what should be, then we might suspect. Here is a short excerpt from the blog of anti-car nazi Dom Nozzi:
First, making Highway 36 more congested would be a form of “planned congestion†that I support. Unless we make it more painful for people to drive a car, we’ll never be able to encourage a meaningful number of people to use transit. After all, is the reason that more people use transit in big cities because they happen to be more enlightened, or is it because they have gotten sick of the congestion and costs?
Because congestion is an effective way for people to opt to travel by transit, congestion actually reduces air pollution and energy consumption. While it is true that there are more direct and effective ways than congestion to get people to use the bus, such as increased parking fees, toll roads, reduced parking supply, etc., these strategies are politically suicidal.
The scary thing about this is that this thug is an actual, professional planner who “consults” with his unique form of hateful ideology, to planning departments around the US. I guess they don’t locally employ someone of this lunatic’s fanatical purity.
“Planned congestion” … that he “supports”??? “more enlightened” use the subway??? Does he have a blog or something? This snobbery is outrageous…
Congestion increases air pollution and energy consumption, it doesn’t reduce them. Fuel consumption (which corresponds directly to GHG emissions) increases dramatically at speeds below 25-30 mph, up to several times than that above these speeds (up to about 55-60 mph). Someone who was truly concerned about emissions would support reducing congestion, not increasing it. His theory apparently is that increasing congestion drives people onto transit, but where’s the evidence that this happens in the real world, especially to such a degree that it offsets the increased emissions? It is scary that this guy either is ignorant of this or willfully chooses to ignore it.
It’s nuts, it could be that people drive because they simply don’t like riding busses.
Also, if you can’t get a seat on a bus/train then you’re stuck standing, and perhaps “congested” into a tiny area. So guess what i’m going to choose when my choice is standing in a tight space on a crowded bus/train and sitting in my own personal space in congested traffic????
Cars and public transportation is not an apples to apples comparison. NUTS NUTS NUTs
Yeah, this guy is nuts. He spews his garbage at:
http://domz60.wordpress.com/
Check this one out sometime. Cap’n Transit Rides Again
“…are either consummate liars or complete idiots…”
Well I guess no further discussion is needed then. I would however like to point you to your own protocol for commenting on our blog. I suppose it’s do as I say not as I do.
Sorry “your” not our. Missed the y. Though as an egalitarian socialist planner I like to think that it’s “our” blog too. I know, I know, you’re the maker and we’re the takers… 😉
bennett, are you even a smart growth advocate?
It doesn’t matter!
When you start the conversation with Mr. O’Tooles premiss, there is no substantive direction you can go. Once you write off your opponents as liars and idiots there’s no point in even having a conversation.
It’s similar to watching you and msetty go round and round. It’s utterly pointless. It’s ugly.
It’s not about what side you on. It’s about being able to have a substantive conversation. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will never get us anywhere but on to the culture war battlefield. On that field there are no winners, just losers.
What I believe doesn’t matter here, either.
I just want to remind everyone that Metrosucks started the flame war, not me.
He just can’t seem to get his head around certain aspects of reality, such as
(1) many people, including myself, Dan and others, believe that public transit has an important role, coming to utterly different conclusions that he has;
(2) there are a lot of reasons why African Americans and Hispanics vote against Republicans–which is ironic because many folks in those communities are social conservatives, but couldn’t bring themselves to vote Republican for reasons obvious to anyone who isn’t blinkered–e.g., 90%+/- and 70%+ for Obama, respectively. Sensible conservatives like Michael Medved certainly “get it” on this point, but if I point it out here in tangential comments, I get called a “useful idiot” or “asshole” by Metrosucks.
Metrosucks’ “thought process” (if that’s the right phrase”) is identical the gaggle of right wing pundits who thought the many hundreds of state-level political polls were “skewed” against Romney. But their clocks were thoroughly cleaned by the likes of Nate Silver and others who based their predictions on data as opposed to opinion.
I will gladly respond to Metrosucks in the future if he bases his arguments on facts rather than simply continuing to be a troll. So if he still maintains that racism still doesn’t play a role in U.S. culture and politics–or that its impact is insignificant–he certainly can supply a few links and evidence supporting his assertions.
Just to complete my point.
Metrosucks, the world is changing, in directions you probably don’t like.
http://davidsimon.com/inevitabilities-and-barack-obama/.
I whole heartedly agree with you msetty (this is usually the case). My point is that your war with metrosucks is pointless. You both have crossed the point of no return. At this juncture there is nothing either one of you can say that will make a bit of difference to one another. It’s the Hatfields vs. McCoys. There is no cogent and thoughtful statement that will stick. The conversation has become impossible.
p.s. It is (IMHO) an embodiment of everything that is wrong with political discourse in America. It is the #1 problem facing our country. If we cannot find a way to bridge what I call the “asshole gap” there is no way we will ever be able to address any real issues. We will be stuck in a perpetual pissing match (see: congress).
OK, Bennett, when Metrosucks fires the next round (and he will), I’ll ignore him.
I agree that going to rhetorical war with him doesn’t serve any purpose. If I am to “box” with him again, it will have to be at a boxing gym in Seattle, whenever I visit that burg again. If he’s up to it! Not that I will really bother if I do go to Seattle some time in the near future!
Bennett,
Calling someone a douchebag or some other name without offering proof that the name fits would violate my “protocol.” However, calling someone a liar or an idiot because the statements they make are plainly wrong–which makes them a liar if they know they are wrong or an idiot if they don’t–would not.
The first sentence of today’s posting is just lazy writing. If you think “X” about a public policy issue, then I suppose you can logically argue that anybody not agreeing with you is stupid or lying.
But that is a bad way to have a public policy discussion. Usually people argue from different perspectives and both sides have a point.
For example, how many commercials in the recent Presidential campaign had the self-appointed “fact checkers” declared to be technically correct but worthy of four Pinocchio’s as “misleading”.
Randal, when Metrosucks called me the “village idiot” or an “asshole” he offers no proof that my assertion was wrong.
For example, my statements about racism, overt or otherwise, being stronger among those of Republican persuasion is simply a fact any reasonable person will acknowledge. Despite the fact that many black people are a lot more socially conservative than their white “liberal” fellow voters, black people still voted 93% for Obama according to the latest figures I’ve seen.
In the 2008 West Virginia primaries, that state voted overwhelmingly for Hilary despite the fact there really was no major policy differences with Obama. Then there is the 3-1 or 4-1 divide among white voters in the “Old Confederacy” against Obama; I don’t think even McGovern lost that badly. Only someone truly naive would believe that race wasn’t a major factor in this area that strongly voted for the New Deal, at least until race became a factor starting with Truman. And it was only about 2-1 against Obama in 95%+ white Wyoming where the “cowboys” and “cowgirls” only disagreed with the “City boy” on policy.
I’ve also restrained myself from calling you a liar or idiot over the years even though you’ve never addressed my points about the economics of rail, e.g., minimum traffic density thresholds though Demery and I have completed plenty of research on the topic which is posted on my website. Similarly, you’ve never acknowledged the structural subsidies–which dwarf that paid to transit and Amtrak by two orders of magnitude–paid out to the act of driving through the provision of “free” parking, the cost of accommodating the automobiles in rents and mortgages, medical bills not covered by auto insurance paid by the overall system, etc., etc. as documented profusely by Shoup, Litman, DeLucci and many others.
Mr O’Toole, even you have said that roads are there regardless of economic conditions and I agree with you.
Problem is that you also know that it is not like that for railroads politically too.
This isn’t just about passenger trains, it’s the same mess for freight trains too.
it makes even less sense to deliberately make the situation worse by increasing densities and spending more on the very transportation systems that are most vulnerable to disasters. The real problem is that smart-growth advocates will say anything, no matter how illogical, to support their case.
So you don’t like density. You don’t like that the planet’s human population is urbanizing. Even though you don’t live there, you want to tell them to live differently. You want to pretend that resilience is being less flexible, not more. And that makes people trying to accomodate reality liars or idiots.
Ah, well. The world moves forward anyway.
DS
Dan,
Don’t put words in my mouth. You know very well that I have no objection to density if that is what people want (and they are willing to pay the costs). I only object to policies that try to force or subsidize densities higher than people want. Yes, the developing world’s population is urbanizing, but the developed world’s population is suburbanizing and exurbanizing.
Randal, you pretend that smart growth planners lived 200 years ago and forced people to live on this island and made them develop the subway. Come now. And please tell us how you justify Eminent Domain to widen the roads to reduce congestion in the NY area.
DS
Not a word in that article about using user charges to help pay for rebuilding these networks. Well, I guess that’s what happens when your lead interview subject and “expert” is some guy from APTA.
Not a word in that article about using user charges to help pay for rebuilding these networks.
Not a word about the fraction of user charges going to repay emergency loans either or how long relying simply on user fees would take to raise additional revenue. So what?
Not a word on raising gasoline prices to pay for upgraded systems for people dependent on automobiles either.
Not a word on the zero fights on transit. I guess that’s what happens when your article is written by a car driver.
DS
The problem is that pumping gas in NJ (and OR) is so complicated that only a state-licensed professional can figure out the complexities of gas tanks and gas pumps. Clearly the government should fund lots of scholarships for additional graduate students in gas pumping just for such emergencies.
Yes, this is sarcasm. 🙂
Not a word about the fraction of user charges going to repay emergency loans either or how long relying simply on user fees would take to raise additional revenue. So what?
Loans? New York has no intention of paying that money back. It’s sunk.
In any event, I was referring to the insinuation in the article that this disaster should be parlayed into a lobbying effort for more transit spending. Any new spending to expand networks can and should be raised from users. Issue some bonds and back them with user charge revenue. Problem solved.
Not a word on raising gasoline prices to pay for upgraded systems for people dependent on automobiles either.
Yeah, funny about that. Apparently it wasn’t in the hope and change platform. But that’s what you get when you cede ownership and management of your transportation networks to statists.
Not a word on the zero fights on transit. I guess that’s what happens when your article is written by a car driver.
Zero fights? I seriously doubt that. NYC’s little experiment will once again remind us why transit agencies impose at least a nominal charge for their services.
The lust for a gigantic, huge, centralized solutions like mainframe super computers instead of networks, subways, LRT lines, and elevated guideways instead of networks seems ingrained in us.
Ah, yes. The “cloud.”
New York Subway Repairs Border ‘on the Edge of Magic’
DS