The Antiplanner was apparently exposed to a bad cold when traveling last week and didn’t feel up to writing a timely post for this morning. (Would I have avoided this if I had a driverless car to take me to San Francisco instead flying?)
However, someone emailed me in response to yesterday’s post asking if I was guilty of hyperbole when I said that, outside of New York, transit doesn’t “carry enough people to relieve much congestion.” So I prepared the above chart showing transit’s share of total travel (not just commuting) by urbanized areas. Only urbanized areas in which transit carries more than 2 percent of travel are shown.
Such as Small lobster, mutton string these food will be best sellers in http://davidfraymusic.com/events/orchestra-giovanile-luigi-cherubini-san-carlo-theatre/ generic viagra canada summer, which is listed as an out-patient procedure. It is, therefore, the most important viagra properien for man to increase sexual stimulus. With the passage purchase cheap viagra davidfraymusic.com of time when you age, your health proficiency turns down. Additionally, price of viagra pills it is advised not to take sildenafil contained medicine for their ED treatment. New York is more than 10 percent. San Francisco-Oakland is just under 6 percent. Everywhere else is under 5 percent. These numbers are from 2008, but they won’t have changed much since then.
Manhattan is the only job center in America that is dense enough that it really depends on transit. Elsewhere, if transit disappeared tomorrow–which, of course, no one thinks will happen, nor was I proposing it–the big problem would be parking, not roadway space. I can’t see downtown San Francisco, Chicago, or Washington being paralyzed by an end to transit subsidies.
It is worth noting that most of the urban areas on the above chart, including San Francisco-Oakland, Washington, Boston, Seattle, and Portland, have deliberately adopted anti-auto policies that include not solving congestion in order to discourage driving. Simple things like traffic signal coordination would do more to relieve congestion than maintaining transit subsidies.
If regional planners were to phase out transit subsidies over the next two decades, as I proposed yesterday, downtown areas would have time to build parking garages, cities would be able to install coordinated signals, and regions and states could remove bottlenecks from major highways. Private parties would begin to provide their own transit services, and maybe states would even wise-up and replace the gas tax with vehicle-mile fees or at least charge variable tolls on the most congested roads.
If regional planners were to phase out transit subsidies over the next two decades, ..downtown areas would have time to build parking garages
Not sure what transit subsidies and downtown areas time has to do with building parking garages. Why can’t a private company buy land and build a parking garage if there’s enough demand for it? Surely you’re not asking taxpayers to subsidize parking garage construction and operation.
I believe we went over this issue many years ago, but also presenting the number of trips by various modes provides a more complete picture than just share of annual passenger miles traveled.
And as I’ve said before, while passenger miles is an important measure, you cannot conclude that the value of a 0.5 mile trip on foot has only 5% of the transportation value of a 10-mile trip by car, or that a 3 mile bus trip has only 30% of the value of the car trip, for any particular traveler.
This criticism is one that The Antiplanner has never really addressed, despite numerous posts by myself on the topic.
Oh he’s using passenger miles as the metric? I wonder why the Antiplanner doesn’t advocate airplane ownership rather than cars – wouldn’t that be the highest passenger miles of any mode of travel? Perhaps a program to buy poor people Lear jets (used ones, of course).
Why can’t a private company buy land and build a parking garage if there’s enough demand for it? Surely you’re not asking taxpayers to subsidize parking garage construction and operation.
Because in the majority of downtowns, a developer is going to build something that gets the most revenue/sf, and parking is the opposite of most revenue/sf in most places.
DS
Parking lots in and under new construction was banned for many years in downtown Portland. You can also lose parking spaces if you remodel too much of your property.
The current mayor ( Mr Hales) outlawed snout houses. A house on a small lot with a double or triple garage stinking out front.
That’s right, planners are offended by them, which is why they derided them as “snout” houses. They don’t think people should be able to drive the cars they willingly purchased, easily to their garages, and park inside them. You see, planners blah blah about how everyone will just gallop, panting with desire, to the smart growth monstrosities they build, but in reality, people want single family housing, so planners try to soft outlaw single family housing and heavily subsidize the multi-family construction everyone is supposedly lusting after.
One wonders what Michael Setty drives. Certainly he isn’t taking the non-existent bus to Napa from Atlas Peak Road. And we’ve seen pics of Dan with a Jeep Wranger. And Google Earth shows a pickup truck parked in front of his (excuse me—his mother-in-law’s) massive suburban house. Why not? It’s either 40 minutes in a car or 2+ hours on the bus/lightrail to his consulting “job” in Denver. I guess when you have a bogus job title like “consultant” that your time really ain’t worth much at all.
Neither are the services that
trollsplanner “consultants” [sic] like Dan Staley and Michael Setty provide.Would be good to see Share of Travel by Urbanized Area by passenger trip, not passenger mile. Please provide that or provide a source for the data so we can figure out for ourselves. Also: “if transit disappeared tomorrow–which, of course, no one thinks will happen, nor was I proposing it”. Why not propose it? Wouldn’t it free up money to build parking garages?
Would be good to see Share of Travel by Urbanized Area by passenger trip, not passenger mile. Please provide that or provide a source for the data so we can figure out for ourselves.
You’re so smart, take a moment in a planner-designed and run coffee house or pub, and look it up yourself!
gilfoil, my guess as to why we don’t compare airline miles is, it is hard to commute across town on a airplane.
sprawl, gilfoil’s being facetious, he’s a typical government planning advocate and asshole who’d rather see the whole country burn down then NOT have rail and smart growth everywhere.
Gilfoil, please don’t feed the trolls. There is no point to it. If you ignore them, they’ll eventually give up trying to get a rise out of you.
Gilfoil said:
Would be good to see Share of Travel by Urbanized Area by passenger trip, not passenger mile. Please provide that or provide a source for the data so we can figure out for ourselves.
The trolls don’t know the answer to this, for obvious reasons (that is: they’re trolls! They’re not interested in real discussion). But The Antiplanner knows exactly where to find this sort of data; but if he ever bothers to post it or source it is another matter.
Msetty, the only thing I suspect gets a “rise” out of you is another man’s caboose and engine (puns intended). That is your choice, however, and I respect it.
msetty
Gilfoil said:
Would be good to see Share of Travel by Urbanized Area by passenger trip, not passenger mile. Please provide that or provide a source for the data so we can figure out for ourselves.
msetty
The trolls don’t know the answer to this, for obvious reasons (that is: they’re trolls! They’re not interested in real discussion). But The Antiplanner knows exactly where to find this sort of data; but if he ever bothers to post it or source it is another matter
—————–
Or maybe we just disagree how to measure the use.
my guess as to why we don’t compare airline miles is, it is hard to commute across town on a airplane.
That’s a good point. It makes me wonder if maybe passenger miles traveled is not the most important metric to measure the merit of a transportation system, especially in an urban environment.
The reasons the government planners are so innocently asking for passenger trips is due to the way those are measured with transit, it will artificially inflate transit’s numbers and make it look like it has a bigger share than it really does.
Government planners hate level playing fields, like passenger miles, where a mile is a mile is a mile. They want tilted numbers supporting their bs, because lying and deceit is in their nature.
wow i can’t believe people are looking up folks’ addresses and calling them “assholes” etc… guess the old saying is true, you get the most flak when you’re over the target!
anyways I wrote a super long comment and then closed the window when it was almost finished. ugg. Worked on it for two days and then a slip of the finger… oh well, i’ll try to summarize
As much as I’m a transit and density advocate, I would agree with the AP that in certain areas bad road construction and traffic management plans are used as a punitive measure to push people away from cars. Sure some traffic calming measures are helpful for increasing accessibility and visibility of non-motorized travel, but others simply act to frustrate auto users under the theory that slower, busier roads are de facto safer, something I don’t agree with.
I know some urban hipster Portland dwellers who own cars but also use transit and other methods. They live near SE Division which is the epicenter of APs objections to the PDX planning process. Even they are having problems with the reconstruction of Division, not with parking but with the massive additions of curb bulbouts which they feel are restricting their ability to turn on and off the road. These are not people with an axe to grind against urbanism but even they are noticing certain shortcomings
I live in a smaller more rural city and OR and its even worse out here. We have no real transit backbone and a relatively low % of walkable neighborhoods. Yet because so much of the state land-use process is dominated by PDX metro issues, new urbanist concepts are forced on us even though everyone who lives here, of almost all political persuasions, recognizes they don’t generally work (here). Theres been successes, like adding rumble strips and special paint to bike lanes at intersections, and failures, like building medians with the width of entire travel lanes, so to utilize right of way without adding capacity. I’ve been told our city avoids building 4/5 lane roads even when we have ROW and demand for them, because it “encourages passing” as if somehow thats a negative behavior now. A 2-lane roundabout (replacing a signal) that abuts a busy railroad level crossing??? Everyone in the whole city knows thats a recipe for gridlock except the planning department apparently (as much as I think most roundabouts work fine). I just don’t understand how someone thinks that its possible to create urbanism out of thin air! We need dense neighborhoods and high functioning transit before we can have the infrastructure that supports it- not the other way around
It all goes to show that urbanism can and should “sell itself” instead of taking a legalistic approach to force behavioral change. Urbanism works and certain types of people love it, I have no doubt about that. Planners need to recognize this and start promoting it with carrots instead of sticks. Aim for maximum capacity for all forms of transport instead of “robbing peter to pay paul”… thats what both sides on this blog could use more understanding of. Stop making it a zero sum game.
But yes, to continue the current argument, calculating modal share by passenger miles instead of passenger trips, overweights the folks who live at the edge of MSAs and simultaneously have the longest trips and the lowest access to transit options. Its errors (or subtle attempts at bias) like this, that make people think this site is astroturf for the oil industry and not a legitimate analysis of urbanism.
Never has someone written so much with so many grammatical gaffes and tired cliches and said so little.
As for a “legitimate analysis of urbanism,” the AP uses data and evidence, something your “super long comment” (which no one will bother to read in its entirety) sorely lacks.
franks, thanks for not looking up where my mother-in-law lives and calling me an asshole at least, i really appreciate it!
on an (un)related note, I have to admit its a little crazy that even when I agree with AP i get attacked here, tiger style…
we are going to need a weed whacker to clear out all this astroturf i guess…
anyways glad to learn that long comments are frowned upon for this blog, i guess it makes sense on a snarky level (which I have been repeatedly warned against by AP, along with being accused of being a spam-bot L0L)
although your theory that APs “data and evidence” consist of things like, using a wrong/biased method of calculating transport modal splits… is a bit rich as most of the rest of us seem to understand.
I work in the area of Division and most the people I know do not like the “New Urban” infill with little or no parking. Parking is becoming a big, big problem in the area and the night life is a growing and annoying, to a once quite livable area. There were planning meetings that had little to do with what the neighborhood wanted and it was mostly just to get past the mandated meetings rules and do what hey were going to do anyway. With out a care to what the neighborhood and property-owners wanted.
As to the name calling it hurts whoever uses the rude and crude language and I ofter just skip over those posters. Especially as they start flaming and lowing the conversation into the gutter.
Listen, ‘boy. I see you’ve made a handful of comments in the last week and haven’t provided a single link or shred of evidence to back your assertions. You go between capitalizing and not. You use ellipses instead of ending punctuation. That is your total contribution and experience with both The Antiplanner’s posts and the comments here. That does not make you an expert. You would do well, before throwing stones, to at least skim through the last 8.5 years of posts and comments before acting like you know anything about the institutionalized conflict in the comments. This all assumes you’re in fact a newbie and not msetty’s or the highwayman’s sockpuppet.
Either way, you can kindly drop the presumption and replace unsupported assertions like “using a wrong/biased method of calculating transport modal splits” with linked evidence and a level of analysis deeper than the middle school research papers you’re used to writing.
L0L
msetty and DS have been calling the rest of us stupid assholes for a long time, in condescending and supercilious language. I have long been an advocate of screaming back profanely at lefties. It’s the only thing they listen to, and not much even then.
That being said, and once again and forever, the only way to measure demand, or public good is with money.
Not surveys, for everyone will say he wants something if not faced with an immediate demand for payment.
Not the thoughts and ideas of planners, for hundreds of years of experience have taught us that they haven’t a clue. The Russians tried their central plans for nearly 70 years with no success, and the people the Russians used as planners were a lot smarter than the likes of DS and setty.
For an accurate picture, one must see exactly where a person, especially a poor person, actually spends a scarce resource. So give people that need it money that they can only use on transportation and see what they do. Vouchers good for bus fare, LRT and subway fares, taxi fares, car rentals or even car purchase.
Of course setty and DS will oppose any such idea because the people will make the “wrong” choices, namely ones that planners don’t like. Just like Mrs. Obama wants everyone else to eat tofu burgers while her husband, the God of all planners, scarfs down cheeseburgers and mountains of fries. http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Production/Blogs/44/Images/2011-08-03T191045Z_01_WAS406_RTRIDSP_3_OBAMA-104.jpg
Fred_Z (Troll No. 3) said:
…msetty and DS have been calling the rest of us stupid assholes for a long time, in condescending and supercilious language. I have long been an advocate of screaming back profanely at lefties. It’s the only thing they listen to, and not much even then.
B.S. People like Dan and I bring up valid points such as my most recent comment about passenger miles vs. trips, then get called names and insulted in irrelevant by various trolls, who are well-known here. Stop being deceptive about what really has gone on here.
Screeching lefties?! How about the fact that right wing trolls, haters and bullies who think they can drive us away by intimidating us? Not going to happen (actually I’m also tired of “liberals” who never fight back against the ubiquitous Fox News and other routine reactionary drivel and lies that dominate the media in general. Only in the U.S. do kooks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. get taken seriously by millions of people, thanks to our increasingly debased political debates, but I digress…)
Contrary to your caricature of our views, like The Antiplanner, Dan, myself and others on “our side” welcome deregulation of land use to allow the land markets to actually work, even though The Antiplanner gets a bit confused about the downsides of restrictive zoning–for example, confusing the widespread impacts of suburban down-zoning–prohibiting basic things like apartment complexes in cities where there is demonstrated demand but zealous NIMBY zoning prevent their construction, such as Marin County in the Bay Area–compared to urban limit lines such as here in the Napa Valley and other parts of the North Bay. Urban limit lines have had a negative impact in some situations, but not nearly as many as Wendell Cox and The Antiplanner would have you believe.
Cox in particular continues to insist on the big lie that urban growth boundaries were the major cause of the 2007-2012 housing price meltdown, as if the widespread availability of “liar loans,” so-called “NINJA” loans, questionable mortgage-backed securities and many other dubious products the financial industry thought up all by themselves after late 1990’s deregulation.
You may find it ironic, Fred, but I also agree that vouchers–funded from non-transit sources–should be handed out to low income seniors, people on welfare, the homeless, etc. The vast majority of transit users would be better served if everyone paid full fares (even if some people obtained subsidized bus passes, which in turn would allow a higher level of service for a given level of overall transit subsidies.
As for your claim that Dan, myself and others who happen to disagree with you as “stupid,” I won’t dignify your near troll status any further.
It takes two to do the name calling and give and take insults. If one side ignores the other, it will soon end and bring us back to just disagreeing.
Fred_Z, also so you get the arithmetic right, it is much cheaper to hand out vouchers for transit passes than for car rentals and vehicle purchase subsidies. I can imagine the screeching now from local Tea Party types if, somewhere, local governments started to hand out car rental and car purchase vouchers to low income households in very low density fringe urban and rural areas, though in such cases providing transit (particularly dial-a-ride and taxi vouchers) is very costly.
sprawl said:
It takes two to do the name calling and give and take insults. If one side ignores the other, it will soon end and bring us back to just disagreeing.
Agreed. Responding to (“feeding”) trolls in the long run (> a few posts) is an utter waste of time. I thought Fred_Z’s comment regarding vouchers was worthwhile, but then calling people who disagree “stupid” and building strawmen about what he thinks we believe doesn’t add to the conversation. And the more extreme trolls here are not stupid at all, just overly-opinionated and hot-headed, and half-cocked but always ready to shoot.
msetty, I don’t believe calling someone a troll helps. The name calling is on both sides.
Yes, sprawl, it is.
I once came here to learn from comments, but after years of ridicule and abusive language, I now come here only to troll the other trolls.
Sad, isn’t it?
When I first began reading this blog in 2007, I was a Democrat. This blog played a small role in my ideological shift, and Mr. O’Toole certainly influenced my thinking.
Along the way, commenters like Dan Staley and Michael Setty infantilized and ridiculed me, sometimes after being caught making up facts, you know, like that Amazon paid for half of Seattle’s South Lake Union Trolley.
They brutally and relentlessly condemned anti-planners while living in suburban or rural hypocrisy and spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
At least I can admit to my trolling. Too bad that Michael Setty and Dan Staley, who readily admits he posts here after having three or more merlots, cannot control themselves or their tone or their name calling.
I suppose it’s not really politically correct to out those with obsessive compulsive disorder.
Of course, all both Michael Setty and Dan Staley have to do to prove they aren’t OCD is to take several months off, if they can. I took a long hiatus and traveled to India and even met the Dalai Lama. (He became agitated when I asked if capitalism was better suited to provide for the poor than socialism, but that is another matter.)
The discussion would elevate without Dan Staley and Michael Setty’s “contributions” (notice my use of scare quotes here—learned it from Setty).
And perhaps without me.
But until the other trolls stop their trollin’, I’ll keep on keepin’ on.
Frank, then please, at least leave out the crud descriptions and 4 letter words and stick to criticism and disagreement and your facts and opinions which are different than their facts and opinions.
thanks anyway
Frank, your incorrect characterization and seemingly obsession regarding my point that property owners (yes, I admit, not just Amazon) contributed about half the capital cost of the SLUT, is why I don’t think you are reasonable, and OK, a self-admitted troll. Facts like property owners in Kansas City voting to approve a taxing district for a streetcar line, and the big contributions fro well-heeled business interests in Detroit to the M-1 streetcar line didn’t seem to have any impact on your continuing to ramrod such a weak point.
And yes, I was trolling you and “Metrosucks” (whoever he is) in retaliation, I’ll admit that. It’s like dealing with stupid tailgaters who don’t get the message to back off, particularly the idiots who continue to tailgate when you’re in the right lane and they can easily pass (some are so dumb there are times I’ve moved to the LEFT lane to make them pass on the right!) In the end, those who start flame wars are engaging in the same sort of idiocy. But I don’t see the point now of continuing to escalate a pointless fight. So we’ll see who continues to troll and try to poison the discussion.
At “Bacon’s Rebellion,” a Washington, D.C. area blog that comes across as fiscally conservative, an excellent post make an important point about “mobility” vs. “access” that I think strongly supports my contention that “trips” are just as valid a measurement as VMT or passenger miles, if not a more pertinent:
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2014/06/mobility-vs-access-chesterfield-vs-manhattan.html.
The only flaw I see in the argument here is that comparing Chesterfield County, VA (outside Richmond) with someplace like Glendale, CA, central Sacramento, CA, or any similar area with a broader mix of more typical housing and densities than Manhattan might have been a more apt comparison (and no, there are only a few other places in the U.S. that would even approach Manhattan in density, even during the “transit millenium” if you will, such as downtown San Francisco or the Loop in Chicago).
ve moved to the LEFT lane to make them pass on the right!)
Why Mikey, how dare you use cars! Don’t you know they are evil and contributed to $100 trillion being stolen from transit in this country? If you consider how much was stolen from trains all over the world, you come up with a number bigger than world GDP. Odd things, rail economics! Anyway, I suggest you get your butt out of a car right away and on the bus. You wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite, would you Mikey?
The only flaw I see in the argument here…
The only flaw you see here is the fact that not everything in the world is like Manhattan. The same old obsession with extremely dense areas that most planners indulge in.
Hey, Metrosucks, I use transit where it exists and where it is usable, like anyone else could, e.g., like BART or the Vallejo Ferry to San Francisco, and the Capitol Corridor to Sacramento.
Contrary to your overheated claims, I’ve never advocated abolishing motor vehicles. You don’t appear to understand the concept of “diminishing returns,” particularly where U.S. transportation is involved.
As Chuck Marohn has pointed out in more than one blog post and video, in our cities, rather than accommodating pedestrians and bicycles AFTER motor vehicles are given first priority, pedestrians and bicyclists should be given first priority. THEN we accommodate automobiles to the extent needed. Chuck also proposes that we cut back on “stroads” (e.g., essentially highways masquerading as streets), keeping the highways and freeways where they belong, e.g., out in the countryside.
Claiming that Marohn wants to abolish motor vehicles would simply be an outright lie.
Thank you msetty. Stroads belong far from where people live their lives. We need to return to time-tested built environments that will sustain human civilization. I came across an interesting article showing some human-scaled built environments (and comparisons to the sprawling, anti-human built environments that we are currently stuck with):
“A Traditional City Primer” : http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20131204.php
As the author says: ” The Traditional City simply refers to the pattern of development that human civilization has built in for millenia. “
honestly i don’t really mind the insults and the personal attacks… it really helps you get the lay of the land per se. It’s quite telling that some accounts here aren’t really able to discuss urbanism and others are, most comments sections are like that and at this point i find it helpful more than annoying…
anyways i think manhattan gives a set of mixed blessing to both sides. Yes it is this perfect example of american urbanism and density and transit function, it has to be the number one wet dream of most urban planners. However it is totally unattainable and basically can never be copied by any other US city because of the mechanics of their expansion even as far back as the 1800s. So I do think its important that planners let go of this end-goal of Manhattanization, especially the farther west you look and the less feasible such a goal would be.
However I think folks also need to admit that Manhattan was built organically under free-market conditions. It has been for centuries one of the US centerpieces of capitalism and economy, and host to more corporate HQs than all these sprawling western metros like houston and denver and phoenix combined. Manhattan is proof that there is a real free-market interest in density and transit, and that urbanism does not NEED to be a top-down centrally planned phenomenon.
Couple quick notes: At some level, sure its hypocritical to live at the edge of a metro area and support density standards (I’m guilty of that too)… however improved transit and density also benefits these exurban residents by reducing impact on their chosen lifestyle. So I don’t find it overly hypocritical to advocate voluntary urbanism for urban cores, when you don’t live in them. We let rural people vote on city issues and vice-versa. Its ok to have an opinion
And to reiterate, measuring trips is fact MORE important and pertinent than measuring miles… one of the factors that all cities, even the most sprawling, share is that they are far denser than the surrounding rural lands. So I would agree that calculating exact mileages for trips is only marginally useful when these trips are all far shorter than rural trips. The difference between a five mile and 30 mile trip in an urban setting is almost nonsensical in comparison to the hundreds and thousands of miles in the hinterlands.
Manhattan has somthing planners can’t really copy, one of the biggest natural deep water ports on the planet
sprawl
July 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Frank, then please, at least leave out the crud descriptions and 4 letter words
sprawl, I think you and others either have an attention problem or a reading comprehension problem or some other kind of problem because I am not making “crud” descriptions nor am I using four-letter words. Perhaps you were confused by this recent post by Michael Setty:
msetty
July 24, 2014 at 9:25 pm
So, Frankie the Troll(tm)…So, fuck you.
See. I did not say “fuck.” Michael Setty said “fuck.” The last time I said “fuck” on this blog was way back in January, when responding to Setty’s trolling.
Try to keep the voices straight and stop accusing the wrong people of wrong doing.
Manhattan has somthing planners can’t really copy, one of the biggest natural deep water ports on the planet
Not like planners haven’t tried, remember Operation Plowshare? Give government planners the power, and they will end up destroying the entire world!
(some are so dumb there are times I’ve moved to the LEFT lane to make them pass on the right!)
And here we have evidence of trolling on the highway. Driving in the left lanes except to pass is illegal in California and many other states.
But that’s Michael Setty’s m.o. online and IRL on the highways. I have nothing more to say to the troll who has trolled this site (and apparently the highways) for years.
“However I think folks also need to admit that Manhattan was built organically under free-market conditions.”
No. You need to provide evidence for your assertion. Stop being intellectually lazy.
Frank asserted:
“However I think folks also need to admit that Manhattan was built organically under free-market conditions.”
No. You need to provide evidence for your assertion. Stop being intellectually lazy.
Actually, Manhattan did develop organically long before large-scale government intervention in local transportation, e.g., much prior to the City of New York getting involved in subway construction. Unless of course you’re referring to a much earlier intervention, e.g., construction of the Erie Canal that opened up the Midwest and made New York into the worlds largest port in the 19th Century.
BTW, Frank, please explain how does riding along in the right lane on a freeway going the speed limit (65 mph in most cases) constitute “trolling” when some idiot comes up and tailgates you even when they have every opportunity to pass, and you try to get them off your tail? Your logic in lobbing this claim towards me is opaque. I certainly can’t set them up for the CHP, since the damn cops never seem to be around when you need them.
The Antiplanner should do a posting on the Stroad Theory of Planning.
Frank said that I said:
msetty
July 24, 2014 at 9:25 pm
So, Frankie the Troll(tm)…So, fuck you.
After you called me a loser and claimed what I do for a living had no value. So does what YOU do have any value? Besides, you don’t that much about though apparently you think you do. You know, online databases don’t tell you a lot except ID and address information, unless someone has a criminal record or lots of social media accounts, or you can aggregate hundreds of thousands or millions of people for marketing purposes, such as “big data.”
Is the government the answer for every problem you have, msetty???
“After you called me a loser”
I said no such thing. But you love to twist and distort. What I did say is that consulting isn’t a real job. Because it’s not. Then you got mad and dropped an F-bomb.
“Besides, you don’t that much about though apparently you think you do.”
Huh? That’s a head scratcher. But whatever.
“You know, online databases don’t tell you a lot except ID and address information, unless someone has a criminal record or lots of social media accounts, or you can aggregate hundreds of thousands or millions of people for marketing purposes, such as “big data.””
Another non-sequitur.
Anyway, your comment about Manhattan is classic Michael Setty: injecting himself into a conversation that did not involve him.
Your years of peevish know-it-all condescending comments and injections into conversations that don’t involve you have grown too old. Mind your own business, and do what you tell others to do: Ignore the trolls. If you can control yourself, that is.
actually I appreciate the help regarding Manhattan, I figure most people are already familiar with its development history but apparently not… its transit lines were privatized before privatization was cool, the density was also demand driven as opposed to mandated, etc etc etc
to sprawl: i forgot to respond to your comment re: PDX… I was just visiting friends a block south of Division last weekend, had no trouble finding parking but they are probably a little west (upper 20s/low 30s, I forget) of where the real massive issues are. Earlier this summer i had the chance to walk division from MLK to their apt and I remember thinking both how chaotic the corridor felt, and how busy it was with economic activity. While my rural brain found it claustrophobic and hard to navigate at times, there is no doubt in my mind that money was being made left and right, by small and midsize businesses.
So yeah, I’m mixed on Division- the parking situation for the condos might be as big a problem as everyone claims, like I said before the driving environment is pretty dire too… but at the same time I can’t honestly say it impeaches the whole project, because there is clearly organic demand visible everywhere
excuse me, I should have said I walked division from Cesar Chavez to their apartment (lol)
You still haven’t provided evidence that Manhattan was built organically under free market conditions. Are you simply unable to do so? Unwilling? Pontificating? Outright fabricating?
By the late-1800s, land use regs killed any semblance of free market conditions (note the hyperlink to evidence—tutorial available on request).
There really was no free market operating in Manhattan after 1800. Water supply? Provided by government, not an imaginary free market.
How about government fire codes? Yes, since 1815 government banned wood-framed buildings in the densest part of the city.
First government city park? Check.
And the number one piece of evidence that refutes that Manhattan “was built organically under free market conditions”: Commissioners’ Plan of 1811. Government plan for grids and street specifications. In other words, the vast majority of Manhattan did NOT develop organically; it was developed at the hand of government.
So, please. Tell me more about this “free market”. With evidence.