Five Myths About Suburbia And Driving

[beerbeer]

The life cycle of suns and evolution have been scientifically scrutinized for a long time. They are based on testable scientific princples.

The roll of humanity in global warming is based on observation and computer models. It is less scientific than the former.

[jcrc]

The life cycle of suns and evolution have been scientifically scrutinized for a long time. They are based on testable scientific princples.

The roll of humanity in global warming is based on observation and computer models. It is less scientific than the former.

[Bill Mocarsky]

But public transit still has an important role. Millions of Americans rely on it as a primary means of transportation. Transit agencies should focus on serving those who need transit the most: the poor and the handicapped. They should also seek out the niches where they can be most useful, such as express bus service for commuters and high-volume local routes.

[ctman987]

As a current New Yorker the bit on New York Mass Transit (MTA) was a bit insulting. Yes there are times when mass transit meaning the subway, bus, train, etc can be inconvenient but for the most part NYC's mass transit is very convenient and helpful.

The city has an extensive subway system that ecompasses all five boroughs, there is a bus system that supplements certain areas of the city, trains bring in commuters and visitors from upstate New York and Connecticut via the MetroNorth commuter rail and commuters and visitors enter the city via the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). The Staten Island Ferry connects Manhattan with Staten Island and ferries also connect the city with New Jersey. The PATH connects Manhattan with very successfull downtown Hoboken. In addition there are thousands of cabs in the city which in case of a desperate need for a car you could always call a cab which is cheaper then the hassle of owning a car in the city. There is also ZipCar where you can basically rent a car at your convenience.

Last week the real horrors of owning a car in the city were prevalent when that snow storm struck. People who owned cars in the city but parked their cars on the streets and not in parking garages/lots/etc. had their cars plowed in and iced over and then received tickets. Thousands of tickets were issued citywide.

There are times when a car can be helpful in NYC but not many. Taking a subway as opposed to sitting in gridlock on city streets or the West Side Highway is much easier. The hassles of dealing with expensive parking, finding spaces, dealing with construction are just to much.

[beerbeer]

Nanotechnology is new technology not new science. It is a technology built on existing scientific principles.

The other things you talk about, black holes, time/space are all testable. It the difference between watching a bird fly and testing wings in a wind tunnel. No such testability exists for global climate change.

[HartfordTycoon]

Nanotechnology is new technology not new science. It is a technology built on existing scientific principles.

The other things you talk about, black holes, time/space are all testable. It the difference between watching a bird fly and testing wings in a wind tunnel. No such testability exists for global climate change.

[Whaler0718]

They are assuming that mass transit is merely a means to move bodies from one place to another.

It makes New York's transit system sound insignificant. What happens when the New York Transit Authority goes on strike?

The authors also wrote a book called "The Road More Traveled". In this book, they detail 10 steps to get rid of traffic congestion. Here is #1.

1. Add Lanes to Congested Roads and Highways

Many say we can't build our way out of congestion, but we haven't even tried. Over the last 30 years, vehicle lane miles traveled have increased by over 143 percent, but we've added just 5 percent in new capacity. If we removed all of the pork and light rail projects from existing transportation plans and instead built roads and added lanes where they are most needed, we could eliminate severe congestion for less than we are currently planning to spend on transportation over the next few decades.

For what it's worth, the authors are members of the Reason Foundation/Reason Public Policy Institute

[Recchia]

There's an old saying: work expands to the time allotted. I think the corrollary is that traffic expands to the space permitted. People miss the fact that people are transit-oriented and always have been. Hartford is on the CT river for a reason. The electrification of Metro North in Westchester County resulted in an influx of people. Day Hill Road has become an office park mecca because of its proximity to I-91 and to Bradley. So when you build a road, people will use it, businesses will develop on it, the population will move to it, and the road will become congested.

Build a train, however, and you can add frequency and length--it's just much more able to absorb the increased demand.

All building bigger roads does is encourage more car use and development, which leads to only one result: more car dependence and more congestion.

[jcrc]

Nanotechnology is new technology not new science. It is a technology built on existing scientific principles.

The other things you talk about, black holes, time/space are all testable. It the difference between watching a bird fly and testing wings in a wind tunnel. No such testability exists for global climate change.

[HartfordTycoon]

Replace the word nanotechnology with global warming, it can be argue that it is also built on existing scientific principles. The same argument against man made CO2 accelerating global warming was used against ozone depletion. Namely it's a complex scientific endeavor and observation of CFC and ozone depletion could be coincidental. This argument ignore that fact that modern science knows a lot about atmospheric behavior and most scientists who studied empirical evidents agreed human activity contribute to the current warming. While the naysayers repeat again and again that the majority could be wrong, it is more likely that in this case the majority is right. In the case of ozone depletion since Montreal Protocol man made ozone depletion has shrunken, and it is estimated that complete recovery will be around 2050, so yeah, those scientists know their subject matter.

[spatulashack]

Don't buy into anything this guy says. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy websites that have all sorts of fancy "facts" but they draw broad conclusions and get people to believe them. Sprawl is bad for America no matter how you slice it. Saying things like, "Well only 5 percent of America is inhabited," means nothing. Is that really the point? Of course few people are going to want to live 7 hours away from a main road and on top of a mountain range. It is an issue of density, not how much land we have left to ruin and pave over. The issue with sprawl isn't all about wasting land, it is about the pressure these sprawl towns put on surrounding cities and existing towns. Mass transit isn't an end-all solution because much of America is already too far-gone that it makes it illogical to connect most of it with trains at this point. That is why we need transit-oriented development to help matters. The author seems to ignore the fact that even if there is nothing for the mass transit to connect to, people will pop up along stations of mass transit systems in no time and revitalize the entire town. It's happened time and time again. Look at the Hudson-Bergan Light Rail in Jersey City. It's been open for about 4 years and nearly every station is built out with glorious high-density condos that sell for upwards of 3 million dollars. Those weren't there before the train showed up. The state took a chance and it worked wonders. Roads WILL spur development but not the good kind. Strip-malls are built around roads and downtowns are built around trains. It's as simple as that.

Here's an article:

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?....xml&coll=3

And a few quotes from the article:

"According to one transportation expert, building along the light rail line is proof that public transit is a powerful tool in shaping development."

"...there is no doubt today that the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is spurring the unprecedented economic development that is driving Hudson County's extraordinary renaissance, officials and experts say."

[JayHass]

Don't buy into anything this guy says. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy websites that have all sorts of fancy "facts" but they draw broad conclusions and get people to believe them. Sprawl is bad for America no matter how you slice it. Saying things like, "Well only 5 percent of America is inhabited," means nothing. Is that really the point? Of course few people are going to want to live 7 hours away from a main road and on top of a mountain range. It is an issue of density, not how much land we have left to ruin and pave over. The issue with sprawl isn't all about wasting land, it is about the pressure these sprawl towns put on surrounding cities and existing towns. Mass transit isn't an end-all solution because much of America is already too far-gone that it makes it illogical to connect most of it with trains at this point. That is why we need transit-oriented development to help matters. The author seems to ignore the fact that even if there is nothing for the mass transit to connect to, people will pop up along stations of mass transit systems in no time and revitalize the entire town. It's happened time and time again. Look at the Hudson-Bergan Light Rail in Jersey City. It's been open for about 4 years and nearly every station is built out with glorious high-density condos that sell for upwards of 3 million dollars. Those weren't there before the train showed up. The state took a chance and it worked wonders. Roads WILL spur development but not the good kind. Strip-malls are built around roads and downtowns are built around trains. It's as simple as that.

Here's an article:

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?....xml&coll=3

And a few quotes from the article:

"According to one transportation expert, building along the light rail line is proof that public transit is a powerful tool in shaping development."

"...there is no doubt today that the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is spurring the unprecedented economic development that is driving Hudson County's extraordinary renaissance, officials and experts say."

[spatulashack]

You have to understand not everyone wants to live in a "high density" village like Japan. I certainly don't. I'm not against any kind of those developements, but what I have a problem with is the demonizing of those of us who do not wish to live like that. This is stil the United States of America and I do still have a right to live a certain lifestyle if I wish.

As long as you don't try and regulate me into a condo highrise I'm fine with what you want...again, just please stop demonizing all things suburban. It's not evil, and downtowns and "strip malls" can coexist. Manchester is a good example, as is Newington and is West Hartford all of which have living downtowns doing well and lots of "malls" and "big boxes" along with them.

[JayHass]

No one is saying that everyone has to live in studio apartments stacked on top of one another. If you want a McMansion, go right ahead.

[penetcostal_iglesia_faith]

That is exactly what I am talking about. Stop it. I don't live in or want a "McMansion", but if someone wants to live in a nice colonial home you don't have to belittle them with terms like "McMansion". Just stop the hating. Please.

If you want to live in a tightly packed village, go for it. Just realize that the world doesn't revolve around you.

Celebration is a hell hole. I lived in Orlando for many years and in fact worked for Disney and Celebration is a creepy, recreated, homogones, bland place that you couldn't pay me to live. No thanks.

And you seemed to have ignored the examples I gave. Are you even from this region?

[JimSawhill]

I don't think I totally buy into this global warming phenomenon...

[JimSawhill]

Let me guess, you are not a scientist...

[MadVlad]

GHartford:

Are you a scientist?? A lot of scientists are not into the GLOBAL WARMING BS.

[Recchia]

Seeing that Celebration, FL was mentioned, I thought I'd add that it is indeed wretched. It was a good idea carried out poorly with sh!tty results. It is indeed a nice small walkable town, but at the same time is one huge overpriced governmentless subdivision that is a freeway appendage much like a shopping mall.

[JimSawhill]

Jim, c'mon now. The prevailing opinion in the scientific community is that Global Warming does indeed exist and is being fueled by humanity's pollution or whatever. Of course there are a few dissenting opinions, there always will be. There are people that don't believe man walked on the moon, it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

[MadVlad]

MadVlad:

Not all sciencists are in agreement!! I'm not going to say that the earth isn't warming up, however, scienists are saying the Pluto is WARMING up. I don't think we affect PLUTO. Also, remember, the cities are are taking temparture in do not have any open space -- so asphalt will retain heat better then grass does.

Besides, I am against pollution -- but I do not need these LIBS in Hollywierd and AL GORE (who has more homes then 99% of Americans) to tell me that I need to reduce GREENHOUSE GAS. When I see the OSCARs (came in from Chicago on a UNITED Airlines alone -- and those HOLLYWEIRD LIBS with their PRIVATE PLANES) nominees ride up in a HORSE AND CARRIAGE with them in OFF THE RACK CLOTHES, I'll listen to them. Until them, I'll drive my SUV.

JimS

[member]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/U...obalWarming.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/11/warm11.xml

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ar...ient_scientist/

I've actually read that a majority of scientists disagree with the "consensus" view on global warming. I buy into the 1500 year cycle theory. Why else are other planets experiencing warming? I know WorldNetDaily isn't a 100% reliable source, but I just love the caption.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=36049

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plut...ing_021009.html

Meanwhile, our fearless crusaders against global warming have no problem living in lavish estates and flying in private jets.

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/disp...ve.html?id=3848

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm

I think this global warming "consensus" nonsense is just one big lie.

[MadVlad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/U...obalWarming.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/11/warm11.xml

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/ar...ient_scientist/

I've actually read that a majority of scientists disagree with the "consensus" view on global warming. I buy into the 1500 year cycle theory. Why else are other planets experiencing warming? I know WorldNetDaily isn't a 100% reliable source, but I just love the caption.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=36049

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plut...ing_021009.html

Meanwhile, our fearless crusaders against global warming have no problem living in lavish estates and flying in private jets.

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/disp...ve.html?id=3848

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm

I think this global warming "consensus" nonsense is just one big lie.

[JayHass]

Right, a wikipedia entry named "global warming skeptic" isn't too skewed....

[Bill Mocarsky]

I didn't think this thread was going to turn into a global warming debate.