Preferences toward choices that reinforce individualism become dangerous when they lead to isolation and alienation. I do not believe it is a good thing to remove social interaction from daily life. Using the technology and structure of modern life may seem more "convenient" or may present more "options", but it is important to be aware of the costs. Costs are more than time and money. There are environmental, social and civic considerations for daily life as well.

 

I understand that face to face interaction and close spaces can be uncomfortable. Sharing time and space with others, especially when there are alternative (perhaps more expedient) ways to get things done, can seem like a chore. However, I am saying that it is probably healthy for the community's sake if more time and space was shared. It is all about people getting along better.

 

I am not against "the individual", but think there need to be counter balance. That counter balance is "civil society", which I define as social associations and public space. There needs to be a balance, but both are essential to democracy. The same goes for "government" and the "free market" when it comes to delivering goods and services. In democracy we need both of these things, but there needs to be a balance.

 

Government, Free Market, Civil Society and the Individual are essential four agents of control or change. Political ideology mapping is actually two dimensional with a horizontal and vertical axis.

 

1. Liberal (The Left) prefer government as an agent of policy control/change

2. Conservative (The Right) prefer the free market as an angent of policy control/change

3. Libertarians (The Bottom) prefer the individual as an agent of policy control/change

4. Communitarians (The Top) prefer civil society as an agent of policy control/change

 

*A true moderate would be at the center and intersection of both these axis'

 

Preferences toward choices that reinforce individualism become dangerous when they lead to isolation and alienation. I do not believe it is a good thing to remove social interaction from daily life. Using the technology and structure of modern life may seem more "convenient" or may present more "options", but it is important to be aware of the costs. Costs are more than time and money. There are environmental, social and civic considerations for daily life as well.

 

I understand that face to face interaction and close spaces can be uncomfortable. Sharing time and space with others, especially when there are alternative (perhaps more expedient) ways to get things done, can seem like a chore. However, I am saying that it is probably healthy for the community's sake if more time and space was shared. It is all about people getting along better.

 

I am not against "the individual", but think there need to be counter balance. That counter balance is "civil society", which I define as social associations and public space. There needs to be a balance, but both are essential to democracy. The same goes for "government" and the "free market" when it comes to delivering goods and services. In democracy we need both of these things, but there needs to be a balance.

 

Government, Free Market, Civil Society and the Individual are essential four agents of control or change. Political ideology mapping is actually two dimensional with a horizontal and vertical axis.

 

1. Liberal (The Left) prefer government as an agent of policy control/change

2. Conservative (The Right) prefer the free market as an angent of policy control/change

3. Libertarians (The Bottom) prefer the individual as an agent of policy control/change

4. Communitarians (The Top) prefer civil society as an agent of policy control/change

 

*A true moderate would be at the center and intersection of both these axis'

 

 

Since this is getting off topic I replied here:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15712.msg271146.html#msg271146

I have no problem moving the topic to a new thread, but I still believe it is relevent to urban sprawl.

 

Individualism fuels the desire in people to live in a homogeneous bedroom community where people can go to and from their McMansion in their automobile out of their attached garage to a corporate office park and run many errands via drive-thrus. They don't want to see or talk to people different than them in the name of their own personal time, space and property.

shs, the reason why you choose those things is because the cost of those options are spread among than just those who directly use them. Would you drive as much if all parking spaces were paid spaces?

 

How much more walkable would a given town be if shopkeepers were no longer forced by municipal code to build and maintain a parking lots based on square footage but rather left up to the shopkeeper?

 

Would we have more superstores (and parking facilities) built vertically if retailers were charged sewer system impact fees by communities based on their square footage of impervious surfaces?

 

What if zoning is many communities actually allowed for corner stores with office or residential uses above them? In too many communities, such mixed uses are actually illegal.

 

Those are a few examples of things that, if changed, would make walking and transit more convenient and the car less so. As we know, the speed of cars and the geometry of car use requires everything to be spread out. How much more densely developed and walkable would communities be if local governments didn't have regulations requiring them to be more spread out and autocentric?

 

There are some case examples if a few of the above changes were implemented, cited in a great book called "The High Cost of Free Parking." Check it out sometime.

I am not against "the individual", but think there need to be counter balance. That counter balance is "civil society"

 

I couldn't agree more.  But the discussion seems to stew around what is the best way to accomplish that civil society.  You mention political ideology being a 2 dimensional, yet we live in a 3 dimensional world.  So I think there comes a certain point where you can tweak your two dimensional levers to any and all levels possible, yet problems will still exist. 

 

I am saying that it is probably healthy for the community's sake if more time and space was shared. It is all about people getting along better.

 

Another great point.  But I don't think people are going to get along better if they share space.  They need to share beliefs and values, have the same level of responsibility and work ethic, and respect each other equally.  Sharing space can help that but it can also hurt it and make it more volatile.  I mean, what are traditionally the most bitter feuds of all time?  Family?  Brought up with the same values, same beliefs, close proximity, same opportunities yet at the end of the day, you're just not going to get along.  And it becomes really ugly since you're family and have a level of forced interaction. 

 

There are problems sprawl creates.  But I will never be convinced the removal of sprawl will eliminate the problems I most care about fixing.  How to create more jobs, how to improve our schools, how to lower crime and poverty, etc. 

I have no problem moving the topic to a new thread, but I still believe it is relevent to urban sprawl.

 

Individualism fuels the desire in people to live in a homogeneous bedroom community where people can go to and from their McMansion in their automobile out of their attached garage to a corporate office park and run many errands via drive-thrus. They don't want to see or talk to people different than them in the name of their own personal time, space and property.

 

I would say "so what"?  I don't consider that nearly as unhealthy as the tendency to mind the business of others, and eventually try to remake them according to the hypothetical preferences of "society".

 

What you're saying is that you want others to change the way they live in order to preserve something that you find important but they do not.  I would say that's no different from pressuring an entertainment company to only release "wholesome" products in the name of "cultural decency".

 

Who decides? 

shs, the reason why you choose those things is because the cost of those options are spread among than just those who directly use them. Would you drive as much if all parking spaces were paid spaces?

 

How much more walkable would a given town be if shopkeepers were no longer forced by municipal code to build and maintain a parking lots based on square footage but rather left up to the shopkeeper?

 

Would we have more superstores (and parking facilities) built vertically if retailers were charged sewer system impact fees by communities based on their square footage of impervious surfaces?

 

What if zoning is many communities actually allowed for corner stores with office or residential uses above them? In too many communities, such mixed uses are actually illegal.

 

Those are a few examples of things that, if changed, would make walking and transit more convenient and the car less so. As we know, the speed of cars and the geometry of car use requires everything to be spread out. How much more densely developed and walkable would communities be if local governments didn't have regulations requiring them to be more spread out and autocentric?

 

There are some case examples if a few of the above changes were implemented, cited in a great book called "The High Cost of Free Parking." Check it out sometime.

 

I understand what you're saying - we are coheresed into these choices that lead to sprawl based on how our government has shaped society.

 

My point is, if things were reversed and the government had built railways instead of interstates, problems we attribute to sprawl would still exist at some level.  Maybe they would be different, but there would still be environmental issues.  There would still be pockets of society that are underprivaleged or section of town that are deteriorating.

 

So I don't like blaming sprawl for these problems.  I'm all for public transport, walkable neighborhoods - I would rather not use my car.  I just get frustrated when sprawl is to blame.

I have no problem moving the topic to a new thread, but I still believe it is relevent to urban sprawl.

 

Individualism fuels the desire in people to live in a homogeneous bedroom community where people can go to and from their McMansion in their automobile out of their attached garage to a corporate office park and run many errands via drive-thrus. They don't want to see or talk to people different than them in the name of their own personal time, space and property.

 

I would say "so what"?  I don't consider that nearly as unhealthy as the tendency to mind the business of others, and eventually try to remake them according to the hypothetical preferences of "society".

 

What you're saying is that you want others to change the way they live in order to preserve something that you find important but they do not.  I would say that's no different from pressuring an entertainment company to only release "wholesome" products in the name of "cultural decency".

 

Who decides?  

 

So what? Letting individuals live in suburban sprawl arrangement undermines collective good amd the sense of community. It extols environmental, social and economic costs, and leaves things like consumption and racism unchecked. 

 

Who decides? The democratic process should decide. Part of the democratic process involves deciding what is right of the community; not to pander to individuals.

shs, I don't think anyone is saying sprawl is the sole creator of poverty, crime, or blight.  Those obviously predate the Interstate Highway Act!  But of course, creating a spatial mismatch of entry level jobs and people that needs jobs exasperates poverty to a great degree. 

 

If you are a high school educated person without a car, are you going to have access to the warehouse, manufacturing, and retail jobs that you would be qualified for in places like Solon or Avon?  If you encourage someone to build new housing or retail in Avon by building a new interchange, aren't you also encouraging them to move out of their home or shop in Lakewood?  Doesn't that cause blight in a stagnant metropolitan area?  If you can't get a job because of those things, aren't you more likely to rob somebody or sell drugs because you need money?

Who decides? The democratic process should decide. Part of the democratic process involves deciding what is right of the community; not to pander to individuals.

 

Well on one hand, the democratic process is a sham in many ways, not the least of which is that it's the rule of the mob.  All of your beefs with sprawl and individualism (not that I think these two are inextricably linked) are the result, fundamentally, of the democratic process.  The ordinances that KJP speaks of are the result of majority rule votes, or of councils elected democratically by people.  Never rely on the "democratic process" as the backbone or arbiter of what is right.

 

There was an "on the other hand" too, but I forgot it.

 

Point is I have no problem making people pay for their choices, as long as it's equitable, and as long as similar payments are required of people across society.  If it's wrong to make everyone pay for sprawl I think it's wrong to make everyone pay for education.  But that's not in line with what some people Who Know think is the "common good" so I guess that's a problem.

^Believe me, I am aware of the problems with the democratic process. However I believe that individualism gone unchecked is exactly the problem with democracy today. We have less "joiners" today than we did over fifty years ago, and less people involved in political. Why? because we have over emphasized "private life". People would rather not get involved in things, because they dislike social interaction. To them, town hall type meetings, political discourse or public hearings would be "bothersome". Individualism leads people to say "not my problem" on many issues, and reduce politics to identity issues.

 

People have lost the concept of what it means to be a citizen. It doesn't help either that sprawl has left old municipal jurisdictions in place, when the actual interdependant metropolitan community transcends those existing boundaries. Consider that we have metropolitan communities, and no metropolitan governance. Maybe more people would be involved in the democratic process if we had government institutions that reflect where communities actually exist today; the metropolitan level and the global level.

 

Reversing sprawl by adopting new urbanism principles and creating a metropolitan government would be great for democracy. It is easier to understand what it means to be a citizen when you are sharing sidewalks, parks, public transit, and coffee shops with other people. It creates more trust and tolerance when you live in proximity to other people different than you ,and public space allows for social exchange to take place.

 

 

I don't consider that nearly as unhealthy as the tendency to mind the business of others, and eventually try to remake them according to the hypothetical preferences of "society".

 

So being selfish and not caring about what is good for the largest number of people (society, not a hypothetical concept) is not unhealthy?

 

EDIT: Community and "working together" isn't always about "helping the other guy" (which is nice as well) but often times yields benefits for all involved.  Read up on Cooperative Game Theory as to why I say this, and why our society has such a hard time following through on it in these days of over-individualism and selfishness.

I admire your faith in the democratic process, however with an educational system designed by corporate interests and society builders to dumb down and create masses of complacent worker bees, you're not likely to see the change you want, even with collectivism being at the core of most schooling.  I think it goes back to education which is not on topic so I'll not go further.

 

In any case, true market forces, in my opinion, can curtail sprawl and result in a return to urbanism.  I don't think you need to force interaction or affect good citizenship.

If you are a high school educated person without a car, are you going to have access to the warehouse, manufacturing, and retail jobs that you would be qualified for in places like Solon or Avon?  If you encourage someone to build new housing or retail in Avon by building a new interchange, aren't you also encouraging them to move out of their home or shop in Lakewood?  Doesn't that cause blight in a stagnant metropolitan area?  If you can't get a job because of those things, aren't you more likely to rob somebody or sell drugs because you need money?

 

I think the cause of blight in the metro area is lack of manufacturing/retail jobs (or jobs period), not the separation between work force and work place.  So "If you can't get a job because of those things, aren't you more likely to rob somebody or sell drugs because you need money?"  Yes. 

 

Let's daydream for a second.  Poof, the port relocation is done.  Suddenly, shipping traffic greatly increases and creates thousands of warehouse jobs on the east side.  Additional jobs are created as a by-product of the shipping boom and unemployment is at an all time low.  Meanwhile, the government flips it's spending previously dedicated to interstates and federal highways to public transit.  Effectively, the RTA wins the lottery, extends the green line southeast through Orange and Solon and the blue line south through bedford heights.  The red line is also able to split at university circle and head down Cedar and an all new line is built heading south on 77 all the way to the turnpike.  Plus instead of the shoreway being converted into a parkway, it's converted to an above ground rail and extending along Rt 6 through Bay Village (think St. Charles Ave in New Orleans, but faster).  Both Trains and busses can run more frequently now as well.

 

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

If it's wrong to make everyone pay for sprawl I think it's wrong to make everyone pay for education.

 

I agree with much of what you say but I am not so sure I see a direct correlation between paying for sprawl and education.  I can understand both (1) thinking the educational system is messed up and (2) having a debate over whether it should be publicly funded, but I don't see a comparison between sprawl and education.

 

Sprawl serves the individual interests of some and is destructive to the country as a whole.  Education (ideologically at the very least) serves everyone and improves the country as a whole.

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

No, you've just created NeverLand

I think the cause of blight in the metro area is lack of manufacturing/retail jobs (or jobs period), not the separation between work force and work place.

 

It's both.  We would still have blight, but not as much of it, if new buildings further out weren't continuously being built when the economy isn't expanding.  And jobs being located further from workers makes EVERYONE who has to commute a little poorer.  The poorest just happen to both be the furthest from many of these jobs, and the least likely to be able to afford the extra expenses incurred.

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

No, you've just created NeverLand

 

"Do I need to purchase one Rapid ticket or two?"

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

No, you've just created NeverLand

 

"Do I need to purchase one Rapid ticket or two?"

 

LMAO.  Two.  The RTA police will be on all trains and busses and you need to provide proof of purchase or off to jail you and bubbles go!  and you know how they like your kind in jail.

I agree with much of what you say but I am not so sure I see a direct correlation between paying for sprawl and education.  I can understand both (1) thinking the educational system is messed up and (2) having a debate over whether it should be publicly funded, but I don't see a comparison between sprawl and education.

 

Sprawl serves the individual interests of some and is destructive to the country as a whole.  Education (ideologically at the very least) serves everyone and improves the country as a whole.

 

I know what you're saying there, but I'm looking at the reality.  Forced mass schooling as it exists in this country is as detrimental as sprawl.  Many might not agree with that statement but that's the point.  Many also don't agree that sprawl is all that bad.  Point is that using everyone's money to pay for things is OFTEN a bad idea because in a free society we're all allowed to have our own opinions as to what is good and what's bad.  Just as KJP and lots of people (including me) don't like his money subsidizing extra lanes of exurban highway ramps, someone like me thinks forced schooling has done and is doing a great disservice to the poor and middle classes and I don't like my money subsidizing it either.

^Understood...also understood that although I don't know what your alternative would be, that that would not be a discussion for this thread.

 

As far as sprawl being bad goes, I don't think it's as much a matter of opinion as a matter of unsustainability (economic and ecological).  I am willing to bet that you could prove it with a paper heavy on math and deep with analysis.  Perhaps the same could be said about mass schooling, but I'm not so sure the alternatives are as easily identifiable in that case.

Then there's this reason why to hate sprawl and prefer Europe's way of designing walkable cities, healthier diets and less sprawling women:

 

NSFW Image

 

 

Pope Sorry KJP.

Awesome, KJP.  I want to frame that quote. 

^^Viva le difference!

i see that eurotrash chickybabe is wearing our usa invented jeans, thongs, & 90's style cropped blouse, so hey there may still be hope as long as we can make a sawbuck or two off'em.

 

of course, our gals would seem to be buying clothes from omar the tentmaker, so ehh it's a wash.

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at exactly.  I think you're asking if we provided public transit to the suburbs if sprawl would still exist or be a problem.  I'd say yes and yes.  Yes, it would still be sprawl because we were primarily focusing our resources on servicing new land for the same amount of population.  Yes, it would still be a problem because of mobility issues relating to labor/job location- it isn't possible to serve the suburbs with a level of public transportation that would be quick and would take people within a reasonable distance of their destinations.  Map out the lines you just mentioned and see what that looks like.  Still alot of jobs and population not "covered", and because of the increasing distances and complexity of the system to service the fringe, it is still burdensome to use the system. 

 

There are also other problems with sprawl beyond the workforce access issues, problems such as environment, infrastucture conservation, land appreciation equity, and others.  I was really just making a response to the concerns you listed, not all of my concerns.

Pope is a party pooper.

Ummmm.....I used to do what shopping I do in west-side Cleveland and Lakewood and now it's in Bedford, Macedonia, Solon, and Twinsburg.  If there's a correlation between the various versions of "sprawl", it's inverse.    :evil:

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at exactly.  I think you're asking if we provided public transit to the suburbs if sprawl would still exist or be a problem.  I'd say yes and yes.  Yes, it would still be sprawl because we were primarily focusing our resources on servicing new land for the same amount of population.  Yes, it would still be a problem because of mobility issues relating to labor/job location- it isn't possible to serve the suburbs with a level of public transportation that would be quick and would take people within a reasonable distance of their destinations.  Map out the lines you just mentioned and see what that looks like.  Still alot of jobs and population not "covered", and because of the increasing distances and complexity of the system to service the fringe, it is still burdensome to use the system. 

 

There are also other problems with sprawl beyond the workforce access issues, problems such as environment, infrastucture conservation, land appreciation equity, and others.  I was really just making a response to the concerns you listed, not all of my concerns.

 

The initial sprawl predated the freeways, and some of it still predates them leading to very heavy traffic in places like 82 in Macedonia and 303 in Brunswick and Streetsboro.  The freeways serviced the sprawl, transit for the most part did not and in many cases could not.

 

The consolidation of the various bus lines into RTA may have done more harm than good as far as transit use from the outer ring suburbs.  If I remember correctly, lines like Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, and North Olmsted had downtown routes that quit inbound pickups and commenced outbound dropoffs at their respective borders.  This was less efficient for the lines, but more efficient for the riders.

 

Downtown's also become less important as a business center since that time.  Likewise, Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs have suffered from "industrial sprawl", which happens for very different reasons than residential sprawl.

 

In this scenario, is sprawl still a problem in Cleveland?  Do we even have sprawl?

 

I'm not sure I see what you're getting at exactly.  I think you're asking if we provided public transit to the suburbs if sprawl would still exist or be a problem.  I'd say yes and yes.  Yes, it would still be sprawl because we were primarily focusing our resources on servicing new land for the same amount of population.  Yes, it would still be a problem because of mobility issues relating to labor/job location- it isn't possible to serve the suburbs with a level of public transportation that would be quick and would take people within a reasonable distance of their destinations.  Map out the lines you just mentioned and see what that looks like.  Still alot of jobs and population not "covered", and because of the increasing distances and complexity of the system to service the fringe, it is still burdensome to use the system. 

 

There are also other problems with sprawl beyond the workforce access issues, problems such as environment, infrastucture conservation, land appreciation equity, and others.  I was really just making a response to the concerns you listed, not all of my concerns.

 

The initial sprawl predated the freeways, and some of it still predates them leading to very heavy traffic in places like 82 in Macedonia and 303 in Brunswick and Streetsboro.  The freeways serviced the sprawl, transit for the most part did not and in many cases could not.

 

The consolidation of the various bus lines into RTA may have done more harm than good as far as transit use from the outer ring suburbs.  If I remember correctly, lines like Maple Heights, Garfield Heights, and North Olmsted had downtown routes that quit inbound pickups and commenced outbound dropoffs at their respective borders.  This was less efficient for the lines, but more efficient for the riders.

 

Downtown's also become less important as a business center since that time.  Likewise, Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs have suffered from "industrial sprawl", which happens for very different reasons than residential sprawl.

 

The prehighway traffic you're referencing was and would be a limiting factor on sprawl, except that we keep expanding the system out, instead of reinvesting in upgrades and repairs for existing infrastructure and alternative transportation modes.

 

Regarding the decline of Downtown as an employment center.  Indeed, Downtown needs efficient public transit like Beachwood needs it's highways.  Land use patterns are dependent upon the transportation system they were built around, and grafting on a new one is not ideal, but may be necessary.  And public transit needs Downtown, as well.  It really only works if there is a high density, pedestrian oriented destination on at least, and preferably both, ends.

 

I think that I am not entirely against industrial sprawl.  Ideally those uses would be at the fringe of the metropolitan area because of the pollution, noise, and non-local traffic they create as well as large amount of land they use relative to the small amount of jobs they create.  Ideally they would also have workforce housing within an easy walk, drive, or transit ride too.  I do think industrial transit oriented development would be possible, too, though it would require more regional planning to identify a main industrial corridor or two instead of having each community vye for whatever they could grab with incentives.

 

This basic pattern is what you see in much of the world- high density housing, retail, and office at the center of the metro area, industrial and other lower density uses at the edge.  Most of the industry in Cleveland was at the edge of the city when it was built.  Cleveland grew around it.

 

I'm teaching a class on how bad sprawl is right now (well more of a cultural/social history thingy) anyway, one of the other reasons why downtowns got weakened is that many felt it gave too much power to one set of landlords. One of the challenges of a higher density environment is that it is much harder to maintain income equality (not that our current system works any better) because in a city with a very valuable downtown and lots of rental, high density development, someone is making a lot of money on rents and someone is not building up any equity in the place where they live.

 

I guess condos do prevent that sharp skewing that happens with a society with a large rentier class (see Europe). Yes, high density cities can be more democratic because of their allowance for investment in things besides the sprawl crap, but they can also because very anti-democratic because those who actually own land become that much more powerful. NYC has problems with this (WTC, anyone).

Another side motivator for government promotion of sprawl was to disperse the population in the event of a nuclear attack.

 

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1xKm3S0rXl4J:www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/originalintent.cfm+highways,+sprawl,+atomic+attack&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

 

On February 22, 1955, President Eisenhower forwarded the Clay Committee's report, A 10-Year National Highway Program, to Congress....

 

The Nation's highway system, he said, is "a gigantic enterprise" but "is inadequate for the nation's growing needs." The need for action was inescapable. He cited safety (more than 36,000 killed and a million injured each year on the highways at a cost of more than $4.3 billion a year), the poor physical condition of the roads (translating into higher shipping costs, about $5 billion a year, that are passed on to consumers), the need to evacuate cities in the event of an atomic attack (the present system would be "the breeder of a deadly congestion within hours of an attack"), and the inevitable increase in traffic as the population and the gross national product increased ("existing traffic jams only faintly foreshadow those of 10 years hence").

 

Also, see The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate, By Alex S. Oliver Gillham:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1xKm3S0rXl4J:www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/originalintent.cfm+highways,+sprawl,+atomic+attack&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

 

In 1951, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists had devoted an entire issue to the topic "Defense through Decentralization." Three years earlier, the National Security Resources Board had warned that concentration of industry in the city left the national economy badly exposed in case of a nuclear attack. The idea was that splintering the large cities into dispersed settlements and scattering the industries would help to avoid total national destruction in a nuclear holocaust. Evacuation was also an issued. President Eisenhower stated that getting people out of the cities in the event of an atomic attack was one of the principal reasons for signing the highway bill. Thus, the Cold War and the atomic bomb became important factors affecting the spread of suburbanization.

____________________

 

Of course, with the devastation of Hurricane Katrina still fresh in everyone's minds, Category 5 Hurricane Rita approached the city of Houston -- a city about as sprawling and car dependent as any in America. We saw what happened in that city's evacuation (see below). Highways ground to a halt and more people died in the evacuation than from damage wrought by the hurricane. Federal Emergency Management Agency officials now want to use more trains and buses for large-scale evacuations. The pendulum is always swinging ...

 

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Hurricane+Rita,+evacuation,+photos&um=1&ie=UTF-8

 

The best picture, showing all highway lanes being used, is too large to post here but is available at the link above.

 

"The prehighway traffic you're referencing was and would be a limiting factor on sprawl, except that we keep expanding the system out, instead of reinvesting in upgrades and repairs for existing infrastructure and alternative transportation modes."

 

It could also be said that we responded to the desires of the taxpayers who were footing the bill.

"I think that I am not entirely against industrial sprawl.  Ideally those uses would be at the fringe of the metropolitan area because of the pollution, noise, and non-local traffic they create as well as large amount of land they use relative to the small amount of jobs they create.  Ideally they would also have workforce housing within an easy walk, drive, or transit ride too.  I do think industrial transit oriented development would be possible, too, though it would require more regional planning to identify a main industrial corridor or two instead of having each community vye for whatever they could grab with incentives.

 

This basic pattern is what you see in much of the world- high density housing, retail, and office at the center of the metro area, industrial and other lower density uses at the edge.  Most of the industry in Cleveland was at the edge of the city when it was built.  Cleveland grew around it."

 

Yep, that's one of the reasons...people moving in after the fact and NIMBYing a plant.  Another is CERCLA:  it's easier to build on a greenfield than risk inherited liability.  But industry requires as much (or more) infrastructure as residential.  There's an inconsistency to complaining about the new infrastructure needed for residential sprawl and not the industrial counterpart.  Also, industrial sprawl makes cars necessary for many workers.

 

"I'm teaching a class on how bad sprawl is right now "

 

Ummm....that's opinion, and school is supposed to be about facts and/or both sides of controversial issues.  Are you presenting any "opposiing viewpoint" material?

 

"Another side motivator for government promotion of sprawl was to disperse the population in the event of a nuclear attack. "

 

True, but it's an urban legend that the interstates were designed to have one mile in five serve as emergency airfields.

I would pay money to hear a lecture on the awesomeness of sprawl.

I've heard them. You can read them from the Buckeye Policy Institute. Makes me sick.

But do they call it "sprawl," or some sexier term such as "Freedom Enhancement Zones"?

"Sprawl: Your escape from all life"

.

"The prehighway traffic you're referencing was and would be a limiting factor on sprawl, except that we keep expanding the system out, instead of reinvesting in upgrades and repairs for existing infrastructure and alternative transportation modes."

 

It could also be said that we responded to the desires of the taxpayers who were footing the bill.

 

 

I must have forgotten the vigorous national debate we had on the topic.  :wink:

 

"I think that I am not entirely against industrial sprawl.  Ideally those uses would be at the fringe of the metropolitan area because of the pollution, noise, and non-local traffic they create as well as large amount of land they use relative to the small amount of jobs they create.  Ideally they would also have workforce housing within an easy walk, drive, or transit ride too.  I do think industrial transit oriented development would be possible, too, though it would require more regional planning to identify a main industrial corridor or two instead of having each community vye for whatever they could grab with incentives.

 

This basic pattern is what you see in much of the world- high density housing, retail, and office at the center of the metro area, industrial and other lower density uses at the edge.  Most of the industry in Cleveland was at the edge of the city when it was built.  Cleveland grew around it."

 

Yep, that's one of the reasons...people moving in after the fact and NIMBYing a plant.  Another is CERCLA:  it's easier to build on a greenfield than risk inherited liability.  But industry requires as much (or more) infrastructure as residential.   There's an inconsistency to complaining about the new infrastructure needed for residential sprawl and not the industrial counterpart.  Also, industrial sprawl makes cars necessary for many workers.

 

NIMBY-ism has little to do with it.  Mostly the problem is the lack of available land large enough to handle modern horizontal layout plants, and the large amount of tarmac they want for maneuvering trucks.  CERCLA has contributed to this.  But unless you want people getting sick, the blame really rests on the irresponsible former owners of the property.

 

There's no inconsistency in my position.  It is necessary to expand infrastructure sometimes, for any use.  We should just be smarter about how we make that investment, conserve our resources, take into account future maintenance, and give priority to protecting the investments we've already made.  That would be downright, well, conservative, I would think?

I am speechless!

^Dear all Traffic Engineers,

 

Do not blame Planners for that. 

 

Thank You.

I am speechless!

 

Is this Sawmill Road and I-270 in Columbus?

Dunno!          Google imaged it, and now I can't find it again.

Thats like a overground Warrensville, Van Aken, Northfield, Chagrin intersection!

What's amazing is how much money they must have spent on what looks to be an incredibly inefficient, confusing, and dangerous intersection.  I'm sure someone somewhere is very proud that they designed such a "cool" intersection, though.

It probably is the best solution for the awkward intersection of several pre-automobile roads. However, there's always a chance it's the result of an attempt to connect several randomly located developments. Either way, I'm redirecting this conversation to <a href=http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15619.msg267794.html#msg267794>Transportation Planning Gone WRONG</a> before someone gets run over.

 

LOL,          Good move!    Sorry bout that.

http://www.onlyinhouston.org/attachments/wysiwyg/File/ritahouston001_1.jpg <- Now that is congestion :P

 

On the image posted above, I almost wanted to say New Jersey. The pavement materials, striping and white painted curbing is very much similar to their arterial roadways. However, their traffic signals are the type used in NYC and these are only single-post mast-arms.

^OMG, shoot me!!!       I am guessing that was the last hurricane evac strategy!

That's the picture I was referring to earlier as being too large to post here.

 

It is incredible. I'll bet Eisenhower rolled over in his grave when that happened.

Nuclear attack or no, Eisenhower's vision of millions using the Interstate to flee the city was darn well spot-on.