Conklin FAILS TO RESPOND to direct challenges
Geenius at Wrok
Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
can't.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net * "This must be what evil tastes like!"
www.albany.net/~geenius * Live with honor, endure with grace * Analects 2:24
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227, any
and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is construed
as being sent to a fax machine and subject to a $500 fine. Make my day.
Colin R. Leech
And this surprises anybody, after all these months? Either he'll try to
divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
> Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
> days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
> serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
> positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
> a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
> roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
> quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
>
> Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
> can't.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Randy Garbin
In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>And this surprises anybody, after all these months? Either he'll try to
>divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
>expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
>
>Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
>> Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
>> days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
>> serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
>> positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
>> a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
>> roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
>> quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
>>
>> Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
>> can't.
I wish you guys would just give it up. He's already in my killfile but
because people continue the futility of debating with him, I keep seeing
his idiotic quotes in the responses.
JUST IGNORE THE DOPE.
Granted, I'm all for intelligent debate, but this guy's a broken record.
He's made his point, over and over and over and over and over and over and
over again, but people just can't seem to resist taking him on. GIVE IT UP
and restore the sanity to this newsgroup.
--
Roadside Online: http://www1.usa1.com/~roadside/
================= Our recipe for an American Renaissance: =================
> Eat in diners <> Ride Trains <> Put a porch on your house <
> Shop on Main Street <> Live in a walkable community <
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
As a teacher, give students a bit more credit. They can respond to his
crap for a good grade to make him happy without buying into any of it.
Sure, he may have a few disciples, but if they cling to his mania, it's
their choice and they're no more off base than they were when the entered
school.
Nelson
> And this surprises anybody, after all these months? Either he'll try to
> divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
> expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
>
> Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
> > Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
> > days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
> > serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
> > positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
> > a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
> > roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
> > quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
> >
> > Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
> > can't.
>
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
As a teacher, I say give students a bit more credit. They can respond to
his crap for a good grade to make him happy without buying into any of it.
Sure, he may have a few disciples, but if they cling to his mania, it's
their choice and they're no more off base than they were when they entered
school. Crass on my part, I suppose, but whom of us didn't buy into
something in school that we didn't later learn was a bunch of crap?
George Conklin
In article <roadside-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
Randy Garbin <road...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
>>And this surprises anybody, after all these months? Either he'll try to
>>divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
>>expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
>>
>>Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
>>> Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
>>> days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
>>> serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
>>> positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
>>> a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
>>> roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
>>> quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
>>>
>>> Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
>>> can't.
>
>because people continue the futility of debating with him, I keep seeing
>his idiotic quotes in the responses.
>
>JUST IGNORE THE DOPE.
You can't ignore the facts, below:
In order to save energy and reduce pollution, cities ought
to plan for increased use of cars.
In 1975 Congress set corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE) standards to make new cars sold in the US more
energy efficient. While transit failed to get more
passengers on board, the CAFE standards worked to reduce
gallons of fuel per passenger mile of automobile travel. Now
cars are mor energy efficient than transit. In 1980 the US
Department of Energy found that automobiles used an average
of 4,782 BTU of energy per passenger mile---1.7 times more
than buses and 1.6 times more than rail. But by 1993 the
average auto consumed only 3,593 BTU per passenger mile.
Compare this to buses, which used 4,374 BTU per passenger
mile, and rail, at 3,687 BTU per passenger mile.
Source: ACCESS, Spring 1996, p. 41. ACCESS is published by
the University of California Transportation Center.
George Conklin
In article <nbenzing-100...@cha-nc5-16.ix.netcom.com>,
Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>
>crap for a good grade to make him happy without buying into any of it.
It is interesting that not a single person cited here is
even in the bibliography of a standard refereed textbook. Why?
Because what is posted here has no academic standing and is
generally factually incorrect. Statements such as "America is
unhappy" could not get published in a journal. In fact, I insist
that students turn in 10 articles from refereed journals during
the term. One they found showed that crime IS associated with
increased in density, but only density inside houses. Thus, when
planners push housing density, as in small apartments, they
increase abuse and crime. Refereed journals is what you must
use.
As for Calvin's constant whines about energy, the facts are
below:
In order to save energy and reduce pollution, cities ought
to plan for increased use of cars.
In 1975 Congress set corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE) standards to make new cars sold in the US more
energy efficient. While transit failed to get more
passengers on board, the CAFE standards worked to reduce
gallons of fuel per passenger mile of automobile travel. Now
cars are mor energy efficient than transit. In 1980 the US
Department of Energy found that automobiles used an average
of 4,782 BTU of energy per passenger mile---1.7 times more
than buses and 1.6 times more than rail. But by 1993 the
average auto consumed only 3,593 BTU per passenger mile.
Compare this to buses, which used 4,374 BTU per passenger
mile, and rail, at 3,687 BTU per passenger mile.
Source: ACCESS, Spring 1996, p. 41. ACCESS is published by
the University of California Transportation Center.
Nelson's incorrect statements about NC and about cost of energy
could be cut to pieces by any student who spent 10 minutes in the
library.
fly...@ism.net
I have cited secveral examples, and given their source, of cities that
are on the rebound. Business is relocating into cities. people are
moving into cities. Cities are becoming livable, and affordable.
Twenty years of political neglect, and forty years of private and public
money flowing to the suburbs to subsidise suburban living is being
reversed. Those are the facts...
jame...@golden.net
Okay, George, you want a referenced academically cited textbook? I'll
give you one:
SOURCE: "The Shape of the City", by John Sewell
Published by the University of Toronto Press, copyright 1993
Page 224, starting at the top:
"The culture of modern planning (i.e. low density suburban -jb), like all
other cultures, will ultimately fade and be replaced. Exactly when and
how that happens, or how long it continues to be dominant, remains to be
seen: predicting reasons for the decline of a cultural fashion is rarely
successful since decline often occurs because of quite unanticipated
events and influences
"In the Toronto suburbs of the early 1990s, modern planning is undergoing
substantial strains and is subject to growing criticism. Arguments are
made that the results of modern planning (again, low density suburban
-jb) are not publically cost-effective, the social products are
undesirable, the environment is damaged and the housing created is too
expensive for the market..."
--page 137 offers evidence that the public, very early on, weren't 100%
gung-ho about the new low-density suburban developments, further throwing
cold water on George's suggestion that we all, deep down, want suburban
living. Indeed, this passage suggests that planners were trying to force
people *into* the suburbs, and modernist planning style developments and
not the other way around:
"Early experiments in new-style residential and commercial development
met with success. Planners for developres, public agencies, and
governments became bolder in their proposals, and few qualms were
expressed about pushing aside the old to make way for hte new. So many
and various were the dreams for refashioning the city during the 1960s
that planners often assumed they had a free hand.
"The public, however, interrupted the reverie in short order with
strugges around commercial proposals -- the Old City Hall, Commerce Court
and Metro Centre -- and several neighbourhood urban renewal and
redevelopment schemes. By the time the decade ended in Toronto, new-style
planning ideas had undergone a sharp critique, one they might not
survive. Public sentiment coalesced to challenge teh idea that developers
and planners could refashion the city to their liking."
--or how about this interesting tidbit on page 174:
"Modern planning spawned its own opposition. The burgeoning new suburbs
led not to a decrease in housing prices but to an increase, and many
young professionals decided to reject the suburban alternative and live
instead in old houses downtown smack in the way of the expressways
planned to serve the new communities on the fringes of the city. Together
with those who had been involved in saving Old City Hall, and those
trying to protect neighbourhoods from urban renewal and private
redevelopment, the expressway fighters created a potent political force
that elected a reform city council in Toronto in 1972."
I also recommend "The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design" by
Anne Whiston Spirn that examines all aspects of centre city and suburban
living and their effect on the local ecosystems. Suburban and centre
cities actually fare equally badly (although centre cities are more
intensive, they impact upon a fraction of the area that suburban sprawl
does) in their impact upon the environment. I'd also suggest Gerald
Hodge's "Planning Canadian Communities" so that you can learn the truth
about the development of planning as a profession, and see for yourself
that the suburban neighbourhood you're living in is more planned than my
centre city home.
Is that good enough for you? If not, next time, I suggest you take your
snobbish attitude elsewhere. Just because none of us happen to have been
published doesn't mean that we can't make positive contributions to this
debate. Certainly we've offered more evidence and produced more true
facts this month than you have all year.
Incidentally, *I* have been published, although I'm not nearly so
snobbish as to say that this experience makes me any better or any worse
than anybody posting to this newsgroup. My thesis: "Five Regions, One
City: Regional Government in the Greater Toronto Area -- Its History,
Challenges and Prospects For Change" was cited in the bibliography of the
"Greater Toronto" report of the GTA Task Force, printed in January 1996.
Here's what I had to say about the need for cooperation between Toronto's
centre city and suburb, at the end of my report:
"In the report 'GTA as a City-Region', submitted to the GTA Mayors'
Review in the middle of 1994, it states that Toronto already has many of
the elements necessary to be classified as an international city. These
included, 'international transportation capability (i.e. Pearson
International Airport, highways and international train service -jb), an
active trade partner; open for foreign capital; competitive firms in the
international arena; convention and exhibition facilities, ample hotel
space; research parks; tourist and student exchange with the wider
world''
"It is important to note that neither Metropolitan Toronto nor any other
municipality within the Greater Toronto Area (with the possible exception
of Mississauga), has all of these elements within their borders.
Therefore, the people who are classifying the Toronto region as an
international city are assuming that these elements are shared by the
municipalities within the GTA. The municipalities of the GTA are socially
and economically interdependent. The political, taxation and planning
structures should be altered to reflect this reality.
"Furthermore, the report listed three potential problems which, if left
unchecked, could present barriers to the GTA's global competitiveness.
These include, 'socioeconomic gulf between poor cities and affluent
suburbs; physical sprawl -- the alarming environmental and social
consequences of inability or unwillingness to contain urban growth within
reasonably compact geographic areas; hesitation/paralysis, in creating
effective systems of coordinated governance of city-regions.' These
problems are also endemic to other North American cities; and the GTA,
the report quotes, 'has in many cases already taken action to prevent the
wide scale experience of the above mentioned barriers that American
city-regions must surmount.'"
My thesis is available through the University of Waterloo. Comments?
Best,
James
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
James Bow
> >In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> >ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> >
> >>divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
> >>expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
> >>
> >>Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
> >>> Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
> >>> days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
> >>> serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
> >>> positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
> >>> a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
> >>> roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
> >>> quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
> >>>
> >>> Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
> >>> can't.
> >
> >I wish you guys would just give it up. He's already in my killfile but
> >because people continue the futility of debating with him, I keep seeing
> >his idiotic quotes in the responses.
> >
> >JUST IGNORE THE DOPE.
>
> You can't ignore the facts, below:
>
And yet you conveniently ignore these facts:
SOURCE: "The Shape of the City", by John Sewell
Published by the University of Toronto Press, copyright 1993
page 174:
"Modern planning (i.e. low density suburban sprawl) spawned its own
opposition. The burgeoning new suburbs led not to a decrease in housing
prices but to an increase, and many young professionals decided to
reject the suburban alternative and live instead in old houses downtown
smack in the way of the expressways planned to serve the new communities
on the fringes of the city. Together with those who had been involved in
saving Old City Hall, and those trying to protect neighbourhoods from
urban renewal and private redevelopment, the expressway fighters created
a potent political force that elected a reform city council in Toronto
in 1972."
How long shall we play duelling quotes, George?
--
James Bow - MIS Department || // // ,' /~~~\' Mortice Kern Systems
e-mail jb...@mks.com /||/// //\\ `\\\ Waterloo, Ontario
or the...@golden.net________/ | //_// \\|\___/ Canada
or visit my web-site at http://www.u36.com/james/file.htm
Jim Atchison
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <roadside-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
> Randy Garbin <road...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
> >In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> >ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> >
<<snip...typical you said they said stuff>>
>
> You can't ignore the facts, below:
>
> In order to save energy and reduce pollution, cities ought
> to plan for increased use of cars.
George...the previous statement is not a fact, it is a conclusion that
you have made based upon the following material. It is not a truly
logical conclusion perhaps, but you do have opinions.
> In 1975 Congress set corporate average fuel economy
> (CAFE) standards to make new cars sold in the US more
> energy efficient. While transit failed to get more
<<snip...more stuff>>
> Source: ACCESS, Spring 1996, p. 41. ACCESS is published by
> the University of California Transportation Center.
Jim
George Conklin
In article <nbenzing-120...@cha-nc4-15.ix.netcom.com>,>In article <5l7vrn$2...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
>Conklin) wrote:
>
>> In article <33775D...@atchison.com>,
>> Jim Atchison <j...@atchison.com> wrote:
>> >George Conklin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <roadside-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
>> >> Randy Garbin <road...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>> >> >In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> >> >ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> >> >
> <<snip...typical you said they said stuff>>
>
>> >> You can't ignore the facts, below:
>> >>
>> >> In order to save energy and reduce pollution, cities ought
>> >> to plan for increased use of cars.
>> >George...the previous statement is not a fact, it is a conclusion that
>> >you have made based upon the following material. It is not a truly
>> >logical conclusion perhaps, but you do have opinions.
>>
>>
>>Now
>> cars are mor energy efficient than transit. In 1980 the US
>> Department of Energy found that automobiles used an average
>> of 4,782 BTU of energy per passenger mile---1.7 times more
>> than buses and 1.6 times more than rail. But by 1993 the
>> average auto consumed only 3,593 BTU per passenger mile.
>> Compare this to buses, which used 4,374 BTU per passenger
>> mile, and rail, at 3,687 BTU per passenger mile.
>>
>> the University of California Transportation Center.
>
>when we talk only of energy consumption levels of different vehicles.
No we have not. The constant claim that trains save
energy is untrue.
>If we're talking about the comparative energy consumption of
>transportation SYSTEMS, then we have to look at how much energy is
>consumed in building and maintaining the beds of those
>various systems.
What about all the energy wasted by persons using mass
transit having to go out of their way to get where they want
to go? They have to go to a central transfer point, and
then transfer to another train, and so forth. Thus as a
system public transit is very wasteful since it forces you
to travel way out of your way.
George Conklin
In article <337718...@mks.com>, James Bow <jb...@mks.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <roadside-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
>> Randy Garbin <road...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>> >In article <5l1hhj$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> >ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA.nospam (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
>> >
>> >>divert the subject by repeating his mantras about evil planners and
>> >>expensive density, or else he'll ignore the questions entirely.
>> >>
>> >>Geenius at Wrok (gee...@magik.albany.net) writes:
>> >>> Well, as y'all can see from my fairly repetitive postings of "Two full
>> >>> days, and no response from Conklin," our pal in the ivory tower has a
>> >>> serious problem answering direct challenges to the inconsistencies in his
>> >>> positions ... not that that's likely to surprise anybody. Trying to shine
>> >>> a spotlight on the holes in his arguments just sends him running like a
>> >>> roach for the obscure safety of his anti-planner mantras, his archive of
>> >>> quotable out-of-context material and his anemic insults.
>> >>>
>> >>> Killfiling is too good for this guy. We can ignore him; his students
>> >>> can't.
>> >
>> >I wish you guys would just give it up. He's already in my killfile but
>> >because people continue the futility of debating with him, I keep seeing
>> >his idiotic quotes in the responses.
>> >
>> >JUST IGNORE THE DOPE.
>>
>>
>
>
>SOURCE: "The Shape of the City", by John Sewell
> Published by the University of Toronto Press, copyright 1993
>
>page 174:
>
>"Modern planning (i.e. low density suburban sprawl) spawned its own
>opposition. The burgeoning new suburbs led not to a decrease in housing
>prices but to an increase,
But not on a squre footage basis.
I post facts, like btus per mile traveled. You post
opinions. In fact, people moved to suburbs to escape high
urban prices for very little house. If you buy a big house
and pay more.
The world 'many' has no meaning. 3 or 4 people is many to
an urban planner, provided they live in a loft somewhere.
George Conklin
In article <5l6r5k$9...@nina.pagesz.net>,
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote:
I am glad you admit that urban planning is simply nothing
more than a cultural fashion, and I might add, an unpopular
one too.
What I cited was BTUs per mile. You cite some sort of
artsy-fartsy whine, calling technological change 'cultural
fashion.' And that is where you are wrong. Technology has
freed us from the environmental determinism of fixed rail
transit, which you call 'good.'
Technology is not artsy-fartsy.
George Conklin
In article <8635244...@dejanews.com>, <jame...@golden.net> wrote:
>In article <5l6r9v$9...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>>
>> >SOURCE: "The Shape of the City", by John Sewell
>> > Published by the University of Toronto Press, copyright 1993
>> >
>> >Page 224, starting at the top:
>> >
>> >"The culture of modern planning (i.e. low density suburban -jb), like all
>> >other cultures, will ultimately fade and be replaced. Exactly when and
>> >how that happens, or how long it continues to be dominant, remains to be
>> >seen: predicting reasons for the decline of a cultural fashion
>> &^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> I am glad you admit that urban planning is simply nothing
>> more than a cultural fashion, and I might add, an unpopular
>> one too.
>>
>> What I cited was BTUs per mile. You cite some sort of
>> artsy-fartsy whine, calling technological change 'cultural
>> fashion.' And that is where you are wrong. Technology has
>> freed us from the environmental determinism of fixed rail
>> transit, which you call 'good.'
>> Technology is not artsy-fartsy.
>
>phrase, "cultural fashion", refers to urban planning in his first
>paragraph, and technological change in his second. He can't have it both
>ways, can he? Either that quote refers to urban planning, or it refers to
>technological change. So, which is it?
You simply don't consider the role of technology on
human behavior. Technology has freed us from having to
crowd together to enjoy the 'benefits' of non-farm living.
That old urban-rural distinction is totally obsolete, as is
the term 'urban planner.' You are planning for 1920, not
2020.
Virtually the entire metropolitan area increase of 15.7
million between 1970 and 1990 occurred in suburbs (in the
USA). Central-city population increase was less than
100,000 for all the nation's central cities put together.
Population growth in metropolitan areas is now all but
synonymous with suburban growth. For the last 50 years
virtually **all** population growth in metropolitan areas
has occurred in suburban rings.
Survey data show decisively that most Americans prefer
the type of newer single-family house on its own lot that is
most commonly found in the suburbs. This means that people
are getting pretty much what they want in housing design.
J. John Palen, "The Urban World" 1997, pp. 199; 207.
These are the facts. Accept them. Work with them.
Jason Makofsky
Nelson S. Benzing wrote:
> I think we've gotten a bit off track in discussing transportation systems
> when we talk only of energy consumption levels of different vehicles.
>
> If we're talking about the comparative energy consumption of
> transportation SYSTEMS, then we have to look at how much energy is
> consumed in building and maintaining the beds of those various systems. A
> LRT system can carry as many people per hour as 6 auto traffic lanes,
> which by current State DOT standards are designed for a life of 5-10 years
> because they know they'll have to be changed. Spatially, that's 24' for
> the train (two-way) vs. 144' for the same number of cars (two-way),
> replaced every 5-10 years with energy consuming machinery to tear up and
> put down asphalt, a petroleum-based material.
>
> If someone can come with $$$ for each of the above, I think we'd have a
> more meaningful discussion going on here.
>
> Nelson
I can give you what I have from the Massachusetts Highway Department:
(These are only generalized estimates, so take them as such.)
New Highway (no right-of-way, bridge, or interchange costs)
$ 400,000 to $1,100,000 per lane-mile.
Add-a-Lane (Low end for no ROW, Bridge, or Interchanges)
$ 600,000 to $ 1,500,000 per lane-mile
Highway Resurfacing (Includes "average necessary" associated work)
Interstate: $ 250,000 per lane-mile
Non-Interstate: $ 125,000 per lane-mile
A resurfacing should last approximately 10 years.
--
========================================
Jason Makofsky - Transportation Planner & Civil Engineer
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston, MA, USA
Reply to: jmakofsky "at" mapc "dot" org
***The above is only my opinion, probably not anyone else's***
Jason Makofsky
George Conklin stammered:
> You simply don't consider the role of technology on
> human behavior. Technology has freed us from having to
> crowd together to enjoy the 'benefits' of non-farm living.
> That old urban-rural distinction is totally obsolete, as is
> the term 'urban planner.' You are planning for 1920, not
> 2020.
>
> Virtually the entire metropolitan area increase of 15.7
> million between 1970 and 1990 occurred in suburbs (in the
> USA). Central-city population increase was less than
> 100,000 for all the nation's central cities put together.
> Population growth in metropolitan areas is now all but
> synonymous with suburban growth. For the last 50 years
> virtually **all** population growth in metropolitan areas
> has occurred in suburban rings.
> Survey data show decisively that most Americans prefer
> the type of newer single-family house on its own lot that is
> most commonly found in the suburbs. This means that people
> are getting pretty much what they want in housing design.
>
> J. John Palen, "The Urban World" 1997, pp. 199; 207.
>
> These are the facts. Accept them. Work with them.
Ummmm...same data different conclusion, George.
The facts, as you constantly remind us, say that the average
population of the central-cities in the US actually
*INCREASED* from 1970 to 1990 by 100,000. That's well
and good. So where how do you jump to the conclusion that
no one wants to live there, when, statistically, the population
of those central-cities has remained constant?
*THESE* are the facts: The population of the central cities
is NOT decreasing. Accept THAT!
BTW, why the heck are all those people moving to your
"Metropolitan Area" suburbs (15.6 million of them)? Aren't
these areas inextricably connected to their parent city?
You can't have a SUB-urb without an -URB.
Apparently there's SOME benefit to locating at least
near, if not in a city, otherwise the 15.6 million would
have move to the *rural* areas, with even less density,
further from the city! Sounds like those are the parasites
who want the economic and social benefits of living near
the city, but are not willing to give up their half-acre
gardens, 3 cars per household, or their hour SOV commutes.
George Conklin
In article <337B5A...@stopit.now>,
That represents demographic death.