Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Urban Sprawl Makes Americans Fat, Study Finds
- Your idea would be fine, but the trolley systems evolved in an environment less skewed by subsidy. In fact, I believe there was little for the trolley systems at the time, though they were permitted to lay tracks on public streets. Most NYC subways were also originally private entities, though they run better an dcheaper now as public works.
But today, it will be much easier to build a subway as a public-works project than to de-subsidize auto use. Even the hard right wing privateers and the libertarians wouldn't support fair-pricing car use. But you can get subway and light rail built: after all, in spite of a hard ecomnomy, it has already been happening.
And once the alternative is in place, then you can justify depaving to a limited extent. And once a few projects--ten blocks though they may be (I foresee the Santa Monica line being much longer, but my project for West Holllywood would encompass about ten blocks, as you noted), you have samples to help you pitch it to less-obvious areas where the American lack of imagination and endemic meanness toward the public realm would engender more resistance.
From: turpin <turpin@...>
Sent: 09/02/03 09:21 AM
Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Urban Sprawl Makes Americans Fat, Study Finds
> Richard Risemberg <rickrise@e...> wrote:
> Reasonable points below, but you
> overinterpreted me. ..
> Second, you cannot make drivingI still think it is the other way
> expensive and inconvenient without
> first providing the alternative..
around. Until driving carries its
own costs, we won't get other
alternatives to a significant degree,
we won't know the right mix of other
alternatives, and we won't be able to
figure out the way from "here" to
Partly, I think this is an issue of
planning vs. spontaneous development.
Like Jacobs, I fall more on the side
that the best cities are largely
spontaneous. Imagine a city where
food had long been provided free
from municipal cafeterias
- Richard Risemberg <rickrise@e...> wrote:
> Your idea would be fine, but the trolleyExactly!
> systems evolved in an environment less
> skewed by subsidy.
> But today, it will be much easier to buildYep. That's been going on for decades. But
> a subway as a public-works project than to
> de-subsidize auto use. .. And once the
> alternative is in place, then you can
> justify depaving to a limited extent.
in how many cities has this changed
development patterns? Where has sprawl
declined? In what states is driving now less
More of the same policies will bring more of
the same results. As long as you're fighting
over the same public transportation dollar,
roads will mostly win. Yes, some other
projects will be built. But you won't see
less sprawl, because politicians are compelled
to build roads to suit demand, and developers,
knowing this, will always build further out,
> Even the hard right wing privateers and theAu contraire. Privatized roads and elimination
> libertarians wouldn't support fair-pricing
> car use. ..
of tax support for public transportation have
long been part of libertarian politics. Now
whether they really mean what they say .. who
knows? But massive transportation subsidy is
NOT consistent with libertarian philosophy,
however much you slice it and distort it.
I'm always boggled that this is the one subsidy
no one wants to discuss as a subsidy. The right
doesn't want to discuss it, because they favor
it, and they don't like to be seen in favor of
subsidies. The left doesn't want to discuss it,
because they're against it, and they're in favor
of transportation subsidies. The right is happy
as long as more roads are built. The left is
happy as long as some other transportation
projects are thrown their way. And nothing much
changes. Isn't it time to call a spade a spade?
> Partly, I think this is an issue ofIt reminds me of going to New orleans this weekend and hearing a man
> planning vs. spontaneous development.
> Like Jacobs, I fall more on the side
> that the best cities are largely
> spontaneous. Imagine a city where
> food had long been provided free
> from municipal cafeterias, and because
> of this, there were few other choices
> available. The wrong answer is:
> let's first plan where to put new
> restaurants and groceries, and what
> kind of food they should serve.
come into a gas station and tell the clerk "Im gonna kill your
muthaf***** a@@", They going down MLK to St.Charles less than a mile
away to an estate sale near Tulane University where there were stools
selling for close to $1000.
I couldnt imagine anyone coming up with the city plan for New Orleans
from scratch. Noone would ever encourage music (jazz)which was
associated with drug use and thuggery, poor people living in the
proximity of well-to-do people, noone would ever promote Mardi Gras's
nudity and public intoxication, but its what gave New Orleans it
Also much of the food in South Louisiana never existed until people
created it. If you head down Highway 61 between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans you will still find people fishing on the bayou so they can
cook their own food from scratch eventhough there are Mcdonalds and
When do people draw the line of when they can no longer tolerate
developments in society?
I ask this because of gentrification and the attempt to plan entire
cities (master plans) based on what one group likes while eliminating
everything we dont like (.ie this 3 parts arts, 2 parts mass transit,
4 parts organic food, 1 part parks and recreation formula). My point
is that even "negative" things can bring about positive change.
Maybe people are giving things too much thought.