JK: Portland IS becoming more like LA - increasing density, reducing per-capita freeway lane-miles, etc. Did you find any errors in their data or logic?
peter: not sure about all of their data, but some of their logic is pretty bad, and some of their numbers are misleading:
"The Metro 2040 plan calls for increasing the Portland area's population density by 75 percent in the next fifty years. Question: What U.S. urban area has the highest population density? Answer: Los Angeles."
i believe this statistic comes from Bruegmann (author of "Sprawl: a Compact History"), and is misleading because "urbanized area", his chosen metric, is defined as “core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500". so the contiguous census tracts in new york with at least 500 people span a much greater distance, so there are many more of them, and they do not track urbanized areas in neighboring metropolitan regions (say, philadelphia, boston, etc). of course, statistically this reduces overall density, even though new york has much greater densities in it's core--we're talking upwards of 175,000 people per sq mile, whereas los angeles has no areas that even reach 100,000 per sq mile, and unlike new york, los angeles' density is not concentrated around public transit. new york is also not even in the top 10 cities with the worst traffic (it's #18, according to the Texas Traffic Institute).
"The Metro 2040 plan calls for building an expensive light-rail network. Question: What urban area is building the most expensive light-rail system in the U.S.? Answer: Los Angeles."
this is just silly. this is a case where los angeles trying to be more like portland! a big difference here is that portland is attempting to build around light rail, whereas l.a. is already built out around freeways.
JK: I don’t suppose that you noticed that many people have a car parked within a few feet of their front door? ... Today’s planners are trying to restage a 90 year old battle that transit lost, hoping for a different result this time.
peter: what does this have to do with deceptively using the language of the "free market" to push an auto-centric agenda?
anyway, you're right, in the battle between planners the auto-centric, side won; no one denies that, that's why we have spent so much tax-payer money rebuilding our country around the automobile. but it wasn't just the auto advocates, it was a (mostly) democratic consensus. then behind the leadership of robert moses, the consensus was eventually fractured. now we are coming to a new consensus around multi-modal transportation networks. i'm sure you will be kicking and screaming the whole way.
JK: Actually, I am quite capable of figuring out my own arguments. For instance the above observation that planners are trying to repeat a battle that they lost 90 years ago. (I just told O’Toole and Cox about it, so hopefully you be hearing it many more times.)
peter: good for you. why don't you elaborate on that argument?
JKAs to numbers - you really should check them from the original source. Even if (unlike the Sierra club) there is no intent to deceive, it is easy to get the wrong implications about facts unless you go to the source and read the disclaimers etc.
peter: how many times do i have to tell you i don't read, or care about, the sierra club? i try to find non-ideological sources wherever possible. though i read ideological cranks like o'toole, and kunstler just for fun. well, kunstler's more of a kook who appears to be looking forward to "peak oil", and o'toole is more of an industry funded propagandist, who to throws as many misleading reports out there as possible and hope that something sticks. for example, his half-truths and ommissions about Denver's light-rail "Decline" were exposed by the rocky mountain news.
JK: Portland IS becoming
JK: Portland IS becoming more like LA - increasing density, reducing per-capita freeway lane-miles, etc. Did you find any errors in their data or logic?
peter: not sure about all of their data, but some of their logic is pretty bad, and some of their numbers are misleading:
"The Metro 2040 plan calls for increasing the Portland area's population density by 75 percent in the next fifty years. Question: What U.S. urban area has the highest population density? Answer: Los Angeles."
i believe this statistic comes from Bruegmann (author of "Sprawl: a Compact History"), and is misleading because "urbanized area", his chosen metric, is defined as “core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500". so the contiguous census tracts in new york with at least 500 people span a much greater distance, so there are many more of them, and they do not track urbanized areas in neighboring metropolitan regions (say, philadelphia, boston, etc). of course, statistically this reduces overall density, even though new york has much greater densities in it's core--we're talking upwards of 175,000 people per sq mile, whereas los angeles has no areas that even reach 100,000 per sq mile, and unlike new york, los angeles' density is not concentrated around public transit. new york is also not even in the top 10 cities with the worst traffic (it's #18, according to the Texas Traffic Institute).
"The Metro 2040 plan calls for building an expensive light-rail network. Question: What urban area is building the most expensive light-rail system in the U.S.? Answer: Los Angeles."
this is just silly. this is a case where los angeles trying to be more like portland! a big difference here is that portland is attempting to build around light rail, whereas l.a. is already built out around freeways.
JK: I don’t suppose that you noticed that many people have a car parked within a few feet of their front door? ... Today’s planners are trying to restage a 90 year old battle that transit lost, hoping for a different result this time.
peter: what does this have to do with deceptively using the language of the "free market" to push an auto-centric agenda?
anyway, you're right, in the battle between planners the auto-centric, side won; no one denies that, that's why we have spent so much tax-payer money rebuilding our country around the automobile. but it wasn't just the auto advocates, it was a (mostly) democratic consensus. then behind the leadership of robert moses, the consensus was eventually fractured. now we are coming to a new consensus around multi-modal transportation networks. i'm sure you will be kicking and screaming the whole way.
JK: Actually, I am quite capable of figuring out my own arguments. For instance the above observation that planners are trying to repeat a battle that they lost 90 years ago. (I just told O’Toole and Cox about it, so hopefully you be hearing it many more times.)
peter: good for you. why don't you elaborate on that argument?
JKAs to numbers - you really should check them from the original source. Even if (unlike the Sierra club) there is no intent to deceive, it is easy to get the wrong implications about facts unless you go to the source and read the disclaimers etc.
peter: how many times do i have to tell you i don't read, or care about, the sierra club? i try to find non-ideological sources wherever possible. though i read ideological cranks like o'toole, and kunstler just for fun. well, kunstler's more of a kook who appears to be looking forward to "peak oil", and o'toole is more of an industry funded propagandist, who to throws as many misleading reports out there as possible and hope that something sticks. for example, his half-truths and ommissions about Denver's light-rail "Decline" were exposed by the rocky mountain news.