Any time that Republican City Councilor Rob Schilling finds himself in the majority on a split vote, things ain’t right at City Hall. City Council is looking to sell 9.2 acres of McIntire Park to VDOT, in order to create the Meadowcreek Parkway, but long-time Parkway-foes Mayor Maurice Cox and Councilor Kevin Lynch refuse to support the sale. In a recent press release, the two argue that four conditions were established by Council in 2000 under which they would agree to sell the land, and that none of them have been met. The Council majority, in a dueling press release, argues that those conditions “is either in place or continues to be negotiated,” and that the Parkway is “essential to the long-term economic viability of Charlottesville.” The reason that this split is important is that, under the Virginia Constitution, three-fourths of Council must agree to sell the land, or four members in total. In an effort to circumvent this, the majority on Council is seeking to essentially give away the land, rather than sell it, thus ducking the supermajority requirement. The subtext to all of this is that Vice Mayor Meredith Richards is up for reelection in May, as is Cox and Lynch. However, the most active Charlottesville Democrats, the ones that show up at the nomination convention, tend to be strongly anti-Parkway, and it appears that Richards’ position is endangering her ability to gain the nomination to run again. Liz Nelson has the story in the Daily Progress.
52 Responses to “Meadowcreek Debate Gets Weird”
You can always run as an independent (and win, most likely) if the Dems toss you for non-compliance with doctrine.
Actually, she probably couldn’t. (Or, rather, shouldn’t.) Anybody voting in the Democratic nomination convention has to agree that they will not support anybody other than the Democratic candidates. That’s not law, but it’s not the sort of thing that any person of good character (I’d argue) would violate.
Of course, she could always just not vote. That would be quite an act of confidence. Or maybe hubris. :)
If Cox and Lynch are saying “We oppose this transfer because we oppose the parkway under any set of circumstances,” they should say so and drop all the hooey and hot air about the four necessary conditions, which are just excuses for their real agenda: no growth, no roads, anywhere, any time.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. I ran on the basis of opposition to the Parkway (but I played it down as much as possible, not because I didn’t think that my position would be a problem [on the contrary, in fact, it would only have helped me get the nomination], but because I thought [and think] that there are far more important things to be discussing than the Parkway), and I’ve had a number of discussions with Maurice and Kevin about it. In fact, I was on the board of STAMP with them when it first started in the late 90s. My position on the Parkway, and any new road construction, is the same as theirs: new roads must not be used as bandages, but they must be a part of a comprehensive transportation plan that fits into the neighborhood model, supports forms of transportation other than driving, and is designed with the next ~50 years in mind. In one candidates forum, when I was asked if I supported the Parkway in front of an audience of maybe 50 people, I said that I was strongly opposed to it, but that I would vote for the construction of it under the above-described circumstances.
I know that Maurice and Kevin are being honest in their stance on the Parkway, and I think that their list of requirements are wholly reasonable. I don’t doubt for a minute that they’d stand by their word if those conditions were met.
Although your logic and those cited are circular, I do think they’re valid [peculiar, no?]. One of the reasons Paris is still entirely a drivable experience in 2003, and New York city not, is that the cost is knowingly prohibitive as opposed to other forms of transportation.
That said, it’s amazing how brainwashed Americans are. I mean, you said: “Driving is effectively without cost. That is to say, it is so inexpensive to operate a vehicle that we don’t think “should I drive to the store, or would it be cheaper to walk?” Anyone with one iota of financial acumen knows better, however, the general population believes EXACTLY what you said.
Correlation does not imply causation. Just because new roads were built and traffic increased does not mean that the new road was the cause. You need a control group that did not add new roads to compare it to.
If no new roads were built traffic would still increase. This is obvious if you look at examples like boston, they didn’t add any new roads for decades, and they ended up with 10 hour traffic jams every day. By your logic, those traffic jams would never happen in the first place, because the increasing traffic jams would deter people from driving. The fact is they are compelled to drive anyway because they have to get to work. Even if it means waiting in bumper to bumper traffic for 4 hours each way. People there actually wake up at 3am to drive to work. It’s totally insane.
After reading myself, I think I need to elaborate. Here�s the premise: If Americans knew how much their love affair with cars actually costs them, they would go nuts. Now I�m going to take out the subjective reasons like the billions in war costs in Iraq, the billions upon billions constructing and maintaining roadway infrastructure (GM, Ford and Chrysler made a bunch of money to balance this all out, and Americans, until recently, benefited). No, I�m going to do a straightforward calculation.
The government pegs the average cost per mile at 36 cents (includes cost of vehicle, insurance, gasoline, maintenance, repairs, credit) which does not even include parking (in large metro areas, that can be more than the car). The insurance industry has an average mileage of a little over 12,000 per year (35 miles per day). That represents $4,600 per year (sans parking). Now, allow for an alternate means of transportation (metro, bus, bike, motorcycle): costs at around $3 per day, or $83 per month. Put inflation at 3% and investment opportunity at a very conservative 8% (I�m still making over 25% per year investment income and we�re not during boom times). Okay, so this hypothetic young professional is 20 years old and forgoes the Jeep Cherokee. Can somebody guess how much money he would have at retirement age (65) had he saved on cars alone?
Using simple yearly compounded interest, THAT’S OVER 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS. $2,400,000!!! Even with adjusted constant dollars, that’s a boatload! Now, tell me that driving �is effectively without cost� or �so inexpensive to operate a vehicle that we don’t think�. Yeah, that�s right, we let the marketers THINK for us�
Correlation does not imply causation. Just because new roads were built and traffic increased does not mean that the new road was the cause. You need a control group that did not add new roads to compare it to.
Don’t let my inability to properly portray the data limit the effectiveness of the larger argument. This isn’t just some crazy idea that I concocted. :)
You forgot to calculate the increased housing costs associated with living in a city center where public transportation is available.
no, you can communte with a motorcycle! no? I did for 8 years at one time. plus, I was doing a straightforward calc to minimize subjectivity. I mean, what happens when an uninsured motorist slams you car? or you get regular speeding tickets? or your vehicle craps out right after the warranty? or the airbag handicaps you?
living in the city isn’t necessarily more expensive. in the country, there’s the lawn tractor, the fencing, the long driveway maintenance, the well maintenance, etc. it can be more costly to live in town, but not necessarily. that’s why you can’t evaluate that reliably.
the bottom line is the automobile, for most average Americans, costs WAY WAY more than they realize.
lol, i would LOVE to walk to the store, but in this area the store is a good 5-10 miles from my house. So it might be a problem.
I realize that. Sure, those studies might actually have control groups and you just didn’t include that information.
I’m not saying those studies are wrong. I’m just saying that no matter WHAT you do, there will always be more traffic. The total amount of traffic is not whats important, its the ratio of traffic to roads that matters.
Lets say that at the present time Cville has a traffic load of 10,000 cars per day. And the road system can handle 10,000 cars per day without any traffic jams.
If you add more roads, to achieve a capacity of 15,000 a day, we will probably drive more and traffic load might climb to 15,000 a day. But this is "non essential" driving. We could stop it tomorrow and it wouldn’t harm us.
Now lets say that at some point in the future, our traffic load grows to 20,000 cars per day because of growth. Thats 5000 more than the roads allow, which causes traffic jams. Once those traffic jams appear, the "induced traffic" dissapears, and those 5000 non essential cars are replaced with essential ones. In this example our roads were added when they were not needed, which caused induced traffic, but eventually they were needed, and the induced traffic evaporates.
Assume instead that today we have 10,000 cars per day and a capacity of just 5000. Traffic jams are everywhere and the citizens demand new roads. So we up our capacity to 10,000, and we don’t get any induced traffic because all of the new capacity is used up by essential driving.
I hope that makes sense.
This should all be moot anyway. I’ts 2003, where is my flying car? I WAS PROMISED FLYING CARS!
how’bout BMW’s C1 covered scooter that doesn’t even require a helmet! Check this out: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcbmw/c1.html
to hell with flying cars. I want teleportation!!!
You are right, driving does cost more than they think.
Maybe cville is a bad example for cost of living. Since we have this urban ring thing going on, it’s probably cheaper to live downtown than to live in a housing development at the edge of town.
But someplace like NYC, the price difference between living in Manhattan and living in say, NJ or PA is huge. Thats why they had to extend public transportation outside of the city center. Just look at what happened when the blackout took the train service offline. Remember the crowds of people walking home? There is no way that many people could drive in and out of the city every day. It just wouldn’t work.
I’m just saying that no matter WHAT you do, there will always be more traffic.
I agree with everything that you said, save for this. Increased traffic can, as you said, have a source other than latent demand, and that’s increased population. Limiting population size starts to look pretty good when you do the math. Otherwise, all of these capacity problems (roads and otherwise) will be made to scale indefinitely, something that they’re simply not made to do.
Using simple yearly compounded interest, THAT’S OVER 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS. $2,400,000!!! Even with adjusted constant dollars, that’s a boatload! Now, tell me that driving �is effectively without cost� or �so inexpensive to operate a vehicle that we don’t think�.
You’re absolutely right. It’s insane. Just look at the monthly cost. Using your estimate of $4,600 per year, that’s $383/month. People complain that it’s expensive to live downtown, but they don’t include the cost of such things. A three-car family could easily become a two-car family if centrally located. In doing so, they would have an extra $383/month to apply to their more-expensive mortgage (or rent), which suddenly makes living downtown look pretty good.
None of this includes the larger cost of vehicle usage. For me, the two main factors are pollution (which I can’t possibly put a price on) and reliance on foreign oil. It is plain that our reliance on oil has forced us to maintain relations with nations in the Middle East that we would otherwise simply ignore, resulting in things like the War in Iraq and decades of entanglements in affairs that we ought not have to bother with. The cost of that, of course, is enormous. Trillions of dollars, without a doubt. Although one family using one less car doesn’t make much of a dent in that, you can see that your $2.4M/car math really, really adds up when you spread that throughout the suburban population over the past forty years that is operating more vehicles per household than they would need to if they lived in more sensibly-designed communities.
This seems like a good time to point out that, as of about two months ago, there are now more cars in use in the United States than there are licensed drivers: 204M vehicles and 191M drivers. Sheer insanity.
But someplace like NYC, the price difference between living in Manhattan and living in say, NJ or PA is huge.
As someone who lives in Manhattan and looked into living in NJ (amongst other areas around here), it should be pointed out that’s not really true. The cost of automobile ownership (necessary outside of NYC but outright inconvenient in) alone makes up for much, if not most of the cost of living difference between the two areas, and if you start assigning even small financial value to the 2+ hours you’d spend commuting in and out of the city each day it easily exceeds that of living in the city.
A three-car family could easily become a two-car family if centrally located
If cars suddenly became less of a status symbol, then a family could easily do with just 1 car that would look like a Nissan Quest 2004 with a hybrid + clean common rail direct injection diesel getting 40 mpg. That would be for shopping and family outings. Otherwise, everyone would use 100mpg BMW C1s or 75mpg diesel Smart cars. (let no one reply that 6 people in a 15mpg SUV guzzler is saving fuel over 6 separate Smart cars, PLEASE).
In doing so, they would have an extra $383/month to apply to their more-expensive mortgage
If applied towards a mortgage, then that money will probably end up as an investment of a lifetime :-)
For me, the two main factors are pollution (which I can’t possibly put a price on) and reliance on foreign oil.
How about ‘quality of life’? If our entire public infrastructure and the monies put into that were not sucked up by the automobile monster, we would have much more attractive spaces, less noise, less air pollution, less ugly tar-laid tentacular roadway mazes, less deaths, less road rage.
hummm ‘limiting population’ I guess birth control wouldn’t be a bad idea.
No seriously, you can’t limited population here. If people can’t live in CVille (which most hard working people can’t) they move to the county. If Albemarle is too expensive (which it is getting there), they move to Greene or Nelson. I mean I come across so many people who live in Waynesboro or Harrisonburg that work in Charlottesville. How do we control them NOT to work in Charlottesville?
And do you think that we’ll be able to stop the growth Waldo?
If not, then we’re gonna need new roads.
Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.
To quote Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, “Strike that – reverse it.” You’ve got the causality backwards.
Responding to traffic congestion by refusing to ad more capacity is like responding to obesity by refusing to loosen your belt.
Constriction in the waistline does not cause obesity. It is a symptom of obesity. Likewise, traffic jams do not cause traffic, or lack of traffic – they are a symptom.
Have you ever known anyone who has solved weight problem by hitching his belt tighter and flopping that ridiculous belly a little farther over the top? I sure haven’t. You need to diet and exercise, or otherwise cure the underlying cause of the obesity, sure – but for now you also need to buy some bigger pants.
That’s Urban Planning 101, Bruce.
Well, Urban Planning 101 is wrong. Academics frequently are.
It’s an unassailable fact that creating more roads tends strongly to increase traffic appropriately.
It is a conclusion, not a fact, and it is very much assailable in my eyes. The fact that several hundred authorities, who all derive their authority from agreeing with each other, all agree with it does not make it unassailable as far as I’m concerned. They are all wrong, because they’re basing their conclusion on bad science.
In the twenty-three American cities that added the most new roads per person during the nineteen-nineties, traffic congestion rose by more than seventy per cent.
I’ll skip quoting the rest of the statistics because they all add up to the same thing. All of this proves nothing. It all boils down to the same fallacy: mistaking correlation for causation. This is something that is so common in social sciences today I wonder what sort of mush they’ve been filling these people’s heads with in our supposedly elite schools for the last 30-40 years – you see it in many disciplines and on every politically touchy subject.
Want to take a bet as to the correlation between people who receive treatment for cancer and people who die of cancer, as opposed to the general population? If you just look at the numbers, you’ll find that people who receive treatment for cancer are many, many times more likely to die from cancer than people who are not treated for cancer. Of course this ignores the fact that most people who are not treated for cancer, are not treated for cancer because they don’t have cancer! And it ignores the possibility that absent the treatments, the death rates among cancer patients would be that much higher.
Likewise, the statistics you quote are meaningless. All they tell us is that the cities which already had the fastest-growing traffic congestion problems built the most roads. Of course – if they weren’t having those problems, they wouldn’t have bothered building the roads. You can’t possibly say how much worse the problems might have been without the roads – and you offer no data to explain why the cities that didn’t build the roads didn’t have increasing congestion.
All of this is explained by the concept of “latent demand.”
This assumes that all roads and all traffic are created equal, which is untrue. The Meadowcreek Parkway is not going to be carrying cars driving to the store for milk – the people driving on it live up on 29N and they can get milk up on 29N. The parkway is intended to allow commuters to avoid Rio Road driving to and from work once per day, and they are going to make that drive once per day each way regardless of how irritating it is.
Driving is effectively without cost.
So drive up the cost in a more rational way.
This is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. Anti-road policies are irrational, punitive, and petty. The idea is plainly to harass people off the roads by making the experience of driving unpleasant and inconvenient. There are much better ways to accomplish the same goal. The most obvious ways, of course, would be to charge for the use of roads or raise the state tax on gasoline. And if you want to limit sprawl, which is the other reason often given, do so through zoning and planning laws and such, that’s what they’re there for.
The basic point is this: you see a need to get people out of their cars and into other forms of transport, or walking. Fine, but do so through rational means: through persuasion, by giving them real alternatives (not just ones only meant for downtown residents), and by passing indirect costs on in a sound economic manner – not by petty harassment trying to make their lives unpleasant if they don’t comply with your demands. All you’ll accomplish that way is alienating the people you need to reach out to.
Back to your obesity example, this is about like trying to motivate employees to lose weight by forcing everyone to sit in 20″ wide office chairs (or come to think of it, like forcing smokers to stand outside exposed to the elements). Even if it has some effectiveness, which is doubtful, there are much better ways to go about it.
Fair enough then. You know them much better than I do.
…you’re conveniantly ignoring the fact that you CHOSE to live where you live. There are plenty of places to live in the Char/Alb area where you could walk to the store…..
okay let me have 500,000 grand to live near a store within limits.
BMW LOL, well during my ‘fruitful’ years, we would drive up to someone on a scooter and yell " where does the Double A’s go into" so that might be a problem.
It’s the chicken that laid the egg first. No, it’s the egg that became a chicken!
Which one is it? The theory of traffic latent demand is certainly valid. If you build it, they *will* come. That’s for sure. But by the same token, not building anything to hopefully have demand wither – or you’re just a sadist – is irresponsible.
You are right: the best way to deter recreational and frivolous automobile ‘consumption’ is via a direct consumption tax at the fuel pump. I guarantee you if the price for a gallon of gasoline was $4, like in Europe, people would adjust their driving and automobile purchasing habits drastically. Cruising for Bruising would diminish. SUVs would be relegated to the forest wardens. Obnoxious drag racing would languish. Bothersome cell-phone drivers would make more phone calls from home. Soccer leagues would rent more buses rather than all individually scurrying all over the planet. The state should use these revenues to enhance and subsidize public transportation. The train system could be reborn. We wouldn�t be at war spending another 100 billion $ a year. This line of thought can go on and on.
It�s not Henry Ford�s fault when he mass-produced the model T. It�s our own fault for REFUSING TO LEGISLATE RESPONSIBLY.
And do you think that we’ll be able to stop the growth Waldo?
I don’t know. I wish I did. But it’s just not something that I know enough about.
If my memory serves Sue Lewis ran anyway after not getting the nod. She ended up not being on the ballot because she could not get enough sigs for her petition.
As an aside, it has been since 1936 C-ville has elected an independent to the city council
It’s only a problem if you make it one. With that reasoning, true progress cannot be attained, because at one time you thought scooters were silly? Haven’t you learned anything since your "fruitful" years? Hey, when I was a biker, I used to think very little of the dude at the red light, in a Porsche Turbo, with the chick in short skirts next to him. After all, I could smoke his pretentious wheels any day of the week. And I often did.
Of course, now, I know that it was all about the chicks, not the contest. Motto: "Learnt anything new lately?"
Thats another result of building roads. In many areas of the country, you have to cross 8 lane highways to get anywhere, and there are no sidewalks on the bridges that cross them. It would be interesting to make a map of your area, with the areas you can walk to without having to walk in the street.
Simple, just murder a bunch of people.
My friends who live there take the train.
Unfortunatly I can not find a link to the story, but I saw a story on CNN about a poll that was done that asked SUV drivers if they would give up their SUVs if gas was $2, $3, $4, etc. The poll found that some huge percentage of SUV drivers would not give up their SUV even if gas was $4 a gallon.
Wow, you put that so much more clearly than I did. Bravo!
An interesting thing to think about is that ice cream sales correlate tightly with crime rates.
Does this mean that criminals like ice cream? Or that ice cream drives people to commit crimes? Perhaps we should stop selling ice cream in the hopes of reducing crime rates.
Oh no, there couldn’t possibly be an underlying cause of both phenomenon, it couldn’t be that hot weather irritates people. Or that hot weather makes people crave ice cream.
Well, the problem for you is that I still think scooters are silly.
no wonder oil is where the money is at. I want to be a oil man when I grow up.
why?
it surprises me to read you believe a CNN poll!? use your head! it may not affect too much the wife of an industrial magnate, but the vast majority of SUVs are driven by housewives that like the "high seating" or by the suburban male wishing he was as adventurous as his car says he is.
right now, a fill up twice a week at $25 is often accepted. but make that now $100 twice a week and observe the crowds dropping their land tankers like dead skin. if it could be verified, I would bet you $10K right now that SUV sales would drop at least 2/3rds in the next 5 years. on second thought, look elsewhere in the world and you have the proof already.
when the sacro-saint gasoline price is tampered with, even a little, say by gas station owners, Americans go ape-shit. We won’t put up with price fixing a few cents on the gallon, but the medical folks can charge $12 an aspirin and no one flinches. talk about a well-conditioned and sheepish population!
do you really believe polls? there are some polls that say men masturbate 6 to 22 times a day. yeah, if ‘positioning’ our balls that many times a day is considered masturbation, then yeah, you can believe the polls.
for starters, if it is raining, snowing, or all of above, I would rather be in a car then riding a scooter. Seconds, I don’t see riding a scooter to work which is a good 5 – 10 miles from my home. Oh yeah, I need to move closer to my work.
Um… okay. Not sure what you’re trying to say, since the train is indeed commuting.
okay, what can I say? hey, I’d rather be in a bullit-proof Caddy if there’s a bomb threat. make sure you’re covered there too. please be safe out there DaMan…
Simply not true…..I know for a fact that their are many affordable houses (under $150M) on the market right now in the city (listed on the CAAR.com website). Again, you CHOSE to live where you do, nobody is forcing you to live there.
"there are some polls that say men masturbate 6 to 22 times a day. yeah, if ‘positioning’ our balls that many times a day is considered masturbation, then yeah, you can believe the polls. "
I had a roommate in college who would fit this poll. He never left his room after he learned to share video.
Which of these would you say are “affordable?” And what is reasonable “walking distance?” Some of these happen to be on or near a bus line, which is a good thing, but does $139,900 for 644 finished square feet seem reasonable to you?
What part of Charlotteville/Albemarle would you consider to be prime location for “walk-ability” to work/shopping that also provides affordable housing?
–Jim
How about the Belmont neighborhood….there are several houses on the market for under $150M….all of which are over 1000 SF and are a five to ten minute walk to downtown. Maybe, there’s not "plenty" of affordable housing, but it’s certainly not the crisis so many people make it out to be….
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
foursix and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
I am strongly pro-parkway (I have to drive that mess every day!), and will vote accordingly. And will attempt to sway others to vote accordingly.
Strangely enough, though I keep hearing about these anti-parkway people, I have yet to meet one in person when discussing it.
Any time that Republican City Councilor Rob Schilling finds himself in the majority on a split vote, things ain’t right at City Hall.
Of course, an argument could be made that the exact opposite is the case – that such a development means that things have never been more reasonable at City Hall. I mean, Democrats and Republicans actually AGREEING on something? Is this a crazy world, or what?!
I for one admire politicians who do what they feel is right, even when – in fact, especially when it goes against “The Party.” And there’s a certain amount of courage involoved in taking a stand that could cost you your party’s renomination.
Hang in there, Meredith! You can always run as an independent (and win, most likely) if the Dems toss you for non-compliance with doctrine.
I’ve met plenty of them, including a few dedicated activists. I think they’ve all played a little too much Sim City – that seems to be where the logic comes from. "If you build more roads, there’ll just be that much more traffic" – as if new cars pop up out of the ground like magic to fill the new road, or irritating traffic has a significant deterrent effect on how many people move here.
My question for Cox and Lynch is this: if tomorrow the County agrees to ban trucks, the replacement parkland they want is provided, and VDOT approves their plan for the 250 intersection, would they then support the parkway and vote for the transfer? If not, isn’t all this just a bullshit excuse to pretend they’re doing something other than what they really are: once again trying to thwart a project the voters have said they want to see happen, the construction of this parkway?
The idea is that the new roads will enable people to live and commute from further out; hence, more miles driven (even if you have the same number of people and cars).
I for one admire politicians who do what they feel is right, even when – in fact, especiallywhen it goes against “The Party.” And there’s a certain amount of courage involoved in taking a stand that could cost you your party’s renomination.
I agree entirely. To my memory, Meredith has never claimed anything other than support for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Blake, on the other hand, got elected on the strength of his opposition, and promptly flip-flopped, once he was in office.
Maybe for a road that goes somewhere new… but this road doesn’t do that. It just takes some of the load off an existing but wholly inadequate route (Rio Rd). It’s not like people can’t and don’t already live along 29N well past where the parkway will take them – or the horrid traffic has kept people from moving there.
Controlling growth is fine, but there are better ways to do it than trying to deter people by ensuring that the ones who move to places you don’t want them will have wretched, miserable commutes due to deliberately bad road planning.
That is true. However, Caravati has since stood for re-election again, and won, while maintaining a pro-parkway message. If he flip-flopped again, he would only be compounding his error and letting down the voters who elected him and Schilling and rejected Alexandra Searls and her Democrats for Change/anti-parkway platform in 2002.
And while I agree it is admirable to stand on one’s principles, it is only taking a stand if one is willing to be honest about what the stand and the principles are. If Cox and Lynch are saying "We oppose this transfer because we oppose the parkway under any set of circumstances," they should say so and drop all the hooey and hot air about the four necessary conditions, which are just excuses for their real agenda: no growth, no roads, anywhere, any time. Fair enough, but I suspect they don’t trust that most voters would agree, or else they wouldn’t feel the need to conceal their real motives.
I’ve met plenty of them, including a few dedicated activists. I think they’ve all played a little too much Sim City – that seems to be where the logic comes from. “If you build more roads, there’ll just be that much more traffic” – as if new cars pop up out of the ground like magic to fill the new road, or irritating traffic has a significant deterrent effect on how many people move here.
Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt. That’s Urban Planning 101, Bruce. (I happen to be in UAP 101. Well, 2014, but whatever.) It’s an unassailable fact that creating more roads tends strongly to increase traffic appropriately. This is known as “Braess’ paradox,” after German mathematician Dietrich Braess.
I have the September 2, 2002 New Yorker at hand, which features the article “The Slow Lane,” but John Seabrook. The relevant portion of his article reads:
Another great resource for this is “Suburban Nation,” by renowned urban planners Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. In the section entitled “Why Adding Lanes Makes Traffic,” they write:
They go on to cite some hard data, including:
This is known in the industry as “induced traffic.” Remember the collapse of the Embarcadero Freeway in in the earthquake in 1989? Citizens voted to just not rebuild the thing. Some traffic engineers predicted doom. The result? Nothing. There were no problems.
All of this is explained by the concept of “latent demand.” Driving is effectively without cost. That is to say, it is so inexpensive to operate a vehicle that we don’t think “should I drive to the store, or would it be cheaper to walk?” It’s a commodity that is effectively free, in terms of our logic. So the only limiting factor is traffic. The result is that people are always ready to make more trips when the traffic disappears. It’s estimated that latent demand (driving that’s not being done right now because of traffic) is up to 30 percent of existing traffic. So adding new lanes or new roads only unleashes that latent demand, leaving you right back where you were.
Perhaps the most frustrating part about all of this is that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any moron can say “put in a road,” and when it’s installed, it’s full of traffic and absolutely clogged within a few years, to which said moron can say “See? I told you!”
Miles driven per person grown at three times the rate of the population since 1969. We keep building roads, people keep driving more, we keep building more roads… We never learn.. It’s ridiculous.
Note that all uncited data listed above is from “Suburban Nation.” If you would like to find out more about this topic, the best resource is probably to pick up a copy of that very book. JMRL has a copy at Central, or you can buy it for about $12.