Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-14-04, 12:22 PM   #1
Dahon.Steve
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 6,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
A Plan for a New World.

A New Plan for a New World
by Keith Schneider

December, 2004--Just like rising energy demand, global warming, and racial distrust, America's population boom escaped serious attention from both presidential candidates. This is happening--or rather, not happening--even though the United States is growing more rapidly than it ever has before. By 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 420 million people will live here, 140 million more than in 2000.

Is the country prepared for adding 50 percent more people in 50 years? Hardly. Just look at how America responded to the 33 million more people that joined us here in the 1990s: We paved millions of acres of open land, suffered from record levels of traffic congestion, overwhelmed sewage plans, and polluted countless rivers and lakes with storm water runoff. We also widened the economic and social gulf between the outer suburban "haves" and just about everybody else.

If the country continues to spread out as it has, with developed acreage growing seven times faster than the population, roads and parking lots and buildings will cover 157 million acres. That's about the size of Texas and nearly three times more land than is already developed today. In other words, if we do not change how we grow over the next 46 years, the United States will become an unrecognizable mess.

That is why the country must face up to its demographic future and install a new development policy that assures the US doesn't choke on its growth. Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association in New York and one of the country's most prominent planners, says the country has a long tradition of developing such national plans.

The first such growth plan arrived in 1807, following the Lewis and Clark expedition. President Jefferson drew up a plan to incorporate the 863,072-square-mile Louisiana Purchase into the rest of the country. In December 1861, President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act (to encourage westward settlement) and the Morrill Land Grant College Act (to provide for the development of higher education in "agriculture and the mechanic arts"). In 1906 and 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a series of national park, forest, and game reserve laws that conserved 230 million acres of the country's most beautiful wild lands. And in 1956, President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which authorized the construction of a 41,000-mile Interstate Highway system and changed the face of America in ways that Eisenhower himself certainly never foresaw.

In effect, every half-century or so demographic and economic trends converge so significantly that they force the country to think in novel ways about where it's heading. That moment has arrived once again.

Earlier this year, faculty and graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania analyzed the Census Bureau's 50-year population projections, along with separate projections from Woods and Poole Economics, a Washington-based research firm. The group came to some portentous findings: They concluded that, by 2050, 307 million Americans--71 percent of the population--will live in just 8 "supercity" regions that today have roughly 175 million people. In other words, most of the population increase will come in a handful of urban regions that will bleed across state boundaries the way the Boston-to-Washington corridor does today.

California will have two supercities--;ne stretching from San Diego to north of Los Angeles and the southern Central Valley, the other encompassing the San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley, and reaching inland to Modesto and Sacramento.

A third supercity will permeate the Pacific Northwest, including Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle. A fourth, in Texas, will encompass San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston. Almost all of Florida will be a supercity. The South's supercity will reach from Birmingham through Atlanta to Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham. The Midwest's will start in Cleveland and include Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee. The East's will reach from Richmond all the way up the Atlantic Coast to Portland, Maine.

Immigration will drive much of the growth, demographers say. The Hispanic population will almost triple, from 35.6 million to 102.6 million, or nearly 25 percent of the population. The Asian population will more than triple, from 10.7 million to 33.4 million, or 8 percent of the population. By contrast, the white population will grow by less than 7 percent, or 15 million people, bringing that group's total to 210 million, or half the population.

As this multi-cultural future unfolds, America will face levels of sprawl, traffic, pollution, and competition for economic and natural resources that it simply has never seen before. As the South's supercity triples the region's population, the Bay Area's population doubles, southern California's grows by more than half, and the other megalopolises show similar dramatic gains, the need for new infrastructure will be immense. That is why using the same sprawling designs we use today simply will not work--and why we must drastically change our patterns of development.

Take transportation: Highway construction alone will not come close to solving the gridlock that comes with putting 100 million more vehicles on the road. But a national network of high-speed rail lines linking airports to downtowns can ease traffic congestion and make America more mobile and energy efficient, and less polluting. So will a federal transportation policy that encourages building many more regional commuter rail systems, which both relieve traffic jams and foster more compact development around station stops. This will ease competition for open land and make it possible for families to get by with one instead of three or four expensive autos.

Achieving even these obvious, greatly needed changes in transportation policy seems a daunting challenge in this era of lower taxes and less public investment. But America is waking up to the realization that it simply cannot meet one of its chief challenges--fitting many more people on the land--with more tax and spending cuts. If anything, the country must do the opposite, and quickly, to avoid the much greater congestion, chaos, taxes, and spending that using the current approach will surely engender. Wise investments in planning, housing, transportation, and conservation will help ensure that 2050 America is both globally competitive and a good place to live.

Keith Schneider, a regular contributor to the New York Times, Detroit Free Press, and Grist Magazine, is deputy director of the Michigan Land Use Institute. See more articles from the Elm Street Writers Group.


This is a good article by Keith Schneider but I think he's living in a dream world. I see none of this "commuter rail" revival in America and it looks like our national railway (Amtrak) is headed down the road to distruction since it's running out of money. Florida and Jeb Bush stopped the only high speed rail line project in the nation even though the voters wanted it. The only form of rail that is receiving proper funding is light rail and it's not enough for the future.

I also don't see any shortage of developers as new subdivisions are apearing all over New Jersey. I'm sure this is the case all over the country as sprawl continues it march. As for these new supercities of the future, expect to see super traffic jams.
Dahon.Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 01:35 PM   #2
thomj513
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Interesting. I live in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, Ca. I see the daily congestion not only on the freeways but also on local city streets. The real problem as stated by you article is in the auto-centric development of the LA region. The San Fernando Valley area in particular is "screwed-up" with the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude of local residents opposing the under construction Orang Line busway in the valley, which is a great step forward even if it is highly compromised, to the explosion of "McMansions" in the north end of the valley. The answer is dump the car! Rebuild, restructure and build new projects with multi-use, pedestrian and rapid transit ideas in mind. The Paseo Colorado in Pasadena and the Third Street Promenade area of Santa Monica are two small examples of ways it can be done. It's taken over 50 years to get into this mess and it'll take another 50 years at least to get out of it WHEN we decide enough is enough and begin to make the changes. Thx for letting me vent. Thom.
thomj513 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 06:48 PM   #3
supcom
You need a new bike
 
supcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
But a national network of high-speed rail lines linking airports to downtowns can ease traffic congestion and make America more mobile and energy efficient, and less polluting.
Curious. I'll bet traffic to and from airports is not a significant factor in the average city's congestion. I wonder why the guy suggests *high-speed* rail lines to airports instead of high-speed rails between cities?

To his credit, he did suggest increased commuter rail development. I expect commuter rail would have a far bigger impact on congestion than a high-speed line to an airport. Besides, who wants to go downtown just to catch a train to the airport. Talk about wasted time!
supcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 07:20 PM   #4
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you posted this in politics and religion, where it probably belongs, you'd quickly be accused (by others, not by me) of being (1) chicken little, and (2) a liberal (or worse).

I for one agree that high speed intercity rail should be a priority. Why our federal government willingly subsidizes both the airlines and the air transportation system, and both motor vehicle use and the nation's roads and highways, but takes the position that intercity rail should be self-supporting, is beyond me. I'd much rather take the train to Seattle or San Francisco than either fly or drive, but trying to use the current intercity rail system - Amtrak - is discouraging to say the least.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 07:28 PM   #5
AndrewP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Montreal
Bikes: Peugeot Hybrid, Minelli Hybrid
Posts: 6,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Urban planning regulations should be developed to ensure neighborhoods with a balance of residences, commerce, industry and public utilities within walking distance of each other. If it doesnt happen in an ordely fashion, oil depletion will force us into living in places like the major ones in the third world.
AndrewP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 10:06 PM   #6
Dchiefransom
Senior Member
 
Dchiefransom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newark, CA. San Francisco Bay Area
Bikes:
Posts: 6,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
If you posted this in politics and religion, where it probably belongs, you'd quickly be accused (by others, not by me) of being (1) chicken little, and (2) a liberal (or worse).

I for one agree that high speed intercity rail should be a priority. Why our federal government willingly subsidizes both the airlines and the air transportation system, and both motor vehicle use and the nation's roads and highways, but takes the position that intercity rail should be self-supporting, is beyond me. I'd much rather take the train to Seattle or San Francisco than either fly or drive, but trying to use the current intercity rail system - Amtrak - is discouraging to say the least.
As an "average" person living in California, I still wonder why they want to put a high speed rail line down the center of the state to Los Angeles. I'd much rather take a regular train at slower speed, than be barreling down the tracks and discover a small earthquake messed up the tracks!!
Dchiefransom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-04, 10:32 PM   #7
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Bikes: Fuji touring
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
A New Plan for a New World
by Keith Schneider

December, 2004--Just like rising energy demand..... expect to see super traffic jams.
Garbage from the start, garbage in the middle, garbage at the end. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Don't these Algore wannabees ever learn?

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 12:28 AM   #8
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughstuff
Garbage from the start, garbage in the middle, garbage at the end. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Don't these Algore wannabees ever learn?

roughstuff
Don't worry, you'll probably be dead and gone before the ***** really hits the fan....leaving your children and their children to deal with our foolish legacy...
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 07:40 AM   #9
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Bikes: Fuji touring
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
Don't worry.... ***** really hits the fan....leaving your children and their children to deal with our foolish legacy...
My children? Randya, that won't happen unless some very strange people get pregnant in some very strange places!

roughstuff
Roughstuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 08:26 AM   #10
Dahon.Steve
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 6,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
If you posted this in politics and religion, where it probably belongs, you'd quickly be accused (by others, not by me) of being (1) chicken little, and (2) a liberal (or worse).

I for one agree that high speed intercity rail should be a priority. Why our federal government willingly subsidizes both the airlines and the air transportation system, and both motor vehicle use and the nation's roads and highways, but takes the position that intercity rail should be self-supporting, is beyond me. I'd much rather take the train to Seattle or San Francisco than either fly or drive, but trying to use the current intercity rail system - Amtrak - is discouraging to say the least.
Good point. The airlines are bankrupt but they are still selling discounted tickets and can never make a profit. It seems like even the "liberals" or "chicken Littles" of this nation still don't understand that proper urban planning begins with walkable solutions or mixed use cities. The whole notion that we need to spend hundreds of billions on high speed rail to continue our fast paced lifestye is insanity. This need for hyper mobility where we need 150 mph cars and 300 mph trains will come to an end. As a poster above stated correctly, "oil depletion will force us into living in places like the major ones in the third world".

Where the bicycle fits into this society of fast cars, airplanes and trains is beyond me.
Dahon.Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 08:37 AM   #11
Dahon.Steve
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 6,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomj513
Interesting. I live in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, Ca. I see the daily congestion not only on the freeways but also on local city streets. The real problem as stated by you article is in the auto-centric development of the LA region. The San Fernando Valley area in particular is "screwed-up" with the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude of local residents opposing the under construction Orang Line busway in the valley, which is a great step forward even if it is highly compromised, to the explosion of "McMansions" in the north end of the valley. The answer is dump the car! Rebuild, restructure and build new projects with multi-use, pedestrian and rapid transit ideas in mind. The Paseo Colorado in Pasadena and the Third Street Promenade area of Santa Monica are two small examples of ways it can be done. It's taken over 50 years to get into this mess and it'll take another 50 years at least to get out of it WHEN we decide enough is enough and begin to make the changes. Thx for letting me vent. Thom.
The NIMBY's used to be those who supported the pro-highway movement years ago and are fighting development tooth and nail today. It seems like no one in their right mind wants another highway or even rail station in their back yard because people want to keep their rual neighborhood intact. As a result, the remaining land gets expensive driving the cost of living up for all those wanting home ownership. The only solution to this is Smart Growth or just build "upward" if you know what I mean. It also means mixed use communities where office building and high rise condo reside with each other.

If mixed use developement is done properly, you wouldn't need a high speed 350 billion dollar rail line or 200 billion dollar super highway to go to work. All you would need is the humble bicycle.

Last edited by Dahon.Steve; 12-15-04 at 10:19 AM.
Dahon.Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 08:39 AM   #12
Dahon.Steve
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Bikes:
Posts: 6,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewP
Urban planning regulations should be developed to ensure neighborhoods with a balance of residences, commerce, industry and public utilities within walking distance of each other. If it doesnt happen in an ordely fashion, oil depletion will force us into living in places like the major ones in the third world.
Well said.
Dahon.Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 08:44 AM   #13
ch0mb0
switching to guns
 
ch0mb0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: kings county, nyc
Bikes: allez fuji tracku nishiki TT GT KHS arrow Miner 29'er CIOCC Corsair and now a f*cking awesome waterford skeet velo
Posts: 1,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
I also don't see any shortage of developers as new subdivisions are apearing all over New Jersey. I'm sure this is the case all over the country as sprawl continues it march. As for these new supercities of the future, expect to see super traffic jams.

Yeah, it's sad to see that happen to NJ - Ocean County used to have some pretty woodsy scenery, and now it's all cut-and-paste housing developments. :/
ch0mb0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 08:45 AM   #14
iceratt
contre nous de la tyranie
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Siberia
Bikes: Trek 830, Trek 520, Surly 1x1 fixed
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughstuff
My children? Randya, that won't happen unless some very strange people get pregnant in some very strange places!
If I knew that being gay allowed one to think nothing of future generations, I would have passed over Susie for Rick. I could have had more, more, MORE, now, now, NOW! Of course, Bush and his amoral league, would want to confine me to a special ghetto for antifamilites. Surely, that's a small price.

My god, we are one bunch of stupid bicyclists!
iceratt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 09:22 AM   #15
mark48310
urban bike guerilla
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: denver & blackhawk, colorado
Bikes:
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
why is the proposed "solution" always some manipulation of our environment? how about we learn to control our breeding? what's his name in "the matrix" had it right. humans are like cancer: reproducing without limits until it finally kills the host organism. every other species has the good sense to limit its population growth when it reaches equilibrium with environment, but not humans. we just keep dropping pups and chewing up everything in our path.

what we need is a good global plague, not urban planning.

i suspect my view won't be terribly popular, but i'm rather fond of it. i'm pretty much up for anything that gets me easy parking and a quicker commute. and shorter lines at the movie theatres.

(yeah yeah i know the article is talking about immigration as the driver for growth but a plague is still a good sensible solution.)

Last edited by mark48310; 12-15-04 at 09:32 AM.
mark48310 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 09:47 AM   #16
Erick L
Lentement mais sûrement
 
Erick L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montréal
Bikes:
Posts: 2,159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
every other species has the good sense to limit its population growth when it reaches equilibrium with environment
That's a myth. Other species population grow until their environment can no longer sustain them. The human has the ability to adapt to many types of environment and to adapt the environment to his own need. I believe the human population will grow until our environment can no longer sustain us (unless natural disaster happens).
Erick L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 11:27 AM   #17
mark48310
urban bike guerilla
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: denver & blackhawk, colorado
Bikes:
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick L
That's a myth. Other species population grow until their environment can no longer sustain them. The human has the ability to adapt to many types of environment and to adapt the environment to his own need. I believe the human population will grow until our environment can no longer sustain us (unless natural disaster happens).
it's not a myth. wolves, among other species, have been shown to decrease their rates of reproduction in response to variations in the availability of prey. i'm not talking about wolves dying off in response to a lack of food, or litters not surviving but wolves "choosing" (if i maybe so anthropomorphic) not to mate when resources become less available.

this is very different from expanding until the "environment can no longer sustain them." it implies, at whatever level be it genetic, mental, conscious, instinctive, that wolves are aware of their environmental pressures and in essence "choosing" to limit their population growth.

most higher species won't strip their environment of resources and then move on. wolves have even been shown to avoid predation in particular areas for a time, seemingly to allow the prey populations to increase. humans have been shown to level an entire forest, cut down every tree, kill everything in their path and then move on.

there's a huge qualitative difference between sustainability and what's comfortable, healthy, etc. (although granted that's a very subjective issue). we can sustain A LOT more people with technological advances and by paving over 50% of the country. but who wants to live in that world?

(awesome photos on your website, by the way...)

Last edited by mark48310; 12-15-04 at 11:37 AM.
mark48310 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 01:04 PM   #18
supcom
You need a new bike
 
supcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Bikes:
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark48310
what we need is a good global plague, not urban planning.
Are you volunteering?
supcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 01:08 PM   #19
Yoshi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 2,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark48310
why is the proposed "solution" always some manipulation of our environment? how about we learn to control our breeding? what's his name in "the matrix" had it right. humans are like cancer: reproducing without limits until it finally kills the host organism. every other species has the good sense to limit its population growth when it reaches equilibrium with environment, but not humans. we just keep dropping pups and chewing up everything in our path.

what we need is a good global plague, not urban planning.

i suspect my view won't be terribly popular, but i'm rather fond of it. i'm pretty much up for anything that gets me easy parking and a quicker commute. and shorter lines at the movie theatres.

(yeah yeah i know the article is talking about immigration as the driver for growth but a plague is still a good sensible solution.)
http://www.vhemt.org/
Yoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 01:48 PM   #20
nick burns
Senior Member
 
nick burns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Absecon, NJ
Bikes: Puch Luzern, Puch Mistral SLE, Bianchi Pista, Motobecane Grand Touring, Austro-Daimler Ultima, Legnano, Raleigh MountainTour, Cannondale SM600
Posts: 2,943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughstuff
Garbage from the start, garbage in the middle, garbage at the end. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Don't these Algore wannabees ever learn?

roughstuff
That the global human population is growing at a rate that the planet will inevitably be unable to sustain is a fact. There will be a point in time when there will simply be not enough space and resources left to produce the food neccessary to sustain the human population, let alone enough open space to support many non-human organisms, many of which are neccessary to maintain the current state of the environment, including climate, air and water quality, etc. Exponetially increasing birthrate is only one factor, ever-increasing lifespan is another. Humans, with few exceptions, have not been shown to voluntarily limit growth, so it appears this growth will likely progress as predicted. Plant and animal species are being driven to extinction by human activity at an alarming rate. Entire ecosystems can be impacted with even the loss of just one of its inhabitant species. What the result of the changes of these ecosystems will result in often is not clearly understood, but it will invariably produce results that will alter the current state of the planet. Anyone who spouts off things such as a Chicken Little syndrome is a person who is unwilling to understand the science of ecology. One only has to look at what happens to areas where invasive species are introduced and force out all other lifeforms. It is important to remember that we are not only human, but we are organisms that must fit and coexist in a global ecology.
nick burns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 01:48 PM   #21
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
The NIMBY's used to be those who supported the pro-highway movement years ago and are fighting development tooth and nail today.
Actually, I don't think anyone besides the Chamber of Commerce types really wanted the highways to come through their neighborhoods, even back in the 50's and 60s. Neighborhoods and communities with clout (i.e. money) were able to fight the highway proposals, that's why a lot of highways either run through lower income neighborhoods (in NYC, for example, that's through the Bronx, among other places), or in areas where development was difficult and land was cheap, like in wetlands and along river banks or floodplains. Unfortunately, all too often these locations are also environmentally sensitive areas that are worth preserving for their natural characteristics.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 01:50 PM   #22
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The human population will continue to increase until we drown in their own waste products, just like any colony of bacteria in a petri dish.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 02:05 PM   #23
FXjohn
Banned.
 
FXjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NE Indiana
Bikes:
Posts: 12,903
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
The human population will continue to increase until we drown in their own waste products, just like any colony of bacteria in a petri dish.

Not necessarily, CL.

As the world and third world countries continue to develop, the birth rate declines in those formerly poor areas. Just think of all the barren wasteland that will become fertile as global warming develops
You need to get out of the city sometime to see how much wide open space there is in the US, not to mention Canada, Russia, South America, etc etc.
FXjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 02:16 PM   #24
nick burns
Senior Member
 
nick burns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Absecon, NJ
Bikes: Puch Luzern, Puch Mistral SLE, Bianchi Pista, Motobecane Grand Touring, Austro-Daimler Ultima, Legnano, Raleigh MountainTour, Cannondale SM600
Posts: 2,943
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FXjohn
Just think of all the barren wasteland that will become fertile as global warming develops
And all of the fertile land that will become barren deserts


Quote:
Originally Posted by FXjohn
As the world and third world countries continue to develop, the birth rate declines in those formerly poor areas
I'd like to see the data that supports that statement
nick burns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-04, 02:22 PM   #25
FXjohn
Banned.
 
FXjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NE Indiana
Bikes:
Posts: 12,903
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 972 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick burns
And all of the fertile land that will become barren deserts




I'd like to see the data that supports that statement
Easy, look up on google the birth rates of countries by highest avg income.
You'll also see the most need for new immigrants there.
You can find that data easily.
FXjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 PM.