> But they want to cram a whole lot more people into current urban areas such that
> there will no promised reduction in congestion.

If constant use of automobiles can be avoided, then there will be much less congestion - duh!

The people are going to come - ready or not - like it or not. If they must use their cars, then congestion will choke us. We're already choking!

It is mostly over use of the the car, and mile after mile of not a single open field, that makes much of the suburban Bay Area seem so overcrowded. Having visited several places around the world (while in the military) where suburban population density is much higher than here, but where development is clustered around train stations, I found no such sense of overcrowding evident. Even parts of suburban New Jersey, with its much higher density than here, still do not feel as crowded as the Bay Area.

In all such cases, people only use their autos for mostly non-repetitive "occasional" trips that transit could never do well. In all such places, there is heavy reliance on public transit - and open space between towns or "clusters".

The solution to this unpleasantness then, is to build more compactly, leaving some open space between towns or clusters. But this simply cannot be done while we still cling exclusively to automobiles. Cars take up enormous amounts of space, and air, and energy, and.... hundreds of times more than people do.

Besides, compact cluster developments that are complete with necessary daily services and businesses, won't need cars so much anyway. But your job isn't likely to be in the same cluster. Use of the car can still be avoided however, if each cluster were served by adequate public transportation options. Such effective urban planning is impossible where the highway is the sole transportation available.

And with much fewer people needing to use a car every day, there will by definition, much less congestion. Moreover, since one heavy transit line can easily equal as much as a twenty five lane (each direction) freeway; a "properly run" service can easily feel uncrowded were it to replace a mere five lanes (each direction).

And with most daily required services and businesses within walking distance, or close enough to be a short golf cart trip away, much of the hustle-bustle too and fro that makes us feel crowded, would just go away. It is the auto-based unrestrained sprawl and haphazard placement of services and businesses, that makes us feel cramped - not the number of people here.

------------------------------------------------
> Anybody who questions their plan(which invariably calls for a massive elevateds)is mocked
> as a "NIMBY". Only a sociopath would want their neighborhood to become less desirable.

I have consistently criticized the HSR project, both here, and professionally; and several other projects for their wasteful and blinded ways, as well; elevated and subways being for the most part, one of those big wastes. Yet nobody mocks me as being a NYMBY.

Indeed, I believe that much of the added cost to these projects is caused by NYMBYs, demanding all these non-esential bells and whistles. If they want to live in an urban area, why can't they just accept urban realities.

Only a sociopath, as you put it, would want the status-quo of congestion and urban stagnation to continue! . . Only a real sociopath, would put his own self-centered interests above the good of the community, by demanding all the extras that are strangling these attempts at improvement.

Moreover, it is just plain bad citizenship to insist that only your back yard is somehow more sacred than someone else's; or "now that I've got mine - screw you". As an aside, it is that very attitude, that drove my kids outta State. They had to go where the jobs went as a result, and where the price of housing stayed affordable (also a result of the same).

But never-mind all that mush; the fact remains - consistently - that across the country, time and time again, when transit lines are put in, housing prices rise the closer you are to it. This is a direct objective measure that desirability is actually increased - not decreased, as you claim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The real object of derision should be the bureaucrats whose hubris is so great that it
> prevents them from altering their plan in the face of criticism. They would rather make
> enemies than lose face.

So we go from socio-pathology to hubris - to fear of losing face, do we. What next? But somehow, you expect everyone to alter plans, just because someone else had the hubris to criticize - NYMBYs yet!

The fact is, that HSR, or SMART, or FART, or whatever, must go somewhere (and we need 5-10 times more than we have, parallel lines even). I suppose then, it must all go where no NYMBY lives, or else the NYMBY stink eye will fall upon it, and compel it to stop - with mere mindless criticism, yet.

Could it be; that each "bureaucrat" you diss, after hundreds of hours of study and research, actually does know more about the questions at hand; than someone who has only spent ten minutes at it and has selfish agendas besides? If you want to win your case in debate with them, you will have to do just as much homework as they do!

--------------------------------------
So the object of my derision remains the same. It goes to those NYMBYs and enviro-distortionists who have hubris so great; that they presume to know so much more than those who have actually spent hundreds of times the effort and rigorous study as themselves; who's obvious bias prevents them from facing the facts of urban life, who just keep on dogging the same old worn out arguments, even in the face of overwhelming evidence; and, who would rather advance their own paranoid selfish interests instead of the common good.

OPB



P.S.
Whew - for a minute there, I thought I was gonna get on a real rant - thanx for listening, anyway.