Toll increase proposed for the Dulles Toll Road (Arlington, Reston: houses, neighborhood)

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by qwertman

I absolutely agree with that



I agree again. the poster said "'if' the Metro takes drivers off the road, it will just promote more sprawl." I think the opposite. The expansion of the roads network promotes more sprawl. The metro creates hubs of more dense development, the opposite of sprawl.

I was the poster. I think you misread my statement; or maybe I was unintentionally ambiguous.

[qwertman]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

I was the poster. I think you misread my statement; or maybe I was unintentionally ambiguous.

actually, it was VRE332, post #8

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by terrence81

Interesting point. Do you think that the traffic being lighter inside the perimeter had more to do with a higher percentage of people not being able to afford cars? Also there are far more people inside DC's beltway than Atlanta's perimeter. Do you think that would have anything to do with it?

I used to go to the ATL twice a month but only on the weekends so can't speak too much about Atlanta traffic.

But I will say with certainty that Atlanta's MARTA doesn't go anywhere near as many places as DC's metro.

There are more people inside the Beltway (DC) than inside the Perimeter (ATL), but it's also true that a greater proportion of jobs lie inside the Perimeter in ATL than lie inside the Beltway in DC. In some ways, DC is a bit odd because a lot of the "suburbs" used to be smaller cities and have their own share of professional jobs. That's less true in Atlanta, where nearly all the outer suburbs (with some exceptions like Marietta) were simply rural farmland before Atlanta's great expansion outwards.

While the MARTA is certainly not as expansive as the Metro, a large chunk of Atlanta's jobs are concentrated in that very narrow corrider running from the Arts Center Station/Midtown area down to around Five Points/Downtown. Since the MARTA is relatively inexpensive so long as you commit yourself to monthly passes and since parking is free at most of the stations, there is actually a fairly strong incentive to use it; especially when you consider parking costs in that area. MARTA is much cheaper if you use it effectively; Metro is more debatable. I've often found that simply driving and parking is much cheaper, even in areas where parking has significant costs.

In any case, this might be another reason as to why traffic inside the Perimeter in ATL is not that bad compared to traffic outside of it. Atlanta's "job centers" tend to be much more centralized, so even if the MARTA does not run nearly as many places, it seems to take care of the two big rushes to some extent.


I'm not sure that a higher percentage of people in ATL could not afford cars than people in DC. I haven't seen statistics, but both areas have their poorer populations. They are dispersed a bit differently, but I'm not sure if it would make a net difference.

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by qwertman

actually, it was VRE332, post #8

quit it!

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by qwertman

actually, it was VRE332, post #8

Ah, my mistake.

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

I'm not sure that a higher percentage of people in ATL could not afford cars than people in DC.

For some reason there's a race to see who can have the most expensive car in our area. I got an "I-66 beater" and a "grocery-getter" . I don't see the need for an expensive vehicle, only reliable and fuel efficient.

[JakilaTheHun]

Originally Posted by Samara11

Well, there's already sprawl everywhere and IMO its natural, with the population increase. What else are you going to do with the population growth?

I know.... lets keep erecting hundreds of new high-rise condo buildings within one city and make people with kids live there. That way everyone can walk next door to work, right. No need for cars and gas, those are evil.

And yes, no need for schools too, we can have the kids learn on the internet.... the schools just take up too much land space.
Kids can just stay home, get education on the internet in the morning, then watch TV for entertainment, then play video games. Why do you need parks, tot lots, libraries, etc? Lets just keep the little buggers at home. Better yet, lets not have kids... no more population increase and no more worries about sprawl.

Please dont take this personally, its not directed at you... its just that the way people talk about sprawl is just plain strange to me.

Maybe that's because most people don't think about the negative external affects on a daily basis. As humans, we tend to adjust to our environments. We ***** and gripe a little bit, but we mostly take it for granted.

There are lots of problems with sprawl, but the biggest one --- ENERGY. Take a look at stats on energy usage in Western Europe compared to here. The US and Western Europe are comparable in terms of development, but we use a whole lot more energy than the Europeans. Why is this? The main reason is our sprawled out development patterns.

My main argument here is that the Federal and state governments have essentially distorted the market and passed on the negative costs affected with this sprawl onto the taxpayers, which is one reason why it might seem like we have a high tax burden but get very little when compared to our European counterparts (I'm not ignoring the military and social security; there are issues there, as well, but state and local taxation is more directly affected by sprawl).


One common theme I encounter when people question the argument against sprawl is that they suggest that people want to "force them" to live in more upward developments. My response to would be that the Federal and state governments are essentially "forcing you" to live in sprawled out areas by the same standards. Why do people chose to live in outer suburbs where they have to commute 1 hour or more to work? Because subsidies and external costs passed onto the taxpayers distort the natural cost structure and drive people outward.

The real question is --- should we reward people for living efficiently and driving down costs for all of society or should we punish them? Right now, we chose to punish them. This is nonsensical.

If people want to live in outer suburbs, that's fine. I just think they ought to absorb the real costs of that. If they did, more people would see the benefits of other living patterns.

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Maybe that's because most people don't think about the negative external affects on a daily basis. As humans, we tend to adjust to our environments. We ***** and gripe a little bit, but we mostly take it for granted.

We don't need to think about negative external affects because we have nuclear weapons, and big women. We'll crush anything that stands in our way!

[Samara11]

Originally Posted by JakilaTheHun

Maybe that's because most people don't think about the negative external affects on a daily basis. As humans, we tend to adjust to our environments. We ***** and gripe a little bit, but we mostly take it for granted.

There are lots of problems with sprawl, but the biggest one --- ENERGY. Take a look at stats on energy usage in Western Europe compared to here. The US and Western Europe are comparable in terms of development, but we use a whole lot more energy than the Europeans. Why is this? The main reason is our sprawled out development patterns.

My main argument here is that the Federal and state governments have essentially distorted the market and passed on the negative costs affected with this sprawl onto the taxpayers, which is one reason why it might seem like we have a high tax burden but get very little when compared to our European counterparts (I'm not ignoring the military and social security; there are issues there, as well, but state and local taxation is more directly affected by sprawl).


One common theme I encounter when people question the argument against sprawl is that they suggest that people want to "force them" to live in more upward developments. My response to would be that the Federal and state governments are essentially "forcing you" to live in sprawled out areas by the same standards. Why do people chose to live in outer suburbs where they have to commute 1 hour or more to work? Because subsidies and external costs passed onto the taxpayers distort the natural cost structure and drive people outward.

The real question is --- should we reward people for living efficiently and driving down costs for all of society or should we punish them? Right now, we chose to punish them. This is nonsensical.

If people want to live in outer suburbs, that's fine. I just think they ought to absorb the real costs of that. If they did, more people would see the benefits of other living patterns.

Europeans are much much more energy consumption conscious than Americans, thats why they use less energy.... and that is because its expensive for them plus they have energy production & distribution issues (heard about the recent gas crisis?). So basically, they will not leave the whole house lighted all day and forget to switch off the lights/air conditioning, they do not take their resources for granted (as they're hard to come by) while we do. It is not due to sprawl's lack or abundance. We, the Americans just waste too much energy, maybe because we're lazy or we just don't care or better yet, we get it easily so we like wasting it.

Yes, I agree that sprawl has negative effects on natural resources, agricultural land, city resources, etc. It harms mother nature.... thats why its considered not good. But then, like I said.... its very natural for sprawl to occur when your population grows. Its human nature to consume what we can and to move on and spread out in search of better things.

I'm not too familiar with what our European counterparts are getting for living efficiently. Care to enlighten me?

P.S. I agree with you on a lot of points, but to blame it all on "sprawl" is something I totally do not agree with.

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by Samara11

Europeans are much much more energy consumption conscious than Americans, thats why they use less energy....

No it's not, it's because they hate the Russians. Use less imported energy and nobody can bully you around.