Do bicycles and cars mix?

"George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?


No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme
population concentration.

If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc.
are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area
that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know.

This photo (see 2035 x 1581 version) is an undeniable case of sprawl
and gross overpopulation:

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?7897 (Phoenix, AZ)

The caption refers to Phoenix as a place that consumes "an acre of
desert an hour," which, even if not literally true, is a good
description of how it feels down there. The lack of water to support
all that growth is brushed aside by idiots as a "shortage" of dams and
canals.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

Robert Coté wrote in message ...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?

There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming
like
chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for
telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague
generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is
anonymous posting

So, there can be no such thing as sprawl and overpopulation because my
posting style doesn't fit your parameters. I like your evidence-based
approach to this.

The eastern seaboard is built to capacity in many areas,

You, of course, mean places like NYC the epitome of anti-sprawl. So
we
find out, finally, that you aren't against "sprawl" but against any
human footprint regardless of urban form.

I said eastern seaboard, not NYC, which is a relatively rare example
of high density. It's that way primarily because so much of it is
hemmed in by water, plus it's an older city designed originally
without cars.

But look at the rest of the east coast and you will find a sea of
development. Look at all the easily-accessible aerial photos on the
Web; they don't lie.

the midwest and most fertile
valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people)

Well, the Central Valley of California might disagree given their
massive urbanization and as people continue to vote with their feet
and
abandon huge swaths of the midwest you might reconsider.

People may be moving around but the U.S. population is still growing
by about 3 million annually, and people like you are in no hurry to
apply the brakes. "It creates jobs" is the typical excuse of the
growth-addicted. They don't like to ponder the question of why those
jobs would be needed without population growth in the first place. Too
heavy a concept to think about anything but unending growth. The Bible
mandates it, too.

and
the West is growing in places with barely enough water to sustain
it.

NYC doesn't have enough water to sustain itself either.

That general region is far more lush and makes a poor analogy to the
desert West. In the East, major rivers don't have to be reduced to a
trickle at their terminus, i.e. the Colorado's fate at the hands of
Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los
Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very
definition of sprawl, you fool!

Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization.

You probably also call overpopulation "human expansion" or "economic
growth." Those terms make it easy to ignore the cannibalization of
land. water and resources that's occurring in the name of endless
growth.

Los Angeles, for
instance, is the densest metro area in the US. Now you are
advocating
against denser urbanism and in the cases od LV and Phx against using
marginal open land for urbanization. First you bitch about valuable
farmland being lost and then you bitch about useless desert being
lost.
You are not anti-sprawl, you are anti-human. Lucky for the rest of
us
you are not a hypocrite and we all expect you to lead by example
below.

I am anti human OVERPOPULATION because I see what it's doing to the
world at the expense of nature and other species. I am fairly sure you
don't care about those "side effects" and it's probably for religious
reasons. Genesis 1:28 to be specific:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Zero population growth is an excellent idea, long overdue.

You first. Lead by example, prove your sincerity.

My personal life has nothing to do with the physical fact that Man is
outstripping natural resources, but I will never have more than two
kids (do you understand what ZPG is?) and never drive a V-8 car, among
other things.

I find it funny how so many neo-conservatives have abandoned "waste
not, want not" for "waste a lot, want more." When it comes down to
major lifestyle decisions, they have little interest in conservation
outside of their bank accounts. Every phrase they utter with respect
to the environment contains an escape clause. "We all want to protect
nature, BUT..." (and so on)

People who
oppose it don't understand that land and resources are limited
(usually a religious viewpoint).

The zealot preaches that everyone else is blind. LoL.

Are you a Creationist? Most snubbers of nature and apologists for
human overpopulation are literal believers in Genesis. See:

http://enough_already.tripod.com/genesis.htm

There are 290 million people in the
U.S. at the moment and it's not doing our quality of life any good,
unless you're in the construction business or some other
pyramid-scheme industry. Growth-addiction is something to be cured,
not satiated.

A big appeal of America was once its wide open spaces, but you'd
rather bury them in suburbs and asphalt under the pretense of
creating
"more wealth" or "more jobs" which would be unnecessary without
more
people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness.

No, Clue Deficit Disorder is the true danger.

Growth-addiction is my idea of cluelessness.

How many people would you like to see in America by 2050? I think this
country was plenty crowded with 200 million people. Do you think the
quality of life will improve with 400-500 million? Do you know what
causes traffic jams and long lines? Do you know what "finite" means?

Do you ever envision a stable population? Ardent watchers of GNP
growth and housing starts sure don't. Are you the slightest bit
concerned about the ongoing destruction of nature to accommodate
growth? I see little evidence of that in your post.

It is a fact that Man is altering the face of the Earth dramatically.
The main issue for me is why some people see it as a tragedy and
others cheer it on. There is a word called "anthropocentric" that
covers the latter.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem. It also says a
lot about the character of those who utter it. I'm surprised you did't
preface it with the other ignorant platitude about fitting the entire
world population in Texas.

See: http://enough_already.tripod.com/cliches.htm


E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
m...
"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?


No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme
population concentration.

If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc.
are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area
that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know.

This photo (see 2035 x 1581 version) is an undeniable case of sprawl
and gross overpopulation:

Thomas Malthus rides again. Smart Growth advocates simply hate people
and love animals.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
om...
Robert Coté wrote in message
...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?

There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming
like
chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for
telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague
generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is
anonymous posting

So, there can be no such thing as sprawl and overpopulation because my
posting style doesn't fit your parameters. I like your evidence-based
approach to this.


Overpopulation is a literary term, not a scientific one.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
om...
"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we
have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their
life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem

No, it merely asks you to stop being a hypocrite.

In article ,
Enough Already wrote:

If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc.
are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area
that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know.

"Sprawl" is a loaded term to describe growth.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article ,
Enough Already wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem.

No, it doesn't. It's merely an instance of the subjunctive
construction -- "IF overpopulation is a problem, THEN you committing
suicide will help".
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article ,
(Enough Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their
life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem.

No. The inevitable reference to suicide is because the respondent
recognizes the cognitive dissonance of the overpopulation crowd. It is
old and common precisely because it succintly reveals the hypocrisy of
the overpopulation crowd.

It also says a
lot about the character of those who utter it. I'm surprised you did't
preface it with the other ignorant platitude about fitting the entire
world population in Texas.

Since this is crossposted to autos, bikes and planning theres a better
"platitude." Reproduced here for your reading pleasu

If every road in the US were laid out in a grid 2 lanes in each
direction and spaced a half mile apart then the entire US road
system would cover a square 560 miles on a side. That at the truly
idiotic spacing of only every half mile and only 2 lanes and no
other roads whatsoever. Actually using a combination of freeways,
principal, arterial and tertiary roads in current proportions the
theoretical single urban area national model would be about 1/3
that size.

In article ,
(Enough Already) wrote:

Robert Coté wrote in message
...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?

There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming
like
chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for
telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague
generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is
anonymous posting

So, there can be no such thing as sprawl and overpopulation because my
posting style doesn't fit your parameters. I like your evidence-based
approach to this.

There is no evidence of either sprawl or overpopulation based on the
evidence you've produced in these posts or on your website. It is
precisely because I insist on evidence-based approaches that your post
fails to advance your claims.


The eastern seaboard is built to capacity in many areas,

You, of course, mean places like NYC the epitome of anti-sprawl. So
we
find out, finally, that you aren't against "sprawl" but against any
human footprint regardless of urban form.

I said eastern seaboard, not NYC, which is a relatively rare example
of high density. It's that way primarily because so much of it is
hemmed in by water, plus it's an older city designed originally
without cars.

But look at the rest of the east coast and you will find a sea of
development. Look at all the easily-accessible aerial photos on the
Web; they don't lie.

The reforestation of New England for instance? The depopulation of
upper New York State and northern PA?


the midwest and most fertile
valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people)

Well, the Central Valley of California might disagree given their
massive urbanization and as people continue to vote with their feet
and
abandon huge swaths of the midwest you might reconsider.

People may be moving around but the U.S. population is still growing
by about 3 million annually, and people like you are in no hurry to
apply the brakes.

Au contraire. I am more than willing to let you lead by example. Don't
blame me for you unwillingness to "decrease the surplus population."

"It creates jobs" is the typical excuse of the
growth-addicted. They don't like to ponder the question of why those
jobs would be needed without population growth in the first place. Too
heavy a concept to think about anything but unending growth. The Bible
mandates it, too.

Wow, the zealot preaches that the priests are peddling hokum.


and the West is growing in places with
barely enough water to sustain it.

NYC doesn't have enough water to sustain itself either.

That general region is far more lush and makes a poor analogy to the
desert West. In the East, major rivers don't have to be reduced to a
trickle at their terminus, i.e. the Colorado's fate at the hands of
Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Excuse me. Don't change the subject. You brought up sustainability and
you need to provide an example of sustainable to contrast with your
claims of the west being unsustainable. You cannot because sustainable
is the new "n" word, replacing sprawl in the agendaist lexicon.


Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los
Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very
definition of sprawl, you fool!

Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization.

You probably also call overpopulation "human expansion" or "economic
growth." Those terms make it easy to ignore the cannibalization of
land. water and resources that's occurring in the name of endless
growth.

Which land or water or any other resource has been consumed? Seriously,
the Club of Rome tried this 30 years ago and they were wrong. What
specifically is being consumed?

You first. Lead by example, prove your sincerity.

My personal life has nothing to do with the physical fact that Man is
outstripping natural resources, but I will never have more than two
kids (do you understand what ZPG is?) and never drive a V-8 car, among
other things.

How many electrons have died to produce your website? Your personal
lifestyle does indeed have everything to do with excess consumption of
resources.

people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness.

No, Clue Deficit Disorder is the true danger.

Growth-addiction is my idea of cluelessness.
....
Do you know what
causes traffic jams and long lines?

Transit, density and people like you.