Ocracoke Island is the only place I’ve ever visited where nearly as many people use bicycles as cars to get around. Admittedly, this is a vacation community: People aren’t in a hurry, and they enjoy being in the outdoors. But I’ve visited many other resort communities where people’s posteriors seem super-glued to their car seats. Here in Ocracoke, bikes own the road. It can be downright intimidating at times to drive a car. You frequently find yourself picking your way through clots of cyclists, walkers, joggers, mothers pushing their baby carriages – even the occasional trail horse.

I take it as a given that we Americans need our cars – at least one per household — to enjoy the kind of mobility we crave. But I also recognize that it is desirable to reduce our dependence upon the automobile, with its attendant congestion, gasoline consumption and pollution. Surely, there must be something we can learn from the Ocracoke experience. Somehow, without the imposition of draconian controls, this island community has evolved a human settlement pattern that is hospitable to cars, pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Ocracoke refers to itself as a “village.” Because most of the island is wildlife preserve, all development is concentrated at one end. The village has a distinct center: a cluster of stores, restaurants and hotels lining Silver Lake (which, more accurately speaking, is a lagoon, where ferries land and sailing boats moor). Arrayed around this center is a historic neighborhood of charming cottages fronting winding, interconnected streets, and more recently developed areas where Nags Head-style beach houses line the roads. During tourist season, the village is occupied by up to 6,000 people.

This is crucial: The geometry of the village configuration reduces the distances that must be traveled between any two destinations. In other Outer Banks communities, by contrast, pod-like subdivisions and shopping centers are strung out along a trunk road. There is no connectivity between pods, which forces all traffic onto a single heavily traveled artery. (There may be two parallel arteries in Nags Head – I’m not as familiar with that part of the Outer Banks). Bottom line: If you want to get somewhere in Ocracoke, the distances are shorter. That alone makes bicycling a more viable transportation option.

The village pattern is conducive to bicycling in other ways. Ocracoke roads and lanes are narrow, and speed limits restrict driving to 20 miles per hour (although some speed demons zip along at 25 mph). As a consequence, people feel safer using the roads. Serious cyclists may not mind hugging the sides of arterial highway with cars zooming by at 55 mph, but you won’t find many families with children who would choose that way of getting around.

Finally, there is never a problem parking your bike. Bike racks are ubiquitous. I cycle from my cottage to the local coffee shop every morning where I buy a bagel and cup of java, hook up my laptop into the WiFi connection, and catch up with the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. There is a bicycle rack out front, loaded up with some 20 bicycles. The parking lot, at this moment, contains only seven cars.

Which brings up a related topic… parking. Because so many people travel by bicycle, and because bicycles take up so little room compared to automobiles, the village surface area is not consumed by acres of parking lots. Parking spaces are squeezed in here and there around the restaurants, stores and houses, and along the sides of the roads, and it all seems to work. There’s enough room for everyone — as long as half the population is walking or bikding. The need for less parking creates a virtuous feedback loop – Ocracoke’s ability to accommodate bicycles keeps the village looking like a village, not a shopping center where isolated buildings are surrounded by asphalt. That, in turn, makes walking and biking more inviting.

Let me assure readers who jump to ridiculous conclusions that I’m not arguing that every community in the United States should be organized like Ocracoke. I’m not calling for the wholesale transformation of our transportation infrastructure to accommodate bicycles at an Ocracoke level of intensity. I’m simply suggesting that we can learn from Ocracoke, where a bicycle culture has arisen naturally. Developers building new communities de novo particularly should pay attention.

(Photo credit: National Geographic.)


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

41 responses to “Bicycle Heaven”

  1. Groveton Avatar

    Jim:

    Welcome back. Ocracoke Villiage sounds like a nice place. However, isn’t the villiage a small section of development on an otherwise undeveloped island that is connected to the mainland only by boat?

    How would you do what Ocracoke has done at scale? And, let’s not say big scale but rather modest scale – say 60,000 people instead of 6,000?

    10 self-contained villiages of 6,000 each?

    Isn’t part of the reason that Ocracoke has so much bicycle traffic because there’s really nowhere to go in a car?

    You have something of a point about the northern Outer Banks and the pod – style development. However, these things are never as easy as they seem. The northern Outer Banks are a long thin strip of land with one highway (Rt 12) and pod-like development in many places. So, you could connect the roads that feed to pods and create another Rt 12. However, you’d then have substantial traffic in front of the houses – which is where the children play and ride their bikes.

    I wonder if the geometery of the northern Outer Banks is really condusive to Ocracoke Villiage style development?

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    10 self-contained villages of 6,000 each?

    Well, check out Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Both have heavy bicycle usage, and both have a number of small villages.

    They also have nowhere to go in a car, much.

    It also helps if it is flat, and winter is mild.

    If we are going to go down this route, then we need a lot more places scaled to human energy outputs. Then those places are going to need to be connected somehow.

    It would be interesting to concoct a spatial energy model to see what works out best. How do we use less energy: one big WalMart that everyone (almost literally) drives to, or a bunch of corner Walmarts that we can bike to, but which now have much more difficult distribution, using trucks?

    RH

  3. Jennifer Avatar

    We went to Ocracoke recently for the first time this summer and mostly got around on bikes and foot the whole time we were in the village. We really loved it. However, Ocracoke has its own set of traffic problems. Namely, the roads are pretty narrow to fit pedestrians, bikers and automobiles. Speed limits certainly help but they need sidewalks and bike paths. This article outlines some of the challenges the village has been experiencing due to the huge influx of tourists over the past few years:
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/615274/ocracoke_traffic_is_talk_of_the_town/index.html .

  4. Jim Robb Avatar

    Distance is an obstacle to bike-centric travel, but so is attitude. While you are relaxing on the beach, have a read at Frederik Van De Walle’s essay “The Velomobile as a Vehicle for more Sustainable
    Transportation”
    http://users.pandora.be/fietser/fotos/VM4SD-FVDWsm.pdf

    The author covers many reasons why countries such as the USA have been slow to adopt different modes of travel. Most notable is the idea of a linear progress from bike to moped/motorcycle to car. I believe that bikes are considered toys by much of the population and they don’t belong on the road, and are certainly not EQUAL in the eyes of the law to the mighty SUV, even thought bikes ARE equal and have every right to “Share the Road” with SUVs. Happy riding! http://www.pedaleconomics.com

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Distance is an obstacle to bike-centric travel, but so is attitude.”

    Well, there you go. Let’s promotemore bicycle use by having more vacation! That ought to improve our attitude.

    ——————-

    Bikes are equal,or should be. Same right to use the road, same right of way.

    Unfortunately, auto drivers don’t seem to know that.

    I’ve even seen Yahoos leaning out of their pickups for a little fanny swatting. I wonder if that one is on the abuser fees list.

    We get a lot of weekend bikers here, and I often hear my neighbors grumble about it. I just tell them it doesn’t bother me a bit. Now, if I could just collect a scenery toll…….

    RH

  6. Paula the Surf Mom Avatar
    Paula the Surf Mom

    Sorry Urban Planning has never been one of our real strengths here in the Outer Banks… but this is a place where most people don’t wear watches or shoes either.

  7. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    It is harder to steal bikes when the thief lives on a tiny island and whould have to remove the bikes by boat.

    “Parking” and theft become a bigger problem when using bikes in large urban areas.

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    A lot of good observations in this string.

    Flat is good for people powered vehicles.

    Short distances with interesting things it see along the way are good too.

    So are facilities to support alternatives to Autonomobile (aka Auto Centric) Mobility and Access Options.

    Jim Bacons jumps to a questionalble assumption with:

    “Let me assure readers who jump to ridiculous conclusions that I’m not arguing that every community in the United States should be organized like Ocracoke.”

    In fact every urban area should be organized in Villages (and Dooryards, Clusters and Neighborhoods) and every Village should be part of a Community.

    There should be lots of different shapes and sizes of Villages. Some will be relitively self-contained like Ocracoke and be part of Balanced But Disaggregated Communites.

    Others will be coterminous and form Balanced Communities that make up functional and sustaianable New Urban Regions.

    Recreation and entertainment venues (including Ocracoke and the place I grew up) provide great opportunities to test what make people happy and safe — they are, after all, paying to be there.

    What should barrier island Neighborhoods, Villages and Communities communites look like?

    Years ago I was the senior officer at Navy Duck, that is now Duck NC. I stayed in the “BOQ” which was a seperate room for visiting officers, I was in the Army, it is a long story …

    The point is I have an idea of what the Outer Banks WERE — and have old slides to prove it — and could be.

    While at RBA we did do a plan for a large part of South Padre Island on the Texas Gulf Coast and for Islands in the Florida Keys.

    Groveton is not far off.

    Seaside on the Florida Panhandle is good example of a small, selfcontained large Neighoborhood / small Village scale project that respects many ecological values and has the feel of an upscale Okoracoke.

    The problem? It is too popular and the prices are out of question. Far more expensive than any Pod.

    The market solution?

    Build more of them and tear down the Pods like what has happened to South Padre and the Outerbanks north of Hatteras Inlet and especially north of Oregon Inlet.

    Off the top of my head if Florida were redeveloped at Seaside density all the citizens of the state could live withing 1.5 miles of the beach (a bike ride) and 60% of the waterfront would be undeveloped.

    Seem impossible? Apply Regional Metircs.

    Back to Jim’s post:

    “I’m not calling for the wholesale transformation of our transportation infrastructure to accommodate bicycles at an Ocracoke level of intensity.”

    It might be a good idea to so advocate.

    “I’m simply suggesting that we can learn from Ocracoke, where a bicycle culture has arisen naturally. Developers building new communities de novo particularly should pay attention.”

    Really good idea but:

    1) “Developers” (private) have been unable to build “new Communities” de novo since World War I. It require public and private interests working in concert,and

    1) The US of A is running out of time and resources to do this sort of massive reconfiguraltion even with public / private (I dislike the term) “partnerships.”

    Jim: Keep the observations coming.

    EMR

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    To test my off the top of the head recall on Seaside, I went back to The Shape of the Future (Chapter 18) and found the following. Note the change in Capitalization and some Vocabulary since 2000:

    Seaside by the Sea

    One of the primary living examples of New Urbanist design is Seaside, Florida. Seaside has
    received voluminous reviews and has been the subject of several books, a movie set and several
    analytical analyses. Throughout the 1990s, Seaside was a popular example to use in
    highlighting the pros and cons of neotraditional design. 24

    There is much to learn from Seaside with respect to unit-, dooryard- and cluster-scale design
    and the impact of this design on important social and economic issues. Since Seaside is an
    oceanfront enclave with many of the dwellings being seasonal, retirement or leisure oriented,
    some of the lessons have been discounted as not applicable to the real world.

    Most of the writing on Seaside misses the most significant point about this place. The reason
    that the 80-acre, quasi-alpha mini-village (neighborhood scale) of Seaside is important is
    the insight it provides to understanding pattern and density of land use. The critical advantage
    is that what one can learn at this scale is applicable to the rest of Florida and the United
    States. Pretty as it is, it is not the ‘cute’ architectural designs that should be the focus, but
    rather the implications for human settlement pattern.

    The ‘sub’urban, low-density land-use pattern and its impact on the environment are major
    issues in Florida. According to the Florida State Planning Office, 5.4 percent of the State is
    urbanized, and that urbanized area is occupied by only 1.9 persons per acre.

    Following Seaside’s example, citizens could increase the population of Florida by
    five times and never develop another acre of land. That would be the result if the area
    now urbanized were redeveloped (and re-urbanized) at the density of Seaside. This
    process has the potential to create alpha communities from Seaside-inspired alpha neighborhoods
    and alpha villages. The outcome would be communities with densities similar
    to Reston, Virginia, or any other Planned New Community—10 persons per acre (and
    40 percent openspace) at the alpha community scale—in conformance with the 10 – Person
    Rule.

    Alternatively, the population of Florida could grow by 2.5 times and at the
    same time remove from urban use half of the currently urbanized land in
    the State. Under this scenario, sensitive areas could be restored to conservation
    openspace by applying the Seaside settlement pattern.

    Another way of calculating the potential impact of the Seaside-mode development would be
    to relocate all of Florida’s residents to within a bike ride of the ocean. Seaside, which has
    predominantly single-family-detached housing, achieves a density at the neighborhood
    scale of between 10 and 15 persons per acre depending on how the hotel, inn and guest house
    population is considered. 25

    If the approximately 800 miles of Florida coastline which are already developed were redeveloped
    in the Seaside ‘mode’ over the next 50 years, it would accommodate 40-million people
    (current Florida population is 15 million +/-), all of whom would live within a bicycle
    ride of the beach or adjacent waterways.

    If one were to apply the principles of site planning and community design found in the
    80 acres of Seaside to a community of 100,000 residents which had a balance of jobs, housing,
    services, recreation and amenity, one would achieve an overall community density of
    somewhere between 10 to 20 persons per acre.

    The key would be redevelopment of the existing settlement pattern to densities
    which Seaside demonstrates has appeal, charm and perhaps economic
    viability, even in a non-resort setting.

    Such development will only happen when citizens (and thus the market) begin to see Seaside
    as a feasible alternative and not as a pastel summer enclave. That will happen when there is
    an understanding of the positive cumulative impact that Seaside density might have on the
    quality of life, on the cost of doing business and on the cost of living.

    The important regional human settlement pattern relationships are not understood in the
    abstract. They can be made understandable by examining the pieces of the built environment,
    but unfortunately most reviews of Seaside and other neotraditional planning
    do not reach this level of understanding, especially in ‘stories’ written for the general
    public. 26

    See what you could learn from Regional Metrics applied to the Outer Banks :>)

    EMR

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Oh, yes. The calculation in the 5:57 post must have been from a graduate planning class and those notes are not at hand.

    There are lots of ways to skin the cat but it all requires Fundamental Change in human settlement pattern and Seaside and Okarcoke prove people would enjoy alternatives to Business-As-Usual settlement patterns.

    EMR

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Putting all the people within a bike ride of the ocean sounds like a crazy idea to me. Better if we eliminate anything within 3/4 mile except facilities needed for boats. The best thing you can do for the seashore is leave it alone.

    The other thing is, that if it taks so little land to accomodate so many people, what exactly, are we conserving all that other land for? Who would ever enjoy it?

    10 to fifteen people per acre is a lot. It pretty much precludes hitting golf balls, backyard archery. Even a badminton court or horshoes would be tough. I just don’t see the driving imperative for wasting so much land by forcing/encouraging people to leive on so little. If anything,EMR’s argument about how little land we need works against his argument that we should actually do so.

    RH

  12. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, You hit the nail on the head: “How would you do what Ocracoke has done at scale? And, let’s not say big scale but rather modest scale – say 60,000 people instead of 6,000? 10 self-contained villiages of 6,000 each?”

    Exactly. Read carefully Ed’s comments about villages and the Seaside resort. Resort villages are largely, though not totally, self-contained. Unless you’re looking for some unique site — the best location in 200 miles for surfing, or some such — or you simply must patronize the Donky Kong putt-putt a few miles down the road, there is no compelling reason to leave your village. For most tips, cars are unnecessary.

    As Ed notes, people are willing to pay a premium to live in resort communities like that.

    Paula the Surf Mom: For a long time, Outer Banks residents didn’t need to know much about urban planning. But now that “over-development” is ruining what made the area so attractive to old-timers, you need to start thinking about what works and what doesn’t work in a resort community. If you don’t have a vision for what you want the Outer Banks to be, the developers will impose their own vision in piece-meal fashion, project by project, leaving state and local governments to deal with traffic congestion and the environment.

    Jennifer: I’d like to read the article you cited. But part of the URL is missing. Could you supply the missing piece?

    Jim Robb: Thanks for the link to the Van de Walle article. I’ve downloaded the pdf and will read it later today.

  13. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    To All –

    We have fond memories of our many
    visits to Ocracoke Island with our
    two sons over the years.

    The unspoiled beaches, the great
    pirate history, horses, a special
    village wrapped around a lagoon,
    interesting architecture and neat
    places to eat – that is what we
    remember about this island.

    The take of some of you wanting to
    make this place a case study for
    your views of planning and society
    is a little bit of a stretch.

    I bet island residents would find your
    views hard to grasp.

  14. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Roger:

    I grew up in just such a place and visit often.

    We have also lived and worked on small islands in the Caribbean.

    You will find there are a lot of full-time residents (“come-heres” and well as fifth generation “been heres”) who understand just what we are saying, some express it even better than we can.

    There are also some blockheads who claim not to “understand.” They can not understand, not because they are too stupid, but because they are so invested in Business-As-Usual, including “Individual Rights trump all Community Responsibilities.” They delude themselves with all manner of silly observations and non-sequtors.

    EMR

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Speaking of “Blockeads” who delude themselves…

    RH — Ray Hyde makes a good point that, in light of Global Climate Change, it may not make sense to put everyone within a mile and a half of the shore.

    For the forseeable future starting new constuction at least 60 feet above current high water from a Cat V strom surge may be a good place to start.

    As to his view of spreading across more land:

    He just cannot get it through his head that both the market and ecology document that:

    Urban activities function best, urban activities consume the least energy and the resulting life-style is most highly valued by the vast majority of citizens when densities are at or above Seaside — if, and this is a big if the pattern / design — is intelligent.

    Dr. Risse has been making this point for 15 years and to date no one has found grounds to dispute him.

    For urban civilization as a whole, doing nothing with land (an ecological reserve) is far superior to spreading out urban land uses.

    Anon Zeus

  16. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    EMR –

    Your 11:28 comments are beyond
    belief.

    Ocracoke Island is unusual in that
    the NPS owns most it, the village
    has limited room to grow, there
    are no bridges to it and the remote
    location discourages large crowds
    from visiting there.

    “Blockheads, silly, stupid ….”
    such remarks are applicable to this
    situation.

  17. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Elite fascists can’t help but reveal themselves. Read this again:

    “but because they are so invested in Business-As-Usual, including “Individual Rights trump all Community Responsibilities.” They delude themselves with all manner of silly observations and non-sequtors.”

    In our nation individual rights are what make our nation so great.

    Americans understand when their home is taken because a road or school is required at the place their own and live.

    But citizens own their land and the government’s job is to protect their private property.

    It is freedom that makes our nation the example and envy of all other nations.

    Individual’s rights are certainly worth greater respect than the Elites deciding THEY know best how everyone else should be forced to live.

    Me? I detest living in “high density”. No thanks.

    Society fails to respect my rights enough already. At least on my own land and in my own home I have a small plot of land whereby I control who I have to rub shoulders with once I return home from working.

  18. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Roger:

    The percentage of land that USNPS owns on Ocarcoke has nothing to do with the human settlement patter lessons that one can learn if they open their eyes.

    Within a 50 mile Radius of my home town USNPS, USFS and USBR owns 95% of the land, same story there.

    I fail to see what our 11:28 comments about folks in places like that agreeing with me (or not agreeing with me) has to do with your response.

    You may need a vacation. How about Ocaracoke?

    Reid:

    LET US REVIEW YOUR REMARKS:

    “Elite fascists can’t help but reveal themselves. Read this again:

    “but because they are so invested in Business-As-Usual, including “Individual Rights trump all Community Responsibilities.” They delude themselves with all manner of silly observations and non-sequtors.” “

    HOW IS THAT FASCIST?

    IN ANOTHER STRING I WAS CALLED A SOCIALIST.

    DOES THAT MEAN I AM A CENTERIST?

    OR SOMEONE SUGGESTING EVERYONE EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN AN INTELLIGENT, SELF-INTERESTED WAY?

    In our nation individual rights are what make our nation so great.

    YES, INTELLIGENT EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS ALONG WITH DEMOCRATICALLY DETERMINED COLLECTIVE / COMMUNITY ACTIONS.

    Americans understand when their home is taken because a road or school is required at the place their own and live.

    SOME DO SOME DO NOT, YOUR POINT IS?

    But citizens own their land and the government’s job is to protect their private property.

    YES, SO?

    It is freedom that makes our nation the example and envy of all other nations.

    ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF OTHER NATION-STATES HAVE HIGHER SCORES ON MANY OF THE PARAMETERS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. AS I RECALL, THAT IS A MAJOR ISSUE THAT SOME RAISE ABOUT THE CURRENT ELEPHANT CLAN ADMINISTRATION.

    Individual’s rights are certainly worth greater respect than the Elites deciding THEY know best how everyone else should be forced to live.

    FIND ONE PLACE WE SUGEST ANY “ELITE” SHOULD DECIDE WHERE ANYONE LIVES OR WORKS.

    WHAT WE SAY IS THE MARKET (ALL THOSE CITIZENS EXERCISING THEIR FREEDOMS) DEMONSTATE THAT SOME PATTERNS ARE PERFERED OVER OTHERS.

    FURTHER, IF THE FULL COST OF LOCATIONAL CHOICES WERE FAIRLY ALLOCATED EVEN MORE WOULD CHOOSE THE MAJORITY PATTERNS.

    AS I RECALL JIM BACON POINTED THIS OUT TO YOU ON A PREVIOUS OCCASSION. HE HAS BEEN EDITING OUR COLUMNS FOR YEARS. ASK IF HE HAS SEEN US TAKE A DIFFERENT POSSITION.

    Me? I detest living in “high density”. No thanks.

    SO LONG AS YOU PAY YOUR WAY, MORE POWER TO YOU.

    SPEAKING OF “POWER” YOU PAY THE SAME PER KILOWATT AS THOSE NICE FOLKS IN THE CONDO NEAR THE SUBSTATION SO YOU MAY WANT TO SEND THEM A NICE CHECK.

    Society fails to respect my rights enough already.

    I AM SORRY TO HEAR THAT, ACLU WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE OUR CALL.

    At least on my own land and in my own home I have a small plot of land whereby I control who I have to rub shoulders with once I return home from working.

    GOOD FOR YOU. I AM, FROM TIME TO TIME, BOTHERED ON MY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD DETACHED LOT BY OTHERS ON THEIR LOTS WHO PLAY MUSIC TOO LOUD, LET THEIR DOGS CHASE RABBITS INTO MY YARD, ETC.

    FOR THE RECORD, IN THIRTY YEARS OF LIVING IN THREE SINGLE HOUSEHOLD ATTACHED DWELLINGS IN THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES I HAD FEWER INTRUSIONS ON MY PRIVACY. QUIENT ENJOYMENT OF ONES HOME AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS A MATTER OF DESIGN AND CIRCUMSTANCE MORE THAN THEORETICAL RIGHTS.

    I HOPE YOU HAVE A RELAXING WEEK END, PERHAPS YOU WILL FEEL BETTER.

    OH, YES WENDY’S HAS AN NEW ADD WITH THE RED-PIGTAIL-WIG-GUY YOU MIGHT CATCH DURING AN NFL GAME.

    ALL THOSE FOLKS JUMPING INTO THE HOLE, THEY ARE EXERCISING THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

    YOU MIGHT HELP THEM GET ORGANIZED AND SEEK A COMMON SOLUTION TO THEIR PROBLEM: FILL IN THE HOLE OR HELP CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF CIVILIZATION.

    A HOT, JUICY HAMBERGER WILL NOT DO IT EVEN IF THEY ARE FREE TO BUY ONE.

    EMR

  19. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Angry Elites a funny!

    Oh BTW – this is revealing too:

    “QUIENT ENJOYMENT OF ONES HOME AND QUALITY OF LIFE IS A MATTER OF DESIGN AND CIRCUMSTANCE MORE THAN THEORETICAL RIGHTS.

    Theoretical rights?

    Um, my rights aren’t “theoretical”.

    Many Elites share a common belief that all “rights” are only want any collective decides.

    The whole point of the American revolution was that the rights of the individual transcend government and even the mighty “collective” has to respect our Rights.

    You see, without Rights, you have nothing once the “collective” decides they want what you have.

    “Collectives” created the institutions of slavery.

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Reid:

    You are not relaxing yet, and it sound like you are not having much fun yet either.

    As noted in another string you seem to be protesting too much.

    Could it be that in your heart you know the trajectory is unsustainable and that you believe the best way to insure that your children enjoy at least some of what you do is to protest Fundamental Change as loudly as possible?

    Did you catch that ad? Perhaps a filling-in-the-hole-project will get you in a more positive frame of mind.

    Or, perhaps a more careful read of history?

    EMR

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Resort villages are largely, though not totally, self-contained. “

    I don’t think so. No place is self contained any more, whichis why transportation is so important.

    I can recall periods of extended storms on Martha’s Vineyard, when the ferry didn’t run for weeks. The news reports made a big deal out of goods being flown to the island via helicopter.

    What they didn’t say was that the goods being flown in wer Pepperidge Farm pastries.

    Resort villages rely first on travelers, and then on freight to bring all the travelers need. All of that relies on travelers having a place to go home to, and a job there which earns them enough to afford a vacation. Call it business as usual.

    I think that in order to have more sustainable places we should start by not rebuilding places that are destroyed. We can gradually expand the National Seashore by refusing to allow destryed places to be rebuilt. We simply buy up that area, and thosehomes which have not been destroyed are grandfathered, just as they did with the original national seashore. You could stay as long as you were alive, but when you died, your property passed to the seashore in excahnge for payment.

    In this way we could have a floodplain national park (how many times have we watched the Desplanes river flood?), anearthquake national park, a firebreak national park, etc. We can avoid trampling on rights with adequate compensation, and justify the compensation through future savings.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Urban activities function best, urban activities consume the least energy…”

    Prove it.

    Urban areas are enormous energy sinks, that is why they have heat islands. One result of the heat islands is that all those spaces that require air conditioning are competing with each other for heat rejection, which riases the coss for everyone. It is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.

    My home uses more space, but it is primarily airconditioned by trees.

    The energy information agency provides reports on hosehold energy useage by area, and rural areas use almost the same energy per household as urban areas. The distribution and type of energy used is different, but not the amount.

    Then, in addition to household energy use, the urban areas have almost infinitely higher community energy use: streatlights, traffic signs, elevators, etc.

    This stuff isn’t too hard to look up, but undoubtedly there are blockheads who prefer to believe what they wish to believe than to accomodate their beliefs to the truth.

    “….the resulting life-style is most highly valued by the vast majority of citizens when densities are at or above Seaside — if, and this is a big if the pattern / design — is intelligent. “

    You said it yourself,it is a big if. The design isn’t intelligent and this is what is causing the exodus of jobs and people from the urban areas. If there was no exodus, the you wouldn’t be so worried about “excess” land use. If your statement was correct then people would be pouring into the urban areas.

    In fact, both trends are occuring simultaneously (in and out of urban areas). What we ought oto be doing is measuring what is going on, and developing incentives that move us gradually toward the sweet spot that includes the best of the best for everyone. But, as long as we simply proclaim what the sweet spot is, and invent unsupported statistics to promote the idea, we will never become smart enough to determine what intelligent design is.

    Our cities are a hodge podge collection of what people once thought was the next big thing. That is both the beauty and the failure of our cities. But we don’t have the slightest bit of evidence anywhere that what some think is the next big thing will be any more successful than all our previous failures.

    “Dr. Risse has been making this point for 15 years and to date no one has found grounds to dispute him.” Well of course not. He invents his vocabulary and his statistics. On his grounds there is nothing to dispute.

    The market (and government) has made the cities and urban areas the most expensive places. But the market also includes all those who have sold out and moved west to less expensive digs (EMR included). This is a little fat that EMR ignores in his “market analysis”

    Dr. Risse might define a stairwell to be an impenetrable wall, and you and I might believe him. But my dogs and cats don’t know that, so they continue to go up and down the stairs, pretty much the same way as I might, if I wasn’t brainwashed. Eventually I make the “silly observation” that the physical truth as I see it is different from what I have been told.

    Calling me a blockead, even by allusion, is equivalent to calling Copernicus a blasphemer, and about as accurate.

    EMR also makes some good observations. Somehow he manages to string them together in the most incongruous and manner, insulting anybody and everbody else’s expertise and mental capacity in the process, to reach and support his own preconcieved conclusions.

    Cities cost more to live in, and more to govern. Money is a good proxy for resources and energy, therefore cities are among the least efficient places, not the most efficient.

    I’ve been making this point for thirty years, and no one has found grounds to dispute me.

    “For urban civilization as a whole, doing nothing with land (an ecological reserve) is far superior to spreading out urban land uses.”

    This strikes me as utterly crazy. Let’s put everybody on five percent of the land and do nothing with the rest, for a month. Without the resources the urban areas depend on, and the work it takes to get them, the urban areas would shut down in a month.

    When I talk about using more land, I don’t mean using more land badly, I mean using more land better, in a way that avoids the problems of both our urban areas and our poverty stricken rural ones.

    What I’m talking about is getting there gradually, based on things we can all agree to be true, and based on things that are profitable for all, as opposed to simply takling what isn’t ours based on majoritarian rule.

    That is what I call fundamental change.

    And it is an idea I’m not afraid to put my own name to, Anon Zeus.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “..LET THEIR DOGS CHASE RABBITS INTO MY YARD..”

    A classic example of how screwed up we have gotten by allowing the idea that anything and everything everbody else does or doesn’t do is somehow an offense to me personally, no matter where they live or how little their influence.

    Dogs chase rabits. Its natural. Get over it.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Let’s, for once, put New Orleans on the front burner. After all, Katrina exposed all the ills of urban America – endemic poverty, institutionalized racism, failing public schools, and much more. New Orleans is just a microcosm of Newark and Detroit and hundreds of other troubled locales.” Douglass Brinkley, History Professor, Rice University, from today’s Outlook section WP.

    How does that compare with EMR’s vision of urban areas as the most valuable section of the market?

    —————————————————————–

    “Expanding conservation support. To offset the pressure of ethanol on crop production, policymakers should expand the federal and state programs that fund farmers who implement conservation practices. Congress is currently re-authorizing the farm bill and should take this opportunity to expand conservation efforts to offset the impacts of ethanol [production].” Todd Simpson and Daphne Pee are Professor and regional liaison for the Mid Atlantic Water Program of the Department of Environmental Science at the University of Maryland. From an article on protecting the Bay, in today’s outlook section, Washington Post.

    I have frequently stated the one way to have more conservation is to make it more profitable. I believe that policymakers should expand federal and state programs to fund farmers who implement conservation practices. I’m not sure what this has to do with offsetting the effect of ethanol production – we should fund farmers for conservation, regardless. I have been cited berated for such statements because some people think I make them for personal gain. Even if that is true, at least I am not alone in my thinking.

    RH

  25. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    To All-

    Some much said, but little said on
    this posting …

  26. rodger provo Avatar
    rodger provo

    Corrected Note

    To All-

    So much said, but so little said
    on this posting ….

  27. Groveton Avatar

    OK –

    So Ocracoke Isaland is a good place. That seems agreed to by all. And , Seaside is a nice place. I’ve been to Seaside, FL. It’s a great place. Hard to imagine that anybody going to Seaside would dislike that town. Question is how to create more Ocracoke Islands and Seasides away from the coast, beach communities and relatively isolated areas.

    I’ll talk about my home in Great Falls, VA. About 8,500 people live in Great Falls although it’s exact geographical boundaries are vague. There has been a lot of effort to make Great Falls more of a walkable / bike-able community. People have their hearts in the right place but “individual rights” make things difficult. For example, there is plenty of land in Great Falls but few sidewalks. This was partially a consequence of ad hoc development and partially a consequence of what some of the people living Great Falls wanted. There is a minority or residents who believe that the lack of sidewalks makes Great Falls look “countrified”. Personally, I think these people are deluded on a good day. Great Falls is a suburb, not a farming community. Unfortunately, my understanding is that those of us who want sidewalks and bike trails built would have to convince every land owner to agree to these sidewalks and bike routes on their land. Unfortunately, this is impossible. There is a stubborn minority who somehow believe that their 3 acres of land in Great Falls makes them some kind of a proto-farmer.

    Anyway, it sounds like Ocracoke Island and Seaside, FL are both places where community has been developed through ease of access and the creation of a village. Does anyone know of a community that has “retro-fitted” itself into more of a town or villiage like environment after it was built? And how did those places get people to put aside their individual rights regarding the establishment of things like sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and trails for bicycles?

  28. Groveton Avatar

    I am surprised by the debate as to whether urban or rural areas are more important. It seesm to me that question is like asking whether one’s heart or lungs are more important. As any doctor will tell you – both are pretty darn important.

    Ray says that people who live in rural areas consume less resources. First, we have to ask per what unit? If it’s per acre then there is no question. However, if it’s per person – I’d like to see some facts. I just don’t know. However, I’d extend the question to look at per person consumption of resources in the context of all taxes generated. It seems clear to me that those living in urban and urbanizing areas pay a whole lot more in taxes per person than those living in rural areas. However, I have no facts to support this – it is just my sense of things.

    Wouldn’t it be nice of the politicians seeking office would, at least, offer to put some math behind these essential questions?

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sorry, folks, but this post about the virtues of Ocracoke is a little on the silly side.
    Oracoke is simply too unique. Why?

    (1) The vast majority of the island is owned by the federal government. A lot of development just isn’t possible.

    (2) Travelers must arrive by boat, limiting access.

    (3) Many properties within the commercial zone have been in families for years and are unlikely to be sold.

    So before we get the usual anti-sprawl message, let’s propose that the federal government buy up all the farm land around any urban/suburban area. We could have state or collective farms just like the USSR. Sprawl problem over.

  30. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    IRT: “There is a stubborn minority who somehow believe that their 3 acres of land in Great Falls makes them some kind of a proto-farmer.”

    Folks, it is THEIR land. If they don’t want THEIR land taken for someone else to ride bikes on THEIR land, then that is THEIR RIGHT. They own the land.

    If someone else wants to ride bikes on someone elses land, then they need to BUY THE LAND for the price the ownders wish to sell.

    Everyone has a price.

    The question is if those that want to ride their bikes on other people’s land are willing to pay for their wants.

    Do these “minority” land owners own both sides of the road?

    If not, then build the bike path on the side of the road that the owners are willing to allow other people to ride bikes on THEIR land.

    I am puzzeled by the notion that people fail to understand the concept of others owning land.

    BTW – what have those that want to ride bikes on other people’s land done to make it worth it to the land owners to allow passage across theri land?

    How much are the bike riders willing to PAY to cross someone else’s land?

    You say these folks want to keep the area “countyfied”? Have the bike riders offered to mow their fields or do something for the land owners that might make the land owenrs WANT to allow the bike riders on their property?

    What have the bike riders offered the land owners out of the pockets of the bike riders?

    I imagine there are some chores the bike riders might be able to do for the owners to encourage the owners to allow the bike riders to use their property.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton raises good points. It is complicated and it depends on how you look at it. As he says, it seems clear to me that those living in urban and urbanizing areas pay a whole lot more in taxes per person than those living in rural areas.

    My claim is that money (taxes per head in this case) is a good proxy for energy and resources. If it is true that rural people pay less per head, then they are probably getting less services and using less resources, at least from a government services point of view.

    As far as personal consumption goes, it turns out they are pretty equal, as far as I can tell, but the consumption is for different things.

    RH

  32. Groveton Avatar

    Reid:

    Your comments illustrate my point – it is nearly impossible to retro-fit a more livable lifestyle onto a neighborhood after it has been built and occupied.

    Yes, the land is owned by the landowners.

    However, my salaray is owned by me. That is – until the government decides to take some (a lot) of it for the “common good”. I don’t get to say whether or not I like the individual reasons for the government taking my money – I just pay the taxes and move. Later, I make my statements at the ballot box.

    Somehow, my salary is not my property but my land is my property. Government may take my money but may not impose easements on my land.

    Is this distinction written somewhere in the Constitution or just a modern concept.

    I am puzzled by the notion that people fail to understand the concept of others owning money.

    If government can’t do soemthing as simple as getting sidewalks or bike paths developed (when they are overwhelmingly desired by the people in a neighborhood) then we need a LOT LESS government.

    The bike riders mow their fields? These people are farmers only in their own minds. There are no fields. Only lawns and some trees. I guess the bike riders could offer to rake the leaves.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton: your comments on biketrails and sidewalks in Great Falls exactly match my experience when sidwalks were proposed for my area of Alexandria.

    for what it’s worth, real estate types have figured out that sidewalks do in fact decrease the value of your home. Beats me why, but there it is. Maybe people prefer to look countrified even if they aren’t.

    I’d prefer the sidewalks/bike trails myself, but I also agree with Reid, put up or shut up.

    Even assuming that planning had been in place, the developers would have had to foot the bill for sidewalks. The way this works out economically is that whenever developers incur new (imposed) costs, part of the cost goes forward to the buyrs, and part of it goes backwards to the sellers because the developers are willing to offer less for the land when there are additional imposed costs, which raise their risk.

    In this case the sellers get no benefit from the bike trails but they pay about half the cost. On the other hand you can say that the “benefit” is that they get to sell their land for subdivision, which would not be allowed without the perks and proffers.

    The other choice is to allow them to sell the land without impositions and allow the new owners to decide what perks and benefits they want and are willing to pay for.

    Great Falls probably screwed up by not planning for the bike trails, even if they were not built at the time. As JB pointed out with the sidewalks to nowhere post, it makes no sense to require that something be built if it doesn’t connect anywhere, asnd there is nothing to connect to yet.

    You are dammned if you do and damned if you don’t, appparently.

    RH

  34. Groveton Avatar

    Ray:

    Sidewalks reduce home values (at least according to real estate agents)? Wow. I can (sort of) see how people in Great Falls want to look countrified but Alexandria? I love Alexandria but really struggle to see where anybody could hope to look countrified.

    Where did you hear that real estate agents think sidewalks reduce home values?

    Great Falls is pretty typical for Fairfax County. There was no planning. Individual farms were subdivided over time and developers built homes as they went (with a few small exceptions and one large exception). Interestingly, the exceptions are pod based development with many houses on cul de sacs and they all have sidewalks.

    It’s too bad in Great Falls because the geometry of the land is almost perfect for a pedestrian / bike path system. In addition, there is a village center (i.e. strip mall) that is at heart of the neighborhood and could be re-developed into a town center.

    Finally, there is a gas pipeline running through the place that already has an easement. A trail could easily be put on that easement but (apparently) the gas company doesn’t want a trail on “its property”.

    I believe the state authorized tax reductions for people who are willing to provide a sidewalk / trail easement on their land. There is just enough of a minority of people who don’t want to be bothered.

    When I bought my car in 2001 I recall having to pay a luxury car tax. There was no basis for the tax – it wasn’t gas mileage, it wasn’t wear and tear on the roads. I was taxed because they could tax me.

    Maybe we need a luxury property tax. You can resist efforts to make Northern Virginia a more livable place but it will cost you. I am thinking that a 50% real estate property tax surcharge would be reasonable. This would apply to people who refuse easements, it would also apply to people who buy houses on disconnected cul de sacs.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I should clarify. My Fairfax property is in the Lincolnia Park area, between Springfield and Annandale. It is in Fairfax but has an Alexandria mailing address because it is on the border.

    Lincolnia Parkis an old subdivision, probably 40’s and 50’s, charachterized by modest homes on well treed, relatively large lots. It is bounded by 395 on one side and industrial parks and commercial on 2 sides. It is bisected by several small stream beds which offer corridors of open space.

    When I moved there, there were still small farmettes and barns in use. Now lots that were previosly considere unbuildable are being utilized, and smaller homes are having major additions or re-builds. On the street nest to me there is a tiny bungalow, probably 700 sq feet, next door to a major megamansion, probably 9000 sq ft.

    Because of the stream beds the roads are curvy and hilly. Because of the safety issues, the county offered to install sidewalks and bill the cost back to the residents as a temporary addition to their property tax, under very favorable terms. The neighborhood voted the project down, overwhelmingly.

    Yes, it is true, apparently. Sidewalks decrease the value of your home, because it detracts from the sense of privacy. It seems crazy to me, but there it is. I forget where I found it, but you could probably google it. I seem to recall it was a realtors web site, but it might have been one of the planning associations.

    As for cul-de-sacs,it turns out that such plans provide more houses for less street:it is a denser development plan. Where you might have had an intersection in a grid system, buildable only on the corners, you now have four disconnected cul-de-sacs with homes located circularly all around the dead ends. And, the homes on the dead ends sell for higher prices. You get a nice little circular playground where the kids can play in the street without traffic, and additional privacy. You have backwards neighbors from the adjacent cul-de-sacs and the adjoining yards offer the feeling of more space and become gathering places for barbeques, etc.

    I have a problem with charging people extra for not co-operating or because we now have been brainwashed into thinking cul-de-sacs are an evil. This amounts to sending people a bill or reducing the value of their property because we changed the “rules”.

    It is the government’s job to protect people’s property. If the government thinks that some new amenity is worth while and necessary for safety or whatever, they can impose that vision and pay fair compensation. If the amenity is really worth while, the value of homes or economic activity will go up, and the government will soon get its investment back.

    If the government wants an intersection to join four cul-de-sacs, they can buy six or eight hoses and put it in, then pay the remaining house for the reduction in their property value.

    Under those rules, the government can do what is necessary, peoples property is protected, and the government is inhibited from being downright stupid.

    It IS too bad that apparently worthwile projects can be prevented by a few holdouts. But they bought their property with certain understandings in place.

    We think it is too bad that a few can disrupt worthwhile projects, but try telling that to vocal protesters at a public hearing on a development plan that does not even touch their property. Nothing in their deed contains any understanding that they have the right to interfere with other people’s use of their property in a similar manner to what their own is used for.

    I see it as tit for tat. Strong property rights are what will allow someone to buy and tear down a city block and put in a wildlife refuge, if they like. When the bike people want it enough, they will raise the money.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wasn’t the luxury tax based on weight or fuel economy or something?

    RH

  37. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    IRT:

    “Maybe we need a luxury property tax. You can resist efforts to make Northern Virginia a more livable place but it will cost you. I am thinking that a 50% real estate property tax surcharge would be reasonable. This would apply to people who refuse easements, it would also apply to people who buy houses on disconnected cul de sacs.

    I disagree. This idea is taxing the wrong people. If some people want to ride their bikes on land owned by othter people then the tax needs to target the B -I -K – E – R – I – D – E – R – S, not the property wonders that don’t want other people riding bikes on the land the other people do not own.

    Tax the bike riders to raise the money needed to purchase the right for BIKE RIDERS to ride on other people’s property.

    I am always puzzeled by those tah are qick to advocate tolls to pay for new roads, but I never read or hear them advocate for tolls for those that walk on sidewalks – ride bikes on taxpayer funded bike paths -or ride horses on taxpayer maintained horse trails.

    Where is the outcry for “user pays” for bike riders, walkers, and the hrosey-lobby?

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They don’t even need to raise enough money to buy what they want. They may be able to accomplish the same thing by raising eneough money for advertising, public awareness, and education to change the public perception of the need enough to encourage landowners to co-operate voluntarily.

    EMR constantly mentions education as a precursor to change. But the caveat has to be that the advertising and public education is honest, truthful, and verifiable. too often advocacy groups of one kind or another get carried away with their own claims.

    My prophesy is that eventually someone will get killed, and then perceptions will change. When I spoke to my supervisor 15 years agoa about bike trails (not even bike trails, but just a policy and a plan for the future) he just sniiffed, “Bikers don;t spend any money.”

    After a few bikers got killed, the county started to develop a plan. It is a hard way to prioritize, but it is one that seems to get attention.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Tax the bike riders to raise the money needed to purchase the right for BIKE RIDERS to ride on other people’s property.”

    OK, so take a census of who has bikes in their garage. Probably, it is pretty near everyone.

    Government has an obligation for safety, so they could impose the bike trails, pay the owners a fair amount, and send the bill to just about everyone.

    But safety needs to be prioritized, too. If there are other projects that provide a better safety ROI, then the bike trails might still not get on the list of things to do.

    We make a mistake by trying to tax the other guy, especially when the other guy might just as well be us. The problem with the user pays philosophy is that there are frequently not enough users to foot the bill.

    In a lot of cases that is enough to kill the idea, and rightfully so. But there are also cases where the benefits extend to more than just the users. Suppose a kid gets killed on a bike. It is really bad for the kid, sure, but it is bad for the motorist, too. To the extent that there are real benefits to other than the users, we should expect them to contribute as well. At some point the benefits are real but diffuse, in which case you just pass the hat and expect everyone to contribute.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bike friendly communities are not isolated to small resort/tourist villages. Take a trip to Scandinavia (Denmark and Sweden come to mind) and observe how integrated the bicycle is into their culture.
    The streets of Copenhagen, for example, are full of bikes…people actually (gasp) commute to work in the downtown area by bike. Every train station has a parking area FULL of bikes (hmmm, bikes plus public transportation..maybe those Scandinavians are onto something). Bikes are encouraged almost everywhere, including very functional bike lanes throughout the city.
    Another interesting side effect…and this is a qualitative observation…they appear to be a healthier group of people as they pedal to work, school and the market. Not too many stuck in hours of rush hour traffic, shoving a huge McDonalds value meal breakfast down their gullet.

    Hmmmm…could be the answer to a lot of issues, eh?

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Copenhagen is only a small part of a larger urban area, just as Arlington is part of a larger urban area. When you look at the greater copenhagen area, the transportation situation you describe is much different.

    Greater copenhagen has a population density of 1769 per Sq mile. Compare that to 2455 per sq mile for NOVA or close to 7000 per sq mile for Arlington. Outside of Grater Copenhagen the population density drops to 230 per square mile or about twice the value for Fauquier or culpeper county.

    Sweden and Denmark have have much higher taxes than ours: the tax burden is Sweden is over 50%.

    So, if you want to be more like Denmark, move more people out of town, increase the population of the countryside, and raise the taxes.

    RH

Leave a Reply