WRAP UP OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON FOUR INFRASTRUCTURE POSTS

Keeping up with serious comments on the INFRASTRUCTURE posts has been difficult given other commitments. Included below are notes on the remaining comments that merit consideration and response from the four prior INFRASTRUCTURE posts.

Most of the comments, including those that had to be deleted, on the prior INFRASTRUCTURE postings document beyond a shadow of a doubt that an open-ended Blog is not an environment conducive to serious or fruitful discussion of issues that have a clear context, especially when this context is intentionally ignored by those who comment.

The Blog format / forum also does not work for topics where the logical conclusion from informed discussion will run counter to the preconceived short-term self-interest of some of the commentors. This is especially true for those who do not understand the context and therefore do not understand what they are talking about.

The following three comments present useful amplification opportunities:

I. GROVETON ON URBAN SETTLEMENT PATTERN MODELING

On 21 Feb 11 and 22 Feb 11 Groveton made comments on the fourth INFRASTRUCTURE post LANDSCAPE URBANISM, NEW URBANISM OR A THIRD WAY.

These comments related to Urban settlement pattern modeling are very constructive. EMR largely agrees with these observations based on his experience with Urban simulation models dating from his work with the first of these models in 1965.

However, the context provided by the New Urban Region Conceptual Framework makes beneficial use of modeling far EASIER. It is not an example of the difficulty of creating useful models.

As noted in THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE, there have been two kinds of models used to simulate Urban system and Urban sub-systems such as Mobility and Access.

First there are the complex models that approximate the modeled reality but for which there is no data.

Second there are simplistic models for which there is data but they do not approximate reality.

The overarching, comprehensive New Urban Region Conceptual Framework allows one to model the activities of smaller scale systems (at the Unit, Dooryard and Cluster scale) and then incorporate the confirmed outcomes in the next higher component model. That is the basis for the “Next Higher Component Impact Analysis” which is a valuable tool in land use controls.

Portions of the original comment by Groveton are followed by EMR notes in ALL CAPS.

………….

“Landscape urbanism seems unreal to me. More like religion than science. Lots of theory. Limited practicality.”

WELL PUT.

“New urbanism is great – if you have enough money to live in a new urban locale. Seaside? Beautiful. Bring a bag with $1M in it if you want to buy a place there. I know a few people who live in Seaside. They all trade commodities. Great place to live as long as you don’t have to physically show up for work. Kentlands? Great. However, be very careful about where Gaithersburg ends and where Kentlands begins before declaring that there is much in the way of affordable housing there.”

SAME FOR CELEBRATION, AND MANY OTHERS.

“Your “third way” holds some hope. I just wonder whether any model would be good enough to plan it. the interactions among dooryard, cluster, neighborhood, village, community and NUR are very complicated. Kind of like a human body with cells, organs, skeleton, etc.

EXACTLY.

Thousands of years of medicine, trillions of dollars of research and no computer can really model any person’s actual body. Is it possible to model the human settlement pattern for a whole nation-state?”

IN A SINGLE MODEL? IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT BUT THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF HAVING A OVERARCHING, COMPREHENSIVE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AS NOTED ABOVE.

ALSO, SINCE THE NUR IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK OF HUMAN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, THE NATION-STATE SCALE MODEL IS A MELDING OF NUR AND MEGAREGIONAL SCALE MODELS.

ANOTHER FACTOR IS THAT:

HUMANS ARE NOW URBANIZING AND IN THE DEVELOPED NATION-STATES BETWEEN 90 AND 95 PERCENT OF THE HOUSEHOLDS ARE URBAN, AND

THE MOST FUNCTIONAL URBAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS FROM ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL PERSPECTIVES – AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE MARKET AND CAREFULLY DESIGNED PREFERENCE SURVEYS – ARE THE VERY SAME PATTERNS AND DENSITIES THAT HAVE EVOLVED BY TRIAL AND ERROR OVER AT LEAST 13,000 YEARS

THERE IS ‘HARD’ EVIDENCE OF WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOES NOT.

SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT MODELING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY IS HARD BECAUSE FISH, CRABS, OYSTERS AND SAV’s CANNOT READ.

HUMANS CAN READ AND THEY CAN CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR IF THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH A CHANGE IS IN THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST.

“And don’t you have to model it before you can build it?”

YES, BUT…

TRIAL AND ERROR FOR 13,000 YEARS ALLOWS FOR MAKING A LOT OF GOOD ASSUMPTIONS. See Chris Alexander’s “TIMELESS WAY OF BUILDING.”

FURTHER, THERE ARE MANY ‘RIGHT’ WAYS AND CHOICE, DIVERSITY AND COMPLEXITY ARE POSITIVE FACTORS IN FUNCTIONAL URBAN FABRIC. THAT IS CLEAR FROM VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEYS AND MARKET DATA.

“Isn’t this why the new urbanists are obsessed with neighborhoods?

VERY PERCEPTIVE.

It’s the biggest unit of organic settlement that can be modeled and planned with today’s methods, practices and technology.”

ACTUALLY MUCH OF THE PROBLEM WITH A NEW URBANISTS PLANS IS THAT THEY DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND SMALLER SCALES DOORYARD, CLUSTER.

GROVETON IS RIGHT THAT NEW URBANISTS ARE STUCK ON “NEIGHBORHOODS” BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SCALE.

“Isn’t that why they love grids? If you get the model wrong, you can expand or contract the neighborhood just by adding or removing a few nodes from the grid.”

GOOD POINT.

Your “Third Way” would require an hour by hour model of every person in a nation state over a period of many years.

NOT REALLY FOR THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.

“Even then, you’d have to consider outside factors like world industrial competition. For example, who (in 1950) could have foreseen Detroit losing one half of its population as the American car industry lost out to foreign manufacturers. Japan and Germany were in ruins and Korea had as much money as Ghana.”

ACTUALLY, THERE WERE THOSE IN THE 20s, NOT EVEN THE 50s, WHO WERE SAYING RELIANCE OF CARS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO. BY THE 50s YOU HAD MANY – MUMFORD, OWEN AND OTHERS – WHO UNDERSTOOD THE OVERARCHING DYNAMICS, IF NOT THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF KOREA’S GNP.

AND ABOUT DETROIT, THE SHRINKING OF DETROIT IS ALSO AN ORGANIC PROCESS THAT FOLLOWS THE NUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.

“What model would have predicted the 2011 jobs imbalance in Detroit back in 1950? From German, Japanese and Korean competition.”

WITH RESPECT TO CORPORATE STRUCTURE, EMR HAS NO POINT OF REFERENCE BUT WITH RESPECT TO SETTLEMENT PATTERNS, NOT A STRETCH.

“I think you have a great conceptual overview. I just wonder if it can ever be reduced to mathematical practice.”

“An IBM computer may beat the best human Jeopardy players but people still die of cancer every day. Some problems are just too complex for quantification. When that happens, usually the “invisible hand” of economics comes the closest to a solution.”

WELL, FROM 2007 TO 2011, THE INVISIBLE HAND HAS TREATED HOUSE PRICES OUTSIDE R=30 ABOUT THE WAY IT WAS SKETCHED OUT (A ‘DRAFT’ MODEL) IN 1998 BY SYNERGY.

“Any chance of that happening with human settlement patterns? Let me guess … only when all the location variable costs are properly allocated.”

SMART FELLOW, THAT GROVETON

“But that, in itself, is a model too.
“When I was in college I took linear programming. The basic idea was to find maximum and minimum points from a series of lines in space. Only, sometimes, the lines were skew. They didn’t come to a maximum or minimum point.

“Maybe that’s what we have here. The complexity of doing it right is beyond the possibility of doing it at all.”

SEE PRIOR NOTE ON THE 13,000 YEARS OF TRIAL AND ERROR TO BUILD ON.

[In a later comment Groveton said:}

“I’ve got nothing against models. I use them all the time. And I certainly have nothing against linear programming. There were times when I felt like calling my college girlfriend IDA because I spent more time with UVA’s Interactive Data Array than I did with her.

“I just wonder about the limits of model building. I am unconvinced that anybody can effectively model interest rates over a five year period.”

THAT WOULD BE FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN ESTABLISHING A INTEGRATED SET OF MODELS SCALED TO THE COMPONENTS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT THAT HELPED GUIDE THE EVOLUTION OF FUNCTIONALITY OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.

“Ed’s ideas about a Third Way at scale seems like a massive modeling exercise. And without very sophisticated models I wonder how you could design functional human settlement patterns up to (and including) the Super Regional level.

“I’ve seen a lot of models of the Chesapeake Bay. They are all very interesting and educational. They are also consistently wrong. A predicted good year for blue crabs turns into a bad year for blue crabs and visa versa. The interplay of thousands (millions?) of variables just seems to be beyond the state of the art in model building. Is human settlement beyond the neighborhood level in the same category? I don’t know.”

SEE EARLIER NOTES – IF WE COULD JUST GET OYSTERS TO READ…

……………

“In fact, I see parallels between the videoconferencing / collaboration kit now available and human settlement patterns.

“Changing jobs and two income households always seemed like an Achilles Heel in the theory of functional human settlement patterns. Let’s say you are working in the same neighborhood where you live. Then, you get a better job in a different neighborhood 20 miles away. Do you move or do you commute? Most people would commute. But that could take a long time in shared vehicle systems.”

DEPENDS ON THE STATION AREA SETTLEMENT PATTERNS. THE TIME FOR A 20 MILE COMMUTE IS MUCH LESS FOR ALMOST ALL TRIPS IN THE CORE OF REGIONS SUCH AS WIEN, STOCKHOLM, ETC.

BACK TO HUMANS BEING ABLE TO READ BUT FISH AND CRABS NOT SO WELL. YOU CHOOSE A PLACE TO LIVE SO THAT YOU MAXIMIZE FLEXIBILITY IF THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS YOU.

“So, people figure they’ll just drive their car 40 miles a day.”

NOT IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO OR IT TAKES THREE HOURS IN A CAR AND ONE HOUR ON A SHARED VEHICLE SYSTEM.

“What if you could just log in? Sit right in your home office with the video on and work away. Somebody wants to ask you a question – they just click on your video box on their unit and speak. At 1080i or 1080p levels, it’s like walking up to someone in their office or cube.”

FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE TRAINING, THE PROPER JOB AND THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT, THAT IS AN ANSWER.

“Maybe there’s a Fourth Way. A technology turbo-charged Third Way.”

FOR SOME. BUT FOR MOST IN A SERVICE BASED ECONOMY, THAT DOES NOT WORK, BUT FUNCTIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS DO.

……………..

II. GROVETON ON CHICKEN WASTE

As Mr. Bacon suggested, Groveton’s comment on chicken waste on the post INFRASTRUCTURE PART TWO POINT ONE at 9:18 AM on 5 Feb 11was not up to his usual standards.

What is most FRIGHTENING is that the comment documents that after all this time, Groveton STILL has no idea TO what the phrase “a fair allocation of location variable costs” refers. He provides a fantasy riff completely unrelated to the context of the post.

Ninety five percent of the Households in the US are Urban Households – they receive the majority of their economic support, social interactions and physical actions from Urban contexts.

“A fair allocation of location-variable costs” refers to the equitable allocation of the total location -variable costs of the 40 +/- Services (capital “S”) that make Urban life possible and enjoyable.

Disposal of chicken waste is NOT one of those 40 +/- services.

Disposal of chicken waste IS one of the costs of doing business for those who raise chickens.

There is a very clear Common Law of Nuisance Principle that applies to this case:

A land owner cannot do ANYTHING on their property that substantially damages others use of their land – including the use of common land. In the case of impact on water resources the impact is, of course, downstream.

In the year 1521 one could be beheaded for blatant acts of water pollution in violation of this principle.

As civilization ‘progressed’ the number of things that a land owner could do that negatively impacted those downstream owners multiplied AND the cumulative impact became less and less apparent.

In the US for 330 years it was assumed that the land resource was unlimited and a blind eye was turned toward land abuse. More recently, in an attempt to keep food prices low and to “protect” the mythical ‘small farmer’ more and more land abuse – erosion from clear cutting and bad agricultural practices, excessive runoff from hard surfaces, pollution from over fertilization, pollution from on-site waste disposal including animal waste – have been overlooked.

There is no fancy cost allocation problem here. It is just a case of “Cease and Desist” and “Pay the Damages.” This logical Agency position has been neglected for so long it is now the belief of some that they have acquired a ‘right’ to pollute in order to make a bigger profit..

………….

In his comment Groveton says:

“Just estimating these costs would require a massive government bureaucracy.”

NOT SO.

“Which, in itself, would be another location variable cost of the chicken farming industry.”

IF THERE ARE COSTS, THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY REGULATED SHOULD PAY THEM ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS.

AS MR. BACON POINTS OUT THE REFERENCE TO “conservative elites” APPEARS TO HAVE NO BASIS OR AT THE LEAST REQUIRES A DEFINITION OF THE COMPOSITION OF THESE ‘ELITES’ – VIRGINIA FIRST FAMILIES? DECEDENTS OF POKAHANTAS?

…………….

There are two important contextual points raised by Groveton’s comments:

First the meaning of the phrase “A fair allocation of location-variable costs.” As noted above, this phrase applies to the Services that support Urban activities, PERIOD

Second SYNERGY’S work focuses on evolving functional and sustainable Urban settlement to serve the needs of the 95 percent of the Households. These Households cannot occupy more than 5 percent of the land for daily activities if they are to achieve functional economic, social and physical relationships for the vast majority of those daily activities.

In this context, the determination of the appropriate use of land or the value of land for NonUrban land uses is not even an issue.

If society takes care of the Urban settlement patterns INSIDE The Clear Edges, then the NonUrban settlement patterns OUTSIDE The Clear Edges will take care of themselves so long as there is a well-informed market, a fair allocation of the costs of the NonUrban use and appropriate use of both private land and common land.

There exists a vast speculative bubble concerning NonUrban land value that has been building since before the Revolutionary War. This bubble is rooted in unfounded speculation as to the amount of land that ca
n be devoted to Urban land uses. This bubble was first inflated by post roads, toll turnpikes and canals serving proto-Industrial Revolution uses. The bubble was inflated by the spread of railroads. It was hyped into the stratosphere by Federal Aid Highway program in the 20s and pushed even higher by the Interstate Highway program in the 50s.

To this day the speculative land value bubble is maintained at stupendous levels by the false assumption that any place to which one can drive Large, Private Vehicle is a suitable location for Urban land uses.

The bubble has been so big for so long it is now considered a “Right” to cash in on the unsupportable speculative value. See THE PROBLEM WITH CARS

III. A NOTE ON LARRY GROSS’s SECOND COMMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE MANIA

[In the comments section following the 30 January Post INFRASTRUCTURE MANIA Larry Gross posted two substantive comments on the topic of the post. The first one was addressed at 9:27 AM on 31 January in that comment string. The second one posted at 4:18 PM on 31 January is addressed below.]

Larry:

You continue to fabricate disturbing and unfounded strawpersons in an apparent attempt to trivialize the need to understand human settlement patterns. Most of the assumptions you make in constructing your strawpersons were not true 20 years ago based on the data on the actions and desires of those who chose to live at the OLD minimum sustainable density of 10 persons per acre at the Alpha Community Scale.

Your strawpersons represent conventional wisdom concerning ‘traditional values’ 40 years ago. These views have never been the majority position and have been declining as a percentage of Regional wide market preferences since that time. See note on the market preference for New Urbanism at the Dooryard, Cluster and Neighborhood scale in LANDSCAPE URBANISM, NEW URBANISM OR A THIRD WAY and in the note by Groveton on the values in Seaside and Kentlands (Kentlands proper) included above.

It is important to note that with the end of Autonomobile domination, the MINIMUM density at the Alpha Community scale within Clear Edges will move from 10 persons per acre to between 15 and 25 persons per acre.

This is a change in MINIMUM density at the Alpha Community scale WITHIN The Clear Edge but it is NOT Manhattan (250 persons per acre at the Neighborhood scale).

Just so everyone will know EXACTLY what the above references to strawpersons mean, here is Mr. Gross’s comment from INFRASTRUCTURE MANIA of 30 January 2011 with EMR notes in ALL CAPS:

…………….

“I’d tend to agree with the view of the Volt in terms of economics if it were not for the fact that the Telsa that preceded it was about 100K and the price has now dropped by ½ and in general, technology advances by dropping by about ½ per decade.”

TESLA IS STILL “PRECEDING” AT $120,000 PLUS. THE GM VOLT DOES NOT HAVE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA THAT COMPARE TO THOSE OF THE TESLA VEHICLE.

“What happens when the Volt and it’s competitors get 50+ mpg and cost 15K?”

WHAT HAPPENS” IS THAT:

● ALL CITIZENS WILL STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM OF SPACE TO DRIVE AND PARK LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLES IN FUNCTIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS THAT MEET THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL NEEDS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE 95 PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE URBAN.

● MOST CITIZENS WILL BE DRIVING A VEHICLE THAT IS EITHER UNSAFE TO DRIVE ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM OR ONE WHICH COSTS MORE THAN THEY CAN AFFORD TO BUY AND MAINTAIN.

● A GROWING NUMBER OF CITIZENS WILL STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM THAT BUYING AND MAINTAINING PRIVATE VEHICLE IS OUT OF REACH (EVEN AT $15K). THESE ARE CITIZENS WHO PERFORM JOBS THAT ARE NEEDED TO SUPPLY GOODS AND SERVICES IN A BALANCED, RESILIENT, ALPHA COMMUNITY.

AS THE COST OF ENERGY AND RESOURCES – INCLUDING FOOD THAT IS SAFE TO EAT – CONTINUE TO RISE, FEWER AND FEWER WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLES AND THUS WILL BE ISOLATED (LOST) IN THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN REQUIRED TO EFFICIENTLY USE LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLES TO ACHIEVE MOBILITY AND ACCESS.

“For daily home-to-work-to-home commutes – I agree with EMR – that mass transit is the way to go and I see that becoming the defacto standard just about anywhere there are HOT Lanes.”

NOT ‘mass transit,’ THE REFERENCE IS ALWAYS TO ‘SHARED VEHICLE SYSTEMS.’

THE VAST MAJORITY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD ‘COMMUTES’ IN LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLES, PERIOD.

MOST WILL NOT FIND LONG DISTANCE COMMUTING TO BE THEIR BEST OPTION ONCE LOCATION-VARIABLE COSTS ARE FAIRLY ALLOCATED.

“But Mom is not going to take the kids to Soccer in a bus…” [NO10AC]

HERE YOU GO WITH STRAWPERSONS.

[To save space EMR has appended the notation ‘NO10AC’ which means that the prior statement was NOT CORRECT for the majority of citizens living at 10 Persons per acre at Alpha Community Scale in 1980. This indicates that this is a strawperson and not a characteristic of the majority of the Households living at minimum sustainable density LONG BEFORE THE GREAT RECESSION.]

THE VAST MAJORITY OF MOMS HAVE HAD TO GO TO WORK. THEY DO NOT CHAUFFEUR CHILDREN. THE KIDS WALK TO SOCCER PRACTICE AND MOST GAMES EVEN IN 10 Pn Ac PNCs.

THE LARGER ISSUE IS THIS:

ONLY ONE HOUSEHOLD IN 4 HAS CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18. WHOLE COMMUNITIES, SUBREGIONS AND REGIONS CANNOT BE LAID OUT TO SUPPORT 25 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION, EVEN IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO DO.

MORE IMPORTANT, AS A FATHER OF THREE ONCE SAID:

“A PRIVATE YARD IS A TERRIBLE PLACE TO TRAP A CHILD BETWEEN THE AGES OF 3 AND 18. TO RAISE A CHILD IT TAKES A VILLAGE NOT A YARD. A FUNCTIONAL VILLAGE HAS SOME DWELLINGS WITH PRIVATE YARDS AND A LOT OF COMMON LAND. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF EVERY DWELLING HAVING A YARD – ESPECIALLY A BIG YARD – IS TO ISOLATE CHILDREN FROM THE ENVIRONMENTS THAT HELP THEM GROW UP.”

IF THE LOCATION VARIABLE COSTS ARE ALLOCATED FAIRLY, PARENTS COULD NOT AFFORD TO HARBOR THE BIG YARD / PLACE TO RAISE THE KIDS ILLUSION UNLESS THEY WERE IN THE TOP 5 PERCENT OF THE FOOD CHAIN AND COULD AFFORD TO LIVE IN A PLACE LIKE THE WOODLANDS.

“…and Dad is not going camping dragging his boat behind a Greyhound.” [NO10AC]

DAD WILL RENT OR BARROW AN SUV TO TOW THE BOAT, OR BETTER, HE WILL SHARE OWNERSHIP OF A BOAT THAT STAYS AT THE LAKE.

UNTIL DAD FINDS SIX FRIENDS TO SHARE THE BOAT, HE RENTS A BOAT WHEN HE GOES TO THE LAKE.

STORING A BOAT AND TWO CARS AT THE DWELLING AND USING THE BOAT TEN WEEKENDS A YEAR IS IDIOCY THAT FEW CAN AFFORD NOW AND EVEN FEWER WILL IN THE FUTURE.

“Mom, Dad and the kids are not going to visit Grandma by riding Amtrak hauling all the presents and dog buffy.” [NO10AC]

ACTUALLY THEY WILL IF THEY CAN GET THERE IN LESS TIME AND / OR AT LOWER COST.

IF A SHARED VEHICLE SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE, THEN FOR 1/50 THE COST OF OWNING A VEHICLE THAT IS NEEDED THREE TIMES A YEAR, THE HOUSEHOLD WILL RENT A VEHICLE FOR SPECIAL NEEDS TRIPS.

THE LARGER POINT IS THAT GRANDMA NO LONGER LIVES OVER THE RIVER AND THROUGH THE WOODS AT SUNNY VIEW FARM.

GRANDMA SHARES A COHOSING LOFT WITH HER PARTNER NEAR A PRT STATION. SHE USES THE PRT TO ACCESS THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE WHERE SHE TEACHES RESTORATIVE YOGA AND CREATIVE VOLUNTEERISM.

“EMR must think the average person is going to hold up 364 days a year in his apt in a 32 or 64 du condo or whatever and never aspire to head out to Taco World and then Best Buy before returning home to enjoy the food and Home Theater.”

SARCASM DOES NOT BECOME YOU. THERE IS NO REASON THAT ONE HAS TO DRIVE A LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLE TO GET TACOS – OR ANYTHING ELSE.

BOTH THE 32 AND THE 64 DWELLING UNIT SCALES ARE RATIONAL SCALES FOR A CLUSTER
OF DWELLINGS WITH SOME PRIVATE ELEMENTS AND SOME SHARED ELEMENTS – AKA ‘CONDOS,’ ‘CO-OPs’ OR RENTALS IN LOFT, FLAT OR DUPLEX FLOOR PLANS.

“That may happen the day we are out of oil and out of coal and out of options but that day must be 100, 200 years from now and must presume that we’ll also be out of natural gas and solar/wind never panned out.”

“RUN OUT IN 100 YEARS” – PERHAPS. BUT WHEN WILL THE COST WILL BE TOO HIGH FOR THE MAJORITY? THAT IS NOT 100 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT IS NOW.

“My premise is that as long as we have energy – people will want to be mobile and will ….”

THEY MAY ‘WANT IT’ BUT CAN THEY AFFORD IT? WHAT WILL THEY GIVE UP TO GET IT? THE MARKET SAYS THAT MOST HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ALREADY MAKE A CHOICE. THAT IS WHY MODE OF THE MARKET DWELLINGS BEYOND R = 30 STARTED DOWN IN 2006 AND ARE STILL GOING DOWN.

“It’s an inherent aspect of the human condition and.. yes… civilization.”

NOT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT MARKET SURVEYS WHEN COST IS A CONSIDERATION.

“Even in the Jetson Comic Book World – there is uber PERSONAL mobility – even more/better than we have now.”

JETSON MOBILITY IS ‘REAL’ ONLY IN COMIC BOOKS AND / OR FOR AT MOST 5 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION. See “The Sky Car Myth.”

LOOK NO FARTHER THAN TUNIS OR CAIRO TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE WITH EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION DO NOT GET A FAIR SHARE. GOOGLE “WHY EGYPT ERUPTED” OR SEE “ENOUGH?” (FORTHCOMING).

“Many other aspects of settlement patterns, I buy.

“but if we have large mass transit commuter buses or high speed monorails – we are also going to have exurbs…. and people will use personal mobility vehicles to get from the station to home.”

AS Mr. BACON POINT OUT REPEATEDLY, NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO PROVIDE “mass transit commuter buses or high speed monorails” TO SERVE SCATTERED URBAN LAND USES.

End of Larry Gross Quote

…………..

OK.

THAT IS THE LAST TIME EMR WILL REPEAT THE OBVIOUS:

EMR will no longer comment on unrealistic strawpersons as an excuse to justify continuation of Business-As-Usual.

If one REALLY does not understand after all this time, further discussion is of little value. It makes no sense to continue the discussion.

NB:

The three core posts on INFRASTRUCTURE will be revised to reflect input – most of the constructive input came from direct comments to EMR, not from Blog comments – and be available as an INFRASTRUCTURE Perspective.

Also please be advised that it has been requested that all comments that do not pertain to the subject of INFRASTRUCTURE – e.g. FICA, diesel electric mechanics, legislative process, etc – will be removed from all five posts. EMR has been told by the group that has volunteered to do this work that removal will include disingenuous spam that starts out “this is what I have been saying for years” that is driven by the ‘any critic of my enemy is a friend of mine’ strategy.

EMR