PE –
So that’s the kind of discussion I was referring to…
I don’t really understand the applicability or relevance of your first paragraph, so I’ll skip past that:
==>”Atlanta has a rail system, an extensive bus system, work – live – play complexes, bicycle paths, walk able areas and in fact I thought your fountain picture at first was from Atlanta. Georgia gives ridiculously high subsidies for electric vehicles.”
You might find this interesting:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/jobs-and-transit/AtlantaGA.PDF
As Wikipedia notes:
However, reliance on cars has resulted in heavy traffic and has helped make Atlanta one of the more polluted cities in the country.[3] The Clean Air Campaign was created in 1996 to help reduce pollution in metro Atlanta. Since 2008, Metro Atlanta has ranked at or near the top of lists of longest average commute times and worst traffic in the country.[4]
And there’s this:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2070992_2071127_2071091,00.html
I’m not suggesting that Atlanta is all bad. I do know some people, however, that are engaged in urban planning/built environment issues and I do know that there are some formidable issues in American cities in a general sense. One of those issues is the ongoing polarization between private automobile users and other constituencies that predominates less in European cities. Now of course, there are a lot of historical reasons why that difference exists, but does that mean that we should rule out making comparisons?
==> ” I wouldn’t presume to judge without looking beyond my impression into some more systematic comparisons whether Atlanta or Barcelona was doing the most with the resources and problems inherent to their histories or locations.”
And that’s why I like you, PE.
==> “The above was my opinion. Here’s an expert. This whole Atlanta – Barcelona thing looked fishy to me so I dug into it. Alan Bertaud a scholar and urbanist did the original study discussing Atlanta and Barcelona.”
Thanks for the resource. So Google found me this:
In Atlanta the longest possible distance between 2
points within the built-up area is 137 km, in Barcelona it is only 37 km. The short trip distance due to high density in Barcelona makes it possible for a significant number of trips to be done by foot or bicycle, within Barcelona municipality, 20% of trips are made by walking. In Atlanta, the number of walking trips is so insignificant that it is not even recorded!
So there are two ways I would look at that. One is in line with your position – that making the comparison is of limited use because it’s apples and oranges. On the other hand, the comparison may be useful if we are looking towards identifying ways to improve built environment with consideration of environmental, health, and economic outcomes.
==> “The picture gleaned from his publications are very different than what it is being twisted into by the environmental guilt movement. ”
Personally, I find it less useful to focus on what is being “twisted by the environmental movement” as there is usually, IMO, a lot of inherent subjectivity in that kind of characterization. It seems to me that it is more useful to get to the meat of the discussion.
==> ” He notes how spatial structures are usually the unintended result of unforeseen consequences that they defy policies meant to shape them and that they are path dependent and change very slowly. He says you can’t define an optimum because objectives change over time. ”
Well, I know people who are engaged in making what I consider to be significant progress in these areas. Yes, there are many, every complicated issues that have to be dealt with, but there are some good models out there for bringing about positive change. In particular, I like the kind of progress that can come about through participatory planning procedures where a variety community stakeholders are involved and gain ownership over outcomes.
==> “It’s clear from his writings that Atlanta can’t be Barcelona.”
I wouldn’t suggest that Atlanta can be Barceolona. That, again, looks a bit to me like reducing the variety of discussion points to one, absurd discussion point. What is the value in that?
==> “American cities differ from European and he identifies Atlanta as unique among American cities. Here’s a quote “only after we abandon the illusion that new transit and innovative land use planning will decrease pollution and congestion, is it possible to look at more realistic solutions.”
That seems somewhat hyperbolic to me. Perhaps he is right, but I have met many people engaged in these processes who don’t think that making progress on reducing pollution and congestion through practices such as dedicated bus lanes and the integration of various new technologies and reducing user fees and decreasing wait times, etc., is an “illusion” that “needs to be abandoned.” Yes, absolute reductions would not be possible and yes, obstacles exist. But are you saying that progress on those issues is not possible?
==> ” We should look for solutions in areas that have a proven track record: technology and traditional economics, i.e. pricing.”
Precisely.
==> “Further his work meshes with my earlier suggestion that perhaps both cities could learn from the other.”
Sure.
==> “He notes that in Atlanta “the average yearly level of nitrogen oxides was 47 mg/m3 compared with 55 mg/m3 in Barcelona. Air pollution due to traffic in Barcelona is higher than Atlanta, in spite of the fact that Barcelona has a density 28 times higher than Atlanta and that 30% of trips are by transit and 8% are walking trips.” Barcelona has lower standards, older cars, worse emission control and less systematic inspections.”
All valuable information.
==> “To me it sounds like an ignorant form of elitism to say we need more Barcelonas and less Atlantas based on a cherry picked comparison without digging down into the details”
I agree that facile and simplistic reasoning is counterproductive. These are complicated issues and they deserve sophisticated treatment.