before you go spouting off about "what the planners did to you", why don't you learn a thing or two about the public process and the extent of a planners power. Planners only make recommendations to the electeds based on public input, (you). Do you ever go to a commission meeting and let the planners know what your oppinions are? As far as zoning goes, it's the same thing, we only enforce what the public has helped develop. There is an extensive amount of public time allowed for input, and if you ever have your eyes open, you would maybe read a notice or two inviting you to voice your oppinion on the record.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 17, 1999

Answers

Oh tommy, You be de man with "with an accredited masters degree in urban and regional planning from the only college with an accredited program in the state" I just ask with all this study, how come you do such stupid stuff? If "Planners only make recommendations to the electeds based on public input" does that mean you jus' a pollster? You got no responsibility for billion dollar boondoggles? Why you go to all that school if you just a pollster? Like I said, you not a planner, you a wisher. You make a guess, and you wish it happens. Might as well play the lottery.

Facts be, you guys foul up urban renewal, you guys now foulin' up growth management, you guys foulin' up light rail. With such a wunnerful track record, why should we lissen to you AT ALL. Tell me what you done THAT WORKED! Don't tell me what you wished worked.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Tom-

Since your back....... IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

This chapter focuses on the household-based transportation of people in the United States. It examines revealed mobility, a term discussed in detail in chapter 6, using such measures as the number of trips taken and the number of miles traveled per person. Several questions are considered here: what is the overall level of personal mobility now and how has it changed; why do people travel; what modes of trans-portation do they use and at what cost in time and money; and how does personal mobility vary among people according to income, sex, age, and location.

Personal Mobility Trends By all indications, revealed mobility has risen appreciably over the past quarter century. This trend has been influenced by, among other things, changes in the labor force, income, and the makeup of households and metropolitan areas. As baby boomers and women poured into the labor force, the civilian labor force increased by 50 million people between 1970 and 1995, reaching 132 million people. Overall, the population increased by 59 million over this period. The number of women working outside the home nearly doubled, from about 32 million to 61 million. From 1970 to 1995, the number of households increased by 56 percent, partly as a result of households declining in size from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.65 in 1995. (USDOC Census 1996) More households translate into more trips for shopping, recreation, and taking care of chil-dren
fs needs. Changes in locations where people, live, work, and shop increased travel and dependence on private vehicles. Between the 1970 and 1990 censuses, the population in metropolitan areas grew from 140 million to 189 million.1 Between 1980 and 1990, the central cities lost 500,000 people, while the suburbs gained 17.5 million. At the same time, the suburban share of jobs rose from 37 percent to 42 percent. The shift in the location of jobs changed travel patterns. In 1990, 43 percent of all metropolitan commutes were from suburb to suburb, while suburb-to-down-town commutes made up only 20 percent.

Increases in the number of motor vehicles also contributed to the growth in passenger-miles traveled. The number of automobiles grew from 89 million in 1970 to 146 million in 1993. 2 (USDOT FHWA Various years) This increase is partly related to income growth. Disposable personal income per capita rose from about $12,000 in 1970 to $18,800 in 1995 (in chained 1992 dollars). (USDOC Census 1996) When people have more money to spend, they spend more on transportation, particularly on personal vehicles and long-distance travel. Growth in per-sonal vehicles goes hand in hand with the ability to drive which, not surprisingly, has an enormous impact on mobility. Detailed information about mobility and the mobility of specific groups within society is avail-able from four national surveys, the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) con-ducted in 1969, 1977, 1983, and 1990 (de-scribed in box 7-2). The NPTS conducted in 1990 revealed that on average each person made 3 trips a day, covering almost 29 miles, in that year.3 (USDOT FHWA 1992, 6) That was an increase from 26 miles a day in 1977, but only a slight increase in the trip rate (see table 7-1).

http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap07.pdf

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Hey Craig,

you're right about the demographics. I was arguing the efficiency of a bus or train that is being used. if it is not being used, then of course they are rediculously subsidized to the point they are not worth it. that density is only really achieved in the seattle metro area. I have not seen the subsidy/ridership numbers there, but I would dare to say that ridership is high enough to pay for itself. when you're looking at emissions, wair and tear on the roads, time saved, lost resources etc. It's probably not the case in rural areas.

as far as zowie goes, you still don't get it. we make recommendations to the people you elect. these recommendations come from you. we are not polsters. untill you learn a thing or two about the public process and land use law, I will not continue to argue with you. At least Craig's oppinion can be backed up with literature.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Oh Tommy-boy

You call youself planner? These numbers in the library, these numbers on the Web. How you "plan" without you know these numbers? Stick wet finger in air to test wind? That is not planning.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

"I have not seen the subsidy/ridership numbers there, but I would dare to say that ridership is high enough to pay for itself. when you're looking at emissions, wair and tear on the roads, time saved, lost resources etc"

Ridership and subsidy numbers aren't all that hard to come by. They are available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/ntl/ .

For Seattle Metro, farebox revenue covers 21% of operating revenue, essentially none of the $100+ million per year capital expenses. At the risk of sounding like "zowie" here, I would anticipate that an urban planner ought to have ready access to these and other numbers and be able to tell me why they think this constitutes a break even amount. As far as wear and tear on the roads, buses tear up roads too, and other than during the commute, they are generally operating FAR under capacity. It's hard to make the case that they are saving much energy or decreasing emissions when they're operating at load factors below 15% for much of the day. "Time saved" is a difficult argument to make,too, the literature indicates that it takes on the average LONGER to get there on transit. Given the money that we spend on transit systems (biggest line item in the MetroKC budget), one would think that urban planners would know this stuff backwards and forwards. Maybe not though, otherwise why would we be subsidizing it this much?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Tom-

RE:I will not continue to argue with you.

Probably just as well. He doesn't say much, but he's still making more sense than you are. You are indicating that urban planning is not a fact based process, just an opinion based process, tempered by whatever the politicians want to do. That's not a real persuasive argument, IMHO.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Mark--"Probably just as well. He doesn't say much, but he's still making more sense than you are. You are indicating that urban planning is not a fact based process, just an opinion based process, tempered by whatever the politicians want to do. That's not a real persuasive argument, IMHO."

While I certainly don't believe it's the rule, I've one piece of anecdotal evidence that supports his assertion. In my own neighborhood, Walgreen's needed a building permit for a new store. They were going to build this store on a lovely (trash and tires can be an art form), vacant Rainier Ave street corner. Furthermore, this street corner is surrounded by vacant commercial property with some particularly fetching architectural features (the junked 70-somethiing Mustang is my personal favorite). As luck would have it, Walgreen's would've purchased and cleaned up much of this crap as well. Unfortunately, Walgreen's and the city (allegedly heavily supported/pushed by Pageler) went round'n'round about the placement of the store's *entrance*. After approx two years, the city relented and Walgreen's got the permit w/o moving the entrance (it was fascinating to hear a city employee defend the whole thing. . ."well, they did get their permit"). Unfortunately, at this point, Walgreen's was no longer interested in building a store at that location (probably due to the new Long's Drug 400m further north).

Luckily for us, we've still have the pleasure of seeing the ugly-a** street corner and the junked-out cars. Overally, we'll probably be okay tho'. I imagine their are current plans to construct a monstrous Manicure Emporium at the site (I imagine only south Seattle residents will understand this joke).

My apologies to our non-Seattle readers. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

zowie & mark, fyi, planners use the "best available" knowlege, resources, techniques, and methods available to inform and work with the public in order to come up with good advice to give to the electeds. If those electeds take our advice, it is up to them. And yes, they can be held personally liable for illegal decisions. I will stand by this way as the best way to obtain public input and find the best solutions and alternatives to urban and regional problems. If you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.

Craig, I would still argue that the transit system in the seattle metro area is worth it, to a point. Density wise, Seattle has the only population that can fill a bus consistantly. and one bus does pollute less than an equivalent amount of sov's needed to fill the bus. You have been successful in influencing me in changing my mind on the whole rest of the state. As far as the hard dollars go, I am torn between the economics and the social equity. I guess it is a question of what you 695ers have been saying all along. it is something the taxpayers should say. Do we want to pay for the comuters to ride the bus, or not.

ps. I hope you all know that my name is not tom nichols and that is not my email. like some others I don't want to receive any of the crap that can potentially arrive in my email box.

pss. I am done writing, this has been somewhat of an addiction the past week or so, and I am losing time doing other things that I would rather be doing. thanks for the debate craig, zowie ebonics will get you no where, and westin, come up with some original quotes or you'll always be a follower.

-- tom nichols (nichols@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

"planners use the "best available" knowlege(sic)"

No comment required.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

"I am done writing" That be good. Less you say, less foolish you sound.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

" I hope you all know that my name is not tom nichols and that is not my email" Damn! Didn't get that right even.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

mark and zowie, get a life. you're making us look bad. if you have something worth saying and information to back it up, say it. otherwise, you're making us look like a bunch of ignorant hicks. personally I agree with tom. Planners are not the enemy. I have been to plenty of commission meetings and have seen no one there except the planners and planning commission. who are we to be pissed at them for not doing what we want when we don't tell them. Don't get me wrong, I am for 695, it's just that there's a way to debate, and a way to look stupid, and you two are doing the latter.

-- bill (bilxxx@xxx.com), October 18, 1999.

"I am for 695, it's just that there's a way to debate, and a way to look stupid, and you two are doing the latter. "

For sure. But I am PLAYING the fool. Tom is (unfortunately) giving us his best effort. And if you note above please, he started this thread, taking me on by name.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 19, 1999.