The End of Sprawl as We Know it?

Obama on the road:

It’s imagining new transportation systems. I’d like to see high speed rail where it can be constructed. I would like for us to invest in mass transit because potentially that’s energy efficient. And I think people are a lot more open now to thinking regionally…

The days where we’re just building sprawl forever, those days are over. I think that Republicans, Democrats, everybody… recognizes that’s not a smart way to design communities. So we should be using this money to help spur this sort of innovative thinking when it comes to transportation.

That will make a big difference.

More context on T4America.

On the other hand at another stop on the same day he was extolling the virtues of a freeway project as economic development :-(

Separately, Earl is interviewed on StreetFilms about transportation advocacy and the stimulus.


9 responses to “The End of Sprawl as We Know it?”

  1. Chris,

    Using emoticons in your news stories looks very, very, very wrong. I’m not sure if that makes me a grammar snob, punctuation snob, or something worse, I just don’t think it suits the level of thought or work you put into most of your posts on this site.

  2. Well, if DC is really for mass transit, I know many mass transit agencies (even a certain one based at SE 17th & Center, as witnessed at this morning’s board briefing there) would like it if they would help with operational funding. Though it was noted that doing so could lead to a slippery slope.

    (As for me, I wish that we did not subsidize sprawl or road use, so transit could have more ridership and therefore more revenues, and not have funding problems in the first place)

  3. What would you propose to do to abate the population crisis (as your reference calls it), and how would those actions not be considered “social engineering”, which you have expressed an aversion to in the past?

    (I’m not disagreeing that population is a very serious issue — I’m just trying to get a sense of where you’re coming from given your past strong statements regarding anything which might be viewed “social engineering”.)

  4. Bob, if you read the article it answered your question.

    I did, it didn’t.

    I addressed my question to you. If you believe 100% the opinions expressed by the primary interviewees, that’s fine, just say so.

  5. OK Bob, here is a more direct answer; For the most part I agree with the article. The number of kids a couple has is a very personal choice, and it is not something the government should be dictating. The starting point to any action is through awareness education and having an open discussion, most importantly in the political spectrum, which makes the connection between population growth and sustainability thereby alerting people to make the link between having a big family and how it affects the world we live in. Beyond that and at this time I have no opinion on any action plan that could be developed as a result this discussion other than the discussion needs to be all encompassing, take place immediately and possibly one of the outcomes might involve some form of limiting tax deductions for having more than two children with exceptions made for natural born and conceived multiple births.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *