----- Original Message -----From: Gardner, John FSent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:39 AMSubject: RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commuteA strange response, unless you believe oil dependence, autombile emissions, excess land consumption, farmland loss, and habitat fragmentation are not important issues. If human convenience is more important than those issues (or if I'm just imagining that those are sprawl-related issues), then sprawl is a good thing.-----Original Message-----
From: Putta, Viplava [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: [CTPP] USA Today article on drive alone commute
Sometimes what we intend to say looks way different in print (from the same USA Today article). But it brings a paradox to the front about sprawl:
"As development spreads out across the region, the density of travel along a particular route downtown decreases and the opportunities for ride-sharing go down," said Dougherty, who works on transportation issues in the
region. "That's another problem of suburban sprawl." Philadelphia
Since when carpooling became a solution for sprawl? If congestion (density of travel) went down, is that a problem? And if sprawl is responsible for alleviating that problem then that must be a good thing!!
My 2 cents.