Thanks for posting the article. I skipped it when I saw the subscription
I would like to point out an error in the 2000 source used for the
comparisons altho it isn't likely to refute the trends. The article
references the Census Supplementary Survey and goes on to say that it is
from the long form Census questionnaire. This in not the case as the
Supplementary Survey is not part of the Decennial Census and was taken over
a year's time from Nov. 1999 thru Dec. 2000. Among its purposes is
validating the proposed American Community Survey long term survey
procedures with the data collected from the decennial long form survey.
Unlike the 20 million households contacted in the Decennial Census long form
survey, fewer than 1 million were contacted during the Supplementary Survey.
There may also be some differences in the results in a survey taken over a
year's time compared to one describing one referenced census week in March.
Bicycle commuting comes to mind.
The actual Decennial Census long form data for Sumary File 3 is just now
coming out, so it wouldn't hurt to re-do these comparisons. Like I said,
it's probably not going to make much of a change in the findings, but for
analytical purposes I still like to know I'm working with apples and apples.
Don Burrell, Senior Planner
Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator
OKI Regional Council of Governments
801-B West Eighth St. Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH 45203-1607
513-621-9325 - fax
<A bicycle is an instrument for playing the road>
From: C Kenneth Orski [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 11:57 AM
To: Ed Herlihy
Subject: Re: [CTPP] INNOVATION BRIEFS Advisory
Perhaps my point of view will become clearer if you see the entire
Brief, which is attached. Unlike you, most "smart growth" and
anti-automobile crusaders refuse to accept the implications of the
trends revealed by the 2000 census. You would understand what I mean if
you took part (as I do) in some of the other forums devoted to "smart
growth" and anti-automobile proselytizing, such as CNU (Congress of New
Urbanism), STPP and TLC-net. Unfortunately, many "smart growth" and
anti-auto zealots are not as reasonable and clear thinking as you. They
do not let facts interfere with their ideology.
Ed Herlihy wrote:
As one of those who happens to support the Smart Growth movement you can
rest assured that I was not at all "surprised" by the new data in the Year
2000 Census. Most of us who follow these things, even casually, knew full
well that the aggregate trends were (and are) still going in the "wrong"
direction. Lets remember, the Smart Growth movement is just a "babe in
woods" and it may take decades for the message to
Perhaps the message of Smart Growth will not take hold and perhaps there
some land speculators who still expect to derive huge
profits from sprawl
and the proliferation of large lot McMansions. So be it.
But it is not the job of the "new Census data" to send us a message that
of the Smart Growth ideas are a "failure".
And it was never the message
from the Smart Growth folks that the car was going to be obsolete at any
time in the future.
It is the job of planners to seek out solutions that best serve our
communities. And, as we dig into the census data, we will most likely
some exceptions to the overall trends that will tell a
good story about
Smart Growth and its benefits.
PS. OK, I fully agree the CTPP may not the best list to start a discussion
about the merits of Smart Growth. If the list moderators have a
I will be glad to move the discussion to a more
appropriate forum, if
is one. Any suggestions?