Not that I know anything about land use, but couldn't an argument also be made about not just the _amount_ of sprawl, but the _kind_ of sprawl? IOW, sprawl of any kind is bad, yeah, but what if the sprawl were made up of neighborhoods where people weren't dependent on their cars? I would think that sprawl from a commuter rail line, even acre-for-acre, would be much less harmful to the environment than sprawl from a highway, because the people occupying that sprawl wouldn't be driving as much to or from (or, hopefully, _in_) it.
In short, is sprawl itself the "bad thing" here, or is it car-based sprawl? Yeah, it could be argued that there's no real distinction between the two, but let's be honest, there's really been no example of non-car-based sprawl in recent history (none that comes to my mind, anyway). > From: "Mitchell Nussbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > One possible explanation: there are no interchanges on Hwy 14 between McCoy > Road and the outskirts of Oregon, so the freeway doesn't do much to make > this land more accessible to development. > > Also, there's land use policy to consider: the land to the east of the > freeway is in the Town of Dunn, which regulates development very strictly. > (The road itself goes through Fitchburg.) > > If a commuter rail line goes to Mazomanie, it will probably promote growth; > but there's a chance that the growth would be relatively compact -- in > around the villages of Mazomanie, Black Earth, and Cross Plains -- instead > of random development scattered around the countryside. Commuter railroads > and streetcar lines, before World War II, produced relatively reasonable > development. It was after the war, when people started relying on the > automobile for everything, that we started seeing uncontrolled sprawl. > > I don't think a commuter railroad would be the magic bullet that would stop > sprawl in Dane County, but it might be a useful tool for fighting sprawl. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Here's a quote from the article: > > > > > > consultant Mike Slavney: " if you do a freeway first, you're > > > going to be sucking development into that area ahead of its time." > > > > > > This should be obvious to anyone. > > > > Does US 14 heading east and south of Madison stand to counter the > > claim of obviousness? > > > > It certainly could be argued that Oregon would not be growing at > > its current rate without it. However, there currently are no big > > boxes and no sprawl reaching from Madison toward Oregon along > > this freeway corridor. When was this freeway built and what are > > the factors that are acting to inhibit sprawl along it? Is there > > something to be learned here that might be applied to the NBL? > > > > If Oregon's growth is a direct result of this freeway, doesn't > > one have to concede that increased growth in Mazomanie would be > > the likely result of proposed commuter rail projects? --------------- Paul T. O'Leary Desktop Insurgent Madison, WI USA _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
