[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

This most certainly applies to your arguments, which as yet, remain unsupported by a single citation of a single study or report or even an apt example.



This is an ad hominem attack. You don't offer any evidence of any kind to dispute my assertions for which there are real-world proofs which I have offered up.

You simply attack me. I have not spent my time attacking you or any other poster and I don't wish to.

I have had enough of your endless insults, don't respond to any of my posts, if you can't post politely.

Flame Wars are against the code of conduct.

Either argue substance which means tell me specifically what you think I've said is wrong, and then support that conclusion with evidence, or stay quiet.



Yes, I said that. There is zero argument that expanding highways does not facilitate ongoing sprawl.

There is zero argument that sprawl is not cost-inefficient for government, resulting in either higher taxes or lower service levels or some combination of these, which will invariably hit those with the least income the hardest.

Sprawl also means those without a car are at the greatest disadvantage not only in employment, but in access to shopping, healthcare or simply sending their child to a good school.

Greater density makes the above easier (not easy).

There is no argument that increasing the total number of vehicles on the road does not result in greater pollution.

****



Can you please go back and find where I said "Proponents of highway expansion clearly want to cause more pollution or poverty"?

Because I don't remember saying that, if I did, I will apologize for misspeaking.

But I believe I said that's what the highway expansion program will cause, not that that is what motivated anyone.



Outside of compelling people to move out of the way of floods; I don't believe I proposed 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Its my understanding that Houston has already been doing this to some degree, I simply proposed a larger scale, and a prioritization system based on cost-efficiency for the taxpayer.

The rest is about incentives and disincentives (higher taxes if you cost the rest of us more money); (lower taxes if you don't) and prioritizing better transit service. There is no plot to micromanage everyone's life or tell them where to move. If you want 3 acres in the burbs you can have it. I'm just saying you should expect to pay the cost of it, not freeload on other taxpayers.

I have provided statistics to back up what I say. Once again, this backs up you live in your own world and read and see whatever you want to believe true.

"Its about a policy proposal for Houston to expand its freeway system, resulting n greater urban sprawl, greater poverty, and more pollution.

The presumption implicit in the proposal is that Houston's modal share for transit cannot be materially improved.

You have argued in favour of that position."

You are insinuating Jmanc is in favor of creating pollution and poverty. You are placing words in people's mouths and try to spin their beliefs.