Our society is never more than one minor event away from mass chaos.
Last night it took 2-1/2 hours to get home from work. A bus caught on fire on the highway, and all lanes shut down. I was near an exit and got off in Burtonsville, MD. It turned out that the neighborhood had only one entrance and exit, and the exit was blocked by a fire hose for 90 minutes. By then, there were at least 500 cars trapped in the neighborhood.
Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?
Because fewer options make it more of a headache to drive?
It’s like Nutrisystem for alarmist energy consumers: “I know I have to drive less, but it’s so hard, so I’ll pay you to make it harder for me to drive the amount that I’m used to. That will cause me to do what I ‘want’ to do anyway — plan ahead, combine trips, carpool, etc. And then all my friends will agree that I’m as cool as they are! Hooray, I’m living cool! Now I can die happy.” RTF
There is a community around here like that. RR tracks, the ocean and a bluff dictate access.
My street has three exits. All have bridges that are too low and if we get too much rain the roads flood. Another reason to drive a diesel.
Because government loves to control human behavior. They do it all over town in the city I live in.
There are innumerable subdivisions and neighborhoods around the country that have only one entrance/exit.
Why didn’t the developers put in a second entrance/exit?? Well, umm, most often, because the property doesn’t provide the space or place for it.
It’s not a government issue, it’s not a conspiracy.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Of course he does.
But whats not to like if you are a developer if ..Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house…
That translates to five times the profit for the developer. Of course any planner/developer is going to defend ‘Sustainable Development’ like a grizzly mama defends her cubs.
Gail, it’s just just the opposite. I can’t stand the sustainable development crap. Nor do I like small lots with people living on top of each other.
You’re missing the bigger picture on these issues and development constraints with many properties. Like I’ve said things always depend on property layout, and the surrounding properties’ layout. But you are correct on one point.
Yes a profit must be made!
John I am well aware of development constraints. I grew up with a Mom who was a real estate broker and by age twelve could easily do accurate real estate appraisals.
It is the city or town or county planning board NOT YOU who makes the decisions. In the last town I lived minimum road frontage was 50 ft. Where I live now it is 100 ft and 2.5 ac minimum lot size.
If the planning board says a minimum of three access roads to each development are required then that is what you do period.
Think Coconut Grove 1942 in Boston. link
One disaster like that where the one access road gets clogged or worse cut off causing many unnecessary deaths and you will see the rules change just as the did after Coconut Grove.
Gail, a few points:
1: City/town planning boards vary tremendously. And there is rarely a one size fits all solution that doesn’t have exceptions.
2. These exceptions must exist, bc no two properties are the same. As I mentioned, development and access constraints are more often dictated by the adjoining properties these days. Which means that even if you want more access points, you can’t have them bc of the adjoining constraints.
3. Planning commissions are normally going to reflect the will of the local people. So whatever those people want, they usually get. If not there is typically an uproar of some type within the local community. I know bc I’ve sat on them.
5. I’ve been speaking ab raw land development in this thread. Private property development. If you don’t give people what they want, you don’t have success.
6. Most people these days want restricted access to their neighborhoods.
7. My main point in responding to this original post was to point out that single entrance subdivisions are very common, and have been for 50 years, and there are a myriad of reasons why this occurs. And that trend is only getting stronger, and most people like that for security reasons.
John, come off it. If it’s happening all over, then surely it must be intentional?
When I was a little boy, the family visited my grandparents, about a hundred miles away, driving on a two-lane (one lane each way) state highway. When the interstate was later built (yes, I am older than the interstate highway system–so what?), it followed that state highway. This happened all over the country, and the older, parallel highways or county roads came to be called frontage roads–and they could, and did, over time, increase the interstate entrances along those frontage roads as needed, or as they were able. But there were also innumerable “one-horse” towns that didn’t lie next to a frontage road, and got only one access point to the interstate. So you see it was a conspiracy of the founding fathers who just started up towns anywhere they liked, without regard for the future interstate and how to connect with it. If Goddard had known the “interior” road to the next town, he could have used it to get to the interstate from that next town. probably in less than 30 minutes. But the damage to his psyche would have been done nevertheless. There are a million such stories in the naked city…this has been one of them.
The problem is not access to the interstate. (I run into that problem all the time — Bennett, NC)
It is ANY access aside from the one road and when that road got blocked there was no other method of leaving the area except on foot.
Harry, I’m talking about brand new planned communities that have “limited access” whether or not they are anywhere near an interstate. There is a developer posting on this page who is strongly defending the choice to limit brand new communities to only one access point, no matter how large they are, and no matter how inconvenient that makes it for people. I despise this, and I assure you I have plenty of company in that regard. And yes, it is a conspiracy, as attested on this page by one of the conspirators.
Yes it is a government issue. Ever heard of the City/County PLANNING DEPARTMENTS or of ZONING?
Actually, I misspoke somewhat in my previous statement.
These days, it often is a govt issue regarding a development’s layout, with all the green space requirements, etc., that you don’t have the room or ability to add secondary access.
Often, but not always. Right? So, sometimes it’s deliberate?
Yes Steve I know what I’m talking about. It’s not like I do this for a living or anything!
This neighborhood had three or four easy options to connect to other neighborhoods. The setup is a threat to the safety of everyone. A chemical accident on the freeway or large fire would leave no escape route for residents.
In my case we have a nuclear plant within visible sight (and warning sirens all over the place) Yet the community PLANNED and built next to me in the last ten years is not only on the river flood plain (Darn fools) but access is ONE dirt road.
I would be a heck of a lot more worried about the dam upstream having to release water and flooding the entire area than a nuclear problem, but having one access road is still foolish.
Oh and they have a covenant on these ten ac lots restricting the types of animals allowed despite all the cows, chickens, goats, sheep, llamas, horses and pigs in the area. Go figure.
They build ‘one entrance only’ housing developments to prevent crime. See, no thru traffic=fewer criminals roaming about and escaping quickly. Seriously.
Neighborhoods are designed with one way in and one way out for two basic reasons.
1) People living there don’t want strangers driving on their street(s). It’s deliberate to keep other people from driving through. So developers build it this way and government allows it. It’s for the children. It wouldn’t be safe for them to play in the street otherwise.
2) It’s an anti-driving measure to force all traffic on to arterial roads. This is also for the children and keeping them safe. Then the arterial roads need to be road dieted and have protected bike lanes so they too are safe for children and people who don’t know how to ride a bicycle in traffic.
2b) Interesting side effect, it makes people’s mobility much easier to control.
Following transportation issues as I do I find it’s another place progressives are a source of amusement. They will make fun of suburbs because two neighboring properties are miles apart when driving on the road system as it is designed. Two different subdivisions right next to each other on rare occasion are impossible to drive from one to the other without going out on to arterial roads and then circling around. Then in the big cities they’ll demand streets be blocked off so to drive from one neighboring property to another requires going blocks or miles out of one’s way. Driving out on to an arterial road and then circling around. They say the former is wasteful and stupid but the later encourages bicycling and walking and safe streets.
I think that in both cases, the primary reason for encouraging this design is to discourage the prevalence of single-occupant automobiles. They sell it to people as a safety measure, because if they admitted the truth which is that they want people to greatly reduce their driving, and that outdoor safety is achievable by other means (for example, cracking down on playing in the street), many more would boycott such communities.
To put it another way, the ultimate goal is to get people feeling more comfortable about having an extremely limited set of choices that they can make on a daily basis. (Oops, can’t do that, that’s too hard. Can’t do that, either, also too hard.) Then they are less likely to resist when their choices are taken away completely. They will have been conditioned to think of it as normal that everything is always so inconvenient.
As B said, these things are thought through and designed with a purpose. This isn’t rocket science.
Many people, especially these days, want highly controlled access to their neighborhoods.
But the layout and land features also dictate things. Of course the size of the development typically is a factor too.
Designing small to medium subdivisions these days with more than one entrance is difficult in suburbia.
“Thought through and designed with a purpose”, but it’s not a conspiracy, huh? You’re a real piece of work.
For god sakes Richard, this is private property development!!! You have this stuff ass backwards!
And as I’ve already said, most people, especially these days, desire security and privacy over anything else.
I’m a limited government free market guy.
Do you want to deny people what they want?
No, but if you make each development with one entrance and all the other things because “that’s what the majority wants”, then eventually you’ll be forcing people who don’t want it to live in it! Don’t you see? It’s folks like you who are doing the forcing. I’m just demanding that you offer other options. You are conspiring to deny people who don’t want what you want with options that they’re more comfortable with. I’m glad to hear you consider yourself a free-market capitalist. But there is a conspiracy to constrain the market and you’re defending it by saying it’s what the majority wants. planned communities I see that date since the 80s are very disconcerting to me because they are so inconvenient. But around my neck of the woods, if you don’t want to live in the city, it’s getting increasingly hard to find anything else. I am thankful that up to now, I’ve never had to. But I’ve known a lot of people who felt like they had no choice, and were very unhappy with it.
Oh by the way. Courts have ruled (and I agree) that deed-restricted communities are not 100% private but are quasi-public or quasi-governmental organizations. I think this was under Florida law, but I don’t know if similar precedent exists elsewhere. RTF
I too absolutely HATE the new developments where you can not put up a fence or own more than two vehicles or own a pick truck or have a trailer or a chicken or a goat or a sheep for a pet. (All three are great pets for kids.) You might as well be living at home with Mother!
That is why we are sitting over a quarter of a mile from the road in the middle of no where and if I want to walk out side in the buff to get my vitamin D there is nothing stopping me.
“…and if I want to walk out side in the buff to get my vitamin D there is nothing stopping me.”
Other than all those extremely ‘hot’ days we’ve had this summer…
Well described. The Progressive concepts carry through in changing traditional open neighborhoods and city sections. Traffic engineering in the People’s Republic of Boulder has been replaced by social engineering. The system is not optimized for efficiency in handling safely the highest throughput. It is completely driven by other criteria.
Colorado, there is no”traditional” design for subdivisions and neighborhoods to be wide open with thoroughfares running thru them.
That’s the exact opposite and defeats the purpose of what most people want in subdivisions and neighborhoods: Privacy and Security!
John, I’m not arguing any such general point. Look at the map of Boulder. The downtown neighborhoods are a typical open western grid. You should see what the geniuses are building in top of it. And yes, some of it is under the same resident pressures you describe, but many of the solutions are outright idiotic—unless you assume that social engineering and social outcomes are the primary drivers.
You should also know that I always consider common incompetence and stupidity before evil intent and malice. In the specific cases I have in mind, stupidity or necessity don’t explain the city planners’ actions too well.
Yeah, Drag out the “It’s for the Children” excuse.
Sorry it does not fly.
Nor does the “there isn’t any room” If there is room for the development there is room for additional access roads even if you have to buy a house in the neighboring area. (Remember the US Supreme Court decision on eminent domain ?? link)
There is a really simple set of solutions:
#1 The easiest is to make the last 300 feet of the secondary access road dirt and over grown with trees/shrubs so it is not known to outsiders.
#2. If there are problems with #1 place a simple chain across that can be removed (or cut) in times of emergency.
#3. Speed Bumps.
#4. Provide a safe place for children to play that is not in the street.
Gail, the discussion is regarding neighborhood/subdivision design and layout.
And as I said above, space considerations are of course a huge issue in designing second entrances, as well as privacy and security for residents. The green space requirements these days are a huge problem.
Property layout, again, also always plays a role. But to deny that people would want to restrict access to their neighborhoods for safety reasons defies reality.
I’ve been involved in many developments, most people want to live in places with much more controlled access, than not.
The main point I was trying to make was that having a single access point doesn’t keep anybody out, and there are other ways to slow down traffic and provide safety without having only one access point. Having a single access point for a four or five square-mile community that is 15-25 miles from a city center is idiotic and benefits no one Nor does it keep any undesired people out. The only conceivable reason for it is to discourage the use of private vehicles. If that’s not enough for you, I had an urban geography professor who happily taught that the reason for making the main roads in such communities curve all over the place is to make it take longer to get in and out of the community. In other words he admitted that to make it harder to get from one place to another was considered by government planners to be a feature rather than a drawback for a community. He also stated that a primary goal of prevailing suburban design practices was to encourage more of the residents to use transit. This was seen as being a hard sell for the suburbs, and thus requiring lots of new design features to subliminally encourage the collectivist behaviors that they were looking for.
Now maybe when developers are sitting around planning a community, they don’t think along these lines. But for me, I see subliminal programming at work in things like this. Give people a “legitimate” reason to believe in the idea, so that they won’t ken to the real reason. Getting them to control themselves can be easier than imposing involuntary controls on them.
And speed bumps are not about “neighborhood/subdivision design and layout?”
I do birthday party entertainment with as many as 5 or 6 per weekend and have been doing so for close to 30 years both in Boston MA and NC. Believe me I am very very well acquainted with the various layouts of neighborhoods and subdivisions because I am hauling a long trailer into them on a routine basis. I am also well acquainted with speed bumps, basket ball and soccer setups in the roadway and children playing in the street and dead ends with no space to turn around.
We are NOT in the EU where space is a premium but we have been saddled with the EU concepts of space conservation. link
The worst example I encountered was a development with EXPENSIVE houses built to within 6 ft of each other back to back and 3 ft on the sides. There was maybe 4 ft to the sidewalk with high curbs on the street. There was NO garages and NO off street parking and NO room to park on the street. I darn near got trapped because of the parked cars on either side of the street leaving zero room to get through with a wide pkup and trailer. I managed to scare a car into not parking and backing up. This atrocity was not in a built up area or a city but on the edge of forest and farmland.
This is not “What people want” it is what they have been brainwashed into thinking they want so they can show their friends they are ‘Politically Correct’
The National Multifamily Housing Council used to have an article: “Apartments the core of sustainability” but it was a bit too explicit so it got pulled. Local Governments for Sustainability USA, a.k.a. ICLEI, is a non-governmental organization (NGO) sponsored by the UN to implement Agenda 21 in America. The planning you are encountering was likely written by ICLEI and not by the people of the town.
By their own mission statement, ICLEI is designed to “build, serve, and drive a movement of local governments to advance deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and achieve tangible improvements in local sustainability.” They are the ones responsible for the coercion and “consulting” that manifests in the micro-apartments, sustainable living, that is altering American living to conform to the UN’s global plans.
Rosa Koire who works for the bureaucracy in California explains what is going on in this talk.
I couldn’t have stated it better myself.
U obviously don’t play road hockey … game on!!!
I’m only repeating why people say they have things built this way. Not that I believe them. What I wanted to add to the conversation was the weird double standard of progressives in transportation politics. They champion and jeer the same thing. Now I have a couple theories how this came about, but it’s amusing in and of itself without my theorizing.
Anyway in either case it’s driven by irrational emotional thinking and intentionally removes redundancy from the road system.
“Halt! Ihre Papiere, bitte!”
skip the “bitte!”
That would be “unhöflich”. You may skip the “bitte” when their papers are not “in Ordnung” and you are arresting them.
It’s the civilized thing to do.
Papers, I have no papers. I don’t need no stinking papers. In Deutschland you need papers and you inform the Politzei when moving from one place to another. At least you did 20 some years ago. Danke.
Our society now hangs by a thread because
Government science hangs by a pipeline of public funds
Controlled by US National Academy of Science (NAS) reviews for Congress
Of budgets and programs of agencies (NASA, DOE, etc)
That grant funds to NAS members and friends!
Hey I grew up in Burtonsville MD. Originally our neighborhood had one way in but once the other neighborhoods went in they connected them and now that same neighborhood has four ways in and out.
Ah heck that ain’t nothing. I’ve bee stuck in back ups due to fatal accidents for 10 hours before. Just got caught earlier this year on the PA turnpike when some drunk jerk got on the interstate going the wrong direction and hit another vehicle. Then he told his drunk girlfriend he was going to get help and ran off. The drunk girl friend got run over by an 18 wheeler that just kept on going.
A couple years ago I just got through before the worst of a snow storm in your area hit and people abandoned their cars right on 695 and walked away.
And I’ve been pretty lucky compared to some truckers I know.
All prisons are built like that.
The entire goal is to bring back feudalism. Karl Marx made that pretty clear.
The Transit Village is the same thing as a feudal estate but instead of a visible Aristocracy you have corporations owned/controlled by a very few.
And just in case you think Rosa and I are nuts:
Most people I’ve encountered pushing aspects of agenda 21 are useful idiots who never heard of it or think it’s a conspiracy theory made up by paranoid people who don’t understand how they are building a better tomorrow. It’s quite literally being implemented by compartmentalized people who have no idea of the greater overall plan.
Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter) over at Jo Nova’s site had a comment that is linked to this issue of Planing and ‘Planners.’
While Steve was in England, he clearly missed out on the joys of trying to negotiate the Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush one-way systems on a Friday evening.
It once took me 4-and-a half hours to travel 2 miles.
“Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”
Might not the larger question be, why would someone drive deep into a subdivision, without knowledge of the exits 🙂
In Britain there is a greater hazard. When there is an obstacle on the motorway, or a major accident the Police often close the road for hours at a time. For instance, there are those horrible occasions when somebody decides to end it all by jumping off a bridge. The carriageways beneath can be closed for several hours, meaning hundreds of thousands of people can be delayed. In total hours, it can be more “lost lives”.
“Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”
Because then you are controlled.
Q: “Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”
A: For easy containment.
A better question would be, “why would anyone live in a neighborhood with only one exit?”
For the same reason they will live on a river flood plain. They are DARN FOOLS!
Heck if the guy next door doesn’t come over and dig out my beaver dam on the creek on a regular basis the beavers flood the three houses up stream. That is the chronic problem. The next inland hurricane NC has and there will be three feet of standing water in their houses.
People live on flood plains because in this society the prudent are punished and the risk takers rewarded by socializing the losses.
Take it a step further. WHO skimps off a percentage of all the money? The INSURANCE COMPANIES!
If you live in an area that will flood then you are required to have flood insurance and you pay though the nose to get that insurance. The insurance company not only skims a percentage but gets the use of that money until a flood happens.
If there was NOT MONEY TO BE MADE then towns would never allow houses on flood plains.
Always follow the money and it will explain the politics. No politician EVER did anything out to the goodness of his heart without an eye on what it would get him.
Ever hear of any Congress critter retiring poor?
The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2011)
Seven out of the top ten are DemiRats. Thirty out of the fifty are Rebooblicans.
John M says:
“…Gail, a few points:
1: City/town planning boards vary tremendously. And there is rarely a one size fits all solution that doesn’t have exceptions…..”
That is just it John. A couple of decades ago before 1992, you would be correct but you are no longer correct because of Local Governments for Sustainability USA, a.k.a. ICLEI and other interfering groups (NGOs) from the UN who are now running our local governments.
ICLEI is going from town to town and imposing UN (socialist) planing on cities. My city now has an ICLEI plan where my farm will to be part of a riverside park/wildlife corridor. No one ever talked to me about the takeover of my farm. No money has ever changed hands. This of course is straight out of the UN Bio Diversity Treaty (aka The Wildlands Project) that was shot down and therefore is being implemented piecemeal instead.
THIS is where your 20 houses to an acre and “Apartments are the Core of Sustainability’ is originating.
Just in case you think the Bio Diversity Treaty is dead, here is the current UN page:
(Note the media side bar) – this is where the propaganda to implant the idea of ‘man is destroying nature’ is coming from.
Luckily some folks are waking-up and not drinking the koolaid.
Yesterday Pointman elegantly asked, “Why does such selfish evil happen?”
Common conclusions of science, religion, philosophy and spirituality suggest an answer: Our Creator is the source of good and evil, misfortune and good fortune, unlike the “Santa Claus” concept of God.
Evil and misfortune contribute to our spiritual advancement as much or more than good fortune.
1. God is “A force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together …” Max Planck concluded , “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
2. “The Sun is the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the Solar System” .
3. The right of humans to self-governance is an expression of free-will, . . . and the foundation of democracy.
4. “Humans were endowed with free-will”, according to religious teachings, “that they might advance spiritually on the journey of life and gain wisdom from the freedom to react selfishly or selflessly to the good fortune or misfortune that each moment brings on life’s journey.”
Selfish evil helps us advance spiritually.
1. Max Planck, “The Essence of Matter,” from a speech Dr. Planck presented in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797:
2. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
At least some people are waking up to the global evil that is stalking us. With luck enough will wake up before the descent into another Dark Ages but I am not too hopeful.
Gail, I’m well aware of these issues, I deal with them every day, and have addressed some of these “requirements” as part of the reason why it can cause havoc with access creation.
But the local boards can be replaced, and rules rewritten, etc. It happens every year in various townships across the country.
In most places, locals still rule the roost. Getting a new president with a commitment to get EPA, COE, etc out of local affairs will fix most of the issues presently encountered, and sanity returns.
We can only hope. That is why I have become involved in local politics.
More on The UN Convention on Biological Diversity
Until you understand that all LOCAL planing is now subject to UN orchestrated pressure groups (NGOs) you will not understand who is actually in control of city planning. It is NOT the wishes of the Majority of Americans as John seems to think but the wishes of our future overlords who are consolidating their human resources into dense, more controllable units with limited freedom of travel. Feudal estates if you will.
This is a listing of all the newer legislation introduced that imposes the Biodiversity Treaty piecemeal.
Morel info: link
Agenda 21 Course
Understanding Sustainable Development and How It Affects You
LESSON 3: Wildlands Project
The Biodiversity Treaty has gotten such a bad name that they are now doing a name change. This is classic Marxism/Socialism. Steal the good name and accomplishments of someone else (such as liberal or NASA) and attribute you failures to the enemy. For example the ‘ National Socialist German Workers’ Party’ (NAZI) aka as .Fascism is labeled ‘Right Wing. It would be laughable if so many didn’t believe it. I am sure they are working on how to label the USSR as right wing too.
How the Biodiversity Treaty was defeated at the 11th hour link
I agree. The UN and Agenda 21 now epitomize selfish evil in the world.
Evil expands when the good remain silent, but the UN cannot lead society back to the Dark Ages if people will speak out.