text:
Induced demand

In economics, induced demand – related to latent demand and generated demand – is the phenomenon whereby an increase in supply results in a decline in price and an increase in consumption. In other words, as a good or service becomes more readily available and mass produced, its price goes down and consumers are more likely to buy it, meaning that the quantity demanded subsequently increases. This is consistent with the economic model of supply and demand.

In transportation planning, induced demand, also called "induced traffic" or consumption of road capacity, has become important in the debate over the expansion of transportation systems, and is often used as an argument against increasing roadway traffic capacity as a cure for congestion. Induced traffic may be a contributing factor to urban sprawl. City planner Jeff Speck has called induced demand "the great intellectual black hole in city planning, the one professional certainty that every thoughtful person seems to acknowledge, yet almost no one is willing to act upon."

The inverse effect, known as reduced demand, is also observed.

Economics
"Induced demand" and other terms were given economic definitions in a 1999 paper by Lee, Klein, and Camus. In the paper, "induced traffic" is defined as a change in traffic by movement along the short-run demand curve. This would include new trips made by existing residents, taken because driving on the road is now faster. Likewise, "induced demand" is defined as a change in traffic by movement along the long-run demand curve. This would include all trips made by new residents who moved to take advantage of the wider road.

Definitions
According to CityLab:

"Induced demand is a catch-all term used for a variety of interconnected effects that cause new roads to quickly fill to capacity. In rapidly growing areas where roads were not designed for the current population, there may be significant latent demand for new road capacity, which causes a flood of new drivers to immediately take to the freeway once the new lanes are open, quickly congesting them again. But these individuals were presumably already living nearby; how did they get around before the expansion? They may have taken alternative modes of transport, travelled at off-peak hours, or not made those trips at all. That’s why latent demand can be difficult to disentangle from generated demand—the new traffic that is a direct result of the new capacity. (Some researchers try to isolate generated demand as the sole effect of induced demand.)"

The technical distinction between the two terms, which are often used interchangeably, is that latent demand is travel that cannot be realised because of constraints. It is thus "pent-up". Induced demand is demand that has been realised, or "generated", by improvements made to transportation infrastructure. Thus, induced demand generates the traffic that had been "pent-up" as latent demand.

History
Latent demand has been recognised by road traffic professionals for many decades, and was initially referred to as "traffic generation". In the simplest terms, latent demand is demand that exists, but, for any number of reasons, most having to do with human psychology, is suppressed by the inability of the system to handle it. Once additional capacity is added to the network, the demand that had been latent materialises as actual usage.

The effect was recognised as early as 1930, when an executive of a St. Louis, Missouri, electric railway company told the Transportation Survey Commission that widening streets simply produces more traffic, and heavier congestion. In New York, it was clearly seen in the highway-building program of Robert Moses, the "master builder" of the New York City area. As described by Moses's biographer, Robert Caro, in The Power Broker: "During the last two or three years before [the entrance of the United States into World War II], a few planners had ... begun to understand that, without a balanced system [of transportation], roads would not only not alleviate transportation congestion but would aggravate it. Watching Moses open the Triborough Bridge to ease congestion on the Queensborough Bridge, open the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge to ease congestion on the Triborough Bridge and then watching traffic counts on all three bridges mount until all three were as congested as one had been before, planners could hardly avoid the conclusion that 'traffic generation' was no longer a theory but a proven fact: the more highways were built to alleviate congestion, the more automobiles would pour into them and congest them and thus force the building of more highways – which would generate more traffic and become congested in their turn in an ever-widening spiral that contained far-reaching implications for the future of New York and of all urban areas." The same effect had been seen earlier with the new parkways that Moses had built on Long Island in the 1930s and 40s, where "... every time a new parkway was built, it quickly became jammed with traffic, but the load on the old parkways was not significantly relieved." Similarly, the building of the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel failed to ease congestion on the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and the three East River bridges, as Moses had expected it to. By 1942, Moses could no longer ignore the reality that his roads were not alleviating congestion in the way he expected them to, but his answer to the problem was not to invest in mass transit, it was to build even more roads, in a vast program which would expand or create 200 mile of roads, including additional bridges, such as the Throgs Neck Bridge and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

J. J. Leeming, a British road-traffic engineer and county surveyor between 1924 and 1964, described the phenomenon in his 1969 book, Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?: "Motorways and bypasses generate traffic, that is, produce extra traffic, partly by inducing people to travel who would not otherwise have done so by making the new route more convenient than the old, partly by people who go out of their direct route to enjoy the greater convenience of the new road, and partly by people who use the towns bypassed because they are more convenient for shopping and visits when through traffic has been removed." Leeming went on to give an example of the observed effect following the opening of the Doncaster Bypass section of the A1(M) in 1961. By 1998, Donald Chen quoted the British Transport Minister as saying "The fact of the matter is that we cannot tackle our traffic problem by building more roads."

In Southern California, a study by the Southern California Association of Governments in 1989 concluded that steps taken to alleviate traffic congestion, such as adding lanes or turning freeways into double-decked roads, would have nothing but a cosmetic effect on the problem. Also, the University of California at Berkeley published a study of traffic in 30 California counties between 1973 and 1990 which showed that every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased by 9 percent within four years time. A 2004 meta-analysis, which took in dozens of previously published studies, confirmed this. It found that: "... on average, a 10 percent increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4 percent increase in vehicle miles travelled, which climbs to 10 percent – the entire new capacity – in a few years." An aphorism among some traffic engineers is "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."

According to city planner Jeff Speck, the "seminal" text on induced demand is the 1993 book The Elephant in the Bedroom: Automobile Dependence and Denial, written by Stanley I. Hart and Alvin L. Spivak.

Price of road travel
A journey on a road can be considered as having an associated cost or price (the generalised cost, g) which includes the out-of-pocket cost (e.g. fuel costs and tolls) and the opportunity cost of the time spent travelling, which is usually calculated as the product of travel time and the value of travellers' time. These cost determinants change often, and all have variable effects on demand for transport, which tends to be dependent on the reason(s) as well as method of travel.

When road capacity is increased, initially there is more road space per vehicle travelling than there was before, so congestion is reduced, and therefore the time spent travelling is reduced – reducing the generalised cost of every journey (by affecting the second "cost" mentioned in the previous paragraph). In fact, this is one of the key justifications for construction of new road capacity (the reduction in journey times).

A change in the cost (or price) of travel results in a change in the quantity consumed. Factors such as petrol prices, as well as fuel costs, are the most common variables that influence the quantity demanded for transport. This can be explained using the simple supply and demand theory, illustrated in this figure.

Elasticity of transport demand
The economic concept of elasticity measures the change in quantity demanded relative to a change in another variable, most commonly price. For roads or highways, the supply relates to capacity and the quantity consumed refers to vehicle miles traveled. The size of the increase in quantity consumed depends on the elasticity of demand.

The elasticity of demand for transport differs significantly depending on the reason people are choosing to travel initially. The clearest example of inelastic demand in this area is commuting, as studies indicate that most people are going to commute to work, regardless of fluctuations in variables such as petrol prices, as it is a required activity to generate income. This exemplifies the fact that activities that yield a high economic benefit, in this case, financial gain in the form of income, tend to be inelastic. Whereas, travelling for recreational or social reasons have a high tolerance for price increases, and as such the demand for recreational travel when prices spike sees a sharp decline.

A review of transport research suggests that the elasticity of traffic demand with respect to travel time is around −0.5 in the short term and −1.0 in the long term. This indicates that a 1.0% saving in travel time will generate an additional 0.5% increase in traffic within the first year. In the longer term, a 1.0% saving in travel time will result in a 1.0% increase in traffic volume.

Sources of induced traffic
In the short term, increased travel on new road space can come from one of two sources: diverted travel and induced traffic. Diverted travel occurs when people divert their trip from another road (change in route) or reschedule their travel to avoid peak period congestion – but if road capacity is expanded, peak congestion is lower and they can travel at the time they prefer.

Induced traffic occurs when new automobile trips are generated. This can occur when people choose to travel by car instead of public transport, or decide to travel when they otherwise would not have.

Shortening travel times can also encourage longer trips as reduced travel costs encourage people to choose farther destinations. Although this may not increase the number of trips, it increases vehicle miles travelled. In the long term, this effect alters land use patterns as people choose homes and workplace locations farther away than they would have without the expanded road capacity. These development patterns encourage automobile dependency which contributes to the high long-term demand elasticities of road expansion.

Induced traffic and transport planning
Although planners take into account future traffic growth when planning new roads (this often being an apparently reasonable justification for new roads in itself – that traffic growth will mean more road capacity is required), this traffic growth is calculated from increases in car ownership and economic activity, and does not take into account traffic induced by the presence of the new road; that is, it is assumed that traffic will grow, regardless of whether a road is built or not.

In the UK, the idea of induced traffic was used as grounds for protests against government policy of road construction in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, until it became accepted as a given by the government as a result of their own Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) study of 1994. However, despite the concept of induced traffic now being accepted, it is not always taken into consideration in planning.

Studies
A 1998 meta-analysis by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which used data from the institute, stated that "Metro areas which invested heavily in road capacity expansion fared no better in easing congestion than metro areas that did not."

On the other hand, a comparison of congestion data from 1982 to 2011 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute suggested that additional roadways reduced the rate of congestion increase. When increases in road capacity were matched to the increase demand, growth in congestion was found to be lower.

A study by Robert Cervero, a professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, found that "over a six-to eight-year period following freeway expansion, around twenty percent of added capacity is 'preserved,' and around eighty percent gets absorbed or depleted. Half of this absorption is due to external factors, like growing population and income. The other half is due to induced-demand effects, mostly higher speeds but also increased building activities. These represent California experiences from 1980 to 1994. Whether they hold true elsewhere is of course unknown."

And Mokhtarian et al. (2002) paired eighteen California state highway segments whose capacities had been improved in the early 1970s with control segments that matched the improved segments with regard to facility type, region, approximate size, and initial volumes & congestion levels. Taking annual data for average daily traffic (ADT) and design-hour-traffic-to-capacity (DTC) ratios during the 21 years 1976–1996, they found the growth rates between the two types of segments to be “statistically and practically indistinguishable, suggesting that the capacity expansions, in and of themselves, had a negligible effect on traffic growth”.

Policy implications
When evaluating induced demand traffic demand theoretically, consideration is mainly given to the actual amount of traffic that will arise from a certain scenario. In real world applications, policymakers must consider the benefits of new infrastructure with the potential negative impacts on the environment, public health, and social equity.

Carbon emissions have become a primary concern for policymakers in recent times and continues to be a consideration for infrastructure planning. An example of this is the Expansion of Heathrow Airport, where hopes of additional runways would spur economic growth within the UK: increasing both the amount and frequency of direct flights. These expansion proposals posed climate concerns and prompted studies into its environmental viability. It was estimated by the government that such expansion plans would create 210.8 Mt (million tons) CO2 annually. In addition, approximately 700 homes, a church, and eight listed buildings would have to be destroyed to make way for the project. In 2020, the court of appeal ruled the expansion plans illegal due to the ministers’ lack of consideration towards the government’s commitments to climate change.

In contrast to negative externalities, Bogotá, Colombia, has been recognized as a success story in managing induced demand for transportation by investing in new bike infrastructure. The city’s first bike path was established in 1974, with heavy investment in the late 1990s which eventuated in over 300 kilometers of bike lanes and dedicated bike paths. This infrastructure has been credited with reducing traffic congestion through encouraging more people to bike as transport. Less traffic then directly leads to lesser emissions, improved air quality and healthier lifestyles for residents. In addition, the city has implemented additional policies such as a bike-sharing program, bike-friendly streets and education campaigns to promote biking as a healthy and sustainable mode of transportation.

Criticism
Critics of induced demand arguments generally accept their premise, but argue against their interpretation. Steven Polzin, former director of the Center for Urban Transportation Research and former Senior Advisor at the US Department of Transportation, argues that most forms of induced demand are actually good things and that, due to changing transportation trends, past data cannot be applied to present circumstances. Specifically, he argues:

 * 1) One type of induced demand is simply keeping up with population growth. This is a good thing.
 * 2) Another is traffic moving out of neighborhoods and onto newly expanded freeways. This is a very good thing.
 * 3) Another is people adjusting timing of trips to their desired timing, thus improving business efficiency and quality of life - both good things.
 * 4) Another is shifting transportation from non-auto transport to auto transport. Polzin does not argue that this is good, but rather that it's irrelevant (at least in a US context) as non-auto transport is such a small fraction of the total, and thus cannot meaningfully induce demand anymore (unlike in the past). By contrast, going in reverse would require unprecedented growth rates in public transport systems even just to keep up with population growth.
 * 5) Another is people taking trips to places that they wouldn't have gone before, such as shopping in new places or living further from work. Beyond arguments that this implies improved quality of life, while this appears to have been a major driver in induced demand in the past, it ignores trends. From 1980 to 2015 increases in road capacity in the US didn't even keep up with population growth, yet vehicle miles per capita doubled - a detachment between capacity growth and demand. But since the late 2000s, vehicle miles per capita have stagnated - and growing trends of telecommuting and e-commerce are likely to apply further downward pressure. Aka: people don't drive further to shop or work if they're shopping or working from home either way.
 * 6) As personal road travel declines, commercial and service travel increases. This travel is not sensitive to road capacity and is not readily shifted to alternate modes of transportation.

Rather than limiting demand by reducing road capacity, Polzin argues for limiting demand via highway pricing, such as managed lanes, toll highways, congestion pricing or cordon pricing, as this provides a revenue stream which can (among other things) subsidize public transportation.

Similar arguments have also been made by transportation policy analyst Randal O'Toole, economist William L. Anderson, transportation journalist and Market Urbanist director Scott Beyer, Professor of City and Regional planning Robert Cervero, studies such as from WSP and Rand Europe, and numerous others.

Film-induced demand
Film-induced demand, also referred to as film-induced tourism, is a relatively recent form of cultural tourism in which destinations that are included in media outlets such as television and films receive an increase in tourist visits. This is supported by several regression analyses that suggest a high correlation between destinations taking a proactive approach in order to encourage producers/studios to film at their location, and the tourism success in the area after the release of the movie. This is consistent with induced demand theory. When the supply increases, in the form of media exposure to areas that were not regarded as tourist hotspots, the number of visitors increases, even though the majority of these new visitors would not have necessarily visited these areas previously. This is exemplified by a Travelsat Competitive Index study that indicated that in 2017 alone, approximately 80 million tourists made the decision to travel to a destination based primarily on its featuring in a television series or film. This figure has doubled since 2015.

Reduced demand (the inverse effect)
Just as increasing road capacity reduces the cost of travel and thus increases demand, the reverse is also observed – decreasing road capacity increases the cost of travel, so demand is reduced. This observation, for which there is much empirical evidence, has been called disappearing traffic, also traffic evaporation or traffic suppression, or, more generally, dissuaded demand. So the closure of a road or reduction in its capacity (e.g. reducing the number of available lanes) will result in the adjustment of traveler behavior to compensate – for example, people might stop making particular trips to patronize local businesses, condense multiple trips into one, re-time their trips to a less congested time, use online shopping with free shipping, or switch to public transport, carpooling, walking, bicycling or smaller motor vehicles less affected by road diets, such as motorcycles, depending upon the values of those trips or of the schedule delay they experience.

Studies
In 1994, the UK advisory committee SACTRA carried out a major review of the effect of increasing road capacity for trunk roads and motorways only, and reported that the evidence suggested such increases often resulted in substantial increases in the volume of traffic. Following this, London Transport and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commissioned a study to see if the reverse also occurred, namely that when road capacity was reduced, there would be a reduction in traffic. This follow-up study was carried out by Sally Cairns, Carmen Hass-Klau and Phil Goodwin, with an Annex by Ryuichi Kitamura, Toshiyuki Yamamoto and Satoshi Fujii, and published as a book in 1998. A third study was carried out by Sally Cairns, Steve Atkins and Phil Goodwin, and published in the journal Municipal Engineer in 2002.

The 1998 study referred to about 150 sources of evidence, of which the most important were about 60 case studies in the UK, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, the US, Canada, Tasmania and Japan. They included major town centre traffic schemes to make pedestrian areas closed to traffic, bus priority measures (especially bus lanes), bridge and road closures for maintenance, and closures due to natural disasters, mostly earthquakes. The 2002 study added some extra case studies, including some involving cycle lanes. The Annex by Kitamura and his colleagues reported a detailed study of the effects of the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake in Japan.

Taking the results as a whole, there was an average reduction of 41% of the traffic flows on the roads whose capacity had been reduced, of which rather less than half could be detected as reappearing on alternative routes. Thus, on average, about 25% of the traffic disappeared. Analysis of surveys and traffic counts indicated that the disappearance was accounted for by between 15 and 20 different behavioural responses, including changing to other modes of transport, changing to other destinations, a reduction in the frequency of trips, and car-sharing. There was a large variation around these average results, with the biggest effects seen in large-scale pedestrianisation in German town centres, and the smallest seen in small-scale temporary closures with good alternative routes, and small reductions in capacity in uncongested streets. In a few cases, there was actually an increase in the volume of traffic, notably in towns which had closed some town centre roads at the same time as opening a new by-pass.

Cairns et al. concluded that:

""

The European Union have produced a manual titled "Reclaiming city streets for people" that presents case studies and methodologies for traffic evaporation in urban areas.

Real-world examples
An early example of the reduced demand effect was described by Jane Jacobs in her classic 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs and others convinced New York City to close the street that split Greenwich Village's Washington Square Park in two, and also not to widen the surrounding streets to service the extra capacity they were expected to carry because of the closing of the street. The city's traffic engineers expected the result to be chaos, but, in fact, the extra traffic never appeared, as drivers instead avoided the area entirely.

Two widely known examples of reduced demand occurred in San Francisco, California, and in Manhattan, New York City, where, respectively, the Embarcadero Freeway and the lower portion of the elevated West Side Highway were torn down after sections of them collapsed. Concerns were expressed that the traffic which had used these highways would overwhelm local streets, but, in fact, the traffic, instead of being displaced, for the most part disappeared entirely. A New York State Department of Transportation study showed that 93% of the traffic which had used the West Side Highway was not displaced, but simply vanished.

After these examples, other highways, including portions of Harbor Drive in Portland, Oregon, the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Central Freeway in San Francisco, and the Cheonggyecheon Freeway in Seoul, South Korea, were torn down, with the same effect observed.

The argument is also made to convert roads previously open to vehicular traffic into pedestrian areas, with a positive impact on the environment and congestion, as in the example of the central area of Florence, Italy. In New York City, after Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing in Manhattan was rejected by the New York State Assembly, portions of Broadway at Times Square, Herald Square and Madison Square were converted into pedestrian plazas, and traffic lanes in other areas taken out of service in favor of protected bike lanes, reducing the convenience of using Broadway as a through-route. As a result, traffic on Broadway was reduced, and the speed of traffic in the area lessened. Another measure instituted was the replacement of through-lanes on some of Manhattan's north–south avenues with dedicated left-turn lanes and protected bike lanes, reducing the avenues' carrying capacity. The Bloomberg administration was able to put these changes into effect as they did not require approval from the state legislature.

Despite the success of the Broadway pedestrian plazas in Manhattan, some pedestrian malls in the US, in which all traffic is removed from shopping streets, have not been successful. Areas with sufficient population density or pedestrian traffic are more likely to successfully pursue this path. Of the approximately 200 pedestrian malls created in the US from the 1970s on, only about 30 remained as of 2012, and many of these became poorer areas of their cities, as lack of accessibility caused commercial property values to decline. The exceptions, including the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, and 16th Street in Denver, Colorado, are indicators that conversion of shopping streets to pedestrian malls can be successful. Some of the failed pedestrian malls have improved by allowing limited automobile traffic to return. Pedestrian zones are common across cities and towns in Europe.

title: Induced demand


text:
Talk:Induced demand

new citation source for reduced demand
the page says "The inverse effect, known as reduced demand, is also observed.[citation needed]" Here's a citation source, which I think backs up the idea of reduced demand for traffic. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/disappearing_traffic_cairns.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of my changes to Induced Demand
''[Moved from my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)]''

You removed my modifications to the introduction of Induced Demand. My changes were better researched and better defended that what you restored.

What you restored claims that the term is "economic" and cites CityLab, which is not a source of economic information. It's a site used by urbanists, city planners, and such.

My changes cited a paper by Lee, Klein and Camus. It's very first sentence is "Although terms such as “induced demand” and “latent demand” have been used in transportation planning for several decades, the concept of induced demand has not been precisely defined nor has it been translated into an operational form suitable for modeling." QED, they are transportation planning terms and NOT economic terms.

Subsequent changes tried to add things to the "induced demand" page. I do not consider "film induced demand" to be a valid term. Google has only 8 hits for the phrase.

I consider "supplier induced demand" (or "physician induced demand") to be a separate term. In transportation, the shift in the demand-curve is cause indirectly by an increase in supply. In "supplier induced demand", that is not the case. Another argument is that the writing of "supplier induced demand" is often "supplier-induced demand" and not "supplier induced-demand". It is a very different term.

Please respond or restore my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I did not remove that material you added, it's still in the article. And since that material was about the use of the phrase in economics, I restored that part of the lede that you removed.

 * What "you consider" is interesting, but not relevant. The material I restored was sourced, whatever you think of it.

 * BTW this is not the place for this discussion. I'm moving it to the article take page. Beyond My Ken (talk)

[end of moved material]

 * User:Beyond My Ken I disagree that the introduction that I changed was "sourced".  There is a difference between having a citation and being sourced.  Having a citation doesn't matter if the statements on Wikipedia have nothing to do with the materials cited.

 * The first citation was a City Lab article that never mentions that the terms are related to economics. That article only addresses traffic.

 * The other citation was a Wired article that states "... induced demand, which is economist-speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more." It is not at all clear that that definition matches the text in the introductory paragraph.

 * I would not consider either citation a "source" for the intro paragraph that you restored.

 * Moreover, I believe this journal article is a better source than pop-sci websites like Wired and CityLab. It clearly states that the phrases were in use by transportation workers before proper economics came into the picture.  It should be the source cited by the introduction.

 * Lastly, what "I consider" is relevant. I have a Masters in Economics from UT-Austin, a top 25 university.  I have expert opinion on what is the same and what is different in the realm of economics.

 * Mdnahas (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section: undue emphasis on single source
Hi all, I've tagged the 'Criticism' section with {'{One source|section|date=October 2023}}, since its only references are two essays by the same author, Steven Polzin. Perhaps this could be upgraded to {'{Content}}. 67.71.197.70 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the improvement advice - many more references to other credentialed authors making the exact same points added as references. More can be added at will. -- 85.220.29.158 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I removed the long list of Steven Polzin's arguments again. There is no compelling reason offered for why this one person's arguments ought to be reproduced in detail in this article. I also added a tag to WSP, whatever that is. Our WSP disambiguation page tells me it might refer to the Washington State Patrol, which is the local police force for the US state of Washington, but it is unclear. These edits just sort of assumed we're all supposed to know what WSP is, as if it is self-evidently an authority on this topic. Einsof (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
@User:Beyond My Ken, can you please explain what was wrong with the recently amended lead paragraph? — HTGS (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you wish to make changes, why don't you tell us in what way the status quo lede needs to change, and in what way your edits improve it? Recall that the WP:ONUS is on the editor who wishes to make changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: – related to latent demand and generated demand – in the first sentence is a poor way of introducing those concepts, especially as those titles redirect to this article. It would be useful to the reader to define them properly early on. — HTGS (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: It is also useful to introduce the domain of the subject early, so instead of the awkward sentence at the end of the paragraph, (This is consistent with the economic model of supply and demand) we can give the relevant contextual domain in the first sentence. — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: You might be a little confused about WP:ONUS though. It refers to the need for verification, and of course there is onus on editors to support their claims, but the claims I introduced are easily verifiable by the sourcing already in the article. — HTGS (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Get a consensus, otherwise, leave the article as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken Do you have any specific concerns with the changes made, or how I have outlined them above? — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are not better than the existing text, and therefore do not improve the article. They appear to me to be making changes for the sake of making changes. Get a consensus if you want to institute your changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken I know that you have a baseline interest in keeping the page the same, and therefore you see the onus for change on me, but to help me understand, can you explain how the changes made the article worse? — HTGS (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please get a consensus to change the article to your preferred version. If and when you start an actual consensus discussion, instead of just needling me, I will consider joining the discussion at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken I have a silent consensus from every other editor watching this now frustrating back-and-forth. You appear to have worked on Wikipedia for a while now, but you don’t seem to understand how it works. You cannot just oppose meaningful changes without reason.  is the point behind Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". — HTGS (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Baloney. You want a consensus, start a consensus discussion and get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus seeking
Are there any opponents to the above proposals, previously embodied by the change here?: — HTGS (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 * @Beyond My Ken, do you have anything to say? — HTGS (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the changes. There is not consensus to change. Reverting to disputed material without a consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken I am seeking consensus here. How do you propose we address the issue of defining latent demand and generated demand? — HTGS (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The text as it exists is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken The text of the lead currently does not define either of the two terms. How do you understand this to be ideal? — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree with Beyond My Ken. The suggested changes do not improve the article. I don't see why definitions of latent and generated demand are needed. The suggested change seems to me to be wordier (less concise) and less clear. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I concur; the proposed change is not an improvement. I also think we should find a different citation for that first CityLab source; when it talks about latent and generated, it does so in the context of transportation, not economics. If not citation can be found, perhaps we can just move it to the next paragraph which is about transportation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I support the change although I agree that it could be written a lot more concisely. Articles here are written for people who don't already know about their subjects but having a lede mention "latent demand" and "generated demand," two terms that are nowhere near self-explanatory, without a letter of exposition tells unfamiliar readers that this article is not going to clearly explain its subject to them.

 * If an editor makes a change that neither helps nor hurts an article, undoing that change because it isn't an improvement is awfully close to an WP:OWN violation and it's definitely way out of line. I don't think this is a lateral change but even if I did, I'd still support it because what's the harm?  City o f  Silver  21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern is that "generated demand" doesn't seem to be a term in economics at all! I never heard it in my training, and a quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything. "Latent demand" is a term, but I've only heard it used as a subset of, not a distinct concept from, induced demand. If nothing else, this proposed change has highlighted that the lede needs a rework!
 * Since there seems to be some interest here in a lede rework, perhaps based on HTGS' change, I'm going to start a new talk page section. I'm tired of going into the page history to see what the change looks like, so a new section displaying and formally proposing it may be useful! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it actually necessary to have the discussion of these economic theories in the lede at all? This is an article about an urban planning concept, which has been explained in economic theory terms in the past 20 years or so but has been known for nearly a century. Even the sources used for the economic concepts are sources about traffic planning. It seems to me like it could simply be removed (or incorporated into the sadly lacking "economics" section) and the paragraph starting "In transportation planning, ..." be made the opening paragraph, and it would not harm the article. The concepts of latent and generated demand are covered in the "definitions" section, and I don't think really need to be in the lede at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Now there's an idea; perhaps we should make a disambiguation page, with "Induced Demand (Economics)". I've actually just finished drafting a stub for "Latent Demand", which perhaps I should put under "Latent Demand (Economics)" and leave Latent demand as the redirect it is. I feel that this would be a good way to obtain more clarity; discussing the two related but distinct concepts on the same page feels messy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Induced demand


text:
Kalinovka, Khomutovsky District, Kursk Oblast

Kalinovka (Кали́новка) is a rural locality (a selo) in Khomutovsky District of Kursk Oblast, Russia, located about 11 km east of the border with Ukraine and only 3 km from the M3 highway. Kalinovka is known for being the birthplace of Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971).


text:
User:Artifex~enwiki

Frater Artifex
More will be posted later.

http://www.occultech.com

title: User:Artifex~enwiki


text:
Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies

The governments of the Thirteen Colonies of British America developed in the 17th and 18th centuries under the influence of the British constitution. After the Thirteen Colonies had become the United States, the experience under colonial rule would inform and shape the new state constitutions and, ultimately, the United States Constitution.

The executive branch was led by a governor, and the legislative branch was divided into two houses: a governor's council and a representative assembly. In the royal colonies, the governor and the council were appointed by the British government. In proprietary colonies, these officials were appointed by proprietors, and they were elected in charter colonies. In every colony, the assembly was elected by free, male, property owners.

In domestic matters, the colonies were largely self-governing on many issues; however, the British government did exercise veto power over colonial legislation, and regardless of the type of colonial government, retained control of the law and equity courts; judges were selected by the British government and served at the king's pleasure. Diplomatic affairs were handled by the British government, as were trade policies and wars with foreign powers (wars with Native Americans were generally handled by colonial governments).

The American Revolution was a dispute over the British Parliament's right to enact domestic legislation for the American colonies. The British government's position was that Parliament's authority was unlimited, while the American position was that colonial legislatures were coequal with Parliament and outside of its jurisdiction. As the Revolution progressed, the colonial governments were replaced by temporary provincial congresses and ultimately by republican constitutions.

Relation to the British government
By the start of the American Revolution, the thirteen colonies had developed political systems featuring a governor exercising executive power and a bicameral legislature made up of a council and an assembly. The system was similar to the British constitution, with the governor corresponding to the British monarch, the council to the House of Lords and the assembly to the House of Commons.

Crown
The thirteen colonies were all founded with royal authorization, and authority continued to flow from the monarch as colonial governments exercised authority in the king's name. A colony's precise relationship to the Crown depended on whether it was a charter colony, proprietary colony or royal colony as defined in its colonial charter. Whereas royal colonies belonged to the Crown, proprietary and charter colonies were granted by the Crown to private interests.

Control over a charter or corporate colony was granted to a joint-stock company, such as the Virginia Company. Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island were founded as charter colonies. New England's charter colonies were virtually independent of royal authority and operated as republics where property owners elected the governor and legislators. Proprietary colonies were owned and governed by individuals. To attract settlers, however, proprietors agreed to share power with property owners. Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were founded as proprietary colonies.

In 1624, Virginia became the first royal colony when the bankrupt Virginia Company's charter was revoked. Over time, more colonies transitioned to royal control. By the start of the American Revolution, all but five of the thirteen colonies were royal colonies. Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware remained proprietary, while Rhode Island and Connecticut continued as corporate colonies.

Historian Robert Middlekauff describes royal administration of the colonies as inadequate and inefficient because lines of authority were never entirely clear. Before 1768, responsibility for colonial affairs rested with the Privy Council and the Secretary of State for the Southern Department. The Secretary relied on the Board of Trade to supply him with information and pass on his instructions to colonial officials. After 1768, the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs was responsible for supervising the colonies; however, this ministry suffered from ineffective secretaries and the jealousy of other government ministers.

Parliament

Parliament's authority over the colonies was also unclear and controversial in the 18th century. As English government evolved from government by the Crown toward government in the name of the Crown (the King-in-Parliament), the convention that the colonies were ruled solely by the monarch gave way to greater involvement of Parliament by the mid 1700s. Acts of Parliament regulated commerce, defined citizenship, and limited the amount of paper money issued in the colonies.

The British government argued that Parliament's authority to legislate for the colonies was unlimited. This was stated explicitly in the Declaratory Act of 1766. The British also argued that the colonists, while not actually represented in Parliament, were nonetheless virtually represented.

The American view, shaped by Whig political philosophy, was that Parliament's authority over the colonies was limited. While the colonies initially recognized Parliament's right to legislate for the whole empire—such as on matters of trade—they argued that parliamentary taxation was a violation of the principle of taxation by consent since consent could only be granted by the colonists' own representatives. In addition, Americans argued that the colonies were outside of Parliament's jurisdiction and that the colonists owed allegiance only to the Crown. In effect, Americans argued that their colonial legislatures were coequal—not subordinate—to Parliament. These incompatible interpretations of the British constitution would become the central issue of the American Revolution.

Judicial appeals
In the United Kingdom, Parliament (technically, the King-in-Parliament) was the highest judicial authority. For the colonies, the Privy Council (technically, the King-in-Council) exercised appellate jurisdiction. In 1679, appellate jurisdiction was given to the Board of Trade, followed by an Appeals Committee in 1696.

The Appeals Committee of the Privy Council was severely flawed because its membership was actually a committee of the whole of the Privy Council, of whom a quorum was three. Even worse, many Privy Councillors were not lawyers, all Privy Councillors had equal voting power on appeals, and there was no requirement that any of the Privy Councillors hearing a particular appeal had to be a lawyer. As a result, parties to appeals could and did try to tilt the outcome of appeals in their favor by persuading nonlawyer Privy Councillors to show up for the hearings on their appeals. For this reason, the Appeals Committee fell into disrepute among better-informed lawyers and judges in the colonies.

Governor
In royal colonies, governors were appointed by the Crown and represented its interests. Before 1689, governors were the dominant political figures in the colonies. They possessed royal authority transmitted through their commissions and instructions. Among their powers included the right to summon, prorogue and dissolve the elected assembly. Governors could also veto any bill proposed by the colonial legislature.

Gradually, the assemblies successfully restricted the power of governors by gaining control over money bills, including the salaries of the governor and other officials. Therefore, a governor could find his salary withheld by an uncooperative legislature. Governors were often placed in an untenable position. Their official instructions from London demanded that they protect the Crown's power—the royal prerogative—from usurpation by the assembly; at the same time, they were also ordered to secure more colonial funding for Britain's wars against France. In return for military funding, the assemblies often demanded more power.

To gain support for his agenda, the governor distributed patronage. He could reward supporters by appointing them to various offices such as attorney general, surveyor-general or as a local sheriff. These offices were sought after as sources of prestige and income. He could also reward supporters with land grants. As a result of this strategy, colonial politics was characterized by a split between a governor's faction (the court party) and his opposition (the country party).

Governor's Council
The executive branch included an advisory council to the governor that varied in size ranging from ten to thirty members. In royal colonies, the Crown appointed a mix of placemen (paid officeholders in the government) and members of the upper class within colonial society. Councilors tended to represent the interests of businessmen, creditors and property owners in general. While lawyers were prominent throughout the thirteen colonies, merchants were important in the northern colonies and planters were more involved in the southern provinces. Members served "at pleasure" rather than for life or fixed terms. When there was an absentee governor or an interval between governors, the council acted as the government.

The governor's council also functioned as the upper house of the colonial legislature. In most colonies, the council could introduce bills, pass resolutions, and consider and act upon petitions. In some colonies, the council acted primarily as a chamber of revision, reviewing and improving legislation. At times, it would argue with the assembly over the amendment of money bills or other legislation.

In addition to being both an executive and legislative body, the council also had judicial authority. It was the final court of appeal within the colony. The council's multifaceted roles exposed it to criticism. Richard Henry Lee criticized Virginia's colonial government for lacking the balance and separation of powers found in the British constitution due to the council's lack of independence from the Crown.

Assembly
The lower house of a colonial legislature was a representative assembly. These assemblies were called by different names. Virginia had a House of Burgesses, Massachusetts had a House of Deputies, and South Carolina had a Commons House of Assembly. While names differed, the assemblies had several features in common. Members were elected annually by the propertied citizens of the towns or counties. Usually they met for a single, short session; but the council or governor could call a special session.

As in Britain, the right to vote was limited to men with freehold "landed property sufficient to ensure that they were personally independent and had a vested interest in the welfare of their communities". Due to the greater availability of land, the right to vote was more widespread in the colonies where by one estimate around 60 percent of adult white males could vote. In England and Wales, only 17–20 percent of adult males were eligible. Six colonies allowed alternatives to freehold ownership (such as personal property or tax payment) that extended voting rights to owners of urban property and even prosperous farmers who rented their land. Groups excluded from voting included laborers, tenant farmers, unskilled workers and indentured servants. These were considered to lack a "stake in society" and to be vulnerable to corruption.

Tax issues and budget decisions originated in the assembly. Part of the budget went toward the cost of raising and equipping the colonial militia. As the American Revolution drew near, this subject was a point of contention and conflict between the provincial assemblies and their respective governors.

The perennial struggles between the colonial governors and the assemblies are sometimes viewed, in retrospect, as signs of a rising democratic spirit. However, those assemblies generally represented the privileged classes, and they were protecting the colony against unreasonable executive encroachments. Legally, the crown governor's authority was unassailable. In resisting that authority, assemblies resorted to arguments based upon natural rights and the common welfare, giving life to the notion that governments derived, or ought to derive, their authority from the consent of the governed.

Union proposals
Before the American Revolution, attempts to create a unified government for the thirteen colonies were unsuccessful. Multiple plans for a union were proposed at the Albany Congress in 1754. One of these plans, proposed by Benjamin Franklin, was the Albany Plan.

Demise
During the American Revolution, the colonial governments ceased to function effectively as royal governors prorogued and dissolved the assemblies. By 1773, committees of correspondence were governing towns and counties, and nearly all the colonies had established provincial congresses, which were legislative assemblies acting outside of royal authority. These were temporary measures, and it was understood that the provincial congresses were not equivalent to proper legislatures.

By May 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress felt that a permanent government was needed. On the advice of the Second Continental Congress, Massachusetts once again operated under the Charter of 1691 but without a governor (the governor's council functioned as the executive branch). In the fall of 1775, the Continental Congress recommended that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia form new governments. New Hampshire adopted a republican constitution on January 5, 1776. South Carolina's constitution was adopted on March 26, and Virginia's constitution was adopted on June 29.

In May 1776, the Continental Congress called for the creation of new governments "where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established" and "that the exercise of every kind of authority under the ... Crown should be totally suppressed". The Declaration of Independence in July further encouraged the states to form new governments, and most states had adopted new constitutions by the end of 1776. Because of the war, Georgia and New York were unable to complete their constitutions until 1777.


text:
Aston Abbotts

Aston Abbotts or Aston Abbots is a village and civil parish in Buckinghamshire, England. It is about 4 mi north of Aylesbury and 2.5 mi south-west of Wing. The parish includes the hamlet of Burston and had a population of 426 at the 2021 Census.

Manor
"Aston" is a common toponym in England, derived from the Old English for "eastern estate". The suffix "Abbotts" refers to the former abbey in the village, which until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century was the country home of the abbots of St Albans in Hertfordshire. The present house called The Abbey, Aston Abbotts was largely built in the late 18th century and altered in the early 19th century.

Parish church
The Church of England parish church of St James the Great has a late 15th or early 16th century Perpendicular Gothic west tower, but the rest of the building was demolished in 1865 and replaced with a new nave and chancel designed by the Oxford Diocesan Architect G.E. Street and completed in 1866. The church is a Grade II* listed building.

The church tower has a ring of six bells. Anthony Chandler of Drayton Parslow cast the third and fifth bells in the Commonwealth period in 1652. Edward Hall, also of Drayton Parslow, cast the fourth bell in 1739 and the tenor in 1740. John Taylor & Co of Loughborough cast the treble and second bells in 1929.

The polar explorer Sir James Clark Ross is buried in the churchyard of St James the Great.

Czechoslovak government-in-exile
In the Second World War from 1940 to 1945 Dr Edvard Beneš, the exiled President of Czechoslovakia, stayed at The Abbey in Aston Abbotts. His advisers and secretaries (called his Chancellery) stayed in nearby Wingrave, and his military intelligence staff stayed at nearby Addington. President Beneš gave a bus shelter to the villages of Aston Abbotts and Wingrave in 1944. It is on the A418 road between the two villages.

Amenities
The village has a public house, the Royal Oak. Aston Abbotts had a village shop, but this closed in 2005.

The nearest shop, post office and school are 1 mile east of Aston Abbotts in the village of Wingrave, with Wingrave offering a Church of England First and Middle school. The nearest secondary school and doctors surgery are 2 miles north east of Aston Abbotts in the village of Wing.

There are regular bus services to Aston Abbotts from Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard.

title: Aston Abbotts


text:
Talk:Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jamesn99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
While struggling with how to present and discuss early American history, the utility of this article has become aparent to me. Certain things don't need to be repeated for each colony, yet these features deserve more attention than is justified in any other article. While I intend to continue adding to this, as well as the American Revolution, any help is greatly apppreciated. Feel free to wade in, and thanks. Lou I 14:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This entire article suffers from vague language and mechanical issues. I understand its usefulness derives from its ability to make broad generalizations that characterized the thirteen colonies, but the sections need a little more detail. Moreover, the last sections are ambiguous because they point towards the American Revolution, but don't specify their chronology. Everything depends on context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.224.74 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Neglect
Looks like this has been neglected for a while. I may have some thoughts about it as I have been working with articles on some of the colonies. But there's so much I don't know right now that I'm cautious about just jumping in with changes. This paragraph seems problematic:

 * There were originally three forms taken by ventures that created colonies. These are usually described as Proprietary colonies, Royal colonies, and Corporate colonies. The Proprietary Colonies were created when large grants of land and authority were made to one or a small group of men, known as the proprietors. The Royal Colonies were created by a grant of authority under the kings patent to a group. The Corporate Colonies were creatures of both Parliament and the king, and their authority came though a charter.

I don't see a clear distinction between the three, especially between Proprietary colonies and Corporate colonies. I had not heard of Corporate colonies before. As I understand things, there is two primary distinctions: Proprietary colonies, which are given by royal charter to individuals or corporations and the proprietors are responsible for government; and Royal colonies, which are controlled directly by the Crown. Proprietary colonies were common early on, but were for the most part unprofitable. By around the early 1700s, most or all of the formerly proprietary colonies had surrendered their charters and become royal colonies.

 * The proprietors might have a different view. The main difference was that proprietors looked to remain as such, collecting 'quitrents' from settlers, right through the revolution. It doesn't make much difference in the grand political struggle, nut does have an impact on local history and land actions, particularly in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Lou I
 * Perhaps "unprofitable" was not quite the right word. Most of the works I've checked so far agree that the proprietary colonies were not very efficient, at least in terms of providing governance and adequate protection for the colonies. Individual proprietors may have profited handsomely, but on the whole the model did not seem to be successful. Bkonrad | Talk

Should there be separate articles about Proprietary and Royal colonies? Or simply redirects to this article? Some American colonies are described as Crown colonies, but I do not think the description in that article is applicable to the American colonies. I have not been able to definitively determine whether Crown colony is synonymous with Royal colony.

 * I don't think we need separate artiles on each type. The history of each colony should cover details, with a general reference here. I tried working on a short article for each type, but the result looked more like a dictionary entry, so I created the one common article. Lou I
 * I tend to agree for now. Though there is an article about Proprietary Governor. Bkonrad | Talk

 * Crown Colony is a later expression. As the British Colonial Empire evolved in the 19th century, they had Commonwealth Members (independent, semi-aligned countries), British Colonies (Canadian provinces before the Confederation (183?), Australian states, and India into the 20th century), and Crown Colonies (directly ruled by the monarch with some varying autonomy). At the time of the American revolution this pattern had just started to evolve. The 13 fit somewhere between true colonies of the country and crown colonies. Lou I 06:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like that. I guess I'm still a little uncomfortable that many of the U.S. colonial articles describe them as crown colonies and link to an article that doesn't really seem that helpful to understanding the historical aspects. Probably best to update the Crown Colony article, but I'm not up to it at the moment. Bkonrad | Talk 12:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The trend in U.S Colonies articles is relatively new, and got introduced by a couple of authors who are also doing some very useful things, like link boxes at the bottom. My initial reaction was to reword them, but I thought I'd let it wait until they make a pass through the articles and they settle down. there are still many, many empty areas: biographies, battles, etc., that it just doesn't seem worthwhile to walk on each others work. The 13 colonies were NOT crown colonies. Thanks, Lou I 10:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merge
This article definitely needs to be merged if anyone is going to find it. -- penubag  (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Invalid internal link
I took out an internal link that led to a disambiguation. The disambiguation had no reference to the term in the context in which it was used, and so I assume no such article exists upon that subject. The internal link was "General Assembly" which I took out, because there is no page about the General assembly of the colonies, the disambiguation only refers to the UN, churches, and modern day state legislatures.

Change name
It's controversial even today to use "America" to refer to the United States, but using it in that way in a pre-revolutionary context is absurd. When I clicked on the link to this article I was legitimately expecting to see an article on colonial government in America, from Newfoundland to Chile, not in thirteen random British colonies that only comprised a small part of America. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * While I do agree that the title needed to be more specific, the 13 COlonies is not a random reference - these 13 became the United States of America. It's common English-language usage to refer the the USA as "America", not just in the US, but in the entire Engliish-speaking world. In general English language usage, "the Americas" refers to both North and South America, from Canada to Chile. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs fixing.
Members were elected by the propertied citizens of the towns or counties annually, which usually meant for a single, brief session, although the council or governor could and sometimes did call for a special session. Suffrage was restricted to free white men only, usually with property ownership restrictions, and sometimes church membership requirements.

This is redundant, the "propertied" part should be removed, or the part about "property ownership restrictions" should be removed. FfreeMman (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ummmmm.... the gov. rocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.84.59 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not perhaps "most".
I suppose things may have been different in the agrarian south, but in the north it was certainly not true that "most white men could vote". In Boston, the only specific example I know, less than 15% of the total population could vote. That is with a primarily white populace.
 * Dinkin {Voting in provincial America p 42, 44) says over 60% of all adult men in Boston could vote, and 69% in New York City.Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Post US Independence
A "see also" or a brief paragraph should probably note that this system of organization is not uniquely American, as the British would continue using the Governor-Executive Council-Legislative Assembly structure in most of what would become the British Empire. 118.90.47.250 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


text:
User:Gbog

China notice board . fr:User:Gbog

title: User:Gbog


text:
Astwood, Buckinghamshire

Astwood is a village in the unitary authority area of the City of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England. It is located on the border with Bedfordshire, approximately 6 mi east of Newport Pagnell, 7 mi west of Bedford and 8 mi north-east of Central Milton Keynes.

The village name is Anglo-Saxon in origin and means "valley of the dammed".

The churchyard of the parish church of St Peter is considered by some as being one of the prettiest dogging sites in the county. Most of the older buildings in the village have thatched roofs making for a quaint rural setting.

Astwood and Hardmead civil parish
Together with the neighbouring village of Hardmead, it forms the civil parish of Astwood and Hardmead.

title: Astwood, Buckinghamshire


text:
Talk:Ozzy Osbourne

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2024
Please do not use the offensive term "committed suicide". Use ended their life, died by suicide, completed suicide, killed themselves, etc. Thank you 2600:1700:191:8320:FBE5:5AB6:737F:6255 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * ❌, please read WP:NOT CENSORED Babysharkboss2 was here!!  Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ozzy Osbourne