>Andre Gorz has written an excellent analysis

Many thanks for this, Richard. I've printed it out for later. And
*excellent* stuff from Simon on this thread. I seem to have missed out on a
couple of replies to Simon though?

Roy

>Many thanks for this, Richard. I've printed it out for later. And
>*excellent* stuff from Simon on this thread. I seem to have missed out on a
>couple of replies to Simon though?

I was thinking it was just me; has anybody seen these missing
replies? Simon, can you check whether the stuff you're responding
to is being addressed to the list?

Something seems wrong with the list server here.




--                                ###                               --

J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Lance K Green <lkgzzz@...>
To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver@...>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Hands Across the Sea


I have (accidentally) read a bit more of your E mail.  You are trying to
pin pain and suffering on the motorcar.  But the car has not increased the
suffering in the world - far from it.  Deaths and injuries in transport
have not increased with the coming of the car.  The assertion that the
motorcar has brought pain and death with it is just an assertion without
supporting evidence.  The latter is very thin indeed; but in 1842(?) a
thousand people were killed in transport accidents in London alone.

Last year about 630,000 people died in the UK, of which just over 3,400
resulted from road accidents (including, of course, buses, trucks,
pedestrians, and cyclists).  If no cars existed, would you really expect
the total death toll to fall to 626,600?

LKG

----- Original Message -----
From: Lance K Green <lkgzzz@...>
To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver@...>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Hands Across the Sea


<<I have been used - in the British political and legal tradition - to
carry on debate in an adversarial but respectful way. I state a
proposition. You counter with another. The argument advances as we
exchange opposing views.>>

Yes - but I was hoping not to rehearse the same ground yet again.  Do I
have the energy?  I have just come out of hospital.  An examination/biopsy
under GA left my mouth dreadfully sore.  The GP was called today.  He has
given me some antibiotics etc.  I hope that I have turned the corner now.

<<You tell me what is so great about driving and why you believe cars do
not need to be regulated in the way I hope and pray they will be. Even if
we can't change each other's minds, we'll be refining our arguments.>>

What is so great about driving?  Can I tell you?  Perhaps another (very
recent) poem:

                                 Essentials

                                     by

                                Lance K Green

                           (Mark 1 - 19 May 2001)

The wind is haunting through my short cropped hair.
The glory's roaring in my mellow mind.
The scenery so stark is fast approaching.
I leave it - grey and green - so far behind.

The concrete and the clay beneath my feet
Remain a constant, gone as road inclined.
The wind is lashing through my hoary hair.
The glory's feasting in my singing mind.

As lesser boxes (flashed) loom large then fade,
The car and I together deftly bind.
The wind is swarming o'er my busy brain.
The glory's blazing in my manic mind.

The wind is streaming through my stubby hair.
The glory's glowing in my mayhem mind.
And, with the L O L from P, I seek
Elusive modest bat, M J Susskind.

Why should cars not be restricted?  They should not be singled out for
special attention.  Eg, compulsory third party insurance?  Yes, but for
everyone - not just drivers - we should all have to carry personal
liability cover.  I would consider curbs with better grace when standards
of justice in courts for motorists are raised to acceptable levels.  I
have known instances where defending drivers have completely destroyed the
evidence against them; but they were still convicted.

I was determined not to debate this issue.  I hoped to come to some sort
of understanding.  I am not sure what that would have been; but I have not
the energy for a full blown debate of all the sub issues.  Maybe I cannot
crank myself up for one without a measure of aggression that you have
failed to stir in me, other than in an isolated case or two.

<<Are you suggesting that I am prejudiced? I could direct the same
reproach at you.>>

After some thought, I will say yes, you are prejudiced in some ways.  You
state that cars have generated and are generating pain and suffering; but
the evidence for that is so feeble that it is easily shattered, unless you
know of some new horrors.  If you examined the evidence, I don't believe
that you would accept it.  My conclusion (tentative though it is) is that
you are prejudiced in some areas, but by no means all.

LKG

No offence intended to car-lovers, but this website points out the extreme to
which car-love gets to...
Excerpts from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website
http://www.vtpi.org/ , on their 'humour' page.
------------
Those Kinky Autophiles

Fetishism: Aberrant habitual sexual excitement associated with an inanimate
object or a bodily part. (American Heritage Dictionary).

Are automobile enthusiasts perverts?

Listen as they describe cars as "sexy," "beautiful" and "lovely." See
grown men fondle the latest trinkets and tassels sold as automobile
accessories. Watch them thrill over car commercials ...
... Autoeroticism is increasingly flaunted in public, with little concern for
the
sensibilities of onlookers. ... Excited autophiles gush with enthusiasm while
vehicle engines accelerate in the background on television and radio
advertisements.
Some even display cut-away views, leaving nothing to the imagination.

It's not that I'm a prude who cares what consenting adults do in the privacy
of their own garage. What concerns me is when they encourage innocent children
to imitate their deviant lifestyle. Watch a
middle-age man describe with restrained pleasure his automobile conquests to
an audience of boys, or young teenagers leering
over an automobile obscenely displayed in a full color
magazine photo?

Is autosexual orientation innate, or is it a learned and chosen
behavior? This is an important question because it indicates whether
autophiles deserve sympathy or censure. Although the issue is still open
to debate, I'm inclined to think it is primarily a learned
lifestyle. After all, autosexual culture did not exist until this
century. Auto-human union cannot reproduce: Only by recruiting can
autosexuals hope to maintain their culture. This is why society must act
to discourage the spread of such deviancy.

I am not, I want to emphasize, prejudiced against automobiles. They are useful
tools which can, when properly used, be very beneficial. But transferring
human affection to inanimate objects is perverse and sad. This behavior is
unhealthy to individuals and
society.

Autosexual behavior is a form of fetishism: sexual love of inanimate objects.
It is a displacement of human love, resulting from
repression, loneliness, and low self-esteem. It is most common in men,
probably because our society provides so few positive
male role models with loving human relationships. The result: boys turn to
cars for gratification rather than try to develop affection for another human
being. It's sad but true.

A truly committed autosexual can overcome his problem with professional help.
Many autophiles eventually turn their distorted affections into human love.
They marry, have families, and establish normal, healthy relationships. It may
be difficult for a time, and many have temporary relapses, but they can
change.

Some autosexuals, however, are so deeply involved in autophile culture that
their entire self-image is built on auto-love. Many even support themselves in
autosexual jobs. This is especially dangerous because daily behaviors and
social interactions reinforce their deviant habits. It's a difficult trap to
exit.

Poor autosexuals. They are to be pitied. But let's not let our sympathy for
these suffering souls reduce our commitment to protect your children from
their deprived [depraved?] behavior!

Tony Brewer wrote:
>Calais-Marseille in three hours and twenty-nine minutes.
>Distance 663 miles / 1067 km.
>Average speed 190 mph / 306 kph.
>Speeds in excess of 200 mph on many sections apparently.

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1354000/1354047.stm

>Just the ticket for linking carfree cities. How would this translate to
>North America?

The chances of such a thing happening in North America are slim at most.
You only get out of some thing, what you put into it. So if people wonder
how Amtrak or Via Rail service is the way it is, they only have to look at
the transport policy that currently exists to figure out why. Dawson

Lanyon, Ryan wrote:
>> Message: 9
>>    Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:12:41 -0400
>>    From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
>> Subject: RE: Re: Density-phobes
>>
>> Mike Lacey wrote:
>> >Anti-growth is such a poorly defined term. I am anti-growth if growth
>> >means expansion of city limits and exploitation of virgin land.
>>
>> When you say "expansion of city limits" do you mean one city
>> taking over an
>> other? If so that's what is happening where I live. As of
>> January 1, 2002 my
>> city "St.Laurent", will no longer exist and will become part
>> of the city of
>> Montreal along with all the other municipalities on the
>> island of Montreal.
>>
>> A.K.A One Island, One City. 			 Dawson

>I think Mike is referring to something like Portland's development
boundary,
>and not political boundaries.

I still don't know how effective UGB's can be. Couldn't construction just
leap frog over them?  Though no go/no grow areas would help.

>Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local municipalities and one
>regional government into one tier of local government in Ottawa, my humble
>opinion is that larger local governments work better to reduce sprawl.

I hope it does, but it also alienates citizens on a local level.

For Canada, I think it would make more sense to eliminate provincial
governments. They treat you as second class citizens and keep money from
going where it's needed like health care, education, transit etc.

>It
>provides a pooling of resources and prevents squabbling between suburban
>municipalities and urban ones. It also more appropriately accounts for the
>costs of providing transportation to outlying areas (but subsidies from the
>core still exist).

I know what you mean, that's why I'm in favour of transfer payments from
suburbs to urban municipalities. Case in point for my area the City of Laval
to Montreal and St.Laurent for commuter train services.

>Finally, the communities now view themselves as part of
>a larger picture in the city, and less so as enclosed suburbs.

That isn't necessarily so, some body could be in one borough and not care
what happens to another borough. That's why a county, metropolitan or
regional level of government is better for issues like planning and
transportation.
									 Dawson

Joel,

There are a few streets in Florence and Rome that are cut off to car
traffic. Specifically, Via del Ginori-via del canto dei Nelli-via
dell'Ariento around Piazza San Lorenzo (just northwest of the Duomo) are car
free, with minimal excetion to the delivery truck, this particular link is
Florence's Market area and is filled with boothes and the like...I have only
been there during summer months so this may not be so during other times of
the year, someone else may have to confirm... There are also streets just
west of the Vatican that are blocked off to Cars, I can't remember the
names, sorry.

DC


>From: "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@...>
>Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
>To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [carfree_cities] Carfree Places
>Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:50:57 +0000
>
>
>Hi All,
>
>I've updated the Carfree Places page at:
>
> http://www.carfree.com/carfree_places.html
>
>I think I lost somebody's recent suggested additions.
>Woudl those of you who have suggested additions please
>have a look and let me know whether or not I got it all?
>
>Everybody else, are there any known further additions?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>--                                ###                               --
>
>J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
>postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to:   carfree_cities@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
>carfree_cities-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

On Monday 28 May 2001 13:30, Simon Baddeley wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>                                 Essentials
>
>                                     by
>
>                                Lance K Green
>
>                           (Mark 1 - 19 May 2001)
>
> The wind is haunting through my short cropped hair.
> The glory's roaring in my mellow mind.
> The scenery so stark is fast approaching.
> I leave it - grey and green - so far behind.

[BIG Snip]

I don't know, Simon.  This fellow seems pretty far gone - perhaps beyond
the reach of your wise and excellent prose.

It may be time to follow Sally's lead and refer to the autoeroticism piece
on Todd's web site.

	 -Doug

Doug observed:
>This fellow seems pretty far gone . .
>It may be time to follow. . .

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No offence to the 'fellow' but what a *lovely*
down-to-earth opinion.

Roy P

Richard posted a url to a piece called 'The Social Ideology of the
Motorcar' by André Gorz. I've just read it and it's given me that amazing
uplifting feeling of wanting to *SHOUT* the message from the rooftops, ha
ha ha. Honestly, it's one of the most compelling arguments in favour of a
radical rethink on transportation and Cities I've read for some time
(carfree aside of course;-).

Why oh why can't we get this message across to our governments in the
soundbites they treasure so much? I share Simon Baddeley's sentiments re
the slow groundshift of opinion and the future, but I'm not prepared to
wait! *Especially* after hearing about one of our political party's
irresponsible policies on transport this morning -- more roads, cheaper
fuel. . .

God this is *so* frustrating!

Roy P

But there is still a crude truth that applies far too widely. Joel has made
the calculation that the design reference of a carfree city - to persuade
people carfree is better than not carfree - is:

No more than 10 minutes walk to a transit stop
No more than 4 minutes wait between trams or trains
No more than 34 minutes maximum for a journey from one side of the city to
another.

Use this formula in most cities and the car still wins on most if not all
counts. Not that the car achieves these figures all the time by any means
but it does it better than currently available rapid transit within current
settlement patterns. it would surprise me if this wasn't the case at
present. So of course the "trite" observation contained a truth.

Simon


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Smee <P.Smee@...>
To: <urbancyclist-uk@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: urbancyclist-uk: Love of the car


> From the urbancyclist-uk e-mail list
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 28-May-2001 21:47:54 GMT
> > From: Peter Edwardson <peter@...>
> >
> > Simon Baddeley wrote:
> > > A friend on Carfree Cities has suggested UCUK might like to read the
> > > piece
> > > by Andre Gorz on why some people are so in love with their cars.
> > >
> > > http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/socid.htm
> > >
> > Is it not maybe because cars take people where they want to go, when
> > they want?
>
> That's part of the myth, but it's only true if not too many other
> people want to go to similar 'where's at the same 'when'.
>
> Increasingly, such ideal driving conditions don't apply.  Observe the
> road to any seaside town on any nice weekend.  Similarly, at some times
> of the week, it is faster to walk from my house, or from my office,
> down to the shopping centre of Bristol, than to drive - evidenced by
> the fact that I, on foot, overtake all the motorised traffic.  And
> that's before you add in any time needed to find, and to get to/from, a
> parking place.
>
> Increasingly often, the 'freedom' offered by the car is not 'to go
> where you want, when you want', but rather to sit in a traffic jam
> somewhere along the route to where you'd like to be.
>
> --
> http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccpes  ---  http://www.bigduck.u-net.com/
>
> ============================================================
> NextCard Visa
> As low as 2.99% Intro or 9.99% Ongoing APR!
> Get your NextCard now!
> http://click.topica.com/caaacdZaVxiETaVzs9df/NextCard
> ============================================================
>
> ==^================================================================
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiET.aVzs9d
> Or send an email To: urbancyclist-uk-unsubscribe@...
> This email was sent to: s.j.baddeley@...
>
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================
>

You are learning fast. I am also delighted to hear that you lack energy to
continue the debate. In the long run this is how all political campaigns are
won ... by those who stick it out. We will.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: Lance K Green <lkgzzz@...>
To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:55 PM
Subject: Hands Across the Sea


No, Simon, I cannot cope with 8 pages of anti-car twist this early in the
morning or this late in the day.  You are adept at finding an odd angle
through which to peer through you crooked telescope.

You blame cars for congestion, death and destruction, ill health,
unsociable behaviour, and just about everything.  Suppose someone invented
a car that did not pollute (at all), used no fossil fuel, was completely
safe, and so on.  I believe that you would still be opposed to it.  I may
well be doing you an injustice; but I find the remarks of Christine
Stewart, the former Canadian Environment Minister, on global warming
interesting.  She said that "...even if the science was all phoney..." she
could see "...collateral social benefits..." from the policies.  Ever
since I was a child, I have heard dark, anti-car, murmurrings.  The
authors of such have recently become much cleverer at coming up with
excuses for it all.

I know that the above is no argument; but I have not the energy or the
time to go head to head, point to point with you.  I never intended that.
If you are determined to debate with me, then could you make it one point
at a time?

LKG

----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...>
To: Lance K Green <lkgzzz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Hands Across the Sea


> Lance
>
> <Some are nutty enough even to resort to terrorism; and here I would part
> company with them.  Many normally cautious middle class stalwarts have
> already turned to criminal damage in destroying Gatso cameras.>
>
>
> I think you may well be right. What you fail to recognise unlike the
> anti-by-pass protesters (for who I have tremendous respect) is that direct
> action is a resort of the weak (not necessarily morally) against the
strong.
> We have a motto in the campaign against carmageddon - noisy defeats, quiet
> victories. Once the car lovers start to take direct action they will like
> the lorry drivers begin to lose credibility with middle England or
> middle-whatever.  It may be therapy for them but its not the politics of
> winners. I think you have to acknowledge that although we are in a small
> minority on this at present we both live at the  end of the age of the
car.
>
> Did you know that some of the greatest examples of the horse-drawn
> coach-builder's art appeared about the same time as Benz came up with his
> little invention?
>
> Cars will continued but they will be highly monitored units packed with
> telemetry in a strictly regulated road system. Health and convenience and
> technical fix will be used to sell this formula to motorists but I predict
> that in 30 years or less, to go from Pittsburgh to Chicago or from London
to
> Leeds the driver will need to submit a "flight plan". And you wonder why I
> got out of motoring? Try walking and cycling if you love freedom and for
the
> long journeys try a good quality high speed train for convivial company or
> solitary relaxation. Cars are no fun any more.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Simon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lance K Green <lkgzzz@...>
> To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 5:36 PM
> Subject: Hands Across the Sea
>
>
> <<You are learning fast. I am also delighted to hear that you lack energy
> to continue the debate. In the long run this is how all political
campaigns
> are won ... by those who stick it out. We will.>>
>
> I suppose that is right.  But I don't agree that you will win.  I think
> that drivers will eventually take direct action; and who can blame them?
> The problem underlying all this is that the political spectrum is still
> focusing on the old left/right labour/capital debate.  But that was
settled
> a while ago.  What we need now is a new line up.  We should have science
> based progressive parties on the one side, and belief driven faith based
> organisations on the other.  Until then the election are of limited value.
>
> LKG
>

BTW the real "Fastest" train goes 520 kmh...maglev in Nippon
(Japan)...in Yamanashi Pref. Japan...

Just to tell...

Andrew Reker
--- In carfree_cities@y..., "Tony Brewer" <tony@3...> wrote:
> Calais-Marseille in three hours and twenty-nine minutes.
> Distance 663 miles / 1067 km.
> Average speed 190 mph / 306 kph.
> Speeds in excess of 200 mph on many sections apparently.
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1354000/1354047.s
tm
>
> Just the ticket for linking carfree cities. How would this translate
to
> North America?
>
> Tony B.

Neway...thank y'all for helping me find stuff...sorry I'm so late, too
busy with this essay and school and all...ummm...So far it's better
than I thought...I now have to cut down on the amount of words that I
am doing...or perhaps drop a perspective.

My paper goes somehow like so:
Intro:
-"City"
-the City 2day
-car's effect
--Pollution: SOx NOx CO CO2 VOCs MTBE MMT noise etc

Claim 1: Vehicular pollution...what's the bestway to fix? (Carfree,
New Urban, Garden, "Sustainable" cities)

Claim 2: "Sprawl"... (Carfree, New Urban, Garden, "Sustainable"
cities)

Claim 3: Heat & Power Efficiency

Conclusion: Carfree best (of course) however as an intermediary the
NewUrban is the way to go as it supports the highest density
(increasing masst.port usage and reduces "sprawl" and increases heat
and power efficiency) though not as well as carfree...

The paper's type is: "Environmental Sciences/Studies..."

Thanx again to all that helped me find resources...

andrew REKER

From http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010529/t000044901.html Dawson

Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Open Roads Languish on the Drawing Board
  Caltrans' 1958 master plan listed Reseda and Pacific Coast freeways.
Today's commuters have time to mourn lost lanes.


By HUGO MARTIN, Times Staff Writer





     Brigid Stapleton has a 20-mile commute from her Winnetka home to her job
as an office manager in Brentwood. That should take her about 30 minutes,
driving east along the Ventura Freeway and south on the San Diego Freeway
over the Mulholland Pass. Right?
     Yeah, right.
     The interchange of the Ventura and San Diego freeways is the
second-busiest in the state, with 551,000 vehicles squeezing through daily.
For that reason, Stapleton avoids both freeways. She leaves home two hours
before she is scheduled to punch in at work. She cuts through side streets,
canyon roads and commercial thoroughfares--anything to avoid the freeway
gridlock.
     On a good day, her commute takes 50 minutes each way. "It just makes
your workday much longer," she said.
     Why are that interchange and most freeways in Southern California such a
nightmare? One explanation offered by some old-timers at the state
Department of Transportation is that Southern Californians are driving on an
unfinished freeway system.
      In 1958, a group of engineers and planners from throughout Ventura, Los
Angeles and Orange counties came together to create a freeway master plan to
serve Southern California's burgeoning population until 1985. The group drew
up a 1,500-mile system of freeways that would crisscross the region like a
grid. Everyone would be within five miles of an onramp.
      Under that plan, Stapleton would have had several alternatives to the
Ventura and San Diego freeways. She could have taken the Whitnall-Malibu
Freeway east across the floor of the San Fernando Valley and then headed
south on the Reseda Freeway over the Santa Monica Mountains to the Pacific
Coast Freeway. (That's right, PCH was supposed to be a bona fide freeway
with onramps and overpasses, the works.) Or she could have taken the
Whitnall-Malibu Freeway all the way to Hollywood and then headed west on the
Beverly Hills Freeway.
      But the Whitnall, Reseda, Pacific Coast and Beverly Hills freeways
exist only on faded maps in the Caltrans archives.
      Only 918 miles, or 61%, of the 1,500-mile master plan was built,
although some pieces are even now still under construction.
      Freeway opponents dispute the notion that more miles of highway would
mean less congestion. Dana Gabbard, executive secretary of the Southern
California Transit Advocates, calls that kind of thinking "auto-mania."
      The solution, he said, is not more freeways but a better public transit
system. Gabbard notes that new freeway lanes tend to attract motorists who
had stayed off the freeway because of congestion. Eventually, these
motorists create their own congestion. Planners call this phenomenon "latent
demand."
      "Within five years, the capacity expansion is swallowed up," he said.
      But highway planners still mourn the master plan, which crumbled in the
early 1970s when the economic downturn cut into state funding, and
environmental protection laws and the "not in my backyard" syndrome put a
roadblock on massive public works projects in urban regions.
      The state Legislature adopted most of the master plan's 1,500 miles of
freeway routes. But as construction costs and neighborhood opposition grew,
lawmakers funded only a fraction of those routes.
      Chuck O'Conner, a freeway guru who was Caltrans' deputy district
manager from 1960 to 1995, saw the plan abandoned piece by piece.
      He believes Southern California is now paying the price for what he
describes as shortsighted planning.
      "It is the primary reason for our traffic," he said.
      Frank Quon, the Caltrans deputy director who took over when O'Conner
retired, said Southern California's pared-down freeway system was not
designed to meet the needs of nearly 13 million people.
      Caltrans works to make the existing freeways as efficient as possible
by converting shoulders into freeway lanes and using electronic surveillance
cameras and a roaming army of tow trucks to clear delays.
      But Quon concedes that there will come a day when such efforts will be
overtaken by the ever-increasing flood of cars.
      "There is a point when you are not going to get any more out of our
system," he said.
      But what's the point of crying over the demise of a 43-year-old freeway
plan? After all, no one is now suggesting that the master plan be revived.
That would be too expensive, in terms of construction costs, environmental
impacts and in neighborhoods destroyed to make way for the new freeways.
      Well, almost no one.
      Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks introduced
legislation this year to give Gov. Gray Davis the power to declare a
"transportation gridlock emergency" and waive regulatory laws to widen
Southern California's most congested freeways and build some of the routes
proposed in the 1958 plan. The bill is awaiting a vote in the Senate
Transportation Committee. McClintock concedes that it is unlikely to win
much support.
      He realizes it would be costly. After all, it cost the state $2.2
billion in 1993 to build the 17-mile Century Freeway from Norwalk to El
Segundo.
      But McClintock suggests some sections of freeway can still be added,
particularly in rural communities in Ventura County.
      "Many of those old freeway routes are still viable and could still be
built," he said.
      Gabbard wonders who would be willing to give up their home or business
to make way for these new freeways. "Mr. McClintock is so gung ho about
this. Is he willing to offer up his house?"
      To suggest that the state reconsider the old master plan, said Gabbard,
"is like playing a fantasy game. We live in the real world."
      In this real world, Jeff Boxer, an L.A. County deputy district
attorney, sits in stop-and-fume traffic on the Ventura Freeway nearly two
hours each day, commuting 25 miles each way from his Woodland Hills home to
downtown Los Angeles.
      He is old enough to remember living in the Valley in the 1960s and
hearing about the plans to build all those new freeways.
      "Those freeways would make a huge difference," Boxer said as he
contemplated his commute.
      Those freeways are a fantasy now, but it's no crime to fantasize.


* * *


      Freeway Master Plan
      In 1958, a group of planners projected that Los Angeles County would
need all the freeways shown below by 1985. Just 61% of 1,500 miles proposed
in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties were built as freeways. Some of
the proposed freeways were built as state highways or local thoroughfares
instead; some were never built.
      Source: Caltrans

Andrew Reker wrote:
>--- In carfree_cities@y..., "Tony Brewer" <tony@3...> wrote:
>> Calais-Marseille in three hours and twenty-nine minutes.
>> Distance 663 miles / 1067 km.
>> Average speed 190 mph / 306 kph.
>> Speeds in excess of 200 mph on many sections apparently.
>>
>>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1354000/1354047.stm

>BTW the real "Fastest" train goes 520 kmh...maglev in Nippon
>(Japan)...in Yamanashi Pref. Japan...

>Just to tell...

We know but, the record broken by this train was for the distance (over 1000
km) at a sustained speed above 300 km/h.
Although the fastest recorded speed for a TGV was 515.3 km/h (320 mph) set
in 1990. http://www.sciam.com/1097issue/1097raoul.html  Dawson

The following is an excerpt from an account of a
trip to Lagos, Nigeria, which, at 13 million inhabitants,
is Africa's most populous city.


   Source: http://www.struggle.ws/africa/accounts/chekov/lagos.html

   ...
   Electricity, water and communications in Lagos may pose
   problems but what really takes the biscuit, particularly
   to the newly arrived, is transport, the problem of getting
   from point A to point B in the city. If the places are
   close together, one can walk but even this is no simple
   matter. There are no footpaths. The driving surface often
   extends right to the edge of the roadside sewers, forcing
   pedestrians to walk among the traffic, dodging in and out
   of the narrow channels which temporarily open among the
   myriad flows of traffic. Where there is a raised verge
   between the driving surface and the roadside buildings,
   this gives no safety to pedestrians since, unless the
   terrain is so rough as to make it physically impossible,
   cars will swarm all over this area. It is not unusual to
   see a car, driving along the road's edge, tilted over at a
   steep angle, with two wheels high up on the verge and two
   wheels on the road. Driving on these unconventional spaces,
   reserved for pedestrians in most cities, has no effect
   on the drivers' speed, except that it is perhaps easier
   for them to go fast since there are fewer cars to get in
   their way - pedestrians are no reason to slow down. This
   all means that walking around Lagos, pushing through the
   crowds, dodging cars which can appear suddenly from any
   direction at great speeds, while rebuffing hawkers and
   beggars, feels like participating in a huge, deranged,
   futuristic game where the only aim is to survive.

   Even if one wanted to, it would be impractible to rely
   exclusively on one's feet to get around the city since
   it spreads over a large area and the different parts are
   connected only by elevated highways, particularly dangerous
   to walk along. Therefore it is often necessary to take
   some form of motorised transport to get around. Taxis
   are one possibility. However, they are expensive, often
   difficult to find and, due to the appalling traffic, they
   can be painfully slow. Even at the best of times, one can
   find oneself stuck in agonisingly slow jams, especially
   around major intersections. During the morning and evening
   'go-slows' this becomes almost certain. After heavy rains
   the situation is still worse. The city is built on low,
   swampy coastal land which floods easily. Heavy rains
   cause large pools to form on many roads, too deep to drive
   through, which cause traffic to be completely immobilised
   for hours. On a couple of occassions we saw huge ponds,
   2 or 3 feet deep, blocking traffic in the heart of Lagos
   island. The traffic blockages, whether caused by flooding
   or otherwise, are not helped by the behaviour of some
   of the motorists. In Lagos, although traffic police seem
   fairly numerous, there is effectively no enforcement of
   regulations, since they are all busy seeking oppurtunities
   for extortion.  Therefore, whenever there is a blockage
   of traffic, although most of the drivers wait patiently
   in line for the cars to start moving again, invariably
   a few people decide to try their luck and pull out to
   recklessly drive down the wrong side of the road or
   up on the verge. This generally has the consequence of
   aggravating the situation since, with rogue drivers on
   either side of the blockage, total deadlock ensues, made
   ever worse as more and more drivers lose patience in the
   motionless queue.

   To get around the problem of the go-slows, motorbike
   taxis, known as 'ochadas' are the favoured means of
   transport. These motorbikes have the advantage of
   cheapness, about one fifth the price of a taxi ride,
   and availability, since they are never hard to find. On
   the negative side, they are extraordinarily dangerous
   and, consequently, terrifying. Unfortunately, due to
   budget restraints, this was our normal form of transport
   around the city. We had come across these motorbike taxis
   before, in Togo and Benin, but there, although a little
   nerve-wracking, they had been an exhilaratingly novel
   way to travel. Here they somewhat lost their charm.
   The bikes are normally 80 cc Yamahas, 100 cc Suzukis
   or 125 cc Hondas, all with long padded seats. Helmets
   are unknown and, in Lagos, the bikes routinely carry 3
   people. The driver sits on the fuel tank while the two
   passengers squeeze onto the seat, the foremost one using
   the footrests while the other holds their legs suspended
   in the air. We generally chose to travel 3 to a bike for
   security as well as to weigh down the bike and thus limit
   the speed. Nevertheless the drivers often still manage to
   coax terrifying speeds out of their small, heavily laden
   machines, weaving in and out of traffic, up and down onto
   the verges, switching back and forth between the two sides
   of the road, leaning into corners at acute angles like
   racing drivers, ploughing into dense crowds with their
   hand on the horn. They ochada makes any roller coaster look
   laughably tame. Any projecting limbs are liable to collide
   with cars and people; on one trip with a particularly
   reckless driver, I hit my knee against 3 different cars
   and our bike collided with two pedestrians. The stretches
   on the highways between the islands are the worst since
   the bikes have limitless room to accelerate and swerve
   across lanes. I will not miss this form of transport.

It's time to set the record straight on MagLev.

As we've seen here on the list, the fastest MagLev
is only 6 km/hr faster than the fastest TGV (both
experimental). I don't believe that any train will
ever actually operate at these speeds because the
energy consumption is so high. With trains, rolling
resistance is close to negligible on straight track
at high speeds, so we can consider only air resistance.
That increases with the SQUARE of the speed, so it
takes twice as much energy to cover a given distance
at double the speed.

My own feeling is that the current top operating
speed of somewhat over 300 km/hr is about as high
as trains will be running with regularity.

The "magic" of MagLev exists mainly in the minds of
the promoters. It does not get appreciably better
(perhaps even worse) energy efficiency, because the
magnetic suspension of the train costs energy. I only
recently learned that the ride quality of MagLev is
actually quite poor; by contrast, the TGV at 320 km/hr
is smooth as silk.

In short, the TGV-style train is proven, it makes money
when properly applied, and it provides a very comfortable
ride. None of this ever seems likely to be achieved with
MagLev.


--                                ###                               --

J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com

Hi Ryan,

Doesn't amalgamation provide justification for growing smaller
municipalities outside the new city so that they eventually become big
enough to join the 'mother ship'?  We had this debate around a proposal to
develop decentralized wastewater treatment plants for small rural
municipalities outside large urban centres.  If municipal services become
equivalent in the small rural municipalities, doesn't this provide an
incentive for growth in those smaller municipalities, which have less crime,
friendlier neighbours, etc.?  Wouldn't this make it more attractive for
people to move away from the 'congested centre' to the wide open rural
municipalities?

Playing devil's advocate, Pierre.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lanyon, Ryan [mailto:ryan.lanyon@...]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:43 AM
To: 'carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: [carfree_cities] Urban Growth Boundary vs City Limits


> Message: 9
>    Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 02:12:41 -0400
>    From: "Ronald Dawson" <rdadddmd@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: Density-phobes
>
> Mike Lacey wrote:
> >Anti-growth is such a poorly defined term. I am anti-growth if growth
> >means expansion of city limits and exploitation of virgin land.
>
> When you say "expansion of city limits" do you mean one city
> taking over an
> other? If so that's what is happening where I live. As of
> January 1, 2002 my
> city "St.Laurent", will no longer exist and will become part
> of the city of
> Montreal along with all the other municipalities on the
> island of Montreal.
>
> A.K.A One Island, One City. 			 Dawson

I think Mike is referring to something like Portland's development boundary,
and not political boundaries.

Having just experienced amalgamation of 11 local municipalities and one
regional government into one tier of local government in Ottawa, my humble
opinion is that larger local governments work better to reduce sprawl.  It
provides a pooling of resources and prevents squabbling between suburban
municipalities and urban ones.  It also more appropriately accounts for the
costs of providing transportation to outlying areas (but subsidies from the
core still exist).  Finally, the communities now view themselves as part of
a larger picture in the city, and less so as enclosed suburbs.

-RL

To Post a message, send it to:   carfree_cities@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
carfree_cities-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Minor inaccuracies [corrected here]:

>But there is still a crude truth that applies far too widely. Joel has made
>the calculation that the design reference of a carfree city - to persuade
>people carfree is better than not carfree - is:

>No more than 10 minutes walk to a transit stop   [reference design is 5 min.]
>No more than 4 minutes wait between trams or trains
>No more than 34 minutes maximum for a journey from one side of the city to
>another.  [35 minutes]

>Use this formula in most cities and the car still wins on most if not all
>counts.

I don't think so. You'd have a fairly difficult time getting from one
side of San Fracisco to the other at 4 in the morning in 35 minutes.
I was trying actually to beat the car, door to door. Note also that
in the proposed "Auto-Centric Carfree City," it's considerably faster
to take public transport than to drive.


--                                ###                               --

J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com

Not wanting to appear pedantic but...
The 38AX bus gets me from the Pacific Ocean to the Financial District
(one side of San Francisco to the other) in 30 minutes in the middle
of rush hour

--- In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@c...> wrote:
> I don't think so. You'd have a fairly difficult time getting from
one
> side of San Fracisco to the other at 4 in the morning in 35 minutes.
> I was trying actually to beat the car, door to door. Note also that
> in the proposed "Auto-Centric Carfree City," it's considerably
faster
> to take public transport than to drive.

> The 38AX bus gets me from the Pacific Ocean to the Financial
> District (one side of San Francisco to the other) in 30
> minutes in the middle of rush hour.

=v= It should be even faster.  11 years ago we voted to have
that route enhanced to have a dedicated right-of-way.  They used
the funding for those big non-traffic-calming palm trees (as if
we're in Southern California), but don't worry, there's still 9
years left to complete the project.

=v= In a car, it's probably something like 20 minutes, plus
another 20 minutes looking for parking and then giving up and
parking on the sidewalk.
     <_Jym_>

I was thinking more Presidio to Candlestick. Still, the average
speed of your bus is only about 14 MPH, and it's an express.
By the usual standards, that's pretty good, but I had an
average speed of 30 MPH in mind (metro, of course).

>Not wanting to appear pedantic but...
>The 38AX bus gets me from the Pacific Ocean to the Financial District
>(one side of San Francisco to the other) in 30 minutes in the middle
>of rush hour
>
>--- In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@c...> wrote:
>> I don't think so. You'd have a fairly difficult time getting from
>one
>> side of San Fracisco to the other at 4 in the morning in 35 minutes.
>> I was trying actually to beat the car, door to door. Note also that
>> in the proposed "Auto-Centric Carfree City," it's considerably
>faster
>> to take public transport than to drive.
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to:   carfree_cities@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--                                ###                               --

J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com

On Tuesday 29 May 2001 22:44, Ron Dawson told us about:

>
> Open Roads Languish on the Drawing Board
>  Caltrans' 1958 master plan listed Reseda and Pacific Coast freeways.
> Today's commuters have time to mourn lost lanes.

Ah, yes.  If only we'd built even more roads, with more lanes. . .

These are the fevered fantasies of desperate automobilists and the aging
career criminals of the Pave the World Federation:  "I know it has never
worked anywhere ever before, but let's try it one more time."

"PERSEVERATION - Uncontrollable repetition of a particular response, such
as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a
stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder."


	 -Doug

Our local paper is running a series about 'The Truth About Cars and Trucks'.
What started off as a discussion of alternative fuels is moving into
car-sharing, public transit and anti-sprawl measures.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/cars/

Today's feature, 'How the continent's best transit works', is below:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/cars/010531/5084061.html
How the continent's best transit works

A maverick city bus manager decided to do what virtually no other transit
agency has done in North America: Ask riders what they want, then deliver
it. The results are astounding. Paul McKay reports.

Paul McKay
The Ottawa Citizen

(Go Boulder: city of Boulder)

LEAP: The Pearl Street Leap, which runs from 6th to 55th streets in Boulder,
averages 471 passenger trips per weekday and shows a 285 per cent increase
in ridership over its predecessor, the Route 200.

JUMP: The Arapahoe Jump, which connects Boulder and Lafayette, has shown a
45 per cent increase in average weekday ridership over the former service in
February 2000. The route provides over 1,600 passenger trips per day.

BOUND: The 30th Street Bound, providing service along 30th Street in
Boulder, has increased in ridership 63 per cent from February 2000 to
February 2001, with an average of 1,329 boardings per weekday.

HOP: The Hop is a circulator shuttle that makes a loop through central
Boulder, with stops in the Crossroads, Pearl Street and University areas.

SKIP: Travelling north-south across Boulder, the Skip runs along Broadway
from Lee Hill Road to Greenbriar and through the west Table Mesa
neighbourhood, seven days a week.

(City of Boulder's transit routes)

David Zalubowski, The Ottawa Citizen / Bob Whitson, Go Boulder's senior
transit planner: 'Here we ask people -- in their homes, schools, where they
work, at the gym -- what they want. We listen very carefully, then go out
and try to get it for them.'

BOULDER, Colorado - What taxpayer-funded product usually arrives on time,
but is empty so often it burns money for nothing?

That would be the diesel-belching, 12-metre "loser cruiser" that lumbers --
by the relentless hour, day, week, month and year -- through the suburbs of
Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, Denver, Dallas and hundreds of other North
American cities.

Most of the time, they chug past bus stops where few passengers get on or
off.

In cities such as Ottawa and Vancouver, public transit accounts for only 15
per cent of rush-hour passenger trips. In outlying cities like Cumberland or
Coquitlam, peak bus ridership is a dismal five per cent of passenger trips.

Outside of rush hour, riders are so scarce they drop off the radar screen of
transit agencies apparently resigned to running buses at a huge loss.
Forever.

It's no secret where those missing riders are: Usually driving alone, in the
cars that are clogging every major city on the continent. They may not know
it, but those solo drivers are paying for the worst of both worlds.

Out of one pocket, they annually pay an average of $9,000 to own, operate
and maintain private vehicles that are besieged by gridlock. The No. 1
cause? Other solo drivers.

From the other pocket, their taxes help pay for city transit agencies that
own, operate and maintain the 20-tonne buses often carrying little more than
the bus driver and air. Perversely, in the rare times these buses are full,
they are often brought to a halt by commuter cars carrying those who
subsidize them.

Empty buses. Empty cars. Overloaded roads. Paying twice for less and less
mobility. Has no one found a way out of this mess?

Yes. One of them would be Bob Whitson, an engineer with a Texas twang and
wry wit who heads up what could be the most successful city transit system
on the continent.

He works for the city of Boulder, an hour's drive northwest of Denver, where
100,000 residents live, study and work in the spectacular shadow of the
Colorado Rockies. And 60,000 of them have city bus passes.

In the world of public transit, that ratio is astounding. No other city in
North America comes even close.

Mr. Whitson says the reason is simple: "The riders chose their bus service.
It was not chosen for them."

He means that literally. In Boulder, riders choose the size of buses
(40-footers are dismissed as "diesel dinosaurs"), the design, the seating
plans and upholstery, the size and tinting of windows and options like
hanger straps and bike racks. The drivers get to choose their uniforms and
the music for an on-board CD player.

Most important, Boulder riders help choose the routes and pickup spots. So
buses come to them, usually in 10 minutes or less.

How is that possible? By scrapping the mindset that has failed to fill
suburban buses for half a century.

"We are outside the mainstream of public transit thinking," Mr. Whitson says
with a renegade grin. "No one here has ever studied transit. We've learned
everything on our own. When I go to national public transit conferences,
they all talk about bus maintenance, the latest in diesel fuels, how
windshield wipers work and counting every nickel that goes in the fare box.

"They never talk about the customer. Here we ask people -- in their homes,
schools, where they work, at the gym -- what they want. We listen very
carefully, then go out and try to get it for them."

The number and range of car-to-bus converts is unheard of.

At the University of Colorado campus in Boulder, 26,000 students voted to
add $15 to their tuition fees every semester for an unlimited bus pass. It
takes them anywhere in the city, virtually anytime. Or to downtown Denver,
the closest ski resort or Denver's international airport (which costs a
non-pass holder $44 for a round-trip shuttle).

Those bulk passes let Boulder bus planners know, in advance, exactly how
many riders they will have, and when and where buses should be routed to
connect the campus, residences, major malls, even downtown bars until 3 a.m.
on weekends.

A student photo ID eliminates the need to feed fare-boxes and have exact
change. In fact, the fare-box is the college administration office, which
collects the bulk fares three times a year and promptly hands the money over
to the Boulder bus operator.

That simple, unorthodox formula also works for the Boulder downtown
merchants, the city's main hospital and several major employers.

For instance, the municipal group that collects downtown Boulder parking
fees uses a portion of that revenue to buy annual bus passes for 6,000
employees who work in the city core. The Chamber of Commerce followed suit,
adding $50 per year to the fees of its members.

The employees love it because they get to commute for free, don't have to
find or pay for downtown parking and can use the bus pass to shop on
Saturday or get to a Broncos game on Sunday. The merchants love it because
it frees up scarce parking spots for shoppers. And the bus company loves it
because it gets paid, in one advance shot, for a year of servicing
predictable, high-use routes.

The next target for Mr. Whitson and his Go Boulder staff were private
companies with hundreds of employees. Successful pitches led several to sign
contracts, pledging an average of $50 per employee for annual, unlimited
transit passes. With up-front payments and predictable riders, that allowed
the bus company to plan the most effective routes to and from those
workplaces.

A key feature is the "safe ride home" promise. By pooling $2 from each $50
pass, the bus company arranged with city taxis to pick up, at no extra cost
to the employee, anyone in the office who needs an emergency ride or one
after bus operating hours. The same deal applies to all 1,200 employees of
the city hospital. Nurses on shifts especially welcomed the low-cost,
flexible bus service with taxi backup.

Next came residential neighbourhoods. So far, Mr. Whitson's Go Boulder group
has persuaded 15 community groups to sign annual contracts pledging a
minimum of $5,000 for annual bus passes. That buys a photo ID and unlimited
bus use, for all members of each household in the neighbourhood block.

Some of the keenest riders are kids -- including teenagers who wouldn't
normally be caught dead riding a "loser cruiser."

Mr. Whitson says that's because "they figured out pretty quickly that it
gives them total freedom. They know there will be a bus every 10 minutes.
They don't have to worry about schedules or fares or exact change or how
many trips they can take."

Mr. Whitson proudly notes that even primary school kids get to help design
the outside bus markings, which boldly announce that a circular route "Hop,"
"Skip" or "Jump" bus is arriving. The nicknames are painted in huge letters
and surrounded by cute rabbits and grasshoppers.

"There is a reason for that. It lets our youngest riders know exactly which
bus to take, and their parents feel safe about letting them take a bus to
sports practice or music lessons," says Mr. Whitson. "We're also instilling
a culture. Those kids are going to be our riders 20 years from now."

Another novel tactic is a Boulder city bylaw that requires developers of new
residential subdivisions to buy each household three years' worth of
unlimited transit passes, at an average cost of $50 each. After the third
year, the residents can either drop the deal or pay the same amount through
their local residents' or apartment association.

There is virtually no attrition on any of these ridership programs. Take-up
on the bus passes (average annual cost of $50 each) has increased from 4,000
to 60,000 since 1994.

Meanwhile, traffic congestion has not increased despite a boom in area
housing and employment.

"These initiatives are driven by concern about congestion and the worry of
businesses that they can't get their employees to and from work efficiently,
or from businesses that want people to shop and are worried people will get
blocked out by congestion," says Mr. Whitson.

"That's our main motivator. That's where we measure our success: Have we
maintained congestion levels at 1994, even with the big growth in jobs and
some housing? We have."

Denver is finding it hard to argue with Boulder's success. The scene of
notorious smog and sprawl, it has recently launched its own version of the
mass bus pass system.

So how can Boulder afford to sell city bus riders an unlimited annual pass
for $50 U.S.?

It can't. As in the rest of Colorado, and most of the U.S., two-thirds of
the costs of public transit are paid through federal, state and city taxes.
Fare-box revenues account for only one-third of costs.

"Our ECO pass is designed to collect one-third of what is needed to run the
buses," says Mr. Whitson. "That's the same amount as if riders were putting
cash in the fare-box. The difference is, most of our buses in Boulder run
full most of the time. A lot of those in Denver run around empty."

Public transit is a baseline, essential service, notes Mr. Whitson.

"No city in North America is going to scrap its system. It is already there,
already being paid for and subsidized. Our thinking here is: Since the buses
are going to be running anyway, let's make sure they are not empty.

"So our bus pass is designed like group medical insurance, except it's for
transit. The cost is based on an average. Everybody has to pay. Some use it
a lot; some don't. Those who don't help pay for those who do. But everybody
has the choice to use their unlimited bus pass."

Is the Boulder success replicable in other North American cities?

"Definitely," says Mr. Whitson. "I think these kinds of programs will work
even better in more densely populated cities.

"They are not based on forcing anyone to do anything. We have approached
this through encouraging, advertising and marketing. People see the economic
benefits, and the benefits of less congestion, less air pollution and a
better community."

So why haven't other transit agencies copied the Boulder model?

"The way transit agencies are set up, they are motivated to measure success
by on-time arrivals. That is the number 1 criteria. Second is maintenance
cost. Way down the list is the number of riders. They don't do what it takes
to fill buses. They are perfectly happy for buses to arrive empty, as long
as they arrive on time."

Paul McKay is a Citizen reporter. His e-mail address is:
pmckay@...

Tomorrow: How Portland, Oregon fights sprawl

> Message: 1
>    Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:55:31 -0400
>    From: "Boileau,Pierre [NCR]" <Pierre.Boileau@...>
> Subject: RE: Urban Growth Boundary vs City Limits
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Doesn't amalgamation provide justification for growing smaller
> municipalities outside the new city so that they eventually become big
> enough to join the 'mother ship'?  We had this debate around
> a proposal to
> develop decentralized wastewater treatment plants for small rural
> municipalities outside large urban centres.  If municipal
> services become
> equivalent in the small rural municipalities, doesn't this provide an
> incentive for growth in those smaller municipalities, which
> have less crime,
> friendlier neighbours, etc.?  Wouldn't this make it more
> attractive for
> people to move away from the 'congested centre' to the wide open rural
> municipalities?
>
> Playing devil's advocate, Pierre.

Depends on the scope of the amalgamation, I would imagine.  In Montreal, the
amalgamated island is pretty much void of any greenfields, isn't it?  Any
new development would be considered infill, so the greenfields are still
economically viable in the rural areas.

In Ottawa, we had so much rural land merged with the urban area that the
small rural municipalities are all about 45 minutes to an hour's drive from
downtown in light traffic.  The only area where this jumping effect may work
is in the west end, where we have a larger concentration of suburban
employment.  Of course, we do have another urban area on the other side of
the Ottawa River, but different income tax rates reduce competition.

Hi All,

This dicussion seems pretty peripheral to the list.
I think those still interested might better take
the discussion off-list.

Thanks,


>Depends on the scope of the amalgamation, I would imagine.  In Montreal, the
>amalgamated island is pretty much void of any greenfields, isn't it?  Any
>new development would be considered infill, so the greenfields are still
>economically viable in the rural areas.
>
>In Ottawa, we had so much rural land merged with the urban area that the
>small rural municipalities are all about 45 minutes to an hour's drive from
>downtown in light traffic.  The only area where this jumping effect may work
>is in the west end, where we have a larger concentration of suburban
>employment.  Of course, we do have another urban area on the other side of
>the Ottawa River, but different income tax rates reduce competition.



--                                ###                               --

J.H. Crawford                                           Carfree Cities
postmaster@...                                     Carfree.com

The New Colonist's June issue is online now at

	 http://www.newcolonist.com

This month features editorials, essays, and most of our regular
features, as well as another in our series of Street Food articles, and
focuses on Gay Life in the City.  Read it all at
http://www.newcolonist.com.

Richard
--
Richard Risemberg
http://www.living-room.org
http://www.newcolonist.com

"Life is complicated and not for the timid."
					 Garrison Keillor