> >...I wonder if transit would get a whole lot more popular if most of the
> >seats were singles?
>
>I'm always baffled when I hear comments like this.  Those who "don't like
>to sit next to strangers" would do themselves a tremendous service to get
>out of their comfort zones and rub shoulders with the "other" once in a
>while.  After experiencing this sort of thing for a while, many people
>choose it.

I ride buses a lot, but I can't say I "choose" being close to strangers.
I just put up with it as part of bus riding.

The aversion to strangers is very real.  You must have seen people who
will sit in the outer of a pair of seats, making it difficult for
someone to get into the other seat.

I do enjoy "people watching".  It's one of the big upsides
of transit riding.

At 06:39 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
>The biggest myth the PRT proponents spread around is that people don't like
>to ride with "strangers".
>
>This is total crap.

No, it's not.  It's the way people are.
A while back, I wrote an article about the sociology of bus riding:

http://home.comcast.net/~stgeller/Bus_Sociology.htm

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, T. J. Binkley wrote:

>
> >This is another of the popular reasons why people avoid riding transit
> >if they have any choice.  We just don't like to sit close to strangers.
> >It's not "pandering" to accomodate this; city people don't live
> >in large vilage-like groups.
> >
> >...I wonder if transit would get a whole lot more popular if most of the
> >seats were singles?
>
> I'm always baffled when I hear comments like this.  Those who "don't like
> to sit next to strangers" would do themselves a tremendous service to get
> out of their comfort zones and rub shoulders with the "other" once in a
> while.  After experiencing this sort of thing for a while, many people
> choose it.

Amen.  Ditto, etc.

I think the "stranger avoidance" tendency is a behavior based upon
learned attitudes and expectations ("people you don't know are
dangerous").  It had better be -- six-headed-for-ten billion humans
are not gonna be able to live in private bubbles.


	 -Doug



---
     Doug Salzmann
     Kalliergo
     Post Office Box 307
     Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA

     <doug@...>

Enjoying this thread but have just spent a day with 1250 11-16 year olds. Do
we have to have foul language here too?

sorry to moan folks!! but the English langage is a beautiful thing and there
are other ways to express disgust/emphasise points.

Matt
(tired UK teacher! it's been a looooong day!)

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, kenavidor wrote:

> The whole urban experience is about masses of people, crowds, audiences,
> throngs and mobs. If you don't like being among lots of people, you are not a
> city person. If crowded, busy sidewalks, cafes, markets, stadiums, train
> stations, libraries and streetcars bother you ....MOVE TO THE SUBURBS!

Yep.  Cities *are* direct personal interaction.

> Please, no more PRT talk...I'm sick of it.

And, I think the PRT concept is fundamentally incompatible with both
the spirit and functional reality of carfree cities.

	 -Doug

---
     Doug Salzmann
     Kalliergo
     Post Office Box 307
     Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA

     <doug@...>

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Dobbing <matt_dobbing@...>
Sent: Jul 13, 2004 9:34 AM
To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] PRT anti-transit Disinformation

Enjoying this thread but have just spent a day with 1250 11-16 year olds. Do
we have to have foul language here too?

sorry to moan folks!! but the English langage is a beautiful thing and there
are other ways to express disgust/emphasise points.

C'est moi, le vulgaire.  I too love the English language; as anyone who reads
any of my stuff in New Colonist will see, I take great care in trying to use it
gracefully, and occasionally succeed.  I also don't mind sometimes using a word
that shows up prominently in English writers from Chaucer to Lawrence, all of
whom wrote long before Miller and the rappers, if it serve properly to express a
profoundly visceral indignation, an intense weariness with the smallminded lies
we are constantly force-fed.  The disdain of native English terms in favor of
Latinate ones for certain expressions derives from the Norman conquest and the
view of the English language as the domain of serfs, not rulers.  I love French
too and am fluent in it, but real English serves better to express irritation.

This rant is actually tangentially germane to our discussion, as the disdain of
"vulgar" English relates to the disdain of the crowd, of the peasant, of the
tradesman, of riding the bus, of living near others, of the commons, and
ultimately of the carfree sustainable city.  We are constantly told we are
worthy only when we live like kings in isolated towers, looking down on the hoi
polloi; and we have based our transport lately on mobile towers that make us
lonely slaves to our self-delusions.  That is the problem behind the problem
that we must eventually discuss, as it is the foundation of many of the
arguments against our goals, and against city living in general.

By the way, if it is so innately undesireable that we sit with strangers now and
then, why is it so much fun to eat out?

Desolé de vous avoir derangé,

Richard

There is a lot of fear of the "other" out there.
On the bus someone dissed me when I greeted him with a hearty "top of the
morning to you my good sir" so I had to kill him (:))

Simon


On 13/7/04 4:49 pm, "Steve Geller" <stgeller@...> wrote:

> At 06:39 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
>> The biggest myth the PRT proponents spread around is that people don't like
>> to ride with "strangers".
>>
>> This is total crap.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Simon Baddeley wrote:

> There is a lot of fear of the "other" out there.
> On the bus someone dissed me when I greeted him with a hearty "top of the
> morning to you my good sir" so I had to kill him (:))

That's one stranger who won't bother anyone again.

It's a good thing the Uzi fits comfortably under your coat.


	 -Doug



---
     Doug Salzmann
     Kalliergo
     Post Office Box 307
     Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA

     <doug@...>

I have a PRT device.  It's called a bicycle.  One of my favorite things to do
with it is to go on group rides where I can enjoy being close to other people.

Dan
Chicago
www.dankorn.com

> I have a PRT device.  It's called a bicycle.

=v= Interesting.  I, on the other hand, have an SUV
device that's called a bicycle. :^)

> One of my favorite things to do with it is to go on group
> rides where I can enjoy being close to other people.

=v= Oh, it's one of them there "sociables."
     <_Jym_>
--
Ads below?  Just ignore 'em.

Dear Richard

I suppose the grain of dust that irritates an  oyster could be described as
a "stranger."

Simon

On 13/7/04 6:11 pm, "Richard Risemberg" <rickrise@...> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Dobbing <matt_dobbing@...>
> Sent: Jul 13, 2004 9:34 AM
> To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] PRT anti-transit Disinformation
>
> Enjoying this thread but have just spent a day with 1250 11-16 year olds. Do
> we have to have foul language here too?
>
> sorry to moan folks!! but the English langage is a beautiful thing and there
> are other ways to express disgust/emphasise points.
>
> C'est moi, le vulgaire.  I too love the English language; as anyone who reads
> any of my stuff in New Colonist will see,

Car-free Day drives home city's pollution concern
China Daily, 6-15
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/15/content_339364.htm

"Since the world's first Car-free Day was held in France with the slogan
"In Town Without My Car" in 1998, two Chinese cities have decided to take
a stance - Chengdu in the southwestern province of Sichuan and now
Shenzhen."

The article's claim that "100,000 people, instead of driving their cars,
walked, pedaled or rode buses to work that day" is impressive, though it's
unspecified whether those are people who otherwise would have driven, or
whether many of them don't drive normally. Shenzhen has a population
of 4.7 million.

Doug Salzmann wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, T. J. Binkley wrote:
>
>
>
>>>This is another of the popular reasons why people avoid riding transit
>>>if they have any choice.  We just don't like to sit close to strangers.
>>>It's not "pandering" to accomodate this; city people don't live
>>>in large vilage-like groups.
>>>
>>>...I wonder if transit would get a whole lot more popular if most of the
>>>seats were singles?
>>>
>>>
>>I'm always baffled when I hear comments like this.  Those who "don't like
>>to sit next to strangers" would do themselves a tremendous service to get
>>out of their comfort zones and rub shoulders with the "other" once in a
>>while.  After experiencing this sort of thing for a while, many people
>>choose it.
>>
But aren't we always forced to encounter strangers anyhow? In
supermarkets there's people
behind you and in front you lined up for the cash register. In classes
at school and college, meetings at work, large social functions, it's
likely you'll have to sit next to a stranger... Not to mention
restaurants and bars....

>>
>>
>
>Amen.  Ditto, etc.
>
>I think the "stranger avoidance" tendency is a behavior based upon
>learned attitudes and expectations ("people you don't know are
>dangerous").  It had better be -- six-headed-for-ten billion humans
>are not gonna be able to live in private bubbles.
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>---
>    Doug Salzmann
>    Kalliergo
>    Post Office Box 307
>    Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA
>
>    <doug@...>
>
>
>
>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/
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That cars are the most inefficient form of transport is hardly disputed,
but what is seldom appreciated is how little driving it takes to bring the
downsides of car transport.  The statistics on gasoline consumption per
capita in different countries
(http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/misc/gas_gdp.html) are revealing in
this regard.

Hong Kong has the lowest per capita gas consumption among rich countries
-- a factor of 25 lower than the U.S. Yet Hong Kong is anything but a
carfree paradise. Residents of have to put up with much of the noise and
physical degradation that cars cause in urban areas, even though hardly
any of the residents get around by car -- and Hong Kong has chronic
traffic congestion.

http://www.bennenk.com/Maleisie/images/Thumbnails/19960822-28_Hong_Kong_Victoria\
_small.jpg
http://desires.com/2.0b3/Travel/Hong_Kong/Images/traffic.gif
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/02/16/images/2003021600680801.jpg

Even cities in Bangladesh, which has the lowest level of driving of 122
countries, have to put up with a significant amount of annoyance from
cars, even though driving is a factor of 900 (!) lower than the U.S. In
the capital, Dhaka, only 5.9% of trips are by motorized transport of any
kind including buses. An aerial photograph of its downtown is revealing
(http://www.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu/~farooq/dhaka.jpg). It has wide streets
filled with what look like cars, but on inspection most of the
"vehicles" turn out to be bicycle rickshaws and pedestrians:

http://www.pat.hi-ho.ne.jp/paku/tabi/castella/pic/bangladesh/dhaka.jpg

But still, the bicyclists and pedestrians have to put up with the noise,
wide streets and lower quality urban design caused by designing for
universal automobile access.

And yes, Dhaka has congestion, too:
http://www.hellobondoo.com/pic/contents/bigjam.htm

The lesson, of course, is that it is foolhardy to permit cars in dense
urban areas. You get much of the downside of car transport with almost
none of the benefit.


(data on Dhaka from http://www.eng-consult.com/pub/dstar.htm)

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Karen Sandness wrote:

> Very true. Take Tokyo as an example. At times, the arterial streets and
> freeways of Tokyo can resemble parking lots, so car fanatics point to
> the congestion and say, "See, transit does NOT reduce congestion!"

X-post
------ Forwarded Message
From: Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...>
Reply-To: BromptonTalk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:30:22 +0100
To: <BromptonTalk@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [BromptonTalk] Pavement lemmings


In saying ³... that the consequences are different should be irrelevant²,
Murph is in line with current legal practice. Magistrates being required to
determine the penalty for a motoring offence are not permitted to take into
account the consequences of the offence. This is the basis for growing
public concern about leniency where a motorist has, through irresponsible
driving, killed or maimed someone.

The court cannot take that consequence into account in penalising the bad
driving. This injustice has evolved because courts have treated
irresponsibility in charge of a car, bicycle or horse and cart as
commensurate making no allowance for differential hazard presented by
differences in weight and speed.

The police and courts are making slow but steady progress towards a
situation where the weight and momentum of a vehicle involved in a crash are
factored into the allocation of fault between those involved and the penalty
that may be imposed. Public opinion is beginning to shift in line with this,
though the matter is being driven by campaigning groups like Brake,
RoadPeace, Sustrans, Living Streets, Transport 2000, the Cyclists¹ Touring
Club and even RoSPA which until recently gave greater priority to the
responsibility of the endangered to protect themselves from the behaviour of
the endangerers.

At present if a walker runs into the road and is struck by a car driver the
tendency is to blame the walker for their injuries and even feel some
compassion for the driver who is defined as having been involved in an
³accident² - implying something unavoidable. That may have been the case,
but increasingly that is no longer the default presumption. The  police are
beginning to apply the same forensic attention to such an event as they
would to a crime scene ­ because that is exactly what it may be. Only after
such analysis may it be concluded that an ³accident² occurred. For decades
the use of the phrase ³road accident² has enshrined a moral presumption that
favours the person in charge of the fastest and heaviest vehicle on the
road.

  I realise that as a road cyclist Murph is not arguing from a position of
interest but on principle. Work needs to be done to ensure that rewriting
the culpability index, as this applies to different road users, doesn¹t
undermine the emphasis he places on people¹s duty to be responsible for
their own and other¹s safety.

Simon


On 14/7/04 8:09 am, "James Murphy" <murph@...> wrote:
>
> Pedestrians and cyclists and motorists should all be equally responsible
> for their own and for others safety that the consequences are different
> should be irrelevant.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

  ADVERTISEMENT
  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12972hts0/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=g
roups/S=1705016061:HM/EXP=1089880226/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://com
panion.yahoo.com>


Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BromptonTalk/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
* BromptonTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:BromptonTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


------ End of Forwarded Message



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

I think ISAs include asphalt too, but anyway, I thought this might be of
interest to folks on this list-serv.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hooker & Hooker" <hookerx2@...>
To: <CNU@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:36 PM
Subject: FW: the world's concrete coverage


> Factoids to work with.
>
> John H.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brendon Slotterback [mailto:bslotterback@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:31 PM
>
> From the BBC News - UK Edition:
>
>
> US concrete 'would cover Ohio'
>
> Excessive concrete cover is not good for the environment
>
> If all the concrete structures in America's 48 contiguous states were
added
> up, they would cover a space almost as big as Ohio, researchers say.
>
> Workers from several universities and agencies have put together the first
> ever map of the US, which shows "impervious surface areas" (ISA).
>
> It is important to tot up concrete cover because of its harmful effect on
> the environment, the researchers claim.
>
> The work was led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
>
> Giant Jigsaw
>
> If you made a giant jigsaw out of all the highways, streets, buildings,
> parking lots and other solid structures in the contiguous states, it would
> cover 112,610 sq km (43,480 sq miles). That is an area nearly the size of
> Ohio, which is 116,534 sq km (44,994 sq miles).
>
> This is far more than a Christmas cracker statistic, the researchers
claim,
> because concrete cover - or ISA - is not good for the environment.
>
> The replacement of heavily vegetated areas by ISA reduces the depletion of
> carbon dioxide, which plants absorb from the atmosphere. This can speed up
> global warming.
>
> ISAs can also alter the water cycle and disrupt aquatic ecosystems. They
do
> this by changing the shape of stream channels, raising water temperatures
> and washing pollutants into aquatic environments.
>
> Population growth
>
> The ISA of the contiguous states is already slightly larger than that of
its
> wetlands, which cover 98,460 sq km (38,020 sq miles).
>
> The population of the US is increasing by three million a year. Concrete
> cover is spreading to match.
>
> Every year, one million new family homes are built and 20,000 km (10,000
> miles) of roads are laid.
>
> Given these trends, it is likely a lot more will be made of impervious
> surface areas in the future.
>
> The research was part funded by the US space agency (Nasa).
>

Another aspect of this is that autoholics enter a completely
altered state of conciousness when ...'behind the wheel'...
   They can forget about everything except their immediate
vdeo-game mentakity, which the various fad technologies in
newer cars accentuates.  Often you hear autoholics say. "Yeah,
my commute is therapeutic!"
    No matter that this ...'therapy'... all too often ends in murder and
suicide, spews incredible amounts of deadly poisons into the
air,  and makes thae city virtually unlivable for everyone else! (as
well as causing global warming and sucking the earth dry of
ever-scarcer resources.
    Cars indeed ...ssssSUCK!! (the lifeblood of the earth, as well
as ssSPEW!!   poisons into it!...)
             DaveS (nocarsdave@...)

  (written in reply to the following and others...:
> >>>This is another of the popular reasons why people avoid
riding transit
> >>>if they have any choice.  We just don't like to sit close to
strangers.
> >>>It's not "pandering" to accomodate this; city people don't
live
> >>>in large vilage-like groups.
> >>>
> >>>...I wonder if transit would get a whole lot more popular if
most of the
> >>>seats were singles?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I'm always baffled when I hear comments like this.  Those
who "don't like
> >>to sit next to strangers" would do themselves a tremendous
service to get
> >>out of their comfort zones and rub shoulders with the "other"
once in a
> >>while.  After experiencing this sort of thing for a while, many
people
> >>choose it.
> >>
> But aren't we always forced to encounter strangers anyhow? In
> supermarkets there's people
> behind you and in front you lined up for the cash register. In
classes
> at school and college, meetings at work, large social functions,
it's
> likely you'll have to sit next to a stranger... Not to mention
> restaurants and bars....
  > >
> >Amen.  Ditto, etc.
> >
> >I think the "stranger avoidance" tendency is a behavior based
upon
> >learned attitudes and expectations ("people you don't know
are
> >dangerous").  It had better be -- six-headed-for-ten billion
humans
> >are not gonna be able to live in private bubbles.
> >
> >
> > -Doug
> >---
> >    Doug Salzmann
> >    Kalliergo
> >    Post Office Box 307
> >    Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA

Something we're learning about here is how that the engineering firms that
build highways also do the engineering for flood control.

Since the pavement they lay increases rainwater runoff, they are in effect,
making money by creating problems and then fixing them. Both projects often
require the destruction of homes.

This is one more reason why there needs to be a paving moratorium.

Ken Avidor
Minneapolis

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Environmental Defense <TakeAction@...>
Sent: Jul 15, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>
Subject: Protect the Public's Right-to-Know about Transportation Hazards

Dear Richard,
*Protect the Public's Right-to-Know about Transportation
Hazards*

In an alarming attack on public access to information, language
buried deep in the Senate transportation bill would allow the
government to conceal important information from the public on
serious environment, health, and public safety issues. This bill
is now before Congress; send a message today supporting your
right-to-know about hazards in your community.

Take Action:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/tea21_2/8euusxr1j6mxk7

Spread the Word:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/tea21_2/forward/8euusxr1j6mxk7

Take action by August 13, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Protect the Public's Right-to-Know about Transportation
Hazards*
This new secrecy language is part of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which shapes the nation's
transportation investments. Examples of environmental
information that could be stamped secret are:

- Environmental impacts of oil spills
- Whether nuclear waste shipments are routed by local elementary
schools
- Withholding air pollution impacts of new roads and limiting
public comment on new road projects.
- Criminal records of transportation workers such as drunk or
unsafe driving records for hazardous materials truckers;
- Whether routes for dangerous shipments are transported through
heavily populated areas;

Send a message to your Senators and Representatives today to
preserve your right-to-know about transportation hazards in your
community.
--------------------------------------------------------

RESPOND VIA THE WEB:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/tea21_2/8euusxr1j6mxk7

RESPOND VIA EMAIL:
Just choose the "reply to sender" option on your email program.
You MUST Reply with "send" in the subject.

Your letter will be addressed and sent to:
Your Congressperson
Your Senators

----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT IN YOUR NAME----
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I urge you to protect my right-to-know about transportation
safety by rejecting secrecy provisions buried in the Senate
version of the transportation bill. I would prefer no
transportation bill this year to one that cuts my right to know
about the effects of transportation on public health and the
environment, as both Senate and House bills do.

Without public hearings, the Senate bill (S.1072) would grant
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) broad new
authority to withhold information it deems to be "sensitive
security information." Section 3029 of the bill allows TSA to
stamp as secret information on any "transportation facilities,
infrastructure, or transportation employees" and overrides state
or local open records laws. It would also restrict public input
on transportation projects.

If implemented, these secrecy provisions are a threat to the
public's right-to-know about hazards in their community and sets
a dangerous precedent. Without mechanisms to hold TSA
accountable, security problems could go uncorrected and cause
public harm.

I urge you to drop the secrecy language from the transportation
bill, and reject other provisions that would sharply weaken
accountability and public information on the effects of
transportation on public health and the environment.

----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT----

Sincerely,
Richard Risemberg

If you would like to unsubscribe from Environmental Defense, you
can respond to this email with "REMOVE" as the subject, or you
can visit your subscription management page at:
http://actionnetwork.org/EDF_Action_Network/smp.tcl?nkey=8euusxr1j6mxk7



***********************************
Powered by GetActive Software, Inc.
Relationship Management for Member Organizations (tm)
http://www.getactive.com
***********************************

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, kenavidor wrote:

> Something we're learning about here is how that the engineering firms that
> build highways also do the engineering for flood control.

Ah-hah.  Somehow, this has escaped me for "all these years."  *Of
course* these folks are getting paid for "solving" problems they help
to create.  Capitalism at its finest.

> This is one more reason why there needs to be a paving moratorium.

Yes, and there are many others.  OTOH, for those situations which
reasonably require paving, let's keep in mind an important alternative
-- permeable surfacing materials:

	 <http://www.lid-stormwater.net/intro/sitemap.htm#permpavers>

Also, the options are multiplied when the pavement in question is
designed for comparatively lightweight, low-speed traffic, as in
carfree cities and districts.


	 -Doug


---
     Doug Salzmann
     Kalliergo
     Post Office Box 307
     Corte Madera, CA 94976 USA

     <doug@...>

>The aversion to strangers is very real.

Real, yes.  Misguided, sad and ultimately pathological too.

What the hell was this doing in the NoVa Sprawl newsleeter?  Sounds like
a call for more cars, more roads, worldwide....

> GLOBAL ACTION NEEDED TO MAKE TRANSPORT SUSTAINABLE - Seven goals to
> meet sustainable mobility challenge -
>
> Brussels, 5 July 2004 -Global cooperation to limit the adverse social
>  and environmental impact of motor vehicles, complemented by further
> technology advances, is needed to fulfil transport's vital role in
> the development of modern society, states Mobility 2030: Meeting the
> Challenges to Sustainability, a report released by the World Business
>  Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) today.
>
> The report was developed by 12  global automotive and energy
> companies who have worked together over the past four years, under
> the sponsorship of the WBCSD to assess the sustainability of their
> products and to envision the future of mobility, with special focus
> on road transport.
>
> The report defines sustainable mobility as "the ability to meet the
> needs of society to move freely, gain access, communicate, trade and
> establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human or
> ecological values today or in the future."
>
> According to the report, if current mobility trends were to continue,
>  social, economic and environmental costs worldwide would be
> unacceptably high.  However, those costs can be avoided if society as
>  a whole focuses on the achievement of seven goals set out in the
> report.
>
> Goal one: Ensure emissions of conventional pollutants from transport
> do not constitute a significant health concern anywhere in the world:
>  Technology could drive conventional emissions down in developing
> countries. In the developed world, on the other hand, the focus will
> shift from setting standards towards making sure prescribed emission
> levels are met. "High emitter" vehicles are likely to attract the
> focus of attention.
>
> Goal two: Limit greenhouse gas emissions from transport to
> sustainable levels: The SMP members argue that society's long-term
> goal should be to eliminate transport as a major source of GHG
> emissions but warn that this cannot be achieved until much later than
> 2030. In addition, the members believe that the portfolio of
> technology options they are currently pursuing for vehicle fuels and
> powertrains will be a significant factor in achieving stabilization
> of CO2 emissions. Stabilizing CO2 emissions from transport should
> form part of a larger strategy of policy measures aimed at reducing
> GHG emissions from all major sources.
>
> Goal three: Reduce significantly the number of transport related
> deaths and serious  injuries worldwide: Programs to reduce deaths and
> serious injuries from road vehicle crashes should focus on at least
> four factors: driver behaviour, improvements in infrastructure,
> better technologies for crash avoidance, and injury mitigation.
>
> Goal Four: Reduce transport-related noise: Overall, traffic noise is
> not likely to decrease. However, local authorities can address the
> increase in traffic noise through a combination of road surfaces and
> barriers that dampen noise, and by restricting the modification of
> vehicles by owners and others. Manufacturers are also continuing to
> improve the noise performance of transport vehicles.

Especially here:
> Goal Five: Mitigate traffic congestion: Congestion cannot be
> eliminated entirely, but its effects can be lessened substantially.
> Actions aimed at relieving congestion would need to include
> increasing infrastructure capacity, eliminating infrastructure
> choke-points and making more efficient use of existing mobility
> systems and infrastructure.  Information Technology Systems should
> play a key role in enabling this.
>
> Goal Six: Narrow mobility opportunity divides that inhibit
> inhabitants of poorest countries and economically and socially
> disadvantaged groups within most countries from achieving better
> lives. This divide inhibits growth and works against the efforts of
> the very poorest countries and peoples to escape poverty. Sustainable
> mobility requires that the gap be narrowed
>
> Goal Seven: Preserve and enhance mobility opportunities for the
> general populations in developed and developing countries: Improved
> mobility opportunities for all societies - developed and developing -
> is an important pre-requisite for future economic growth as well as
> forming the basis of a more sustainable global mobility system based
> on wider access and greater affordability.

And here:
> The SMP encourages the development of inexpensive motorized vehicles
> that are appropriate to the harsh road environments typically found
> in some developing countries. In urban areas, pricing strategies will
> be needed to encourage the effective use of existing conventional
> public transport systems.
>
> The report says that mobility can be made sustainable.  However, this
>  is beyond the capabilities of any one company, one industry or one
> country to resolve, and will require cooperation and effort from
> every level of society.  The report identifies no "magic bullet"
> solution. In addition, it says some mobility challenges will take up
> to half a century to resolve, but action should be started now.
>
> According to GM's Executive Vice President Tom Gottschalk, a project
> co-chair, dialogues and workshops were designed to tap professional
> opinion around the world and to develop a clearer understanding and
> appreciation of the mobility challenges faced by different countries
> and regions.
>
> Mr. Gottschalk also stated that Mobility 2030 is intended to be a
> catalyst.  "The challenges to sustaining mobility are significant,"
> he said, "but they can be met over time, provided society supports
> constructive approaches and solutions and encourages real
> understanding and cooperation among stakeholders."  He added, "This
> report contributes positively toward that goal."
>
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=6094

How about instead providing access through proximity (progressive urban
design), and providing mobility through socially- and resource-efficient
mass transit?

But more cars, more roads, everywhere on earth?  That's what this
document proposes.

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

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very
first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to
decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or
newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer
the latter."

											 Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I have noticed this too. I can rattle off a list of the behaviors of
typical Americans:

- Demand the freedom to use a car at city taxpayers' expense, yet unwilling to
live in the
city limits to avoid city taxes.

- Says cars are all about freedom, but they also want to force their lifestyle
upon others--
think about all the municipal codes forcing property owners to provide free
parking.

And you're right about going to Europe. I have heard countless Americans spend a
week or
three over there, comment on how much they love the lifestyle there and using
the metro,
and the second they get home, become homebound again unless their car is
available.

You have an excellent point about "unpaid taxi service". Your typical suburban
American
who claims to enjoy driving probably does not enjoy the drive to and from work.
Even
someone who wants a "nice car" and spends $40,000 or more on it will not enjoy
their
drive home from work.

> Absolutely.  When I get on teh buses and trains here, I see people
> reading or listening to Walkmans, sure, but I also see lots of people
> chatting happily with each other, and often end up in conversations with
> strangers myself.  When I look out the window of the bus at the people
> in cars, I see a bunch of grim-faced automatons doing unpaid taxi
> service for themselves in the name of status.  Fuck it.
>
> We are social animals.  We are healthier when we live in a community.
> Our communities are healthier when they allow people to meet with, even
> semi-anonymously, with others both similar to and different from
> themselves.  This makes life richer and safer, and all of us happier.
>
> Waht is it with Americans?  Why must they consistently behave like
> sullen thirteen year olds who hide in their rooms but still expect mom
> and dad to drop off the tray of dinner at their door and do their
> laundry?  No wonder we have the highest murder and drug use rates in the
> world here.  We isolate ourselves like monkeys volunteering for a
> contact deprivation experiment, and desperately cling to the baling-wire
> mommy of the TV set.
>
> Then we go to Paris on vacation and wonder why we feel so good walking
> the busy sidewalks and sitting in a crowded cafe on a busy square.
>
> Transit ROCKS.   I make friends, watch dramas and comedies unfold, hear
> the poetry of life--and get to work.  I could save fifty bucks a month
> by riding my bicycle instead, but when I do it I really miss the
> sensation of being part of life.
>
> Socrates said, "Fields and trees teach me nothing.  The people in a city
> do."  Well, sitting in a mobile cubicle all alone, be it a car or a PRT
> vehicle, teaches you far less.  Fuck it.
>
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard Risemberg
> http://www.living-room.org
> http://www.newcolonist.com
>
> "Until you stop looking for simple answers, you will not be happy.  You
> will not even be human."
>
> 										 RR

I just took another look at this and it made me think of direct comparisons....

Sullen thirteen year olds :: Suburban residents

Bedrooms :: Suburbs outside the city limits

Mom and dad :: City taxpayers who finance six-lane roads to let these spoiled
children
drive home

Dinner and laundry :: City utility services financed by taxpayers paying the
same piece rate
for services--electric, water, gas, sewer, and refuse--that are much more
expensive to
provide in suburbs because of long utility runs, more garbage truck use, etc

"Mommy of the TV set" :: Since suburban children are forced to stay at home
unless
Mommy can drive them somewhere (which she frequently can't because she's working
full-
time and being the family's chef and cleaner), the kids are stuck at home in
front of the
TV.

If I was married and had children, I would try all I could to have one parent--I
don't care if
it's me of my wife--stay home through early childhood. Living in a less
expensive house in
a closer suburb [or city] and having fewer cars--or making less use of
them--would save a
good deal of money, allowing one parent to stay home. Failing that, our
lifestyle would
still allow us to save more money for vacations, children's college education,
the imminent
$3000 re-roofing or air conditioner biting the dust, and retirement.

Anyway, what's about status? I lived with my parents and sister to the age of 19
in roughly
2000 square feet and never felt short on space. I hate to sound old-fashioned,
but I feel
that the same square footage seems more spacious when you have a 300 square foot
living room instead of the 600 you find in newer houses--allowing you a separate
playroom for the kids. Also, master bedroom bathrooms are getting huge (100 sf
or
more), further taking space away from the house. This is why I want a house
built between
the 1950s and 80s--better usable room. And sorry, I know this isn't a home
design
discussion board, but I feel that's another downfall of suburbs: the demand for
bigger
houses that "seem" the same size as smaller houses of years past.

> Waht is it with Americans?  Why must they consistently behave like
> sullen thirteen year olds who hide in their rooms but still expect mom
> and dad to drop off the tray of dinner at their door and do their
> laundry?  No wonder we have the highest murder and drug use rates in the
> world here.  We isolate ourselves like monkeys volunteering for a
> contact deprivation experiment, and desperately cling to the baling-wire
> mommy of the TV set.

It's hard to convince people of the advantages of transit if they've
never experienced a good system. Heavens, living in Minneapolis, trying
to use non-automotive means of transportation as much as possible, I'm
often stymied in attempts to get around without a car, and after ten
years of car-free living in Portland, I'd become pretty ingenious.
Judging from my 2001 trip to Los Angeles (where Richard gave me some
excellent hints about getting around), that quintessential car city has
better public transit than the Twin Cities do. Express buses running
every 15 minutes on a Sunday are just unimaginable here, where the MTC
pats itself on the back for running 3 buses per hour on weekdays one of
the most useful routes.

As I travel around the area with newly sensitized eyes, I can see that
what hindered the development of sustainable transit in this area was
the rapidity and efficiency of the freeway building program. Because
the area acquired so many freeways so quickly, there are now a number
of "island" neighborhoods that are or could be terrific walkable
neighborhoods, but they are utterly inaccessible without a car. In
addition, some idiotic urban planners let the big box stores knock down
existing commercial structures and set up suburban-style shopping
centers and fast-food outlets in the city--but only in the poorer
neighborhoods, where developers could get away with throwing up
structures that are ticky-tacky even by the generous standards of that
sort of building.

Judging from the bicycle and pedestrian traffic jams that I encounter
on the lakeside paths in good weather, Twin Cities people are not
averse to cycling or walking, although they are understandably averse
to riding the neglected bus system. It's just that wherever they go,
they inevitably run into barriers.

Meanwhile, we've got a city council member, a Green no less, pushing
PRT as the salvation of us all. Ken Avidor is valiantly fighting that
bit of idiocy.

The one bright spot is that the new light rail line seems to be
attracting riders, despite its limited area of service, and that city
officials are making favorable noises about connecting the downtowns of
Minneapolis and St. Paul with light rail, which is a great idea, since
the route would run through the University of Minnesota's main campus
and non-affluent and immigrant neighborhoods, thereby negating the
talking point that rail critics used in Portland about rail systems
being toys for suburban commuters at the expense of inner city
residents.

In transit,
Karen Sandness

PRT should not be rejected out-of-hand.  It could be a good idea
on a college campus or for serving an office park / light industrial area.

But generally, public transit works best in bulk.  It thrives amid dense
development, and is most efficient when it moves many people; large vehicles
like buses are the way to do that.

I'm more convinced than ever that the success of public transit anywhere
is limited by two things: density (of riders/destinations) and the
availability of parking.  Vast acreages of parking can only encourage
use of private cars.  If any locality wants to cut congestion, the decision
must be made to cut back parking while providing public transportation.

I think a PRT could be a "feeder" to buses and lite rail, in areas
where there's a lot of coming and going, but not in big crowds.

As I travel around the area with newly sensitized eyes, I can see that
>what hindered the development of sustainable transit in this area was
>the rapidity and efficiency of the freeway building program. Because
>the area acquired so many freeways so quickly, there are now a number
>of "island" neighborhoods that are or could be terrific walkable
>neighborhoods, but they are utterly inaccessible without a car.

This is deliberate car-first public policy.  The "islands" should be
connected by PRT, buses, rail or whatever is most appropriate.
And parking space within an island should be limited to
delivery vehicles.

One of my favorite "Roadkill Bill" cartoons shows RKB amazed at
a main street with no cars, and people getting about by foot,
trains and trolleys.  He's at Disney World, where pre-car America
is exhibited as a nostalgic historical curiosity.

http://www.poma.net/english/actualite/evenements/medellin/info.htm and click
link at bottom

http://www.elcolombiano.terra.com.co/BancoConocimiento/O/olac_primer_vuelo_metro\
cable_colombiano_17072004/olac_primer_vuelo_metrocable_colombiano_17072004.asp?C\
odSeccion=46

HISTORY OF THE "COMUNAS"

The hills of the city of medillin are known as "Comunas".  They are where the
poorest were dooped into buying a piece of property (without title) or in other
cases a family would invade a piece of property on a parcel without any
infrastuture.  Some of these Comunas started as card-board cities, where homes
often slid down the hill as a result of a strong rain-storm.  Somebody would
always have to remain home to protect the cardboard home and tin roof home from
being stolen.  With astonishing speed many of these cardboard communities were
transformed into concrete and brick communities numbering over 100,000.  The
growth was often not accompanied by running water, sewage systems or paved
roads.  Private public transport did not dare risk venturing into sections of
the Comunas, especially the higher ones, so as a result people walk down in
trips that take over a half hour in order to reach public transport.  In the
80's, Pablo Escobar built a powerful criminal base in the Comunas.
  Following the disentegration of Escobars crimnal infrastructure the Comunas
were taken over by Marxist Militias and other numerous gangs.  The criminal mix
extorted the private bus systems that covered the routes to the point of
colapse.  In the 90's the Comunas became the battle ground between the AUC
Paramilitaries and Marxist Militias.  Whole neighorhoods were depopulated as a
result of the violence.  Stray bullets from the firefights even killed students
in the university from the lower area.  Today a relative tense calm prevades in
these areas as the government has begun a process of negotiation with the
Paramilitary and Drug  (the paramilitary leader Adolfo Paz and ex associate of
Pablo Escobar is rumured to have assasinated a founder of the AUC, Carlos
Castano) traficking elements who now effect certain control.


   For the Comunas, Metrocable today represents much more than a new transit
system, it represents the hope that can help in overcoming their social and
economic exclusion.  These innovative ideas can also be applied to serve the
people of the Favelas of Brazil or the poor hillside communities of Caracas.

From Gustavo Ortiz (New York City)



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!

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

To read messages from and between people enlightened
enough to at least talk about giving up cars, you have to view an
'ad' telling you to "get behind the whell", promoting this kind of
death and destruction!
   I guess it could only happen in ...'amerika'....
    Please keep resisting!
        DaveS, "happily car-free dave"; hcfdave for short.

Richard (rickrise@...) has sent you this article.

Personal message:
    Last sentence is particularly telling

Reuters.com - U.S. Addiction to Foreign Oil Deepens
  
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=5696743&pageNumber\
=1


This service is not intended to encourage spam. The details provided by your
colleague have been used for the sole purpose of facilitating this email
communication and have not been retained by Reuters. Your personal details have
not been added to any database or mailing list.

If you would like to receive news articles delivered to your email address,
please subscribe at reuters.com

An interesting AP article that most recently appeared in this Sunday's
Washington Post, on "food deserts", areas where good nutritious food
for reasonable prices can't be had because regional markets are taken
over by suburban big-box food stores. Another good addition to the
arguments for carfree cities favoring neighborhood shopping.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5353901/

Chris Miller
Washington DC, USA