Hi Everyone,
'Soaring Gas Prices' are here... hooray! I hear petrol is fetching
around five dollars a gallon in the U.K. Oh, how Americans will holler
when we hit THAT milestone. One miffed midwesterner paid $55.80 to fill
up the 24-gallon tank of her Ford Expedition, yesterday. Just think, in
a couple of years that same tankfull may cost $100. The Governors of
Indiana and Illinois have suspended their state gas taxes to give those
poor, helpless motorists a break. Raising fuel taxes, to reduce demand
and fund mass transit (and carfree city construction?), should become
politically feasible once sufficient numbers of motorists can no longer
afford to fill up. At what price per gallon will the average motorist
give up?
Here's another good reason to remove cars from cities altogether: Even
in walkable cities, with high numbers of highly visible pedestrians all
over town, increasingly irate motorists still can't behave responsibly:
http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20000626/t000060448.html
Funding for more trains?
'Bush.... err, (sorry, I get them confused) 'Gore Offers $25 Billion for
Energy Efficient Transit':
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20000630/t000061782.html
-T.J.
Monday, June 26,
2000
Deaths, Injuries Cloud 'Walkers'
Paradise'
Safety: Eighteen pedestrians
have been killed, 300
hurt since January in San
Francisco. Police and city
step up preventive campaigns.
By JOHN M. GLIONNA, Times Staff
Writer
SAN FRANCISCO--Late at
night, when the chaos
of the city streets subsides,
Ken Kelton whips his red
truck to the curb at an
offending intersection.
Working quickly, he throws
down a plywood stencil
and spray-paints another street
memorial to a fallen
pedestrian. Resembling the
chalked body outlines at
crime scenes, the life-size
white sketch proclaims the
victim's name and accident date.
"Pedestrian deaths are
always cleaned up within
hours--the body's gone, the
blood washed away--like
we don't want to know," said
51-year-old Kelton, a
building contractor by day and
urban guerrilla after
dark. "This way, people
remember. They're reminded
that this is a dangerous place."
The city known worldwide as
a walker's paradise
has never seemed so dangerous.
Since January, 18
pedestrians have been killed on
San Francisco streets
and more than 300 have been
injured--setting a course
to easily exceed last year's
death toll of 28.
Victims have been hit in
crosswalks, while waiting
for buses, when dashing into
traffic. The youngest--a
3-year-old boy--was struck by a
cab. The oldest was a
98-year-old man run down by a
trolley car.
The deaths have moved
police to step up
enforcement and prompted city
officials to hold a recent
emergency pedestrian safety
summit.
Supervisor Mabel Teng has
vowed to use the
summit proposals--such as
narrowing streets and
increasing fines levied on
motorists--to create a safety
master plan.
And the San Francisco
agency that created the
national "Got Milk?" ads is
devising a pedestrian safety
awareness campaign.
"I'm calling it the 'Got
Brakes?' campaign," Teng
said. "San Francisco is no
longer a walkable city,
because people have to take
risks just to cross the
street. We've got to change the
behavior of both
walkers and drivers. Until then,
the streets will not be
safe."
Studies show that San
Francisco--where about
10% of people walk to work--has
the highest
pedestrian injury rate in
California. Nationwide, about
13% of traffic fatalities
involve pedestrians; in San
Francisco the rate hovers around
50%, studies show.
The city's pedestrian death
rate is second only to
New York City's, officials say.
"It's alarming," said James
Corless, California
director of the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, a
nonprofit agency that promotes
more balanced
transportation policies. "It's
gotten to the point where
people are literally afraid to
step off the curb."
San Francisco police
reviewed 286 car-pedestrian
incidents this year, blaming
motorists in 123 and finding
that 91 were the fault of
pedestrians. In the others, the
responsibility was unclear.
Experts say there is a
third culprit missing from that
formula: the streets themselves.
"There's a lot of
finger-pointing going on over who's
responsible for all the
accidents, the walker or the
driver. But the truth is that
traffic engineers can share
some of the blame," Corless
said.
In San Francisco, there are
many blind intersections
where vehicles often barrel over
hills. And the loss of
downtown's Embarcadero Freeway,
torn down after
the 1989 earthquake, has turned
many downtown
surface streets into urban
expressways.
The city's new Internet
commerce has added to the
problem. Because most products
bought online need to
be delivered the old-fashioned
way--by
truck--double-parked delivery
vehicles routinely clog
downtown streets, city officials
say.
Residents and city
officials agree that San Francisco
needs to rethink the very makeup
of many streets. In
the 1960s and '70s, traffic
engineers believed that the
fastest way to move vehicles was
along wide one-way
thoroughfares with few trees or
impediments to block a
motorist's vision.
"Back then, engineers
figured pedestrians would
soon be a thing of the past,
that people wouldn't need
to walk," Corless said. "In
fact, until the 1990s, the city
engineer's bible put out by the
American Assn. of State
Highway and Transportation
officials referred to
pedestrians as 'traffic flow
interruptions.' That's how
car-centric the thinking was."
Now, Teng says, city
officials are exploring such
"car-calming" street design
changes as speed humps,
traffic circles and "bulb-outs,"
or extensions of the
sidewalk into the street to
create better visibility for
both drivers and pedestrians.
Mayor Willie Brown plans to
expand the city's red
light photo enforcement program,
which snaps pictures
of violators, and begin several
pedestrian-friendly
projects, such as countdown
crosswalk signals that
inform walkers how much time
they have in an
intersection before the light
changes.
The downtown bedlam is made
worse by other
factors officials cannot
control. Many busy, stressed
pedestrians absent-mindedly talk
on cell phones.
Motorists take chances behind
the wheel.
"It's a crowded urban
environment with too many
people and too many cars," said
Michael Radetsky, an
injury prevention specialist for
the city Department of
Public Health. "Frustrated
drivers are often stopped at
every light on clogged streets.
So they tend to race
between intersections."
And many run stop signs.
Just ask Alvin Ja, whose
85-year-old mother was
killed last month when a sport
utility vehicle did just that
and plowed into her motorized
wheelchair as Mabel Ja
cruised across a crosswalk,
smashing her skull.
"People drive too
aggressively," Alvin Ja said. "They
whip around corners, make turns
into narrow streets,
assuming there won't be anything
there. The whole
culture says, 'Screw the other
guy. I'll take whatever
shortcuts I have to, to get
where I'm going.' "
Every day when he sees a
reckless driver, Ja thinks
of his mother, who for decades
ran a Chinatown
clothing store. "Irresponsible
driving killed my mother,"
he said. "It disgusts me."
That same disgust has led
Kelton to stencil scores of
body outlines at scenes of
fatalities. Working at odd
hours, he uses orange barricades
and flashing red lights
to appear like a city worker and
avoid an arrest for
vandalism.
But city officials have so
far looked the other way,
even leaving the white body
outlines on the street long
after Kelton is gone, as long as
there are no complaints.
One city traffic official
said the stencils are the kind
of graphic reminder of mortality
that pedestrians need
to see every day.
"In many people's minds,
these accidents are all so
isolated," Kelton said. "I'm
just trying to connect the
dots."
Michael Kemmitt also has
seen too many
pedestrians die. The commanding
officer for the San
Francisco Police Department's
traffic unit, he visits most
pedestrian accident scenes and
remembers one recent
week in which he began to
question his sanity.
The police captain went to
where a 50-year-old
teaching assistant was struck on
his walk to school;
where a 69-year-old man was
dragged by a bus and
lost his left hand; where a
71-year-old woman was hit
and killed by a water delivery
truck; where a young boy
was critically injured as he
dashed across the street
near his school.
"It was just one after the
other," Kemmitt recalled
with a shudder. "And you began
to wonder 'Is this ever
going to end?' "
Friday,
June 30, 2000
Gore Offers $25 Billion for
Energy
Efficient Transit
Politics: The proposed
trust fund, part of a
$148-billion plan, would be
made available to cities
hoping to upgrade their
transportation systems.
By BONNIE HARRIS, Times
Staff Writer
CHICAGO--Cities that
choose to establish more
energy-efficient
transportation methods stand to share
up to $25 billion in
federal grants and other incentives
over the next decade under
Vice President Al Gore's
energy plan.
Overlooking a
sparkling Lake Michigan on
Thursday, Gore announced
the third and final portion of
what has become a
$148-billion "national energy
security and environment
trust fund." The latest
proposal would help cities
pay for new rail systems and
other mass-transit options
to give Americans
transportation choices and
clean up the environment.
Gore has tossed out a
host of energy-related
campaign proposals this
week to voters, from tax
credits for purchasing
hybrid gas-electric cars to
financial perks for
entrepreneurs who develop
cutting-edge technologies
to help steer the country
away from "expensive,
unreliable and distant" imported
oil.
"I am proposing today
that we do a lot more to help
communities build and
extend rail systems as they want
to," Gore told the friendly
group of city leaders and
activists, who cheered and
whistled throughout the
speech. "You won't be
forced to pay high gasoline
prices; you will have a
choice in how you will get
around."
Gore did not break
down how the $25 billion would
be spent in his "keep
America moving" initiative, but he
said he would provide
grants for upgrading existing rail
systems and subways,
building high-speed rail systems
in major transportation
corridors and converting city
and school bus fleets to
cleaner-burning fuels.
Amtrak would receive
funds to improve and expand
existing passenger rail
routes, and financial incentives
would be available to help
cities revitalize
neighborhoods around
transit stations.
The vice president
vowed to give grants to
communities that meet the
transportation needs of
residents in rural areas,
and he cited a new light-rail
system in Portland, Ore.,
as an example of ensuring
mobility with "fewer
arteries and more heart."
"Real freedom is about
having transportation
choices," said Gore, who
acknowledged Americans'
love affair with their cars
and stressed that he is not
pushing them out of the
driver's seat and into mass
transit.
Rather, the presumed
Democratic nominee for
president said: "You
deserve the independence to get in
your car and drive anywhere
you want to go--without
emptying your wallet at
every filling station. You should
also have the choice, if
you want it, to park your car at
a light-rail station and be
moved swiftly into a newly
thriving downtown."
Gore has been
promoting his energy plan during a
"progress and prosperity"
campaign tour designed to
highlight the country's
booming economy and fat budget
surplus. A cheerful Gore
told reporters aboard Air
Force Two on Wednesday that
he has decided to
extend the tour through
next week, with stops in
California, New York,
Pennsylvania and Missouri. The
three-week "progress" theme
had been scheduled to
end today.
"It is going so well
that I will announce to you right
now it is going to be
extended for a fourth week," Gore
said, adding that he plans
to take the Fourth of July off
to celebrate the first
birthday of his first grandchild,
Wyatt. "I feel very good
about the campaign. I feel very
good. Something is
happening out there. People want
to see the prosperity and
progress continue."
Over the last three
weeks, Gore has outlined how
he would use the estimated
$1.8-trillion budget surplus
to build three so-called
trust funds for education, health
care and the environment.
The country's rosy economic
forecast has forged an
unprecedented type of
battleground for the
presidential election, one that
focuses on where to put all
of the money rather than
where to find it.
In light of the
summer's soaring gasoline prices,
Gore also renewed his call
for the Federal Trade
Commission to hold public
hearings in its investigation
into possible price gouging
and collusion. If oil company
executives are made to
testify in the hearings, Gore
said, "the people can hear
. . . how they explain the
coincidence of these sharp
price increases beyond any
explanation offered so
far."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
T.J. wrote:
> 'Soaring Gas Prices' are here... hooray!
Hooray, indeed.
Auto fuel is, of course, not the only energy product for which prices are
soaring. Here's an MSNBC story that reminds us that "Pain goes beyond the
gas pump."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/427562.asp
In fact, cheap oil energy is a major component of virtually every element of
modern life, from food to clothing, to heating and air conditioning. In a
world with six billion (and counting) humans and rapidly developing
permanent energy shortages, a great many things are about to change. It is
likely that wealthy nations in the developed world will need to reduce
energy consumption by rather large per-capita percentages..
Seen in that light, the natural efficiencies of compact, mixed-use carfree
cities (where much transportation is fueled by the same veggies that power
the local human biocumputers, and products and services are produced near
the places they are used), will be especially critical.
-Doug
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> 'Soaring Gas Prices' are here... hooray! I hear petrol is fetching
Good news! The gas prices have risen up to around 80 cents a litre in Quebec
this spring. So that means this floor price is gained now.
> Indiana and Illinois have suspended their state gas taxes to
> give those
> poor, helpless motorists a break. Raising fuel taxes, to
> reduce demand
> and fund mass transit (and carfree city construction?), should become
> politically feasible once sufficient numbers of motorists can
> no longer
> afford to fill up. At what price per gallon will the average motorist
> give up?
>
I'm just awaiting gas prices to reach $1.00 a litre,and at that magical
number we should convert more motorists to human or public transportation.
When gas litre costs more than milk litre, I guess we'll be on the way to a
critical mass of people quitting car dependance and it will become easier to
make more carfree places and bike roads.
You can go fast by bike, and even faster if there are less cars in your way.
I hope governments will become aware of that soon.
> Here's another good reason to remove cars from cities
> altogether: Even
> in walkable cities, with high numbers of highly visible
> pedestrians all
> over town, increasingly irate motorists still can't behave
> responsibly:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20000626/t000060448.html
>
I read it, and that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. We MUST do something,
that's a matter of survival for the human race.
> Funding for more trains?
> 'Bush.... err, (sorry, I get them confused) 'Gore Offers $25
> Billion for
> Energy Efficient Transit':
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20000630/t000061782.html
>
Champlain bridge, the most car-crowded bridge in Canada, is getting a
companion. The AMT (Metropolitan Transport Agency) is funding a special
middle space between the 2 directions, reserved for more buses, and I heard
that space will eventually be used for light rail. That's about time!
I'm not totally sure, so Ronald, you may correct me or give more details if
needed.
Louis-Luc
>air conditioning.
that reminds me
saw an audi ad on tv
thought that others would see it and mention
but I only saw it once and not again
maybe it didnt go down so well
a kid sits in the rear of car
watching night sky as they drive
a meteor is burning up in atmosphere
the car has a micro particle filter system
which keeps the kids nose clean
despite clever advertising
maybe it wasnt good enough
to keep the company nose clean
and was withdrawn sharpish
as I have mentioned many times now
we could go a long way
just by preventing advertising
on health and safety grounds
or destroying its effectiveness
though the manufacturers
dig themselves thier own graves
.......tim
> 'Soaring Gas Prices' are here... hooray! I hear petrol is fetching
> around five dollars a gallon in the U.K. Oh, how Americans will holler
> when we hit THAT milestone.
Here, on this list, I can admit to heresy -- hip, hip, hooray, for those
spiking gas prices. The states' suspension of gasoline taxes won't last
long. It sounded great to say it, lotsa political brownie points, but
they will miss the revenue.
>
> Funding for more trains?
> 'Bush.... err, (sorry, I get them confused) 'Gore Offers $25 Billion for
> Energy Efficient Transit':
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20000630/t000061782.html
Energy efficient transport will have to be trains. The roads are
growing ever more congested and no matter how wondrously efficient your
car's engine is, if you are doing stop and go for miles, you will not
have good energy efficiency.
So for efficiency, look to forms of rail.
Martha
> Champlain bridge, the most car-crowded bridge in Canada, is getting a
> companion. The AMT (Metropolitan Transport Agency) is funding a special
> middle space between the 2 directions, reserved for more buses, and I heard
> that space will eventually be used for light rail. That's about time!
The bus to light rail transition is very sensible, lanes reserved
exclusively for bus use to see if the volume of traffic justifies rail,
then rail. Such a test then build sequence will prevent failures that
would give the autoholics a justification for building more lanes on
expressways.
Martha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martha Torell [mailto:eyrehead@...]
> Sent: 1 juillet, 2000 22:26
> To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] News
>
>
>
> > Champlain bridge, the most car-crowded bridge in Canada, is
> getting a
> > companion. The AMT (Metropolitan Transport Agency) is
> funding a special
> > middle space between the 2 directions, reserved for more
> buses, and I heard
> > that space will eventually be used for light rail. That's
> about time!
>
> The bus to light rail transition is very sensible, lanes reserved
> exclusively for bus use to see if the volume of traffic
> justifies rail,
> then rail. Such a test then build sequence will prevent failures that
> would give the autoholics a justification for building more lanes on
> expressways.
>
> Martha
>
You're right. Earlier in the year, those autoholics of the South Shore made
pressure on the authorities to build another car bridge. But Quebec
government and AMT joined efforts to that new bus-towards-lightrail project.
Along with the new Montréal/St-Hilaire train line, that should prevent new
car bridge threat for a while, if not forever.
The fact Montréal is an island is an advantage; it's easier to make
infrastructures to transport people over water, than to transport people
with a metal/glass shell over water. More trains/metro/buses arriving
downtown each morning put more pedestrians in the streets, yeah! The
increasing number of pedestrians should discourage motorists to go downtown.
We should show them it's faster going on foot or on bike.
Happy Canada Day for all Canadians, and let's tell our governments to start
solving the problem of cars before we lose our status of "country with the
highest life quality" because another country is doing better than us. I
hope all countries will race each other for that status by rehumanising
their cities.
Louis-Luc
Louis-Luc Le Guerrier wrote:
>The Champlain bridge, the most car-crowded bridge in Canada, is getting a
>companion. The AMT (Metropolitan Transport Agency) is funding a special
>middle space between the 2 directions, reserved for more buses, and I heard
>that space will eventually be used for light rail. That's about time!
>I'm not totally sure, so Ronald, you may correct me or give more details if
>needed.
Oh, for what I've heard is that the possible routing for a Montreal to South
Shore LRT would be use of the neighbouring Ice Bridge (Estacade du Pont
Champlain), but things might have changed.
Right now on the Champlain Bridge there are the time of day bus lanes, could
these be changing to all day bus lanes? http://www.amt.qc.ca/ Dawson
Louis-Luc Le Guerrier wrote:
>You're right. Earlier in the year, those autoholics of the South Shore made
>pressure on the authorities to build another car bridge. But Quebec
>government and AMT joined efforts to that new bus-towards-lightrail
project.
>Along with the new Montréal/St-Hilaire train line, that should prevent new
>car bridge threat for a while, if not forever.
In regards to road projects in the Montreal area extending Autoroute-30 from
Chateauguay to Valleyfield would be some where around $530 million. Having
commuter train service from Montreal to Valleyfield might be $100-200
million. With the Montreal/St-Hilaire line(short term) service needs to be
increased,(long term) extended to St-Hyacinthe and(longer term) electrified.
>The fact Montréal is an island is an advantage; it's easier to make
>infrastructures to transport people over water, than to transport people
>with a metal/glass shell over water. More trains/metro/buses arriving
>downtown each morning put more pedestrians in the streets, yeah! The
>increasing number of pedestrians should discourage motorists to go
downtown.
>We should show them it's faster going on foot or on bike.
At the following URL is a photo of one of the AMT's new F59PHI locomotives,
it was built in London, Ontario. Below it is a photo of former Nightstar
cars brought from Britain for Via Rail, these cars are going to be rebuilt
here in Montreal. http://www3.sympatico.ca/traqcmuar/turbo.htm
>Happy Canada Day for all Canadians, and let's tell our governments to start
>solving the problem of cars before we lose our status of "country with the
>highest life quality" because another country is doing better than us. I
>hope all countries will race each other for that status by rehumanising
>their cities.
That's a good idea and may the most rehumanizing nation win. Dawson
>>If there are no cars, then do you want any curbs? Venice has none.
>
>can we have some very special removable curbs
>so that cables and pipes dont require digging everytime
I hope so. These can be see in Europe and Asia--there are
channels in the street with removable precast concrete
tops. Along the central boulevard I foresee a large utility
chase, perhaps integrated with the metro construction and
lying just beneath it. These kinds of tunnels have been
commonplace installations in universities for many years.
Saves a lot of digging and keeps everything out of the way.
###
On sebbatical until September. Please expect slow responses to e-mail.
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_ ISBN 9057270374
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
QUIT
Along the central boulevard I foresee a large utility
> chase, perhaps integrated with the metro construction and
> lying just beneath it. These kinds of tunnels have been
> commonplace installations in universities for many years.
> Saves a lot of digging and keeps everything out of the way.
Not to mention fiberoptic communications cables. Vive le broadband!
Martha
My heart nearly lept out of my body on discovery of this web site,
imagine a whole group of people devoted to the VERY point I have been
trying to convince people of since I was 12 years old. Carfree
cities ARE the only answer to thousands of major dilemas. I quickly
delved into the web site with tears of glee in my eyes, my life long
crusade has found companionship. Could it be that another person on
this planet has the vision that I do? Sadly the answer was only half
positive. I would imagine that anyone with the forsite to go as far
as car free cities ould see the rest of the plan as logical
steps...build closer and build UP, but then all my hopes were dashed
by this monstrosity of blindness:
"Four-Story Buildings
Venice: a fine-grained city, four stories high
Buildings should generally be limited to a height of four stories
because higher buildings appear to be harmful to the people who must
live in them. (See A Pattern Language for a detailed discussion of
this point.)" [from the intro section of the site]
How could it be? How could any mins advocate something as radically
necessary as carless cities and at the same time be as backwords as
building 2 dimensionally??? In fact one of the most VITAL aspects of
building a carless city is building 3 dimensionally, making things
CLOSER, NOT FURTHER. How could anyone have such a contradictory
arguement based on a groundless arguement that living higher causes
harm. Well some people live in the mountains and others by the sea,
where is the damage? The most logical way to build a car free city
is cubical, with travel taking place on MULTIPLE levels, allowing for
much less congestion and the quickest path between point a and point
b.
Your location in a city should not be designated by a mear 2
coordinate system, but also a third coordinate accounting for height
or even DEPTH, as building underground is just as practicle.
I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly condone this web site which had for
a brief moment been the boon in my crusade. There is a grievous flaw
that negates the whole arguement present and to refer someone here
would only confuse them.
I am just about to review a book:
J.H.Crawford (2000) Carfree Cities (International Books:Utrecht) ISBN 90
5727 037 4
Publisher: International Books <I-books@...>
Alexander Numankade 17, 3572 KP Utrecht, The Netherlands
Fax: 00 31 30 273 3614
Joel Crawford <http://www.carfree.com/>
Postmaster@carfree .com
I know the people I’m circulating this to would like to know about it and
had perhaps heard about some of its initial publishing politics. It is an
academic think book with much practical within its well illustrated and
diagrammed 300+ pages. I got a cherished copy for review copy but have also
invested in my own copy from Amazon.co for just £19 (UKP).
It’s a ground breaker on ground already being well cultivated. Far more than
a polemic – despite its seductive flow and writing style - it has gravitas
and intelligence with a portfolio of academic reference whilst being
accessible and unpatronising at the same time.
This is hardly surprising because Joel Crawford, among other things, has
long been editing a much visited website and paper which draws on and has
benefited from a global discourse on the redesign of a the urban fabric in
ways that bring hope and vision for the future of cities.
"Carfree Cities" looks to the future; respects the past without being bound
to it by selective recollections; notes examples of cities where the
benefits of carfree public spaces are already present, enhancing local
economies and social interaction. I would be grateful for comments from
others who have read early editions of the book for my review.
“Carfree Cities” like many other texts offers many reminders of how much
public space has been lost in the last half-century because of over reliance
on the conditional liberties offered by reliance on the car, but it goes on
from there to offer a plethora of practical solutions and advice on the kind
of holistic approach to government and partnerships with stakeholders that
make creating cities for the 21st century both an inspiring dream that can
focus the enthusiasm and the energy of citizens, politicians and
professionals and an urgent reality.
Simon Baddeley
Inlogov, School of Public Policy
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom
0121 414 4999
0121 554 9794
07775 655842
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd J. Binkley <tjbink@...>
To: Carfree Cities Forum <carfree_cities@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 3:00 PM
Subject: [carfree_cities] News
> Hi Everyone,
>
> 'Soaring Gas Prices' are here... hooray! I hear petrol is fetching
> around five dollars a gallon in the U.K. Oh, how Americans will holler
> when we hit THAT milestone. One miffed midwesterner paid $55.80 to fill
> up the 24-gallon tank of her Ford Expedition, yesterday. Just think, in
> a couple of years that same tankfull may cost $100. The Governors of
> Indiana and Illinois have suspended their state gas taxes to give those
> poor, helpless motorists a break. Raising fuel taxes, to reduce demand
> and fund mass transit (and carfree city construction?), should become
> politically feasible once sufficient numbers of motorists can no longer
> afford to fill up. At what price per gallon will the average motorist
> give up?
>
Last Fall I posted a message on Bicycling Magazine's forum and jokingly
asked what people will do with their SUVs ahen gas prices hit $2 per gallon
in the spring and summer of 2000. I was surprised that quite a few people
replied that I was a sick individual to enjoy the "misery and misfortune" of
others. I was just joking but I couldn't believe the attitude. Actually,
I am sure that I am still quite brainwashed by the auto culture here because
I too thought $2 per gallon would somehow be "misfortune" enough to change
the way people think of automobiles. Oh well.
Here in Boston, MA yesterday I walked about 10 miles with my wife and 3 year
old in his stroller. Most of the locals had taken off for Cape Cod or the
beaches and mountains to the north. There were relatively few cars in the
city and loads of tourists on foot from all over the world. It was a great
afternoon at car free Fanueil Hall and other parts of Boston.
Chris
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/07/07022000/fuelcellbike_14335.asp?P=1
This may provide part of an answer.
Martha
Raising fuel taxes, to reduce demand
> > and fund mass transit (and carfree city construction?), should become
> > politically feasible once sufficient numbers of motorists can no longer
> > afford to fill up. At what price per gallon will the average motorist
> > give up?
>
> Your location in a city should not be designated by a mear 2
> coordinate system, but also a third coordinate accounting for height
> or even DEPTH, as building underground is just as practicle.
>
> I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly condone this web site which had for
> a brief moment been the boon in my crusade. There is a grievous flaw
> that negates the whole arguement present and to refer someone here
> would only confuse them.
>
In this group you will find many versions of how a car free city can be
designed. Though it is tempting to look back 200 years when everything
was car free, it was also electrical power free. We would change city
life and design at least as much as the auto did because we have new
ingredients in the brew, electrical power and a desire to free ourselves
of autodependence.
I take your point about thinking 3D when it comes to urban design. And
for industrial uses particularly I say go to ground -- what better way
to control emissions, and know which companies emit which pollutants.
In this age of electrical power healthful ventilation could be
maintained far underground. If emissions could be controlled, that is,
cleaned before ejection into the atmosphere, and if noise and
contaminants could be controlled by underground containment, we would
have the interesting situation of people being able to live close to
heavy industry, without their health or esthetic senses suffering.
I really go for mixed use buildings. And I hope to see people build in
hurricane country, right on the coast, heavy, steel frame and concrete,
rounded corners that the winds can't catch, a city laced through with
canals to accomodate the inevitable floods, and the lower stories
designed to take it too, maybe as boat houses. Sometimes it would be
Venice, sometimes it would be great skateboarding.
Martha
"J.H. Crawford" wrote:
>
> Regarding the financing discussion:
I have wondered if some of the dot com billions would find their way to
development. If a developer did not have to borrow to build or support
himself until the units sold, he would be able to call all the design
shots himself. Banks are not going to want to lend money for radical
design like car free. Further, the developer could go into the finance
business himself, lend money only for the purpose of paying for units in
his development. He could write it into the contract that if you need
a mortgage to buy a place in the project, you borrow only from his
finance company. Of course there would be proper safeguards against
discrimination and price gouging. The developer's rates would track
along with other mortgage rates, neither higher which might repel
buyers, nor lower which would set up friction from general mortgage
companies.
If the buyers defaulted, the property would go back to the developer.
And he would get all that interest. For years. It would exceed the
profits in the typical borrow-build-sell-pay off cycle. And the buyers
would be able to take the mortgage interest tax deduction.
After some success and defining a building ethic and style, he could
probably go public with it, sell stock to repeat the project. It could
be one of the greenest stocks ever -- car free mixed complexes, with
electrical trolley transportation. Could be it would spread and
consume some sprawl.
Martha
--- Martha Torell <eyrehead@...> wrote:
> I have wondered if some of the dot com billions
> would find their way to
> development.
(snip)
The dot-com money is looking for a quick profit; real
estate of any type is not quick at all.
...
What you are describing about the developer being the
lender makes no sense. The developer borrows money,
builds the property, and then sells it. If the buyer
defaults later, the lender forecloses on it and may
have to take a loss (depends on the foreclosure sale
price and the leftover mortgage balance). Why should
the developer care if the buyer defaults?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
> directly or you can come at it from different angles. There is already a
> robust and growing campaign against airport expansion in many European
> cities and I quoted the Lighter-than-Air URL because there are a number of
> nutters out there who can envisage that airships might be a good place to
> put your money.
Restricting airport expansion may translate into expanding rail travel.
So the airport restriction movement certainly gets my attention.
> As for being unrealistic I'm used to that. A few years ago
> people were saying Carfree cities were unrealistic. they still do - but the
> debate is well and truly out of the running chocks. In politics there is no
> such thing as being realistic. "What women equal to men! You must be joking"
> "What get rid of slavery? You'll destroy the whole economy of the South!"
> "What stop allowing children to work down mines! Another joke!" "What
> abolish apartheid! Never."
This is heartening.
Martha
worldnick wrote:
"How could any mins advocate something as radically necessary as carless
cities and at the same time be as backwords as building 2 dimensionally???
...The most logical way to build a car free city is cubical, with travel
taking place on MULTIPLE levels, allowing for much less congestion and the
quickest path between point a and point b." -
I write:
I would take some exception to the notion that a four-story city is
2-dimensoinal. Venice, for example, has more spatial complexity than
virtually any other city I have visited. The four story limit is a natural
response to the condition of gravity. Moving up and down takes more energy
than moving on a horizontal plane. Beyond four stories, one must rely more
on non-human energy for vertical movement (i.e., elevators, escalators,
etc., keeping in mind that most electrical power is generated from fossil
fuels). Since one of the goals of a car-free city is to reduce the amount
of energy consumed, it would seem reasonable to limit the height so as to
encourage human power over machine power; that is until we figure out how to
do something about that annoying thing called gravity (or learn to harness
fusion power).
A few more thoughts:
Perhaps the city you envision would be more appropriate in space (that's not
a joke).
Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing (if it's composed of people
instead of cars).
I think people want to be grounded (literally). Does anyone really want to
live in the center of a three-dimensional labyrinth? I like to walk on the
earth.
Chris Barker wrote:
>Here in Boston, MA yesterday I walked about 10 miles with my wife and 3
year
>old in his stroller. Most of the locals had taken off for Cape Cod or the
>beaches and mountains to the north. There were relatively few cars in the
>city and loads of tourists on foot from all over the world. It was a great
>afternoon at car free Fanueil Hall and other parts of Boston.
Boston is a really nice city and Fanueil Hall is a great place to visit.
http://www.faneuilhallmarketplace.com/news/news.htm
Even thought Boston and Montreal are about 330 miles apart it's too bad that
there isn't train service between our two cities. Dawson
> Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing (if it's composed of people
> instead of cars).
Yes. I've nothing against congestion. I don't feel stressed if I hit the
thigh of the person in front of me with my knee, or if I get hit in a
similar way on a crowded street. Those incidents are just one more way to
open social contacts with people, assuming of course they are not done on
purpose. As long as inhuman cars are out, that's Okay.
> I think people want to be grounded (literally). Does anyone
> really want to
> live in the center of a three-dimensional labyrinth? I like
> to walk on the
> earth.
I don't mind living in a 3-D setup, as long as I can walk freely on the
Earth ground level (outdoors). I'm accustomed to high buildings and
underground setup in Montreal, but the outdoor space is somewhat monopolised
by cars, and we must correct that, even in cities where people can avoid
cars by going in a 3-D setup. Let's expand people choice range and restrict
car choice range.
I agree with you that nothing replaces totally the natural outdoor space
even under the rain or in cold weather. In fact I much prefer walking in a
rainy carfree city than in a sunny car-centric city.
Louis-Luc
Greetings worldnick:
You wrote:
>My heart nearly lept out of my body on discovery of this web site.
>imagine a whole group of people devoted to
It's a pretty impressive site. I was somewhat less bedazzled than you
on my first visit, but after careful review of the book that goes with
this site, I too have become fairly excited at the possibilities that
lie before us.
> the VERY point I have been
>trying to convince people of since I was 12 years old.
How many years does that make, then?
How many have you convinced? :^]
I never seem to get very far when I 'try to convince' someone of
something. My impression is that most people prefer to reach their own
conclusions, based on the information available to them. First-hand
experiences are perhaps the most persuasive.
>but then all my hopes were dashed
>by this monstrosity of blindness:
>"Four-Story Buildings
>In fact one of the most VITAL aspects of
>building a carless city is building 3 dimensionally, making things
>CLOSER, NOT FURTHER.
Four-story buildings are in fact three-dimensional; and in most parts of
the world their construction would bring many people much closer
together.
>a groundless arguement that living higher causes harm.
Some of the 'grounds' upon which this controversial argument is based,
were referenced in the exerpt from carfree.com which you pasted in your
message: "(See A Pattern Language for a detailed discussion of
this point.)"
Part of this detailed discussion (in Christopher Alexander's pithy,
magnum opus, 'A Pattern Language', pp. 114-19) goes as follows:
"At three or four stories, one can still walk comfortably down to the
street, and from a window you can still feel part of the street scene:
you can see details in the street---the people, their faces, foliage,
shops. From three (or four) stories you can yell out, and catch the
attention of someone below. Above four stories these connections break
down. The visual detail is lost; people speak of the scene below as if
it were (a distant, alien place) from which they are completely
detached. The connection to the ground and to the fabric of the town
becomes tenuous; the building becomes a world of its own, with its own
elevators and cafeterias."
"...high-rise living takes people away from...the casual everyday
society that occurs on (porches, sidewalks and streets). It leaves them
alone in their apartments. The decision to go out for some public life
becomes formal and awkward; and unless there is some specific task which
brings people out into the world, the tendency is to stay home, alone.
The forced isolation then causes individual breakdowns."
Alexander cites the following evidence to support his argument:
"Families in Flats", British Medical Journal, November 18, 1967,
pp.382-86. "(author of the study) D.M. Fanning shows a direct
correlation between incidence of mental disorder and the height of
people's apartments. The higher people live off the ground, the more
likely are they to suffer mental illness. ....the correlation is
strongest for the people who spend the most time in their apartments.
"Mental Health and the High Rise," Canadian Public Health Association,
April 1971. ( Dr. D. Cappon): 'Young children in a high-rise are much
more socially deprived of neighborhood peers than their Single Family
Dwelling counterparts, hence they are poorly socialized and at too close
quarters to adults, who are tense and irritable as a consequence.'"
"A Danish study by Jeanne Morville (reference in Danish) adds more
evidence:
'Children from the high blocks start playong out of doors on their own
at a later age than children from the low blocks: Only 2% of the
children aged two to three years in the high blocks play on their own
out of doors, while 27% of the children in the low blocks do this.
...Young children have fewer contacts with playmates than those in the
low blocks...'"
"Oscar Newman, in 'Defensible Space'...compared two adjacent housing
projects in New York---one high-rise, the other a collection of
relatively small three-story walk-up buildings. The two projects have
the same overall density, and their inhabitants have roughly the same
income. But Newman found that the crime rate in the high-rise was
roughly twice that in the walk-ups.
I would add that high-rise buildings also usually have miserable,
one-setting-fits-all, heating and ventilation systems; oppressive rules
governing access and the behavior of users; and dreary circulation
corridors that frustrate social interaction:
Imagine the level of warmth (vs. suspicion) which is greeted upon a
person standing alone in a long, narrow, artificially-lit corridor....
Compare this image with one of the same person, standing alone on a
balcony or an open-air passageway, overlooking a pedestrian-filled
street.
Imagine a grand, open stairway, with generous landings that invite
people to pause and chat briefly, or survey the area below them; where
some come to sit and have lunch, read, or simply watch the world go by;
and where many people can get some of the regular excerise they so
desperately need....
Compare this with waiting for, then riding a stuffy, lumbering
elevator: all feet pointing toward the door, all eyes on the floor
number overhead. Where few would ever dream of lingering. Where in the
presence of a fire, power failure or a criminal, there exists a very
real threat of becoming trapped and injured or even killed.
Because of code limitations on population density, high-rises are also
often surrounded by inhospitable open space; which, lacking proper
enclosure and human scale, are typically lifeless, and prone to neglect.
All this having been said, their is no reason that part of a carfree
city could not be built with skyscrapers; for those who enjoy the views
from them, prefer the relative isolation from the street, and are
willing to pay the full costs of living in them. The downtown districts
of any carfree city will inevitably have some taller buildings.
>The most logical way to build a car free city...
...may not necessarily be the most desirable. However...
>...with travel taking place on MULTIPLE levels...
Good point. An elegant variation of this, which is mentioned (and
pictured) in 'Carfree Cities' (p. 159), is a ground floor passageway
which leads through a building, called a 'sottoportego'.
Open catwalks, like those seen in Mediteranean vernacular architecture
(atop archways that span the narrow gaps between buildings), would also
be a nice feature, which would offer delightful pedestrian travel
between the upper floors of opposing buildings.
> the quickest path between point a and point b...
...(for distances too far to walk) will usually be either on a bicycle
or a train; at, or below, grade level.
>Your location in a city should not be designated by a mear 2
>coordinate system, but also a third coordinate accounting for height
>or even DEPTH, as building underground is just as practicle.
This is an interesting point. Personal satellite navigation devices may
soon help guide tourists and other infrequent visitors through
unfamiliar cities. These are already available in rental cars. Adding
the third coordinate to a homing device that parents could use to locate
their children (or spouses to locate each other while shopping, etc.),
could be quite useful.
Building underground, while seldom as practical as building on it, can
be desirable in areas with long, cold winters. The (passenger) metro
described in the book, 'Carfree Cities', is underground. The separate,
metro-freight system runs below street level in an open trench.
>I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly condone this web site which had for
>a brief moment been the boon in my crusade. There is a grievous flaw
>that negates the whole arguement present and to refer someone here
>would only confuse them.
Well, that's a shame. Should you change your mind, however, and if you
promise to tone down your rhetoric a couple of notches, and work on your
spelling { :^] }, some of the subscribers to this list would be happy to
hear any other interesting thoughts you might have, and we'll try and
dispell any confusion that arises.
Best wishes,
-T.J.
To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
carfree_cities-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
T.J.,
Throughout your speech on the isolation of inhabitants in tall
buildings I couldn't help, but wonder why you were still stuck in the
archaic mode of one locomotive level cities. Later you say:
"Good point. An elegant variation of this, which is mentioned (and
pictured) in 'Carfree Cities' (p. 159), is a ground floor passageway
which leads through a building, called a 'sottoportego'.
Open catwalks, like those seen in Mediteranean vernacular architecture
(atop archways that span the narrow gaps between buildings), would
also
be a nice feature, which would offer delightful pedestrian travel
between the upper floors of opposing buildings."
You should have considered this beforehand, but to a progressive
extreme. The bustling crowds, street vendors, and insane orators
need never be more than four stories away even in the tallest of
cities. Not only walk ways, but cafes, large town squares, and other
gathering centers should be located on these multiple levels in a
city. Now you may be thinking that sunlight wouldn't reach the
under
levels so easily in this scenario. But this wouldn't be a problem if
the level's activity centers and paths were designed in non-
overlapping sparse grids. Remember you need far less surface area
for people than cars. Granted the deepest levels may be a smidgeon
dimmer eventually, but those bits would be reserved for the least
residential aspects of the city.
I was twelve eight years ago. Of course I hope my youth doesn't hurt
my credibility, if even there is such a thing online. I live in
california, no one here is just going to 'come to the realization
based on the evidence,' this is the most autocentric place on earth.
When I speak up here I might as well be cursing jesus.
Mike said something about needing more power in a 3Dimensional city.
Well I can't say that's false, but I can say with human feet doing
most the work and the energy collected from objects being lowered
(for instance any time a group of people/freight takes an elevator
down some energy can be made from that force) the energy will be much
less than you think.
I'm not going to give up just yet
Nick.
It seems my lengthy reply to your previous posting has been lost
through the ether, but anyway, the gist of my reply then was that we
mustn't lose our sense of scale.
A city of boxes, towers and expansive empty public squares was okay
for the 50s and 60s, but it's abit inorganic, tired and monstrous.
Cities of the mind can be perfect, efficient and manageable in every
sense, but the real construct needs to be useable and liveable.
I would hate to live in a high-density legoland.
I just don't think you should throw the proverbial baby out with the
bathwater.
I'm only 5 years older than you in your age description.
What a difference you will find a year makes in dealing with town
planning and urban design issues!
Wouldn't it make more sense to tackle the issues at ground level?
(excuse my punning)
Come to Sydney to witness the development paradigm here. Perhaps you
won't feel California's urban areas are the most autocentric and
shockingly planned places in the world after all.
Keep the discussion going!
Cheers,
Sam.
I've been mostly lurking for a few weeks now and some of
the discussion, especially the recent "financing" thread
has me worried.
A lot of talk seems to be of building a new city - new
districts, new streets, new buildings - but more than half
of the world's population now live in existing cities, most
of them dominated by cars. Surely if the carfree idea is to
benefit a great number of people, these existing districts,
streets and buildings in the existing cities must be
transformed rather than supplemented or even, heaven forbid,
supplanted. Additionally, outside of North America there is
scant space in which to build - one of the attractions of
the carfree concept to me as a European is the ending not
just of sprawl but of the continual encroachment of urban
"development" into the countryside. Moreover, most European
cities were largely built before the car appeared and could
be returned to their former splendour without drastic
rebuilding. Haussmann's Paris is but one fine example that
would barely need a cobble lifted.
A new city - almost certainly in North America - would be
a fantastic benchmark and flagship project for the concept
of carfree and is a worthy goal, but would in fact be a
lesser challenge. For the masses to benefit, our existing
cities must be revived, rejuvenated and liberated from the
oppression of the car.
Neil Gall
Edinburgh, Scotland
Neil Gall said:
>A new city - almost certainly in North America - would be
>a fantastic benchmark and flagship project for the concept
>of carfree and is a worthy goal, but would in fact be a
>lesser challenge. For the masses to benefit, our existing
>cities must be revived, rejuvenated and liberated from the
>oppression of the car.
Yes. I haven't said a great deal about this on the site
(although there is some stuff, in particular the plan for
Lyon, buried somewhere in Carfree Times) that does deal
with this issue. However, the book goes into some detail
about the need and means for converting existing cities
to the carfree model. However, I'd propose that the first
large-scale projects be new or redeveloped areas--the
problems of reaching agreement among existing residents
will be very difficult until the concept has been generally
proven and accepted. Thus, when in Toronto, I suggested
that the huge redevelopment project being discussed be
considered for carfree design. It's next
On sebbatical until September. Please expect slow responses to e-mail.
J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_ ISBN 9057270374
postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
The UK DETR have just published their latest
Bibliographies: free, fairly comprehensive lists of
references. They include both DETR guidance and
references to other useful publications.
Cycling Bibliography (4/00)
Traffic Calming (5/00)
Walking (3/00)
See also: Framework for local walking strategy (2/00)
All on the web as PDFs
http://www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/index.htm
UK users can order them free from 020 7944 2478
marcus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
Send Email
