Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] low emissions zone

Expand Messages
  • Michael Yeates
    These are important points so thanks Ian and Simon and others. One of the difficulties with dependency is recognising it isn t normal .. and the same applies
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 8, 2009
      These are important points so thanks Ian and Simon and others.

      One of the difficulties with "dependency" is recognising it isn't normal .. and the same applies to "car dependency" ... like any other form of dependency, try taking away the car and existing (? is this really third world?) without it.

      Indeed even "Car Free" was too radical or threatening for those who depend on the car.

      Two points.

      It seems clear there IS an association between the type of urban sprawl that has been developed since the car became readily available (indeed one or more of the case studies in "Traffic in Towns" shows why) as compared with the more linear urban forms generated by earlier forms of "public" transport and of course, canals/rail and walking or riding a horse.

      Also why do we so conveniently "forget" the hundreds of thousands of road victims dead and alive?

      Do we need a day of national mourning for road victims as we do for those killed in (other) types of war?

      MY .................

      At 08:33 PM 8/03/2009, Simon Norton wrote:

      Ian Perry's argument is one that has been articulated elsewhere, e.g. by Mayer
      Hillman who believes that the climate situation is so desperate that we have to
      go into what amounts to a third world (the euphemism "developing country" is
      particularly inappropriate here) transport system where what public transport
      operates is inadequate to carry the number of people who want to travel.
      Examples of this have often cropped up on this e-group, and I am sure that it is
      one of the reasons why in such countries car ownership is mushrooming.

      While Ian and Mayer may be right, but if so it amounts to perhaps the ultimate
      in the consequences of people's actions being visited on everyone but
      themselves. For 50 or so years non-motorists in countries like the UK have
      suffered depleted mobility because of abstraction of demand by motoring. (Some
      people say that the majority of motoring represents movement that is generated
      by the car, and this is probably true, but even the minority that isn't has been
      enough to lead to mass closures of railways and withdrawals of bus services.) We
      have reacted by trying to highlight to politicians the degradation of people's
      quality of life due to ever increasing traffic.

      Then came what we though was the clinching argument -- that individual motor
      vehicles were causing grave damage to the habitability of our environment due to
      climate change. But still politicians, while playing lip service to the need to
      reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and even setting targets to do so, continue to
      plan on the basis of ever increasing road and air traffic, and do little to
      revive the public transport which could provide fuel efficient mobility for all.

      Now we are told to give up much of what's left because (in effect) motorists
      have used up the carrying capacity of the atmosphere for greenhouse gas
      emissions. So in future any movements along affected routes will have to be made
      by car -- and will therefore be confined to those with cars, the very people who
      have caused the problem.

      Even George Orwell's 1984 did not envisage a future in which people were unable
      to enjoy the English countryside by public transport. The area served by the 500
      is one of the closest areas of attractive countryside available to Londoners, so
      access thereto should surely be a goal for those who wish to minimise the
      distances people have to travel.

      Simon Norton



      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1990 - Release Date: 03/08/09 17:17:00
    • Ian
      Neither Mayor Hillman nor I are saying that we need to live an inferior lifestyle; indeed many people in developing countries have a lifestyle much more
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 9, 2009
        Neither Mayor Hillman nor I are saying that we need to live an inferior lifestyle; indeed many people in "developing" countries have a lifestyle much more pleasant and fulfilling than many of us in the UK/EU (but we will never admit to it). We do need to manage peoples need to travel. There will not necessarily be the resources or energy in the future to move the number of people we do today, and do we really want to spend our life's in transit or at our destinations?

        I like many others have enjoyed life without a car and where planners and politicians place amenities inappropriately (for private car users); I just have to live without them. If in developing countries, there is not enough public transport to cater for the numbers of people wanting or needing to travel, then there needs to be investment so that those people no longer need to travel as they have the amenities and services that they require closer to home.

        It is not a mobility problem but an accessibility problem.

        The UK with its clone towns and their lack of "quality" public space, local amenities and services provides accessibility problems that are being solved with mobility solutions when solving or not creating the access problems is the way forwards.

        There are towns and cities in Europe (and elsewhere) where people shop, socialise and work within walking or cycling distance of their homes and yet do not feel that those with access to superb public transport linking them to other towns and cities are having a better life.

        The problems of the private car do not stop at CO2 emissions. PM10, NOx, NOISE, "driver failure" and the barriers to mobility that busy roads present pedestrians are often at least as important.

        As for the bus route 500 giving Londoners access to the countryside, much of the UK countryside is enclosed and difficult to access even if you live surrounded by it. Though this has improved in recent years there are still issues with having large numbers of people visiting the countryside, which isn't a "natural" landscape, but an industrial one, for the production of food, biofuels etc.

        Forward thinking is already looking at ways to reduce the travelling distance of goods by freight consolidation (examples in Freiburg and Bristol) and city farms within skyscrapers or on roofs are being investigated to reduce the need to transport produce.

        In the case of the bus route 500, it would appear that the transport of people is being used to solve the problems created by planners and politicians who have omitted open space when allowing London and its surrounding towns to grow.


        Ian



        --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
        >
        > Ian Perry's argument is one that has been articulated elsewhere, e.g. by Mayer
        > Hillman who believes that the climate situation is so desperate that we have to
        > go into what amounts to a third world (the euphemism "developing country" is
        > particularly inappropriate here) transport system where what public transport
        > operates is inadequate to carry the number of people who want to travel.
        > Examples of this have often cropped up on this e-group, and I am sure that it is
        > one of the reasons why in such countries car ownership is mushrooming.
        >
        > While Ian and Mayer may be right, but if so it amounts to perhaps the ultimate
        > in the consequences of people's actions being visited on everyone but
        > themselves. For 50 or so years non-motorists in countries like the UK have
        > suffered depleted mobility because of abstraction of demand by motoring. (Some
        > people say that the majority of motoring represents movement that is generated
        > by the car, and this is probably true, but even the minority that isn't has been
        > enough to lead to mass closures of railways and withdrawals of bus services.) We
        > have reacted by trying to highlight to politicians the degradation of people's
        > quality of life due to ever increasing traffic.
        >
        > Then came what we though was the clinching argument -- that individual motor
        > vehicles were causing grave damage to the habitability of our environment due to
        > climate change. But still politicians, while playing lip service to the need to
        > reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and even setting targets to do so, continue to
        > plan on the basis of ever increasing road and air traffic, and do little to
        > revive the public transport which could provide fuel efficient mobility for all.
        >
        > Now we are told to give up much of what's left because (in effect) motorists
        > have used up the carrying capacity of the atmosphere for greenhouse gas
        > emissions. So in future any movements along affected routes will have to be made
        > by car -- and will therefore be confined to those with cars, the very people who
        > have caused the problem.
        >
        > Even George Orwell's 1984 did not envisage a future in which people were unable
        > to enjoy the English countryside by public transport. The area served by the 500
        > is one of the closest areas of attractive countryside available to Londoners, so
        > access thereto should surely be a goal for those who wish to minimise the
        > distances people have to travel.
        >
        > Simon Norton
        >
      • Simon Norton
        I agree with reducing the number and length of journeys people need to make, but what about those they want to make ? I believe that it is natural for people
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 10, 2009
          I agree with reducing the number and length of journeys people need to make, but
          what about those they want to make ?

          I believe that it is natural for people to want to explore the world in which
          they live. They need to be weaned off the idea of flying off for a 2 week
          holiday in Australia (if they are Europeans) but I don't see that the idea of a
          day out in the countryside by public transport is in any way comparable to this.

          Yes, many parts of the English countryside are inaccessible, but there's enough
          that isn't to give people plenty of opportunities. Only a tiny fraction of the
          available space is overcrowded with leisure trippers and I can't imagine this
          changing, especially if we can reduce the opportunities for car based visits.

          During the 4 months I was working in Binghamton, New York State it was access to
          the countryside that I missed most as compared with living in the UK or visits
          to other European countries.

          Let me now return to the other points made in Ian's previous posting.

          Yes, I for one was put off from visiting London on the day of the Iraq
          demonstration, especially when I remembered the other big demonstration referred
          to during, which I wasn't aware of on the day, when my coach to Cambridge (which
          goes via Parliament Square) was 90 minutes late at a subsequent stop (actually,
          I was only half an hour behind time because I was catching the service before
          the one I'd aimed for). But one has to recognise that to make their point
          demonstrators need to do something spectacular -- I don't think mini-assemblies
          in towns round the country will impress anyone -- and they would probably cause
          even more disruption to transport systems.

          To return to the LEZ issue, Ian may be right in saying that the points I made
          are not significant. But given that Transport for London either failed to
          research the question of whether the LEZ regulations would lead to loss of
          public transport services or suppressed the results (I believe the former), how
          much confidence can one place that TfL hasn't missed something here too ? This
          time one would be unlikely to hear about it unless one was in one of the groups
          affected.

          I think that we have to tread very carefully when regulating public transport
          because the alternative to which people will turn if discouraged or prevented
          from using it, the car, is much more environmentally damaging.

          This contrasts with the regulation of goods transport by road; for some hauls
          there is no practical alternative (in which case hauliers will be able to comply
          with any required regulations and pass on the cost to the customer), and for
          some hauls one can source one's goods closer to hand or use more environment
          friendly modes of transport (rail and water), so that if consigners are induced
          to do this by regulating road transport there will be a public benefit.

          Simon Norton
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.