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

6316Too Much Driving -- Any Thought on my Proposal?

Expand Messages
  • mtneuman@juno.com
    Oct 1 5:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:46:34 -0500 (CDT) Richard <rickrise@...>
      > This article from the Star Tribune has been sent to you by Richard.
      > Richard wrote these comments: A Quote:
      > "The bottom line is this: Only 24 percent of the cost of St. Paul's
      > roads is borne by driver-generated taxes and fees. The other 76
      > percent is a subsidy from general revenues and property assessments.
      > There's no reason to believe that St. Paul's situation is atypical
      > for cities and older suburbs."

      On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:12:09 -0500 "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>

      > Let's dump this relic of the twentieth century and reorient our
      > transportation systems to collective transportation, walking and
      > cycling.
      > It's now too late for a soft landing, but the only moral thing to do
      > is try
      > to save as many people as possible.

      And from DL, this:
      > of course we should build cites that are not
      > automobile dependant. But the automobile will never
      > completely disappear, and we need to make it as
      > environmentally friendly as possible.
      But there is little to believe that can be done in time. We need to
      reduce fossil fuel burning now. Our actions of the past and now have
      already produced one gigantic problem in the atmosphere already, one that
      is getting worse and worse, by everyday that goes by that we do not
      drastically reduce injections of even more potent greenhouse gases into
      the atmosphere. This is not fiction, either. It's happening. The
      problem is that the gases are invisible for the most part, and the
      consequences of their building up in the atmosphere are latent, meaning
      they don't materialize in the form of increasingly warmer (and more
      humid) temperatures until there's little that can be done to reduce them.

      We are beginning to reach that point now.

      We may think we "need" both mass transit systems and automobiles, but we
      must remember that we live in a finite world. The atmosphere is only so
      big. Seventy percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is
      produced by burning fossil fuels (mainly coal); therefore, transit
      systems that are run on electricity are not a panacea either.

      If we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are doing now, we are
      choosing to destroy the climate, a climate that has sustained life for
      eons, but a climate which is now being severely threatened.


      Less driving is a great boon to the environment. By driving less, we
      mitigate our impact on the climate, improve air quality, reduce toxic
      runoff from roads, and reduce the need to build expensive new road
      A 10% reduction in driving is estimated to result in a 17% reduction in
      crashes.. This will benefit lower-income families, who tend to drive less
      than middle- and upper-income families.


      Far-out school locations contributing to more sprawl

      Building new schools further away from neighborhoods is leading to more
      urban sprawl, according to a recent Winston-Salem Journal article that
      reported on a North Carolina planning conference. Two planning experts,
      David Salvesen, the director of the Smart Growth and the New Economy
      at the Center for Urban and Regional Studies in Chapel Hill and Erica
      McArthur, a planning consultant, completed a report entitled "Good
      Schools -
      Good Neighborhoods" that evaluates the necessity of more neighborhood
      schools. The report showed that while 1 in 2 students walked to school
      during the 1960s, now only 1 in 10 do and those who take the bus face
      as long as 90 minutes. It also revealed that while building two smaller
      schools costs more than one larger school, students in the smaller
      have higher graduation rates. If costs were measured per graduate, the
      would be the same, said the article.

      If the price of gas were twice what it is now, and people got rewarded
      for less driving, you wouldn't need to worry about this kind of
      development. It wouldn't happen, because nobody would choose a school
      that would require them to drive so much every day. Those who do would at
      least car pool. (Few bother with doing that now because gas is too cheap
      to make it worth the inconvenience.)

      Thus, seldom would people have to wait in traffic for hours on end.

      But you wouldn't get many takers by offering only peanuts. Big money
      would need to be exchanged, and re-distributed.


      Any thoughts on Conserve, NOW!? (the 1st URL, above). It may be way "out
      of the box", but then so is "the problem".

      The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic