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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: the emissions still happen why insist that they don't?

Expand Messages
  • jym@econet.org
    =v= I think we agree on more than we disagree. I ve worked with EV programs, and have found myself pretty disillusioned, though. It *really* bothers me that
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 18, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      =v= I think we agree on more than we disagree. I've worked with
      EV programs, and have found myself pretty disillusioned, though.
      It *really* bothers me that neither the head of an environmental
      NGO nor people who shell out a lot of money to be early adopters
      of EV technology can be trusted to recharge their EVs off-peak.

      =v= I learned a few things along the way, too:

      o Car manufacturing has its own emissions problems. Fully
      half of the pollution from any car is produced during its
      construction. They aren't making EVs in a cleaner way,
      except to the extent that they're making them smaller.
      (However, Ford is unveiling an "EV SUV" for Earth Day.)

      o Battery recycling has turned out to be largely a sham.
      Many batteries picked up for recycling are simply dumped
      somewhere in the Third World.

      o EV manufacturers are positioning their product to be a
      1-for-1 replacement for existing car use. There are a
      few small, more responsible EV manufacturers, but they
      are being clobbered by the big manufacturers. EVs are
      therefore being deployed in such a way that depends on
      and perpetuates the current car-oriented transportation
      infrastructure, and all the ecological and social problems
      that come with it.

      o Even electric bike manufacturers are not marketing their
      products as a replacement for car use. Some are aiming
      directly at the recreational HPV bicycle market: the idea
      is that you drive the electric bike to some recreational
      path and then buzz around there.

      I like that electric motors are clean at the point of use, and I
      do see certain applications of them as ecologically sound.

      > how do you know that I even have legs or what I do for a
      > living, with how many kids

      =v= True enough, though the proferred interest in electric bikes
      suggested at least one leg.

      =v= I am concerned about people with disabilities and mobility
      issues. I'm all in favor of electric cars and even vans for
      these folks. My overview, though, is that those of us who can
      get around with our own muscle power ought to be conserving
      energy for those who can't.

      =v= Car-oriented transportation infrastructure hobbles families
      and people with disabilities alike. That's why I think that,
      overall, the intelligent approach is to change that infra-
      structure, rather than buying into it.
      <_Jym_>

      Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
      jym@... ::::::::::::::::: "My other car is :: ==`\(x ::
      http://www.critical-mass.org/ :: also a bicycle." :: O-/ `O ::

      Although hiding themselves behind such worthwhile causes
      as air pollution and excessive automobile traffic, these
      groups are nothing more than self proclaimed anarchists
      and local activists who have adopted innovative tactics
      to create civil disorder and attempt to carry out the
      "anarchist revolution".
      -- The Berkeley Police Department,
      Misrepresenting the "Critical Mass" Bike Ride
    • firefly956@hotmail.com
      Jym, I d recognize that =v= anywhere! Good to see a fellow SFBiker here. Just like to add my $0.02 to your good arguments. Pollution is not the biggest problem
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 18, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Jym, I'd recognize that =v= anywhere! Good to see a fellow SFBiker
        here.

        Just like to add my $0.02 to your good arguments.
        Pollution is not the biggest problem with auto-traffic its just a
        particular noxious side effect that has been latched onto by a dumbed
        down media.
        As long as the auto is king (however it is powered) our cities will
        continue to sprawl, street architecture will be for cars not people
        ans the cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly and disabled will be
        treated as second class citizens.
        Reclaiming our cities has to start with getting people out of their
        cars. Promoting electric vehicles will achieve the opposite.

        Mike

        --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, jym@e... wrote:
        > =v= Car-oriented transportation infrastructure hobbles families
        > and people with disabilities alike. That's why I think that,
        > overall, the intelligent approach is to change that infra-
        > structure, rather than buying into it.
        > <_Jym_>
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... Yup. I do see a need for a number of small, very slow, electrically powered vehicles for local transport. We re talking aggregated annual vehicle-miles
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 18, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike said:

          >As long as the auto is king (however it is powered) our cities will
          >continue to sprawl, street architecture will be for cars not people
          >ans the cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly and disabled will be
          >treated as second class citizens.
          >Reclaiming our cities has to start with getting people out of their

          Yup.

          I do see a need for a number of small, very slow, electrically powered
          vehicles for local transport. We're talking aggregated annual
          vehicle-miles that would reach perhaps 1% of what is now usual,
          at speeds that should not exceed 20 km/hr (12 mph), and preferably
          even less.


          ###

          J.H. Crawford _Carfree Cities_
          postmaster@... http://www.carfree.com
        • Simon Baddeley
          ... getting people out of their ... Yes. The auto-city tends towards being an agglomeration of sprawling buildings without a focal point or indeed any
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 18, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            >As long as the auto is king (however it is powered) our cities will
            >continue to sprawl, street architecture will be for cars not people
            >ans the cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly and disabled will be
            >treated as second class citizens.Reclaiming our cities has to start with
            getting people out of their
            >cars. Promoting electric vehicles will achieve the opposite.


            Yes. The auto-city tends towards being an agglomeration of sprawling
            buildings without a focal point or indeed any logically organised
            infrastructure of schools, places of entertainment, places for worship,
            parks, community gardens, avenues or squares. The much lauded freedom of the
            car was that you didn't have to plonk these things in a place for walkers or
            transit users might gather by converging on a cluster of such features
            linked to other such centres by a transit route stop.

            The car "allows" you the "freedom" to make your own choices about where to
            go - with the result that "where to go ...?" is the unspoken query in an age
            that has unintentionally done so much to destroy a sense of place. This is
            why shopping malls are so often given names that are intended to convey the
            idea that they are a place - often being suffixed with the word "city",
            "village", "parade" or "plaza" or the name of a legendary or idyllic place
            like El Dorado or Merry Hill.
          • Randall Hunt
            ... OK. For the sake of argument, suppose your team has a plan for the entire city: a logically organised infrastructure of schools, places of entertainment,
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 19, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >>As long as the auto is king (however it is powered) our cities will
              >>continue to sprawl...

              Simon Baddeley wrote:

              >Yes. The auto-city tends towards being an agglomeration of sprawling
              >buildings without a focal point or indeed any logically organised
              >infrastructure of schools, places of entertainment, places for worship,
              >parks, community gardens, avenues or squares. The much lauded freedom of the
              >car was that you didn't have to plonk these things in a place for walkers or
              >transit users might gather by converging on a cluster of such features
              >linked to other such centres by a transit route stop.

              OK. For the sake of argument, suppose your team has a plan for the entire
              city: a logically organised infrastructure of schools, places of
              entertainment, places for worship, parks, community gardens, etc. If you
              were King and wanted to get to that point, how would you do it? Would you
              tear down and rebuild what exists or would you build it from scratch?


              Randall Hunt
              randhunt@...
              DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
            • firefly956@hotmail.com
              Tear down elevated freeways, narrow the roads, rip up the parking lots, build a state of the art subway and use the MASSIVE amount of space that is freed up as
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 19, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Tear down elevated freeways, narrow the roads, rip up the parking
                lots, build a state of the art subway and use the MASSIVE amount of
                space that is freed up as a result to build parks, gardens , schools
                etc. Rocket science it ain't.

                Mike

                --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, Randall Hunt <randhunt@w...>
                wrote:
                > OK. For the sake of argument, suppose your team has a plan for the
                entire
                > city: a logically organised infrastructure of schools, places of
                > entertainment, places for worship, parks, community gardens, etc.
                If you
                > were King and wanted to get to that point, how would you do it?
                Would you
                > tear down and rebuild what exists or would you build it from
                scratch?
                >
                >
                > Randall Hunt
                > randhunt@...
                > DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
              • Randall Hunt
                ... No, but economics it is. And more. Consider: * All that stuff cost money in the first place and folks are not wont to tear up invested infrastructure; *
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 19, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Tear down elevated freeways, narrow the roads, rip up the parking
                  >lots, build a state of the art subway and use the MASSIVE amount of
                  >space that is freed up as a result to build parks, gardens , schools
                  >etc. Rocket science it ain't.
                  >
                  >Mike

                  No, but economics it is. And more. Consider:

                  * All that stuff cost money in the first place and folks are not wont to
                  tear up invested infrastructure;
                  * The aggregate land (residential, commercial, industrial, municipal...) is
                  owned by thousands of parties. You'll have to convince everyone
                  (eventually) that they should abandon their residence, business, etc while
                  we reconfigure the physical plan. Where do they go; what do they do? Who
                  compensates them and to what extent?
                  * We'll have to get everyone to agree to the plan politically in the first
                  place. Do not underestimate the difficulty in this.

                  I maintain that the easiest and least expensive way to get to a differently
                  configured infrastructure is to build it new and leave (for the time being)
                  existing structure alone. Consider:

                  * We add to existing urban infrastructure daily as it is. Isn't it simpler
                  to configure new infrastructure than to reconfigure the old?
                  * We would not upset people's lives and livelihoods by displacing homes,
                  businesses, and the urban tax base for years while we work;
                  * Land is cheaper if it is unimproved. It's easier to dictate direction
                  when one owns the land;
                  * Securing land means dealing with considerably fewer owners. One does not
                  need to get negotiate with as many people;
                  * If we build new, perhaps we could improve on the prevailing mind-set of
                  access by transport (accepting that we leave the urban area as relatively
                  remote clusters connected by subways or whatever). Perhaps we could rethink
                  the scale of our endeavor and optimize access by proximity. In other words,
                  we are not bound by what we can do piecemeal, we can work in whole cloth.
                  * Ultimately, existing cities will only be reconfigured when there is
                  agreement on a particular direction. Lacking an optimized example, there
                  will be no agreement. If folks cannot palpably experience the benefits of a
                  realized alternative, they will not agree to rip up their world. The best
                  way to get people motivated to change their world is to have them
                  experience by example what can be done. You need a "prototype".

                  We will achieve more in less time if we set out to create an alternative
                  that is pre-optimized for our purposes instead of trying to tackle existing
                  infrastructure while it is being extended around us. It's easier to go
                  forward in a new direction than it is to slow down, stop, and go
                  "backwards" with what we have. First things first: show folks what is
                  possible and then let them come to the conclusion themselves. It's the most
                  practical way to change things. We'll save ourselves a lot of effort that
                  way. And a lot of time, which may be more important.


                  Randall Hunt
                  randhunt@...
                  DREAM LARGE DREAMS BECAUSE SMALL DREAMS HAVE NO POWER TO INSPIRE
                • rauch@ai.mit.edu
                  Hello everyone, glad to join the group. ... dumbed ... be ... Some of those who promote the idea of low-emission cars do recognize this - see
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 25, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello everyone, glad to join the group.

                    --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, firefly956@h... wrote:
                    > Pollution is not the biggest problem with auto-traffic its just a
                    > particular noxious side effect that has been latched onto by a
                    dumbed
                    > down media.
                    > As long as the auto is king (however it is powered) our cities will
                    > continue to sprawl, street architecture will be for cars not people
                    > ans the cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly and disabled will
                    be
                    > treated as second class citizens.

                    Some of those who promote the idea of low-emission cars do recognize
                    this - see http://www.hypercarcenter.org/go/whatd5go.html.
                  • Ronald Dawson
                    ... I found this to be really interesting/weird at the same time, it was cool. Dawson
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 26, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mr Rauch wrote:
                      >Some of those who promote the idea of low-emission cars do recognize
                      >this - see http://www.hypercarcenter.org/go/whatd5go.html.

                      I found this to be really interesting/weird at the same time, it was cool.
                      Dawson
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.