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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: What about the weather?

Expand Messages
  • Laura
    I think why the whater isn t a problem.In Brasil, for example, a tropical continet, bikes are used for esport, in the weekends . I say this because I live in
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I think why the whater isn't a problem.In Brasil, for example, a tropical
      continet, bikes are used for esport, in the weekends . I say this because I
      live in Porto Alegre. The city is relative plane. But we doesn't have the
      culture to use bike whit a modal transport.
      Further more: we doesn't have streets designed for bikes, or bikepark.
      Other reason is the insecurity on the traffic. The mortality of the
      motorcyclist growing 83% in for years , in the same time the deaths of
      pedestrian decreased 9%.
      Estatistics of the bikers are inaccurate, hardly existed.
      <http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI2287425-EI306,00.htm>

      Look ours "ciclovia" at this picture

      Laura


      2008/2/3, Richard Risemberg <rickrise@...>:
      >
      > On Feb 2, 2008, at 8:59 PM, Erik Sandblom wrote:
      >
      > > > Contrast that with America will is among the less dense...where we
      > > > typically live 30, 50, or more miles from our workplaces.
      > >
      > > Are you sure? This site asserts that 40% of US urban trips are
      > > shorter than two miles (3,2km). That takes 10-15 minutes to ride.
      > >
      > > http://www.2milechallenge.com/
      > >
      > > Assume you can ride up to 10km or 30 minutes, and ad in a Brompton
      > > folding bike or similar, and very many commutes can be quite
      > > painlessly shifted away from cars using a combination of bikes and/or
      > > public transport. That's today, with the public transit and bike
      > > paths available now. Assume some investment in more public transit,
      > > bike paths and traffic calming, and you can do even more.
      >
      > Indeed, and there are much cheaper folders than Bromptons--Dahon has
      > vastly expanded its line, and you see them all over LA, which is
      > among the least bike-friendly city in the US. In fact, you see bikes
      > of all sorts in increasing numbers, and--what I find most
      > encouraging--a great number of them being ridden by pudgy middle-aged
      > and older folks, with rear bags carrying purchases, even in cold and
      > often enough even in rain.
      >
      > Parts of LA, such as Pico-Union, have higher population densities
      > than NYC.
      >
      > It's the far suburbs that are untenable--but the suburban paradigm is
      > a travesty of habitation, unsustainable, unsociable, and a drain on
      > civic treasuries. Carfree.com proposes new ways of shaping cities so
      > that we are not compelled to be wasteful.
      >
      > However, all major cities can reduce car usage within their present
      > infrastructures by very simple means. Here are some articles of mien
      > on the issue:
      >
      > http://bicyclefixation.com/switch.htm
      > http://bicyclefixation.com/convenience.htm
      > http://bicyclefixation.com/suburbs.htm
      > http://www.bicyclefixation.com/mainstreet.htm
      >
      > Rick
      > --
      > Richard Risemberg
      > http://www.bicyclefixation.com
      > http://www.newcolonist.com
      > http://www.rickrise.com
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Don
      ... Well, I want to reiterate my initial question, with clarification, I guess. I understand that bicycling *is* possible in harsh weather, and that there are
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg
        <rickrise@...> wrote:
        >
        > Ain't nothin' better than merino wool for hot or cold weather. And
        > ti's made of grass! (With the mediation of sheep, of course.)
        >
        > I've used the wool gabardine bicycling knickers I designed for
        > weather up to 100F, and my customers have worn them bicycling down to
        > 22F (lower with liners). Same garment. No synthetic, nor any
        > cotton, can match that. Lets you wear fewer clothes in any weather,
        > for any type of exertion, and as Erik pointed out it takes it forever
        > to get smelly. No itch either.
        >
        > And wool keeps you warm when it gets wet, unlike any other fabric.
        >
        > It's almost a necessity in a human-powered transit mode. And back
        > when everyone walked everywhere, it was the universal fabric--though
        > cotton was available and cheaper.
        >
        > Rick
        >
        > On Feb 2, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Erik Sandblom wrote:
        >
        > > Merino wool is a good base layer because it doesn't absorb water and
        > > sweat as much as cotton, and when wet or sweaty it doesn't lose its
        > > insulation as much as cotton does. It also gets less smelly compared
        > > to synthetic base layers, while being almost as soft and comfortable
        > > as dry cotton
        >
        > --
        > Richard Risemberg
        > http://www.bicyclefixation.com
        > http://www.newcolonist.com
        > http://www.rickrise.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        Well, I want to reiterate my initial question, with clarification, I
        guess. I understand that bicycling *is* possible in harsh weather,
        and that there are all kinds of clothing and equipment options, but my
        question/prompt is not about the people who do or will ride a bike.
        While there definitely can be more people riding than currently do,
        there is a percentage of the population who *can't* ride, or won't,
        for one reason or another. This is the part of the population I am
        thinking about.

        Understand that this is not intended as an argument against biking or
        walking; instead it is a request for comment and discussion about what
        can be designed to fully accommodate as many people as possible in all
        types of weather in some reasonable way. i.e. Filling in the gaps so
        we can provide support for the largest possible percentage of the
        population in a carfree environment, thereby making the idea more
        appealing to more people.

        Ideas already in the mix
        - bike paths, racks, change areas, showers, etc.
        - walking paths, parks, with short walks to transit
        - transit lines that are efficient and accommodating and safe

        Weather/temperature/nighttime ?
        - covered walk ways?
        - over/underground pathways; subway without the train?
        - other people moving systems?

        What do you know, what do you think?

        Don
      • Tuomo Valkonen
        ... Skis. I would love to move relatively short (and not too hilly... but there s already a well-tested solution to that) distances by skis in the winter[*].
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2008-02-07, Don <fsstudio@...> wrote:
          > Weather/temperature/nighttime ?
          > - covered walk ways?
          > - over/underground pathways; subway without the train?
          > - other people moving systems?

          Skis.

          I would love to move relatively short (and not too hilly... but
          there's already a well-tested solution to that) distances by skis
          in the winter[*]. Skiing is faster than walking, but not as chilly
          as bicycling, demanding more warming motion (unfortunately meaning
          it's also more sweaty business). Another nice thing about skis is
          that it's easy to carry them in (the hypothetical) public transport,
          unlike bicycles. They also don't demand so much "parking" space,
          if any.

          But presently skiing has been reduced from an utility sport into mere
          entertainment and fitness even more so than bicycling: you can't well
          ski anywhere in cities (around here anyway), because all the paths are
          gritted, and intersect the dry asphalt where the metal cages live.

          Given a wide bicycle bouleward as in the Reference Design, I think
          even half (one lane) of it should be reserved for skiing in the
          winter (skating style space in the middle, plus classic tracks to
          each direction on both sides of it), assuming there's going to be
          any winters anymore. On other streets there could also be at least
          a single classic skiing track, but skating style demands too much
          space in most places.

          ---

          [*] I define winter as "when there's snow". These past two years
          there hasn't been much of a winter. Even now it's about +1C and
          something wet is falling from the skies, wheras typically the
          temperatures at this time of the year can reach -30C or so. One
          really annoying effect of snowless non-winter is that the metal
          cages still have studded tyres under them, and without snow and
          ice for the studs to bite into, and snow to act as a dampener,
          the noise levels are simply infernal.

          At those -30C tempatures, and over relatively short distances (of
          less than 5km or so), I've actually found the major challenges to
          bicycling to be not the so much the cold as such, but a) failing
          equipment, such a crankarms cracking, b) having to leave the bicycle
          outside for the day, so that the gears, breaks, and the chain
          freeze over, c) trying to avoid losing the breath, because
          breathing gets difficult in the cold air.

          In fact, the worst time for bicycling is when the snow starts
          melting, which hasn't recently been restricted to the spring.
          Then you're practically swimming in the slush, because road
          maintenance takes precedence if there's any multi-use path
          maintenance at all -- no proper bicycle paths here -- and the
          slush from the road just gets pushed on these paths. Also
          during the winter the snow from the road is piled on the
          sides of the multi-use path, making it even narrower, and
          adding to the slush.

          --
          Tuomo
        • Doug Salzmann
          Folks, we need to get back to the real world, here. In the real world, some 30% to 40% of the population (depending upon what studies you accept) is at least
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 7, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Folks, we need to get back to the real world, here.

            In the real world, some 30% to 40% of the population (depending upon
            what studies you accept) is at least partially disabled
            (mobility-impaired) for some period of time during an average year.

            As the saying goes, it happens; and it doesn't take much.

            How far will you ski with a raging headache? Cycle with a sprained
            ankle, or on a creaky day when you're 83 years old? Roller skate in a
            buffalo herd?

            The answer is, "Not very far," and should probably taken as about the
            same as the "design distance" between home or work and the nearest
            transit halt.

            Cycling, skiing, small-wheeled transport -- all are fine for those who
            desire to, and are able to, use them (provided they don't threaten or
            intrude upon pedestrian movement), but they cannot be relied upon by an
            entire population.

            The answers to the carfree mobility problem are in the design of the
            built environment and the design and operation of the transit system.
            Both are covered rather comprehensively in Joel's book.


            -Doug


            Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
            >
            >
            > On 2008-02-07, Don <fsstudio@...
            > <mailto:fsstudio%40suscom-maine.net>> wrote:
            > > Weather/temperature/nighttime ?
            > > - covered walk ways?
            > > - over/underground pathways; subway without the train?
            > > - other people moving systems?
            >
            > Skis.
            >
            > I would love to move relatively short (and not too hilly... but
            > there's already a well-tested solution to that) distances by skis
            > in the winter[*]. Skiing is faster than walking, but not as chilly
            > as bicycling, demanding more warming motion (unfortunately meaning
            > it's also more sweaty business). Another nice thing about skis is
            > that it's easy to carry them in (the hypothetical) public transport,
            > unlike bicycles. They also don't demand so much "parking" space,
            > if any.



            --
            ==========================
            Doug Salzmann
            Post Office Box 378
            Tiburon, California 94920
            USA

            <doug@...>
          • Richard Risemberg
            ... Agreed. However, I think the original poster was referring to a human-powered city, which would indicate no mass transit either. Not practical, except for
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 7, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              On Feb 7, 2008, at 9:28 AM, Doug Salzmann wrote:

              > The answers to the carfree mobility problem are in the design of the
              > built environment and the design and operation of the transit system.
              > Both are covered rather comprehensively in Joel's book.


              Agreed. However, I think the original poster was referring to a
              human-powered city, which would indicate no mass transit either. Not
              practical, except for fairly small villages.

              Also (and this is something I have gone over on the Urban Ecology
              list at length), we have to consider that survival and cultural
              continuation require that we live in harmony with the weather. This
              means traveling less in winter, not requiring accommodation so that
              we can travel when we are sick or injured, not having cheap tomatoes
              in January in the northern hemisphere, etc. Maybe not living in some
              places that just require to much energy comfortably to accommodate
              humans.

              On the other hand, a largely human-powered city, which means in real
              life mostly walking and bicycling, has been shown statistically to
              reduce disability throughout life. In Japan and northern Europe,
              people bicycle quite unheroically through the winter at advanced
              ages, as well as very young ages.

              And even now, even in the US, cyclists live longer and are disabled
              less frequently than the general population, despite the perception
              of inconvenience and danger. If I recall the Fed's stats on
              accidents correctly, the death rate per million miles traveled is
              very slightly less for cyclists than for motorists.

              In Copenhagen, where well over 30% of all utility trips are done on
              bicycles, and no one wears helmets, there were only six deaths from
              cycling accidents in 2006. Copenhageners cycle over 1,000,000 kms
              daily on average. This despite snow, rain, cold, and cars. Only 17%
              of Copenhageners cycle for "exercise or recreation"; the rest is
              utility riding.

              Here's a link to the (PDF) report from Copenhagen's city government:
              http://www.sfbike.org/download/copenhagen/bicycle_account_2006.pdf

              There is a tram system there; does anyone on this list know whether
              they have a metro?

              Rick
              --
              Richard Risemberg
              http://www.bicyclefixation.com
              http://www.newcolonist.com
              http://www.rickrise.com







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Erik Sandblom
              ... on ... from ... 17% ... whether ... They have a lovely new driverless metro, and you can even take bikes on it! Full size, non-folding, perfectly normal
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 7, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Richard Risemberg
                <rickrise@...> wrote:
                >
                > In Copenhagen, where well over 30% of all utility trips are done
                on
                > bicycles, and no one wears helmets, there were only six deaths
                from
                > cycling accidents in 2006. Copenhageners cycle over 1,000,000 kms
                > daily on average. This despite snow, rain, cold, and cars. Only
                17%
                > of Copenhageners cycle for "exercise or recreation"; the rest is
                > utility riding.
                >
                > Here's a link to the (PDF) report from Copenhagen's city government:
                > http://www.sfbike.org/download/copenhagen/bicycle_account_2006.pdf
                >
                > There is a tram system there; does anyone on this list know
                whether
                > they have a metro?


                They have a lovely new driverless metro, and you can even take bikes
                on it! Full size, non-folding, perfectly normal bikes: Pictures:

                http://eriksandblom.blogspot.com/2007/12/kbenhavn-2.html
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

                Erik Sandblom
              • Erik Sandblom
                ... upon ... This is news to me. Where can I read more about it? Not having read the studies you refer to, I suspect this thinking is part of a mentality which
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 7, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, Doug Salzmann <doug@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Folks, we need to get back to the real world, here.
                  >
                  > In the real world, some 30% to 40% of the population (depending
                  upon
                  > what studies you accept) is at least partially disabled
                  > (mobility-impaired) for some period of time during an average year.



                  This is news to me. Where can I read more about it?

                  Not having read the studies you refer to, I suspect this thinking is
                  part of a mentality which says that self-locomotion like walking,
                  cycling or skiing is terribly strenuous and tiring. I find I can do
                  15-30 minutes of gentle walking or cycling per day, even if I have a
                  fever. It makes me more tired than when I'm not sick, but what
                  doesn't? If I can't even do that, I don't have the energy to leave
                  the apartment anyway.

                  Cycling along a bike path with little or no car traffic is hardly
                  more strenuous than riding a crowded, noisy subway train and having
                  to stand and hold on.

                  Another suspicion I have is that people might not connect/listen to
                  their bodies to determine how much effort they can afford while sick.
                  I can see lying down for five minutes at work if you cycled there
                  with a fever. That's a good way to check that you don't overextend
                  yourself. If you fall asleep deeply, you probably needed to sleep :-)

                  Skiing to work is not as far-fetched as it sounds. In Ottawa, Canada,
                  the canal freezes and people can skate to work.
                  http://www.ottawakiosk.com/skating.html
                  http://www.google.com/search?q=ottawa+skate+to+work


                  > Cycling, skiing, small-wheeled transport -- all are fine for those
                  who
                  > desire to, and are able to, use them (provided they don't threaten
                  or
                  > intrude upon pedestrian movement), but they cannot be relied upon
                  by an
                  > entire population.
                  >
                  > The answers to the carfree mobility problem are in the design of
                  the
                  > built environment and the design and operation of the transit
                  system.
                  > Both are covered rather comprehensively in Joel's book.


                  As I recall, the book doesn't mention people who are sick. Or does it
                  mention electric wheelchairs? It does mention the 760m diametre of
                  each district and that going anywhere will require 5-10 minutes of
                  walking plus up to 25 minutes of riding the subway. I believe this is
                  comparable to 10-20 minutes of walking, cycling or skiing. 20 minutes
                  of sedate cycling will get you about five km or three miles. 40% of
                  urban travel in the USA is shorter than two miles.
                  http://www.2milechallenge.com/home.html

                  So I believe cycling, walking and skiing has potential even when you
                  are sick with a fever.

                  Erik Sandblom
                • Don
                  ... . I want to clarify that I didn t intend for this discussion to apply only to places without mass transit. Not at all. That is just one of the many
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > Agreed. However, I think the original poster was referring to a
                    > human-powered city, which would indicate no mass transit either. Not
                    > practical, except for fairly small villages.
                    .
                    I want to clarify that I didn't intend for this discussion to apply
                    only to places without mass transit. Not at all. That is just one of
                    the many destinations that must be reachable by walking/biking.


                    > Cycling, skiing, small-wheeled transport -- all are fine for those
                    > who desire to, and are able to, use them (provided they don't
                    > threaten or intrude upon pedestrian movement), but they cannot be
                    > relied upon by an entire population.

                    This is right to my point and the crux of my question. All that
                    everyone here has said about the ability to bike in weather, the
                    benefits to general health, the percentage of this or that in whatever
                    city, are all very true and very important. But Doug gets the
                    question. What about everyone else, no matter what percentage they
                    are? Everyone lives here (wherever we are), and, again, I wonder
                    about what accommodations have been considered for times when, by
                    choice or necessity, walking/biking is not the mode of choice.. I am
                    really fishing for alternatives for inescapable hinderances like
                    weather or disability or age. I wanted to pose the question and throw
                    my ideas out there to invite others' creative thoughts and
                    discoveries, not just rationale for ped/bike use, which needs no
                    justification.

                    > Here's a link to the (PDF) report from Copenhagen's city government:
                    > http://www.sfbike.org/download/copenhagen/bicycle_account_2006.pdf
                    .
                    .
                    > They have a lovely new driverless metro, and you can even take bikes
                    > on it! Full size, non-folding, perfectly normal bikes: Pictures:
                    >
                    > http://eriksandblom.blogspot.com/2007/12/kbenhavn-2.html
                    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

                    Thanks for the links. The Copenhagen bike pdf is very interesting.
                    Great metro idea! (Copenhagen seems to really have its sh*t together
                    on this!) Light rail is a key element in the granularity of
                    transportation infrastructure. I have seen other references to 'people
                    movers', an even more fine grained mass transit solution, but possibly
                    too expensive in many cases.

                    Another weather interdiction strategy I saw recently, right out of
                    antiquity (duh), was to include arcades along pedestrian ways.

                    Don
                  • Richard Risemberg
                    ... That s what community and family are for, and social and government structures that value help given to the incapacitated--and values it not only in
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 10, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Feb 9, 2008, at 8:27 PM, Don wrote:

                      > But Doug gets the
                      > question. What about everyone else, no matter what percentage they
                      > are? Everyone lives here (wherever we are), and, again, I wonder
                      > about what accommodations have been considered for times when, by
                      > choice or necessity, walking/biking is not the mode of choice


                      That's what community and family are for, and social and government
                      structures that value help given to the incapacitated--and values it
                      not only in speeches but in hard cash, say, in payments to family
                      members who are helping an aged relative or disabled child, or to
                      caregivers who can push a wheelchair (perhaps a wheelchair that
                      doubles as a bicycle trailer), without the air of disparagement
                      towards such helpers, whether voluntary or paid, that the present
                      competitive society imposes.

                      Anyway, it's way easier to get a wheelchair onto any metro train here
                      in LA than it is to get it into a car. In fact, it's easier to get it
                      onto a bus equipped with the (required) lift than to jockey it into a
                      car, and then get your disabled self in to drive it.

                      And as a motorcyclist throughout my twenties, I've done crutch time too.

                      Rick
                      --
                      Richard Risemberg
                      http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                      http://www.newcolonist.com
                      http://www.rickrise.com







                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • kyle3054
                      ... I was recently told by a person that public transport will never be widely accepted because it can never be door-to-door. I said, it can never be
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 16, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Erik Sandblom" <eriksandblom@...> wrote:

                        > Not having read the studies you refer to, I suspect this thinking is
                        > part of a mentality which says that self-locomotion like walking,
                        > cycling or skiing is terribly strenuous and tiring.

                        I was recently told by a person that public transport will never be
                        widely accepted because "it can never be door-to-door." I said, "it
                        can never be door-to-door, but in most of a city it should be able to
                        get you within 1km of where you want to go, 15 minutes' walk is not
                        going to cause you great suffering."

                        Cheers,
                        Kyle
                        http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/
                      • Christopher Miller
                        When you really think about door to door transport, it really turns out to be something of a canard. Sure, we endlessly hear from those who fervently believe
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 16, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          When you really think about "door to door" transport, it really turns
                          out to be something of a canard.

                          Sure, we endlessly hear from those who fervently believe in the
                          advantages of private automobiles that they are so much more
                          "convenient" and get you from door to door etc. Fact is, in most
                          cases, the only door you are more or less assured of getting to
                          directly with a car is either your suburban detached home or your in-
                          town duplex or triplex. If you live iin an apartment building you
                          have to travel between your door and either the parking garage or
                          where it is sitting out there in the parking lot or somewhere most
                          likely down the street. And when it comes to directions, whether you
                          are shopping at a mall, going to work or visiting someone, most of
                          the time you have to park it way away from the "door" in question and
                          walk for a minute or two between the car and said entrance, or if you
                          are in town, you have to park somewhere down the road, away on
                          another nearby street, or in a parking lot some way away and -- again
                          -- walk the distance to the door at the end of your itinerary. Which
                          is more enjoyable/taxing, I wonder, a three or four minute walk
                          between the bus/tram/metro stop and your house/shopping/work/school,
                          or a probably equivalent walk between your car and a similar
                          destination?

                          To look briefly at the flip side of the coin, public transit does not
                          necessarily entail long walks to or from the stop: in many cases, you
                          do end up pretty close to your destination door the way most bus
                          stops are spaced (at least in more built up areas). And of course, by
                          bicycle or other human powered transport modes, you have a way better
                          chance of starting from the origin door and ending up pretty close to
                          the destination door, and in where you can combine this with public
                          transit, the advantage gets even better for longer distances.

                          There certainly is a "by the door" advantage for drivers living in
                          relatively low density housing, but I would venture to say that the
                          "by the door" advantage is probably with public transit users once in
                          town...



                          Anyone seeing weaknesses in my viewpoint is of course welcome to
                          challenge them, but I think this contrary viewpoint is worth
                          following up: has anyone actually done studies of relative "door to
                          door" convenience of different transportation modes, taking into
                          account the nature of the home base and the destination?


                          On 16-Feb-08, at 6:29 AM, kyle3054 wrote:

                          > "Erik Sandblom" <eriksandblom@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Not having read the studies you refer to, I suspect this thinking is
                          > > part of a mentality which says that self-locomotion like walking,
                          > > cycling or skiing is terribly strenuous and tiring.
                          >
                          > I was recently told by a person that public transport will never be
                          > widely accepted because "it can never be door-to-door." I said, "it
                          > can never be door-to-door, but in most of a city it should be able to
                          > get you within 1km of where you want to go, 15 minutes' walk is not
                          > going to cause you great suffering."
                          >
                          > Cheers,
                          > Kyle
                          > http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/
                          >


                          Christopher Miller
                          Montreal QC Canada



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • manfrommars_43
                          ... Except when you are transporting things such as groceries, furniture, clothing and so on. The car is not just a people transport, it s a truck for bringing
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 16, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "kyle3054" <KyleSchuant@...> wrote:

                            > as recently told by a person that public transport will never be
                            > widely accepted because "it can never be door-to-door." I said, "it
                            > can never be door-to-door, but in most of a city it should be able to
                            > get you within 1km of where you want to go, 15 minutes' walk is not
                            > going to cause you great suffering."

                            Except when you are transporting things such as groceries, furniture,
                            clothing and so on.

                            The car is not just a people transport, it's a truck for bringing in
                            the goods to the home.

                            That's one of the big omissions in thinking in carfree design, they
                            are not accounting for the vast economic efficiencies of letting
                            individuals make the last mile transport of goods to the home. This
                            has lead to very efficient constructs such as the warehouse store.
                          • J.H. Crawford
                            ... A week spent in Manhattan would reveal that most people don t use cars to transport groceries and clothing. (Most people don t even have cars.) Small carts
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 16, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              A recent posting says, regarding public transport convenience:

                              >Except when you are transporting things such as groceries, furniture,
                              >clothing and so on.

                              A week spent in Manhattan would reveal that most people
                              don't use cars to transport groceries and clothing. (Most
                              people don't even have cars.) Small carts are used for heavy
                              loads of groceries, and furniture is delivered.

                              >The car is not just a people transport, it's a truck for bringing in
                              >the goods to the home.

                              It's one way to do it, yes.

                              >That's one of the big omissions in thinking in carfree design, they
                              >are not accounting for the vast economic efficiencies of letting
                              >individuals make the last mile transport of goods to the home. This
                              >has lead to very efficient constructs such as the warehouse store.

                              Actually, the big box stores are very INefficient, because they
                              require people to drive vast distances to use them. (They cannot
                              survive without huge catchment areas.) So, they offer very low
                              prices, but at the cost of externalizing huge transport costs
                              to the larger society. WalMart's "greening" is just window dressing.
                              The only way to green WalMart is to close it.

                              Best,

                              Joel




                              ----- ### -----
                              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                            • Richard Risemberg
                              ... Last year we got a large armoire from my wife s sister. Between my wife, her sister, and the sister s boyfriend, they own I think 5 cars, two of which are
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 16, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Feb 16, 2008, at 2:00 PM, manfrommars_43 wrote:

                                > Except when you are transporting things such as groceries, furniture,
                                > clothing and so on.
                                >
                                > The car is not just a people transport, it's a truck for bringing in
                                > the goods to the home.
                                >
                                > That's one of the big omissions in thinking in carfree design, they
                                > are not accounting for the vast economic efficiencies of letting
                                > individuals make the last mile transport of goods to the home. This
                                > has lead to very efficient constructs such as the warehouse store.


                                Last year we got a large armoire from my wife's sister. Between my
                                wife, her sister, and the sister's boyfriend, they own I think 5
                                cars, two of which are SUVs. None of them could carry the armoire,
                                so we rented a van.

                                I shopped for groceries for a family of three for years on a standard
                                bicycles with dedicated grocery carryalls attached to the rack. An
                                Xtracycle (cheap attachments to stretch a standard mountain bike)can
                                carry six bags of groceries. A Dutch bakfiets ("box bike") can carry
                                three kids and two adults, or a few bags of cement; a longjohn cargo
                                bike can carry a washing machine.

                                Bikes at Work in Iowa runs a year-round haulage service using their
                                own design of bicycle cargo trailers to carry loads approaching 1,000
                                pounds.

                                Okay, you can't ride a bicycle at all--your religion prohibits it.
                                Okay,ka s Joel has pointed out in his book, you have cheap electric
                                pallet jack rentals at Metro stops for precisely that purpose. Bring
                                'em back the next day, or pass the rental on to someone else, using
                                the management systems developed for the Paris VeloLib bike rental
                                system.

                                Quit making excuses to drive. And don't forget that Metro-to-home
                                carry distances will be far shorter in a Crawfordian carfree city
                                than in a autocentric city where the need for wide roads and lots of
                                parking forces everything to be spread out.

                                Quote from an English fellow living in the Dutch town of Assen: "We
                                recently employed an electrician to work on our house. Much to my
                                surprise, he turned up on a bike. When he needed assistance, a second
                                electrician turned up - also on his bike."

                                Read the whole article here:
                                http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue31/issue31page33.html

                                We can't let ourselves be trapped by old assumptions.

                                Rick
                                --
                                Richard Risemberg
                                http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                                http://www.newcolonist.com
                                http://www.rickrise.com
                              • Erik Sandblom
                                ... Not just to society, but to their very own customers as well. If your only real reason to own a car is to go to warehouses, than that s a very expensive
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 17, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >That's one of the big omissions in thinking in carfree design, they
                                  > >are not accounting for the vast economic efficiencies of letting
                                  > >individuals make the last mile transport of goods to the home. This
                                  > >has lead to very efficient constructs such as the warehouse store.
                                  >
                                  > Actually, the big box stores are very INefficient, because they
                                  > require people to drive vast distances to use them. (They cannot
                                  > survive without huge catchment areas.) So, they offer very low
                                  > prices, but at the cost of externalizing huge transport costs
                                  > to the larger society.


                                  Not just to society, but to their very own customers as well. If your
                                  only real reason to own a car is to go to warehouses, than that's a
                                  very expensive way to go to warehouses. And as others have pointed
                                  out, cars are too small and delicate to take things like furniture
                                  anyway, which is why warehouses offer delivery.

                                  Erik Sandblom
                                • Don
                                  ... wrote:. ... Firstly I want to say I had no idea when I started this thread that such a fantastic discussion would follow. Glad I
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 17, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Sandblom"
                                    <eriksandblom@...> wrote:.
                                    > >
                                    > > Actually, the big box stores are very INefficient, because they
                                    > > require people to drive vast distances to use them. (They cannot
                                    > > survive without huge catchment areas.) So, they offer very low
                                    > > prices, but at the cost of externalizing huge transport costs
                                    > > to the larger society.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Not just to society, but to their very own customers as well. If your
                                    > only real reason to own a car is to go to warehouses, than that's a
                                    > very expensive way to go to warehouses. And as others have pointed
                                    > out, cars are too small and delicate to take things like furniture
                                    > anyway, which is why warehouses offer delivery.
                                    >
                                    > Erik Sandblom
                                    >
                                    Firstly I want to say I had no idea when I started this thread that
                                    such a fantastic discussion would follow. Glad I brought it up!

                                    I've come to this site as a result of doing a research paper on
                                    sustainability as part of my architectural studies (Univesity of Maine
                                    at Augusta, pass it on..). J.H. Crawford's book was a great resource,
                                    and I have thought about much of it quite often recently, with this
                                    site spurring me on.

                                    Of the many obvious but invisible things JC pointed out was this very
                                    fact that we as individuals are providing a dispersed distribution
                                    network for the big box warehouses. That these stores are warehouses
                                    is the revelation. Duh. And that it is necessary to walk across acres
                                    of pavement after burning gas at $3/gal is just as telling. If only
                                    the mindset of the masses could be tweaked to see the obvious (as I was).

                                    As a student of architecture, still able to deal with the essence of
                                    design before having to deal with the complexities of real practice, I
                                    am able to see that it is the importance and loss of human scale that
                                    is one of the worst aspects of this. My research paper focused on the
                                    aspects of carfree v carfull neighborhoods on the
                                    individual/family/neighborhood psychologically and culturally. It is
                                    human contact at human scale, without intervening miles of pavement
                                    (that doesn't seem that big from within a car at 70mph) that is lost
                                    to us and our families and friends (or future friends we may never meet).
                                  • manfrommars_43
                                    ... Yes, but look at how much energy it takes to bring goods in and out of Manhattan. You can postulate that, oh yes, see how dense population is and how
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Feb 17, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
                                      wrote:

                                      > A week spent in Manhattan would reveal that most people
                                      > don't use cars to transport groceries and clothing.

                                      Yes, but look at how much energy it takes to bring goods in and out of
                                      Manhattan. You can postulate that, oh yes, see how dense population
                                      is and how people can walk down to the corner grocery and get their
                                      tomatoes and they all walk everywhere...but what did it take to get
                                      those tomatoes through the bridges and tunnels and streets so that a
                                      few apartment dwellers can walk to get that tomato.

                                      My point (which, yes, I know I have made before) is that I worry that
                                      these plans merely shift or reallocate one efficiency for another.

                                      The other thing that really worries me is that inefficient systems,
                                      however distasteful, also provide a measure of freedom, redundancy and
                                      remove dependence on single points of failure. For example, when the
                                      bus union goes on strike, do people then starve? Does the corner
                                      grocery, seeing that people can only walk there, mark up prices sky
                                      high, because he knows he has a captive audience?

                                      Another thing: cars are not just transportation...they are powerful
                                      tools. We talk about Americans having guns so they can never be
                                      subverted by the government, but a car is a two ton machine that each
                                      and every family can have that can transport goods, people. The car
                                      can shape the land by letting people choose where they want to go.

                                      The proclivity of planners to create a Habitrail environment, assuming
                                      that humans will want to take the same path now and forever, shopping
                                      at the same store...well...something's missing.
                                    • Richard Risemberg
                                      ... it s been computed, my lad, and it s far FAR more efficient to have a even trucks bring large quantities of tomatoes into a neighborhood for people to pick
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Feb 17, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:52 PM, manfrommars_43 wrote:

                                        > Yes, but look at how much energy it takes to bring goods in and out of
                                        > Manhattan. You can postulate that, oh yes, see how dense population
                                        > is and how people can walk down to the corner grocery and get their
                                        > tomatoes and they all walk everywhere...but what did it take to get
                                        > those tomatoes through the bridges and tunnels and streets so that a
                                        > few apartment dwellers can walk to get that tomato.


                                        it's been computed, my lad, and it's far FAR more efficient to have a
                                        even trucks bring large quantities of tomatoes into a neighborhood
                                        for people to pick up on foot, than for those same trucks to stop a
                                        little short, at some land-grabbing bigbox, and require people to
                                        make hundreds or car trips to pick up said tomatoes.

                                        As far as the car as a tool, yes, it's become a tool for isolation,
                                        for mindless self-aggrandizement, for destruction of both culture and
                                        the earth itself. Cars are inimical to community, and lead to an
                                        atomized population that never knows its neighbors or where it stands
                                        on the earth.

                                        As for your "habitrail" bullshit, Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and
                                        many other delightful cities with a real culture and a light
                                        footprint on the earth are built around transit and walking,
                                        accommodating very few cars per capita. They are the places everyone
                                        loves to visit and would live in if they could. Paris has TWICE the
                                        population density of New York and was not a robotic hell last time I
                                        visited.

                                        Get real.

                                        Rick
                                        --
                                        Richard Risemberg
                                        http://www.bicyclefixation.com
                                        http://www.newcolonist.com
                                        http://www.rickrise.com







                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.